You Decide

Always decide for yourself whether anything posted in my blog has any information you choose to keep.

Saturday, November 29, 2008


"Beware the church of climate alarm

"Beware the church of climate alarm


November 27, 2008

Miranda Devine
Source The Sydney Morning Herald

"As the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, an economist, anti-totalitarian and climate change sceptic, prepares to take up the rotating presidency of the European Union next year, climate alarmists are doing their best to traduce him.

The New York Times opened a profile of Klaus, 67, this week with a quote from a 1980s communist secret agent's report, claiming he behaves like a "rejected genius", and asserts there is "palpable fear" he will "embarrass" the EU.

But the real fear driving climate alarmists wild is that a more rational approach to the fundamentalist religion of global warming may be in the ascendancy - whether in the parliamentary offices of the world's largest trading bloc or in the living rooms of Blacktown.

As the global financial crisis takes hold, perhaps people are starting to wonder whether the so-called precautionary principle, which would have us accept enormous new taxes in the guise of an emissions trading scheme and curtail economic growth, is justified, based on what we actually know about climate.

One of Australia's leading enviro-sceptics, the geologist and University of Adelaide professor Ian Plimer, 62, says he has noticed audiences becoming more receptive to his message that climate change has always occurred and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

In a speech at the American Club in Sydney on Monday night for Quadrant magazine, titled Human-Induced Climate Change - A Lot Of Hot Air, Plimer debunked climate-change myths.

"Climates always change," he said. Our climate has changed in cycles over millions of years, as the orbit of the planet wobbles and our distance from the sun changes, for instance, or as the sun itself produces variable amounts of radiation. "All of this affects climate. It is impossible to stop climate change. Climates have always changed and they always will."

His two-hour presentation included more than 50 charts and graphs, as well as almost 40 pages of references. It is the basis of his new book, Heaven And Earth: The Missing Science Of Global Warming, to be published early next year.

Plimer said one of the charts, which plots atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature over 500 million years, with seemingly little correlation, demonstrates one of the "lessons from history" to which geologists are privy: "There is no relationship between CO2 and temperature."

Another slide charts the alternating periods of cooling and warming on Earth, with the Pleistocene Ice Age starting 110,000 years ago and giving way, 14,700 years ago, to the Bolling warm period for 800 years. This in turn gave way to the Older Dryas cooling for 300 years, then the Allerod warming for 700 years, and so on, until the cooling of the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850. Since 1850, we have lived through the "Modern Warming", one of the most stable climate periods in history.

Plimer said some astronomers predict we are headed for a new cooling period.

Plimer said there is a division between those scientists who sit in front of super computers and push piles of data into the mathematical models that drive the theory of climate change, and those who take measurements in the field.

We are not sceptical enough about the data. For instance, Plimer cited differences between results from temperature measuring stations in urban and rural areas. Those in urbanised Chicago, Berkeley, New York, and so on, show temperature rises over the past 150 years, whereas those in the rural US, in Houlton, Albany and Harrisburg (though not Death Valley, California) show equally consistent cooling. "What we're measuring is urbanisation," Plimer said.

To understand the chaotic nature of climate change, we need to consider all the inputs - cosmic radiation, sun, clouds and so on, he said.

There was much more but essentially Plimer's message is that the idea humans cause climate change has become a fundamentalist religion which is corrupting science. It is embedded with a fear of nature and embraced principally by city people who have lost touch with nature.

He likens the debate to the famous 1990s battle he had in the Federal Court, where he accused an elder of The Hills Bible Church in Baulkham Hills of breaching Australia's Trade Practices Act by claiming to have found scientific evidence of Noah's Ark in Turkey.

Plimer says creationists and climate alarmists are quite similar in that "we're dealing with dogma and people who, when challenged, become quite vicious and irrational".

Human-caused climate change is being "promoted with religious zeal … there are fundamentalist organisations which will do anything to silence critics. They have their holy books, their prophet [is] Al Gore. And they are promoting a story which is frightening us witless [using] guilt [and urging] penance."

It is difficult for non-scientists to engage in the debate over what causes climate change and whether or not it can be stopped by new taxes and slower growth, because dissenting voices are shouted down by true believers in the scientific community who claim they alone have the authority to speak.

Quadrant is under fire for publishing articles by sceptics but, as its editor, Keith Windschuttle, said on Monday night, "People who are really confident [of their facts] relish debate."

In any case, ordinary people already have suspicions. The zealotry and one-sidedness of the debate alarmed an 81-year-old Seven Hills pensioner, Denys Clarke, so much that last month, at his own expense, he hired the ballroom at the Blacktown Workers Club for two public forums, titled The Truth About Climate Change. He invited a climate sceptic, the James Cook University professor Bob Carter, a geologist, to speak. More than 300 people attended, some from as far away as Nowra.

Carter, like Plimer and Klaus, has come in for his fair share of vilification. But as Clarke proves, you can't stop people thinking. Yet."     

Wednesday, November 26, 2008


"The Secret of Belief - Take Your Desires for Granted

Hope you enjoy this article as much as I did! 



"The Secret of Belief - Take Your Desires for Granted

By Tania Kotsos  October 11th, 2008
Source Dream Manifesto

"Belief is the key to reality creation. To be able to consciously create your ideal reality you have to believe that you already have that which you desire in the present moment. The secret to belief is to take your desires for granted because to take something for granted really means to believe that it has already been given to you - it has been granted, it has been received - there is no doubt.

Whatever You Have You Take for Granted
You only take for granted those things that you already have with certainty and unwavering belief. In fact the etymology of the word “granted” can be traced back to the Latin word credentem meaning “to believe” or “to trust”. Take your desires for granted and they will be granted. The words of Jesus Christ could not be clearer on this: “What things soever you desire, when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you shall have them” (Mark 11:24). To believe is to have faith. The kind of faith that “is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”.

What a Difference Indifference Makes
Although it is important to be crystal clear about what it is you wish to see manifest in your life and to focus on your desires at the exclusion of all else during your creative visualization sessions, it is equally important to detach from the outcome as you go about your day. By constantly wondering where something is, or why it hasn’t shown up yet, or panicking that it won’t, will just keep it away from you because essentially you are focusing on what you do not have. Tell me, how many times has your telephone rung when you have sat staring at it desperate for it to ring? It may appear difficult to detach from something you deeply desire but it can be done.

Belief Makes Detachment Effortless
The way to effectively detach from your desired outcome is to truly believe that you have already received it. You can do this by knowing that whatever you visualize with belief and emotion is automatically created in the mental realm, which is the realm from which all things manifest. With perseverance and continued concentrated thought, your desires will materilaize in the physical world in accordance with the Law of Attraction and the other Universal Laws. Believe that you have already received your desires and you will find that detachment is effortless.

Believe with Gratitude
Taking something for granted in today’s society is usually equated with not being grateful for what you have. There is truth in this since most people want what they do not have and by failing to appreciate what they do have, they land up attracting precisely what they did not want in the first instance. Whatever you appreciate appreciates - it grows. Be grateful for everything you take for granted. In other words, be grateful for everything you have been given, including your desires. Gratitude is one of the most powerful emotions. It turbo charges the manifestation of your desires from the mental to the physical realm.

Everything is an Illusion
If you find yourself struggling to muster positive feelings or real belief about your desires because your current “reality” seems far removed from your desired outcome, it will help to remember that everything is an illusion. Your reality, the one you experience during your waking hours, is an illusion created by your dominant thoughts and beliefs and interpreted through your five physical senses. It is no more real than the reality you wish to experience since everything in the physical realm, whether wanted or unwanted, has its origin in the mental realm. Albert Einstein said it best when he said “reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one”.

Create Your Ideal Reality
Remember, your reality is yours to create and if you do not like what you’ve created so far, you have the power to change it through the power of your thoughts. Ultimately, what you believe is a product of your habitual thoughts. You can truly be, do and have anything you desire. All you have to do is believe it. You may have been taught to only believe what you see, but in truth you will only see it once you believe it.

In the words of Henry Ford, “whether you believe you can, or your can’t, you are right”.

In a nutshell, to create your ideal reality you must believe that you already are or have that which you desire in the present moment. The secret to belief is to take your desires for granted to the point of indifference, not because you do not care if they materialise or not but because you know they already have. When you get into the mindset of being grateful for those things which have already been given to you, including your desires, you will have learnt the secret to turbo charging the manifestation of your desires from the mental to the physical realm."
Abraham book quote

"  I Want to Harmonize with My Desire. . .

Anytime you feel negative emotion, stop and say: Something is important here; otherwise, I would not be feeling this negative emotion. What is it that I want? And then simply turn your attention to what you do want. . . . In the moment you turn your attention to what you want, the negative attraction will stop; and in the moment the negative attraction stops, the positive attraction will begin. And—in that moment—your feeling will change from not feeling good to feeling good. That is the Process of Pivoting."

Abraham-Hicks Daily Quote

"  You have sole ownership of your vision. And the Universe will give you what you want within your vision. What happens with most people is that they muddy their vision with "reality". Their vision becomes full of not only what they want but what everybody else thinks about what they want, too. Your work is to clarify and purify your vision so that the vibration that you are offering can then be answered."

"  You’re always on your way somewhere. The key is: find a way to be happy wherever you now are on your way to where you really want to be. (We’re speaking of the state of being you want.) It does not matter where you are; where you are is shifting constantly—but you must turn your attention to where you want to go. And that’s the difference between making the best of something and making the worst of something.  "

"  We are proponents of joyful life

We are not proponents of long life. We are proponents of joyful life, and when you find yourself in joy, the longevity usually follows. Although we do not count the success of a life by its length; we count it by its joy."

Tuesday, November 25, 2008


"Gratitude & Appreciation as a Secret to Success

"Gratitude & Appreciation as a Secret to Success

By Jack Canfield  November 22nd, 2008
Source Dream Manifesto

"The best attitude you can possibly aspire to express year-round is one of gratitude and appreciation. Being truly grateful for what is already present in your life will automatically and effortlessly attract more good into your life.

Make a conscious decision to appreciate and acknowledge all that you have already been blessed with. These emotions are of the highest vibrational frequency, and through the Law of Attraction they will attract even more to be thankful for.

Try to be grateful for even the difficult and challenging situations that arise in your life.

It is often through these situations, that we experience the most profound spiritual and emotional growth. You can learn to view each apparent obstacle as an opportunity to develop a new quality, strength, skill, insight or wisdom and be grateful for the lessons. Each challenge is an opportunity for growth and expansion.

Rise to these occasions, and appreciate all that you are learning in the process. Keeping your attitude positive and appreciative through these times will not only help to avoid attracting more of these difficult situations into your life - it will also create a field of positive energy that will attract more of what you do want.

“Of all the attitudes we can acquire, surely
the attitude of gratitude is the most important,
and by far the most life-changing.”
- Zig Ziglar

A Token of Gratitude
Try carrying a small token, stone, crystal, or some other meaningful object with you each day in your pocket. Throughout the day, each time you reach into your pocket for your money or keys it will serve as a tangible reminder to stop and think of something you have to be grateful for. This is a great way to increase your awareness of all that you have to be appreciative of.

Take a moment to breathe, and really feel the emotion of gratitude. This simple mindfulness technique helps to raise your vibrational frequency and keep you in a state of constant gratitude.

Your Gratitude Journal
Start keeping a daily Gratitude and Acknowledgement journal. This is a necessary and valuable tool in the development of your growth and awareness. This book is not intended to be a long, drawn out “diary” sort of thing, just a short, simple list of things you are grateful for on that particular day. This is a place to honor and appreciate the good in your life.

Each evening, before going to bed, take a few minutes to review your day. Think about the day’s events. Become aware of how many good things actually happened on that day, and remember to appreciate even the challenges that you encountered. Select the five things, or people, or events that you are most grateful for. There is no right or wrong here, just whatever, or whoever you are sincerely grateful for on that particular day. It may be the warm sun on your face, a cool breeze, a kind word, a friend, or just feeling good about what you got accomplished that day. It may be the way you handled a particular situation that would have thrown you into a tailspin in the past.

Anything you are grateful for. As you write them in your journal, feel the gratitude and appreciation. Give thanks.

Take a moment to acknowledge the changes that are occurring for you personally. Write them down. Acknowledge just how well the Law of Attraction is working in your life. Write down any specific event where the Law of Attraction was at work- the parking space you envisioned, the meeting you wanted to schedule, the bonus check you received, the grade you wanted, the person who said yes when you asked them out.

Miracles can and do occur on a daily basis. They are happening all around you. Honor them, and notice them. Through acknowledgement, you will become more and more aware of the amazing synchronicity that is already at work in your life.

Make the time you spend in contemplation and writing in your Gratitude and Acknowledgement journal a sacred part of your daily routine. Your continued expressions of joy and gratitude will draw even greater joy, love and abundance into your life.

You will begin to notice a change in your perception of each day’s events. You will become more aware of the positive things that happen all around you every single day. Your focus will shift, your energy will shift, and you will begin to appreciate how blessed you already are. And … the Law of Attraction will respond to the higher vibration you are creating.

Enjoy the journey. Live each day in joy and gratitude. An excerpt from Jack Canfield’s KEY to < snip >."

Abraham-Hicks Daily Quote

"  "Ask, and it is given" means that whether you are a full blossoming genius human, or whether you are the one-celled amoeba in the ocean, or a cell in one of your bodies, when it is concluded that something else is preferred (no matter how developed the consciousness is) every time a preference is noted, Nonphysical Energy rushes forth to answer it. It is the promise of our evolving beingness. "

"  What I think and feel and what I get are always a match. And so, if I want something different than what I've been getting, I have to, somehow, generate different feelings.   "

"  You're really not wanting to limit beliefs because belief is just perspective, and the more beliefs or the more perspectives or the more attitudes, the bigger the vibrational kitchen from which you can make your pie. Just get so good at directing your Energy that the belief doesn't dominate. "


"  You cannot notice what-is and complain about it, and be a vibrational match to the solution. When you were living the problem, you were asking for the solution, and Source said yes immediately. So, there's never a reason for you to be wallowing around in a problem for more than about a second? You can get so good at this that before you're even aware that the problem has gotten started, you've already got the solution under way.  "

"  This is always true: What I think and how I feel, and what manifests, is always a vibrational match. But here's the big kicker: What manifests isn't manifesting instantaneously. So, you've got all this buffer of time leeway that makes you sloppy... If you thought a negative thought and a brick would instantly fall on your head every time, you'd clean up your thinking. But you're not here to be punished about your thinking. You're here to use your thinking—and your focus—to create. "

Tuesday, November 25, 2008





Monday, November 24, 2008


Bar Stool Economics

Came in email.  Snopes had no information about the author.


Bar Stool Economics     
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.  If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,

it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.  The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.  He said, "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.  Drinks for the ten now cost just $80."
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected.  They would still drink for free.  But what about the other six men -- the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?  They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.

