What happened to global warming?
By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News
Planet Earth (Nasa)
Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.
The Sun (BBC)
Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases
Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.
But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.
The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.
And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.
Ocean cycles
What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.
Pacific ocean (BBC)
In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down
According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.
But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.
These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.
So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.
Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."
So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.
They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.
But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.
The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.
In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.
In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.
To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.
Iceberg melting (BBC)
The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume
Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.
But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.
So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.
One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Point/Counterpoint
Her letter
Consuelo Devereaux
Grand Junction
I'm amazed at all of the uproar regarding President Barack Obama's health care plans. The anger and hostility shown at the town hall meetings is outrageous. To think that people find it necessary to wear guns, yell, scream and depict the president as a Nazi, is outrageous as well. I thought we were supposed to be a civilized nation.
The first President Bush and former President Reagan gave speeches to school children and I don't recall that being a problem. Yet, the current president, who happens to be African American, has to have his speech to the nation's children censored because parents want to know what “he” has to say before their children do. Do I detect a double-standard or is that what it appears to be — racism at its ugliest? Old habits, behaviors and prejudices die hard — what a legacy to pass on to future generations.
When Obama became president, he inherited a mess created by the former administration and I never hear criticism about Bush's role in that. In fact, thank the former administration for the thousands of wounded, maimed and disabled who fought for their country and the deaths of over 4,000 Americans and deaths of countless Iraqi's and servicemen and women from other nations — who no longer inhabit this earth. And yet, we don't see an end in sight for either the war in Iraq or in Afghanistan. Don't forget, 9/11 occurred during the former administration's reign as well.
The voters spoke when Obama was elected and he is now doing what he believes is best for this country. Voters can again have their say in 2012. Oh by the way, how many people who have a beef with the current administration returned your stimulus check? Just checking.
My response
Where is the concern?
DON PETTYGROVE
GRAND JUNCTION
In her letter titled “Hail to the Chief” Devereaux wonders about the uproar over the plans to take away freedoms and impose a national health care program by the administration. Why should the government fine someone for not buying insurance? If they get sick, don't take care of them and let them pay their own way.
She laments the loss of 4,000 volunteers that have died giving freedom to 25 million Iraqis, but fails to make any mention of the millions of innocent children aborted by liberals since Roe v. Wade. Where is your concern for them?
She points out that 9/11 occurred in the previous president's “reign” but fails to acknowledge that his predecessor had Osama offered to him but let him go to kill again. Had Clinton not passed on that chance over 3000 Americans would be alive today and we might not have had to go into Iraq at all.
Where is her concern for the people of Honduras that Obama wants to return to an unelected president? Where is her concern that our president has thrown Israel under the bus driven by the Palestinians? Where is her concern that our president bowed to another foreign leader?
Her comment of racism is just that, racist. There is no racism in our objections to the marxist direction he is attempting to take our country. The racism is in his administration and people like Devereaux that claim to see racism where none exists. That is the worst kind of racism there is.
Where is her concern that our president spends more time on national TV and flying around on Air Force One wasting fuel than he does in the White House attending to the affairs of state?
Consuelo Devereaux
Grand Junction
I'm amazed at all of the uproar regarding President Barack Obama's health care plans. The anger and hostility shown at the town hall meetings is outrageous. To think that people find it necessary to wear guns, yell, scream and depict the president as a Nazi, is outrageous as well. I thought we were supposed to be a civilized nation.
The first President Bush and former President Reagan gave speeches to school children and I don't recall that being a problem. Yet, the current president, who happens to be African American, has to have his speech to the nation's children censored because parents want to know what “he” has to say before their children do. Do I detect a double-standard or is that what it appears to be — racism at its ugliest? Old habits, behaviors and prejudices die hard — what a legacy to pass on to future generations.
When Obama became president, he inherited a mess created by the former administration and I never hear criticism about Bush's role in that. In fact, thank the former administration for the thousands of wounded, maimed and disabled who fought for their country and the deaths of over 4,000 Americans and deaths of countless Iraqi's and servicemen and women from other nations — who no longer inhabit this earth. And yet, we don't see an end in sight for either the war in Iraq or in Afghanistan. Don't forget, 9/11 occurred during the former administration's reign as well.
The voters spoke when Obama was elected and he is now doing what he believes is best for this country. Voters can again have their say in 2012. Oh by the way, how many people who have a beef with the current administration returned your stimulus check? Just checking.
My response
Where is the concern?
DON PETTYGROVE
GRAND JUNCTION
In her letter titled “Hail to the Chief” Devereaux wonders about the uproar over the plans to take away freedoms and impose a national health care program by the administration. Why should the government fine someone for not buying insurance? If they get sick, don't take care of them and let them pay their own way.
She laments the loss of 4,000 volunteers that have died giving freedom to 25 million Iraqis, but fails to make any mention of the millions of innocent children aborted by liberals since Roe v. Wade. Where is your concern for them?
She points out that 9/11 occurred in the previous president's “reign” but fails to acknowledge that his predecessor had Osama offered to him but let him go to kill again. Had Clinton not passed on that chance over 3000 Americans would be alive today and we might not have had to go into Iraq at all.
Where is her concern for the people of Honduras that Obama wants to return to an unelected president? Where is her concern that our president has thrown Israel under the bus driven by the Palestinians? Where is her concern that our president bowed to another foreign leader?
Her comment of racism is just that, racist. There is no racism in our objections to the marxist direction he is attempting to take our country. The racism is in his administration and people like Devereaux that claim to see racism where none exists. That is the worst kind of racism there is.
Where is her concern that our president spends more time on national TV and flying around on Air Force One wasting fuel than he does in the White House attending to the affairs of state?
I remember when oil was King in Illinois
Any day now, an announcement from
"The Illinois Project"
could make you 455%
"It's the potential to catch lightning in a jar...
and we did it."
-Illinois resident, Shawn Gavigan.
Dear Reader,
My team and I are awaiting an important announcement...
You see, I predict that any day now, the CEO of a small, Illinois based company will take the podium...
And make an announcement regarding a technological breakthrough so extraordinary it could, almost instantly, spell billions in profits for his tiny firm.
As I see it, an announcement would be the end result of more than 30 years of research and development in a remote region of Southeastern Illinois.
In short, this small company is finally making possible something the U.S. Government has wanted (and tried) to do for the past 3 decades. A project that, until now, was technologically impossible.
Already, these developments are creating a major stir in the cities and towns across Illinois:
"It's a miracle," says Lori Chase, a real estate executive from the town of West Kenner.
"I never thought I'd see it," says 68-year-old Lawrence resident Daniel Limon.
"It's a huge discovery," says nearby Bridgeport resident, Brian Halstead.
"It's the potential to catch lightning in a jar... and we did it," says 45-year-old Shawn Gavigan.
Now... not only are the townspeople of Illinois getting excited about what this technology can make possible... and how it could make them all rich... but the companies and smart investors involved with this project are beginning to see the dollar signs...
According to independent forecasts, this technology could single-handedly bring in more than $2.7 BILLION for this small firm.
That's more than 12-times the value of the company (which we estimate could give investors as much as a 455% gain... maybe more).
The good news for you is that, so far, this announcement has only been hinted at in small, local Illinois newspapers, like The State Journal-Register and The Pantagraph.
But we believe when this technology goes public any day now, all that will change.
In other words, right now this company is small and virtually unknown, but when this announcement takes place the story will be everywhere.
Today, you have the opportunity to get in before this predicted announcement takes place... and this new technology becomes public knowledge.
I think just a small stake in this tiny firm could make you very rich in the coming weeks.
As you can probably tell, the information in this letter is extremely time-sensitive.
So let me get right to the details.
In the following pages, I'll show you exactly what this new technology is... why we believe an announcement is about to take place... and what it all could mean for your finances...
Here's the full story...
A secret you probably don't know about southern Illinois
To understand the magnitude of this situation, and what it could mean for you as an investor, let me take you back 70 years, to the very beginnings of the Illinois project...
You see, most people don't know this, but at one time, Illinois was one of the top oil-producing regions on Earth.
In the late 1930s, for example, Illinois' oil fields were outmatching the combined oil production of Iraq and Iran, according to state geologist Henry Murphy.
By the 1940s, only Russia and Venezuela produced more oil, according to the state oil association.
Hard to believe, right?
It's true...
As the Chicago Tribune writes: "It may seem hard to believe now, but there once was a time when oil was king in Illinois."
For the next several decades Illinois was a major hub of domestic oil production (Check out some of the major headlines during this time in the margin to the right.) Illinois produced some of the country's highest quality oil: light, sweet crude... the cheapest to extract and the easiest to refine.
By the 1980s, just about every major oil corporation had major operations there, including Exxon, Chevron, Marathon Oil, Standard Oil, and Unocal.
There was so much oil, in fact, that in 1982, the Chicago Tribune reported that operations there were "making some southern Illinois oilmen as rich as sheiks."
But the question is...
What happened to all these huge oil projects?
Why haven't you heard about Illinois' supposedly rich oil fields before?
..And what happened to all that oil?
Well, when oil prices dropped to $10 a barrel in the 1980s, the majors left town.
You see, at the time, there wasn't a technology available that allowed companies to produce oil cheap enough to make a profit, in case oil prices bottomed out.
So, Exxon, Chevron, and Marathon pulled out to look for oil in places where it'd be cheaper to extract.
Illinois fell off the radar, where it's been for the last 30 years.
And what happened to all the oil?
Well... that's where things get interesting.
You see, the majors ended up leaving behind a lot of unfinished projects... and therefore, a lot of untapped oil.
According to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, of the 600,000 oil and gas wells that had been drilled in the region, including Illinois, less than 3% had gone deeper than 6,000 feet.
In other words, most of the deeper oil was left largely untouched.
A report from the Chicago Tribune in 1981, just before Big Oil left, explains why: "Illinois oil men rarely drill deeper than 5,000 feet because they usually strike oil before that depth."
Think about that for a moment.
That means that 1) there was A LOT of oil practically sitting on the surface in Illinois (enough to extract for 40 years straight) and 2) any oil lying deeper than 6,000 feet has gone virtually untouched.
Of course, that begs the question...
Just how much oil did the majors leave behind?
In 2005 - as oil prices (and government interest in domestic oil production) began rising - a joint government-oil industry commission was assembled.
The purpose:
To see how much oil is left in Illinois... and determine if the State could, in fact, once again become a major source of domestic oil production.
Almost no one on the commission was prepared for the outcome.
Here's a direct quote from the official report:
"After more than a century of production, equal or greater quantities of resources are still waiting to be tapped."
According to an estimate by the Illinois State Geological Survey, only 4 billion of the State's 14 billion barrels of in-ground oil resources had been extracted.
That means right now, Illinois is likely sitting on more than 10 BILLION barrels of untapped oil.
But what's amazing is how little press coverage this development has received:
"Nobody realizes how prolific the Illinois Basin is," says Bill Nelson, former Vice President of Investment brokers Paine Webber.
"There is still a lot [of oil] there," says State Geologist Beverly Sayer.
But what's unique about this situation isn't necessarily the amount of oil trapped beneath Illinois.
Instead, it's the work of one small company in particular...
You see, what almost no one knows right now is that one small company has developed the technology to extract the remaining oil in Illinois economically... even if prices drop to $15 a barrel.
This is a major advancement in the oil industry... and could be absolutely huge for the state of Illinois.
In short, this is the technology that Illinois has been waiting for... the technology that could finally allow the state to unlock its remaining reserves of crude oil.
"It's a miracle," says Lori Chase, a local real estate agent.
Even "Big Oil" is starting to take notice...
Howard Mayson, VP of Technology for British Petroleum calls this technology, "The prize for the next half-century."
Right now, you have the opportunity to invest BEFORE the general public knows about the new technology... or the tiny company that's developing it.
Let me explain what's happening...
Why we believe an announcement is imminent
Right now, oil companies are scrambling to get into the game.
The amount of drilling permits in the state, for example, has almost DOUBLED since 2002.
Huge finds are starting to crop up all over the place:
For example, a private wildcatter named Ben Watson made a major find near Stephen A. Forbes State Park. One local paper called it "a huge discovery."
Another team of wildcatters near Grayville, IL made another huge find. The local paper there called it, "a gusher, a 'freeflow-er' in wildcat speak, the kind of oil strike so sweet that at first you don't even have to pump it out of the ground."
But it's the work of one company in particular, that's causing all the excitement in Illinois... and in the oil community.
You see, not only have they acquired what is probably the richest oil property in the state (a massive oil field known at one point to hold 1 BILLION barrels of oil), but they've also achieved a major technological breakthrough in the area of oil extraction.
In short, this company has developed a way to extract valuable crude from Illinois' massive underground oil formations... WITHOUT the use of traditional drilling equipment: oilrigs, derricks, or even drill bits.
Essentially, this means the tiny firm could extract the remaining crude in the Illinois basin... at just a fraction of the normal drilling costs.
This translates into substantially bigger potential profits than any other company (public or private) in the region.
Let me explain how...
You see, in late 2007, this small company began "pilot" testing this new technology in two remote fields of southeastern Illinois - areas known to hold large quantities of untapped oil.
These tests confirmed 2 things:
First, they showed significantly reduced oil extraction costs. For example, with this technology the average cost to build and operate a well is just $250,000. That's pretty substantial considering, in the oil industry, well costs can reach as high a $270 MILLION per well - which is about 1,000-times more expensive!
Because of this huge cost advantage, this company says it can extract Illinois' oil economically, even if prices drop to $15 a barrel.
REMEMBER: No other company, to this point, has been able to achieve this feat in Illinois.
Second, and more importantly, the "pilot" tests showed production-level quantities of oil could be pulled from Illinois' fields. In other words, these tests confirmed the company could begin full-scale production.
And that's what the upcoming announcement is all about:
You see, any day now, the first major oil operation in nearly 3 decades will commence in the Illinois Basin.
How do we know this "announcement" is coming so soon?
Well, in March, the company behind it announced it had finally completed the manufacture of the plant that will make the implementation of this new technology possible.
It's a very big deal for this small firm. They have sunk a fortune into not only perfecting this technology, but also building it out in the real world. The only steps left are to announce it to the public... and begin the work in Southern Illinois.
But why are we so sure that shares of this tiny firm are likely to soar once this announcement takes place?
Because this isn't the first time something like this has happened in the oil industry...
For example...
o West Texas Crude. In 1939, a huge discovery launched the Permian Basin of West Texas into one of the country's first major domestic oil sources. By the 1980s, the local town of Midland boasted more millionaires per capita than any other city in the U.S. But shortly afterwards, when oil prices crashed, Big Oil left the region. But thanks to recent advancements in something called "Carbon Dioxide Injection" technology, West Texas is once again a major source of domestic oil production. Companies using this new technology, like Occidental Petroleum, Arena Resources, and Permian Basin Royalty Trust, have gone up as high as 1,698% (Arena), 1,126% (Occidental) and 438% (Permian).
o The Alberta oil sands. Did you know that oil production first began in Alberta's oil sands region as far back as the 1960s... and that those operations were also halted when oil prices bottomed out in the 1980s? But when "SAGD" technology was developed 2 decades later, it allowed companies to go back into the region. Today, it's one of the richest and most productive oil fields on Earth. Companies employing this new technology like Suncor, Canadian Oil Sands Trust, and Imperial Oil - have all shot up 4,962% (Suncor), 1,400% (Can. Oil Sands), and 1,043% (Imperial).
o The Gulf of Mexico. The same thing happened in the Gulf of Mexico... a major source of domestic oil in the 1970s and 80s. Again, most of the projects there were abandoned when oil prices crashed in the 1990s. Then, the introduction of "3-D Seismic" technology rejuvenated the region, and early investors made a fortune. Companies using this new technology, like Anadarko Petroleum, Stone Energy, and ConocoPhillips, went up as much as 388% (Anadarko), 292% (Conoco), and 229% (Stone).
The same thing that happened in these places is now happening in Illinois...
The main difference, of course, is that the big gains have already been made in West Texas, Alberta, and the Gulf of Mexico.
Almost no one in the investment community is aware of the situation in Illinois yet. In other words, it's still early in the game.
Like I said, I believe all that will change when this announcement takes place.
We're expecting it to happen any day now.
If this opportunity interests you, here's what to do next.
The oil story no one is telling...
My name is Matt Badiali.
I'm a geologist.
I've been studying the oil industry for the past 15 years. I've been involved in almost every aspect of geological exploration and drilling.
From my stints on a drill rig in Florida and work as a field geologist for a variety of firms... to my research and teaching positions at major universities in petroleum geology...
What I've learned boils down to this:
Making a fortune from oil, more so than anything else, is an information game.
You see, I work with a team of analysts, currency experts, former brokers, and hedge fund managers... and we're constantly leveraging our network of sources so we almost always get a jumpstart on finding the big opportunities BEFORE they become mainstream.
For example...
344% & 271% Returns on Chinese Oil - while it was just a back page story
In 2003, China was still a small-time oil consumer... and very much a back page story. But after sending a couple researchers to Shanghai to investigate the situation in China firsthand, we saw with our own eyes the transformation about to take place. We recommended Petrochina (PTR) and Sinopec (SNP) - two of China's big oil companies. If you bought then and held until today, you'd be sitting on gains of 344% and 271%.
