The Founding Fathers handed the citizens of the new America a republic, that is, a government where the supreme power rests in the hands of those legal citizens who can vote, a government of and by the people who through their power of the vote elect representatives. Have we kept it?

James Madison wrote:”To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical [highly unrealistic] idea.”

George Washington knew what government was all about when he said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Thomas Jefferson, who was adept at discerning the thoughts and intents of men, wrote: “A nation, as a society, forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society.”

And George Washington from his life’s journey understood what the influence of money and power can bring: “Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder.”

Today, it is the highest bidder that is at the root of corruption that threatens the foundation of our great nation. Every American plays a role whether they know it or not. Are you a sympathizer, an activist, a fanatic or one of the many uninformed, easily swayed by the direction the wind blows?

Eric Hoffer, author of “The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements”, tells of the nature of humans and the techniques involved in recruiting the masses, often blindly, to carry out the mission of the high bidder. He wrote:

“All mass movements generate in their adherents a readiness to die and a proclivity for united action; all of them, irrespective of the doctrine they preach, and the program they project, breed fanaticism, enthusiasm, fervent hope, hatred and intolerance; all of them are capable of releasing a powerful flow of activity in certain departments of life; all of them demand blind faith and singlehearted allegiance.

All movements however different in doctrine and aspiration, draw their early adherence from the same types of humanity; they all appeal to the same types of minds.” At first they come gently. With power they speak and act boldly.

Hoffer believed that it mattered not under what banner one might exercise their sympathy, activism or fanaticism, it was the same “types of minds” that flocked to a movement. I contend that those looking for blind-faith followers need only to pick the right subject that fits the needy. We see this everyday in animal rights, environmentalism, global warming or any mass movement, such as “Going Green” that appeals to the senses and plays on emotions, paving the way for the same “types of minds” to blindly follow.

The masses mindlessly follow, drawn by their strings of emotions expertly pulled on by the leaders of the doctrine; unaware and perhaps uncaring as to who or what leads them. Needs dismantle sensibility. Emotions overpowering.

Few grasp the real doctrine they are eager to give allegiance to, seemingly more interested in self-gratifying actions that might ease one’s restless sleep. Blind emotions combined with a diminished sense of virtue can steer people in many directions, unwittingly playing into the hands of powers seldom seen, more often unrecognized, uncaring as the small world about them seems unblemished.

The same “types of minds” allow for the manipulative control by the larger powers. How innocent it may seem to save an owl, clean up our water, limit our air pollution, save the planet or simply go green. It’s the corruption hidden behind the superficial crusade that is most troublesome and seldom exposed……at least until now.

A Washington Examiner Special Report notes that when Carl Pope worked for the Sierra Club as the Executive Director, he said, “environmentalism is part of a broader progressive movement.”

What once began as a simple and seemingly innocent desire by some to change our stewardship of our natural resources, has turned into a multi-billion dollar corrupt business that too few people in this country are even aware of. Giving a dollar here and a dollar there, carrying banners, volunteering time, all believing in working toward something good, when in reality the same “types of minds” have lined the pockets of people like Al Gore.

Mark Hemingway writes of Al Gore: “Perhaps the most well-known environmental leader in the country, and for good reason. The author of “Earth in the Balance,” star of “An Inconvenient Truth,” and organizer of the Live Earth concert has done more than any individual to raise awareness of global warming claims. And, since he’s walked away from politics, book sales, speaking fees and his role as an environmental investment adviser have made him hundreds of millions of dollars.”

And he is only one of many manipulating the same “types of minds” to achieve financial reward. This must be part of the “broader progressive movement” Carl Pope referred to.

While the same “types of minds” are giving money and time to save the planet, the “broader progressive movement” has little actual concern about saving anything, except enough money and power for themselves.

Are you ignorant of these movements? Are you clueless but give anyway? Perhaps you are one who sympathizes with those who play on your emotions and you bite into the premise that we all should do a little something? Maybe you’re a real activist or a full fledged fanatic.

Regardless of what you are or think you are, I’m sorry to say you are one of those same “types of minds”. You and your children are being played like a well worn fiddle and you probably don’t even know it.