But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.  So the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay!
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before.  And the first four continued to drink for free.  But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man.  He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too.  It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!"shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2 ? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
   "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison.  "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him.  But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.  They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.  The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.  Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more.  In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Sunday, November 23, 2008


"Earth�s Magnetic Field

Great article about grounding while connecting with Source.  Very helpful in rising above chaos and confusion to a state of peace. 
"Pranic tube" referred to below is the same thing as "hara line" which is an energetic line that runs from above the top of our head down through the center of our body in front of the spine all the way down into the earth.  Hara line is used in martial arts, tapping the power of the tan tien or 'naval chakra' which is the first light body center and not a chakra.
Anyway you don't have to have any special training to do this exercise, mindful intent will help get you there rather quickly.  Blue Angel
"Earth’s Magnetic Field
By: Tom Kenyon 
Published: November 2008

"Let us give you an overview of the current planetary situation as we view it.
The magnetic field of earth is involved in a perturbation (my note: physics) a secondary influence on a system that causes it to deviate slightly) or morphing. This is taking place interdimensionally, and the net effect is incremental surges in amplitude or strength of the magnetic field.  This morphing of earth’s magnetic field is like a wave that rises and falls very quickly, and the oscillations are minute, but distinct. This is having a very strange effect upon human consciousness, specifically your biological experience. Many people are experiencing an increase of exhaustion and weariness. (As we have mentioned in previous communications, these symptoms are also caused by movements of energies, from deep space as they pass through your galaxy and your solar system.)
But this (perturbation) is of a different category. This is caused by the magnetic field itself, which is responding to the deep energies from space. It is a response of the molten core of your earth itself; and the magnetic field is having a conversation with the cosmos, if you wish to think of it in this metaphorical way. Now, your science does not view things in this manner, but from our perspective the magnetic field is having a conversation with these cosmic visitors, the energies from deep space, which are, by nature, catalysts for spiritual evolution.
Another set of symptoms directly related to the perturbations of your magnetic field are distinct changes in how you hold short term memory—because memory is a function of the magnetic’s of your own nervous system and that of earth. Your brain processes information through the minute gravitational and non-gravitational fields of it’s own structure and it is affected directly by fluctuations in the earth’s magnetic field. So you can expect an increase in short term memory anomalies. You may find yourself speaking a sentence and suddenly the words do not come to you or you mix up the words from their normal syntax. While in some cases this is the sign of a brain disorder, you will find this happening within the general populace at an increasing rate. Escalations in collective short-term memory glitches will lead humanity to a most novel situation. This situation is an opportunity or a curse, depending on how you work with it.
The opportunity is to see through the mental matrix of your own creation. What we mean by this is when your mind is unable to continue its story line in the ways it is used to, you have an opportunity to glimpse the realities behind the curtain (of perception). You are the ones who have created the curtain, and you have done this to keep yourselves separated from things you do not wish to see or experience directly, or in some cases what others do not wish you to see or experience directly. We refer here to the unseen manipulators of your collective reality—those who hold the economic and political reins of power.
We have said before that there are forces on your planet that actively resist the impulse for spiritual evolution. They are invested in continuing their lies through the misappropriation of information in order to control you. Their job is getting more difficult.
Their job is getting more difficult because the perturbation of the magnetic field creates gaps in the creation of mental realities projected by the human mind. They—meaning those who wish to control and manipulate you—have vast resources at their command, and they are employing every one of them. But they cannot control the magnetic field of the earth! And for this, you should give thanks.
The impulse that is affecting the magnetic field of the earth comes from far beyond their locus of influence. It is our expectation, based upon our understanding of hyper-dimensional physics that the perturbations of your magnetic field are going to increase over the next several years. Those of you who are sensitive energetically are the ones feeling this most intensely at the present moment, but we suspect that in the next two to three years most people will be affected by this in a way they are consciously aware of, even if they do not know why.
We have a couple of suggestions for dealing with the situation.
Our first suggestion is the easiest. It involves understanding your connection to the core of the earth itself. As an energetic being, in addition to your flesh and blood, you can form a conscious energetic relationship with the core of the earth.
This understanding, or orientation, is that you are immersed in and surrounded by, earth’s magnetic field. By going into mental resonance with the core of the earth (the generator of earth’s magnetic field), you become energetically stabilized. The earth, as a conscious being, can reveal herself to you in ways that are difficult to describe because your culture does not have a language for this. And you have been manipulated and controlled to insure that you do not have an awareness of this, for it could be one of your greatest strengths.
By entering into resonance with the core of the earth you become more conscious of the earth as a living conscious being. Through this link, you receive a type of energetic-solidity—even in the midst of earth’s increasing chaos.
The odd thing about it, however, is that when you bring yourself to your senses, so to speak, you are less controllable, less “manipulatable” by those forces that control the thought stream of humanity through mis-information, manipulation and mind-control.
In other words, forming a direct conscious relationship with the earth’s core bypasses many of the affects of what we call life-negative technologies.
If you wish to do something in addition to entering into mental resonance with the core of the earth, we suggest using your pranic tube, a subtle energetic channel that runs from above your head, through the center of your body, and into the earth. This tube, this channel, can be extended deep into the earth, down into the very core itself, and also above the head deep into space. In this method you are not dealing with extending the channel beyond the top of the head. Instead, you only extend the channel into the core of the earth.
But the essential thing is not so much the sending of this channel into the earth. The essential thing is to understand that you are in resonance with the core of the earth simply by knowing it. This will impart a sense of stability even in the midst of increasing chaos. It will awaken your senses. It will bring you into greater conscious relationship to earth. And, we must caution you that it will also de-hypnotize you—make you less controllable. And you will see through the lies around you more clearly!
The second suggestion involves developing a conscious relationship to the core of the galaxy.
Essentially, understand that you can be in resonance with the core of the Milky Way Galaxy, which is a black hole, and that in similar ways to being in resonance with the core of the earth, you can become stabilized in relationship to the galaxy.
If you are capable of this, simply hearing this described to you will activate the knowingness of how to do it. It is not a complex affair. It is quite simple, but requires the understanding that a part of you is not limited by the time and space coordinates of your physical body.
It requires an understanding that consciousness can extend instantaneously, anywhere in time and space, and by extending your consciousness to the galactic core, you are stabilized in relationship to the galaxy.
The ideal is to be in relationship to earth’s core and the core of the galaxy simultaneously.
Then you will be able to ride the waves of energy from deep space with a greater degree of mastery.
But, again, we caution you that this will make you less controllable, harder to hypnotize, and then you may have the very odd experience of waking up while many around you are still asleep. What you do with this awareness is, of course, your choice and your response-ability."


Saturday, November 22, 2008


" Wall St. and Economics

Second of the two newest videos from Abraham-Hicks concerning Law of Attraction. Hope you enjoy!!!  Big Grin 


"Abraham on Wall St. and Economics - Esther & Jerry Hicks 


Abraham-Hicks Daily Quote

" The amount of time it takes you to get from where you are to where you want to be, is only the amount of time it takes you to change the vibration within you. Instant manifestation could be yours if you could instantly change the vibration. " 

Excerpted from a workshop in San Diego, CA on Saturday, August 23rd, 2003


"  Genius. It is just attention to something specific. That's all it is. Law of Attraction makes it happen, and so anyone who gives attention to any subject for a period of time will evolve in the direction of that understanding. 

Excerpted from a workshop in San Diego, CA on Saturday, February 7th, 1998


Dialog from a seminar

"  Guest: If you’re trying to create a situation, or you are creating a situation, and you’re shooting Energy to that vortex, and let’s say there’s a certain thing that you have to have — it’s money. Okay, I hate to say it, but it’s money — and if you say, well okay I’m going to create this, but you have to put a time limit on it because you…

Abraham: You need it.

Guest: Yeah, right, something you can’t have unless you have it. Is that shooting yourself in the foot?

Abraham: Usually. Now, here is the thing. A lot of people that are teaching goal setting will say to you, “set your goal”, and by that, they mean, decide what you want and when you want it. Well, the advantage of that is it makes it feel more real. If you can say, one month from now, or, one year from now, it gives you a more tangible feeling place. The disadvantage of it is that if you’ve never done it, in all of your 29 years, and now you’re saying, “I’m going to do it in two months or one month or six months”, — you defeat your purpose because you cast doubt on it. In other words, you vibrationally ask for something you don’t believe, so every time you think about it, the negative belief rears its ugly head.

So what you want to do is just pay attention to the way you feel, and if you say, “I want to have it” or “I’ve got to have it and I’ve got to have it fast”, and you feel that discomfort, then know that whatever you’re doing, right there, isn’t working for you. And then, as you start talking about why you want it and you start pretending that it has happened, or you start envisioning that it has happened, and you feel that discomfort sort of ease up, and you feel yourself starting to feel a little lighter about it, now you know the Energy’s flowing. And so, then next time you think about it, you might have to go through the same process again of feeling uncomfortable and then bringing yourself to a place of ease. But it doesn’t take too many times of transmuting that Energy — from a place of a knot in your stomach to feeling better — before you’ve transmuted your basic point of attraction relative to that subject. And it doesn’t take too much of that before something starts to break loose. In other words, the Universe gives you the break that your Energy now deserves. And we don’t mean that in a judging term.

Somebody said, “There is no justice.” And we say, there is utter justice. You all get exactly what you deserve. Meaning, you’re all getting exactly what you’re vibrationally offering. So just play with it. Think and feel, think and feel, think and feel. If there’s something that you really want, like, when you said “money”; in other words, you’re almost embarrassed to even talk about it, because you can feel how negative it makes you feel even to think about it. Let us give you some sort of practical, fast approaches to this. Every time you spend money for anything, appreciate the fact that you had it to spend. Even if you think you’re spending it unwisely, even if you shouldn’t be spending it for this and should be saving it for something else, even if, when you spend it, it will deplete your checking account to a place that is uncomfortably low, even under those conditions — appreciate the fact that you had it to spend. “I am so happy to spend this money.”

Now, let’s talk about that subject of “tithing” for just a moment. A lot of people ask about tithing, because they have been told that there is benefit in it. And they’re usually told that by those who will receive the benefit from their tithing. In other words, “tithing is a good thing, give your money to me and your life will be better,” is the general picture of tithing. The reason that tithing is beneficial is because, if you feel abundant enough that you have excess that you don’t have to have — the excess is a vibration of Well-being. In other words, “I’ve not only got enough money for what I need, I have extra money,” and so, it’s that vibration of Well-being that allows more dollars to flow. So we encourage that you “tithe” your clothing account, that you “tithe” your vacation account, that you “tithe” your eating-at-a-special-restaurant account. In other words, you don’t have to tithe a church or a guru. Tithe yourself, but get into the attitude of excess. In other words, “not only can I meet my basic requirements, but I have excess that I can do other things with,” because it’s that vibration of abundance, that vibration of excess.

So, something that you can do that gets you in that flow, right away, is looking around at your personal possessions and noticing how many things you have that cost money. I’ve got…add up how much your stuff is really worth. In other words, I spent money on…add up how many meals you’ve eaten, how much money you’ve blown on food that you no longer have to call assets. You see what we’re getting at? As you start thinking in terms of all of the money that’s passed through your hands you get a sense of the abundance of dollars, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out.

Now, what makes many of you feel lackful of money is that you don’t have a big pile of it sitting around somewhere. And we say, no problem. You don’t have a big pile of air sitting around, either. You don’t have a big pile of Energy sitting around. It’s not what it’s for. It’s the utilization of it that is the power of it; in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out. So rather than feeling lackful because there isn’t excess money or extra money, just enjoy the money that is there; in and out, in and out, in and out and you get this sense of “the money is just like the Energy,” it is just like the oxygen, it is always there. There is as much there as is ever needed — and you can start identifying what you will do with it: “If I had an extra $100, I would do that.” Now, a process that we have seen work, incredibly well, is to put an extra $100 in your pocket. Find it from somewhere, carry it in your pocket and note how many things that please you you could do with it if you really wanted to. Somebody said, “Abraham, you obviously haven’t been around lately, because $100 won’t go very far.” And we say, if you spend it 1,000 times today, mentally, that’s $100,000 that you have projected. In other words, “I would buy that, I could buy that; We could eat there; We could do this; We could stay there; It is a down payment on this.” You see what we’re getting at? And as you mentally project that…And something about actually having it, makes it feel real. It’s not a fantasy anymore. In other words, “I’ve got it.” You can even take it out and look at it. You could see something in a window and say, “You know, if I really wanted that, if I wanted that more than the feeling of Well-being that this $100 offers me, I could just exchange it right now. ” But if you keep the $100 in your pocket and mentally spend it again and again and again and again, what happens is, that vortex opens. In other words, as you mentally expend it, you mentally bring it in, as you mentally expend it, you mentally bring it in, as you mentally expend it, you mentally bring it in until soon it is physically coming to you. Soon it is physically coming in and physically going out,physically coming in and physically going out — but you have to start with the mental projection of it first. And then, before you know it, you have more money than you know what to do with. Truly, we’re not kidding you. It becomes, then, a new process of determining what you’re going to do with it. In other words, managing your money, letting it flow, having the fun of it, taking it to the bank, you see. Good.

A message from  Abraham  channeled by  Esther and Jerry Hicks Friday, 22 February, 2008 "

Friday, November 21, 2008


"Discover The Power of Inner Guidance

Another installment of inspiration.  Hope you enjoy!! Sun Smiley


"Discover The Power of Inner Guidance

By Pam Garcy  October 9th, 2008
Source DreamManifesto

“Okay,” you’re thinking. “I’m sold on the idea that it would be good for me to work on accepting myself, others, and life’s situations. But how do I do this?” There are five points about acceptance and the notion of unconditional acceptance that will open you to your accepting abilities. To make it even easier, I’ll also give you ten tips to build and maintain a strong Triad of Acceptance.

First, in order to open yourself to the idea of acceptance when you’re feeling non-accepting, I’ve found that it is helpful to ask yourself, “What about this is in my control, and what is not in my control?” When you ask this question, it often focuses you upon that which you can change and that which you presently cannot change. The simple act of recognizing the difference often helps you to shift your focus and release the energy that is wrapped up in the area of that which you cannot change.

Second, you can begin to understand the difference between acceptance and liking something. Just because you accept something as it is does not mean that you like it that way. I accept that I have osteopaenia, a bone condition that precedes osteoporosis. I don’t like it, but there is nothing I can do about the fact that this is my present diagnosis.

What I can do, now that I’ve accepted it, is to look at my options from here. I can figure out a plan of action based upon what I consider my best options, and then I can implement the plan and get regular feedback from my doctor. So, just because you accept something, it does not mean that you like it, or that you would wish for it to be that way. Because you don’t control the universe, very often things won’t be exactly as you’d prefer for them to be, but it is far easier to accept them and move on!

Third, it helps to understand that acceptance is not the same as resignation. Resignation means that you are giving up, that you think that something will never change, and that therefore you will not try to make any improvements. Acceptance, on the contrary, means that you recognize that what is just is, but that it may not always be as it is today. Acceptance thereby mobilizes you to have the energy to work toward change because you are not stuck trying to change that which you cannot, and you begin to focus upon that which you can change.

The fourth point to opening yourself to the idea of acceptance is to make your Acceptance Triad unconditional. Unconditional acceptance means that under any condition, you can see and acknowledge that what is just is. You can recognize that you don’t control all aspects of life, others, or yourself. Moreover, it means that you can accept people (including yourself) without liking everything about them or the things they do.

So, if your spouse is acting rudely to one of your friends, you might not like his behavior, but you can accept him as a human being with flaws despite his crummy behavior! Instead of thinking, “He’s a worthless crummy person,” you would instead think, “What he’s doing is crummy.” The same would apply to you. If you’d done something that you considered wrong, you’d define the behavior as poor, rather than yourself.

Instead of saying, “I’m no good,” you’d instead say, “It is no good that I did that.” In the case of a shabby situation, you might say, “This was shabby,” rather than saying, “Life is shabby.” You would let go of forecasting the future of your whole life, and look at each situation separately.

What if something in your life is just not fair? Obviously, in an extremely poor situation, it can be challenging to accept what is. Remember, however, acceptance is different from resignation. Acceptance is the starting point for freeing yourself to determine what you want to do or think about next. Situations may be very bad, and people may act very badly, but non-acceptance leads you down a nonproductive road of blaming, complaining, and shutting down. Would you rather shut down, or acknowledge what is, and then rise to the challenge?

