Original Article

Fifty-six percent of Americans say the government poses an immediate threat to individual rights and freedoms.

Washington (CNN) – A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government’s become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.

According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken – though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what’s broken can be fixed.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted February 12-15, with 1,023 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey’s sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall survey.

 Friday, 6 Nov 2009 – Damon Vickers, chief investment officer of Nine Points Capital Partners say’s:    “The dollar will get “utterly destroyed” and become “virtually worthless”, … “Due to the huge wage disparities between the United States and emerging markets like China, Vickers said that may resolve itself in some type of a global currency crisis.”

“If the global currency crisis unfolds, then inevitably you get an alignment of a global world government. A new global currency and a new world order, so we may be moving towards that,”.

Everyone in Britain should have an annual carbon ration and be penalised if they use too much fuel, the head of the Environment Agency will say.

It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel Photo: GETTY

Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.

Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using.

If their “carbon account” hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.

Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit.

Lord Smith will call for the scheme to be part of a “Green New Deal” to be introduced within 20 years when he addresses the agency’s annual conference on Monday.

An Environment Agency spokesman said only those with “extravagant lifestyles” would be affected by the carbon allowances.

He said: “A lot of people who cycle will get money back. It will probably only be bankers and those with extravagant lifestyles who would lose out.”

However, some have criticised the move as “Orwellian” and say it will have a detrimental impact on business.

Ruth Lea, an economist from Arbuthnot Banking Group, told the Daily Mail: “This is all about control of the individual and you begin to wonder whether this is what the green agenda has always been about. It’s Orwellian. This will be an enormous tax on business.”

Under the Climate Change Act, Britain is obliged to cut its emissions by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050. This means annual CO2 emissions per person will have to fall from about 9 tonnes to only 2 tonnes.

California appears poised to be first to ban power-guzzling big-screen TVs

Welcome to Government run homes thanks to the new avenue into controlling your life called Global Warming.  Yes, this is the kind of stuff you can expect more of in the years to come.  Next on the list: Your home temperature being regulated.  Watch!

California appears poised to be first to ban power-guzzling big-screen TVs

Industry lobbying efforts appear to elicit little sympathy from the state Energy Commission, which may vote as soon as Nov. 4.

Reporting from Sacramento – The influential lobby group Consumer Electronics Assn. is fighting what appears to be a losing battle to dissuade California regulators from passing the nation’s first ban on energy-hungry big-screen televisions.

On Tuesday, executives and consultants for the Arlington, Va., trade group asked members of the California Energy Commission to instead let consumers use their wallets to decide whether they want to buy the most energy-saving new models of liquid-crystal display and plasma high-definition TVs.

“Voluntary efforts are succeeding without regulations,” said Doug Johnson, the association’s senior director for technology policy. Too much government interference could hamstring industry innovation and prove expensive to manufacturers and consumers, he warned.

But those pleas didn’t appear to elicit much support from commissioners at a public hearing on the proposed rules that would set maximum energy-consumption standards for televisions to be phased in over two years beginning in January 2011. A vote could come as early as Nov. 4.

The association’s views weren’t shared by everyone in the TV business. Representatives of some TV makers, including top-seller Vizio Inc. of Irvine, said they would have little trouble complying with tighter state standards without substantially increasing prices.

“We’re comfortable with our ability to meet the proposed levels and implementation dates,” said Kenneth R. Lowe, Vizio’s co-founder and vice president.

Last month, the commission formally unveiled its proposal to require manufacturers to limit television energy consumption in a way that has been done with refrigerators, air conditioners and dozens of other products since the 1970s.

“We would not propose TV efficiency standards if we thought there was any evidence in the record that they will hurt the economy,” said Commissioner Julia Levin, who has been in charge of the two-year rule-making procedure. “This will actually save consumers money and help the California economy grow and create new clean, sustainable jobs.”