Barron's quotes us
In 2004, we were the first team to pick up on the incredible potential of a company called Encana (ECA). It's a unique energy company with oil and natural gas operations throughout North America. What really made them a great recommendation were the millions of acres of mineral-rich land they own throughout Canada and the U.S., which they are constantly developing and earning money on by leasing to other energy companies. Encana has gone up as much as 136% since we recommended it. My associate, Dan Ferris was even quoted in Barron's for his value based investment research.
101% on a deep-sea takeover
A few years ago I was in Houston, where my team and I met with the CFO of Veritas - a small geo-exploration company specializing in seismic data, used for finding offshore oil. At the time, Wall Street had low expectations for the company. But the rush was on to develop more deepwater and ultra-deepwater basins... my visit impressed me... and Veritas' technology was top-notch. Shortly after we recommended the company, it won a key government contract to map out oil fields in the Caspian Sea and another data company bought it out. Readers who got in early had a chance to lock in 101% gains.
Most recently, we've been looking very closely at the opportunity in Illinois.
If you're interested in getting the full details, I've put together an in-depth research report that explains the situation in full. It's called The Secret Oil Technology.
This comprehensive Research Report details everything you need to know to take advantage BEFORE this opportunity goes mainstream: The full details on the new technology... the upcoming announcement... how it will affect the company's share price... and the full profit potential of the company's operations in the Illinois Basin...
For example, the first phase of this company's production will target an area holding more than 38 million barrels of oil.
Consider what this means for such a small company:
If oil is selling for $30 a barrel, that represents more than $1.1 BILLION in revenues for this penny stock - more than 5-times the value of the company.
At $50 a barrel, that represents more than $1.9 BILLION in revenues - more than 8-times the value of this small company.
And at current prices (around $70 a barrel), that represents more than $2.7 BILLION for this small firm - more than 12-times the current value of the company!
Again, it's all there in my full Research Report, The Secret Oil Technology.
But it doesn't end there...
You see, the upcoming announcement in Illinois is just the beginning...
There are actually several more ways to take advantage of the situation, which could also add more money to your bank account in the coming months.
Let me show you what I mean...
The next generation oil technology
You see, the small company I've been describing isn't the only firm using this new technology.
In my report, The Secret Oil Technology, I'll tell you about another little-known company who recently began snatching up some of the richest oil properties along the Gulf Coast...
Last year, for example, this company acquired the #1 largest oil field in Mississippi, virtually doubling its in-ground oil reserves. In addition, this company acquired oil-rich land in Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama.
Already, this company has 8 "pilot" projects set up in the region, and is gearing up for full-scale production.
Once this begins, the firm's oil production is projected to grow by 10%-20% a year for at least the next 5 years, according to recent estimates.
That could easily translate into a 200%-300% share price gain over the next 2-3 years.
That's not all...
My report also details another company working in North Dakota, which recently secured a position atop one of the richest onshore U.S. oil fields... more than 4 BILLION barrels of untapped oil.
"Pilot" tests are already underway. The cost and production numbers are starting to come in. It's still very early in the game, but things are looking good.
This company even announced plans to partner with Exxon... so a major deal could be in the works.
The point is... I believe the biggest and by far the fastest gains are poised to come from the implementation of this breakthrough technology by a very small company in Illinois.
But there's also a lot of potential money to be made on several firms that are beginning to use it along the Gulf Coast, and other parts of the United States.
I don't want to give away too many details here. Instead, I'll reserve the complete story for those who read my report, The Secret Oil Technology.
To sum up, the full Research Report will tell you:
o The full details on the breakthrough technology that's enabling companies to extract oil from some of America's biggest untapped oil fields, at just a fraction of the normal drilling costs.
o Three companies at the forefront: The full details on the company gearing up for full-scale production in Illinois... the little-known company buying up huge swaths of land for development along the Gulf Coast... and the company sitting on the massive 4 BILLION barrel deposit in North Dakota.
o The full profit potential of these 3 little known businesses: A detailed look at each firm's operations... the profit potential of each project... the ticker symbol of each company... what share price to enter... how high I expect each one to go... AND when to exit...
It's all there in The Secret Oil Technology.
Best of all, Id like to send this report to you absolutely free of charge.
But...
Before I show you how to claim your free copy, there's another very important development I'd like to share with you...
You see, the "secret oil technology" isn't the only thing I've been researching recently...
The 32,000% gold secret
I'm not sure how much you know about the precious metals business, but probably the best way to make money in this industry is not as an explorer... or producer.
Instead, it's to get a foothold on profitable mining royalties.
The way it works is, several smart geologists buy up the "royalty rights" to some of the world's most productive and lucrative mines.
And get this: These guys don't do any digging, production, or actual mining... they simply get paid lucrative "royalties" as the metals come out of the ground. It's an incredibly simple and lucrative business.
One of the first companies to do this in the gold industry was an operation called Franco-Nevada, which got its start in the mid-1980s.
This royalty set-up paid investors an average of 38% gains for 18 years! Absolutely incredible.
Compounded, that means 2,404% after 10 years... and an incredible 32,000% over the full 18 years... which turns a $5,000 investment into $1.6 million!
Another company to set up a similar royalty business more recently was a firm called Royal Gold. Again, they don't do any mining, digging, exploring, etc. All they do is buy up royalty streams to lucrative mining operations, and wait for the money to roll in.
Since 2001, the company has returned a whopping 1,589%. In fact, Royal Gold has gone up even when everything else goes down.
Consider: During the market meltdown of 2008, while just about every investment in the world got crushed, Royal Gold returned a solid 55% gain.
It's incredible. Owning royalty stakes in the world's best mining operations is a low-risk, inexpensive, and simple way to make an absolute fortune, especially in a precious metals bull market like we're in right now.
In fact, mining royalties may be the best business model in the world.
And I haven't even told you the best part...
Not too long ago, a company went public on the American Stock Exchange, which does the same thing... but with Silver royalties instead of gold.
Since going public, the shares are up 303%. But as we've seen with other royalty businesses... these gains are just the very tip of the iceberg.
Right now, the potential in silver is absolutely incredible... and this tiny silver royalty company is the only business of it's kind in the world. I expect a safe and simple investment today could return many times your money over the next few years.
If you'd like the details on this situation, I've published everything in my report: The Greatest Business in the World. Keep in mind: This company went public in the U.S. just a few years ago. They employ less than two-dozen people... yet bring in more than $150 million a year!
This Research Report, along with The Secret Oil Technology, is yours free of charge when you take a trial subscription to my monthly research advisory, called The S&A Resource Report .
Is the Resource Report right for you?
I don't know. But let me tell you a little bit about it so you can decide for yourself...
Getting in early
When you try The S&A Resource Report , you'll have access to the collective knowledge of my team and all my contacts in the field.
Take a look at just a few more of the big stories my network has identified - allowing our readers to get in before the masses...
My top "wildcatter" connection tips us off...
In summer 2003, one of my researchers went deep-sea fishing off the coast of Panama, with 2 of our top oil contacts. The one guy's been in the oil business for 30 years and owns dozens of wells. The other guy is, as the Times of London described him, "a geologist and self-made man... the real deal: one of the last independent oil prospectors in northwest Texas - a genuine wildcatter."
These guys tipped my researcher off to a small exploration company called Double Eagle Petroleum (DBLE) that they suspected had stumbled onto a very large natural gas field in Wyoming. Months later - after we recommended DBLE - it turned out that our experts were right. The company discovered a ton of natural gas in the eastern Washakie Basin in Wyoming. Shares soared as high as 230% afterwards.
Beating Forbes to the story...
A few years ago, I found a tremendous opportunity in China's mining sector. After 50 years of forbidding foreign companies from exploring China's gold-rich soil, the Chinese government had finally opened its doors. I knew this chain of events would eventually transform China into one of the world's leading gold producers... and could mean huge gains for my readers. So, I recommended the tiny gold explorer the government gave "first crack" at China's rich gold resources. Of course, at the time, the story was nowhere to be found in the Western press. After recommending it, this tiny company shot up an amazing 73% in just 8 months. In fact, since my recommendation, Forbes reported that China is now the world's number one gold producer. This company is now at the forefront.
119% gains on 2 huge copper finds
In 2006, I found a little-known copper company with a mine that had the longest remaining mine life of any major open-pit copper mine in the world. But what made this opportunity so interesting was that this company recently found another world-class copper deposit, almost as big! The amazing this was, almost no one outside the mining community had even heard of this company before. Over the next 14 months, our readers had the chance to make 142% gains with this little-known stock.
In fact, over the past few years, I've helped my readers get in on many great opportunities in the energy and mining fields, which are seldom covered by mainstream news sources.
For example...
93% on a small gold company called Cumberland Resources
195% on a Brazilian oil producer called Petrobras
100% on a small oil and gas explorer called Kodiak Oil & Gas
239% on unique gold company called Seabridge Gold
111% on a small oil producer called Occidental Petroleum
117% on a small deepwater drilling firm called Stone Energy
98% on a steel alloy technology for deep-sea drilling (Allegheny Technologies)
I don't know of another Research Service in the country that has a track record as good as ours today.
In fact, as of my September issue, we had 18 recommendations in our portfolio. 15 are up, with gains ranging from 3% to 70%.
This is probably why The S&A Resource Report research also has many mining and energy industry professionals who follow our work:
30-year Amoco Veteran:
"Matt Badiali's Report my favorite newsletter... and I would recommend it to anyone.
- Mike Hourihan, retired from BP/Amoco after 30-year career
Director Of NYSE Company
"Your letter, in many instances, has confirmed good ideas under consideration and at other times introduced new ideas, which have proven to be very profitable! I look forward to your report each month and find it to be extremely valuable. Keep up the good work!"
- Gerald Wilson, director of a NYSE listed E&P company.
9-Year Energy Industry Veteran
"I know all the big names in energy and energy services... but The S&A Resource Report has introduced me to faster growing, small energy service companies that are performing extremely well. I am very satisfied with the performance of these investments overall."
- Harold Dickens., PhD., 9-years in global energy services
Wants to keep the S&A Resource Report a secret!!
"Superb ideas. Totally out of the mainstream of thinking in the energy field. Had a double with Veritas DGC. I'm not sure I want too many more subscribers to the S&A Resource Report. Selfish."
- Mickey S.
Of course, I can't say for sure if The S&A Resource Report is right for you. But to help you decide, here's what I propose...
Try The S&A Resource Report for the next 6 months and make a decision whenever you are ready.
Here's what I mean...
Simply start trial subscription today, and you'll have instant access to:
Research Report #1 - The Secret Oil Technology
Research Report #2 - The Greatest Business in the World
Plus, every month you'll receive my Resource Report advisory letter, delivered to you on the second Tuesday of each month, first by e-mail, then by regular mail too. You'll also receive our daily market reports, sent by e-mail, also at no extra charge.
Over the next six months, take your time and decide if The S&A Resource Report is right for you. If not, I'll send you a FULL refund, and you can keep everything you've received up until that point.
We are offering such a guarantee so that if the announcement in Illinois comes BEFORE you've had a chance to get involved, you can get a full refund if you so choose. Again, we expect it to take place any day... so I encourage you to act quickly if you are interested.
How much does The S&A Resource Report cost?
I think it's ridiculously cheap, especially considering all you receive, and the time, money, and effort we put into this work. The truth is, just one of the investment ideas I'll share with you could help you make many times the subscription price.
And it's not just me saying this...
"I think that The S&A Resource Report provides the best financial advice I have ever had, bar none... Parker Drilling Co. I bought at $2.75 and now it is at $5.07 for an 84% increase. I have subscribed to several newsletters in the past but none have delivered the kind of returns I am seeing here."
-- Doug Patelli, Albany, NY
"Matt, I have used your advisories a lot. On Northern Dynasty Minerals I made 167% and on Parker Drilling Company 161%."
-- Karl Blanchard, Austin, TX
"I have bought stock in the four companies you mentioned and as of today my profits are in excess of $4,000. Far better results and profits than any previous service."
-- Jared Plumber, Tacoma, WA
"Sold Rowan Companies and a total of $2265.08. As you can see I'm away head of the game. Thanks to your letters... [I'm] up $31,552.93 to date for this year.
-- Jason Murdock, Dover, DE
Before I give you the details on how to get started, however, I'd like to tell you about one more exciting opportunity you can take advantage of right now...
Almost no one outside of China has heard of this yet
In recent months, I have been investigating an extraordinary situation...
More big winners in the Resource sector
70% in 6 months...
Recently, I learned about a company that had secured the largest un-mined gold deposit in the world. When I found this, no one was talking about it yet. Since my recommendation, we are already up 70% in 6 months... with A LOT more to come.
50% in 12 months...
In 2006, I uncovered a tiny company that owned the largest collection of in-the-ground silver resources on earth... an amazing 171 million ounces... plus an additional BILLION ounces it was working to confirm. The amazing this was, almost no one outside the mining community had even heard of this company, which gave my readers the chance to safely make 50% over the next 12 months.
55% practically overnight...
Just two months ago, I found a small company (Addax Petroleum) with an inside track on getting big oil contracts in Iraq. We made about 55% practically overnight when a big oil company offered to buy the firm out.
It's a huge and rare opportunity taking place in China right now, which I recommend you take advantage of immediately...
And I can assure you that almost no one outside of China has heard of this development yet...
In short: the Chinese government has created a new type of gold investment that could dwarf the returns of bullion, ordinary gold stocks, or any other type of gold investment you've heard of before.
What this translates to, for you as an investor is the opportunity to make many, many times your original investment with very little risk.
You see, this is not the first time Beijing leaders have secretly created such an opportunity:
In the late 1990s, the Chinese government created two similar investments. One (to help the local insurance industry) went up more than 530% in just a few years... the other (to aid the energy sector) has gone up about 1,084% over a similar period.
But this is the first time Chinese officials have intervened in this way in the gold markets - and I expect the result will be a windfall for savvy investors over the next few years.
I believe you will be very happy with this investment over the next few years. I don't want to say much more about it here, because it is an extraordinary situation I'd prefer to reveal only to my subscribers.
But I explain everything you need to know in my new Research Report called: Government-Backed Gold and Silver: How to Make 10-Times Your Money in China
Again, you'll get all of the details as soon as you take a trial subscription to my monthly Resource Report advisory letter.
You can get started with a trial subscription to The S&A Resource Report for just $49.50.
For the introductory price of $49.50 you will receive:
12 Issues of my monthly investment advisory newsletter, The S&A Resource Report , delivered on the second Tuesday of each month.
Research Report #1 - The Secret Oil Technology
Research Report #2 - The Greatest Business in the World
Research Report #3 - Government-Backed Gold and Silver: How to Make 10-Times Your Money in China
Sign up today and you'll receive instant access (in the next 30 minutes or so) to all of these reports on our subscribers-only website.
To get started, and to get instant access to all of the investment research I described in this letter, Subscribe Now
Sincerely,
Matt Badiali,
Editor, S&A Resource Report
September 2009
P.S. Remember, you'll have the next six (6) months to decide if my research is right for you. If not, don't worry. Simply let us know by phone, e-mail or regular mail, and you'll receive a full refund. Keep everything you've received - it's our way of saying thanks for giving our research a look.
P.P.S. We are offering such a guarantee so that if the announcement in Illinois comes BEFORE you've had a chance to get involved, you can get a full refund. Again, we expect it to take place any day... so I encourage you to act quickly if you are interested. To subscribe now, click here.
"The Illinois Project"
could make you 455%
"It's the potential to catch lightning in a jar...
and we did it."
-Illinois resident, Shawn Gavigan.
Dear Reader,
My team and I are awaiting an important announcement...
You see, I predict that any day now, the CEO of a small, Illinois based company will take the podium...
And make an announcement regarding a technological breakthrough so extraordinary it could, almost instantly, spell billions in profits for his tiny firm.
As I see it, an announcement would be the end result of more than 30 years of research and development in a remote region of Southeastern Illinois.
In short, this small company is finally making possible something the U.S. Government has wanted (and tried) to do for the past 3 decades. A project that, until now, was technologically impossible.
Already, these developments are creating a major stir in the cities and towns across Illinois:
"It's a miracle," says Lori Chase, a real estate executive from the town of West Kenner.
"I never thought I'd see it," says 68-year-old Lawrence resident Daniel Limon.
"It's a huge discovery," says nearby Bridgeport resident, Brian Halstead.
"It's the potential to catch lightning in a jar... and we did it," says 45-year-old Shawn Gavigan.
Now... not only are the townspeople of Illinois getting excited about what this technology can make possible... and how it could make them all rich... but the companies and smart investors involved with this project are beginning to see the dollar signs...
According to independent forecasts, this technology could single-handedly bring in more than $2.7 BILLION for this small firm.
That's more than 12-times the value of the company (which we estimate could give investors as much as a 455% gain... maybe more).
The good news for you is that, so far, this announcement has only been hinted at in small, local Illinois newspapers, like The State Journal-Register and The Pantagraph.
But we believe when this technology goes public any day now, all that will change.
In other words, right now this company is small and virtually unknown, but when this announcement takes place the story will be everywhere.