How would you approach this type of challenge with unconditional acceptance? You might strive to improve the situation, knowing that just getting angry about it isn’t going to change a thing for you. Tina’s ex-husband forces her and her children into custody battles every couple of years, despite the fact that she’s repeatedly proven her wonderful mothering abilities and her children voice their desire to stay with her.

Tina not only does not like this situation, she is financially impaired by it every time. She has two general categories of choices: the choice of non-acceptance, or the choice of unconditional acceptance.
When she chooses non-acceptance, she becomes angry and enraged. She might spend hours on the phone crying in frustration or even planning ways to get even; however, the cost of this stance is that her overall coping is compromised and the benefit is—well, there is no apparent lasting benefit.

If she chooses unconditional acceptance, she can allow herself to feel sad and annoyed in reaction to the inconvenience of another custody battle, but she would accept that this is the crummy reality of her particular situation and prepare herself and her children as best as she can.

At some point, Tina might be in a position to become politically active and work to modify the injustice that she and others experience from what she views as financial abuse. As you can see, neither response is actually changing the reality of the present situation, but the second response helps Tina remain mobilized and cope more successfully.

The fifth and final point to opening yourself to acceptance is this: As you unconditionally accept yourself, others, and conditions, realize that acceptance is a process. It is ongoing. Don’t worry if you’re not perfectly accepting, just notice when you aren’t and work on it. You can accomplish a lot by simply asking yourself, “Am I accepting what is?”  Keep it going, and you’ll feed your tendency to be accepting. Like a plant, acceptance needs ongoing sunshine, water, and nutrients to thrive."

Abraham-Hicks Daily Quote

" What makes people decline is that they start forking in the direction that doesn't allow them to be the receivers of this never-ending Stream of Well- Being. You don't have to decline... "Happy, healthy, happy, healthy, happy, healthy, happy, healthy, dead!" That's Esther's plan... "

Excerpted from a workshop in San Diego, CA on Saturday, August 13th, 2005

"  Child of mine, I will never do for you that which I know you can do for yourself. I will never rob you of an opportunity to show yourself your ability and talent. I will see you at all times as the capable, effective, powerful creator that you've come forth to be. And I will stand back as your most avid cheerleading section. But I will not do for you that which you have intended to do for yourself. Anything you need from me, ask. I'm always here to compliment or assist. I am here to encourage your growth, not to justify my experience through you. "

Excerpted from a workshop in Seattle, WA on Sunday, July 4th, 1999

"  Because others cannot vibrate in your experience, they cannot affect the outcome of your experience. They can hold their opinions, but unless their opinion affects your opinion, their opinion matters not at all. A million people could be pushing against you and it would not negatively affect you unless you push back. That million people pushing against you are affecting their millions of vibrations. They are affecting what happens in their experience. They are affecting their point of attraction, but it does not affect you unless you push against them. "

Excerpted from a workshop in Orlando, FL on Saturday, February 21st, 1998

Thursday, November 20, 2008


video "Abraham On The World Financial Crisis - Esther & Jerry Hicks

Because the first part of this video mentions politics I requesed permission before posting.

Hope the message is inspiring, that you feel better having heard it.  Enjoy!  Dance


"Abraham On The World Financial Crisis - Esther & Jerry Hicks

Wednesday, November 19, 2008


"How to Achieve Wealth from the Inside Out

"How to Achieve Wealth from the Inside Out

By Mark Watson
Posted: 03 Oct 2008
Source Dream Manifesto

"As the economy continues its downward spiral, more and more Americans are becoming rattled and unnerved by their financial position. A recent Gallup “Well Being” Poll (September 25) showed that only 40% of Americans are thriving economically, a drop of over 10% in just one month, while 53% of Americans are now struggling, with their basic needs just barely being met.

It seems like now more than ever the value of creating wealth and financial freedom is paramount. But what to do? The real question should be: “What are you here to do?”

We all have a burning desire in us, something that we are meant to do. An obvious example is Donald Trump, somebody who just can’t keep from doing Real Estate. He’ll never retire because he’s in love with the whole process. And of course his success reflects that.

We can only find our highest levels of wealth, success and security when we are doing exactly what we’re meant to be doing. True wealth creation is deeper and more meaningful than simply trying something new, however, and real wealth is more than putting money in the bank. To connect truly and wholly with our destiny we must clear away old habits and fears. We must dare to acknowledge and name those passions deep within and find the best wealth building vehicle that fits with who we truly are.

So creating real wealth begins on the “inside.” Here are a few simple exercises to get you started:

Begin with Your Rumblings
Rumblings are deep inner longings or yearnings—the intuitive whispers that call you. Will you dare to name those passions deep within? You may experience rumblings as a discomfort you can’t quite explain or as feelings that seem familiar. They are primary in identifying your purpose and what you most desire. One of our wealth mentoring students recently said it this way. “What I found truly liberating was discovering that I have a natural fit for achieving success that is uniquely mine.” Ask yourself these questions: Deep down what do I most want out of life? What are the unique gifts that I bring to the world?

Clear Old Habits and Fears
To connect truly and wholly with our destiny we must clear away old habits and fears. A good way to begin is by simply acknowledging what gets in our way. For example, my first rumblings to write Wealth Inside Out were overshadowed by many negative thoughts and beliefs. I would say things like “I’m not good enough” and “What I have to say is not important” and the like.

Then one-by-one I began to silence those inner demons and took action—even when I was not sure of what to do next. Ask yourself these questions: How do I talk to myself about my deepest hopes and dreams? What would I do now if I knew that I could not fail?

Ask for Inner and Outer Help
To achieve wealth from the inside out you will need to cultivate a strong relationship with your interior and seek the counsel of people who can help you succeed. Inner guidance is the secure inner reference place that helps you reorganize around your true priorities. You can access this inner power by asking for help from your higher power, or simply the part of you that knows. Say something like “Please help me find clear direction” or “What do I do next?” and then listen to your answers.

As new possibilities emerge look for ways to make it happen and take action. Whenever you get stuck ask for inner and outer help. Only then will you discover how to become your best most empowered self and realize your greatest dreams and goals.

Don’t Give Up
There may be times when you feel pulled to give up on your true wealth dreams. In fact, without the right support many people do give up and never fulfill what they were born to do. It breaks my heart whenever I see this because there is no need to give up. Help is all around. Finding your place in life (and your true wealth building niche) happens naturally by activating the passions inside of you.

Much like a bird flies south for the winter and a whale navigates thousands of miles every year, you have an internal navigation system for finding true wealth and happiness.

The deeper you reach into the core of who you are, the more aligned you become with your destiny. Allow yourself to be genuinely receptive to the messages life is trying to reveal. As you follow your inner whispers, trust the natural process of life to reorganize around your true wealth vision and around what you were born to do.

Whatever you do, don’t give up. Think of times when you and others have triumphed. Think of sports and how many games are won in the final moments. Following your dreams is an even greater game, one that pulsates with meaning and fulfillment, true success and happiness. There is nothing else like it. Get whatever support you need to realize success, and keep going… keep choosing wealth from the inside out. "


Abraham-Hicks Daily Quote

"Just do your best to keep yourself in balance. One of the first things that causes Energy misalignment, is asking or demanding too much of yourself in terms of time and effort. In other words, you just cannot burn the candle at both ends, so that you are physically tired, and then expect yourself to have a cheerful attitude. So, the rule of thumb has to be: "I'm going to be very, very, very happy, and then do everything I have time to do after that."


Excerpted from a workshop in West Los Angeles, CA on Sunday, March 6th, 2005 "

Tuesday, November 18, 2008


"Beijing orders demolition of leading activist's home

Land grab for developers by local US governement is called Eminent Domain which is happening with alarming frequency.  Tax dollar$$$$$$ are at the heart of this issue.

The left's venomous contempt for private property ownership rights will prove interesting during the next 4 Marxist-US years with the feds owning banks, redistributing assets via taxes and stacking the Supreme Court with activist judges.


"Beijing orders demolition of leading activist's home


".......For over a decade, Ni, 47, has been a prominent rights activist and lawyer fighting against government-backed land grabs in central Beijing, one of the city's most sensitive social issues.

As all land belongs to the state in China, local officials enjoy immense powers to determine land-use rights, and critics say residents and farmers are often forcefully evicted in shady deals between the government and developers.

Ni was jailed for a year in 2002 for damaging public property after being arrested at a rally aimed at stopping the demolition of another courtyard home in Beijing.

Dong and rights activists said she was beaten in the 2002 arrest and has since had to walk with a cane due to injuries sustained then. ........"

Monday, November 17, 2008


"Murdoch to media: You dug yourself a huge hole

"Murdoch to media: You dug yourself a huge hole

Posted by Charles Cooper


"With newspapers cutting back and predictions of even worse times ahead, Rupert Murdoch said the profession may still have a bright future if it can shake free of reporters and editors who he said have forfeited the trust and loyalty of their readers.

"My summary of the way some of the established media has responded to the internet is this: it's not newspapers that might become obsolete. It's some of the editors, reporters, and proprietors who are forgetting a newspaper's most precious asset: the bond with its readers," said Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive officer of News Corp. He made his remarks as part of a lecture series sponsored by the Australian Broadcast Corporation.

Murdoch to journalists: Shape up or risk extinction

(Credit: Dan Farber)

Murdoch, whose company's holdings also include MySpace and the Wall Street Journal, criticized what he described as a culture of "complacency and condescension" in some newsrooms.

"The complacency stems from having enjoyed a monopoly--and now finding they have to compete for an audience they once took for granted. The condescension that many show their readers is an even bigger problem. It takes no special genius to point out that if you are contemptuous of your customers, you are going to have a hard time getting them to buy your product. Newspapers are no exception."

The 77-year-old Murdoch, recalling a long career in newspapers that began when his father's death forced him to take over the Adelaide News in 1952, said the profession has failed to creatively respond to changes wrought by technology.

"It used to be that a handful of editors could decide what was news-and what was not. They acted as sort of demigods. If they ran a story, it became news. If they ignored an event, it never happened. Today editors are losing this power. The Internet, for example, provides access to thousands of new sources that cover things an editor might ignore. And if you aren't satisfied with that, you can start up your own blog and cover and comment on the news yourself. Journalists like to think of themselves as watchdogs, but they haven't always responded well when the public calls them to account."

To make his point, Murdoch criticized the media reaction after bloggers debunked  (Note: see my remarks below) a "60 Minutes" report by former CBS anchor, Dan Rather, that President Bush had evaded service during his days in the National Guard.

"Far from celebrating this citizen journalism, the establishment media reacted defensively. During an appearance on Fox News, a CBS executive attacked the bloggers in a statement that will go down in the annals of arrogance. '60 Minutes,' he said, was a professional organization with 'multiple layers of checks and balances.' By contrast, he dismissed the blogger as 'a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.' But eventually it was the guys sitting in their pajamas who forced Mr. Rather and his producer to resign.

"Mr. Rather and his defenders are not alone," he continued. "A recent American study reported that many editors and reporters simply do not trust their readers to make good decisions. Let's be clear about what this means. This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves."

Murdoch's comments come at a time when the media landscape looks increasingly bleak both for print-based and online news organizations. A recent report by Goldman Sachs predicted that advertising pressure will continue because of the declines in the auto and financial industries. Online outlets are also feeling the impact. On Friday, shut its San Francisco office

Despite the blemishes, however, Murdoch said newspapers can still count on circulation gains "if papers provide readers with news they can trust." He added they will also need to embrace technology advances like RSS feeds and targeted e-mails. The challenge, according to Murdoch, will be to "use a newspaper's brand while allowing readers to personalize the news for themselves-and then deliver it in the ways that they want."

"The newspaper, or a very close electronic cousin, will always be around. It may not be thrown on your front doorstep the way it is today. But the thud it makes as it lands will continue to echo around society and the world," he said. "


From my previous blog post "

A short trip in the way-back machine

"Hurricane Dan: Get serious"  September 12, 2004

"Meet Buckhead

September 17, 2004 Posted by Scott at 6:25 PM


"Peter Wallsten follows up his September 12 reconstruction of the genesis of Hurricane Dan with an article on his discovery of Buckhead's identity, Atlanta attorney Harry MacDougald: "Blogger who faulted CBS documents is conservative activist."  "

"Documents Suggest Special Treatment for Bush in Guard [post 47];page=1

"Howlin, every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman.

In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts.

The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used monospaced fonts.  " 

Monday, November 17, 2008


"The world has never seen such freezing heat

Two blog sites noted in this article, quickly excerpted below are amassing information that much of the global warming data is being cherry picked to achieve results reflecting Algore's follow the money trail to carbon credits trading message. 


"The world has never seen such freezing heat

By Christopher Booker


"A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That  and Climate Audit  began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought. "



"What I found interesting in the NOAA press release on Tiksi, was this image, showing weather stations clustered around the Arctic: (Photos)
...."The interesting thing is that all these stations are manned and heated. The instruments appear to be “on” the buildings themselves, though it is hard to tell. One wonders how much of the building heat in this tiny island of humanity makes it to the sensors. The need for a manned weather station in the Arctic always comes with a need for heat. ....." 

"From the GHCN station inventory file at NCDC I found that Verhojansk, Russia had a lat/lon of 67.55 133.38 ........."
".... But something curious popped out at me as I was scanning the Google Earth image of Verhojansk looking for what might be a weather station - it looks like pipes running across the surface:
"These “pipes” appear to go all over town. Here is a closer view, note the arrow to what I think might be the weather station location based on the fencing, objects on the ground that could be rain gauges or shelters, and what looks like an instrument tower:

I was curious about what these pipes could be, it certainly didn’t look like oil pipelines, and why where they so close to houses and building and seem to network all over town. Doing a little research on Russian history, I found my answer in the pervasive “central planning” thinking that characterized Russian government and infrastructure. It’s called “District Heating

From Wikipedia:

District heating (less commonly called teleheating) is a system for distributing heat generated in a centralized location for residential and commercial heating requirements such as space heating and water heating.

But for Russia there was this caveat:


In most Russian cities, district-level combined heat and power plants (Russian: ???, ?????-??????? ????????) produce more than 50 % of the nation’s electricity and simultaneously provide hot water for neighbouring city blocks. They mostly use coal and oil-powered steam turbines for cogeneration of heat. Now, gas turbines and combined cycle designs are beginning to be widely used as well. A Soviet-era approach of using very large central stations to heat large districts of a big city or entire small cities is fading away as due to inefficiency, much heat is lost in the piping network because of leakages and lack of proper thermal insulation [10].

I should also point out that district heating is not limited to Russia, but is in many northern European countries. It seems quite prevalent in cold Euro-climates, and even extends into Great Britain. .... "

"....Maybe it’s the steam pipes. We need to send somebody to Russia to find out. Of the many station lat/lons I looked at, Verhojansk was the only one I found with enough Google Earth resolution to see the steam pipes. Maybe the heart of our Russian temperature anomaly lies in central heating." 

Monday, November 17, 2008


"Never Give In

"Never Give In   
By Jerry Bowyer
Source Tech Central Station
Winston Churchill   "Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

-Sir Winston Churchill, Speech, 1941, Harrow School

Check the date, Churchill was speaking during the depths of the Nazi onslaught. And he was speaking to school children. The quote above is the text of his entire commencement speech to those boys. He rose, stepped to the podium, uttered those two sentences and sat down. Few people could have gotten away with that.

