Governments Find Another Way To Tax Us Using The Climate Change Excuse

Climate change is another excuse to tax us

Posted on October 28, 2014 by Sovereign Society

This article originally appeared on The Sovereign Investor on Oct. 8.

Climate change is not as real as they say it is, but the push to combat it is growing stronger than ever.

The last weekend of September, hundreds of thousands of people marched in New York City, proclaiming a call to action that we must address the crisis surrounding climate change. The demonstration coincided with a meeting at the United Nations to discuss how countries can come together to combat temperature fluctuations, hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, blizzards and other forces of nature.

The theory behind climate change is that man’s production of carbon dioxide and methane is responsible for changes in the weather and climate. But the theory — while a sincere effort by some to protect the global environment — is muddied by misinformation, misinterpretation, ideology and, most importantly, money.

Of course, it’s not just the folks who believe that the apocalypse of global warming is near who are guilty of distorting science to further their cause. The people on the other side of the fence, whether for personal or political reasons, also spout off about stuff they have no comprehension of.

However, there’s one thing the protesters managed to accomplish — and it will affect both you and me.

A much-needed definition of ‘climate’

Climate change — formerly known as global warming until that title became inconvenient — is one of the prime items on the Obama Administration’s agenda. After all, climate change has a strong activist base that is solidly behind the idea that taxes will solve the problem.

Sure, that’s good politics — but politics are, after all, just a game. And this particular game reminds me of two kids on the playground wrestling in the dirt and yelling at the top of their lungs. Amid the commotion, they can’t hear what the other is saying; and they both misuse terminology in a desperate effort to come out on top.

And one of the biggest areas of misinterpretation — and one that irritates me dearly as a meteorologist — is over what climate actually is.

In all the noise over a heating planet and carbon emissions and man-made global deterioration, we’ve forgotten as a society that climate is not weather and, therefore, fundamentally different from the concept of a heating planet.

“Climate” refers to the long-term atmospheric conditions prevailing over a specific region. When a weather condition predominates for an extended period of time (usually a few decades or more), it sets the climate for that region.

Another way of looking at it is this: Short-term “weather” does not determine climate. The California drought has been a short-term weather event. The polar vortex? Short-term weather event. This year’s lack of hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean? Again, short-term weather event.

If these events last another 20 years and, thereby, establish themselves as the normal weather conditions of their respective regions, then we may be able to consider them leading causes in climate shift. The polar vortex and the lack of Atlantic Ocean hurricanes indicate nothing about the climate because they are caused by weather patterns specific to this year.

So let’s be clear: While it’s very compelling to attribute these very spectacular weather patterns to climate change, they are doing nothing of the sort.

We affect climate, but not how they say we do

Most of the weather patterns we see are driven by natural phenomena, not some interference by mankind. Cycles like El Niño control weather patterns across the Northern Hemisphere by circulating temperatures in the ocean and atmosphere. And volcanic eruptions have a history of changing the weather around the world by spewing sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere, blocking energy from the sun.

That said, there is no doubt that man has influenced climate — just not in the ways we get worked up about and summon armies of protesters for.

The Great Plains was once a great sea of long and short grass that held moisture in the soil — that is, until agriculture tore up the grassland, releasing great quantities of soil moisture into the air. And the industrialization of cities has spread concrete and asphalt across great swaths of land that were once forest and grass.

Changing the way we use land is a way we have influenced climate, but I did not hear demonstrators demand New York City return to its original pre-Peter Stuyvesant condition.

Still, at the heart of the matter is a noble pursuit. The People’s Climate March in New York City brought to the forefront, once again, the fact that plenty of people are concerned about protecting the planet — even if a certain lack of conviction was evident from the fact that the march caused cars to be stuck in traffic for two hours or more, pumping exhaust into the air. Not to mention all the plastic cups and empty water bottles the city had to clean up afterward and probably dump into a landfill.

But there were some suspicious details regarding the U.N. Climate Summit that coincided with the protest.

The hidden agenda

Notably absent from the U.N. talks were China and India, two growing economies. They both know that a drastic cut in carbon emissions will slow economic growth in their respective nations.

