A question about Obama and global warming...

It's fairly obvious that Obama is willing to forgo extant law when he is convinced it's the 'right' thing to do.

His actions on immigration is the signal example.

My question to the members is this: If Obama feels that strongly about climate change, why not E.O. all the technologies locked up with patents?

The '200 mile per gallon" carburetor. "suppressed" alternative fuel and energy sources? All the so-called means the oil crowd has been sitting on to maintain their control?

Which is the lie? The technologies or Obama's intentions?

It seems to me that if he was truly convinced of the dangers, he'd waste no time in delving into the patent offices, even the Corporate offices themselves?

There may be a valid explanation. Please educate me if there is....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Interesting. The 'responses' are an education in itself.......

originally posted by: nwtrucker

It seems to me that if he was truly convinced of the dangers, he'd waste no time in delving into the patent offices, even the Corporate offices themselves?

Well I think Obama wouldn't live to see how that plays out. I don't think anyone in the upper echelons is stupid enough to kick that hornet's nest. Opening the flood gates to our borders was actually a brilliant idea. Not for the good of the average American, but for the government, particularly the Democratic Party. OMG think about the money that can be made. First you have the potential of allowing decent productive people into the country to help. Second, you have the criminal element that will cause the need for more police. More jobs, more tax money coming in. Tons of other examples as well. BUT baddddd news for Republicans. If they lose in 2016 it will be the end of them. And the end of checks and balances, hence, the end of freedom as we know. Am I being dramatic? Hmmm...maybe.

a reply to: Kusinjo

Thanks for the response.

There may be some validity to your fear of consequence point. However, I would point out that Obama has had zero concerns torqueing off the right, including militias, the NRA, Israel....shall I go on? Not much 'fear' from those potential 'nasties' LOL.

Also, regarding the "Oil Industry", it has never, in my view, sat at it's lowest influence in decades as it does now. Fracking/shale activities have crashed their profits, the potential returns for their already developed and proven reserves and thrown out of whack their cost/return ratios for future development.

One can't make a significant move without perturbing somebody off and Obama has shown zero concern in the moves he's make to date.

So while it IS possible, I have reservations that that is the answer to this question.

a reply to: Kusinjo

P.S. Considering the massive changes wrought by the environmental movement , the EPA and the Democrat party as a whole in this country, do you really think they couldn't force, or a least support that kind of action....if they wanted to?

Force patent laws changes, or at least exemptions if that technology in fact exists?

Sorry, I can't buy into the fear factor.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I see what you are saying. Yes makes sense. One thing I am thinking and you can tell me what you think. I try to think in terms of what people are meant to think is happening and then match it up with what I REALLY think is happening. And figure out the difference and try and predict what will happen next. I get it wrong a lot but sometimes I get it right.

Everyone knows that the world leaders and bankers are working towards a New World Order. I have thoughts on the whole conspiracy realm sure but I am also a realist and the goal of a NWO and the agenda regarding sustainable development are real. This is common knowledge. Now over the the past 7 years we have witnessed our first black president prove himself to be on the more socialist side of things, but really what Democrat hasn't? Then we start seeing it elevate and elevate. To the point where Obama is by FAR the most socialist pres we have ever had. Fine, so what. Then we start seeing COMMON CORE in our schools (Education for sustainable development) Michele Obama Lunches in school. (still crap food, but very small portions) The joke we now see known as Obamacommiecare. The amnesty of illegal aliens leading to the opening of our borders. The militarizing of our police. This is all visible stuff that you can see with out the use of a tinfoil hat.

NOW what I think they want us to see is that all these things are going to boost our economy by making our children smarter by teaching them extremely hard curriculum (LIE) making them fitter and healthier (LIE) Giving everyone one affordable healthcare(BIG LIE) Letting more people become Americans to stimulate economic growth(nother LIE) Equipping our police to be more effective (GIANT LIE)

My predictions for 2015 Jeb Bush wins Rep Primary. vs possibly Hillory? Stage being set for republican upset. We get another Bush in 2016 and another Ramp up for war.
Spring is going to see the Ukraine situation come to a head. OPEC and U.S. will come to an agreement and the Saudi's will cut back their oil production as will the U.S. sending more people out of work. Won't matter at this point because Obama is on his way out.