As I hear about the death knell of conservatism, I'm reminded of Churchill. He won WWII, and then lost the next election to a Fabian socialist named Clement Atlee. Brits had become tired of risk, tired of war, tired of privation and so they gave the reins to a man of the left. Atlee began to commandeer large swaths of the economy. In fact, my favorite Churchill story is the one about the time that Churchill was standing at the urinal in the men's room of the House of Commons. Atlee came into the room and stood at the urinal next to Winston's. Churchill looked up at him, zipped up, moved a couple of urinals farther down and resumed his business. "Why Winston, I had no idea you were so modest.", said Atlee. "It's not modesty, Prime Minister. It's only that every time you find something that is large and functions well, you try to nationalize it, and I thought it best not to take a chance!".

Atlee did nationalize whole industries, and the industries and the political opposition resisted. The things that were large and functioned well in the private sector, got larger, but did not continue to function well under socialism, and eventually, Churchill won back the office of Prime Minister.

We will win too. But it won't be with same crew that brought us to defeat. Let me say in print what so many of us believe in our hearts: the present generation of conservative leaders has failed us miserably. For the most part, congressional republicans are a village of pygmies. Few have genuine leadership qualities. Fewer still can compose a clear English sentence in defense of our ideas. Our president, whom I love, certainly cannot. Our nominee is a man who spent too many decades in the DC Skinner Box where he learned to flinch every time his inner Reagan threatened to say something true about the left. Sen. McCain said in his most recent appearance on Meet the Press that he had appeared there more than any other guest in its history. He thought that was a good thing. I thought, "That's why he's losing."

How could he have possibly believed that he could win an investor-bashing bidding war with a utopian socialist?

For the most part, our conservative intellectual establishment is a herd of antelope crowded around a few springs of conservative foundation money, taking no real chances, and forming a ring in which they see and hear only members of their small and shrinking herd. When someone appears who they haven't met, a Palin for instance, they close ranks and exclude the newcomer and reinforce their own tiny circle even more strongly.

I go to DC fairly often, and I find the old guard of conservatives every bit as out of touch with my neighbors and I as the liberals are.

It's not us; it's them. The elements of the Reagan coalition remain alive and intact: practicing Christians and Jews, military families, investors, entrepreneurs - they're all at least as large and probably larger than they were when Reagan convened them in 1980. We didn't shrink, but our leaders did. After every revolution, the careerists step in. The guys who see a good job in politics or advocacy are a completely different personality type than the guys who leave a good job to go and change the world.

Here's what you're looking for:

If you flinch every time your leader speaks, he's the wrong guy.

If Congress, staffer, policy analyst, etc. is the best job this guy could have ever gotten, he's the wrong guy.

If he's lived in DC more than a decade, he's probably the wrong guy.

If he sounds like the people on TV and not the people in Church, temple, work, or the Rotary, he's the wrong guy.

If he uses hackneyed phrases like 'traditional family values' and 'tax and spend liberal' instead of normal English, he's the wrong guy.

If you wouldn't hire him to run your own business, or recommend him to the owner of the company that you work for, then he's the wrong guy.

History has handed us the founding fathers' worse nightmare: a hyper-articulate, hyper-charismatic man who has a low view of the constitutional limits of government. It's going to take the founding fathers' best dream, a citizen-soldier of wisdom and achievement to get us back on track. He (or more likely, she) is out there already. "

Monday, November 17, 2008


"The Child returned from his travels - and final battle was joined

Some British satire for Monday.  Banana  Banana  Banana


"The Child returned from his travels - and final battle was joined
An epic pilgrimage and miraculous signs were not enough to convince all doubters of the anointed one, who would soon be forced to face his demons
Gerard Baker, US Editor
November 8, 2008
'He ventured forth': read the first chapter
"Despite the great wonders he had worked, the peace he had poured on the troubled waters, and the signs he had performed in Babylon and Jerusalem, there were some, yea even among his own countrymen, who refused to believe that he was the Anointed One.
Even when he joined hands with the Great Preacher Joseph of Biden, called the Blowhard, a wise man of many, many words, who had served in the Senate of the People for more than five generations, his enemies still strove to undo him.
In the summer, he travelled with his new friend Joseph to the Mile High City to speak to his followers. Four score thousand came to hear the word and their hearts were filled with joy and their spirits were lifted by his voice.
But despite the multitudes, there were still some among the Pharisees who secretly despised him. The followers of Queen Hillary muttered among themselves that he had defiled them with his disrespect. The people began to look for another leader.
And lo, in the west there appeared a rival, John, the Son of Cain. Now McCain was a great warrior. He was rich in wisdom and great of age, being, it was said, 936 years old. He had suffered sorely many years before in a war against the Asians. Eight years earlier he had bravely challenged the Evil Pharaoh Bush, but had been castrated by Bush’s feared henchman, Rove. He was straight of talk and, mounted on his trusty steed, a maverick, he began to find followers.
Being advanced in years, McCain needed a mate, a loyal follower who would succeed him when the time came for him to return to the Lord.
He had first considered Joe the Lieber-Man, but he was not of the same tribe as himself, but of the tribe of the Donkey. The tribesmen of the Elephant forbade him to make common cause with this renegade and so McCain sent his men far and wide to find another mate.
And they found him a woman, Sarah, from the North Country. She had dwelled long among the nomads of Wasilla and the North Slope. She was fair of face but unknown throughout the whole land, except among the Moose and the Caribou, who had grown to fear her. At first the scribes scoffed at Sarah. They mocked the way she spake and the vast family she had borne – her children were more numerous than the grains of sand in the desert or the stars in the sky.
But the people followed her and saw that she was good. Great crowds went out to meet her when she travelled with John. The word began to spread among the men of Gallup and Ipsos and Zog-Bee that they, and not the Child, might be the Chosen Ones.
And the Lord saw all this and fell into a righteous wrath at the people’s blasphemy. Did I not lead you out of slavery? he cried. Have I not shown you that it is the Child who is to save you from your exile in the House of Bush?
And he resolved to send down a great plague among the people of the Promised Land so they would understand their error.
The plague began in the valley of the subprime, smiting houses that had been purchased with money lent at unusually low interest rates, made possible by the foolish procurator Greenspan. The plague spread quickly across the land; and lenders and borrowers alike were laid low.
And it came to pass that a group of brothers, Lehman by name, an old and revered family, fell upon hard times because of the plague and they resolved to take themselves off to the Treasury. The Lehman brothers journeyed to the Treasury and fell on their knees and begged for help, even offering up in penance their asses. But the Treasury refused to heed their pleas, sent them away and told them to take their sorry asses with them. And with that, terrible signs appeared in the sky: Overnight Libor was elevated before the money changers’ eyes. Spreads on commercial paper widened as though in an earthquake, and all over the world the rivers of credit ran dry.
In great distress the people looked to McCain for help but he was confounded and had no answer to their pleas except for assurances that their fundamentals were sound, which the people did not want to hear.
All along, the Child smiled warmly and said little but promised salvation, and the people listened.
And it was about this time too that Sarah from the North Country was transformed. She began speaking in tongues. Sitting down with the Scribes of the media she was asked questions but replied in the language of Gobble-de-Gook and the people said among themselves: “What on earth is she talking about?” She no longer wore her simple sackcloth and parkas but appeared before the crowds in the finest robes from the stalls of Neiman-Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue.
The plague quickly smote the enemies of the Child and sowed confusion among the people. The House of McCain began to spring leaks and not even the handiwork of the great Joe the Plumber could make it whole.
And so the final battle was joined and the Child prevailed easily, in fulfilment of the Scriptures. From the mountains of the west to the great plains, to the piedmont and to the orange groves of the Gulf, a great wave lifted him up and propelled him to the threshold of the Executive Mansion. Only the poor, bitter people of Appalachia, clinging to their guns and their faith, refused to listen to his word.
At last, when the scale of his great victory became clear, the rulers of all the world fell to their knees in unison and praised God, singing.
“Obama in The Highest”. "

Saturday, November 15, 2008


"It's Time to Worry about Global COOLING

Even metaphysically it's been predicted that recent hotter than normal years have been a precurser for an ice age.  Big Grin 


"It’s not likely greenhouse ‘gassers’ will be converted in 12 years. They’ll be busy looking for something humans have done to make it so cold. " (and blame George Bush)


"It's Time to Worry about Global COOLING

Kevin Roeten

Source Planet Daily

"Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest solar cycle of the past two centuries. They say this will likely lead to unusually cool conditions on Earth. It is also predicted that this cool period will go much longer than the normal 11 year cycle, as the Little Ice Age did. The climate threat is actually cooling, especially to countries like Canada. On the northern limit to agriculture in the world, very little cooling would likely destroy much of its food crops.

The Little Ice Age—the coldest period in the past 1500 years—corresponded perfectly with the Maunder Minimum. There was virtually no sunspot activity for almost seven decades in the Maunder Minimum(per Willie Soon/ Harvard/Astrophysics). It turns out that for those 60-70 years the northern half of our globe was in a deep freeze. The New York harbor froze, allowing walkers to journey from Manhattan to Staten Island, and the Vikings abandoned Greenland--a once verdant land that became tundra. In that Little Ice Age, Finland lost 1/3 of its population and Iceland 1/2.

In the well-known 11-year “Schwabe” sunspot cycle, the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots are violent storms on the surface of the sun. Marine productivity and total irradiance match very well with records that have been kept for centuries on visible sunspots. Hundreds of studies of sunspots and earthly climate indicators(tree rings in Russia’s Kola Peninsula, to water levels of the Nile) show exactly the same thing—that the sun drives climate change.

Even though it has been discovered that the sun is brighter now than anytime in the past 8000 years, the increase in solar output was not calculated to be sufficient to cause all of the past century’s modest warming. But that amplifier was discovered(starting in 2002) with scientific papers from Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svendsmark(Danish National Space Agency).

All these scientists have proven(particularly w/Svendsmark) that the sun’s protective solar wind(from sunspots) blows away deep-space cosmic rays. With fewer sunspots there is less solar wind, more cosmic rays, and more cloud formation from those cosmic rays. More cloud formation means more cooling effect on the planet.

In a 2003 poll, 2/3 of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries did not believe greenhouse gases were the main reason for global warming. In fact, overlays of CO2 variations show little correlation with earth’s climate on long, medium, and even short time scales. The science is nowhere near settled.

Nigel Weiss(Mathematical Astrophysics/Cambridge) states that “Variable behavior of the sun is an obvious explanation.” He admits that we are now living in a period of abnormally high solar activity, and that these hyperactive periods do not last long(50-100 years), then you get a crash. “It’s a boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon.” And when the crash occurs, the Earth can cool dramatically.

Dr. Kukla(Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences) say he and many others realize that global warming always precedes an ice age. Each lasts about 100,000 years, punctuated by briefer, warmer periods called interglacials.  We are in an interglacial now. This ongoing cycle closely matches cyclic variations in Earth’s orbit around the sun. Kukla says “The relationship is just too clear and consistent to allow reasonable doubt. It’s either that, or climate drives orbit, and that just doesn’t make sense.”

No one knows when a ‘crash’ will occur, but scientists expect it soon. Mainly because the sun’s polar field is now at its weakest since measurements began in the 1950’s.  A deep crash last occurred in the 17th century—and it was the Little Ice Age, or the Maunder Minimum. “Having a ‘crash’ would certainly allow us to pin down the sun’s true level of influence on the earth’s climate,” concludes Dr. Weiss. “Then we will be able to act on fact, rather than from fear.”

It’s not likely greenhouse ‘gassers’ will be converted in 12 years. They’ll be busy looking for something humans have done to make it so cold. "

Friday, November 14, 2008


"THE WAR IS OVER AND WE WON:" Michael Yon just phoned from Baghdad

"One Down, One To Go


November 14, 2008 Posted by John at 8:14 PM

"Michael Yon has reported more fairly, more reliably and more knowledgeably from Iraq, over a period of years, than any other journalist. So it's significant when he reports that the war in Iraq is over:

"THE WAR IS OVER AND WE WON:" Michael Yon just phoned from Baghdad, and reports that things are much better than he had expected, and he had expected things to be good. "There's nothing going on. I'm with the 10th Mountain Division, and about half of the guys I'm with haven't fired their weapons on this tour and they've been here eight months. And the place we're at, South Baghdad, used to be one of the worst places in Iraq. And now there's nothing going on. I've been walking my feet off and haven't seen anything. I've been asking Iraqis, 'do you think the violence will kick up again,' but even the Iraqi journalists are sounding optimistic now and they're usually dour." There's a little bit of violence here and there, but nothing that's a threat to the general situation. Plus, not only the Iraqi Army, but even the National Police are well thought of by the populace. Training from U.S. toops has paid off, he says, in building a rapport.

He says the big problem everybody is talking about now is corruption. But hey, we have that here, too. He'll be heading to Afghanistan next week. "Afghanistan is a bad situation, but on Iraq I can't believe things have turned out so well." ..........."


November 14, 2008


"THE WAR IS OVER AND WE WON:" Michael Yon just phoned from Baghdad, and reports that things are much better than he had expected, and he had expected things to be good. "There's nothing going on. I'm with the 10th Mountain Division, and about half of the guys I'm with haven't fired their weapons on this tour and they've been here eight months. And the place we're at, South Baghdad, used to be one of the worst places in Iraq. And now there's nothing going on. I've been walking my feet off and haven't seen anything. I've been asking Iraqis, 'do you think the violence will kick up again,' but even the Iraqi journalists are sounding optimistic now and they're usually dour." There's a little bit of violence here and there, but nothing that's a threat to the general situation. Plus, not only the Iraqi Army, but even the National Police are well thought of by the populace. Training from U.S. toops has paid off, he says, in building a rapport.

He says the big problem everybody is talking about now is corruption. But hey, we have that here, too. He'll be heading to Afghanistan next week. "Afghanistan is a bad situation, but on Iraq I can't believe things have turned out so well."

He thinks that Obama will be able to pull troops out, and send some to Afghanistan, without creating problems in Iraq. Michael will be reporting from Afghanistan soon, and sending back video, so stay tuned. Things aren't going swimmingly there.

UPDATE: Rand Simberg: "No thanks to the Democrats, including Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who tried to keep it from happening. I see that they still can't bring themselves to utter the word 'win' with respect to the war. They continue to talk about 'ending' it. Well, it looks like George Bush did that for them, and he won it as well."  ........."

posted at 10:11 AM by Glenn Reynolds

Thursday, November 13, 2008


Cameron was a tool...

Carl Cameron was a tool and probably feels like a fool right about now.  Rightfully so, he should have investigated his sources. 

Hopefully he can repair his reputation as a journalist, or better yet jump ship and join the MSM most of which dives at anything tabloid which might mean an instantaneous just breaking headline especially if it negatively impacts conservatives.

Thursday, November 13, 2008


"Emanuel Was Director Of Freddie Mac During Scand

Wow a man of such accomplishment missing something that obvious!!!  Shame!!  No No

Two articles posted, second one about the busy work he's intending to assign us.


"Emanuel Was Director Of Freddie Mac During Scandal

New Obama Chief of Staff, Others on Board, Missed "Red Flags" of Alleged Fraud Scheme

November 7, 2008


"President-elect Barack Obama's newly appointed chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, served on the board of directors of the federal mortgage firm Freddie Mac at a time when scandal was brewing at the troubled agency and the board failed to spot "red flags," according to government reports reviewed by

According to a complaint later filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Freddie Mac, known formally as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors between the years 2000 and 2002.

Emanuel was not named in the SEC complaint (click here to read) but the entire board was later accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) (click here to read) of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention."

In a statement to, a spokesperson said Emanuel served on the board for "13 months-a relatively short period of time."

The spokesperson said that while on the board, Emanuel "believed that Freddie Mac needed to address concerns raised by Congressional critics."

Freddie Mac agreed to pay a $50 million penalty in 2007 to settle the SEC complaint and four top executives of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation were charged with negligent conduct and, like the company, agreed to settle the case without admitting or denying the allegations.

