October 28, 2013

The Dangers of the Tetanus Vaccine and the Depopulation Plan of Elitists Like Bill Gates

The Dangers of the Tetanus Vaccine

February 28, 2008

Daniel Dunkin, Yahoo Contributor Network - Any information obtained here is not to be construed as medical or legal advice. The decision to vaccinate and how you implement that decision is yours and yours alone to make.

Before discussing the dangers of the tetanus vaccine, what is tetanus? Tetanus is caused by a bacteria that is injected into a wound via a puncture or cut. Tetanus can be obtained by a trauma such as a broken bone or even a burn.

In fact, back in 1902 there was a tetanus outbreak in St. Louis where one of the horses used to produce Diphtheria antitoxin had contracted tetanus and as a result, the diphtheria vaccine caused an outbreak of Tetanus that killed 13 children. Are our manufacturing processes better now? Probably. So do we now know everything? No, but the danger is that we think we do, or at least those pushing for the sales present themselves like they do.

Once the bacteria, Clostridium tetani, gets trapped within the body and has no source of oxygen, it produces a toxin that amplifies the chemical signal between the nerve and muscle tissue causing spasms, and in severe cases can cause respiratory failure or Heart Arythmia. The statistics on death rates vary widely from one source to another ranging anywhere from 10% to 90%, with the higher rates being in undeveloped and developing countries. Australia claims a death rate of about 10%, while Tetanus in Africa or other less developed nations are extremely high.

In some of my resources below, Dr Sherri Tennpenny was shocked to find that so many cases of tetanus occur in fully vaccinated people. Dr. Kris Gaublomme questions that since the disease itself does not provide immunity, then how can a vaccine procvide immunity. In fact, many people have more than ample antitoxins in their system, and get tetanus anyway. 

So the industry claims they have reduced the number of cases, yet the vaccine and Tetanus itself does not appear to provide an immunity, then why have the numbers dropped so drastically since the 1940's? Hygene and better medical practices.

Put simply, in developed nations such as the U.S., we have sterile water supplies, we have rubbing alcohol and hydrogen peroxide in nearly every home, and we are educated enough to know to clean cuts and wounds thuroughly.

Tetanus is everywhere, but it is not as vast and widespread as we imagine it to be. The greatest fear is in Horse manuer primarily, but it is also in some other animals as well. The old addage of a rusty nail really has little bearing on whether tetanus is present or not, in fact some resources I have found show more concern over wood splinters, pyogenic infections and wounds with extensive tissue damage. Primarily once again, due to a need to disinfect and clean this wound in a timely fashion. It should be cleaned immedately, but if circumstances make this difficult, it should be cleaned at least within four hours.

Based on the evidence, it appears that the vaccine itself does not give an immunity, no matter how up to date they are, so what are some of the dangers of the tetanus vaccine? 

The first thing to look at as dangerous are the ingredients. You don't just get a tetanus toxoid, with the injection you are also receiving formaldehyde, sodium phosphate monobasic, and sodium phophate dibasic.

Dr. Mendelsohn MD eliminated Tetanus as a vaccine he felt should be given, as one of the last vaccines to be removed from his list. His final elimination of this vaccine was not because of the dangers of the Tetanus Vaccine, but for a host of changes made in the vaccine over a period of time. These changes included:
  • Growing evidence that overuse may weaken the effect
  • The medical community went from giving tetanus boosters every year to 2 years to 5 years to 10 years to even 20 years, all done based on guesswork and no scientific support
  • There have been absolutely no controlled Scientific studies on the effectiveness of the vaccine
  • The vaccine has been weakened over the years to reduce the side effects of fever and swelling, (of course the additives are still there)
  • Statistics after the reduction of tetanus cases eventually showed that 40% of children had not been vaccinated despite the lowering number of cases in the U.S.
  • And last but not least: His own growing concern over the huge increase in incidents of depressed immune disorders, MS, Guillian Barr, and many other problems that drastically increased with the introduction of vaccines.
So, the dangers of the tetanus vaccine may be many, and the effectiveness of the vaccine are questionable at best. We are taking babies whose immune system is not even working yet, and injecting directly into the body not just bacteria and other diseases to which we hope their immune system, (which isn't even functioning yet) will learn to battle, but also toxic chemicals that cause cancer, mental disorders, and who knows what other problems some of these additivies can cause. Not only this, as I will discuss in future articles, some of these diseases we are trying to conquor might actually play an important role in human health throughout adulthood.

