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.

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.