The actions by Freddie Mac are cited by some economists as the beginning of the country's economic meltdown.

The federal government this year was forced to take over Freddie Mac and a sister federal mortgage agency, Fannie Mae, pledging at least $200 billion in public funds.

Freddie Mac records have been subpoenaed by the Justice Department as part of its investigation of the suspect accounting procedures.

Emanuel was named to the Freddie Mac board by President Bill Clinton in 2000 and resigned his position when he ran for Congress in May, 2001.

Freddie Mac Misrepresented Income, Says SEC

During the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to the SEC, Freddie Mac substantially misrepresented its income to "present investors with the image of a company that would continue to generate predictable and growing earnings."

The role of the 18-member board of directors, including Emanuel, was not addressed in the SEC's public action but was heavily criticized by the oversight group (OFHEO) in 2003.

The oversight report said the board had been apprised of the suspect accounting tactics but "failed to make reasonable inquiries of management."

The report also said board members appointed by the President, such as Emanuel, serve terms that are far too short "for them to play a meaningful role on the Board."

As a Congressman, Emanuel recused himself from any votes dealing with Freddie Mac until just this year.

In dealing with the nation's economic crisis, the new White House chief of staff will almost certainly be involved in discussions about the house and mortgage markets.

Emanuel's spokesperson said, "As White House chief of staff he will work with President-elect Obama and his economic advisers to help ensure we protect taxpayers and homeowners." "

Click Here for the Investigative Homepage.  "

Lobbyists Banned, but Big Donors Play Major Transition Roles
President-Elect Obama's real test on transparency is yet to come.



"Emanuel volunteers Americans to do 'a lot'

'If you're worried about having to do 50 jumping jacks the answer is yes'

Posted: November 13, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
Source  © 2008 WorldNetDaily


A video of a 2006 interview with now-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for president-elect Barack Obama reveals plans for mandatory induction for all young adults into a civilian "force."

"If you're worried about, are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks, the answer is yes," Emanuel told the interviewer, a reporter who was podcasting for the New York Daily News at the time.

WND reported last weekend when the official website for Obama,, announced he would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.

However, after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, officials softened the website's wording.

Originally, under the tab "America Serves," read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.

WND previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth and Obama's "civilian national security force," which he said in July would be just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.

Now comes the Emanuel video, which has been embedded here:

In the interview, Emanuel was questioned whether participants in the proposed force would live in barracks.

"Somewhere between the age of 18 to 25 you will do three months of training. You can do it at some point in your college time," he said. "There can be nothing wrong with all Americans having a joint, similar experience of what we call civil defense training or civil service."

Emanuel said the planned requiring service "will give people a sense of what it means to be an American."

He said, of course, the plan at that point was flexible.

"We propose three months [but] at the end of the day [if] someone says it should be four … I'm not going sit here and hold up [plans]," Emanuel said.

When the reporter questioned the commitment, Emanuel responded, "Guess what. We have a lot more challenges. We are going to need a lot to do it. If you're worried about are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks the answer is yes."

He chuckled at the reporters concerns.

"Rather than figure out if whether you take a train ride or a barrack. … Think of it this way, it will be a common experience.

"There will be a body of citizens who are ready, capable and trained," he said.

But the plan, especially its demand that Americans participate in a domestic "force," has been raising questions.

The blogger Gateway Pundit called Obama's plan the "creation of his Marxist youth corps," and DBKP commented, "'Choosing' to serve should be approved by parents – not required by the government. No amount of good intentions can sugar-coat words like 'mandatory,' 'compulsory' or 'required.'"

Emanuel uses his book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," to specify that he would propose, for all Americans ages 18 to 25, that they "serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."

Obama, meanwhile, also has yet to clarify what he meant during his July "Call to Service" speech in Colorado Springs in which he insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force."

A video of his comments is here:  "

Thursday, November 13, 2008


"MSNBC retracts false Palin story; others duped


"MSNBC retracts false Palin story; others duped

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer David Bauder, Ap Television Writer

"NEW YORK – MSNBC was the victim of a hoax when it reported that an adviser to John McCain had identified himself as the source of an embarrassing story about former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the network said Wednesday.

David Shuster, an anchor for the cable news network, said on air Monday that Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, had come forth and identified himself as the source of a Fox News Channel story saying Palin had mistakenly believed Africa was a country instead of a continent.

Eisenstadt identifies himself on a blog as a senior fellow at the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy. Yet neither he nor the institute exist; each is part of a hoax dreamed up by a filmmaker named Eitan Gorlin and his partner, Dan Mirvish, the New York Times reported Wednesday.

The Eisenstadt claim had mistakenly been delivered to Shuster by a producer and was used in a political discussion Monday afternoon, MSNBC said.

"The story was not properly vetted and should not have made air," said Jeremy Gaines, network spokesman. "We recognized the error almost immediately and ran a correction on air within minutes."

Gaines told the Times that someone in the network's newsroom had presumed the information solid because it was passed along in an e-mail from a colleague.

The hoax was limited to the identity of the source in the story about Palin — not the Fox News story itself. While Palin has denied that she mistook Africa for a country, the veracity of that report was not put in question by the revelation that Eisenstadt is a phony.

Eisenstadt's "work" had been quoted and debunked before. The Huffington Post said it had cited Eisenstadt in July on a story regarding the Hilton family and McCain.

Among the other victims were political blogs for the Los Angeles Times and The New Republic, each of which referenced false material from Eisenstadt's blog.

And in July, Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones magazine blogged an item about Eisenstadt speaking on Iraqi television about a casino in Baghdad's "Green Zone."

Stein later realized he'd been had.

"Kudos to the inventor of this whole thing," Stein wrote. "My only consolation is that if I had as much time on my hands as he clearly does, I probably would have figured this out and saved myself a fair amount of embarrassment."


"Sarah Palin explains

November 11, 2008 Posted by Paul at 1:24 PM

"Last night I saw part of Sarah Palin's interview with Greta Van Susteren. Palin made three points about her relations with the McCain staffers who worked with her during the campaign.

First, it was a strange experience to have a group of people, none of whom she knew, suddenly appear to take responsibility for how she would present herself on the campaign trail.

Second, she quickly came to realize, however, that these people were "sharp" and were trying hard to assist her.

Third, she nevertheless thought that, as a candidate, she should not be entirely scripted, but rather should at times express herself in her own way.

The first and third points seem quite reasonable, as a general matter. The second point is true, I assume. And to the extent that she may have held less positive views of some of the staffers, it is to Palin's credit that she doesn't express them.

There may be another side to this story. But until someone goes on the record to state it, I think that Palin's comments should put to rest allegations that she was a "rogue" candidate or that she otherwise behaved inappropriately during the campaign.

JOHN adds: I saw the Palin interview last night and thought she did a good job. My favorite part was at the Palins' home, when Greta van Susteren was doing the interview with a camera guy, Todd was holding the baby, and Sarah was making dinner as she answered Greta's questions. It was a nice touch.

Apparently John McCain will be on the Leno show tonight. It will be disappointing if he fails to disassociate himself from his classless aides. "

Thursday, November 13, 2008


"The 10 wackiest tax write-offs

"The 10 wackiest tax write-offs

"Is a wedding a business meeting if you invite clients? Can you buy peace and quiet, then take a deduction? Here’s our annual look at both daring and dumb attempts to whittle tax bills.
Source MSN Money

"Did you hear the one about the pot dealer's tax return? The New Yorker who claimed the whole city as a dependent? The exotic dancer who deducted . . . well . . . you know?

That's right, it's time once again for Bankrate's 10 craziest tax write-offs, presented as a shot of levity to help make filing your annual federal income-tax return a little less tedious.

In our first installment, taxpayers sought deductions for everything from ostrich breeding to sperm donations. In round two, doggy day care and a pimped-out Amish buggy led the list of questionable claims.

But this year's strange-but-true collection from certified public accountants around the country may be the most bizarre yet, not only for their sheer audacity but also for the few that managed to slide by the Internal Revenue Service.

Of course, it is no laughing matter to try to knowingly defraud Uncle Sam. Serious consequences await those who fail to file, falsely file, knowingly underreport or otherwise play fast and loose with their federal income-tax returns.

It's also just plain dumb. What, like the IRS doesn't know that deductions are the biggest temptation in the tax code?

"In my business, as the saying goes, 'Pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered.' If you want to deduct something, just don't be overly aggressive with it. It's everything in moderation," advises Walt Hatter, a CPA at Hatter & Associates in Fort Worth, Texas.

"You want to look at your returns in the same way your physician looks at your heart rate -- you want it to be about the same all the time. When it starts moving around a lot, the IRS wants to see why. When you have big swings in income or big swings in deductions, the IRS likes to check to make sure you're still alive. They're going to come take your pulse, and you might get a full body probe."

To avoid that, uh, full body probe, it's best to steer clear of the following crazy tax tactics.

1. It went up in smoke

Hatter must have thought he was hallucinating when one of his clients, a criminal-defense attorney, referred a marijuana dealer to Hatter. The dealer was facing prison time for drug dealing and didn't want to be nailed for tax fraud as well.

"Because he was involved in an illegal business, he could not take any deductions, period," Hatter says. "The tax code is written where if you are engaged in something illegal, you have to recognize all of the income, and none of the deductions are recognized, even the cost of the product. It was quite an education on my part."

Hatter chuckles at his client's income statement, or lack thereof: "Let's just say he wasn't getting 1099s from his customers. He gave me a number, and we paid taxes on it. I had no basis for it because he dealt in cash."

2. No receipts from above

Putting a few bills into the church offering plate got one client of Virginia CPA James T. Campbell in a bind when the IRS asked for canceled checks or receipts to support his charitable deductions. Explaining why he had no such receipts, the taxpayer said he simply throws in cash "as the spirit moves me."

Campbell says the IRS agent paused to consider the taxpayer's response and then offered this advice: "I understand how the spirit can move you. So my advice to you is to always take your checkbook to church with you. When you feel the spirit coming on, just take out your checkbook and fill in any amount you think is right, whatever the spirit may dictate. It makes no difference how much you give, just as long as you have a copy of the canceled check.

"This way both the spirit and the IRS will be pleased."

3. Silence is golden -- and deductible

While we're on the subject of charitable deductions, Allyson Baumeister, a CPA at Sanford, Baumeister & Frazier in Fort Worth, recalls one prominent client who found a creative solution to a chronically noisy next-door neighbor: He bought the house, ripped it out of the ground and donated it to a local women's shelter. He then claimed the value of the house as a charitable deduction.

"The deduction was limited to a percentage of his income, but his income was such that that wasn't a problem. From what I recall, the IRS may have adjusted the value somewhat, but it did allow the deduction," Baumeister says.

Seems everything is bigger in Texas, even the charitable deductions.

4. He took Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island, too

When accounting software was in its infancy, a rookie CPA at Hunter Group of Fair Lawn, N.J., prepared a return for an individual with one small glitch: The software mistook the filer's address "New York, N.Y." for the name of a dependent.

The mistake went unnoticed by the firm and the client until one day they received a phone call from the IRS. The agent apologized that the deduction was being disqualified, even though, as the agent politely agreed, it might indeed be justified.

5. But you can write off the pimp hat

When does an entertainment expense exceed IRS criteria? Ed Mendlowitz, a CPA with WithumSmith+Brown in Morristown, N.J., found out the funny way when a businessman client wanted to deduct the cost of a call girl he hired to entertain some clients.

When Mendlowitz told the businessman he'd have to present said contractor with a Form 1099 to support this business expense, the client declined to do so and dropped the whole idea.

6. The 'Zoolander' deduction

Those who work in front of the camera for a living -- like Derek Zoolander in the 2001 film comedy -- are often inclined to work their accountant to deduct all manner of personal property and perks as business expenses, from full wardrobes to back waxing.

"We have public speakers, and we help them understand that they cannot deduct all of their clothing, even though they wear it onstage," says Dallas CPA Ken Sibley. "Models can deduct a lot of makeup and certain pieces of apparel, but it has to fit the rules. We don't let them deduct the pedicures, manicures and back waxing for therapeutic reasons."

The craziest "Zoolander" deduction? New Jersey CPA Alan Sobel wins the prize: "Deductions are sometimes claimed for money given to infants for 'modeling' for their parents," he says. Seriously.

7. What are you, an Indy driver?

New Jersey CPA Elihu Katzman couldn't believe this one: "We had a client-salesman that was asked the number of miles he used his car for business that year. He insisted that he drove 60,000 miles, all for business.

"We asked him if he had any time to sleep, in that he must have spent most of the day and night driving."

8. The $50,000 business meeting

Imagine Hatter's surprise when a client-attorney listed $50,000 in entertainment expenses on his tax return -- quite a chunk considering the guy's gross income was in the $300,000 range.

"I said, 'Man, what is that?' He said, 'Well, I threw a party for my clients.' And I said, 'You didn't invite me?' Anyway, we started going through it, and he said, 'Walt, I've got to tell you, that was for my daughter's wedding. But I did invite all my clients.'"

What was the lawyer's occupation? Criminal-defense attorney!

9. Finally, the Social Security crisis solved

Warning: If parents ever start documenting this deduction, we'll no longer need to worry about Social Security.

Marcia Geltman, a CPA with Nisivoccia & Co. in Randolph, N.J., says parents have asked her more than once if they can claim a bad-debt loss from unpaid loans to their children.

"The correct answer is, unless you have documentation verifying the existence of the loan and have taken legal action that resulted in a determination that the loan is not collectible, no deduction is allowed," she says. "Let us hope that, in the long run, we receive more blessings from our children then these momentary aggravations.

10. Inflated assets

It's a classic feel-good-all-over tax case that has grown to mythic proportions over the years. Hatter explains: "The one they always talk about at CPA classes is where a topless dancer got breast implants and wrote them off as a business deduction under Section 179 and treated them as a capital asset, as an ordinary necessary business expense, and was able to deduct them.

"The IRS challenged her, it went to the tax court, and she won."

This article was reported and written by Jay MacDonald for"

Thursday, November 13, 2008


"Fair Tax Rally!


By Neal Boortz @ November 13, 2008 8:30 AM Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Updated info! Mark your calendar and come to a FairTax Rally on Sunday, November 16! John Linder, Mike Huckabee, Saxby Chambliss and ... ME ... will be there. It'll be 2:30-4:30pm at the Gwinnett Center    Hey ... I was heading to Naples on Sunday, but plans change, right? Anything to promote the FairTax.  "



" Directions

Traveling North on I-85 take the Sugarloaf Parkway Exit. Turn right off the exit, go back under the Interstate and cross over Satellite Boulevard. The Center will be on your left.
Alternate Route: Take I-85 to the Highway 120 Exit West. Turn right on Satellite Boulevard. The Center will be 1/2 mile on your left.
Alternate Concert Route: Take I-85 North to the Highway 120 Exit West toward Duluth (Exit will force you into correct direction). Cross over Satellite Blvd. Continue to next light at Meadow Church and take a right. Continue to Sugarloaf Parkway (next light) and turn right. The Arena will be on your right.  "

Wednesday, November 12, 2008


"As More Companies Seek Aid, 'Where Do You Stop?"

Connect the dots ......... 

"CLOWARD-PIVEN STRATEGY of Orchestrate Crisis

implemented in the late 60's accelerated in the 90's provided the mechanism to collapse the economy we've seen since beginning around 2000 coming to a crescendo we're witnessing in the past couple of months.

Socialism is defined as

1.  A political theory advocating state ownership of industry

2.  An economic system based on state ownership of capital


"As More Companies Seek Aid, 'Where Do You Stop?" 