Tom Remington

“Cap-and-trade is a central part of Obama’s war on fossil fuels,” said Borelli. “Obama has partnered with his big business allies including GE, Duke Energy and Johnson and Johnson to advance his global warming policy. Obama may push for a cap-and-trade bill to be passed during the lame duck session of Congress even though this policy is unpopular with Americans and it will harm the economy through high energy prices. The partnership between big government and big businesses threatens our liberty.”

The rally portion of the March on D.C., organized by FreedomWorks, is scheduled to start at 2:00 PM eastern on the West Front Lawn of the U.S. Capitol. The Free Enterprise Project is a program of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Borelli has taken on some of America’s biggest business leaders — including the heads of General Electric, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, Johnson and Johnson and PG&E — because of their support of a cap-and-trade energy policy.

Most recently, a joint ad campaign undertaken by the National Center for Public Policy Research and FreedomWorks was credited with helping force heavy-equipment manufacturer Deere and Company to withdraw from the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of businesses and radical environmental groups lobbying for cap-and-trade regulations.

The Free Enterprise Project is also calling on the public to sign a petition calling on GE CEO Jeff Immelt to resign due to his lobbying for economically risky Obama Administration initiatives and simultaneously running the MSNBC news network. The petition can be found at http://www.bigbusinesswatch.com.

“Tea party activists are just as mad at corporate America as they are with politicians who are selling out their freedom,” said Borelli. “Tea partiers want CEOs to be held accountable for trying to make a buck at the cost of people’s liberty and economic futures.”

Washington, D.C. – Responding to President Obama’s speech on the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, The National Center for Public Policy Research is calling attention to BP’s role in pushing Obama’s cap-and-trade energy policy.

BP was a founding member of the United States Climate Action Partnership – a lobbying coalition that played a key role in passing the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill that passed the House of Representatives last year and the company also played a role in negotiating the terms of the Kerry-Lieberman bill recently introduced in the Senate.

“It’s ironic that Obama is touting legislation inspired by BP. While Obama criticized the oil industry’s influence over its regulators he failed to mention the role BP was playing in influencing the president’s cherished cap-and-trade legislation,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D. Director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project.

“Maybe in addition to the tragedy in the Gulf, Obama and Hayward will discuss cap-and-trade legislative strategy when they meet,” added Tom Borelli.

According to The Hill, “Hayward indicated he was encouraged by the effort by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) to write compromise climate legislation.” Other media outlets reported on BP’s effort to improve the elements of the bill.

Senator Kerry also mentioned BP as one of the companies that supports his cap-and-trade bill.

“Given BP’s incompetence and its awful record with environmental and safety matters, it’s outrageous elected officials allow the company to influence legislation. Maybe if BP spent less time and money in lobbying and more on safety we would not be suffering from this environmental disaster,” said Deneen Borelli, fellow with Project 21.

“The public should demand that the ‘BP Bill’ should be soundly rejected by the Senate. It’s outrageous that elected officials are bashing BP in public while they seek their advice in private,” said Deneen Borelli.

Deneen Borelli also commented on Obama downplaying the cost of cap-and-trade to Americans. During the presidential campaign Obama said, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers.”

Last night Obama minimized the cost saying, “Now, there are costs associated with this transition.”

“It’s shocking the degree to which Obama is misleading the American people about the cost of cap-and-trade. Obama’s priorities are with his progressive ideology and not with the interests of ‘we the people,’” Deneen Borelli said.

Photo from fOTOGLIF

Concerns over PG&E Lobbying for Cap-and-Trade Spurred Investor Action

Washington, DC: The fate of a Political Contributions Shareholder Proposal being offered by Shelton Ehrich at the PG&E shareholder meeting Wednesday is being carefully monitored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, which applauds efforts to bring greater transparency to corporate political giving.

Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center for Public Policy Research‘s Free Enterprise Project, says, “All Americans would benefit from greater transparency regarding corporate political giving. According to the proposal, in 2008 alone, PG&E spent over $27 million lobbying for such things as cap-and-trade, an expensive global warming-related policy scheme that would enrich a handful of corporations while raising consumer prices and driving our jobs overseas.”

PG&E is a member of the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) – a lobbying coalition of corporations and environmental activist groups who are seeking a national law to limit carbon dioxide emissions. USCAP played a key role in passing the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill in the House of Representatives last year. Other USCAP members include troubled companies such as BP, GM and Chrysler.

Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) are expected to introduce a Senate version of a cap-and-trade bill this week.

“With California’s unemployment rate at 12.5 percent, the state can’t afford cap-and-trade. Tragically, PG&E is trying to bring President Obama’s cap-and-trade dream to reality, despite the economic cost. Recall Obama said during his presidential campaign, ‘Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,’” said Deneen Borelli, full-time fellow of Project 21.

Economic studies on cap-and-trade have consistently found this regulatory regime would result in higher energy prices and slower economic growth.

PG&E’s annual shareholder meeting will be held May 12 at 10:00 AM PT at the San Ramon Valley Conference Center, 3301 Crow Canyon Road, San Ramon, California.

Mr. Ehrlich is expected to present the proposal at the meeting.

Washington, DC: Duke Energy’s Support of President Obama’s Cap-and-Trade Policy to Be Challenged by Stockholders at Company Shareholder Meetings Thursday

Policy experts from the National Center for Public Policy Research are attending Duke Energy’s annual shareholder meeting Thursday to challenge the company’s aggressive support of President Obama’s cap-and-trade policy.

Duke Energy is a member of the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) – a lobbying coalition of corporations and environmental activist groups who are seeking a national law to limit carbon dioxide emissions. USCAP played a key role in passing the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill in the House of Representatives last year. Other USCAP members include troubled companies such as BP, GM and Chrysler.

Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project, will be presenting shareholder proposal 4: “Shareholder Proposal Related to Preparation of a Report on Duke Energy Corporation’s Global Warming-Related Lobbying Activities,” on behalf of Shelton Ehrlich, an individual shareholder.

“Shareholders have a right to know how much of company assets are being dedicated to lobbying efforts for a law that will result in higher energy prices and slower economic growth. Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers has gone all in – that is – put all of the company’s chips on passing cap-and-trade,” said Tom Borelli.

“It’s special interest politics at its worst. It seems Duke Energy will be rewarded with potentially billions of dollars of carbon credits in exchange for the company’s lobbying effort. However, gambling Duke’s future on the value of carbon dioxide – a naturally occurring gas with no intrinsic value – exposes shareholders to significant risk,” added Tom Borelli

“Duke Energy is trying to bring President Obama’s cap-and-trade dream to reality, despite the economic cost. Recall Obama said during his presidential campaign, ‘Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,’ said Deneen Borelli, full-time fellow of Project 21.

“Cap-and-trade is an example of the coordinated effort of big business and big government pursuing their agendas. Obama establishes a massive government program to control energy and big business hopes to make a quick buck while Americans pay for it all in terms of higher energy prices,” added Deneen Borelli.

Deneen and Tom Borelli will be representing the National Center for Public Policy Research, which owns Duke Energy stock, at its annual meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Pfizer CEO Says Sums Given to PhRMA for ObamaCare Lobbying “Not Available” to Him; Volunteers that ObamaCare is “Reasonably Consistent” with Principles Pfizer Advocated

Washington, DC: Johnson & Johnson Chairman and CEO William C. Weldon agreed Thursday to disclose the exact amount his company gave to the drug lobby group PhRMA to promote ObamaCare, while Pfizer CEO Jeff Kindler said ObamaCare legislation adopted by Congress is “reasonably consistent with the principles we advocated” in the health care debate.

These responses and others came in response to questions from Dr. Tom Borelli, Deneen Borelli and Justin Danhof of the National Center for Public Policy Research, who inquired about the companies’ justification for supporting the unpopular legislation through the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) lobby group. Johnson & Johnson was also asked about its support for controversial cap-and-trade legislation through its membership in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) lobby.

The National Center for Public Policy Research owns Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer stock.

“The drug industry was largely responsible for passage of ObamaCare. Shareholders and consumers of Johnson & Johnson products have a right to know how much of their money was contributed to the $150 million ad campaign that its trade group used to advertise Obama’s plan,” said Dr. Borelli, director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project. “Johnson & Johnson consumers who oppose ObamaCare should take note on how their money was used against their values.”