I got more but I am just thinking through my fingers here. What do you think?

a reply to: nwtrucker

to your second comment.

NO I don't. I don't think the bankers would allow it. Fear isn't the issue. What it boils down to is the central banks would lose money. I agree with you. Would be nice to get in there and see what we could use. I bet they have all kinds of goodies in there. But you would be putting BIG money out of business and THAT would hit the bankers. They are not going to allow that. You won't even hear mention of it. Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

a reply to: Kusinjo

This thread was as much "thinking out loud', looking at and discarding ideas and seeing where it ended up.

Your post moves this towards an overall picture, rather than merely environmental and Obama, unless I miss my guess.

So be it. My conspiracy views are way outside the norm- no, no tinfoil, LOL- I think you give too much credit to these guys. Period.

My basic foundation to the thought process is "None of these groups are monolithic". None of them. Period. Not oil, the Military-Industrial complex, not even the central banks or the so-called 1%. Certainly not the U.S. Gov't or the military in general.

Where you point out examples and see them as connected, I see them as more dis-related than connected. Where many see conspiracy, I see gridlock. massive overgrown, overlapping gridlock.

I see 'agenda' rather than conspiracy. From the smallest company, even families all the way to international issues. Personal agendas, regional agendas, corporate ones, national ones...all at odds with each other. Yes some of those agendas move into the conspiracy definition. Even in those 'conspiracies' are conflicting internal agendas that can and do render the very conspiracies, short lived and often ineffective in their goals

Are there agendas that are taking advantage of the grid-lock and making strides, even conspiracies?
Absolutely. I also see them as being exposed and countered by other agendas that have very different goals.

Just one example that you gave, the militarizing of the police in the U.S.. I see also that a massive number of elected sheriffs have stood up and refused to enforce Federal gun restrictions and in some cases, even restricting state laws that violate the 2nd amendment.

This group of law enforcement types tend to be more rural. The ones accepting the federal equipment tend to be in the cities. Cities are where the heaviest crime occurs. Cartels and even terrorist activity. I, for one, want my police better armed than the bad guys. The local police forces are definitely not monolithic at all.

Having said that, can a higher agenda/conspiracy take advantage of this down the road in some form of martial law? Sure. Bottom line is even if that occurred, all the 'feds' would have would be the cities, and not even all of those. the rest? Nope. So much for the that one working.

I have many egs on this, including /especially oil, the world economy, etc.

So I'm not sure thee and me are even coming from the same place on this one. LOL. Anyways, that's a brief overview of my think on it, not that it's right...LOL.

a reply to: Kusinjo

Re the central banks, you may be right. This is speculation on my part, BUT, I think the bankers have their hands full just keeping the world economy from collapsing! After all, a financial collapse leads to an infrastructure collapse which leads to chaos and the paper assets become no more valuable than toilet paper. Worthless.

An alternative energy supply that's inexpensive/environmentally friendlier doesn't really hurt them all that much, Big oil suffers and the banks lose there, but the savings enjoyed by the populace now goes into other areas of the economy, savings, bills paid off that might have defaulted, increased sales in manufactured goods. The banks would adapt and survive quite well, thank you very much...

a reply to: nwtrucker

I get you, I know I kinda went all haywire for a second. I will see if I can break it down and put it back to what I was getting at that.

Environmentally, we can research all unclassified documents and find all kinds of technology to combat environmentally unfriendly practices. When I bring up bankers though, I will try and get off the NWO high horse, I mean that they will not invest in a program that they cannot profit from. For example: Historically we all know who Nicolai Tesla was and what he was trying to accomplish with his Tesla Coil. J.P. Morgan was funding his work and when Tesla told him he was working on a device that was going to supply the world with free energy by harvesting atmospheric electricity, Morgan's response was "Where do you put the meter?" He subsequently pulled his funding from Tesla's research effectively ending his career. Tesla, already being eccentric, basically went mad and fell into obscurity until his death. Other examples point to the invention of water fueled cars that never seen the light of day and the inventor died mysteriously and the subject was never brought up again. My point is this, regardless of the need, if it is not profitable, you will never never see it. Unless they can figure out a way to deny the consumer the use of said product unless they pay a surcharge for it.