Today, you have the opportunity to get in before this predicted announcement takes place... and this new technology becomes public knowledge.
I think just a small stake in this tiny firm could make you very rich in the coming weeks.
As you can probably tell, the information in this letter is extremely time-sensitive.
So let me get right to the details.
In the following pages, I'll show you exactly what this new technology is... why we believe an announcement is about to take place... and what it all could mean for your finances...
Here's the full story...
A secret you probably don't know about southern Illinois
To understand the magnitude of this situation, and what it could mean for you as an investor, let me take you back 70 years, to the very beginnings of the Illinois project...
You see, most people don't know this, but at one time, Illinois was one of the top oil-producing regions on Earth.
In the late 1930s, for example, Illinois' oil fields were outmatching the combined oil production of Iraq and Iran, according to state geologist Henry Murphy.
By the 1940s, only Russia and Venezuela produced more oil, according to the state oil association.
Hard to believe, right?
It's true...
As the Chicago Tribune writes: "It may seem hard to believe now, but there once was a time when oil was king in Illinois."
For the next several decades Illinois was a major hub of domestic oil production (Check out some of the major headlines during this time in the margin to the right.) Illinois produced some of the country's highest quality oil: light, sweet crude... the cheapest to extract and the easiest to refine.
By the 1980s, just about every major oil corporation had major operations there, including Exxon, Chevron, Marathon Oil, Standard Oil, and Unocal.
There was so much oil, in fact, that in 1982, the Chicago Tribune reported that operations there were "making some southern Illinois oilmen as rich as sheiks."
But the question is...
What happened to all these huge oil projects?
Why haven't you heard about Illinois' supposedly rich oil fields before?
..And what happened to all that oil?
Well, when oil prices dropped to $10 a barrel in the 1980s, the majors left town.
You see, at the time, there wasn't a technology available that allowed companies to produce oil cheap enough to make a profit, in case oil prices bottomed out.
So, Exxon, Chevron, and Marathon pulled out to look for oil in places where it'd be cheaper to extract.
Illinois fell off the radar, where it's been for the last 30 years.
And what happened to all the oil?
Well... that's where things get interesting.
You see, the majors ended up leaving behind a lot of unfinished projects... and therefore, a lot of untapped oil.
According to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, of the 600,000 oil and gas wells that had been drilled in the region, including Illinois, less than 3% had gone deeper than 6,000 feet.
In other words, most of the deeper oil was left largely untouched.
A report from the Chicago Tribune in 1981, just before Big Oil left, explains why: "Illinois oil men rarely drill deeper than 5,000 feet because they usually strike oil before that depth."
Think about that for a moment.
That means that 1) there was A LOT of oil practically sitting on the surface in Illinois (enough to extract for 40 years straight) and 2) any oil lying deeper than 6,000 feet has gone virtually untouched.
Of course, that begs the question...
Just how much oil did the majors leave behind?
In 2005 - as oil prices (and government interest in domestic oil production) began rising - a joint government-oil industry commission was assembled.
The purpose:
To see how much oil is left in Illinois... and determine if the State could, in fact, once again become a major source of domestic oil production.
Almost no one on the commission was prepared for the outcome.
Here's a direct quote from the official report:
"After more than a century of production, equal or greater quantities of resources are still waiting to be tapped."
According to an estimate by the Illinois State Geological Survey, only 4 billion of the State's 14 billion barrels of in-ground oil resources had been extracted.
That means right now, Illinois is likely sitting on more than 10 BILLION barrels of untapped oil.
But what's amazing is how little press coverage this development has received:
"Nobody realizes how prolific the Illinois Basin is," says Bill Nelson, former Vice President of Investment brokers Paine Webber.
"There is still a lot [of oil] there," says State Geologist Beverly Sayer.
But what's unique about this situation isn't necessarily the amount of oil trapped beneath Illinois.
Instead, it's the work of one small company in particular...
You see, what almost no one knows right now is that one small company has developed the technology to extract the remaining oil in Illinois economically... even if prices drop to $15 a barrel.
This is a major advancement in the oil industry... and could be absolutely huge for the state of Illinois.
In short, this is the technology that Illinois has been waiting for... the technology that could finally allow the state to unlock its remaining reserves of crude oil.
"It's a miracle," says Lori Chase, a local real estate agent.
Even "Big Oil" is starting to take notice...
Howard Mayson, VP of Technology for British Petroleum calls this technology, "The prize for the next half-century."
Right now, you have the opportunity to invest BEFORE the general public knows about the new technology... or the tiny company that's developing it.
Let me explain what's happening...
Why we believe an announcement is imminent
Right now, oil companies are scrambling to get into the game.
The amount of drilling permits in the state, for example, has almost DOUBLED since 2002.
Huge finds are starting to crop up all over the place:
For example, a private wildcatter named Ben Watson made a major find near Stephen A. Forbes State Park. One local paper called it "a huge discovery."
Another team of wildcatters near Grayville, IL made another huge find. The local paper there called it, "a gusher, a 'freeflow-er' in wildcat speak, the kind of oil strike so sweet that at first you don't even have to pump it out of the ground."
But it's the work of one company in particular, that's causing all the excitement in Illinois... and in the oil community.
You see, not only have they acquired what is probably the richest oil property in the state (a massive oil field known at one point to hold 1 BILLION barrels of oil), but they've also achieved a major technological breakthrough in the area of oil extraction.
In short, this company has developed a way to extract valuable crude from Illinois' massive underground oil formations... WITHOUT the use of traditional drilling equipment: oilrigs, derricks, or even drill bits.
Essentially, this means the tiny firm could extract the remaining crude in the Illinois basin... at just a fraction of the normal drilling costs.
This translates into substantially bigger potential profits than any other company (public or private) in the region.
Let me explain how...
You see, in late 2007, this small company began "pilot" testing this new technology in two remote fields of southeastern Illinois - areas known to hold large quantities of untapped oil.
These tests confirmed 2 things:
First, they showed significantly reduced oil extraction costs. For example, with this technology the average cost to build and operate a well is just $250,000. That's pretty substantial considering, in the oil industry, well costs can reach as high a $270 MILLION per well - which is about 1,000-times more expensive!
Because of this huge cost advantage, this company says it can extract Illinois' oil economically, even if prices drop to $15 a barrel.
REMEMBER: No other company, to this point, has been able to achieve this feat in Illinois.
Second, and more importantly, the "pilot" tests showed production-level quantities of oil could be pulled from Illinois' fields. In other words, these tests confirmed the company could begin full-scale production.
And that's what the upcoming announcement is all about:
You see, any day now, the first major oil operation in nearly 3 decades will commence in the Illinois Basin.
How do we know this "announcement" is coming so soon?
Well, in March, the company behind it announced it had finally completed the manufacture of the plant that will make the implementation of this new technology possible.
It's a very big deal for this small firm. They have sunk a fortune into not only perfecting this technology, but also building it out in the real world. The only steps left are to announce it to the public... and begin the work in Southern Illinois.
But why are we so sure that shares of this tiny firm are likely to soar once this announcement takes place?
Because this isn't the first time something like this has happened in the oil industry...
For example...
o West Texas Crude. In 1939, a huge discovery launched the Permian Basin of West Texas into one of the country's first major domestic oil sources. By the 1980s, the local town of Midland boasted more millionaires per capita than any other city in the U.S. But shortly afterwards, when oil prices crashed, Big Oil left the region. But thanks to recent advancements in something called "Carbon Dioxide Injection" technology, West Texas is once again a major source of domestic oil production. Companies using this new technology, like Occidental Petroleum, Arena Resources, and Permian Basin Royalty Trust, have gone up as high as 1,698% (Arena), 1,126% (Occidental) and 438% (Permian).
o The Alberta oil sands. Did you know that oil production first began in Alberta's oil sands region as far back as the 1960s... and that those operations were also halted when oil prices bottomed out in the 1980s? But when "SAGD" technology was developed 2 decades later, it allowed companies to go back into the region. Today, it's one of the richest and most productive oil fields on Earth. Companies employing this new technology like Suncor, Canadian Oil Sands Trust, and Imperial Oil - have all shot up 4,962% (Suncor), 1,400% (Can. Oil Sands), and 1,043% (Imperial).
o The Gulf of Mexico. The same thing happened in the Gulf of Mexico... a major source of domestic oil in the 1970s and 80s. Again, most of the projects there were abandoned when oil prices crashed in the 1990s. Then, the introduction of "3-D Seismic" technology rejuvenated the region, and early investors made a fortune. Companies using this new technology, like Anadarko Petroleum, Stone Energy, and ConocoPhillips, went up as much as 388% (Anadarko), 292% (Conoco), and 229% (Stone).
The same thing that happened in these places is now happening in Illinois...
The main difference, of course, is that the big gains have already been made in West Texas, Alberta, and the Gulf of Mexico.
Almost no one in the investment community is aware of the situation in Illinois yet. In other words, it's still early in the game.
Like I said, I believe all that will change when this announcement takes place.
We're expecting it to happen any day now.
If this opportunity interests you, here's what to do next.
The oil story no one is telling...
My name is Matt Badiali.
I'm a geologist.
I've been studying the oil industry for the past 15 years. I've been involved in almost every aspect of geological exploration and drilling.
From my stints on a drill rig in Florida and work as a field geologist for a variety of firms... to my research and teaching positions at major universities in petroleum geology...
What I've learned boils down to this:
Making a fortune from oil, more so than anything else, is an information game.
You see, I work with a team of analysts, currency experts, former brokers, and hedge fund managers... and we're constantly leveraging our network of sources so we almost always get a jumpstart on finding the big opportunities BEFORE they become mainstream.
For example...
344% & 271% Returns on Chinese Oil - while it was just a back page story
In 2003, China was still a small-time oil consumer... and very much a back page story. But after sending a couple researchers to Shanghai to investigate the situation in China firsthand, we saw with our own eyes the transformation about to take place. We recommended Petrochina (PTR) and Sinopec (SNP) - two of China's big oil companies. If you bought then and held until today, you'd be sitting on gains of 344% and 271%.
Barron's quotes us
In 2004, we were the first team to pick up on the incredible potential of a company called Encana (ECA). It's a unique energy company with oil and natural gas operations throughout North America. What really made them a great recommendation were the millions of acres of mineral-rich land they own throughout Canada and the U.S., which they are constantly developing and earning money on by leasing to other energy companies. Encana has gone up as much as 136% since we recommended it. My associate, Dan Ferris was even quoted in Barron's for his value based investment research.
101% on a deep-sea takeover
A few years ago I was in Houston, where my team and I met with the CFO of Veritas - a small geo-exploration company specializing in seismic data, used for finding offshore oil. At the time, Wall Street had low expectations for the company. But the rush was on to develop more deepwater and ultra-deepwater basins... my visit impressed me... and Veritas' technology was top-notch. Shortly after we recommended the company, it won a key government contract to map out oil fields in the Caspian Sea and another data company bought it out. Readers who got in early had a chance to lock in 101% gains.
Most recently, we've been looking very closely at the opportunity in Illinois.
If you're interested in getting the full details, I've put together an in-depth research report that explains the situation in full. It's called The Secret Oil Technology.
This comprehensive Research Report details everything you need to know to take advantage BEFORE this opportunity goes mainstream: The full details on the new technology... the upcoming announcement... how it will affect the company's share price... and the full profit potential of the company's operations in the Illinois Basin...
For example, the first phase of this company's production will target an area holding more than 38 million barrels of oil.
Consider what this means for such a small company:
If oil is selling for $30 a barrel, that represents more than $1.1 BILLION in revenues for this penny stock - more than 5-times the value of the company.
At $50 a barrel, that represents more than $1.9 BILLION in revenues - more than 8-times the value of this small company.
And at current prices (around $70 a barrel), that represents more than $2.7 BILLION for this small firm - more than 12-times the current value of the company!
Again, it's all there in my full Research Report, The Secret Oil Technology.
But it doesn't end there...
You see, the upcoming announcement in Illinois is just the beginning...
There are actually several more ways to take advantage of the situation, which could also add more money to your bank account in the coming months.
Let me show you what I mean...
The next generation oil technology
You see, the small company I've been describing isn't the only firm using this new technology.
In my report, The Secret Oil Technology, I'll tell you about another little-known company who recently began snatching up some of the richest oil properties along the Gulf Coast...
Last year, for example, this company acquired the #1 largest oil field in Mississippi, virtually doubling its in-ground oil reserves. In addition, this company acquired oil-rich land in Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama.
Already, this company has 8 "pilot" projects set up in the region, and is gearing up for full-scale production.
Once this begins, the firm's oil production is projected to grow by 10%-20% a year for at least the next 5 years, according to recent estimates.
That could easily translate into a 200%-300% share price gain over the next 2-3 years.
That's not all...
My report also details another company working in North Dakota, which recently secured a position atop one of the richest onshore U.S. oil fields... more than 4 BILLION barrels of untapped oil.
"Pilot" tests are already underway. The cost and production numbers are starting to come in. It's still very early in the game, but things are looking good.
This company even announced plans to partner with Exxon... so a major deal could be in the works.
The point is... I believe the biggest and by far the fastest gains are poised to come from the implementation of this breakthrough technology by a very small company in Illinois.
But there's also a lot of potential money to be made on several firms that are beginning to use it along the Gulf Coast, and other parts of the United States.
I don't want to give away too many details here. Instead, I'll reserve the complete story for those who read my report, The Secret Oil Technology.
To sum up, the full Research Report will tell you:
o The full details on the breakthrough technology that's enabling companies to extract oil from some of America's biggest untapped oil fields, at just a fraction of the normal drilling costs.
o Three companies at the forefront: The full details on the company gearing up for full-scale production in Illinois... the little-known company buying up huge swaths of land for development along the Gulf Coast... and the company sitting on the massive 4 BILLION barrel deposit in North Dakota.
o The full profit potential of these 3 little known businesses: A detailed look at each firm's operations... the profit potential of each project... the ticker symbol of each company... what share price to enter... how high I expect each one to go... AND when to exit...
It's all there in The Secret Oil Technology.
Best of all, Id like to send this report to you absolutely free of charge.
But...
Before I show you how to claim your free copy, there's another very important development I'd like to share with you...
You see, the "secret oil technology" isn't the only thing I've been researching recently...
The 32,000% gold secret
I'm not sure how much you know about the precious metals business, but probably the best way to make money in this industry is not as an explorer... or producer.
Instead, it's to get a foothold on profitable mining royalties.
The way it works is, several smart geologists buy up the "royalty rights" to some of the world's most productive and lucrative mines.
And get this: These guys don't do any digging, production, or actual mining... they simply get paid lucrative "royalties" as the metals come out of the ground. It's an incredibly simple and lucrative business.
One of the first companies to do this in the gold industry was an operation called Franco-Nevada, which got its start in the mid-1980s.
This royalty set-up paid investors an average of 38% gains for 18 years! Absolutely incredible.
Compounded, that means 2,404% after 10 years... and an incredible 32,000% over the full 18 years... which turns a $5,000 investment into $1.6 million!
Another company to set up a similar royalty business more recently was a firm called Royal Gold. Again, they don't do any mining, digging, exploring, etc. All they do is buy up royalty streams to lucrative mining operations, and wait for the money to roll in.
Since 2001, the company has returned a whopping 1,589%. In fact, Royal Gold has gone up even when everything else goes down.
Consider: During the market meltdown of 2008, while just about every investment in the world got crushed, Royal Gold returned a solid 55% gain.
It's incredible. Owning royalty stakes in the world's best mining operations is a low-risk, inexpensive, and simple way to make an absolute fortune, especially in a precious metals bull market like we're in right now.
In fact, mining royalties may be the best business model in the world.
And I haven't even told you the best part...
Not too long ago, a company went public on the American Stock Exchange, which does the same thing... but with Silver royalties instead of gold.
Since going public, the shares are up 303%. But as we've seen with other royalty businesses... these gains are just the very tip of the iceberg.
Right now, the potential in silver is absolutely incredible... and this tiny silver royalty company is the only business of it's kind in the world. I expect a safe and simple investment today could return many times your money over the next few years.
If you'd like the details on this situation, I've published everything in my report: The Greatest Business in the World. Keep in mind: This company went public in the U.S. just a few years ago. They employ less than two-dozen people... yet bring in more than $150 million a year!
This Research Report, along with The Secret Oil Technology, is yours free of charge when you take a trial subscription to my monthly research advisory, called The S&A Resource Report .
Is the Resource Report right for you?
I don't know. But let me tell you a little bit about it so you can decide for yourself...
Getting in early
When you try The S&A Resource Report , you'll have access to the collective knowledge of my team and all my contacts in the field.
Take a look at just a few more of the big stories my network has identified - allowing our readers to get in before the masses...
My top "wildcatter" connection tips us off...
In summer 2003, one of my researchers went deep-sea fishing off the coast of Panama, with 2 of our top oil contacts. The one guy's been in the oil business for 30 years and owns dozens of wells. The other guy is, as the Times of London described him, "a geologist and self-made man... the real deal: one of the last independent oil prospectors in northwest Texas - a genuine wildcatter."