“In August 2009, the New York Times reported that PhRMA and the drug industry authorized its lobbyists to spend $150 million to advertise and promote ObamaCare. When I asked Pfizer Chairman and CEO Jeff Kindler how much of this was Pfizer money, Mr. Kindler ducked the question, but when I asked him if Pfizer would suffer a backlash from its support of the President health care bill, he volunteered that the health care legislation adopted is “not perfect, but, by and large, the bill that emerged was reasonably consistent with the principles we advocated.”

In response to Dr. Borelli, Johnson & Johnson Chairman Weldon said, in part, “[w]e feel that there are things that would be very good for the people of America that are in ObamaCare…” Weldon also said extra dues were assessed from Johnson & Johnson and other PhRMA members to promote ObamaCare, and that “somebody could get that” exact amount to Borelli.

Weldon also said, “I don’t think there is any reputational damage” due to the company’s lobbying for ObamaCare’s passage.

Responding to another National Center for Public Policy Research question, from Deneen Borelli, full-time fellow of the National Center-sponsored Project 21 African-American leadership group, Weldon defended Johnson & Johnson’s continued support of the lobbying efforts of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) to enact “cap-and-trade” emissions regulations, which are expected to raise consumer prices and destroy jobs domestically.

Mrs. Borelli had pointed out to Weldon that “you have a roomful of wonderful senior citizens who are most likely on [a] fixed income” and that “consumers will most likely not be able to afford your premium products” as a result of cap-and-trade’s effects on the economy. Weldon said Johnson & Johnson has saved money thanks to the company’s conversion to “alternative sources” of energy and said the company philosophy is “the health of people is tied directly to the environment.” He did not, however, address the company’s membership in USCAP directly.

“It’s clear Johnson & Johnson is acting like an agent for President Obama,” said Mrs. Borelli. “In addition to playing a major role in passing ObamaCare, Johnson & Johnson is also effectively lobbying for the President’s cap-and-trade energy policy through USCAP. The public should hold Johnson & Johnson CEO William C. Weldon responsible for his role in diminishing our liberties. Not only will the quality of our health care suffer, but — should cap-and-trade pass — we are going to bear the burden of higher energy prices and reduced disposable income.”

Audio recordings of the exchanges are available on the SunnyDayAmerica YouTube Channel. A transcript is available at http://www.nationalcenter.org/PfizerJJ042210.pdf.

1. When it gets hot outside, people are quicker to anger.

2. People go outside more when the weather is warmer leading to social interaction which could lead to more violence.

3. Changes in weather patterns could lead to poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition making people more violent.

4. People being forced upon one another because of extreme weather events could lead people to be violent.

5. Too much warmth, could make too many people violent which could lead to genocide and war.

You might just be reading here and thinking to yourself (hopefully not getting violent because you’re too hot), what’s the big deal. These five things are probably somewhat true and could possibly happen. I concur. The thing is, why did we have to waste money on a study to conclude what most half-intelligent people have known since, like, forever? When there’s no escape from prolonged heat and humidity, people don’t sleep well, they get irritable and we all know that this could lead to anger over silly things.

The foolishness of all this is that the entire premise is built around fear mongering that global warming, read man-made, is and will cause all of these things to happen.

I think it is unfortunate that National Geographic chose to make this a story on their website. First because it’s borderline a bizarre story but secondly, that they chose to reference the 2007 Report from the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. That same report that has recently been determined to be a bunch of junk and a pack of lies. These same studies also fall back on global temperature data that has also been determined to be worthless. So why keep up the charade?

Simple really! If such a report is done, let’s say a report designed to reach a desired conclusion, in this case more violence among humans, then such a report can be used for leverage and political gain. We all know that Algore wants us all to believe the sky is falling. He wants to scare the hell out of people any way he can. What better way than to convince them that if the globe warms your neighbor is going to appear on your doorstep and blow your brains out. It’s not enough that we are all going to drown from all the melting ice.

But this is only one reason. Consider the political leverage that someone or some group might gain if they can successfully convince people that because of global warming there are more parents fighting at Little League games, or more aggressive driving, increase in domestic violence, or it makes Republicans or Tea Party members more violent.

Is it a mere coincidence that this seemingly ridiculous report surfaces at the exact same time that Obama and his robots are trying to demonize the right saying they are becoming violent in opposition to his health care bill?