Tightening efficiency ratings by using new technology and materials should result in “zero increase in cost to consumers,” said Harinder Singh, an Energy Commission staffer on the TV regulation project.

California’s estimated 35 million TVs and related electronic devices account for about 10% of all household electricity consumption, the Energy Commission staff reported. But manufacturers quickly are coming up with new technologies that are making even 50-inch-screen models much more economical to operate.

New features, such as light-emitting diodes that consume tiny amounts of power, special reflective films and sensors that automatically adjust TV brightness to a room’s viewing conditions, are driving down electricity consumption, experts said.

The payoff could be big for TV owners, said Ken Rider, a commission staff engineer. Average first-year savings from reduced electricity use would be an estimated $30 per set and $912 million statewide, he said.

If all TVs met state standards, Rider added, California could avoid the $600-million cost of building a natural-gas-fired power plant. Switching to more-efficient TVs could have an estimated net benefit to the state of $8.1 billion, the commission staff reported.

Consumer Electronics Assn. officials disputed that figure, arguing that it was based on out-of-date numbers that fail to account for recent industry innovations. “With voluntary compliance, manufacturers can meet the targets over time, managing the cost impact, yet not in any way impeding innovation,” said Seth Greenstein, an association consultant.

 

By Reid Wilson
Posted: 08/10/09 11:42 AM [ET]
A bipartisan pair of governors is opposing a new Defense Department proposal to handle natural and terrorism-related disasters, contending that a murky chain of command could lead to more problems than solutions.

Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas (R), chairman of the National Governors Association, and Vice Chairman Gov. Joe Manchin (D) of West Virginia penned a letter opposing the Pentagon proposal, which they said would hinder a state’s effort to respond to a disaster.
Current law gives governors control over National Guard forces in their own states as well as any Guard units and Defense Department personnel imported from other states.  The letter comes as the Pentagon proposes a legislative fix that would give the secretary of Defense the authority to assist in response to domestic disasters and, consequently, control over units stationed in an affected state.

 

“We are concerned that the legislative proposal you discuss in your letter would invite confusion on critical command and control issues, complicate interagency planning, establish stove-piped response efforts, and interfere with governors’ constitutional responsibilities to ensure the safety and security of their citizens,” Douglas and Manchin wrote to Paul Stockton, assistant secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs.

“One of the key lessons learned from the response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 was the need for clear chains of command to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure the most effective use of response resources,” the governors wrote.

Though the Pentagon has said the legislative fix would increase the number of Defense Department personnel available to respond to disasters, Douglas and Manchin expressed skepticism, arguing that current law already allows the Pentagon to order personnel to key areas inside the U.S.

A similar fix was removed from the Defense Department appropriation measure in conference committee for fiscal 2009.

A Pentagon spokesman did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

 Political, economic fears drive increase

By Emily Bazar
USA TODAY 

Gun owners are packing heat in record numbers, fearful of stricter gun control under the Obama administration and higher crime in a sour economy.

Some states and counties report a surge in applications for concealed weapons permits since the November election. All states but Illinois and Wisconsin allow concealed weapons, but requirements differ.

Applications already have hit a record this year in Clay County, Mo., where the sheriff’s office received 888 through June, compared with 863 in all of last year, Sheriff Bob Boydston says.

In the past, applicants tended to be middle-aged men, he says, but now include “grandmothers, older folks, young women, young men.”

They tell him the bad economy will lead to more thefts and break-ins, he says, but his statistics show recession-related violent crime hasn’t gone up.

They also fear gun control, he says. Last week, an elderly couple seeking a permit told him they were sure the president was “on the verge of coming to our homes and taking our weapons,” he says.

Statewide, the Missouri State Highway Patrol has processed 18,878 background checks this year for the permits, the most since the agency began keeping statistics in 2005, Lt. John Hotz says.

In May, Obama signed a law that will allow guns in national parks. “The president respects and supports the Second Amendment and the tradition of gun ownership in this country,” White House spokesman Ben LaBolt says.