These guys tipped my researcher off to a small exploration company called Double Eagle Petroleum (DBLE) that they suspected had stumbled onto a very large natural gas field in Wyoming. Months later - after we recommended DBLE - it turned out that our experts were right. The company discovered a ton of natural gas in the eastern Washakie Basin in Wyoming. Shares soared as high as 230% afterwards.
Beating Forbes to the story...
A few years ago, I found a tremendous opportunity in China's mining sector. After 50 years of forbidding foreign companies from exploring China's gold-rich soil, the Chinese government had finally opened its doors. I knew this chain of events would eventually transform China into one of the world's leading gold producers... and could mean huge gains for my readers. So, I recommended the tiny gold explorer the government gave "first crack" at China's rich gold resources. Of course, at the time, the story was nowhere to be found in the Western press. After recommending it, this tiny company shot up an amazing 73% in just 8 months. In fact, since my recommendation, Forbes reported that China is now the world's number one gold producer. This company is now at the forefront.
119% gains on 2 huge copper finds
In 2006, I found a little-known copper company with a mine that had the longest remaining mine life of any major open-pit copper mine in the world. But what made this opportunity so interesting was that this company recently found another world-class copper deposit, almost as big! The amazing this was, almost no one outside the mining community had even heard of this company before. Over the next 14 months, our readers had the chance to make 142% gains with this little-known stock.
In fact, over the past few years, I've helped my readers get in on many great opportunities in the energy and mining fields, which are seldom covered by mainstream news sources.
For example...
93% on a small gold company called Cumberland Resources
195% on a Brazilian oil producer called Petrobras
100% on a small oil and gas explorer called Kodiak Oil & Gas
239% on unique gold company called Seabridge Gold
111% on a small oil producer called Occidental Petroleum
117% on a small deepwater drilling firm called Stone Energy
98% on a steel alloy technology for deep-sea drilling (Allegheny Technologies)
I don't know of another Research Service in the country that has a track record as good as ours today.
In fact, as of my September issue, we had 18 recommendations in our portfolio. 15 are up, with gains ranging from 3% to 70%.
This is probably why The S&A Resource Report research also has many mining and energy industry professionals who follow our work:
30-year Amoco Veteran:
"Matt Badiali's Report my favorite newsletter... and I would recommend it to anyone.
- Mike Hourihan, retired from BP/Amoco after 30-year career
Director Of NYSE Company
"Your letter, in many instances, has confirmed good ideas under consideration and at other times introduced new ideas, which have proven to be very profitable! I look forward to your report each month and find it to be extremely valuable. Keep up the good work!"
- Gerald Wilson, director of a NYSE listed E&P company.
9-Year Energy Industry Veteran
"I know all the big names in energy and energy services... but The S&A Resource Report has introduced me to faster growing, small energy service companies that are performing extremely well. I am very satisfied with the performance of these investments overall."
- Harold Dickens., PhD., 9-years in global energy services
Wants to keep the S&A Resource Report a secret!!
"Superb ideas. Totally out of the mainstream of thinking in the energy field. Had a double with Veritas DGC. I'm not sure I want too many more subscribers to the S&A Resource Report. Selfish."
- Mickey S.
Of course, I can't say for sure if The S&A Resource Report is right for you. But to help you decide, here's what I propose...
Try The S&A Resource Report for the next 6 months and make a decision whenever you are ready.
Here's what I mean...
Simply start trial subscription today, and you'll have instant access to:
Research Report #1 - The Secret Oil Technology
Research Report #2 - The Greatest Business in the World
Plus, every month you'll receive my Resource Report advisory letter, delivered to you on the second Tuesday of each month, first by e-mail, then by regular mail too. You'll also receive our daily market reports, sent by e-mail, also at no extra charge.
Over the next six months, take your time and decide if The S&A Resource Report is right for you. If not, I'll send you a FULL refund, and you can keep everything you've received up until that point.
We are offering such a guarantee so that if the announcement in Illinois comes BEFORE you've had a chance to get involved, you can get a full refund if you so choose. Again, we expect it to take place any day... so I encourage you to act quickly if you are interested.
How much does The S&A Resource Report cost?
I think it's ridiculously cheap, especially considering all you receive, and the time, money, and effort we put into this work. The truth is, just one of the investment ideas I'll share with you could help you make many times the subscription price.
And it's not just me saying this...
"I think that The S&A Resource Report provides the best financial advice I have ever had, bar none... Parker Drilling Co. I bought at $2.75 and now it is at $5.07 for an 84% increase. I have subscribed to several newsletters in the past but none have delivered the kind of returns I am seeing here."
-- Doug Patelli, Albany, NY
"Matt, I have used your advisories a lot. On Northern Dynasty Minerals I made 167% and on Parker Drilling Company 161%."
-- Karl Blanchard, Austin, TX
"I have bought stock in the four companies you mentioned and as of today my profits are in excess of $4,000. Far better results and profits than any previous service."
-- Jared Plumber, Tacoma, WA
"Sold Rowan Companies and a total of $2265.08. As you can see I'm away head of the game. Thanks to your letters... [I'm] up $31,552.93 to date for this year.
-- Jason Murdock, Dover, DE
Before I give you the details on how to get started, however, I'd like to tell you about one more exciting opportunity you can take advantage of right now...
Almost no one outside of China has heard of this yet
In recent months, I have been investigating an extraordinary situation...
More big winners in the Resource sector
70% in 6 months...
Recently, I learned about a company that had secured the largest un-mined gold deposit in the world. When I found this, no one was talking about it yet. Since my recommendation, we are already up 70% in 6 months... with A LOT more to come.
50% in 12 months...
In 2006, I uncovered a tiny company that owned the largest collection of in-the-ground silver resources on earth... an amazing 171 million ounces... plus an additional BILLION ounces it was working to confirm. The amazing this was, almost no one outside the mining community had even heard of this company, which gave my readers the chance to safely make 50% over the next 12 months.
55% practically overnight...
Just two months ago, I found a small company (Addax Petroleum) with an inside track on getting big oil contracts in Iraq. We made about 55% practically overnight when a big oil company offered to buy the firm out.
It's a huge and rare opportunity taking place in China right now, which I recommend you take advantage of immediately...
And I can assure you that almost no one outside of China has heard of this development yet...
In short: the Chinese government has created a new type of gold investment that could dwarf the returns of bullion, ordinary gold stocks, or any other type of gold investment you've heard of before.
What this translates to, for you as an investor is the opportunity to make many, many times your original investment with very little risk.
You see, this is not the first time Beijing leaders have secretly created such an opportunity:
In the late 1990s, the Chinese government created two similar investments. One (to help the local insurance industry) went up more than 530% in just a few years... the other (to aid the energy sector) has gone up about 1,084% over a similar period.
But this is the first time Chinese officials have intervened in this way in the gold markets - and I expect the result will be a windfall for savvy investors over the next few years.
I believe you will be very happy with this investment over the next few years. I don't want to say much more about it here, because it is an extraordinary situation I'd prefer to reveal only to my subscribers.
But I explain everything you need to know in my new Research Report called: Government-Backed Gold and Silver: How to Make 10-Times Your Money in China
Again, you'll get all of the details as soon as you take a trial subscription to my monthly Resource Report advisory letter.
You can get started with a trial subscription to The S&A Resource Report for just $49.50.
For the introductory price of $49.50 you will receive:
12 Issues of my monthly investment advisory newsletter, The S&A Resource Report , delivered on the second Tuesday of each month.
Research Report #1 - The Secret Oil Technology
Research Report #2 - The Greatest Business in the World
Research Report #3 - Government-Backed Gold and Silver: How to Make 10-Times Your Money in China
Sign up today and you'll receive instant access (in the next 30 minutes or so) to all of these reports on our subscribers-only website.
To get started, and to get instant access to all of the investment research I described in this letter, Subscribe Now
Sincerely,
Matt Badiali,
Editor, S&A Resource Report
September 2009
P.S. Remember, you'll have the next six (6) months to decide if my research is right for you. If not, don't worry. Simply let us know by phone, e-mail or regular mail, and you'll receive a full refund. Keep everything you've received - it's our way of saying thanks for giving our research a look.
P.P.S. We are offering such a guarantee so that if the announcement in Illinois comes BEFORE you've had a chance to get involved, you can get a full refund. Again, we expect it to take place any day... so I encourage you to act quickly if you are interested. To subscribe now, click here.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
The Cost of Obama's Copenhagen Trip
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
BARACK OBAMA
The Cost of Obama's Copenhagen Trip
A reader adds a few points to my back-of-the-envelope math on the cost of President Obama's trip to Copenhagen to lobby the International Olympic Committee and (probably?) witness the announcement that Chicago will host the 2016 games.
The cost of Obama’s trip will not be close to $1 mil. It is well over $10 mil if it is a dime. The figures you quoted (accurately) are for flying a VC-25 (Presidential 747). Presidential trips require both 747s, as one is a backup. However, the costs soar when you realize that from the moment a POTUS indicates he wants to go somewhere, dozens, if not hundreds of people start preparing every detail. These details include security, communications, protocol, logistics that boggle the mind and transportation that most people never see. Several Air Force cargo planes of equipment are loaded and flown to the destination with armored limos, security personnel from the Secret Service and the relevant military branches, fuels specialists, etc. A National Airborne Operations Command Post 747 from Offutt AFB, NE will accompany him to keep POTUS in constant communications in case of national or word emergency . . . We are now up to three 747s, multiple cargo planes and costs for personnel who fly commercial ahead of POTUS. If FLOTUS flies separately, add a C-32 (757) for her and her staff, entourage, hangers-on etc, with attendant security, logistics, etc. Add a few more million dollars, though many personnel in Denmark will cover preparations for both POTUS and FLOTUS.
Air Force One is a perk for all Presidents and I hesitate to criticize their use and cost. Bill Clinton flew the wings off Air Force One, but I criticized him for his policies, behavior and attitudes toward what he considered the benighted peasants of this country. He is the head of his party and, all Presidents use AF 1 liberally, as they should. Moreover, we need to keep him safe at all times and in contact with whomever is needed. AF 1 is like the medieval king arriving to fanfares of trumpets and bringing the majesty of the office (however tarnished by recent occupants) to all destinations. Despite Obama’s words and best efforts, we are still the dominant country on Earth and any President is both head of state and head of government. Let the trumpets sound upon any POTUS’ arrival.
Obama’s trip to Copenhagen to bring the Olympics to my hometown is both stupid and unnecessary as half of Chicago does not want them. It will be the ultimate trough for the piggish politicians in Chicago to bury their collective snouts in corruption. However, I encourage all conservatives to go after Obama on the substance of the trip, not the cost of flying there. We shall soon have conservative POTUS and he or she will use AF 1. Let’s not justify the inevitable criticism from the lunatic left about use of AF 1.
When I mentioned the cost yesterday, my aim was to note the financial, time, and opportunity costs for the president. I have a hard time believing Obama would take this trip halfway around the world if there was any chance he will be left standing as they announce that Rio is getting the games. I suspect the IOC has given the White House a wink and a nod, so to speak.
As to whether Chicago should get the Olympics, I'm undecided. I attended and enjoyed the Atlanta Games in 1996, but I also know hosting the games has enormous costs and headaches for the locals. It's a chance to shine on the world stage, but it also brings all normal economic activity in your city to a grinding halt for about a month. You end up building a decent amount of infrastructure that will rarely be used to that extent again; there's rarely enough ability to get around the city; and of course, you become a target for terrorism.
Bottom line, this seems like small potatoes for a president with a full plate. As Ed puts it, "Barack Obama has decided to put his international influence on the line not to push for more support in Afghanistan or sanctions on Iran, but to act as Salesman in Chief for Chicago and its Olympics bid for 2016."
BARACK OBAMA
The Cost of Obama's Copenhagen Trip
A reader adds a few points to my back-of-the-envelope math on the cost of President Obama's trip to Copenhagen to lobby the International Olympic Committee and (probably?) witness the announcement that Chicago will host the 2016 games.
The cost of Obama’s trip will not be close to $1 mil. It is well over $10 mil if it is a dime. The figures you quoted (accurately) are for flying a VC-25 (Presidential 747). Presidential trips require both 747s, as one is a backup. However, the costs soar when you realize that from the moment a POTUS indicates he wants to go somewhere, dozens, if not hundreds of people start preparing every detail. These details include security, communications, protocol, logistics that boggle the mind and transportation that most people never see. Several Air Force cargo planes of equipment are loaded and flown to the destination with armored limos, security personnel from the Secret Service and the relevant military branches, fuels specialists, etc. A National Airborne Operations Command Post 747 from Offutt AFB, NE will accompany him to keep POTUS in constant communications in case of national or word emergency . . . We are now up to three 747s, multiple cargo planes and costs for personnel who fly commercial ahead of POTUS. If FLOTUS flies separately, add a C-32 (757) for her and her staff, entourage, hangers-on etc, with attendant security, logistics, etc. Add a few more million dollars, though many personnel in Denmark will cover preparations for both POTUS and FLOTUS.
Air Force One is a perk for all Presidents and I hesitate to criticize their use and cost. Bill Clinton flew the wings off Air Force One, but I criticized him for his policies, behavior and attitudes toward what he considered the benighted peasants of this country. He is the head of his party and, all Presidents use AF 1 liberally, as they should. Moreover, we need to keep him safe at all times and in contact with whomever is needed. AF 1 is like the medieval king arriving to fanfares of trumpets and bringing the majesty of the office (however tarnished by recent occupants) to all destinations. Despite Obama’s words and best efforts, we are still the dominant country on Earth and any President is both head of state and head of government. Let the trumpets sound upon any POTUS’ arrival.
Obama’s trip to Copenhagen to bring the Olympics to my hometown is both stupid and unnecessary as half of Chicago does not want them. It will be the ultimate trough for the piggish politicians in Chicago to bury their collective snouts in corruption. However, I encourage all conservatives to go after Obama on the substance of the trip, not the cost of flying there. We shall soon have conservative POTUS and he or she will use AF 1. Let’s not justify the inevitable criticism from the lunatic left about use of AF 1.
When I mentioned the cost yesterday, my aim was to note the financial, time, and opportunity costs for the president. I have a hard time believing Obama would take this trip halfway around the world if there was any chance he will be left standing as they announce that Rio is getting the games. I suspect the IOC has given the White House a wink and a nod, so to speak.
As to whether Chicago should get the Olympics, I'm undecided. I attended and enjoyed the Atlanta Games in 1996, but I also know hosting the games has enormous costs and headaches for the locals. It's a chance to shine on the world stage, but it also brings all normal economic activity in your city to a grinding halt for about a month. You end up building a decent amount of infrastructure that will rarely be used to that extent again; there's rarely enough ability to get around the city; and of course, you become a target for terrorism.
Bottom line, this seems like small potatoes for a president with a full plate. As Ed puts it, "Barack Obama has decided to put his international influence on the line not to push for more support in Afghanistan or sanctions on Iran, but to act as Salesman in Chief for Chicago and its Olympics bid for 2016."
The Boxer-Kerry green boondoggle
The Boxer-Kerry green boondoggle
By Michelle Malkin • September 30, 2009 10:37 AM
Expensive eco-hysterics take to the Senate floor today. Democrat Sens. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry are set to unveil their “climate change” plan this morning.
The Institute for Energy Research has posted the two advance drafts of the bill and provides helpful analysis.
Except, of course, for the parts where Boxer and Kerry have inserted numerous placeholders — a phenomenon we saw in the House version of the cap-and-tax bill:
From these drafts it appears that the Boxer-Kerry bill will dramatically increase regulation, provide new entitlements to politically-connected groups, and give corporate rent-seekers a new source of Federal dollars. As a result of Boxer-Kerry, the American people will be forced to endure higher energy prices and onerous regulation.
Apparently, Senators Boxer and Kerry understand the difficulties they will face in passing a cap-and-trade bill this year. It seems that, in order to create leverage to secure more votes, the drafts do not completely spell out how the carbon dioxide allowances will be allocated. Instead the draft bills contain many placeholders…
…After the first draft bill was leaked, and appeared in a story in Greenwire, an updated draft was leaked. This second draft did not contain as many placeholders as the first, instead it gives the EPA Administrator discretion to allocate many of the allowances. This still gives Senators Boxer and Kerry bargaining power to allocate allowances to politically preferred groups.
But it also raises an important question—if Congress needs to act to limit the damage of EPA regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, how is the second Boxer-Kerry draft an improvement over EPA regulation? This is especially important because the Boxer-Kerry draft does not limit EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases using the Clean Air Act.
***
In case you missed Boxer vs. Harry Alford, Round 2, the video is here.
Here’s a round-up of reaction to the “radioactive” Boxer-Kerry proposal.
And via the Green Hell blog, here’s how Boxer’s paying off GE:
Section 821(c) requires that, by December 12, 2012, the EPA set standards for greenhouse gas emissions from “new aircraft and new engines used in new aircraft.”
General Electric is the world’s largest manufacturer of commercial and military jet engines, a business worth about $12 billion in annual revenues.
So the Boxer bill would compel airlines and the military, when purchasing new aircraft and new aircraft engines, to purchase more expensive “green” engines made by GE, according to standards set by the current and GE-lobbied Obama administration.
Keep in mind that GE CEO Jeff Immelt is member of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Council.