Stick around and learn what a lot of doctors have learned, that your doctor hasn't told you about, and probably doesn't even know himself. Why? He doesn't read the ingredient panels - the Pharmaceutical companies tell him it is necessary, and he believes it, just like he tells you it is necessary and you believe it, but when you are injecting foreign materials into your babies body, you should take the responsibility of researching both sides of the equation and make an educated decision. Had we done this, our autistic boy would have graduated highschool last year. Instead, someone will have to wipe his butt the rest of his life. He could be your child too.

There are literally hundreds of doctors out there who now support non vaccinations and for good reasons. Many of them have literature or books available. You may think your smart by following your doctors advice, but science has a history of being wrong - what if years down the road it is discovered that vaccines caused more harm than good, and you discover this while feeding your handicapped adult child? Growing evidence is already supporting this conclusion.

Psalms 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. KJV


Dr Sherri Tennpenny

Kris Gaublomme, MD

Dr. Mendelsohn MD


If a child is sick with something more serious than a mild cold, DTaP may be delayed until the child is better.

Vaccinate the World: Gates, Rockefeller Seek Global Population Reduction

September 4, 2010

Old-Thinker News - The global elite has launched a world-wide operation against an unaware population to reduce and control fertility. Vaccines and even staple food crops have been modified to achieve these goals.
If you can’t seem to bring yourself to believe that such an undertaking is possible, or that there are human beings willing and capable, look back in time; this kind of conspiracy isn’t new. In fact, this kind of control was idealized by Plato some 2,300 years ago in his momentous work The Republic. Plato wrote that a ruling elite should guide society, “…whose aim will be to preserve the average of population.” He further stated:
The global elite has launched a world-wide operation against an unaware population to reduce and control fertility. Vaccines and even staple food crops have been modified to achieve these goals.
“There are many other things which they will have to consider, such as the effects of wars and diseases and any similar agencies, in order as far as this is possible to prevent the State from becoming either too large or too small.”
The activities of the ruling elite in controlling population, writes Plato, must be kept secret. He writes,
“Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd… breaking out into rebellion.”
Peering back into the mists of time and history reveal that there is truly nothing new under the sun. What has been done will be done again, and the 21st Century manifestation of global elites have advanced tools at their disposal.

The GAVI Alliance (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization)

The GAVI Alliance, founded in 2000 with the help of the Gates Foundation, has the goal of vaccinating all of the third world. The member organizations of GAVI are listed on group’s the website, which include:
“…national governments of donor and developing countries, the Bill and Melinda Gates Children’s Vaccine Program, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA), the Rockefeller Foundation, UNICEF, the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization (WHO).”
In December of 2000, David Rockefeller and William H. Gates Sr., among others, visited the Rockefeller University campus to take part in a meeting on “Philanthropy in a Global Century”. While there, Gates spoke glowingly about his inspiration from Rockefeller in founding GAVI,
“Gates said that ‘Taking our lead and our inspiration from work already done by The Rockefeller Foundation, our foundation actually started GAVI by pledging $750 million to something called the Global Fund for Children’s Vaccines, an instrument of GAVI.’”
He also praised the Rockefeller family’s century of philanthropy, saying, ‘It seems like every new corner we turn, the Rockefellers are already there. And in some cases, they have been there for a long, long time.’”
The fact that such a global mechanism like GAVI exists – in the hands of outspoken population control advocates – for delivering vaccines to millions of people across the world should be disconcerting to say the least; Especially when confronted with the mountains of documentation proving that anti-fertility vaccines have been researched and delivered by the World Health Organization with grant money from the Rockefeller Foundation.

Bill Gates reaffirmed the global population control agenda during a recent TED conference presentation in which he stated,
“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”
Anti-fertility vaccines

As Jurriaan Maessen reports, the World Health Organization, one of GAVI’s partners, teamed up with the World Bank and UN Population Fund in the 1970′s under the “Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation.” The Task Force,
“…acts as a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D in the various working groups and supports research on different approaches, such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of hCG. The Task Force has succeeded in developing a prototype of an anti-hCG-vaccine.”
In 1989 research was conducted by the National Institute of Immunology in New Delhi India on the use of ‘carriers’ such as Tetanus Toxoid and Diphtheria to bypass the immune system and deliver the female hormone called human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). The research paper was carried in the Oxford University Press in 1990 and was titled “Bypass by an alternate ‘carrier’ of acquired unresponsiveness to hCG upon repeated immunization with tetanus-conjugated vaccine.”

