Last week the House passed one of the most contentious and potentially the most expensive legislation for all Americans in the history of our country.

The "Cap & Trade" or "Energy Stimulus" bill passed at the behest and direction of newly inaugurated president (small "p" until that birth certificate is produced) Barack Obama.  Obama lobbied heavily on the House Democrats to pass this centerpiece legislation for his "green jobs," agenda.  Although if history is any indication, there will be more loss of jobs than gains due to this legislation.

After all, Congress has been handing out corporate welfare to the energy and petro companies for literally decades for their research and development costs in order to promote cleaner forms of fuel and energy.  And where has that gotten us?

Nowhere, but has made a bundle for the banks and financiers on Wall Street and shareholders of those energy companies and concerns.  As most likely will this fiasco of a bill.

You see, part of the "global economy" plan for this "globally planned" agenda is that the certificates for carbon credits can be exchanged or sold so that companies that are not in compliance can "buy their way" out of their violation.

And with the profits these companies are making on their products and services due to their favored status with Congressional members, who truly believes that this will "stimulate" green jobs and searches for alternative fuels?  Not most rational and sane adults, anyway.

Simply addressing the lack of insulation and "chicken wire and stucco" homes that are now being built by the large national and global builders would reduce energy consumption around the world in a matter of months.  And eliminate the need for some of those nuclear power plants that are also quite pricey, and then involve more taxpayer costs in order to protect those generators from both internal and external meltdowns.

The building of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station outside of Phoenix, Arizona in the last several decades certainly did not reduce energy costs to local residents.  Nor did it reduce the pollution in any significant matter, since the fact is the Phoenix area is now populated by refugees mostly from other states, and also those literally missions of non-Americans using the state as either a place of commerce, or secondary income source working for the drug cartels.

It was interesting to note that last Friday as the "Cap and Trade" bill was being voted and amendment up to the final hour and vote Friday evening, the website for the House Energy Committee posted a notice stating that due to the amount of emails that they were receiving, the website was shut down until further notice.

As with the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act," it appears the new modus operandi for the sanctuary on the Hill is to "officially" pass unconstitutional legislation in only one house of Congress, and then either hold it in the hopper or pass it without any media attention during a "diversionary" story in the other.  And then fund some of those "unofficially" passed bills as if they were the force of law through the various regulatory bodies.

To my knowledge, the memos Ms. Napolitano sent out and the Fusion Centers which are being used to train local law enforcement on these crimes of "perception of intent" have been funded by Congress, although the bill under which such authority would be granted has yet to be passed by the Senate.

Maybe this is self-preservation in order to save face and political careers, and also as a protection against any and all charges of treason or "high crimes and misdemeanors" that could or would be applicable under the circumstances.

Another rather open ended bill was introduced also this session having to do with cybersecurity, the "Cybersecurity Act of 2009," in which Congress was going to authorize the executive office to have final say and jurisdiction regarding the shutdown of the internet and governmental service providers in the event of cyber-attack.

The language was so open ended it afforded the president ultimate authority in such an event of by including not only the event of an outside or foreign bug or virus, but "for other reasons."

I wonder if the shutdown of the House Energy Commissions website last Friday was determined by the president to be one of those "other reasons."

After all, Mr. Obama excels at making apologies for this country and its  citizens, and since this was truly a bi-partisan act of treason with presidential support, it would appear that such language was interpreted by those lawyers both within and employed by members of Congress to be within the broad scope of "and for other reasons."

And the most ironic thing about the entire "Cap and Trade" scam further amalgamating the U.S. economy and government with that of the "global community" (global socialism) is that it was passed one week before Independence Day.

A day I predict will live in infamy for our children, and great grandchildren as the greatest act of treason under the existing law of this country, America's Constitution.

A celebration in this country honoring the founders sacrifice in severing their ties and bonds with the global community.  Whether intentional or not, a slap in the face of those founders, and all Americans who value their sacrifice and their intention to form a "more perfect union" apart from any foreign influence.

This, America, is your transparent and accountable government.