By Michelle Malkin • September 30, 2009 10:37 AM
Expensive eco-hysterics take to the Senate floor today. Democrat Sens. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry are set to unveil their “climate change” plan this morning.
The Institute for Energy Research has posted the two advance drafts of the bill and provides helpful analysis.
Except, of course, for the parts where Boxer and Kerry have inserted numerous placeholders — a phenomenon we saw in the House version of the cap-and-tax bill:
From these drafts it appears that the Boxer-Kerry bill will dramatically increase regulation, provide new entitlements to politically-connected groups, and give corporate rent-seekers a new source of Federal dollars. As a result of Boxer-Kerry, the American people will be forced to endure higher energy prices and onerous regulation.
Apparently, Senators Boxer and Kerry understand the difficulties they will face in passing a cap-and-trade bill this year. It seems that, in order to create leverage to secure more votes, the drafts do not completely spell out how the carbon dioxide allowances will be allocated. Instead the draft bills contain many placeholders…
…After the first draft bill was leaked, and appeared in a story in Greenwire, an updated draft was leaked. This second draft did not contain as many placeholders as the first, instead it gives the EPA Administrator discretion to allocate many of the allowances. This still gives Senators Boxer and Kerry bargaining power to allocate allowances to politically preferred groups.
But it also raises an important question—if Congress needs to act to limit the damage of EPA regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, how is the second Boxer-Kerry draft an improvement over EPA regulation? This is especially important because the Boxer-Kerry draft does not limit EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases using the Clean Air Act.
***
In case you missed Boxer vs. Harry Alford, Round 2, the video is here.
Here’s a round-up of reaction to the “radioactive” Boxer-Kerry proposal.
And via the Green Hell blog, here’s how Boxer’s paying off GE:
Section 821(c) requires that, by December 12, 2012, the EPA set standards for greenhouse gas emissions from “new aircraft and new engines used in new aircraft.”
General Electric is the world’s largest manufacturer of commercial and military jet engines, a business worth about $12 billion in annual revenues.
So the Boxer bill would compel airlines and the military, when purchasing new aircraft and new aircraft engines, to purchase more expensive “green” engines made by GE, according to standards set by the current and GE-lobbied Obama administration.
Keep in mind that GE CEO Jeff Immelt is member of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Council.
Preparing for Panic
Preparing for Panic: ACORN, AIG, Cloward-Piven, and assorted coincidences (Updated)
March 22, 2009 by Procrustes
Basic RGBRBO has written a number of times the past months about the interconnectedness of ACORN, SEIU and the other unions, and various entities based on the Cloward-Piven Strategy (more below), to which we can now add AIG.
John Batchelor’s excellent post AIG Kulaks has prompted a wealth of response regarding various aspects of the AIG “situation”, including several items posted in today’s RBO News & Views — The Kulaks Revolt Edition.
But there are a lot more astute observations and insights to be shared. So, read the following, mark them for future reference, and — most and best of all — pass them on.
Investigating “control” and “redistribution” of the wealth
1-1-1-pujo1Turning first to John Batchelor’s article that was originally posted on his blog, Mark Maps remarked in the comments:
And so it begins…the war on capital and excellence and achievement. Those who have “too much” must be brought down because they damage the self-esteem of the underachievers and excite the greed of our political clown-class, the hollow men. Where and when will it end…at the bottom, in a vast grey wasteland, from sea to shining sea…with a wimper, not a bang.
Lou Filliger added:
“So it begins” with the Pujo hearings, 1912. So it continues with the AIG hearings, 2009. The socialists are preparing for the celebration of 100 years of virtually uninterrupted rule in this country. The lie that my parents told me when I was a child that this was a free country, has been the hardest lie to unlearn.
The actual name for the “Pujo hearings” is The Money Trust Investigation, which, in their textbook American Government, James Q. Wilson and John J. DiIulio, Jr. identify as the “Concentration of control of money, and consequently of credit.”
In a corporate governance timeline posted May 22, 2002, at MarketWatch, Jon Friedman wrote:
1912 — Congress holds the Pujo hearings, looking into J. Pierpont Morgan and his bank’s stranglehold over American industry through board representation and financing deals.
According to the Wikipedia article on the history of the Federal Reserve:
The hearings continued for a full year and were led by the Subcommittee’s counsel, Democratic lawyer Samuel Untermyer, who later also assisted in preparing the Federal Reserve Act. The “Pujo hearings” convinced much of the populace that America’s money largely rested in the hands of a select few on Wall Street.
1-1-1-aig-testify1Justin Fox wrote March 6 at TIME about some of the dissimilarities in the handling by Congress of the Pujo and AIG cases:
The 20th century saw two great Congressional inquiries into financial misbehavior—the Pujo hearings of 1912-1913 and the Pecora hearings of 1933-1934. The essential characteristic that both shared, other than their names begin with “P,” was that the questioning was done not by blowhard members of Congress but by very smart New York lawyers hired by Congress: Samuel Untermyer in 1912-1913 (Arsene Pujo of Louisiana was the chairman of the subcommittee that held the hearings, but he let Untermyer do the talking) and Ferdinand Pecora in 1933-1934. So far all we’ve gotten from this crisis are some disappointing hearings where elected officials—most of them with little knowledge and no prosecutorial skills—ask the questions. But both the Pujo and Pecora hearings did come several years after the financial collapses they were meant to investigate (the Panic of 1907 in Pujo’s case, in case you were wondering), meaning that we’ve still got lots of time.
Background on the AIG “juggernaut”
1-1-1-aig1Pundita recommends the three-part series of reports in The Washington Post by staff writers Robert O’Harrow Jr. and Brady Dennis. She comments:
The articles, which could be Pulitzer Prize material, ran from December 29-31, 2008. To my knowledge the best publicly-available background on how AIG became a juggernaut. Beautifully written, also. A joy to read.
o The Beautiful Machine
o A Crack in The System.
o Downgrades and Downfall.
The Cloward-Piven Strategy
1-1-1-cloward-pivenAnother commenter at John Batchelor’s blog, bortog, wrote:
Two left-wing Columbia University professors named Cloward and Piven mapped out the techniques for destroying democracy by overburdening government with spending. Barack Obama was groomed from childhood in this school of thought.
Follow the lineage of American socialism from Cloward-Piven, through Saul Alinsky, to Frank Marshall Davis and his protege, Barack Obama.
Kurt Nimmo, in his March 10 Infowars well-linked and informative article, Obama, the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and the New World Order, linked to Brannon Howse’s March 9 Worldview Radio interview with former White House budget analyst and author James Simpson.
Howse introduces his MP3 podcast with Simpson, “Barack Obama is “Destroying Our Economy on Purpose,” thusly (emphasis added):
Description: A pair of radical Columbia University professors by the name of Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven wrote an article in the radical magazine known as The Nation. The article was published on May 2, 1966 and laid out what is now known as the “Cloward-Piven Strategy”. The plan calls for the destruction of capitalism in America by swelling the welfare rolls to the point of collapsing our economy and then implementing socialism by nationalizing many private institutions. Cloward and Piven studied Saul Alinsky just like Hillary Clinton and President Obama. Listen as Brannon and his guest James Simpson explain how Cloward and Piven inspired the creation of ACORN that Obama worked for as a community organizer. This interview must be e-mailed all over the country. Americans must awaken and understand the goal of these radicals and what is to come if they succeed. Time is of the essence. Obama is not over his head as some have claimed; he knows exactly what he is doing. Understand the Cloward-Piven Strategy, the rules of Saul Alinsky and their Cultural Marxist worldview and you will understand that what is occurring is not by mistake.
DiscoverTheNetworks reports:
Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called “crisis strategy” or “Cloward-Piven Strategy,” as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.
In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.
The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. [...]
Their article called for “cadres of aggressive organizers” to use “demonstrations to create a climate of militancy.” Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of “a federal program of income redistribution,” in the form of a guaranteed living income for all — working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act.
This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements — mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown — providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.
Robert E. Weir writes in his “Class in America” (screenshot from page 616 in Google book):
1-1-1-piven-21-1-1-piven-1
Here you can listen to Frances Fox Piven interviewed February 6, 2008, by Harold Channer:
“Weight of the Poor”
Both DiscoverTheNetworks and Robert Weir, in his “Class in America”, mention that the title for the Cloward-Piven article includes the phrase “weight of the poor.” It should surprise no one that this comes directly from Leon Trotsky, who complained in Chapter 8 of his 1927 “Platform of the Joint Opposition” (emphasis added):
The League of Communist Youth in the country is more and more losing its proletarian and poor peasant support. Its cultural and economic work in the country has for its main object the development of individual farms. The relative weight of the poor is systematically falling everywhere – in the general composition of the rural branches, in the active membership, in the nucleus composed of party members. Along with the continual diminishing of the influx of young town workers, the League is filling up in the countryside with middle and well-off peasant youth.
As in the town, so also in the country the tendency of the petty-bourgeois elements to get hold of the leadership of the League is growing. The group of clerical workers and “miscellaneous” is playing a more and more considerable role, especially in the rural organizations.
But is this not what has happened and continues to happen with Leftie agitator groups such as Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Project Vote, and all the Socialist/Marxist/Communist organizations with which the Unprez and his supporters are affiliated? Membership in these groups is not comprised of “the poor” — they are professionals and college students. SDS alumni such as Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Carl Davidson, Mike Klonsky, and an endless list of aging 1960s radicals who either participated in Weather violence, hence going Underground to escape arrest, or continued along the radical activist path, were then and are now anything but “the poor”. White middle-to-upper class radicals don’t qualify.
For more on Ayers-Dohrn, SDS and Weather, see RBO’s Ayers-Dorhn Resource List; for more on the various Socialist/Marxist/Communist groups, see RBO’s The Obama Socialist/Marxist/Communist Reader.
More Cloward-Simpson and AIG
The following Cloward-Simpson Strategy chart is included in Simpson’s Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis, posted September 28, 2008, at American Thinker.
acorn-network
You can also read Simpson’s articles on the Cloward-Piven Strategy posted at FrontPage.com’s ‘American Daughter’ blog:
* Part I: Manufactured Crisis.
* Part II: Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis.
* Part III: Conspiracy of the Lemmings.
Uppity Woman forwarded the link for Steve Gilbert’s March 21 post Cloward-Piven, ACORN And AIG Witch Hunt at Sweetness & Light, which links back to Gilbert’s previoius posts, The Many Tentacles Of ‘Cloward-Piven’ (which includes the DiscoverTheNetworks profile on Cloward-Piven) and How The Left Is Spinning The Bank Crisis, both also posted March 21.
In the latter-named article, Gilbert opened with:
With the Obama ascendency it is all too easy to be consumed with the rush of news of the latest outrage against our republic. Consequently, we seldom have time to step back and reflect on the larger issues of the day.
So we thought we would take the time to post articles that are not necessarily ripped from the headlines of the day, but which address the more fundamental movements and trends behind them.
Gilbert draws our attention to an unlikely coincidence:
Notice how the people who espouse the ‘Cloward-Piven Strategy’ run like a scarlet thread through the organizations that figure so largely in the housing and banking – and voting – scandals.
Note too how President Obama, a confessed Alinsky acolyte, worked for the Cloward-Piven inspired “Project Vote” project. In fact, it is one of his proudest achievements.
For a good background on Barack “Alinsky” Obama, read RBO’s September 1, 2008, The ever-calculating Barack Obama. Alinsky’s bamboozler, okie-doker, flim-flam man and RBO News & Views for October 8, 2008, All in the Alinsky Family.
Also see Gilbert’s other ACORN-related articles (with many more S&L articles linked at each):
* Obama, ACORN/Project Vote And SEIU, December 10, 2008.
* Obama and ACORN: It’s a power thing, September 16, 2008.
ACORN: It’s much more than voter fraud
Returning to Steve Gilbert’s post re ACORN and AIG, in which he links to DiscoverTheNetworks’ ACORN profile, Gilbert writes:
The DTN article goes into much of the recent voter fraud allegations and convictions involving ACORN. As previously noted, voter fraud is part and parcel of the Cloward-Piven strategy of overwhelming the system. But since they are relatively well-known, we have left those out.
More to the point, as we have chronicled endlessly here at S&L, ACORN was hugely instrumental in the long-term campaign to get banks and savings and loans to give mortgages (and other forms of credit) to people who would not otherwise qualify – and who, it now turns out, could seldom afford them.
Like the NWRO, ACORN has regularly used the Alinsky/Coward-Piven tactics of threatening bank employees with violence, if they did not provide mortgages to their ‘constituents.’
But just to show how completely and utterly shameless they are, as we have previously reported, ACORN itself is now behind the protests against the very people who lent the money for these bad mortgages or who tried to insure these toxic loans.
As we were the first to report March 20, executives of AIG are now being harassed by ACORN foot soldiers in their very homes, via ACORN’s front group the so-called Working Families of Connecticut.
March 22, 2009 by Procrustes
Basic RGBRBO has written a number of times the past months about the interconnectedness of ACORN, SEIU and the other unions, and various entities based on the Cloward-Piven Strategy (more below), to which we can now add AIG.
John Batchelor’s excellent post AIG Kulaks has prompted a wealth of response regarding various aspects of the AIG “situation”, including several items posted in today’s RBO News & Views — The Kulaks Revolt Edition.
But there are a lot more astute observations and insights to be shared. So, read the following, mark them for future reference, and — most and best of all — pass them on.
Investigating “control” and “redistribution” of the wealth
1-1-1-pujo1Turning first to John Batchelor’s article that was originally posted on his blog, Mark Maps remarked in the comments:
And so it begins…the war on capital and excellence and achievement. Those who have “too much” must be brought down because they damage the self-esteem of the underachievers and excite the greed of our political clown-class, the hollow men. Where and when will it end…at the bottom, in a vast grey wasteland, from sea to shining sea…with a wimper, not a bang.
Lou Filliger added:
“So it begins” with the Pujo hearings, 1912. So it continues with the AIG hearings, 2009. The socialists are preparing for the celebration of 100 years of virtually uninterrupted rule in this country. The lie that my parents told me when I was a child that this was a free country, has been the hardest lie to unlearn.
The actual name for the “Pujo hearings” is The Money Trust Investigation, which, in their textbook American Government, James Q. Wilson and John J. DiIulio, Jr. identify as the “Concentration of control of money, and consequently of credit.”
In a corporate governance timeline posted May 22, 2002, at MarketWatch, Jon Friedman wrote:
1912 — Congress holds the Pujo hearings, looking into J. Pierpont Morgan and his bank’s stranglehold over American industry through board representation and financing deals.
According to the Wikipedia article on the history of the Federal Reserve:
The hearings continued for a full year and were led by the Subcommittee’s counsel, Democratic lawyer Samuel Untermyer, who later also assisted in preparing the Federal Reserve Act. The “Pujo hearings” convinced much of the populace that America’s money largely rested in the hands of a select few on Wall Street.
1-1-1-aig-testify1Justin Fox wrote March 6 at TIME about some of the dissimilarities in the handling by Congress of the Pujo and AIG cases:
The 20th century saw two great Congressional inquiries into financial misbehavior—the Pujo hearings of 1912-1913 and the Pecora hearings of 1933-1934. The essential characteristic that both shared, other than their names begin with “P,” was that the questioning was done not by blowhard members of Congress but by very smart New York lawyers hired by Congress: Samuel Untermyer in 1912-1913 (Arsene Pujo of Louisiana was the chairman of the subcommittee that held the hearings, but he let Untermyer do the talking) and Ferdinand Pecora in 1933-1934. So far all we’ve gotten from this crisis are some disappointing hearings where elected officials—most of them with little knowledge and no prosecutorial skills—ask the questions. But both the Pujo and Pecora hearings did come several years after the financial collapses they were meant to investigate (the Panic of 1907 in Pujo’s case, in case you were wondering), meaning that we’ve still got lots of time.
Background on the AIG “juggernaut”
1-1-1-aig1Pundita recommends the three-part series of reports in The Washington Post by staff writers Robert O’Harrow Jr. and Brady Dennis. She comments:
The articles, which could be Pulitzer Prize material, ran from December 29-31, 2008. To my knowledge the best publicly-available background on how AIG became a juggernaut. Beautifully written, also. A joy to read.
o The Beautiful Machine
o A Crack in The System.
o Downgrades and Downfall.
The Cloward-Piven Strategy
1-1-1-cloward-pivenAnother commenter at John Batchelor’s blog, bortog, wrote:
Two left-wing Columbia University professors named Cloward and Piven mapped out the techniques for destroying democracy by overburdening government with spending. Barack Obama was groomed from childhood in this school of thought.
Follow the lineage of American socialism from Cloward-Piven, through Saul Alinsky, to Frank Marshall Davis and his protege, Barack Obama.
Kurt Nimmo, in his March 10 Infowars well-linked and informative article, Obama, the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and the New World Order, linked to Brannon Howse’s March 9 Worldview Radio interview with former White House budget analyst and author James Simpson.