Rockefeller Foundation is listed in the document as giving grants for the research.

By delivering hCG within a Tetanus vaccine – which acts as the carrier – the human body treats hCG as an intruder and creates antibodies against it. This has the effect of sterilizing women who receive the vaccine, and in many cases miscarriage when given during pregnancy.

Soon after anti-fertility vaccines were successfully developed, hCG (Human chorionic gonadotrophin) containing Tetanus vaccines were deployed across multiple third-world countries. Many of these countries were specifically targeted in the U.S. Government’s 1974 National Security Memorandum 200 document for population reduction. The document recommended at the time in 1974 that “injectable contraceptives” receive further funding.

In the aftermath of widespread covert use of anti-fertility vaccines, the BBC aired a documentary titled “The Human Laboratory” in 1995. The discovery of “contaminated” Tetanus toxoid vaccines and the resulting sterilization of Philippine women was exposed.

The following are excerpts from the BBC program:
MARY PILAR VERZOSA: The women would say why is it that the tetanus shots that we’ve been getting have had effects on us? Our fertility cycles are all fouled up, some of the women among us have had bleedings and miscarriages, some have lost their babies at a very early stage. The symptoms could come soon after their tetanus vaccination – some the following day, others within a week’s time. For those who were pregnant on their first three or four months the miscarriage was really frightening.
MARY PILAR VERZOSA: I began to suspect that here in the Philippines that’s exactly what’s happening. They have laced the tetanus toxoid vials with the Beta HCG.

MARY PILAR VERZOSA: Oh boy that was really something when this came out of my fax machine. Report on HCG concentration in vaccine vials. Three out of those four vials registered positive for HCG, so my suspicions are affirmed that here in our country they are not only giving plain tetanus toxoid vaccination to our women, they are also giving anti-fertility.
According to the local population of the Akha in Thailand, pregnant women are forced to receive vaccines – including tetanus – in order to get ID cards for their children. The vaccine often results with miscarriage. In the video below, Matthew McDaniel, a human rights activist who has been working with the Akha people of Thailand, speaks with two Akha women about the forced Tetanus vaccine and the resulting miscarriages.

Rural populations of the third world have caught on to possible effects of vaccination. Their fears are dismissed as “rumors” and “myths” by the mainstream press that fails to report on the established precedence of anti-fertility vaccine research. Often, those reassuring that the vaccines are safe are the very organizations engaged in population reduction efforts. A 2006 press release from UNICEF (United Nations Children Fund), which is involved with vaccinating many third world countries, quotes the Assistant Project Officer for Health in Ethiopia’s Southern Nations, Tersit Assefa,
“In other places, women of this age often stay away,” said Ms. Tersit. “All sorts of misguided rumours go round that the injections will sterilize them or harm them in some way. But here, the village elders are on board. They are here, encouraging the women to come along.”
While the needle is an obvious and visible form of vaccination, new technologies have been developed with the financial support of the Rockefeller Foundation. Edible vaccines, according to the Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology, will be a more “socioculturally acceptable” alternative to needles. In other words, people will be less resistant to eating a mundane banana than taking a shot in the arm. The Journal states that new edible vaccine technology may serve a dual purpose of birth control. As stated,
“Edible vaccines hold great promise as a cost-effective, easy-to-administer, easy-to-store, fail-safe and socioculturally readily acceptable vaccine delivery system, especially for the poor developing countries… A variety of delivery systems have been developed. Initially thought to be useful only for preventing infectious diseases, it has also found application in prevention of autoimmune diseases, birth control, etc…”
The war against population is an ongoing effort on part of the global elite. This operation is truly massive in scope, but if we live our lives in fear of what the future may bring, we allow ourselves to be defeated. Let your awareness of the situation drive you to make positive changes. We still have the power to raise awareness among our fellow man, and despite what the elite may believe, they do not have a monopoly on the future.

October 26, 2013

Bankrupt Detroit to Cut Public Pensions

Pension Cut is a Must for Detroit (Slideshow)

October 26, 2013

Yahoo! Finance - Cuts to Detroit's public pensions and retiree healthcare were inevitable given the city's sagging finances, a top consultant for the city testified on Friday during the third day of a trial to determine whether the city is eligible for bankruptcy.