But they also understand the real point behind all these world leaders coming together to address the issue of climate.

New York Times bestselling author Naomi Klein’s most recent book, “This Changes Everything,” lays it out on the table: Rein in the principles of a free market that drive corporate power — even though this is what drives economies — in order to combat climate change. And the ultimate destination for implementing this: taxes. Taxes to curtail corporations that are “destroying the planet” in order to save the planet from mankind.

And that’s the real agenda behind climate change: Find something else to tax so governments can either continue their spending habits or begin combating their debt.

And what better stage to build this tax upon than a movement that summons nearly 400,000 people to New York City, all of whom demand we do something about climate change. Governments will likely use the queue to begin working on a new system of taxes to “remediate” the “problem.”

And what will that look like?

Carbon taxes will be imposed upon corporations charged with releasing too many emissions into the atmosphere. And instead of absorbing the blow, the consumer will likely feel the brunt of those taxes.

But wealth taxes are also likely to be implemented — under the justification that the more you own and the more you do, you’re probably releasing more carbon emissions into the air than the average person.

Exactly how a redistribution of your wealth will stop the climate from varying is beyond me. But, hopefully, either the planet will cool or we will get over this hullabaloo about climate change faster than world governments can tax us into oblivion.

There’s a silver lining in every cloud.

–Chris Orr
Editor, Weather Trader

Will The Middle Class Take Out Their Anger At The Democrats In November? Or Will There Be A Surprise In October?

The Rage And Revenge Of The Middle Class

August 14, 2014 by Wayne Allyn Root 

 358 69

 

 18 896

Hi. I’m Wayne Allyn Root of Personal Liberty. Barack Obama and the Democrats are facing a disaster at the voting booth in November. His ratings have hit all-time lows. Seventy percent of the public believes America is headed in the wrong direction.

Polls rate Obama the worst president since World War II — lower than even Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter.

And Obamacare also rates at all-time lows. Remarkably it just experienced one of the biggest month-to-month opinion drops in the history of polling.

Yet Obama and his Kool-Aid-drinking Democratic supporters are so ideological, delusional and out of touch with middle-class America, they don’t understand why this is happening.

My new book, “The Murder of the Middle Class,” is about how America and our greatest middle-class asset (the middle class) are being destroyed from within.

It is important to know this murder is not just due to misguided, inept or amateurish policies. It is a deliberate, purposeful and planned destruction. Every day, the middle class sees their jobs being destroyed and replaced by low-wage, part-time jobs and/or government checks. Every day, their bills for gasoline, electricity, groceries and health insurance go up. Every day, their job prospects, income and assets go down.

Little by little, the proud middle class is being forced to grovel for government checks or subsidies just to survive. It is not happening by accident, mistake or coincidence. This is a purposeful plan, and it is succeeding. How do I know? I was Obama’s college classmate at Columbia University, where we studied this exact plan that he has been implementing for the past six years.

It took a while, but middle-class Americans are finally realizing that with friends like Obama, who needs enemies? They’re finally learning to watch what Obama does, not what he says. The middle class is finally understanding that when Obama says he wants to “save” the middle class, the proper reaction is to reach for our wallets.

What made the light bulb go off? What turned the middle class against Obama? In a word: Obamacare. The reason is simple. Obamacare is no longer a theory in a campaign speech. America’s middle class is now living and experiencing Obamacare.

Here’s a story that sums up what is happening in the real world — outside Washington, D.C. I landed at the airport last week and hailed a cab. With no prodding, and as cab drivers are prone to do, the taxi driver wanted to vent. About what? Obamacare. He believes Obamacare has ruined his life. His words, not mine.

This taxi driver had just heard from his insurance agent. He and his wife are in their late 40s. They just found out their premium will double starting Jan. 1. But that’s only the start of their pain. Their co-pay is tripling from $10 per doctor visit to $30. Their surgery coverage is going from 90 percent to only 80 percent. And their deductible is doubling from $500 to $1,000. Add it up and this middle-class couple faces a tripling of healthcare expenses.