Howse introduces his MP3 podcast with Simpson, “Barack Obama is “Destroying Our Economy on Purpose,” thusly (emphasis added):
Description: A pair of radical Columbia University professors by the name of Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven wrote an article in the radical magazine known as The Nation. The article was published on May 2, 1966 and laid out what is now known as the “Cloward-Piven Strategy”. The plan calls for the destruction of capitalism in America by swelling the welfare rolls to the point of collapsing our economy and then implementing socialism by nationalizing many private institutions. Cloward and Piven studied Saul Alinsky just like Hillary Clinton and President Obama. Listen as Brannon and his guest James Simpson explain how Cloward and Piven inspired the creation of ACORN that Obama worked for as a community organizer. This interview must be e-mailed all over the country. Americans must awaken and understand the goal of these radicals and what is to come if they succeed. Time is of the essence. Obama is not over his head as some have claimed; he knows exactly what he is doing. Understand the Cloward-Piven Strategy, the rules of Saul Alinsky and their Cultural Marxist worldview and you will understand that what is occurring is not by mistake.
DiscoverTheNetworks reports:
Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called “crisis strategy” or “Cloward-Piven Strategy,” as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.
In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.
The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. [...]
Their article called for “cadres of aggressive organizers” to use “demonstrations to create a climate of militancy.” Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of “a federal program of income redistribution,” in the form of a guaranteed living income for all — working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act.
This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements — mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown — providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.
Robert E. Weir writes in his “Class in America” (screenshot from page 616 in Google book):
1-1-1-piven-21-1-1-piven-1
Here you can listen to Frances Fox Piven interviewed February 6, 2008, by Harold Channer:
“Weight of the Poor”
Both DiscoverTheNetworks and Robert Weir, in his “Class in America”, mention that the title for the Cloward-Piven article includes the phrase “weight of the poor.” It should surprise no one that this comes directly from Leon Trotsky, who complained in Chapter 8 of his 1927 “Platform of the Joint Opposition” (emphasis added):
The League of Communist Youth in the country is more and more losing its proletarian and poor peasant support. Its cultural and economic work in the country has for its main object the development of individual farms. The relative weight of the poor is systematically falling everywhere – in the general composition of the rural branches, in the active membership, in the nucleus composed of party members. Along with the continual diminishing of the influx of young town workers, the League is filling up in the countryside with middle and well-off peasant youth.
As in the town, so also in the country the tendency of the petty-bourgeois elements to get hold of the leadership of the League is growing. The group of clerical workers and “miscellaneous” is playing a more and more considerable role, especially in the rural organizations.
But is this not what has happened and continues to happen with Leftie agitator groups such as Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Project Vote, and all the Socialist/Marxist/Communist organizations with which the Unprez and his supporters are affiliated? Membership in these groups is not comprised of “the poor” — they are professionals and college students. SDS alumni such as Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Carl Davidson, Mike Klonsky, and an endless list of aging 1960s radicals who either participated in Weather violence, hence going Underground to escape arrest, or continued along the radical activist path, were then and are now anything but “the poor”. White middle-to-upper class radicals don’t qualify.
For more on Ayers-Dohrn, SDS and Weather, see RBO’s Ayers-Dorhn Resource List; for more on the various Socialist/Marxist/Communist groups, see RBO’s The Obama Socialist/Marxist/Communist Reader.
More Cloward-Simpson and AIG
The following Cloward-Simpson Strategy chart is included in Simpson’s Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis, posted September 28, 2008, at American Thinker.
acorn-network
You can also read Simpson’s articles on the Cloward-Piven Strategy posted at FrontPage.com’s ‘American Daughter’ blog:
* Part I: Manufactured Crisis.
* Part II: Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis.
* Part III: Conspiracy of the Lemmings.
Uppity Woman forwarded the link for Steve Gilbert’s March 21 post Cloward-Piven, ACORN And AIG Witch Hunt at Sweetness & Light, which links back to Gilbert’s previoius posts, The Many Tentacles Of ‘Cloward-Piven’ (which includes the DiscoverTheNetworks profile on Cloward-Piven) and How The Left Is Spinning The Bank Crisis, both also posted March 21.
In the latter-named article, Gilbert opened with:
With the Obama ascendency it is all too easy to be consumed with the rush of news of the latest outrage against our republic. Consequently, we seldom have time to step back and reflect on the larger issues of the day.
So we thought we would take the time to post articles that are not necessarily ripped from the headlines of the day, but which address the more fundamental movements and trends behind them.
Gilbert draws our attention to an unlikely coincidence:
Notice how the people who espouse the ‘Cloward-Piven Strategy’ run like a scarlet thread through the organizations that figure so largely in the housing and banking – and voting – scandals.
Note too how President Obama, a confessed Alinsky acolyte, worked for the Cloward-Piven inspired “Project Vote” project. In fact, it is one of his proudest achievements.
For a good background on Barack “Alinsky” Obama, read RBO’s September 1, 2008, The ever-calculating Barack Obama. Alinsky’s bamboozler, okie-doker, flim-flam man and RBO News & Views for October 8, 2008, All in the Alinsky Family.
Also see Gilbert’s other ACORN-related articles (with many more S&L articles linked at each):
* Obama, ACORN/Project Vote And SEIU, December 10, 2008.
* Obama and ACORN: It’s a power thing, September 16, 2008.
ACORN: It’s much more than voter fraud
Returning to Steve Gilbert’s post re ACORN and AIG, in which he links to DiscoverTheNetworks’ ACORN profile, Gilbert writes:
The DTN article goes into much of the recent voter fraud allegations and convictions involving ACORN. As previously noted, voter fraud is part and parcel of the Cloward-Piven strategy of overwhelming the system. But since they are relatively well-known, we have left those out.
More to the point, as we have chronicled endlessly here at S&L, ACORN was hugely instrumental in the long-term campaign to get banks and savings and loans to give mortgages (and other forms of credit) to people who would not otherwise qualify – and who, it now turns out, could seldom afford them.
Like the NWRO, ACORN has regularly used the Alinsky/Coward-Piven tactics of threatening bank employees with violence, if they did not provide mortgages to their ‘constituents.’
But just to show how completely and utterly shameless they are, as we have previously reported, ACORN itself is now behind the protests against the very people who lent the money for these bad mortgages or who tried to insure these toxic loans.
As we were the first to report March 20, executives of AIG are now being harassed by ACORN foot soldiers in their very homes, via ACORN’s front group the so-called Working Families of Connecticut.
The Cloward/Piven Strategy of Economic Recovery
February 07, 2009
The Cloward/Piven Strategy of Economic Recovery
By Nancy Coppock
Using borrowed money for a band-aid bailout of the economy should seem backwards to most people. However, it likely is a planned strategy to promote radical change. Those naively believing that President Obama is simply rewarding his far-left base, and will then move to the political center, must wise up.
The assumption that Obama will need the nation to prosper in order to protect the 2010 mid-term election incorrectly assumes that he esteems free market capitalism. He does not. Rather than win through superior ideas and policies, the Democrat plan for success in the mid-term elections is to win by destroying political opposition.
Obama adheres to the Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals method of politics, which teaches the dark art of destroying political adversaries. However, that text reveals only one front in the radical left's war against America. The Cloward/Piven Strategy is another method employed by the radical Left to create and manage crisis. This strategy explains Rahm Emanuel's ominous statement, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
The Cloward/Piven Strategy is named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Their goal is to overthrow capitalism by overwhelming the government bureaucracy with entitlement demands. The created crisis provides the impetus to bring about radical political change.
According to Discover the Networks.org:
Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation... [Emphasis added.]
Making an already weak economy even worse is the intent of the Cloward/Piven Strategy. It is imperative that we view the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan's spending on items like food stamps, jobless benefits, and health care through this end goal. This strategy explains why the Democrat plan to "stimulate" the economy involves massive deficit spending projects. It includes billions for ACORN and its subgroups such as SHOP and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Expanding the S-Chip Program through deficit spending in a supposed effort to "save the children" only makes a faltering economy worse.
If Congress were to allow a robust economy, parents would be able to provide for their children themselves by earning and keeping more of their own money. Democrats, quick to not waste a crisis, would consider that a lost opportunity.
The Cato Institute reports that the plan will harm a faltering economy, intentionally causing increased job losses leading to increased demands for the aforementioned programs. Even the jobs to be created are set apart to render social justice, not economic revival. Robert Reich believes new infrastructure jobs should not go to white construction workers. Meanwhile, workers at Microsoft, IBM, Texas Instruments, and the retail market find themselves experiencing the life of the welfare poor.
If highly educated and trained workers continue to lose jobs and business falters as a whole, where will these jobless workers go? Could this be construed as revolutionary social reorganization that puts the underachiever above the achiever? Where is the future economic strength when jobless professionals collect welfare and unemployment while dreaming of a minimum wage job? For whites, there's not even the hope of a good paying construction job.
Because these programs are financed with deficit spending, the effect of the Cloward/Piven Strategy becomes doubly destructive. Talk about a perfect storm! The Democrat stimulus plan is a mechanism whose goal is the destruction of the traditional American way of life. It is bitter irony that the American taxpayer will actually fund the destruction of his own ability to live according to the values of our Founding Documents. It is not alarmist to identify this situation as a coup d'etat.
As the flow of money from the top of the economy dries up, job losses and mortgage busts will mount exponentially. The Democrat stimulus plan provides for welfare expansion but not for a robust economy that creates high paying jobs. Is this what Obama means when he warns, "It's going to get worse before it gets better?" If we are not bailing out corporate America so they can regain profitability, we must conclude Obama is working toward another end goal. Recognizing these attack methods reveals the only logical response -- an unwavering wall of "No!"
Nancy Coppock publishes The Jackalope's Voice.
The Cloward/Piven Strategy of Economic Recovery
By Nancy Coppock
Using borrowed money for a band-aid bailout of the economy should seem backwards to most people. However, it likely is a planned strategy to promote radical change. Those naively believing that President Obama is simply rewarding his far-left base, and will then move to the political center, must wise up.
The assumption that Obama will need the nation to prosper in order to protect the 2010 mid-term election incorrectly assumes that he esteems free market capitalism. He does not. Rather than win through superior ideas and policies, the Democrat plan for success in the mid-term elections is to win by destroying political opposition.
Obama adheres to the Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals method of politics, which teaches the dark art of destroying political adversaries. However, that text reveals only one front in the radical left's war against America. The Cloward/Piven Strategy is another method employed by the radical Left to create and manage crisis. This strategy explains Rahm Emanuel's ominous statement, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
The Cloward/Piven Strategy is named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Their goal is to overthrow capitalism by overwhelming the government bureaucracy with entitlement demands. The created crisis provides the impetus to bring about radical political change.
According to Discover the Networks.org:
Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation... [Emphasis added.]
Making an already weak economy even worse is the intent of the Cloward/Piven Strategy. It is imperative that we view the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan's spending on items like food stamps, jobless benefits, and health care through this end goal. This strategy explains why the Democrat plan to "stimulate" the economy involves massive deficit spending projects. It includes billions for ACORN and its subgroups such as SHOP and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Expanding the S-Chip Program through deficit spending in a supposed effort to "save the children" only makes a faltering economy worse.
If Congress were to allow a robust economy, parents would be able to provide for their children themselves by earning and keeping more of their own money. Democrats, quick to not waste a crisis, would consider that a lost opportunity.
The Cato Institute reports that the plan will harm a faltering economy, intentionally causing increased job losses leading to increased demands for the aforementioned programs. Even the jobs to be created are set apart to render social justice, not economic revival. Robert Reich believes new infrastructure jobs should not go to white construction workers. Meanwhile, workers at Microsoft, IBM, Texas Instruments, and the retail market find themselves experiencing the life of the welfare poor.
If highly educated and trained workers continue to lose jobs and business falters as a whole, where will these jobless workers go? Could this be construed as revolutionary social reorganization that puts the underachiever above the achiever? Where is the future economic strength when jobless professionals collect welfare and unemployment while dreaming of a minimum wage job? For whites, there's not even the hope of a good paying construction job.
Because these programs are financed with deficit spending, the effect of the Cloward/Piven Strategy becomes doubly destructive. Talk about a perfect storm! The Democrat stimulus plan is a mechanism whose goal is the destruction of the traditional American way of life. It is bitter irony that the American taxpayer will actually fund the destruction of his own ability to live according to the values of our Founding Documents. It is not alarmist to identify this situation as a coup d'etat.
As the flow of money from the top of the economy dries up, job losses and mortgage busts will mount exponentially. The Democrat stimulus plan provides for welfare expansion but not for a robust economy that creates high paying jobs. Is this what Obama means when he warns, "It's going to get worse before it gets better?" If we are not bailing out corporate America so they can regain profitability, we must conclude Obama is working toward another end goal. Recognizing these attack methods reveals the only logical response -- an unwavering wall of "No!"
Nancy Coppock publishes The Jackalope's Voice.
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part I: Manufactured Crisis
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part I: Manufactured Crisis
By Jim Simpson | Sunday, August 31st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Liberals self-righteously wrap themselves in the mantle of public spirit. They ardently promote policies promising to deliver the poor and oppressed from their latest misery — policies which can only find solution in the halls of government. But no matter what issue one examines, over the last fifty plus years, the liberal prescription has almost always been a failure.
Why is this so? Why does virtually every liberal scheme result in ever-increasing public spending while conditions seem to get continually worse? There are a number of reasons:
1. The programs usually create adverse incentives. This is especially true in so-called “anti-poverty” programs. The beneficiaries find government subsidies a replacement for, rather than a supplement to, gainful employment and eventually become incapable of supporting themselves. This in turn creates a dependent culture with its attendant toxic behaviors which demand still more government “remedies.”
2. The programs create their own industry, complete with scads of “think tanks” and “experts” who survive on government research grants. These are the aptly named “Beltway Bandits.”
3. They create their own bureaucracies, whose managers conspire with interested members of Congress to continually increase program funding, regardless of merit.
4. Members of Congress secure votes and campaign donations by extorting them from beneficiaries of such programs, either through veiled threats — “vote for me or those mean Republicans will wipe out your benefits” — or promises of still more bennies.
In short, all develop a vested interest in the program’s survival. But if the result is always more and more government, of government, by government, and for government, with no solution in sight, then why do liberals always see government as the solution rather than the problem?
Similarly, liberals use government to promote legislation that imposes mandates on the private sector to provide further benefits for selected groups. But the results are even more disastrous. For example, weighing the laws or stacking the courts to favor unions may provide short term security or higher pay for unionized labor, but has ultimately resulted in the collapse of entire domestic industries.
Another example is health care. The Dems are always trying to impose backdoor socialized medicine with incremental legislation. Why do you suppose American healthcare is in such crisis? Answer: the government has already become too deeply involved. For example, many hospitals are closing their doors because they are overwhelmed with the burden of caring for indigent patients, illegal immigrants and vagrants who must, by law, be admitted like everyone else, despite the fact that they cannot pay for services. Read about it here — Destroying Our Health Care. The net result is reduced availability of care for everyone, exactly the opposite of what liberals claim to want.
To further complicate things, liberal jurists and lawyers have created new theories of liability that utilize the legal system as a means to further redistribute income. This too, has resulted in higher costs and prices in affected industries, higher insurance costs, or in some cases, complete elimination of products or services.
Liberals’ endless pursuit of “rights” for different groups also does little but create increasing divisions in our society. Liberal policy pits old against young, men against women, ethnic and racial groups against one another, even American citizens against illegal aliens, all in the name of “equality.” The only result is anger, tension and equal misery for all.
How does any of this improve our lot?
Finally, when companies relocate overseas to avoid the high cost of unionized labor and heavy domestic regulation, liberals sarcastically excoriate them for “outsourcing” America. Yet, when it comes to certain domestic industries, liberals in Congress suddenly become free marketers and choose to buy from overseas contractors rather than domestic suppliers. This happened most recently with a huge military contract being outrageously awarded to the heavily subsidized European consortium, AIRBUS, over America’s own Boeing. Since liberals claim to be so determined to “save the American worker,” what gives?
You have to take a step further back and ask some fundamental questions. Why is the liberal public policy record one of such unmitigated disaster? I mean, even the worst batter hits one occasionally. No one bats zero. No one that is, except liberals.
Prior to the Republican takeover in Congress in 1994, Democrats had over fifty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress with substantial majorities most of the time. With all the time and money in the world — trillions spent — they couldn’t fix a single thing, not one. Today’s liberal has the same complaints, and the same old tired solutions. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?
Why?
When things go bad all the time, despite the best efforts of all involved, I suggest to you something else is at work — something deeper, more malevolent.
I submit to you that it is not a mistake, the failure is deliberate!
There is a method to the madness, and the method even has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It was first elucidated in the 1960s by a pair of radical leftist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis…. …the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
[Part II of this article will explore those organizations created to implement the Cloward-Piven strategy and their ties to the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama.]
The Complete Cloward-Piven Series
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part I: Manufactured Crisis
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part I — print copy
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part II: Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part II — print copy
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part III: Conspiracy of the Lemmings
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part III — print copy
Hate Crimes Legislation — Back Door Censorship
By Jim Simpson | Sunday, August 31st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Liberals self-righteously wrap themselves in the mantle of public spirit. They ardently promote policies promising to deliver the poor and oppressed from their latest misery — policies which can only find solution in the halls of government. But no matter what issue one examines, over the last fifty plus years, the liberal prescription has almost always been a failure.