Money owed to Detroit workers and retirees is a key factor in the case, which will also hear testimony by Kevyn Orr, Detroit's state-appointed emergency manager. Orr is expected to explain efforts to negotiate with the city's numerous creditors, including retirees and pension funds, before deciding to file for the largest-ever Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy on July 18.

A key claim made by attorneys representing the city's unions, retirees and pension funds is that Orr and his team were intent on filing for bankruptcy and did not make best efforts to negotiate with them prior to the bankruptcy filing. They also claim that plans to cut pensions would violate the Michigan Constitution.

On Friday, city financial consultant Kenneth Buckfire said he did not have to recommend to Orr that pensions for the city's retirees be cut as a way to help Detroit navigate through debts and liabilities that total $18.5 billion. Buckfire said it was clear that the city did not have the funds to pay the unsecured pension payouts without cutting them.

Buckfire, a Detroit native and investment banker with restructuring experience, later told the court the city plans to pay unsecured creditors, including the city's pensioners, 16 cents on the dollar. There are about 23,500 city retirees. On Thursday, Buckfire was questioned by attorneys from Jones Day, the city's attorneys in the bankruptcy filing and Orr's former employer.

This portion of the trial is to determine whether the city is eligible to undergo Chapter 9 restructuring. To qualify for bankruptcy, Detroit must prove the city is insolvent and that it negotiated in good faith with creditors, or that there were too many creditors for negotiations to be feasible. The city also must prove it desires to enact a restructuring plan.

U.S. District Court judge Steven Rhodes, presiding over the trial expected to last at least through next Tuesday, is not expected to rule until at least mid-November whether the city is eligible to undergo restructuring in bankruptcy.

The city has said about half of its liabilities stem from retirement benefits, including $5.7 billion for healthcare and other obligations, and $3.5 billion involving pensions.

How Detroit went broke: The answers may surprise you - and don't blame Coleman Young

October 25, 2013

Protesters Demand Reform of Patriot Act and Federal Government's Mass Surveillance of U.S. Citizens

Protesters march in Washington against NSA spying

October 26, 2013

Reuters - Protesters marched on Capitol Hill in Washington on Saturday to protest the U.S. government's online surveillance programs, whose vast scope was revealed this year by former spy agency contractor Edward Snowden.

People carried signs reading: "Stop Mass Spying," "Thank you, Edward Snowden" and "Unplug Big Brother" as they gathered at the foot of the Capitol to demonstrate against the online surveillance by the National Security Agency.

Estimates varied on the size of the march, with organizers saying more than 2,000 attended. U.S. Capitol Police said they do not typically provide estimates on the size of demonstrations.

The march attracted protesters from both ends of the political spectrum as liberal privacy advocates walked alongside members of the conservative Tea Party movement in opposition to what they say is unlawful government spying on Americans.
"I consider myself a conservative and no conservative wants their government collecting information on them and storing it and using it," said Michael Greene, one of the protesters.
"Over the past several months, we have learned so much about the abuses (of privacy) that are going on and the complete lack of oversight and the mass surveillance into every detail of our lives. And we need to tell Congress that they have to act," said another protester, Jennifer Wynne.
The event was organized by a coalition known as "Stop Watching Us" that consists of some 100 public advocacy groups and companies, including the American Civil Liberties Union, privacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation, Occupy Wall Street NYC and the Libertarian Party.

The groups have been urging Congress to reform the legal framework supporting the NSA's secretive online data gathering since Snowden's disclosure of classified information about the programs that are designed to gather intelligence about potential foreign threats.

The Obama administration and many lawmakers have defended the NSA programs as crucial in protecting U.S. national security and helping thwart past militant plots. They have also said the programs are carefully overseen by Congress and the courts.

Snowden's disclosures have raised concerns that NSA surveillance may span not just foreign, but domestic online and phone communication.
"We are calling on Congress to take immediate action to halt this surveillance and provide a full public accounting of the NSA's and the FBI's data collection programs," Stop Watching Us said in a letter addressed to members of Congress posted online, calling for a reform of the law known as the Patriot Act.
That law marked its 12th anniversary on Saturday. It was passed in 2001 to improve anti-terrorism efforts and is now under scrutiny by privacy advocates who say it allows "dragnet" data gathering.
"Our representatives in Congress tell us this is not surveillance. They're wrong," Snowden said in a statement before Saturday's rally.
Wanted in the United States on espionage charges, he is now in temporary asylum in Russia.

His latest disclosures showed that the United States may have tapped the phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, adding to the growing outrage against U.S. data-gathering practices abroad and prompting a phone call between Merkel and President Barack Obama.