As Congress this week ponders the new "global warming" and energy bills, some thoughts and points that have long troubled me with this "scam" on the public might be of interest to some of the more aware Americans clued in on Washington's continued psychotic agendas:

Who manufactures the gadgets that are going to measure these "greenhouse gases?"  Do they come with a warranty, and who is the government contractor who will be awarded the contracts for all the science based theory technology.

So far, science hasn't been able to predict the weather accurately, so again how accurate are these estimates?  And when there is a "normal" cyclical change, is the EPA and the honchos on the Hill going to now take credit for becoming "masters of the universe," in controlling the weather?  Harnessing energy, controlling the weather, find a cure for cancer, populating the moon, developing "new forms" of energy - and a meteor hits the planet long before the Hollywood scenario in all its HDR resonance ever occurs.

It appears either these scientists, who still haven't found the cure for the common cold, after all, for now over 2,000 years might be biting off more than they can chew. Or simply the 21st century versions of P.T. Barnum, with Congress even more clueless than the public has already pretty much determined as of late, and may need those shrinks in order to determine if narcissm and self-delusion are symptomatic of holding public office.

While everyone keeps send money for AIDS research in order to find a cure, don't you find it strange that those expensive miracle drugs to treat the symptoms arrived on the scene about three years after the first diagnosis, and a lawsuit then ensued for over 10 long years in order to extend the patent for those pharmaceutical companies (since patents don't run until any dispute over ownership is settled) with two companies now splitting the proceeds on Inferon and the other spinoffs? 

The patents expire in 2017, and I hope I live long enough to see whether a "cure" then will suddenly be discovered, or whether they will then bleed the generic market dry while getting grants annually still "working" on a cure, since it is viral and we sure came up with that "swine flu mix" vaccine and had some on hand, conveniently, through the WHO "donations" as soon as that new "strain" was announced. Sort of makes you wonders, since AIDS has now become an industry also all its own with all the Hollywood benefits, by those open borders "blue" liberals, and even the "red" state liberals due to their big industry benefactors of the AIDS outbreak.  AIDS became actually the best method of birth control, and stimulus for the latex industry and Dow Chemical ever.

And each "threat level" scare a stimulus for the medical industry.  It does seem that the terrorism that occurs to Americans now is at a level unprecedented in this country, and not as with the border issue, the major threats don't at all seem to be from a small Middle Eastern terrorist sect, that we did, after all, even train in their guerilla tactics.  

So per the 9/11 report and those "facts," it would appear Giulianni's outrage at the blamelessness of Washington for 9/11 does seem rather ludicrous - although Hillary's claim about America's "insatiable" need for drugs is actually also due to both governmental terrorism (at this point who wouldn't want to zone out for some relief) and also negligence.

But instead we'll give Mexico Black Hawk Helicopters (that will eventually be used to America's overall detriment by the cartels or Mexico), and a choice of all terrain vehicles now over the GM Pathfinders, new Hummers.

Hey, we were all just forcefed digital for the industries profits now forcing Americans to literally have to pay for the airwaves, so it mustn't seem such a leap in now taxing our very breath, and with all those towers and sonar equipment now outdated for "sciences" benefit not even given an "offset" credit.

The liberal lefty loonies have done it again in the U.S., and amazed that the state of our nation has now come to this.

According to Yahoo News and several other news sources, at a recent symposium held in London by 20 pre-eminent Nobel laureates and attended by the Prince of Wales, Barack Obama's new energy czar, Steven Chu, made his contribution to the global warming non-phenomena now sweeping the globe in order to "stimulate" the economies of the science and technology fields:

Mr. Chu recommends that all roofs be painted energy-reflective white.

In the article he further states that making roads and roofs a paler color would have the effect of taking every car off the road for 11 years.

I wonder if he ever worked for DuPont?

As a former Arizona resident, I can unequivocally state that painting roofs white might not be a bad idea given the sweltering summers in that desert climate.  However, due to the desert dust storms and monsoons, those roofs would be brown, gray or even black within a few seasons.  Not to mention the extra-strength prescription Ray-Bans you would need during the summer in order not to suffer the equivalent of snow blindness.