Why is this so? Why does virtually every liberal scheme result in ever-increasing public spending while conditions seem to get continually worse? There are a number of reasons:
1. The programs usually create adverse incentives. This is especially true in so-called “anti-poverty” programs. The beneficiaries find government subsidies a replacement for, rather than a supplement to, gainful employment and eventually become incapable of supporting themselves. This in turn creates a dependent culture with its attendant toxic behaviors which demand still more government “remedies.”
2. The programs create their own industry, complete with scads of “think tanks” and “experts” who survive on government research grants. These are the aptly named “Beltway Bandits.”
3. They create their own bureaucracies, whose managers conspire with interested members of Congress to continually increase program funding, regardless of merit.
4. Members of Congress secure votes and campaign donations by extorting them from beneficiaries of such programs, either through veiled threats — “vote for me or those mean Republicans will wipe out your benefits” — or promises of still more bennies.
In short, all develop a vested interest in the program’s survival. But if the result is always more and more government, of government, by government, and for government, with no solution in sight, then why do liberals always see government as the solution rather than the problem?
Similarly, liberals use government to promote legislation that imposes mandates on the private sector to provide further benefits for selected groups. But the results are even more disastrous. For example, weighing the laws or stacking the courts to favor unions may provide short term security or higher pay for unionized labor, but has ultimately resulted in the collapse of entire domestic industries.
Another example is health care. The Dems are always trying to impose backdoor socialized medicine with incremental legislation. Why do you suppose American healthcare is in such crisis? Answer: the government has already become too deeply involved. For example, many hospitals are closing their doors because they are overwhelmed with the burden of caring for indigent patients, illegal immigrants and vagrants who must, by law, be admitted like everyone else, despite the fact that they cannot pay for services. Read about it here — Destroying Our Health Care. The net result is reduced availability of care for everyone, exactly the opposite of what liberals claim to want.
To further complicate things, liberal jurists and lawyers have created new theories of liability that utilize the legal system as a means to further redistribute income. This too, has resulted in higher costs and prices in affected industries, higher insurance costs, or in some cases, complete elimination of products or services.
Liberals’ endless pursuit of “rights” for different groups also does little but create increasing divisions in our society. Liberal policy pits old against young, men against women, ethnic and racial groups against one another, even American citizens against illegal aliens, all in the name of “equality.” The only result is anger, tension and equal misery for all.
How does any of this improve our lot?
Finally, when companies relocate overseas to avoid the high cost of unionized labor and heavy domestic regulation, liberals sarcastically excoriate them for “outsourcing” America. Yet, when it comes to certain domestic industries, liberals in Congress suddenly become free marketers and choose to buy from overseas contractors rather than domestic suppliers. This happened most recently with a huge military contract being outrageously awarded to the heavily subsidized European consortium, AIRBUS, over America’s own Boeing. Since liberals claim to be so determined to “save the American worker,” what gives?
You have to take a step further back and ask some fundamental questions. Why is the liberal public policy record one of such unmitigated disaster? I mean, even the worst batter hits one occasionally. No one bats zero. No one that is, except liberals.
Prior to the Republican takeover in Congress in 1994, Democrats had over fifty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress with substantial majorities most of the time. With all the time and money in the world — trillions spent — they couldn’t fix a single thing, not one. Today’s liberal has the same complaints, and the same old tired solutions. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?
Why?
When things go bad all the time, despite the best efforts of all involved, I suggest to you something else is at work — something deeper, more malevolent.
I submit to you that it is not a mistake, the failure is deliberate!
There is a method to the madness, and the method even has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It was first elucidated in the 1960s by a pair of radical leftist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis…. …the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
[Part II of this article will explore those organizations created to implement the Cloward-Piven strategy and their ties to the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama.]
The Complete Cloward-Piven Series
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part I: Manufactured Crisis
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part I — print copy
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part II: Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part II — print copy
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part III: Conspiracy of the Lemmings
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part III — print copy
Hate Crimes Legislation — Back Door Censorship
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Competition Cure
* AUGUST 23, 2009, 10:55 P.M. ET
The Competition Cure
A better idea to make health insurance affordable everywhere.
"Competition" has become a watchword of Team Obama's push for its health-care bill. Specifically, the Administration has defended its public insurance option as a necessary competitive goad to the private health insurance industry.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius routinely calls for more choice and competition in health care. In his weekly address this past weekend, President Obama raised the issue directly: "The source of a lot of these fears about government-run health care is confusion over what's called the public option. This is one idea among many to provide more competition and choice, especially in the many places around the country where just one insurer thoroughly dominates the marketplace." We take it this refers to a state in which one insurer holds most of the business.
It is no secret that this page is all for competition in the marketplace. If indeed that's the goal, allow us to suggest a path to it that will be a lot easier than erecting the impossible dream of a public option: Let insurance companies sell health-care policies across state lines.
This excellent idea has been before Congress since at least 2005, when Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona proposed it. It came up again recently in an exchange between Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday and John Rother, executive vice president of AARP.
Mr. Wallace: "If you really want competition why not remove the restriction which now says that if I live in Washington, D.C. I've got to buy a D.C. health plan, and instead create a national market for health insurance, so that if there's a cheaper plan in Pennsylvania, I could buy in Pennsylvania?"
Mr. Rother: "There are states and localities where health care is much less expensive than others, and if we allow people to buy all their insurance from those places, it will raise the rates there. And it's called risk selection. It's a real problem, given the fact that health care costs can vary substantially from one place to another. So I think while the idea sounds appealing, the consequence would be it would make health care more expensive for those people who live in those low-cost areas."
How did Mr. Rother arrive at this conclusion?
His claim assumes that what makes insurance expensive in places like New Jersey—where the annual cost of an individual plan for a 25-year-old male in 2006 was $5,880—is merely the higher cost of medical services in the Garden State. He sounds an alarm in the rest of the country by suggesting that an individual living in, say, Kentucky—where an annual plan for a 25-year-old male cost less than $1,000 in 2006—would be asked to subsidize plan members living in high-priced states.
That's not how interstate insurance would work. Devon Herrick, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis who has written extensively on this subject, notes that insurance companies operating nationally would compete nationally. The reason a Kentucky plan written for an individual from New Jersey would save the New Jerseyan money is that New Jersey is highly regulated, with costly mandated benefits and guaranteed access to insurance.
Affordability would improve if consumers could escape states where each policy is loaded with mandates. "If consumers do not want expensive 'Cadillac' health plans that pay for acupuncture, fertility treatments or hairpieces, they could buy from insurers in a state that does not mandate such benefits," Mr. Herrick has written.
A 2008 publication "Consumer Response to a National Marketplace in Individual Insurance," (Parente et al., University of Minnesota) estimated that if individuals in New Jersey could buy health insurance in a national market, 49% more New Jerseyans in the individual and small-group market would have coverage. Competition among states would produce a more rational regulatory environment in all states.
This doesn't mean sick people who have kept up their coverage but are more difficult to insure would be left out. Congressman Shadegg advocates government funding for high-risk pools, noting that their numbers are tiny. The big benefit would come from a market supply of affordable insurance.
Mr. Rother also said "risk selection" is a problem. But the coverage mandates cause that. As more healthy people opt out of health insurance because it is too expensive relative to what they consume, the pool transforms into a group of older, sicker people. Prices go higher still and more healthy people flee. High-mandate states are in what experts call an "adverse selection death spiral."
Interstate competition made the U.S. one of the world's most efficient, consumer driven markets. But health insurance is a glaring exception. When the competition caucus in Team Obama has to look for Plan B, this is it.
The Competition Cure
A better idea to make health insurance affordable everywhere.
"Competition" has become a watchword of Team Obama's push for its health-care bill. Specifically, the Administration has defended its public insurance option as a necessary competitive goad to the private health insurance industry.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius routinely calls for more choice and competition in health care. In his weekly address this past weekend, President Obama raised the issue directly: "The source of a lot of these fears about government-run health care is confusion over what's called the public option. This is one idea among many to provide more competition and choice, especially in the many places around the country where just one insurer thoroughly dominates the marketplace." We take it this refers to a state in which one insurer holds most of the business.
It is no secret that this page is all for competition in the marketplace. If indeed that's the goal, allow us to suggest a path to it that will be a lot easier than erecting the impossible dream of a public option: Let insurance companies sell health-care policies across state lines.
This excellent idea has been before Congress since at least 2005, when Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona proposed it. It came up again recently in an exchange between Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday and John Rother, executive vice president of AARP.
Mr. Wallace: "If you really want competition why not remove the restriction which now says that if I live in Washington, D.C. I've got to buy a D.C. health plan, and instead create a national market for health insurance, so that if there's a cheaper plan in Pennsylvania, I could buy in Pennsylvania?"
Mr. Rother: "There are states and localities where health care is much less expensive than others, and if we allow people to buy all their insurance from those places, it will raise the rates there. And it's called risk selection. It's a real problem, given the fact that health care costs can vary substantially from one place to another. So I think while the idea sounds appealing, the consequence would be it would make health care more expensive for those people who live in those low-cost areas."
How did Mr. Rother arrive at this conclusion?
His claim assumes that what makes insurance expensive in places like New Jersey—where the annual cost of an individual plan for a 25-year-old male in 2006 was $5,880—is merely the higher cost of medical services in the Garden State. He sounds an alarm in the rest of the country by suggesting that an individual living in, say, Kentucky—where an annual plan for a 25-year-old male cost less than $1,000 in 2006—would be asked to subsidize plan members living in high-priced states.
That's not how interstate insurance would work. Devon Herrick, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis who has written extensively on this subject, notes that insurance companies operating nationally would compete nationally. The reason a Kentucky plan written for an individual from New Jersey would save the New Jerseyan money is that New Jersey is highly regulated, with costly mandated benefits and guaranteed access to insurance.
Affordability would improve if consumers could escape states where each policy is loaded with mandates. "If consumers do not want expensive 'Cadillac' health plans that pay for acupuncture, fertility treatments or hairpieces, they could buy from insurers in a state that does not mandate such benefits," Mr. Herrick has written.
A 2008 publication "Consumer Response to a National Marketplace in Individual Insurance," (Parente et al., University of Minnesota) estimated that if individuals in New Jersey could buy health insurance in a national market, 49% more New Jerseyans in the individual and small-group market would have coverage. Competition among states would produce a more rational regulatory environment in all states.
This doesn't mean sick people who have kept up their coverage but are more difficult to insure would be left out. Congressman Shadegg advocates government funding for high-risk pools, noting that their numbers are tiny. The big benefit would come from a market supply of affordable insurance.
Mr. Rother also said "risk selection" is a problem. But the coverage mandates cause that. As more healthy people opt out of health insurance because it is too expensive relative to what they consume, the pool transforms into a group of older, sicker people. Prices go higher still and more healthy people flee. High-mandate states are in what experts call an "adverse selection death spiral."
Interstate competition made the U.S. one of the world's most efficient, consumer driven markets. But health insurance is a glaring exception. When the competition caucus in Team Obama has to look for Plan B, this is it.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Health Care Flow Chart (new and improved)
http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/_files/SFCMarkFlowchart92209.pdf
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
76 Reasons To Have a Gun
So far, Obama's failing miserably
By: Jeremy Lott
September 15, 2009 05:05 AM EST
Jeremy Lott is editor of Capital Research Center’s Labor Watch newsletter and author of “The Warm Bucket Brigade: The Story of the American Vice Presidency.”
When he ran for president, George W. Bush promised to be a modest reformer at home and a humble representative of the United States on the world stage. The Al Qaeda-organized-and-funded terrorist attacks of eight years ago changed all that. During his presidency, Bush created massive new government bureaucracies, sent troops into two wars and threatened more as part of America’s war on terror.
Barack Obama’s initial approach to the office of the presidency has been as grandiose as Bush’s was restrained. It’s not hard to recall that he ran as a transformative candidate, promising sweeping, though somewhat fuzzy, “change” during the campaign.
For the first several months of his presidency, Obama has labored to deliver on that pledge. He pushed a controversial stimulus bill through Congress to help rev up the economy, turned Bush’s reluctant bailout of Chrysler and General Motors into a giant government auto buyout and appointed a record number of “czars” to help regulate bureaucracies in both public and formerly private sectors.
Then, Step 2. Obama is trying to fundamentally alter the American economy by backing sweeping environmental, labor and health care legislation. He wants to change the way Americans consume energy, unionize and see their doctors.
So far, he’s failing miserably. Consider the following:
• Cap-and-trade legislation had to limp over the finish line in the House of Representatives with the help of a few moderate Republicans, who then caught holy unshirted hell from their constituents. Environmental legislation generally has taken a drubbing in public opinion polls when people consider how costly it is.
• The Employee Free Choice Act may be stripped of its “card check” provision in the Senate, which would effectively do away with secret ballots for unionization elections. Even in its watered-down form — which still includes highly objectionable, mandatory, binding so-called gunpoint arbitration and makes no concessions to employers who don’t want to have to prop up teetering union pensions — it might not pass the Senate. And the leadership of the House has refused to touch it until the other chamber has made up its mind.
• On health care, forget the rage set off by private citizen Sarah Palin tweeting about “death panels.” Forget the misleading talk about whether there will be a “public option.” (The ever-evolving plan is one giant public option, folks.) Forget the angry voters who crowded into the town halls during the August recess. Forget that a number of Democratic senators and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are still not willing to sign on to a bill. Right now, even after Obama’s address to the joint session of Congress last week, it’s possible Democrats don’t even have the votes in the House — where they currently enjoy a 77-seat majority.
It’s entirely possible — nay, likely — that Obama will lose on all three big issues. He’ll probably take that personally. As he has pushed for the passage of his reforms, his public approval ratings have taken a beating, and voters have started to trust the Republicans more than his party on a host of issues.
The question that most political handicappers are considering right now is not “Will Republicans make gains at the midterm elections?” but “How large will those gains be?”
What all this means is, barring some unforeseeable world event, Obama’s will probably not be a historic presidency. He will have some successes and a lot of failures. His opposition won’t roll over, and his party will refuse to go along with his more costly, and thus risky, schemes. He won’t coast to reelection.
So Obama now has the chance to be the sort of president Bush would have been if the World Trade Center towers had not come down. Here’s hoping he makes the best of it.
By: Jeremy Lott
September 15, 2009 05:05 AM EST
Jeremy Lott is editor of Capital Research Center’s Labor Watch newsletter and author of “The Warm Bucket Brigade: The Story of the American Vice Presidency.”
When he ran for president, George W. Bush promised to be a modest reformer at home and a humble representative of the United States on the world stage. The Al Qaeda-organized-and-funded terrorist attacks of eight years ago changed all that. During his presidency, Bush created massive new government bureaucracies, sent troops into two wars and threatened more as part of America’s war on terror.
Barack Obama’s initial approach to the office of the presidency has been as grandiose as Bush’s was restrained. It’s not hard to recall that he ran as a transformative candidate, promising sweeping, though somewhat fuzzy, “change” during the campaign.
For the first several months of his presidency, Obama has labored to deliver on that pledge. He pushed a controversial stimulus bill through Congress to help rev up the economy, turned Bush’s reluctant bailout of Chrysler and General Motors into a giant government auto buyout and appointed a record number of “czars” to help regulate bureaucracies in both public and formerly private sectors.
Then, Step 2. Obama is trying to fundamentally alter the American economy by backing sweeping environmental, labor and health care legislation. He wants to change the way Americans consume energy, unionize and see their doctors.
So far, he’s failing miserably. Consider the following:
• Cap-and-trade legislation had to limp over the finish line in the House of Representatives with the help of a few moderate Republicans, who then caught holy unshirted hell from their constituents. Environmental legislation generally has taken a drubbing in public opinion polls when people consider how costly it is.
• The Employee Free Choice Act may be stripped of its “card check” provision in the Senate, which would effectively do away with secret ballots for unionization elections. Even in its watered-down form — which still includes highly objectionable, mandatory, binding so-called gunpoint arbitration and makes no concessions to employers who don’t want to have to prop up teetering union pensions — it might not pass the Senate. And the leadership of the House has refused to touch it until the other chamber has made up its mind.
• On health care, forget the rage set off by private citizen Sarah Palin tweeting about “death panels.” Forget the misleading talk about whether there will be a “public option.” (The ever-evolving plan is one giant public option, folks.) Forget the angry voters who crowded into the town halls during the August recess. Forget that a number of Democratic senators and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are still not willing to sign on to a bill. Right now, even after Obama’s address to the joint session of Congress last week, it’s possible Democrats don’t even have the votes in the House — where they currently enjoy a 77-seat majority.
It’s entirely possible — nay, likely — that Obama will lose on all three big issues. He’ll probably take that personally. As he has pushed for the passage of his reforms, his public approval ratings have taken a beating, and voters have started to trust the Republicans more than his party on a host of issues.
The question that most political handicappers are considering right now is not “Will Republicans make gains at the midterm elections?” but “How large will those gains be?”
What all this means is, barring some unforeseeable world event, Obama’s will probably not be a historic presidency. He will have some successes and a lot of failures. His opposition won’t roll over, and his party will refuse to go along with his more costly, and thus risky, schemes. He won’t coast to reelection.
