It is time that you know, if you do not already, about the estimated $15 trillion scheme that is Cap and Trade. What is it, and how is it going to affect us if passed into law? Well, Cap and Trade is a bill that, according to its advocates, will drastically improve the “crisis” of global warming by reducing carbon output throughout the United States. However, its adversaries realize that this is not the intent of progressives footing this bill (which by the way includes our current President). Instead, Cap and Trade is an organized attempt at redistribution of wealth from you the taxpayer to the progressive agencies and politicians who are lucky enough to be in the “in-crowd” at the White House.

In this article you will see how Cap and Trade accomplishes this feat, and who exactly is benefiting from it. It is highly important that we get this information out to as many as possible, so I ask that you click on the “share” button underneath this article and post it to your twitter, facebook, myspace or any other social networking website listed that suits you. Furthermore, I challenge you to look up everything I say and determine for yourself to see if the arguments that I present to you are reliable. After all, if you are debating with a progressive over the effects of Cap and Trade, you need to be able to provide a better defense than “because Glenn Beck or Teens for Liberty said so”.

As I said before, Cap and Trade is disguised as a bill that will reduce carbon output throughout the States. This will supposedly be done by allowing the creation and trading of “carbon credits” between factories in the US. These credits represent carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. Thus, the more credits, the more carbon dioxide you are allowed to put into the atmosphere. However, if this was really about saving the planet then there would be no allowing of the trading of these credits between factories.

Furthermore, the Cap and Trade legislation, if passed, will enforce regulations on gas emissions by forcing companies that emit more gas to give money to companies that emit less gas (Marxism!), all the while providing the Marxists with a get rich quick fix.

In order for this scheme to work, the progressives need a market for their “carbon credits”. Since they are selling imaginary items, they need to set up a market specifically for those items because no existing market will sell them. Enter the Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation, on whose Board of Directors President Barrack Obama served in 2000 and 2001 gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”

Now that the progressives have set up a market for their invisible products, they are in need of investors who will buy into the CCX. Not surprisingly, Al Gore’s company Generation Investment Management is one of the ones to buy into the CCX. Another company to pitch in is Goldman Sachs with the purchase of 10% of the Exchange.It is my opinion that the public trials of Goldman Sachs are just a distraction from the real deal. Goldman Sachs is posing as a scapegoat for Cap and Trade in order to get a piece of the multi trillion dollar pie as an end result.

So now that they have the market and some people who will buy into it, they are going to need the technology to run their new market.

Not to worry, here comes Franklin Reins, former CEO of Fannie Mae, who purchases the patent on November 7th, 2006. November 7th being the day following the Democrat’s take over of Congress. No doubt Reins waited until then so that he would have the assurance that enough members of Congress would back this bill before patenting it.

Side Note- I wonder, what the BoD over at Fannie thought about their CEO buying this technology? Fannie is a Government Sponsored Enterprise whose purpose, as stated in their mission statement: is to “provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the U.S. housing and mortgage markets.”

At this point in our investigation, we see that the progressives have pulled together a get rich quick market on which they can, well, get rich quick on. Furthermore, they can promote their socialist agenda all the while by regulating companies that emit more gas to give money to companies that emit less gas (This is where the Cap and Trade legislation comes in. Although it hasn’t passed yet, Republicans and Democrats are both working on it). They have investors who will buy into the CCX, and they have the technology to fuel this market.

They even have a means of escaping the consequences of their actions when they are caught red handed.

Whenever progressive’s are caught in their trickery, they dissolve into a maze of various progressive networks. For example, you may have heard that ACORN recently disbanded due to video evidence of ACORN speaking to two undercover conservative activists posing as a pimp and prostitute, where the activists ask two employees about how to shield their work from state and federal tax requirements. The supposed pimp also appears to ask the employees how to conceal underage girls from El Salvador brought into the country illegally to work for him.

After this video was produced, we heard of several ACORN chapters disbanding and its Federal funding being revoked. If you were like me, your first reaction was excitement that this shadowy organization that purportedly engaged in voter fraudulence in a close election that ended in favor of a marxist candidate for the Presidency was finally getting what it deserved.