Yeah, I know! Think what you will.

Photo from fOTOGLIF

Even though Phil Jones, the professor at the center of the controversy, admits that he refused to release data requested through FOIA, he claims he wasn’t required to by law because the information being requested was already available through other public resources. But the real puzzling admission from Jones is what he said about sharing his research.

He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites.

And he claimed it was not ‘standard practice’ to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

‘I don’t think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way,’ he said.

What makes the scientific community tick and maintain credibility is sharing of information and the peer review process. If it is “standard practice” to withhold data, then is peer review worth the price of a grain of salt? It would seem not, thus relegating much of scientific research invalid.

One scientific research center, the Institute of Physics, says:

Unless the disclosed emails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research and for the credibility of the scientific method.

‘The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.’

Whether one is a believer or a doubter of man-made global warming, this admission by Jones and what the emails have exposed should be extremely troublesome. A domino effect seems to be happening as well with admissions of errors and shoddy work coming from other individuals and organizations closely related to the CRU. We now must wait until the investigation runs its course in order to assess the entire damage done.

From this point forward, with what we have now learned, it is a ridiculous notion to think much stock would be placed on the so-called, “Settled Science” of climate change.

Tom Remington

Photo from fOTOGLIF

Challenge Part of a Comprehensive “Pro-Liberty” Strategy to Combat CEOs Who Seek to Profit from Big Government

Washington, D.C.: John Deere executives were challenged at its annual stockholder meeting by representatives of the National Center for Public Policy Research Wednesday. The confrontation came over John Deere’s membership in the pro-cap-and-trade lobby group the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), and John Deere’s support for cap-and-trade legislation.

Tom Borelli, director of The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project, and Deneen Borelli, a full-time fellow of the National Center’s Project 21 leadership group for conservative African-Americans, asked John Deere CEO Samuel Allen to justify the company’s lobbying for climate restrictions that would hurt the company’s customers, stockholders, and the U.S. economic climate generally.

They also warned Allen that in light of new SEC guidance on disclosure of climate change-related risk, a failure to fully disclose the business risk of cap-and-trade legislation could expose the company to lawsuits.

Allen defended the company’s involvement, claiming farmers could benefit from cap-and-trade. (The Obama Administration argues farmers would benefit from federal government “allowance revenues” under cap-and-trade, while others, including the anti-cap-and-trade American Farm Bureau, say cap-and-trade “will mean higher fuel and fertilizer costs, which puts [U.S. farmers] at a competitive disadvantage in international markets with other countries that do not have similar carbon emission restrictions.”)

Deneen Borelli sees the risk of a “green bubble” even if some farmers were to profit from government emissions credits as the Obama Administration argues: “I’m outraged by Allen’s justification of the trading aspect of carbon credits where farmers could potentially benefit. Given our current economy, the last thing we need is to expose farmers and the country to another Wall Street risky derivatives trading scheme.”

Tom Borelli adds: “Allen dismissed the American Farm Bureau’s opposition to cap-and-trade by glibly saying other groups support the legislation. It’s a bad sign for investors when a CEO is so out of touch with his customer base.”

The Borellis have attended the stockholder meetings of other USCAP members, getting Caterpillar CEO James Owens to admit to his stockholders that his company had not done a cost-benefit analysis of the costs of cap-and-trade before lobbying for it.

The National Center for Public Policy Research in 2007 organized a letter signed by some 70 national organizations and prominent individuals, including a former U.S. attorney general, calling on Caterpillar to withdraw from USCAP.

Caterpillar withdrew from USCAP this year.

An audiotape of the Borellis’ questioning of General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt during GE’s 2009 annual stockholder meeting drew significant cable and print media coverage after GE cut off the microphone of Deneen Borelli and a likeminded questioner. In the hubhub that followed, LA Weekly reported that GE’s Immelt “personally issued a GE ban” on advertising with the parent company of the Hollywood Reporter, which had covered the stockholder meeting story extensively.

In an article published by FoxNews.com on Wednesday, Tom Borelli explained the National Center’s strategy in challenging these and other CEOs directly: “CEOs see big bucks in big government… Because CEOs can represent as much of a risk to liberty as elected officials, limited government advocates need a voice in the boardroom.”