Interest groups on both sides agree that demand is up because of economic and political uncertainty.

People worry the administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress will try to “enact more gun control,” says Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, fears that violent confrontations will increase. “When someone’s carrying a gun around and they’re not fully trained, oftentimes they’ll use it just because it’s there,” he says.

Demand is also up in:

•Florida. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services hired 61 temporary workers to tackle a backlog in applications, spokesman Terence McElroy says. It got 75,520 applications through June, on pace to beat last year’s record of 90,331.

•Caldwell County, N.C. Residents filed 358 applications in the first half of this year, compared with 135 for the same period last year, “a bigger increase than we’ve ever seen,” Sheriff’s Detective B.J. Fore says. “People are worried about desperate times.”

•Utah. June ranked as the top month ever for applications, with 11,292 received, says Lt. Doug Anderson of the state Bureau of Criminal Identification. The year also is on pace to be record-setting, he says, with 49,499 applications in through June.

Craig Ball, manager of Impact Guns in Ogden, has offered more training courses. “Last year, a typical class would be 15 to 20 people,” he says. “Right after the election, we had as many as 55.”

August 05, 2009 1:33 PM

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports:

A Republican senator is calling for the White House to suspend a new project that asks members of the public to flag “fishy” claims about President Obama’s health care plans, arguing that it raises privacy concerns and will serve to chill free speech.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is sending a letter to the White House today asking the president to “cease this program immediately” — or to explain how Americans’ privacy will be protected if e-mails are forwarded to the White House as requested.

“I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed ‘fishy’ or otherwise inimical to the White House’s political interests,” Cornyn writes

“I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House. I suspect that you would have been leading the charge in condemning such a program — and I would have been at your side denouncing such heavy-handed government action.”

Yesterday, White House director of new media Macon Phillips wrote a blog posting urging readers to flag questionable claims about health care proposals.

“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

Cornyn specifically asks whether those who quote the president’s past statements — such as his 2003 statement that he was a “proponent” of single-payer care — qualifies as “disinformation.” He also asks what actions the White House would take against those engaging in “fishy” speech.

If someone proposed injecting a computer chip in your arm and said it could save your life, would you do it? As Orwellian as it sounds, VeriChip is betting this will be a billion-dollar business. The firm’s parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, won FDA approval last year for what it bills as the “world’s first human implantable microchip.” A radio-frequency identification (RFID) transponder the size of a grain of rice, the VeriChip contains a 16-digit personal ID number that can be scanned like a bar code, providing health-care workers access to your medical records online.  That could be lifesaving in an emergency, cutting the likelihood of medical errors for accident victims, Alzheimer’s patients–anyone who can’t communicate or lacks ID. So far, only about 60 Americans have been chipped, mainly Applied Digital employees in Delray Beach, Fla. But the company says 58 hospitals are adopting the technology, a number it expects will expand to 200 by 2007.

Dr. John Halamka, chief information officer of Harvard Medical School, got chipped last year and says he hasn’t experienced negative side effects. He acknowledges that colleagues find the chip dehumanizing. Security experts are worried that the system can be hacked. And there are concerns that chips could one day be used to monitor the movement of those with implants. And the chip isn’t cheap: the suggested retail price is $200 and isn’t covered by insurance.

Applied also sees an opportunity in the security business. It has shipped 7,000 chips worldwide and figures about 2,000 have been implanted. Applied CEO Scott Silverman hopes to sell chips to the Pentagon, the CIA and the FBI–feeding into X-Files-type fears of biochipped government agents lording over the citizenry. A novel use: Baja Beach Club, a European nightclub chain, is offering “VipChip membership” to speed patrons through the ropes in Barcelona and Rotterdam. Some 430 clubgoers have signed on–at $1,300 apiece.

With reporting by Siobhan Morrissey/Delray Beach

Find this article at:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1118348,00.html