The reason, of course, is because Obamacare demands this middle-aged couple pay to cover pregnancy, prenatal care, sex change surgery and abortions — none of which they’ll ever need in his remaining lifetime. And, of course, the middle class has to pay double or triple to cover the costs of 30 million poor people receiving Obamacare free.

While I don’t know if this cabbie understood the reasons why his healthcare costs were tripling, he certainly understands the effect these dramatic Obamacare cost increases will have on his middle-class lifestyle. It will destroy it.

He also clearly understands his options. He said his options are to:

• Go without health insurance (now against the law) and pray no one in his family gets sick.
• Or declare bankruptcy, give up his home in foreclosure, and move into a small apartment.
• Or quit his job and live on the government dole.

These are the choices left for middle-class Americans because of Obamacare.

My personal story is similar. Before Obamacare, my family’s health insurance was $500 per month. Today, it’s $1,700 per month (but about to get much worse). Aetna just canceled my policy (effective Jan. 1). I’ve never been sick. They blamed it on the mandates and costs of Obamacare.

Will the new policy be $2,500 per month? $3,000? How high can it go? Few small-business owners can afford $30,000 or more per year for health insurance. This is a disaster. This is financial ruin. As small business owners like me close our businesses or lay off employees to pay for Obamacare, that’s the death of full-time jobs in America.

This is the murder of the middle class. This same story is playing out across America. The middle class is being financially murdered, and they know it. It’s hitting their pocketbooks hard. While many of us conservative pundits predicted it, the cat is now out of the bag. Obamacare is no longer a theory on paper or political lies at a campaign rally. Obamacare is the law. People are experiencing it, and it is destroying middle-class lives from coast to coast.

So finally, the slumbering giant has awakened. The middle class understands the truth: Obamacare isn’t helping us. Obamacare is our enemy. We now know Obama committed fraud when he said, “If you like your insurance, you can keep it.” We know he lied when he said our prices would go down. We know he lied when he said our quality of care would not go down. We know he lied when he said we could keep our current doctors. We know he lied when he said Obamacare would help the economy. We know he lied when he said it wouldn’t kill jobs. We now know that Obamacare is the death of our middle-class quality of life.

But that was the plan all along. It was never about improving healthcare. It was always about income redistribution to shift the cost to the middle class. It was always about making the middle class poor and dependent on government.

Yes, Obama has been successful in his purposeful plan to murder the middle class. But wait until he sees what we’re going to do to him and his Democratic allies in November. The middle class is enraged like never before. And we will have our revenge.

I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. See you next week. God bless America.

Now We Are Being Warned --Either Redistribute Income Or Something Bad Will Happen.

Journalist: Americans Should Embrace Wealth Redistribution Or There Will Be Blood

May 23, 2014 by Sam Rolley

 22 23

 0 121

A journalist who has published a new work focused on American income inequality believes that the U.S. had better embrace wealth redistribution or prepare for a revolution that will be “the bloodiest thing the world has even seen.”

Pulitzer-prize winning journalist David Cay Johnston put together “Divided: The Perils of Our Growing Income Inequality” to increase focus on income inequality, a favorite Democrat talking point.

The collection of essays, speeches and excerpts is described by the liberal blog Salon as a “kind of inequality reader.” In a lengthy interview with the blog, Johnston lends insight to the thinking behind the left’s championing of forced wealth redistribution.

Because the 99 percent might do something more intense than wrecking parks, getting pepper sprayed and playing bongos next time:

We will either, through peaceful, rational means, go back to a system that does not take from the many to give to the few in all these subtle ways, or we will end up like 18th century France. And if we end up in that awful condition, it will be the bloodiest thing the world has even seen. So I think it’s really important to get a handle on this inequality. After all, since the end of the Great Recession, one-third of all income increases in this country went to just 16,000 households, 95 percent of it went to the top 1 percent, and the bottom 90 percent’s incomes fell, and they fell by 15 percent. So we need to recognize that there is a very, very serious problem here that has to get addressed. But it won’t just go on forever because if you follow that to its logical absurdity, one person ends up with 90 percent of the wealth in the world. And that’s not going to happen.