I just want to touch on something else you said. I think I may have thrown too much bla bla bla at you so I will suggest to you that you go the United Nations website and read up on the future for Sustainable Development. Also there are plenty of Youtube videos. Sure, some are a bit whacky, but there are some QUITE smart people who have done extensive research on what it would mean for these proposed laws to take effect. The fact of the matter is this, yes, they do advocate cleaner technology but they also advocate the removal of individual rights to be replaced with collective rights. I promise you, you will see what I'm saying if you research the U.N.'s Sustainable Development agenda and then Google the countries that are adapting the action plans.

Conspiracies are mysterious and can be entertaining if you aren't driven mad by them. I don't think a lot of them hold water. But it is interesting to see what people freak out about. But some things are NOT conspiracy, it is right in front you. But it is SLOWWWW. So we don't tend to freak out about it too much.

a reply to: Kusinjo

I absolutely agree with the 'slow' aspect and the loss of freedoms connected to those concerns of environment.

There is an overlap between agenda and conspiracy. Simply put there's a heck of a lot of data available to qualify them as conspiracies. That places them closer to agenda, in my book. Semantics? Perhaps.

I'd say it's safe to assume there are more agendas than conspiracies. Way more. Most in conflict with each other and only aligning for the short term...at least from what I can see.

The egs re Tesla, et al, ARE valid and your point on being in a profit motivated civilization is correct. Look, there's no question there'd be pissed off people if Obama made that kind of move and he doesn't stick me as the hero type. All I'm saying is he 'could' pull it off IF he really wanted to.

The U.N.? it's nothing but about control-as is any gov't by the nature- and I am NOT an environmentalist whatsoever as I feel the same mechanism applies re freedom at the national level as well.

The stories of EPA intrusion into the trucking industry with little to no benefit to speak of would fill volumes..LOL.

The point of the thread was to point out Obama hypocrisy and see what responses I'd get from the environmentalist, be it for or against my premise. Nothing has diminished my opinion concerning Obama and find the lack of response from the greenies equally telling...LMAO.

Thanks for the discussion. Oh, ya, Re The Ukraine, I'd say the jury is still out on who's agenda wins out. I also believe Bush will NOT get nominated. Rightly or wrongly, there's just too much perceived baggage connected to the name to fly.

I do believe in speak softly and carry a big stick. Obama has whittled down that stick a whole bunch. I think he's done more to ensure a future fracas than any Bush....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Kusinjo


The U.N.? it's nothing but about control-as is any gov't by the nature- and I am NOT an environmentalist whatsoever as I feel the same mechanism applies re freedom at the national level as well.

Please, read that site. And then match it up with current legislation. You will be surprised.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. It's just over the past few years I have been researching tons and tons of data. Kinda why I blew up a little bit there for a second. I am also studying to become a writer, so it's kind of in my nature to be a bit long winded. lol Forgive me.

I'm not so sure about your Bush assessment. Remember, there are still A LOT of people who like G.W. Not the DEMs, obviously, but I think in the grand scheme of things, they may still have a few tricks up their sleeve. Personally I am Libertarian, I would have loved to see Ron Paul (DOH yep I'm one of those lol) or at least get his son elevated to better position. That will never happen. Guess we can end it here since noone else seems to want to join. Great chat Nwtrucker!!!!!

a reply to: Kusinjo

You too. I already got you were Libertarian,,,LOL.The legislative part is obvious. Obama has fast-forwarded that group's agenda-not that it does exist in the right.

I don't dislike Jeb Bush. I don't know much about him. (other than the obvious.)

He's flat out too much good ol' boy network. There are enough people on the right- I include the non-anarchists, the non-secular humanists and the non-national marijuana party members of the Libertarians in that group...LOL)- that realize we need new blood. Not unlike Reagan's legacy...