However, after a closer look, it appears that ACORN is not disbanding, but rather transforming. Several chapters have been melting into other progressive groups around the country that share the same goals. Don’t believe me? Hear it from the words of Bertha Lewis, CEO of ACORN:

“First of all, let me set the record straight. Rumors of our demise have been greatly exaggerated. We are transforming, of course. I’ve been transforming this organization since June of 2008. And, yes, we’ve had our financial woes, and, yes, we are fighting an unconstitutional ban on any government funding.”

In an interview with Lewis that National Public Radio’s Tell Me More is airing, the ACORN CEO says:

“We’ve gotten leaner and meaner and some of our state chapters have chosen to go their own way. We haven’t been able to maintain the resources, state by state, that we had. So we have gotten a little bit smaller. We’ve had to change some of our programming, but we’re not dead yet.”

I believe that the ability to find information about such things is a skill that we all must have if we are to succeed, so that we are not entirely dependent on media outlets in order to get our information. On that note, I have provided links to several places where you can get more information on this subject. Again I ask that you please click on the “share” button underneath this article and send this to your twitter page, facebook page, myspace or other social network.

Of course, just because we link to the content below, we do not necessarily endorse their views or source of information. I advise you to use the information provided here and elsewhere with caution, continually checking their accuracy. The spreading of misinformation is very dangerous to our cause.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/25/obama-years-ago-helped-fund-carbon-program-pushing-congress/

http://www.marketswiki.com/mwiki/Chicago_Climate_Exchange

http://www.fanniemae.com/kb/index?page=home&c=aboutus

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2010/03/acorn_not_dead_yet_leader_asse.html

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=958482

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/032509_report00.pdf

Below is an article written by my friend Daniel Walton on the subject of Evolutionary theory and Intelligent Design. In light of the one sided origins science presented in high school biology at present, Daniel is pointing out just a few of the thousands of holes in Darwinian Evolution that keep it from elevating from a scientific theory to the status of a scientific fact. Daniel has also agreed to write more articles for TFL in the future.

In our public school systems, high school student are continuously bombarded with the theory of Evolution. The biggest problem with that is it is not presented as a theory but as fact. Now if it is really a fact then there is no problem with it, but the reason it is called a theory is because there is not sufficient evidence in order for it to be considered a scientific fact. In reality, there is a lot of evidence suggesting it’s falsity. William Demski is one of the scientists leading the charge for Intelligent Design and Creationism in the intellectual realm. I would like to look at some of his works and how they disprove the idea that evolutionary theory is not a theory but a scientific fact.

First, a few definitions might be helpful. Evolution is the theory that all things came about through natural selection, survival of the fittest, and mutations. It states that all matter came about by chance and/or necessity.

Intelligent Design suggests that a designer made the universe. it does not suggest who created it or how. Creationism is a scientific theory based on the Bible. It states that God created the heavens and the earth and that the Fall of Man, as well as the Great Fall, were both factors that have caused it to be in the decaying state that it is in now. Creationism goes one step further than the theory of Intelligent Design in that it attempts to explain both the whom and how of creation.

Demski states that there are only three ways for something to happen: necessity, chance, and design. If there is any design (not put into effect by humans or animals ect.) then there must be a designer and therefore Intelligent Design is correct and Evolution is wrong. So he set out on a way to prove that things on the earth had been designed by an intelligent designer. He uses something called the Explanatory Filter.

The filter works like this: We run something through it like a dog, and then we ask if it can be made by necessity. If there is any other way for it to have been made then it was not made by necessity. If it has specification and complexity, then it is not made by chance. If it is not made by the other two it must be made by design.

But before we use this there is something else we need to keep in mind: Even if the filter says something is made by necessity or chance than it might be made by design. i.e. A person can tip over a water glass just as easily as it happening by chance (in fact it might be more likely).

If if I run my dog, P.J, through the filter,  I first ask: “Did he have to be made exactly as he was in order to function the way in which he does”. the answer to this question is no. Second I  must ask myself: “Does he have specification and complexity”. Evolutionist think that dogs are highly complex (evolved) animals, so they can testify to it’s complexity. Also, I can tell him apart from other dogs, so he has specification from other species as well. So this means he was designed, if he was designed (and he obviously wasn’t designed by humans) there must be a Designer. This means that Intelligent Design is correct.

Scientists have no way of knowing that evolution is true but instead they try to brainwash our generation into believing so without so much as exploring opposing theories.