"Lobbyists swarm the U.S. Treasury for a helping of bailout pie -

International Herald Tribune

" The Treasury Department is under siege by an army of hired guns for banks, savings and loan associations and insurers — as well as for improbable candidates like a Hispanic business group representing plumbing and home-heating specialists. That last group wants the Treasury to hire its members as contractors to take care of houses that the government may end up owning through buying distressed mortgages.

The lobbying frenzy worries many traditional bankers — the original targets of the rescue program — who fear that it could blur, or even undermine, the government's effort to stabilize the financial system after its worst crisis since the 1930s."


Where's the end or is there one?  Guess this solution was too simple .... or does it remove governmental controls via manipulation of current tax codes so complex that even the IRS can't decipher them.


"....FairTax allows every American to take home everything that is earned without any federal withholding, millions of distressed homeowners could actually afford home mortgage payments. The elimination of FICA taxes eliminates the highly regressive Social Security and Medicate tax but the FairTax provides a far broader stream of revenue into these faltering programs. Because the FairTax eliminates all exemptions, gimmicks and loopholes, Congress would be removed from the ability to buy votes with tax giveaways and billionaires pay taxes when they spend money. Because the FairTax makes nearly all federal government taxes entirely transparent, the sovereign citizen can know the score and put the brakes on extravagant new spending. Because the FairTax eliminates the price advantage now enjoyed by overseas producers, American jobs won't be leaving our shores. In fact, because the FairTax makes the USA the most favorable tax environment in the world, we can expect trillions of dollars of investment rushing into the US economy. With the FairTax, our money is ours first and only secondly devoted to government. Savings growth, investments and business decisions are guided by opportunity and real progress instead of tax avoidance tactics. "


"Frequently Asked Questions about the FairTax

Click on the questions below to view the answers.

  1. What is taxed?
  2. Exactly what taxes are abolished?
  3. How does the rebate work?
  4. Why not just exempt food and medicine from the tax? Wouldn't that be fair and simple?
  5. Is the 23% FairTax higher or lower when compared to the income taxes people pay today?
  6. Does the FairTax rate need to be much higher to be revenue neutral?
  7. How is the Social Security system affected?
  8. How does the FairTax affect Social Security reform?
  9. Is consumption a reliable source of revenue?
  10. How is the tax collected?
  11. Why is the FairTax better than our current system?
  12. Is the FairTax fair?
  13. How does the FairTax protect low-income families and individuals and retirees on fixed incomes?
  14. Is it fair for rich people to get the exact same FairTax rebate from the federal government as the poorest person in America?
  15. What about senior citizens and retired people?
  16. Are seniors taxed twice on savings, once when they saved it, and now again when the spend it?
  17. How does the FairTax affect wages and prices?
  18. Why not just exempt necessities from the FairTax instead of providing for a rebate?
  19. Should the government tax services?
  20. How does the FairTax affect income tax preparers, accountants, and many government employees?
  21. What about the home mortgage deduction?
  22. What will happen to charitable giving?
  23. Will corporations get a windfall with the abolition of the corporate tax?
  24. Does the FairTax burden the retail industry?
  25. How are state tax systems affected, and can states adequately collect a federal sales tax?
  26. How will the plan affect economic growth?
  27. What economic changes come at the retail level with the FairTax?
  28. What happens to interest rates?
  29. What happens to the stock market, mutual funds, and retirement funds?
  30. What happens to tax-free bonds?
  31. How does this affect U.S. competitiveness in foreign trade?
  32. What about border issues?
  33. Does the FairTax improve compliance and reduce evasion when compared to the current income tax?
  34. Can the FairTax really be passed into law?
  35. What other significant economies use such a tax plan?
  36. What about the flat tax? Would it be better and easier to pass?
  37. Can Congress just simply raise the rate once the FairTax is passed into law?
  38. Could we end up with both the FairTax and an income tax?
  39. Is the FairTax just another conservative tax scheme? Or just another liberal tax scheme?
  40. What assumptions have been made about government spending?
  41. How does the FairTax affect government spending?
  42. Why is it necessary to have a constitutional amendment?
  43. How does the income tax affect our economy?
  44. How will this plan affect compliance costs?
  45. What about value-added taxes (VATs), like they have in Europe and Canada? Are they not consumption taxes?
  46. What will we experience in the transition from the income tax to the FairTax?
  47. I know the FairTax rate is 23 percent when compared to current income taxes. What will the rate of the sales tax be at the retail counter?
  48. Since business purchases are not taxable, how does the FairTax keep individuals from pretending to have a business so they can buy things tax free?
  49. Is the FairTax progressive? Do the rich pay more and the poor pay less as a percentage of their spending?
  50. Is there any provision in the FairTax bill to prevent both an income tax and a sales tax?

Tuesday, November 11, 2008


"Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship

Was able to chase down what was on local news last night.


"Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship
By BEN EVANS – 13 hours ago


"WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."

Obama's transition office did not respond immediately to Broun's remarks. "

Monday, November 10, 2008


"Fed Defies Transparency Aim in Refusal to Disclose

"Fed Defies Transparency Aim in Refusal to Disclose (Update1)

By Mark Pittman, Bob Ivry and Alison Fitzgerald

"Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.

`The collateral is not being adequately disclosed, and that's a big problem,'' said Dan Fuss, vice chairman of Boston- based Loomis Sayles & Co., where he co-manages $17 billion in bonds. ``In a liquid market, this wouldn't matter, but we're not. The market is very nervous and very thin.''

Bloomberg News has requested details of the Fed lending under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure.

The Fed made the loans under terms of 11 programs, eight of them created in the past 15 months, in the midst of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

``It's your money; it's not the Fed's money,'' said billionaire Ted Forstmann, senior partner of Forstmann Little & Co. in New York. ``Of course there should be transparency.''

Federal Reserve spokeswoman Michelle Smith declined to comment on the loans or the Bloomberg lawsuit. Treasury spokeswoman Michele Davis didn't respond to a phone call and an e-mail seeking comment.  "

Monday, November 10, 2008


RIP America

Bringing Piaceri's blog comments forward think this expresses the same sentiments. 


"The night we waved goodbye to America... our last best hope on Earth"



Sunday, November 9, 2008


"What price popularity?

"What price popularity?

Posted by Paul at 10:16 PM



"Other than the racial angle, the thing that has Barack Obama's supporters most excited is the prospect that, thanks to ascension, America will once more be liked and respected around the world. Those aroused by this prospect can be divided into two categories. The first are the folks who believe, with the naivety only a certain type of liberal can possess, that a gesture (the election of Obama) can transform, lastingly and without cost, the way the world views us. These people are fools.

The second category are those who believe that Obama will take substantive positions that please foreigners and that, in particular, he will back measures that limit U.S. sovereignty. These people are on to something.

In the November 17 issue of the National Review (not available online to my knowledge), John Fonte of the Hudson Institute identifies four "transnational power grabs" that Obama is likely to push for They are: the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Rights of the Child Treaty, the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and the International Criminal Court. Agreement by the U.S. to these arrangements would make us more popular with foreigners, but only at a cost to our national security, our right of self-governance, and our rights under the Constitution.

As Fonte explains, the Law of the Sea Treaty could result in maritime disputes involving U.S. defense forces being arbitrated by an international panel composed of 21 judges, some of whom would be chosen by the likes of China, Russia, and Cuba. The Rights of the Child Treaty would require uniform penal codes for minors in all 50 states. It would abolish the death penalty and life imprisonment for everyone under the age of 18. And it would limit parental rights, for example by granting children the legal right to correspond with anyone, anywhere, without interference from their parents.

According to Fonte, CEDAW would likely result in the imposition of gender-based preferences in multiple spheres, including elective offices. He says the U.N. committee that monitors compliance with CEDAW has called on the Republic of Georgia to return to its Communist-era policy of gender quotas in public offices. Britain has be told to adopt the "comparable worth" standard of "equal pay" under which bureaucrats set pay rates. Fonte also warns that CEDAW would provide a method for "overturning a vast array of federal and state laws that [feminists] do not have the votes to defeat through democratic means."

The ICC, according to Obama foreign-policy advisor Sarah Sewall, "represents an acid test for America's commitment to international and universal concepts of justice and human rights." The problem is that under the ICC American soldiers could be charged with war crimes and tried by a court comprised of judges whose interests and values are foreign to our own. Thus, the ICC is indeed an acid test. . .of our commitment to national sovereignty and self-governance.

Fonte points to a Harris poll taken for the Bradley Foundation in which by a margin of 63 percent to 16 percent, Americans said they see the U.S. Constitution, not international law, as the highest legal authority for Americans. 83 percent think of themselves as U.S. citizens, rather than citizens of the world.

To Obama, these views may signify a bitter population clinging to archaic concepts. But they also signify a challenge. To achieve what I take to be his transnationalist agenda, and to ensure our popularity among foreigners, Obama will have to risk some of his popularity among Americans. "

Sunday, November 9, 2008





Saturday, November 8, 2008


"CLOWARD-PIVEN STRATEGY" of Orchestrated Crisis

From one of the very best researched sites on the web,




First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called "crisis strategy" or "Cloward-Piven Strategy," as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven's early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.

The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare -- about 8 million, at the time -- probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls."  Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level."

Their article called for "cadres of aggressive organizers" to use "demonstrations to create a climate of militancy." Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of "a federal program of income redistribution," in the form of a guaranteed living income for all -- working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act. This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements -- mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown -- providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.

Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). His tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in Cloward and Piven's article. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States -- often violently -- bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law "entitled" them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation.

Regarding Wiley's tactics, The New York Times commented on September 27, 1970, "There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients, school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests - and, on occasion, rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-out phones."These methods proved effective. "The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley's wildest dreams," writes Sol Stern in the City Journal.  "From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city's private economy."As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness.

The Cloward-Piven strategy depended on surprise. Once society recovered from the initial shock, the backlash began. New York's welfare crisis horrified America, giving rise to a reform movement which culminated in "the end of welfare as we know it" -- the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill as guests of President Clinton.

Most Americans to this day have never heard of Cloward and Piven. But New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani attempted to expose them in the late 1990s. As his drive for welfare reform gained momentum, Giuliani accused the militant scholars by name, citing their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage. "This wasn't an accident," Giuliani charged in a 1997 speech. "It wasn't an atmospheric thing, it wasn't supernatural. This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare."

Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as candidly as they had in their 1966 article. Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued to rely on the tactic of overloading the system. When the public caught on to their welfare scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other sectors of the bureaucracy, wherever they detected weakness.

In 1982, partisans of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new "voting rights movement," which purported to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed this campaign, the new "voting rights" movement was led by veterans of George Wiley's welfare rights crusade. Its flagship organizations were Project Vote and Human SERVE, both founded in 1982. Project Vote is an ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett. Human SERVE was founded by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, along with a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James.

All three of these organizations -- ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE -- set to work lobbying energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton ultimately signed in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is largely responsible for swamping the voter rolls with "dead  wood" -- invalid registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent people -- thus opening the door to the unprecedented  levels of voter fraud and "voter disenfranchisement" claims that followed in subsequent elections.

The new "voting rights" coalition combines mass voter registration drives -- typically featuring high levels of fraud -- with systematic intimidation of election officials in the form of frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of "racism" and "disenfranchisement," and "direct action" (street protests, violent or otherwise). Just as they swamped America's welfare offices in the 1960s, Cloward-Piven devotees now seek to overwhelm the nation's understaffed and poorly policed electoral system. Their tactics set the stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have introduced a level of fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections heretofore encountered mainly in Third World countries. 

Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros's Open Society Institute and his "Shadow Party," through whose support the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to provide a blueprint for some of the Left's most ambitious campaigns. "

Saturday, November 8, 2008


"Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts

"Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts
Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs

By Karen McMahan
November 04, 2008

"RALEIGH — Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared remarks for the hearing on “The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers’ Retirement Security,” blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis and said his committee will “strengthen and protect Americans’ 401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans” and the “Democratic Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people.”

Currently, 401(k) plans allow Americans to invest pretax money and their employers match up to a defined percentage, which not only increases workers’ retirement savings but also reduces their annual income tax. The balances are fully inheritable, subject to income tax, meaning workers pass on their wealth to their heirs, unlike Social Security. Even when they leave an employer and go to one that doesn’t offer a 401(k) or pension, workers can transfer their balances to a qualified IRA.

Mandating Equality

Ghilarducci’s plan first appeared in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute: Agenda for Shared Prosperity on Nov. 20, 2007, in which she said GRAs will rescue the flawed American retirement income system (

The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities” because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are “skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.”

Lauding GRAs as a way to effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals “provide a much larger ‘carrot’ to wealthy families than to middle-class families — and none whatsoever for families too poor to owe taxes.”

GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not “earn a 3% real return in perpetuity.” In place of tax breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants.

In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn’t eliminate the tax breaks, rather, “I’m just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading — spreading the wealth.”

All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year.

Analysts point to another disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA, workers could bequeath only half of their account balances to their heirs, unlike full balances from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts. For workers who die after retiring, they could bequeath just their own contributions plus the interest but minus any benefits received and minus the employer contributions.

Another justification for Ghilarducci’s plan is to eliminate investment risk. In her testimony, Ghilarducci said, “humans often lack the foresight, discipline, and investing skills required to sustain a savings plan.” She cited the 2004 HSBC global survey on the Future of Retirement, in which she claimed that “a third of Americans wanted the government to force them to save more for retirement.”

What the survey actually reported was that 33 percent of Americans wanted the government to “enforce additional private savings,” a vastly different meaning than mandatory government-run savings. Of the four potential sources of retirement support, which were government, employer, family, and self, the majority of Americans said “self” was the most important contributor, followed by “government.” When broken out by family income, low-income U.S. households said the “government” was the most important retirement support, whereas high-income families ranked “government” last and “self” first (

On Oct. 22, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Argentinean government had seized all private pension and retirement accounts to fund government programs and to address a ballooning deficit. Fearing an economic collapse, foreign investors quickly pulled out, forcing the Argentinean stock market to shut down several times. More than 10 years ago, nationalization of private savings sent Argentina’s economy into a long-term downward spiral.

Income and Wealth Redistribution

The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through redistribution.

On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that “from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw” in tax code incentives because they are “provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits.”

Even people who don’t pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said. “There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or people who do not file income taxes should get smaller incentives (or no tax incentives at all),” Greenstein said.

“Moving to refundable tax credits for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would improve economic efficiency and performance at the same time,” Greenstein said, and “reducing barriers to labor organizing, preserving the real value of the minimum wage, and the other workforce security concerns . . . would contribute to an economy with less glaring and sharply widening inequality.”

When asked whether committee members seriously were considering Ghilarducci’s proposal for GSAs, Aaron Albright, press secretary for the Committee on Education and Labor, said Miller and other members were listening to all ideas.

Miller’s biggest priority has been on legislation aimed at greater transparency in 401(k)s and other retirement plan administration, specifically regarding fees, Albright said, and he sent a link to a Fox News interview of Miller on Oct. 24, 2008, to show that the congressman had not made a decision.

After repeated questions asked by Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Miller said he would not be in favor of “killing the 401(k)” or of “killing the tax advantages for 401(k)s.”

Arguing against liberal prescriptions, William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, testified on Oct. 24 that the “roots of the current crisis are firmly planted in public policy mistakes” by the Federal Reserve and Congress. He cautioned Congress against raising taxes, increasing burdensome regulations, or withdrawing from international product or capital markets. “Congress can ill afford to repeat the awesome errors of its predecessor in the early days of the Great Depression,” Beach said.