October 2, 2013

Climate Protection Act of 2013: Get Ready for a Tax on Breathing

U.S. Policy: Carbon Pricing Proposals of the 113th Congress

April 2013

C2ES - Market-based policies that put a price on greenhouse gases can achieve cost-effective reduction in emissions while driving clean energy innovation. In the United States, attention has recently turned to the possibility of a carbon fee as an element of a broader package addressing tax or budgetary issues. Below is a comparison of a proposal that has been introduced in the U.S. Senate and a discussion draft released by a group of representatives and senators.

The following table compares the Climate Protection Act of 2013 (S. 332), as introduced by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) on February 14, 2013, and the Carbon Pollution Fee discussion draft, as released by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) on March 12, 2013. While both proposals would institute a fee on carbon (i.e., a carbon tax), the proposals differ on the coverage and scope of the respective programs. For instance, the Sanders-Boxer proposal would require certain upstream or midstream fossil fuel sources (i.e., coal mines, refineries, natural gas processing plants, or importers) to pay a fee on greenhouse gas emissions while the authors of the discussion draft would require the largest sources covered by the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to purchase permits for their direct greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, the proposals differ on: the starting price of the carbon fee, how much to increase the fee each year (i.e., the escalation rate), and how to use the revenues. The Sanders-Boxer proposal would establish a $20 per ton carbon fee, rising 5.6 percent a year over a 10-year period, and would direct 60 percent of the revenues back to consumers through a rebate, and the rest towards investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and deficit reduction. The authors of the discussion draft are considering various initial carbon fee and escalation rates as well as uses for generated revenue.

The authors of the discussion draft are seeking public comments on a range of topics, including the use of revenues. Note that certain provisions in the discussion draft are bracketed, which suggests a number of provisions will be refined based on additional analysis and deliberation.
Policy Features Sens. Sanders and Boxer's
Climate Protection Act of 2013
Rep. Waxman, Sen. Whitehouse, Rep. Blumenauer, and Sen. Brian Schatz
Carbon Pollution Fee discussion draft
Start Date The earlier date of January 1, 2014, or the first calendar year beginning at least 180 days after enactment January 1, 2014
Regulating Authority Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Jointly administered by Treasury Department and EPA. EPA would implement and enforce emissions reporting under EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. Internal Revenue Service (Treasury) would assess, collect, and enforce the fee requirements.
Substances Covered Under a Carbon Pollution Fee Carbon polluting substance defined as: coal, petroleum, petroleum products, or natural gas that when used, will release greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon pollution defined as any greenhouse gas—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and other fluorinated greenhouse gases—identified in Table A-1 to Subpart A of the GHG reporting rule.

Excludes from coverage:
  • Emissions reported for products that are exported.
  • Carbon pollution that is reported but is associated with a product that has non-emissive use.
  • Quantities of carbon pollution that are attributed to a supplier of natural gas or oil, and are contained in a product that is transferred to an entity that reports direct emission from burning or releasing such product.
  • Quantities of carbon pollution that are permanently sequestered in subsurface geologic formations.
  • Quantities that are biogenic CO2 under the reporting rule (excluded through 2014) and carbon pollution from burning renewable biomass, as defined by the Secretary of Agriculture and the EPA Administrator through joint rulemaking (excluded starting in 2015).
Requires any revisions to the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule after the date of enactment of this Act to maintain or enhance the accuracy and completeness of the information required to be reported.
Point of Coverage (i.e, covered entity) Any manufacturer (such as an oil refinery or natural gas processing facility), producer, or importer of a carbon polluting substance.

(Sanders-Boxer estimate their proposal would cover 2,700 facilities, or 85 percent of the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions)
Covered entities are those required to report emissions under the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule requirements of 40 CFR 98. This includes owners and operators of facilities (such as electricity generators) and suppliers of products (such as oil refineries).

Facilities are not covered if they emit 50,000 metric tons or less of carbon dioxide equivalent per year in combined annual emissions from stationary fuel sources.

Certain sources of fluorinated greenhouse gases are exempted where the associated carbon pollution is also reported by another covered entity.

(The sponsors estimate their discussion draft would cover 7,000 facilities, or 85-95 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions)
Emission Targets and Timetables Bill expresses the sense of Congress that the United States carry out activities to reduce emissions by at least 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. Greenhouse gas emission targets and timetables not specified, except for a 90 percent reduction of emissions from HFCs attributed to specified entities.
Emission Allowance N/A A covered entity must purchase a carbon pollution permit for the compliance year by May 1 of the following year.