A couple things to note: The happenings in 18^th century France were largely the result of governance not very unlike that touted by big government proponents in America today.

As the Cato Institute puts it, “The French state engaged in wars throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. To pay for the wars, it employed complex and burdensome taxation, tax farming, borrowing, debt repudiation and forced ‘disgorgement’ from the financiers, and debasement of the currency.”

As you read on, you’ll note that the journalist means to say **insert any Communist revolt here**.

But, the journalist added:

While I certainly am worried that we could end up in a violent revolution somewhere in the future, sparked by extreme inequality,  I’m [an] indictable optimist and believe that [if] the American people have access to explanations and information they will, over the long run, make smart choices.

Because Guns! And (no doubt he means conservative) Demagogues! And Non-Intellectuals!:

Oh, yes. I’ve written about people on the far right and the far left since the ’60s. Back in the ’60s, I was in the homes of people who built bombs, both left and right. And we live in a country now where we have members of Congress who have either questioned, or ignored questions about, killing the president of the United States. We are seeing all these laws passed allowing people to carry guns openly. We are coming apart as a society, and inequality is right at the core of that. When the 90 percent are getting worse off and they’re trying to figure out what happened, they’re not people like me who get to spend four or five hours a day studying these things and then writing about them — they’re people who have to make a living and get through life. And they’re going to be swayed by demagogues and filled with fear about the other, rather than bringing us together.

Of course: The 2^nd Amendment isn’t really a recent development.

Yep, He Meant Conservatives:

I think it would be easy for someone to arrive in the near future and really create forces that would lead to trouble in this country. And you see people who, they’re not the leaders to pull it off, but we have suggestions that the president should be killed, that he’s not an American, that Texas can secede, that states can ignore federal law, and these are things that don’t lack for antecedents in America  history but they’re clearly on the rise. In addition to that, we have this large, very well-funded news organization that is premised on misconstruing facts and telling lies, Faux News (formerly Fox News), that is creating, in a large segment of the population — somewhere around one-fifth and one-fourth of it — belief in all sorts of things that are detrimental to our well-being. President Theodore Roosevelt said we shall all rise together or we shall all fall together, and we need to have an appreciation of that.

Yes, other outlets certainly do a better job with no nonsense reporting… and hiring accomplished straight-news talking heads:

The Answer… Democrats, Unions, Bigger Government:

Number one, we’ve got to change the makeup of Congress. The Democrats got 1.4 million more votes than the Republicans [in 2010] but they have a minority [in Congress] because of gerrymandering. So we need to have state legislatures — and we may need a constitutional amendment to make districts evenly divided between the parties — that will get us more centrist candidates rather than extremists on both left and right.

Secondly, we’ve got to restore unions. If you believe in market economics, you’ve gotta believe in unions. Now, unions aren’t perfect, but neither are corporations, or the government or, for god’s sake, the clergy. Unions allow people as a group to negotiate for reasonable pay, and without unions you have big corporations, and individuals who have no bargaining power, such as a lot of unemployed workers. Our competitors all have unions. The Germans even have unions for executives. So we need to get back to unions if we’re going to improve people’s economics.

We need to have a big enough government to enforce the law. We have not prosecuted any of the “too big to fail” banks and we have a president who has said, Well, these things look awful, but they may not be crimes. I’m sorry — the banks falsely certified documents … there are plenty of witnesses who have emails and memos they wrote and can testify that they said that this is illegal and wrong and they were told to shut up or were gotten rid of.

To be fair, these are excerpts. The journalist does actually make a few good points on some of the issues covered— the operative word being few. Feel free to read the full interview at Salon.

Summary Of ObamaCrapCare--An Easy To Understand Explanation

Here is the 2700 page Obama Care condensed to 4 sentences..... As it seems to be working, this is according to plan! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1. In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to un-insure the insured. 2. Next, we require the newly un-insured to be re-insured. 3. To re-insure the newly un-insured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured. 4. The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became un-insured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original un-insured can be insured, free of charge to them. (This is called "redistribution of wealth" . or, by its more common name, SOCIALISM.)