Instead, Beach said, Congress could best address the financial crisis by making the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 permanent, stopping dependence on demand-side stimulus, lowering the corporate profits tax, and reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Testifying before the same committee in early October, Jerry Bramlett, president and CEO of BenefitStreet, Inc., an independent 401(k) plan administrator, said one of the best ways to ensure retirement security would be to have the U.S. Department of Labor develop educational materials for workers so they could make better investment decisions, not exchange equity investments in retirement accounts for Treasury bills, as proposed in the GSAs.

Should Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, congressional Democrats might have stronger support for their “spreading the wealth” agenda. On Oct. 27, the American Thinker posted a video of an interview with Obama on public radio station WBEZ-FM from 2001.

In the interview, Obama said, “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” The Constitution says only what “the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you,” and Obama added that the Warren Court wasn’t that radical.

Although in 2001 Obama said he was not “optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts,” as president, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.

“The real tragedy of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused that I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change,” Obama said.

Karen McMahan is a contributing editor of Carolina Journal."

Friday, November 7, 2008


"Treasury submits to Shariah

"GAFFNEY: Treasury submits to Shariah

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 

Source The Washington Times


"The U.S. Treasury Department is submitting to Shariah - the seditious religio-political-legal code authoritative Islam seeks to impose worldwide under a global theocracy.

As reported in this space last week, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Robert Kimmitt set the stage with his recent visit to Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Persian Gulf states. His stated purpose was to promote the recycling of petrodollars in the form of foreign investment here.

Evidently, the price demanded by his hosts is that the U.S. government get with the Islamist financial program. While in Riyadh, Mr. Kimmitt announced: "The U.S. government is currently studying the salient features of Islamic banking to ascertain how far it could be useful in fighting the ongoing world economic crisis."

"Islamic banking" is a euphemism for a practice better known as "Shariah-Compliant Finance (SFC)." And it turns out that this week the Treasury will be taking officials from various federal agencies literally to school on SFC.

The department is hosting a half-day course entitled "Islamic Finance 101" on Thursday at its headquarters building. Treasury's self-described "seminar for the policy community" is co-sponsored with the leading academic promoters of Shariah and SCF in the United States: Harvard University Law School's Project on Islamic Finance. At the very least, the U.S. government evidently hopes to emulate Harvard's success in securing immense amounts of Wahhabi money in exchange for conforming to the Islamists' agenda. Like Harvard, Treasury seems utterly disinterested in what Shariah actually is, and portends.

Unfortunately, such submission - the literal meaning of "Islam" - is not likely to remain confined long to the Treasury or its sister agencies. Thanks to the extraordinary authority conferred on Treasury since September, backed by the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the department is now in a position to impose its embrace of Shariah on the U.S. financial sector. The nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Treasury's purchase of - at last count - 17 banks and the ability to provide, or withhold, funds from its new slush-fund can translate into unprecedented coercive power.

Concerns in this regard are only heightened by the prominent role Assistant Treasury Secretary Neel Kashkari will be playing in "Islamic Finance 101." Mr. Kashkari, the official charged with administering the TARP fund, will provide welcoming remarks to participants. Presumably, in the process, he will convey the enthusiasm about Shariah-Compliant Finance that appears to be the current party line at Treasury.

As this enthusiasm for SCF ramps up in Washington officialdom, it is worth recalling a lesson from "across the pond." Earlier this year, the head of the Church of England, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, provoked a brief but intense firestorm of controversy with his declaration that it was "unavoidable" that Shariah would be practiced in Britain. Largely unremarked was the reason he gave for such an ominous forecast: The U.K. had already accommodated itself to Shariah-Compliant Finance.

This statement provides an important insight for the incumbent U.S. administration and whomever succeeds it: Shariah-Compliant Finance serves as a leading edge of the spear for those seeking to insinuate Shariah into Western societies.

Regrettably, SCF is not the only instrument of the stealth jihad by which Shariah-promoting Islamists are seeking to achieve "parallel societies" here and elsewhere in the West. The British experience is instructive on this score, too. Her Majesty's government has allowed the establishment of at least five Shariah courts to hear (initially) family law cases. Polygamists in the U.K. can get welfare for each of their wives (as long as all the marriages beyond the first were performed overseas).

Thus far, we in this country may not have reached the point where evidence of this sort of creeping Shariah is so manifest. But Treasury's accommodation to SCF demonstrates that we are on the same trajectory - the one ordained and demanded by the promoters of Shariah, one to which we serially accommodate ourselves at our extreme peril.

After all, the object of Shariah is the supplanting of our government and Constitution, through violent means if possible and, until then, through stealthy ones. Islamists, having secured footholds via their parallel societies, inevitably use those to extend their influence over Muslims who have no more interest in living under authoritative Islam's Shariah than the rest of us do. Inexorably, it becomes the turn of non-Muslims to accommodate themselves to ever more intrusive demands from the Islamists. It is known as submission, or dhimmitude.

Soon - possibly as early as this Wednesday - the Treasury Department and the other federal agencies will be taking orders from representatives of Barack Obama or John McCain. It may be that the outgoing administration's determination to advance the Islamist agenda via "Islamic Finance 101," and what flows from it, may be the first, far-reaching policy decision inherited by the new president-elect. If he does not want to have his transition saddled with an implicit endorsement of submission to Shariah, the winner of the White House sweepstakes would be well-advised to pull the plug on Thursday's indoctrination program and the insidious industry it is meant to foist on the "policy community," our capital markets and our country. "

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times. "

Friday, November 7, 2008


A short trip in the way-back machine

I mentioned documents proven forged in Rather-gate in TigerAngel's blog entry here.   

"Supreme Court to Obama: Prove It"

Have sifted through archives showing events and major players who exposed a smear campaign based on obvious forgeries and why they were forged.   

Proportional spacing is the first clue, spotted by Atlanta attorney Harry MacDougald whose screen name was "Buckhead."

Quotes are directly lifted, links provided for verification.

Some embedded links are no longer valid.


"Hurricane Dan: Get serious

September 12, 2004 Posted by Scott at 8:22 AM


"Los Angeles Times reporter Peter Wallsten meticulously reconstructs the events of this past Thursday following the CBS 60 Minutes broadcast Wednesday evening that have led to the exposure of the "new" documents featured in the Air National Guard story as forgeries: "No disputing it: Blogs are major players." Wallsten prominently credits our role in the development of the story:

Early Thursday morning, Minneapolis lawyer Scott Johnson was in his basement home office, preparing to link some morning news reports to the site he co-authors, when a reader sent an e-mail about Buckhead.

Intrigued, Johnson, whose online ID is "The Big Trunk," put a link on his site, PowerLine, to Buckhead's post.

Then the floodgates opened.

"Thanks to all the readers who have written regarding this post," Johnson wrote in an early update. "Several have pointed out that the Executive line of IBM typewriters did have proportionally spaced fonts, although no reader has found the font used in the memos to be a familiar one or thought that the IBM Executive was likely to have been used by the National Guard in the early 1970s.

"Reader Monty Walls has also cited the IBM Selectric Composer," he continued. "However, reader Eric Courtney adds this wrinkle: The 'Memo To File' of August 18, 1973, also used specialized typesetting characters not used on typewriters. These include the superscript 'th' in 187th, and consistent ' (right single quote) all parentheses in original used instead of a typewriter's generic {minute} (apostrophe). These are the sorts of things that typesetters did manually until the advent of smart correction in things like Microsoft Word."

Soon Charles Johnson, a Los Angeles musician-turned-conservative-blogger who hosts the site, posted the results of his own investigation. He wrote that he had opened Microsoft Word, set the font to Times New Roman and used the program's default settings to retype a purported Killian memo from August 1973.

"My Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as 'authentic,' " Johnson wrote, posting images of his creation and the CBS document. (The Times New Roman font itself predates computers; it was designed in 1932.)

Within 90 minutes of that post, the Power Line site was linked to perhaps the best-known conservative site of all ? the Drudge Report, made famous when Matt Drudge took a lead role in the first reports on the relationship between then-President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

"That was a quantum jump in awareness," said Scott Johnson. "It was wildly circulating in the blogosphere until Drudge linked us. Then it was instantly known to a million people, and it was all of a sudden a legitimate story."

Suddenly, the story line shifted from the question Democrats had been trying to ask ? whether Bush received special treatment in the Guard ? to whether a network long detested by conservatives had been duped in its quest to air a report critical of the president in the midst of the reelection campaign.

Wallsten's article does not raise any question that we might have erred in doubting the authenticity of the documents or offer any support for their authenticity. Rather, it gives voice to desperate Democratic operatives imputing right-wing lunacy or conspiratorial machinations to those raising the issues:

"It was amazing Thursday to watch the documents story go from, a bastion of right-wing lunacy, to Drudge to the mainstream media in less than 12 hours," said Jim Jordan, a strategist for independent Democratic groups opposed to Bush. [Ed. note: C'mon Peter, he's Kerry's former campaign manager.]

"That's not to say the documents didn't deserve examination. But apparently the entire thing was cooked up by a couple of amateurs on Free Republic. The speed with which it moved was breathtaking."

Wallsten then notes that "Rather opened his evening news broadcast Friday with a defense of his report, producing an analyst who vouched for the memos." Wallsten omits to mention that the analyst was a purported handwriting expert who could not authenticate the documents. Wallsten quotes a professor articulating the dark fears of the MSM:

Media experts said the role of the bloggers illustrated a significant development in the relationship between mainstream news and the still-nascent phenomenon of blogging.

This was the first time, some said, that the Web logs were engaging in their own form of investigative journalism ? and readers, they warned, should be cautious.

"The mainstream press is having to follow them," said Jeffrey Seglin, a professor at Emerson College in Boston. [Ed. note: C'mon, Peter, Seglin is a columnist for the New York Times Syndiicate, whose owner is the same company that owns the Boston Globe -- which has avidly promoted the 60 Minutes story. (Thanks to Hobbs Online.)] "The fear I have is: How do you know who's doing the Web logs?

"And what happens when this stuff gets into the mainstream, and it eventually turns out that the '60 Minutes' documents were perfectly legitimate, but because there's been so much reporting about what's being reported, it has already taken on a life of its own?"

Put to one side the fact that we have been doing our own brand of investigative journalism since we started this site over Memorial Day weekend in 2002 (and for the previous ten years in newspapers and magazines). In our case, Professor Seglin might "know who's doing the Web logs" by clicking on the "About Us" logos over on our left margin, or giving us a call, as Peter Wallsten did. The same applies to Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs.

Seglin appears not to be familiar with the Internet or the development of the evidence throughout the blogosphere relating to the 60 Minutes documents. We acted as a clearinghouse for information, freely quoting correspondents and linking to sources. We named names and identified sources. We included evidence that might tell against the points we raised; when a correspondent wrote to point out that the White House had itself released copies of the 60 Minutes documents, we posted that. It turned out that the documents released by the White House had been provided to it by 60 Minutes.

We awaited some word from CBS that would allow us to verify the authenticity of the documents. When Dan Rather offered his pathetic apologia Friday night, we noted his report and discussed its almost unbelievable weakness in the face of the issues raised.

Contrast the behavior of the blogosphere with that of CBS. While we have disclosed sources and responded to all inquiries from reporters like Wallsten, CBS has taken its plays from the old Watergate playbook. Stonewalling and misdirection are the order of the day. To the extent that CBS has cited sources, they have not supported the authenticity of the documents. All in all, CBS has behaved like a criminal caught redhanded in a fraud of monumental proportions.

Wallsten concludes the story by quoting a Free Republic commenter who facetiously asks, in the spirit of the Democratic operatives, "How do we know Buckhead is not really Karl Rove?" But the story Wallsten tells raises a serious question that belies Wallsten's conclusion and that Wallsten declines to entertain.

It is time to draw the obvious inferences from CBS's behavior and from the circumstances of the case. The 60 Minutes documents purportedly derive from the "personal file" of a long-deceased superior officer of President Bush. The family of the deceased officer denies that they are the source of the documents or that the officer would have written them.

CBS refuses to identify the source of the documents or otherwise to disclose how they came into its possession. The reporter who vouches for the authenticity of the documents is himself no expert, but a long-time antagonist of conservatives in general and the Bushes in particular, with close ties to Texas Democrats. The documents discredit President Bush consistent with a key Democratic theme in the midst of a presidential campaign.

Substantial evidence of the fraudulent nature of the documents is produced. The reporter demands that we take his word for the authenticity of the documents. CBS fails to identify a single document analyst who supports the authenticity of the documents. CBS fails to produce a single authentic document with an appearance like the documents in issue.

CBS refuses to disclose the copies of the documents for independent examination by a neutral third party. Evidence of the fraudulent nature of the documents continues to mount. See, for example, this morning's Washington Times story, "Bush Guard papers 'forged,'" and this morning's New York Times story, "An ex-officer now believes Guard memo isn't genuine."

Drawing the reasonable inferences implicit in these circumstances, the serious question that must be asked at this point is what happens when a media monolith acts as a front for Democratic operatives peddling forgeries calculated to smear a Republican president and presidential candidate?

UPDATE: Click here for a brilliant recap (and more) by Hugh Hewitt.

UPDATE 2: Just One Minute and Ace of Spades offer further thoughts on the possible source of the documents (not a Democratic operative). See also Ace's screaming update. (Courtesy of Instapundit.)


"Meet Buckhead

September 17, 2004 Posted by Scott at 6:25 PM


"Peter Wallsten follows up his September 12 reconstruction of the genesis of Hurricane Dan with an article on his discovery of Buckhead's identity, Atlanta attorney Harry MacDougald: "Blogger who faulted CBS documents is conservative activist." Liz MacDougald wrote us Thursday morning to make sure we knew that the email we had been sent by a reader whom we named actually reflected points Buckhead had raised in Free Republic post no. 47 and we revised our initial post consistent with the information provided by Mrs. (I assume) MacDougald.

Courtesy of Hugh Hewitt. And please check out Ernest Miller's "Incompetent or Unethical? The story of CBS News' response to Killian memos" over at Corante -- with thanks for redirecting traffic from my originally mistaken link.

UPDATE: Don't miss Charles Johnson's expert commentary: "LA Times slimes Buckhead, bloggers."  "


Assume all posts below enclosed in quotes taken directly from archives.

"Documents Suggest Special Treatment for Bush in Guard [post 47];page=1

"Howlin, every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman.

In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts.

The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used monospaced fonts.

I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old.

This should be pursued aggressively."

47 posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 11:59:43 PM by Buckhead

"I think you are mistaken. There is ample research on this point at the thread referenced just above. The Selectric used monospaced fonts, but could vary between 10 and 12 cpi, which was referred to as "pitch." To get proportionally spaced fonts you had to get an IBM Selectric Composer, and it was a very expensive machine for typesetting to get documents camera ready. You had to type each line twice and fiddle with knobs and so forth. One mistake and your were <snip> and had to start over. There is no frigging way the TANG used a Selectric Composer for personal memos to file. Plus, these memos have superscript, which was not available in that form at that time, and the signatures don't match. It goes on and on. "
64 posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 12:02:49 PM by Buckhead
"Well, thanks, but it's premature. It's not 100% conclusive because the IBM Executive and IBM Selectric Composer would do proportional fonts. The Composer was almost certainly not used in this case - it was for typesetting for camera ready and was a monumental pain in the rear to use. The Executive is possible, but still not very likely, but that doesn't resolve the other circumstances indicating forgery. As this gets sifted through the day we will eventually come to find out the truth. There's thousands of people working on it now. It's pretty cool how its unfolded. "

70 posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 2:29:20 PM by Buckhead 

"The guy interviewed by and the effect of overlaying a brand new MS Word version with the CBS version kind of ice it IMHO.

They are <snip>.

As for my part, this tsunami would, without any doubt whatsoever, have happened w/o me, so it ain't no big thang.