Unless authorized by the Secretary of Treasury, permits are only valid for the specified calendar year and cannot be traded, sold, or banked.
Escalation Rate Fee imposed on full carbon content of product (including fractional amount).

The fee would start at $20 per ton of carbon dioxide content (including carbon dioxide equivalent content of methane) of the carbon polluting substance. In subsequent years, the tax increases by 5.6 percent (rounded to the nearest dollar) above the previous year's amount.

Year Applicable amount
1 $20
2 $21
3 $22
4 $23
5 $24
6 $25
7 $26
8 $27
9 $29
10 $31
11 $33
12 or thereafter $35
Five years after enactment of this Act, the EPA Administrator would submit recommendations to Congress on how to best administer the carbon fee program after the 12th calendar year, including recommendations on a future fee schedule.
Fee imposed on carbon pollution emitted during, or attributed to, a compliance year (rounded to the nearest whole ton) as reported by the covered entity under the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.

Sets a carbon permit fee of [$15/$25/$30] per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent of carbon pollution emitted, or attributed, for 2014, increasing at a real rate [2%-8%] annually.

Year Applicable amount (in 2014 dollars), (the low rate starts at $15 per ton with a 2 percent escalation; the high rate starts at $30 with an 8 percent escalation)
2014 $15.00 - $30.00
2015 $15.30 - $32.40
2016 $15.61 - $34.99
2017 $15.92 - $37.79
2018 $16.24 - $40.81
2019 $16.56 - $44.08
2020 $16.89 - $47.61
2021 $17.23 - $51.41
2022 $17.57 - $55.53
2023 $17.93 - $59.97
2024 $18.28 - $64.77
2025 $18.65 - $69.95
Sets an excess carbon pollution penalty of three times the applicable permit fee per ton of carbon pollution emitted (or for which it was attributed) without a permit.
Credits or Refunds Not specified. Requires the Secretary of Treasury to refund fees for any extra permits obtained by a covered entity for a compliance year.
Energy Intensive, Trade Exposed Imposes a carbon equivalency fee on imports of carbon-intensive goods.

This annual fee would be differentiated by classes of products and country of origin, taking into account the amount of greenhouse gas emissions released during the manufacture and transport of the carbon pollution-intensive good.

This fee would expire when exporting countries adopt equivalent measures, or the EPA Administrator deems it no longer appropriate.
Exported products whose emissions are required to be under EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule are excluded from purchasing a carbon pollution permit.
Use of Revenue 60 percent of the revenues (not including the import fee) would be rebated to U.S. citizens and legal residents on a monthly basis.

40 percent of the revenues will be allocated to a Pollution Reduction Trust. For each of the first 10 years, this fund will allocate: $7.5 billion to mitigate impacts of the fee on energy intensive-trade exposed industries; $5 billion for weatherization of low income homes; $1 billion for clean energy job training; $2 billion for ARPA-E; and the balance would go toward deficit reduction.

Carbon equivalency fee on imports would be evenly split between building/improving critical infrastructure and improving resiliency to climate change.
[To be supplied. Seeking comments on the use of revenues, such as: mitigating energy costs for low-income households, reducing the federal deficit, reducing the tax liability for individuals and businesses, protecting jobs of energy-intensive trade exposed industries, and investing in other activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.]
Treatment of Existing State Programs Not specified. [To be supplied.]
Other The bill would create a $5 billion Sustainable Technologies Finance program under EPA to provide financial assistance (i.e. loans, credits, loan guarantees) for eligible projects (e.g., renewables, energy efficiency, and advanced transportation projects) that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The bill would strengthen EPA's authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing, including requiring gas operators to disclose chemicals used in the fracking process. EPA would also be authorized to assess civil penalties for violations of those regulations up to $10,000 per day but capped at $125,000.
Does not affect the application of any other provision of law to a covered entity.

C2ES Logo The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) is an independent nonprofit organization working to promote practical, effective policies and actions to address the twin challenges of energy and climate change.
2101 Wilson Blvd. Suite 550 Arlington, VA 22201 703-516-4146

A U.S. Government Shutdown Will Never Happen - The Beast Will Continue to Grow So That It Can Control and Oppress the People

The government shutdown: What you need to know

October 1, 2013

CNBC - With the federal government now officially closed, and Congress deadlocked over what to do next, its funds flowing, it's anyone's guess how long the shutdown will last.