I wonder if these noted laureates took into consideration that with all those white roofs, would it not increase the heat also that would be reflected back toward the sun, potentially burning out that star well before its time and leaving this planet then in total darkness?

Maybe that topic is for the next global summit.

I wonder what the carbon footprints for those attending the meeting, and whether they flew by prop or British Airways non-stop jumbo jet?  With the state of our technology as it is now, you would think twenty scientists could meet via telecom or satellite communications, and spare the rest of the world that excess carbon.

At least the White House and Capitol are in compliance, but it appears socializing exterior roofing is now also not even beyond the reach of these global politicians and world leaders at this point.

It has been interesting to watch and listen to the "new" political party, global socialists,  (who spread on both sides of the American political aisle in the form of Dems or Republicans) and their rhetoric with respect to global warming, and the emphasis now on "Going Green," in the new Obama Admnistration.

At this point, I'm simply wondering if this new cause celebre out of Hollywood and the Globalist Party is the same as the Green Movement of the 60's.  The ones that were responsible for "saving the trees" and all that, who have now merged our two party system now into one focused on the "global economy" and "global free trade" for their corporate and personal interests. 

Those now responsible for the wildfires in California, North and Southwest and the timber waste and devastation continuing forty years later in dense, overgrown forests that are set off by lightening, or even static electricity, and then burn and destroy thousands of acres because the trees are now so dense that the flames spread out of control within a few short minutes.

Of course then abandoning their homes while still wet from their dip in their pools or spas - during, of course, the worst drought conditions in many years.  And battling Arizona, a desert state, over water whose forests also have suffered severe wildfires in the last several years due to those same "save the trees"  60's Greeners in that state.

The ones that prevented the timber and lumber industry from cutting down some of those trees, or even buying some of that land in order that "nature" was preserved in it's pristine state.

The ones that would bend over backward in order to "save the animals," castrated George W. Bush (although his presidency will go down in infamy due to his own liberalism with the Constitution), yet seem to be blinded to just how far Mr. Obama has strayed from his campaign rhetoric, and his minions sliding the cash over to those bankers who also were instrumental in funding his own campaign - and was instrumental in getting that bank bailout bill passed back in September.

The ones who fought for "cleaner fuel" and energy also in the 60's, but who didn't want those "ugly" wind towers in their own backyards due to the fact that the towers ruined their view of nature in all it's glory.

The ones who push for electric cars, but heaven forbid we build a nuclear power plant in order to upgrade the technology which would be needed to "Go Green" with electrically powered automobiles in this country in the amounts that would be necessary.

The ones who hold office on the Hill, yet fly their private jets and make unnecessary trips to foreign nations when they could be "Going Green" by using faxes and teleconferences in this blighted economy.

Just how many trips to Mexico and how many U.S. federal officials are needed in order to appraise the U.S. border situation?

Especially since the head of DHS is the former Governor or Arizona and should by now have enough information with respect to the declining border situation to fill twenty or thirty volumes on her recyclable paper.  After all, she is one of those on the Hill that is primarily responsible for this situation escalating due to her negligence in supporting the needed fencing that would curtail the drug trafficking to begin with.

The cartels do not cross at the ports of entry, so those new gadgets Ms. Napolitano is buying with the stimulus monies will have no effect whatsoever on the problem.

With Mexico blaming the U.S. for the ammo in which these cartels are equiping themselves, you would think that Mexico - if it was truly interested in stopping these drug cartel members - would actually be supportive of getting those borders fenced and secured so they could contain the problem.

The caliber and amount of guns with which the cartels are now armed could not have been smuggled through the ports of entry without assistance from Mexico's customs agents themselves.  It's a little hard to hide heavy artillery, even in a Humvee.

Instead of "green" fencing, we are equipping the Mexican government with high octane Black Hawks to fight their war, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.