So Obama now has the chance to be the sort of president Bush would have been if the World Trade Center towers had not come down. Here’s hoping he makes the best of it.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
PresBO's flawed sales job in NY Times
The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By
August 16, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
Why We Need Health Care Reform
By BARACK OBAMA
OUR nation is now engaged in a great debate about the future of health care in America. And over the past few weeks, much of the media attention has been focused on the loudest voices. What we haven’t heard are the voices of the millions upon millions of Americans who quietly struggle every day with a system that often works better for the health-insurance companies than it does for them.
These are people like Lori Hitchcock, whom I met in New Hampshire last week. Lori is currently self-employed and trying to start a business, but because she has hepatitis C, she cannot find an insurance company that will cover her. Another woman testified that an insurance company would not cover illnesses related to her internal organs because of an accident she had when she was 5 years old. A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn’t known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died.
I hear more and more stories like these every single day, and it is why we are acting so urgently to pass health-insurance reform this year. I don’t have to explain to the nearly 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance how important this is. But it’s just as important for Americans who do have health insurance.
There are four main ways the reform we’re proposing will provide more stability and security to every American.
First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job.
Second, reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses and our government. We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits.
Third, by making Medicare more efficient, we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies. This will not only help provide today’s seniors with the benefits they’ve been promised; it will also ensure the long-term health of Medicare for tomorrow’s seniors. And our reforms will also reduce the amount our seniors pay for their prescription drugs.
Lastly, reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable. A 2007 national survey actually shows that insurance companies discriminated against more than 12 million Americans in the previous three years because they had a pre-existing illness or condition. The companies either refused to cover the person, refused to cover a specific illness or condition or charged a higher premium.
We will put an end to these practices. Our reform will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of your medical history. Nor will they be allowed to drop your coverage if you get sick. They will not be able to water down your coverage when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. And we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. No one in America should go broke because they get sick.
Most important, we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups, preventive care and screening tests like mammograms and colonoscopies. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end. It makes sense, it saves lives and it can also save money.
This is what reform is about. If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. You will not be waiting in any lines. This is not about putting the government in charge of your health insurance. I don’t believe anyone should be in charge of your health care decisions but you and your doctor — not government bureaucrats, not insurance companies.
The long and vigorous debate about health care that’s been taking place over the past few months is a good thing. It’s what America’s all about.
But let’s make sure that we talk with one another, and not over one another. We are bound to disagree, but let’s disagree over issues that are real, and not wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that anyone has actually proposed. This is a complicated and critical issue, and it deserves a serious debate.
Despite what we’ve seen on television, I believe that serious debate is taking place at kitchen tables all across America. In the past few years, I’ve received countless letters and questions about health care. Some people are in favor of reform, and others have concerns. But almost everyone understands that something must be done. Almost everyone knows that we must start holding insurance companies accountable and give Americans a greater sense of stability and security when it comes to their health care.
I am confident that when all is said and done, we can forge the consensus we need to achieve this goal. We are already closer to achieving health-insurance reform than we have ever been. We have the American Nurses Association and the American Medical Association on board, because our nation’s nurses and doctors know firsthand how badly we need reform. We have broad agreement in Congress on about 80 percent of what we’re trying to do. And we have an agreement from the drug companies to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. The AARP supports this policy, and agrees with us that reform must happen this year.
In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain. But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing. If we maintain the status quo, we will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day. Premiums will continue to skyrocket. Our deficit will continue to grow. And insurance companies will continue to profit by discriminating against sick people.
That is not a future I want for my children, or for yours. And that is not a future I want for the United States of America.
In the end, this isn’t about politics. This is about people’s lives and livelihoods. This is about people’s businesses. This is about America’s future, and whether we will be able to look back years from now and say that this was the moment when we made the changes we needed, and gave our children a better life. I believe we can, and I believe we will.
Barack Obama is the president of the United States.
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By
August 16, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
Why We Need Health Care Reform
By BARACK OBAMA
OUR nation is now engaged in a great debate about the future of health care in America. And over the past few weeks, much of the media attention has been focused on the loudest voices. What we haven’t heard are the voices of the millions upon millions of Americans who quietly struggle every day with a system that often works better for the health-insurance companies than it does for them.
These are people like Lori Hitchcock, whom I met in New Hampshire last week. Lori is currently self-employed and trying to start a business, but because she has hepatitis C, she cannot find an insurance company that will cover her. Another woman testified that an insurance company would not cover illnesses related to her internal organs because of an accident she had when she was 5 years old. A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn’t known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died.
I hear more and more stories like these every single day, and it is why we are acting so urgently to pass health-insurance reform this year. I don’t have to explain to the nearly 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance how important this is. But it’s just as important for Americans who do have health insurance.
There are four main ways the reform we’re proposing will provide more stability and security to every American.
First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job.
Second, reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses and our government. We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits.
Third, by making Medicare more efficient, we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies. This will not only help provide today’s seniors with the benefits they’ve been promised; it will also ensure the long-term health of Medicare for tomorrow’s seniors. And our reforms will also reduce the amount our seniors pay for their prescription drugs.
Lastly, reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable. A 2007 national survey actually shows that insurance companies discriminated against more than 12 million Americans in the previous three years because they had a pre-existing illness or condition. The companies either refused to cover the person, refused to cover a specific illness or condition or charged a higher premium.
We will put an end to these practices. Our reform will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of your medical history. Nor will they be allowed to drop your coverage if you get sick. They will not be able to water down your coverage when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. And we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. No one in America should go broke because they get sick.
Most important, we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups, preventive care and screening tests like mammograms and colonoscopies. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end. It makes sense, it saves lives and it can also save money.
This is what reform is about. If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. You will not be waiting in any lines. This is not about putting the government in charge of your health insurance. I don’t believe anyone should be in charge of your health care decisions but you and your doctor — not government bureaucrats, not insurance companies.
The long and vigorous debate about health care that’s been taking place over the past few months is a good thing. It’s what America’s all about.
But let’s make sure that we talk with one another, and not over one another. We are bound to disagree, but let’s disagree over issues that are real, and not wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that anyone has actually proposed. This is a complicated and critical issue, and it deserves a serious debate.
Despite what we’ve seen on television, I believe that serious debate is taking place at kitchen tables all across America. In the past few years, I’ve received countless letters and questions about health care. Some people are in favor of reform, and others have concerns. But almost everyone understands that something must be done. Almost everyone knows that we must start holding insurance companies accountable and give Americans a greater sense of stability and security when it comes to their health care.
I am confident that when all is said and done, we can forge the consensus we need to achieve this goal. We are already closer to achieving health-insurance reform than we have ever been. We have the American Nurses Association and the American Medical Association on board, because our nation’s nurses and doctors know firsthand how badly we need reform. We have broad agreement in Congress on about 80 percent of what we’re trying to do. And we have an agreement from the drug companies to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. The AARP supports this policy, and agrees with us that reform must happen this year.
In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain. But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing. If we maintain the status quo, we will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day. Premiums will continue to skyrocket. Our deficit will continue to grow. And insurance companies will continue to profit by discriminating against sick people.
That is not a future I want for my children, or for yours. And that is not a future I want for the United States of America.
In the end, this isn’t about politics. This is about people’s lives and livelihoods. This is about people’s businesses. This is about America’s future, and whether we will be able to look back years from now and say that this was the moment when we made the changes we needed, and gave our children a better life. I believe we can, and I believe we will.
Barack Obama is the president of the United States.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Obamacare constitutionality challenge
How would a challenge be structured to any potential health care law that might be passed? Is it possible to obtain a legal stay until the final outcome is determined? I think this may be a potential way to begin challenging any law that appears to be unconstitutional/unauthorized by the constitution.
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=106694
DOCTOR'S ORDERS
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
'Obamacare:' What does the Constitution have to say?
'This is an issue federal government shouldn't be touching at all'
Posted: August 14, 2009
11:10 pm Eastern
WorldNetDaily
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=106694
Sunday, August 16, 2009
DOCTOR'S ORDERS
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
'Obamacare:' What does the Constitution have to say?
'This is an issue federal government shouldn't be touching at all'
Posted: August 14, 2009
11:10 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
WorldNetDaily
 |
Is a federal government takeover of the health care system constitutional?
Some argue that under the Constitution, Congress is not authorized to regulate or subsidize health care.
Michael Boldin, founder of The Tenth Amendment Center, told WND that if citizens want to understand whether health care is constitutional, they must first understand the function of the Constitution.
"The best way to look at it is that it doesn't apply to you," he said. "It doesn't apply to me. It doesn't apply to any person at all. It applies to the government, and it sets the boundaries of what government is supposed to do."
Enumerated powers
In debating whether health care is constitutional, Boldin said citizens must look to the founding document to 1) determine whether the power is specifically listed there, or 2) if there isn't a specific power listed, look to the "Necessary and Proper Clause," or Article I, Section 8, clause 18.
Article I, Section 8, specifically lists the following powers granted to Congress:
- The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
- To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
- To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Get "Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws" now!
- To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
- To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
- To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
- To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
- To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
- To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
- To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
- To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
- To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
- To provide and maintain a Navy;
- To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
- To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
- To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
- To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof
 Signing of the U.S. Constitution, Sept. 17, 1787 (painting by Howard Chandler Christy, 1937) |
'Necessary and proper'
Boldin said the last power, dubbed the "Necessary and Proper Clause," does not grant the federal government unlimited authority, but gives it some leeway for certain things – only as long as those actions apply directly to the Constitution's specifically enumerated powers.
He said a good example of a necessary and proper power in action is the authority to establish post offices listed in Clause 7.
"Article I Section 8 gives the federal government the power to build post offices," he said. "But it doesn't specifically state that it can go out and buy land to build post offices or hire labor to build post offices. Those actions would be necessary and proper and, more importantly, lesser than the main power. So, if they were only able to create a post office, but they couldn't buy the land or the tools or the labor to do it, they'd never get the post office built."
Boldin continued, "When you think of what is necessary and proper to carry out a specifically listed or enumerated power, it has to meet two criteria: It has to be directly applicable, and it also has to be lesser than the enumerated power."
'General welfare'
 James Madison |
Some critics point to the "general welfare" stipulation in Clause 1 as a key provision granting the federal government the authority to regulate health care. However, in The Federalist No. 41, James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," argued that "general welfare" in Clause 1 does not give the federal government unlimited power, rendering each of the following clauses redundant.
Madison asked rhetorically, "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?
He continued, "Nothing is more natural nor more common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."
Madison sought to address concerns of critics who warned that the "general welfare" clause opened the door to unlimited abuse.
"The Federalist Papers were public arguments to try to convince people to ratify the Constitution," Boldin said. "They weren't just writing about the general welfare clause for the hell of it. There was a real concern by people who were opposed to the Constitution that the general welfare clause would give this unlimited power to the federal government to do whatever it claimed would 'support the general welfare.'"
Referencing the "general welfare" concerns, Madison even accused critics of "labour[ing] for objections" by "stooping to such a misconstruction."
"It wasn't just the opponents of the Constitution saying there had to be limits to this," Boldin noted. "It was the proponents of the Constitution who were saying, in order for it to be general welfare, it must apply to one of the enumerated powers."
No federal authority
Because the power to regulate each citizen's medical care is not included among enumerated powers, he said, the federal government does not have the authority to impose a single-payer system.
"You have to look to the Constitution and ask, 'Is health care listed?'" Boldin said. "No. It's not."
"Is health care directly necessary and proper to carrying out any of the listed powers such as creating post offices and national defense?"
He said critics might argue that to have a good national defense, the United States must make sure that everyone is healthy.
"But that would not fall under any definition of what's considered necessary and proper," he said.
Furthermore, he cited the 10th Amendment, which states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
He said that while the government has overstepped its bounds in many cases and used the federal government in violation of the 10th Amendment, that provision must not be ignored.
"No one has ever repealed the 10th Amendment," he said. "They do it by judicial fiat, but it still exists."
(Story continues below)
'Equal Protection Clause' of 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Some proponents of federal health care have argued that every citizen must be treated equally, and the current health care system is an example of gross inequality that runs contrary to principles of the 14th Amendment. They say wealthy people are able to afford and obtain medical treatment while the less fortunate are left to suffer when they are unable to pay for an operation or treatment.
"That argument would lead to a crazy slope where you could say everyone should have the exact same car," Boldin said. "Then we should have the same guarantee of transportation to get to work, the same guarantee of food and shelter. Should we all have equal homes? I mean, if someone wants to make that argument, they have to make some serious changes to the Constitution to authorize it."
He said regardless of their political affiliation or position on health care, citizens must ask themselves whether they truly want a government that has no limits.
"No matter what side you are on, you don't want a government that can do whatever it wants whenever it wants because it becomes dangerous," Boldin said. "This is what the Founding Fathers and the entire founding generation had to fight against – a king who could set his own rules and make them up as he goes. Rules may not be a wonderful thing, but when you allow government to do whatever it wants, you are guaranteeing tyranny."
Amending the Constitution
Some critics say the Constitution was meant to be a "living document" that would adapt to changing times, and since health care is a modern-day issue the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen, they argue, the federal government must step in and provide a single-payer system.
With regard to the "living document" argument, Boldin said that is what the amendment process is for. However, he said, lawmakers won't propose a health care amendment because they know it will not pass.
"They just don't propose it because, if they did, that would make it a much more serious discussion," he said. "The discussion wouldn't just be about helping the poor people – which is obviously a good motive for the people who really believe that."
He continued, "Instead, the discussion would be about the proper role of the government. Should it be involved in this at all?"
States move to nullify federal health care
Activists and state legislators are now focusing their efforts on state governments as a way to resist federal health care "reform" and stop federal usurpation of state rights, according to the Tenth Amendment Center. Lawmakers in as many as 10 states are considering or seeking to propose bills and resolutions to nullify federal health care in their states.
The Tenth Amendment Center explains nullification:
When a state "nullifies" a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or "non-effective," within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
 Florida state Sen. Carey Baker |
"Nullification goes all the way back to fighting for free speech in 1798 when the federal government passed the Alien and Sedition Acts," Boldin said. "Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions saying, you can't do this; we're not going to abide by this in our states. Jefferson specifically said the people in our country are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government. The same holds true today. We're not subjects."
Recently, the issue of nullification re-emerged when nearly two dozen states mounted a resistance to the 2005 Real ID Act. Maine and Utah led the way by passing resolutions to refuse incorporation of federal security features into state driver's licenses and identification cards. After meeting fierce state resistance to its plans, the federal government delayed implementation twice and later announced it would "repeal and replace" the controversial law.
"The federal government wasn't able to do anything," Boldin said. "It wasn't able to threaten – nothing. It had to back off, and now it's getting rid of it."
 Florida state Rep. Scott Plakon |
Now states have turned their attention toward nullification of federal health care "reform" should it pass Congress this year.
On July 27, Florida State Sen. Carey Baker and State Rep. Scott Plakon filed H.J.R. 37, a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prevent Florida citizens from being affected by federal health "reform."
The proposed amendment prohibits "laws or rules from compelling any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system" and permits "a health care provider to accept direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services."
It also exempts "persons, employers, and health care providers from penalties and fines for paying or accepting direct payment for lawful health care services" and permits the "purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems. …"
If approved by the state legislature, Florida residents may vote on the amendment in 2010.
Likewise, the state of Arizona has joined the growing resistance to federal health "reform."
 Arizona state Rep Nancy Barto |
On June 22, the Arizona state Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve H.C.R. 2014, known as the Health Care Freedom Act. Arizona residents will vote on the amendment sponsored by Arizona Rep. Nancy Barto in 2010.
This week, Louisiana state Rep. Kirk Talbot announced he will propose a constitutional amendment to shield state residents from federal health "reform."
Louisiana's health chief, Alan Levine, told The Advocate that the legal debate should get interesting.
"The 10th amendment to the Constitution ensures states have the right to conduct their affairs except for those things specifically ascribed to the federal government," he said. "Health care is not one of those things the federal government has the 'right' to impose on states."
 Louisiana state Rep. Kirk Talbot |
Boldin confirmed that The Tenth Amendment Center has been in contact with sources in seven other states that have indicated their legislatures will see similar health care nullifications as early as 2010.
In a July interview with the Mark Davis Show, Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicated that his state may join the showdown with the White House over federal health care.
"I think you'll hear states and governors standing up and saying 'no' to this type of encroachment on the states with their health care," Perry said. "My hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I'm certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats."
Boldin said he expects the movement to grow as people realize they can take their concerns to their own state governments
"Once the ball gets rolling, I think people will recognize that you can bang your head on the federal doorstep year in and year out and fail because they don't listen to us in D.C.," he said.
"This is what Jefferson, Madison and most of the founders recommended – this idea that there's a balance of government. When the federal government gets out of control, you have to look to your state governments to protect you against it."
He referenced the recent surge in protests at health care town hall meetings across the nation.
"If these were all focused on state governments, we would probably see 10 or 20 nullification bills in states already," he said. "And the health care program would be dead in the water."
Ultimately, Boldin said, it's not up to the federal government to provide health care for the nation.
"This is an issue that the federal government shouldn't be touching at all."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