House Republicans remain intent using an otherwise routine budget process to delay or kill the new health care law. Democrats and the White House refuse to negotiate as a condition for funding the government. Neither side appears to have a Plan B.

Barring a surprise reversal by holdout House Republicans, or an about face by the Senate and White House, some government functions will remain shut down while others continue. Though each agency manages the shutdown differently, it's not the first time they've had to curtail operations for lack of funds: this is the 18th such "shutdown" since 1976.

Even if a budget compromise is reached, House Republicans get an even bigger opportunity for mayhem in mid-October when the Treasury Department is expected to hit the limit of its borrowing authority.
So this is no big deal?

The result is far from a complete "shutdown," but the petty political bickering will inconvenience millions of constituents and inflict economic pain on thousands of businesses. The shortest "shutdowns" have lasted a day or less and the longest ran for three weeks. But the process wastes thousands of hours of time and untold dollars each time federal agencies and contractors have to go through it.
Why is this happening?
Congress is supposed to pass a budget every year—usually through multiple spending bills for various government agencies and functions—well before the end of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. When the process breaks down—as it's done frequently in the past decade—the only way to keep the government funded is through what's called a Continuing Resolution.That measure is basically Congress' way of saying: 
"Just keep spending what you're spending for a few more weeks or months, and maybe we can pass a real budget by then."
The current CR—signed into law in March after to resolve the "fiscal cliff" debacle—runs out on at midnight Monday.

So why can't Congress just pass another one?
That question is better directed to the group of House Republicans who are insisting they won't go along with a fresh CR unless it includes key demands. In addition to delaying President Obama's health care law, the House-passed CR would remove a tax on medical devices included in the healthcare plan to help pay for extending coverage to tens of millions of Americans without insurance. The House has already balked at "clean" Senate bill without another House vote.

What happens now? Does the whole U.S. government come to a grinding halt?
No. Each department and agency responds differently, but "essential" workers stay on the job and "non-essential" workers go on furlough. (Departments now refer to these as "excepted" and "non-excepted" workers because if they're "non-essential," some people asked, why are we paying them?)

Each agency has made detailed contingency plans.

It's a long list, but generally speaking, it's business as usual for the most essential functions of government: Social Security checks go out, troops continue serving (though some may have to wait to get paid – the House bill has a provision to keep those checks flowing). NSA agents will keep snooping on phone calls, TSA screeners will keep screen bags at airports and air traffic controllers show up for work, along with food-safety inspectors, border patrol and federal prison guards, most FBI agents, doctors and nurses at VA and other federal hospitals, and any federalemergency and disaster relief workers. The Postal Service and Federal Reserve,which don't rely on Congress for funding, aren't affected.

On the other hand, the disruption—even if the shutdown lasts only a few days—would be painful and widespread. Some benefits, like unemployment insurance and veterans' benefits could be delayed or reduced. National parks, museums, and many passport offices would shut down; the SBA and FHA would stop guaranteeing new loan applications; farm subsidy checks stop flowing, IRS tax processing would slow down, among other headaches.

What a nightmare. Will the House protesters back down?
That question is better directed toward House Republican leaders—but it's not clear they're in charge of the process any more. Many Republicans are angry at their anti-Obamacare colleagues for digging in and ignoring the longer-term risk of political backlash against the party. During a similar standoff in 1995-96, the Republicans ultimately bore the brunt of the blame for a three week shutdown that started a week before Christmas.

What are the odds President Obama can negotiate a compromise to keep the government going?
If odds could be expressed in negative numbers, that still wouldn't come close.

The White House likens House Republican holdouts to fiscal terrorists—and says it won't negotiate under those circumstances.

"The Republicans have provided a laundry list of essentially ransom demands of things," White House senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer told CNN last week. "They say: 'Give us these things or we will blow up the economy.' … What we're not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest."

But if Congress can't control spending, isn't it time for extreme measures like this? 

In a word, no. In fact, after several rounds of tax increases and spending cuts, Congress has done a decent job controlling spending in the short-term. The federal deficit (the gap between what it collects in taxes and spends on programs) has fallen by a third in the last year and is expected to continue falling for at least the next few years.

On the other hand, Congress has done nothing to control the longer-term deficits that are coming if no changes are made in big entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. Those deficits are still several years away so there's time to reform the tax code and fix Social Security. There's also evidence that the rapid rise in Medicare costs is slowing, one of the main goals of the new health law.