Now they've even figured out a way to tax the air we breathe.  Its called a "carbon tax."  It's for the good of the planet, and Washington's wallet in order to spread more of America's generosity throughout the world, even while it's citizens continue to lose their jobs and homes left and right due to Washington's generosity on behalf of the American people (without, of course, their consent, i.e., taxation without representation).

I think I've figured out the type of "green" the new party, global liberals, actually mean when they use the term.  Finally.

U.S. dinero. Americanos dollars.

Go green.

It has been interesting to watch and listen to the "new" political party, global socialists,  (who spread on both sides of the American political aisle in the form of Dems or Republicans) and their rhetoric with respect to global warming, and the emphasis now on "Going Green," in the new Obama Admnistration.

At this point, I'm simply wondering if this new cause celebre out of Hollywood and the Globalist Party is the same as the Green Movement of the 60's.  The ones that were responsible for "saving the trees" and all that, who have now merged our two party system now into one focused on the "global economy" and "global free trade" for their corporate and personal interests. 

Those now responsible for the wildfires in California, North and Southwest and the timber waste and devastation continuing forty years later in dense, overgrown forests that are set off by lightening, or even static electricity, and then burn and destroy thousands of acres because the trees are now so dense that the flames spread out of control within a few short minutes.

Of course then abandoning their homes while still wet from their dip in their pools or spas - during, of course, the worst drought conditions in many years.  And battling Arizona, a desert state, over water whose forests also have suffered severe wildfires in the last several years due to those same "save the trees"  60's Greeners in that state.

The ones that prevented the timber and lumber industry from cutting down some of those trees, or even buying some of that land in order that "nature" was preserved in it's pristine state.

The ones that would bend over backward in order to "save the animals," castrated George W. Bush (although his presidency will go down in infamy due to his own liberalism with the Constitution), yet seem to be blinded to just how far Mr. Obama has strayed from his campaign rhetoric, and his minions sliding the cash over to those bankers who also were instrumental in funding his own campaign - and was instrumental in getting that bank bailout bill passed back in September.

The ones who fought for "cleaner fuel" and energy also in the 60's, but who didn't want those "ugly" wind towers in their own backyards due to the fact that the towers ruined their view of nature in all it's glory.

The ones who push for electric cars, but heaven forbid we build a nuclear power plant in order to upgrade the technology which would be needed to "Go Green" with electrically powered automobiles in this country in the amounts that would be necessary.

The ones who hold office on the Hill, yet fly their private jets and make unnecessary trips to foreign nations when they could be "Going Green" by using faxes and teleconferences in this blighted economy.

Just how many trips to Mexico and how many U.S. federal officials are needed in order to appraise the U.S. border situation?

Especially since the head of DHS is the former Governor or Arizona and should by now have enough information with respect to the declining border situation to fill twenty or thirty volumes on her recyclable paper.  After all, she is one of those on the Hill that is primarily responsible for this situation escalating due to her negligence in supporting the needed fencing that would curtail the drug trafficking to begin with.

The cartels do not cross at the ports of entry, so those new gadgets Ms. Napolitano is buying with the stimulus monies will have no effect whatsoever on the problem.

With Mexico blaming the U.S. for the ammo in which these cartels are equiping themselves, you would think that Mexico - if it was truly interested in stopping these drug cartel members - would actually be supportive of getting those borders fenced and secured so they could contain the problem.

The caliber and amount of guns with which the cartels are now armed could not have been smuggled through the ports of entry without assistance from Mexico's customs agents themselves.  It's a little hard to hide heavy artillery, even in a Humvee.

Instead of "green" fencing, we are equipping the Mexican government with high octane Black Hawks to fight their war, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.

Now they've even figured out a way to tax the air we breathe.  Its called a "carbon tax."  It's for the good of the planet, and Washington's wallet in order to spread more of America's generosity throughout the world, even while it's citizens continue to lose their jobs and homes left and right due to Washington's generosity on behalf of the American people (without, of course, their consent, i.e., taxation without representation).

I think I've figured out the type of "green" the new party, global liberals, actually mean when they use the term.  Finally.

U.S. dinero. Americanos dollars.

Go green.