Wall Streeter Says You Don’t Have Water Rights Other Than Minimal Amount For Survival

waterQuestion: How often do you think about that glass of cool water you guzzle down when you’re real thirsty? By that, I mean, other than quenching your thirst, do you actually ever give it a second thought? Probably not – and why should you? It’s water, it’s yours, it’s coming right out of the water tap and you take it for granted that it will always be there when you need it. You probably never think about the fact that it’s an absolute necessity for life without which you would die within 7 days. Well, if this describes you, you should start taking notice.

To understand the importance of available water and its impact on the human race, think about this: Less than 1% of the world’s fresh water is accessible for direct human use. Water.org says one billion people on earth are affected by a water shortage. That’s one-sixth of the world population. But those of us who live in developed countries like the US don’t often worry about not having plenty of water. But that’s about to change if the greedy bastards on Wall Street get their way.

“Mammoth companies are trying to collect water that all life needs and charge for it as they would for other natural resources.”

Yeah, you read that right. The same people whose greed brought us the great recession of 2008 and responsible for as much as 60% of the price of gasoline – another natural resource – now want to control all the available water and sell it to you at any price they deem necessary in order to become more ultra-wealthier than they already are.

Can’t, or won’t, happen, you say? Then don’t ask Peter Brabeck, chairman and former CEO of Nestle. He views citizens as not having the right to have more than the minimum amount of water in order to survive unless you’re able to pay for it. “Survive”, mind you — not want or need.

So what’s the future if Wall Street gets their way on water? A good analogy can be taken from another natural resource — the worlds’ oil supply.

Although not as critical to literally staying alive as water is, those same people who now want to control whether you live or die based on your ability to pay control most of the price of oil. So let’s see how that’s worked out for us.

The first thing you should strip from your mind is that oil prices are controlled by supply & demand. That simple is not the case anymore. Wall Street speculators drive the price. They would deny that, but experts tell us that they are. Even the CEO of the biggest oil company in the world says so, as well as the Saudis’. They buy up as much as 64 percent of oil contracts in order to manipulate the price, causing you to pay as much as $14 more for every tank of gas you buy.

Dan Dicker, President of MERCBLOC, a wealth management group, told CNN just last year that most of the rise in gasoline prices was caused by speculators, not supply & demand.

You may recall that a record high for oil was set in the summer of 2008, shortly before the crash of Wall Street banks. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil had surpassed $147 per barrel, a drastic rise from $60 just a year earlier. By the end of 2008, oil had dropped to less than $33 per barrel. Common sense tells anyone with a brain that in spite of the recession a 78% drop in just 5 months was not a result of supply & demand. During this time “financial firms speculating … held 81% of oil contracts”. But that didn’t matter to Wall Street.

Over the following year Wall Street and their PR media were defending the speculators saying they had no hand in driving up oil prices. But 2 years later, leaked documents exposed them as liars. However, the great recession and taxpayer bailout didn’t slow them down for long. During the year of their ‘defense campaign’, they were back at it again: “Many regulators, oil analysts and oil executives say that the lurches in price this year [2009] must be attributable primarily to one factor: Speculators”. This in spite of the fact that supply was at a 10-year high and demand at a 10-year low.

tapwaterSo this brings us back to the most basic of life’s natural resource: WATER. Do you want the same people who control our oil prices buying up the rights to the majority of water supplies then controlling whether or not you have enough — or any water at all?


Setting Straight The Incandescent Light Bulb Phase-Out Issue

incandescent-light-bulbWith the final implementation of scrapping the incandescent light bulb this year – 60w and 40w – in compliance with the Energy Independence and Security Act (PDF), I’m hearing a lot of bitching and complaining. And without fail, the follow-up statement from the complainers is something to the effect “If we don’t get that damned Obama (or Muslim) out of the White House, he’s going to destroy our country”. WOW! — And WOW!!!

Let’s began with this: Am I wrong that President Obama was sworn into office on January 20, 2009? I don’t think so, but I welcome your correction if you think I am. But until then, let’s continue on the assumption I am correct.

The said Act was signed into law on December 19, 2007. By my calculations, that was 1 day shy of 13 months before Obama took office. And who was President before Obama? None other than George W. Bush himself – a Republican. And what was included in that law? Doing away with the incandescent light bulb.

Oh, my! How do I get this total and unmistakable look of “I’m stupid” off my face?

Quite often I also hear from these complainers that it’s those damn tree-huggers — you know, those stupid liberal environmentalists — that pushed through this “ridicules dumb idea”. Ruh-Roh!! Wrong again.

The lighting industry – General Electric, Sylvania, and Philips – pushed the government into setting higher standards for light bulbs — standards that the ordinary incandescent light bulb could not meet. So why would they want a law increasing the standards on a product they produced? As always, it was all about money.

You see, light bulb industry profits on the ordinary incandescent bulb were way too low for their liking. As a consumer, you could understand the profit margin, given you could buy one for about 50 cents or less. They wanted to make light bulbs that would increase their profit margin by several hundred percent. Naturally, they would sell just as many of the new bulbs because people have to have light in their home, office, etc., right? Therefore sales volume was not going to fall off. The dilemma for the industry was how to make the change without pissing off the general public with their greed. So they turned to their bestest ever friend to “force” them to make the change – the US government.

So how in the hell did Obama wind up shouldering the blame for all this? It’s very simple – as always.

Fox Freaking Faux led the way with the first volley being fired by the “patriotic”, “truth-loving”, “fair-and-balanced” early-morning crew, Fox and Foe Friends. And when Republicans set out to repeal the law, that was further “evidence” that it was Obama and those damn Democrats that brought this travesty upon us in the first place.

Wow! And Wow!!! I guess it’s true what the survey’s said: The more you watch Fox, not only are you less informed but the dumber you get.


NBC ‘Officially’ Announces Their Trending To Conservative News Outlet

Custom-Made News: News manipulated in the way you desire it, mostly absent of facts, rarely consistent with truth. (WARNING: Detrimental to your intellect and country!)

For years NBC’s business channel, CNBC, has played the role of Fox News II. That is to say, when reporting or speaking about political and/or social matters, deliberate promoting and sanitizing conservative views and demonizing liberal and progressive views. In short, custom-made news to appeal to those who want to hear what they want to be true. Now, after years of testing the waters, NBC ‘officially’ announced this week that they’re transitioning to that model.

NBC is bringing in Luke Russert, son of the late beloved “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert, as a regular panelist on [Meet the Press]. Also joining new moderator Chuck Todd’s team will be former Republican congressman and “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough, who sources say “is taking on a larger role within NBC News as a senior political analyst and would be one of the regular Sunday panelists”.

We’re told the move is part of a plan to bring a right-leaning voice to the program to appeal to viewers turned off by the show’s famously left-leaning former hosts including the ousted David Gregory. [Bold added]

Famously left-leaning former hosts”?!? Including that statement is one of the biggest insults NBC could possibly heap upon their viewing audience. It tells one just how stupid and ignorant they think the general public is. Tim Russert never, ever took political or social sides, and Gregory ‘famously’ promoted conservative views – not “left-leaning”.

On the other hand, when you decide to become a conservative news outlet, it’s imperative that you fabricate an excuse – just as Fox News finally admitted – when there is otherwise no logical reasoning — falsely “justifying” your objective.