In any case, the disruptive impact of shutting down the government and eventually getting it started againactually costs more money. An analysis of the last two shutdowns in 1995 and 19 found they wound up costing $2 billion in today's dollars.

So if they compromise, this whole thing is over, right?

Au contraire. House GOP budget protesters will now shift to the next battlefront: the vote to raise the Treasury's debt ceiling. That standoff promises to be even worse – and could inflict much greater economic damage.

Unlike virtually every developed country on earth, the U.S.budget process requires a separate vote every time the Treasury Department reaches the limit of the borrowing authority authorized by Congress.

That provides the "fiscal terrorists" in the House with an even better opportunity for mayhem—because the spending freeze would be much more severe. The economic and financial damage also would be much worse if the Treasury is forced to stop paying investors and default on U.S. debt.

But isn't that a way to control government spending?

No. The debt issued by the Treasury is used to pay for spending that Congress has already authorized for goods and services the government has already provided. It would be like trying to control your household spending by not paying a credit card charge for a meal you've already eaten.

Freezing the debt ceiling does nothing to better manage future spending or make government do more with less money. To do that, Congress needs to agree on a budget for the fiscal year that starts Tuesday. But there's been little, if any, discussion about coming up with a real spending plan.

If anything, forcing the Treasury to default on its debt would only increase government spending because it would raise future borrowing costs. Just as deadbeat consumer who doesn't pay legitimate credit card charges has to pay higher interest rates, investors in U.S. Treasuries would demand higher returns to offset the risk of Congress pulling this stunt again.

Republicans Couple Anti-Obamacare Legislation with Government Shutdown Strategy

Congress continues to squabble on first day of a government shutdown

October 1, 2013

AP - On the morning of the first federal government shutdown in 17 years, the political brinkmanship reached a stalemate when the Senate rejected a House request for a conference committee to take up a proposal to fund the government through Dec. 15 and delay a key part of the Affordable Care Act.

The Democrat-controlled Senate on Tuesday voted to table the House bill passed overnight that proposed the committee. The House bill also included language that would prohibit congressional staff members from receiving subsidies for their health care plans and delay Obamacare’s individual mandate to buy health insurance for one year.

By transitioning to a conference committee, the House and Senate would each appoint members to work out a deal to fund the government and end the shutdown. But appointing a committee would take the talks from public view to closed-door negotiating rooms where lawmakers and staffers could hash out their differences in private.

The Senate's refusal to accept the Republican proposal is the latest indication that the government shutdown, which began at midnight Tuesday, won't end immediately. This is the first shutdown since federal operations closed down under former President Bill Clinton in 1996

Before turning down the latest House offer Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that the upper chamber would not accept conference talks until the House approves a measure to fund the government for six weeks that includes no extra amendments such as the ones aimed at crippling the federal health care law. Until they pass a “clean” bill, he said, negotiations would stall.
"We will not go to conference with a gun to our head,” Reid said on the Senate floor.
The result of a shutdown came after House Republicans repeatedly refused to pass a bill to set federal spending levels unless the federal health care law was defunded or delayed. Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama repeatedly said they would not accept any spending bill that tampers with the law.

Last week, the House passed a bill to completely defund the health law. When the Senate rejected it, the House passed another version that abolished a tax on medical devices and delayed the law for a year. When the Senate rejected that, House Republicans passed another bill that delayed the individual mandate and revoked health insurance subsidies for congressional staffers. After the Senate said no to that, the clock ran out and the government shut down. That’s when the House asked for private negotiations — surprise, the Senate turned that down — and that’s where the parties stand now.

Meanwhile, Obama, who has called on Congress to pass a clean bill to fund the government, called the shutdown “completely preventable.”
"This shutdown was completely preventable,” Obama wrote in a letter to federal employees. “It should not have happened."
Obama is scheduled to make a statement in the Rose Garden at 12:25 p.m. ET about the opening Tuesday of Obamacare insurance exchanges and about the government shutdown.

The back-and-forth between the parties will continue throughout the day, as House Republicans recalibrate their strategy and Senate lawmakers huddle for partisan meetings this afternoon.

Unless they can find a compromise, the government will remain shut down until further notice.

The Republican strategy of coupling anti-Obamacare legislation with the threat of a government shutdown is unpopular, according to a national Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday. American voters oppose the GOP's tactic by a margin of 72-22 percent, according to the poll.