I will have a cold one tonight, though. "

76 posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 5:10:36 PM by Buckhead

To: Buckhead

Little Green Footballs has picked up on your theory and has taken it further. Take a look.

(note valid link at time of posting)

133 posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 8:51:03 AM by Barney Gumble (
To: Buckhead

"....Well, the story seems to have legs, big time.
Your original post was cited at, and it was there in the context of an early (if not the first) Internet discovery of the possible forgery of Rather's documents. I think I can renew my congratulations for your fast eye and keyboard...
and my thanks as well.

140 posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 10:01:21 AM by TheGeezer

Thursday, November 6, 2008


"Sarah Palin Was Right

I really like and their opinions based on their knowledge of law and the Constitution  .... all three are practicing attorneys.

Two of their blog entries quoted as written.   


"Sarah Palin Was Right

Posted by John at 4:51 PM

In today's New York Times, Glenn Reynolds takes on the tricky issue of the proper role of the Vice President. Sarah Palin's comments on the Veep's constitutional role in the Vice Presidential debate have been denounced by some, but Reynolds says she was right to emphasize the Vice President's role as part of the legislative branch. As we noted here, (artlcle in full below) it was Joe Biden, not Palin, who mangled the Vice President's constitutional status.

So far, that's not controversial. But Glenn goes further: he argues that the Vice President is properly viewed only as part of the legislative branch, and that it is unconstitutional for the President to delegate executive duties to the Vice President, as has happened routinely in recent administrations.

Glenn's argument is that the old-timers had it right. The Vice Presidency, properly viewed, is as insignificant an office--unless and until the President dies or is removed from office--as it was considered through most of our history. He adds policy arguments to the effect that entangling the Vice President in executive policy can be problematic. Possibly so. But I think the modern approach to the office is here to stay.

We should consider ourselves lucky if it's only Vice Presidents who exercise arguably-unconstitutional executive powers. At least they are elected officials. A far more disturbing phenomenon was Bill Clinton's delegating executive authority to his wife. That didn't work out so well, which doesn't necessarily mean we've seen the last of the idea. "


"Biden Mangles the Constitution

October 3, 2008 Posted by John at 8:15 AM

This isn't what's conventionally described as a gaffe, and it won't swing any votes, but last night Joe Biden garbled the Constitutional role of the Vice President. I wanted to read the transcript before commenting; here was Gwen Ifill's question:

Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

Here is Biden's answer, in full:

Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

For a man of Biden's experience, this is a surprising series of misstatements. First of all, he gets wrong one of the most basic facts about the Constitution: Article 1 establishes the legislative branch, not, as Biden said, the executive branch. This is not exactly an obscure fact; my 17-year-old daughter pointed it out at the time.

Second, it simply isn't true that the Constitution treats the Vice President only as a member of the executive branch. The Vice President is mentioned in Article II as part of the executive branch, but he is also given legislative powers by Section 3 of Article 1, which establishes the Senate:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

Vice President Cheney's "bizarre notion" is in keeping with the plain text of the Constitution.

Finally, Biden misstated the Vice President's role in the Senate. It isn't true that he "preside[s] over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote." The Constitution contemplates that the Vice President will be the full-time President of the Senate, replaced by a President pro tempore "in the absence of the Vice President." It's true that the Vice President only gets to vote in case of a tie; but, of course, that's the only time it matters.

If Joe Biden were a high school student taking a test on the Constitution in a government course, he would get a C or a D. Some would say his mistakes were minor, and, as I said, they certainly won't swing any votes. But it is distinctly odd that a man who has been in the Senate for more than three decades doesn't understand the Constitutional role of the Vice President with respect to that body.  "

Thursday, November 6, 2008


Supreme Court docket, Case Nos.:(08-4340) Berg vs Obama

Bringing forward TigerAngel's blog entry, for however the Supreme Court rules below are links provided thusfar. 

"Supreme Court to Obama: Prove It


PDF of document filed before Supreme Court


Shows on the Supreme Court docket, Case Nos.:(08-4340)

"Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)"

Tuesday, November 4, 2008


"Obama flips off McCain and Hillary

Interesting lack of decorum, no excuse for public display of crudeness.  Wonder if voters get saluted the same way?

Read comments by Hillary supporters of McCain making comments about Obama flipping Hillary, just found video last night.


"Barack Obama flips off McCain and Hillary Combo

Tuesday, November 4, 2008


"Republican Election Board Workers Thrown Out In Philly...

A Repeat of 2004 Philly Voter Chaos, Fraud Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 7:46 AM EXCLUSIVE, DEVELOPING--
Source via

"GOP Election Board members have been tossed out of polling stations in at least half a dozen polling stations in Philadelphia because of their party status.

A Pennsylvania judge previously ruled that court-appointed poll watchers could be NOT removed from their boards by an on-site election judge, but that is exactly what is happening.

It is the duty of election board workers to monitor and guard the integrity of the voting process.

Denying access to the minority (in this case Republican) poll watchers and inspectors is a violation of Pennsylvania state law. Those who violate the law can be punished with a misdemeanor and subjected to a fine of $1,000 and sent to prison between one month and two years.

Those on site as describing it as "pandemonium" and there may be video coming of the chaos.

Some of the precincts where Republicans have been removed are: the 44th Ward, 12th and 13th divisions; 6th Ward, 12th division; 32nd Ward, Division 28.

“Election board officials guard the legitimacy of the election process and the idea that Republicans are being intimidated and banned for partisan purposes does not allow for an honest and open election process,” said McCain-Palin spokesman Ben Porritt in a statement to Townhall.

The City of Brotherly Love was roiled in controversy during the 2004 election because of rigged voting machines that showed nearly 2,000 votes for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry before the polls had opened. A man also used a gun to intimidate poll workers at Ward 30, division 11 in 2004."

Monday, November 3, 2008


"unprecedented increases in electricity prices.

From, live links


"The Arrogance of Barack Obama


November 3, 2008 Posted by John at 11:25 AM

"Maybe the American people just didn't have quite enough time to get to know Barack Obama. It seems inconceivable to me that a candidate as arrogant as Obama could be ahead in the polls if the voters had fully absorbed how out of touch he can be. A case in point is this MTV interview, where Obama says that the tax increase he proposes on people who earn $250,000 or more is "chump change, that's nothing." But wait! If it's "chump change," how is it going to fund the hundreds of billions in new spending that Obama wants?

Likewise with Obama's casual declaration that he intends to bankrupt the coal industry, which currently supplies around one-half of all electricity produced in the United States. Today Mike Carey, President of the Ohio Coal Association, issued this statement:

Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America's coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it.

These undisputed, audio-taped remarks, which include comments from Senator Obama like 'I haven't been some coal booster' and 'if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them' are extraordinarily misguided.

It's evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio,Virginia, West Virginia,Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state's voters.

Senator Obama has revealed himself to be nothing more than a short-sighted, inexperienced politician willing to say anything to get a vote. But today, the nation's coal industry and those who support it have a better understanding of his true mission, to 'bankrupt' our industry, put tens of thousands out of work and cause unprecedented increases in electricity prices.

In addition to providing an affordable, reliable source of low-cost electricity, domestic coal holds the key to our nation's long-term energy security - a goal that cannot be overlooked during this time of international instability and economic uncertainty.

Few policy areas are more important to our economic future than energy issues. As voters head to the polls tomorrow, it is essential they remember that access to reliable, affordable, domestic energy supplies is essential to economic growth and stability.

Where will the "little people" get electricity if Obama's environmental policies destroy the coal industry? That, apparently, is of no concern to "The One." It would have been nice if this news had come out more than a couple of days before the election.  "

Monday, November 3, 2008


Obama's '$4 Billion for Exxon' Myth

"Obama's '$4 Billion for Exxon' Myth
Why haven't the 'fact-checkers' done a better job?
"In the final days of the campaign, Barack Obama continues to land the same sucker punch on taxes he used in the debates -- and John McCain continues to take it on the chin.
In the last debate, Sen. Obama said, "We both want to cut taxes, the difference is who we want to cut taxes for. . . . The centerpiece of [McCain's] economic proposal is to provide $200 billion in additional tax breaks to some of the wealthiest corporations in America. Exxon Mobil, and other oil companies, for example, would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks."
That $200 billion figure is false. Yet and most reporters never bothered to ask Mr. Obama where he came up with it. did discover that Mr. Obama's claim about "$4 billion in tax breaks for energy companies" came from a two-page memo from the Center for American Progress Action Fund -- a political lobby headed by John Podesta, former chief of staff to Bill Clinton, with tax issues handled by two lawyers, Robert Gordon and James Kvaal, former policy directors for the John Kerry and John Edwards campaigns. Those lawyers confused average tax rates (after credits and deductions) with the 35% statutory rate on the next dollar of earnings, so that cutting the latter rate from 35% to 25% would supposedly cut big oil's $13.4 billion tax bill by 28.5%, or $3.8 billion. That is not economics; it is not even competent bookkeeping.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, by contrast, correctly notes that, "Senator McCain has called for the repeal and reform of a number of tax preferences for oil companies," which would raise the oil companies' taxes by $5 billion in 2013.
When fact checkers do look into campaign claims on taxes, they invariably cite estimates from the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center (TPC). The TPC estimates that the McCain corporate tax cuts would lose $734.7 billion of revenue over 10 years (2009-2018). Mr. McCain would also allow immediate expensing through 2013 for equipment normally written-off over three to five years, but no deduction for interest expense if the investment was made with borrowed money. Once equipment has been written-off in 2009 or 2010 it can't be written-off in later years, so the estimated revenue loss over 10 years is only $45 billion, or $4.5 billion per year. Altogether, that adds up to $78 billion a year in corporate tax cuts, not $200 billion.
Yet the $78 billion TPC estimate is also nonsense because it's entirely static. The estimate assumes raising or lowering corporate tax rates has no effect on corporate decisions about where to locate production, income or costs, and no effect on the economy's performance. If that made sense, the corporate tax rate could be doubled to 70% and the only effect (according to TPC estimates) would be to double corporate tax receipts. Such a static analysis is obviously worthless, yet it is nonetheless crucial to the TPC's estimates of the revenue supposedly lost from the McCain plan and its alleged distributional effects.
Mr. McCain proposes to cut the corporate tax rate to 30% in 2010-11, 28% in 2012-13, 26% in 2014, and 25% thereafter. The timing could be better. Why not cut the corporate tax rate to 28%-30% right away? Could anyone doubt that would help struggling businesses to minimize cutbacks and layoffs? Could anyone doubt it would invigorate the stock market?
Phasing in tax-rate reductions -- as in 1981 and 2001 -- has become a bad habit among Republicans. The trouble is that knowing tax rates will be lower in the future provides incentives to delay earning and reporting income until after they fall. In the American Economic Review, December 2006, University of Michigan economists Christopher House and Matthew Shapiro found "the phased-in tax cuts called for in the 2001 tax bill worked to depress employment as firms and workers waited for the lower tax rates to materialize."
In the U.S today, the combined federal and state tax on corporate profits averages 40%, which is increasingly out of line with the rest of the world. The average corporate tax rate dropped to 25.9% in 2008 from 37.7% in 1996 among 97 countries surveyed by KPMG, and to 23.2% from 38% in the European Union. Corporate tax revenues typically increased as a share of GDP after tax rates were reduced. Countries with corporate tax rates from 12.5% to 25%, such as Ireland, Switzerland, Austria and Denmark, routinely collect more corporate tax revenue as a share of GDP than the anemic 2.1% figure the Congressional Budget Office projects for the U.S.
In a new Tax & Budget Bulletin at, Jack Mintz of the University of Calgary estimates that a federal-state corporate tax rate higher than 28% loses money for the government. Kimberly Clausing of Reed College estimated revenues would be maximized with a 33% federal and state tax. Kevin Hassett and Alex Brill of the American Enterprise Institute found "the revenue maximizing point has dropped over time, and is about 26%." In all of these studies, cutting the federal tax to 28%-30% sooner rather than later is very likely to raise revenue.
Regardless who wins the election, an accelerated version of Mr. McCain's original plan -- to cut the corporate tax rate to 28%-30% and expense investments in business equipment -- is by far the most potent "stimulus plan" anyone has yet proposed. And far from costing $200 billion a year, as Mr. Obama claims, it wouldn't cost a dime."
Mr. Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute. This commentary was adapted from a paper for Hillsdale College's Free Market Forum "

Monday, November 3, 2008


"Where Do You Start


"I chose that opening line rather than "what's the use." Election day is tomorrow, so there's definitely a chance here to prevent perhaps irreparable harm to our Republic ... maybe not a huge chance ... but a chance.

Never in the last 100 years has someone so completely inexperienced and so far to the left been so close to becoming our president. It is beyond imagination that we've come to this.

I really don't have the time before I go on the air to craft (if that's the word) a lengthy narrative on this campaign and the importance of our vote tomorrow ... so we go with bullet points. They don't necessarily flow together all that well ... but each gets a point across that is, I think, important.

Who knows ... maybe someone will read some of these points and tell themselves that they just can't pull the trigger for this dangerous leftist when they get into the voting booth. Others will read this and just have their feelings about how much trouble freedom and economic liberty in this country are in totally reinforced.

OK ... run with those. We'll come up with more. In the meantime ... some details:  "

Monday, November 3, 2008


"BTW I'm Voting For Mccain / Palin video

A follow-up to the video Todd posted.  Big Grin


"BTW I'm Voting For Mccain / Palin

Monday, November 3, 2008


"The Duchess of York bluffs her way into orphanages in Turkey

I'm not posting the entire article hered due to graphic details given by conditions found so if you click the link be warned.  Shows a whole nother side to Fergie I was not aware of, very courageous, very selfless and humanitarian.


"Fergie undercover: The Duchess of York bluffs her way into orphanages in Turkey

By Chris Rogers

Source Daily Mail UK
Last updated at 5:24 PM on 02nd November 2008

"In a dark wig and a headscarf, the Duchess of York has bluffed her way into orphanages in Turkey. The profoundly shocking scenes she found have made her - and her daughters, who went with her - determined to fight for change.

Nothing could have prepared us for this. The member of staff had been reluctant when I asked her to unlock the door of the building. Now it was clear why.

Before us was a sea of red and blue cribs - hundreds of them. Toddlers and teenagers alike were confined, many tied by hands or ankles to the cribs' metal bars. In a far corner, one little boy peered over the edge of the 5ft-high box in which he was kept. According to staff, he was too hyperactive for a crib.

This wasn't an orphanage. This was a warehouse for abandoned children.

Two months ago, I travelled to Turkey to film a documentary about conditions inside state-run institutions for unwanted and disabled children.

It was an unusual and affecting trip. Not least because my travelling companion and fellow witness to some truly horrific scenes was the Duchess of York.

Sarah Ferguson had contacted me a few months earlier to say she had been moved by my investigations into inhumane institutions - as an ITN correspondent, I had visited and secretly filmed these bleak places across the world.

The Duchess herself has worked to improve the lives of children over the past 15 years, using funds from her commercial work and private donations to help care for children with Aids and build schools for deprived children in Africa.

Now she wanted to come with me on my next venture and lend her profile to a cause in need of exposure. More than that, her teenage daughters Beatrice and Eugenie wanted to join us for sections of the journey and all had agreed to allow ITV1's Tonight cameras to follow our progress. ..........."

Sunday, November 2, 2008


"Barack Obama victory will hurt US firms - and world economy

"Barack Obama victory will hurt US firms - and world economy

By Janet Daley
Source Telegraph UK
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 03/11/2008

"Well, it's nearly over - this presidential election campaign that has gone on for so long I can scarcely remember what life was like before it started. So long has it been running that the world has actually gone through two tumultuous transformations of political reality during its span.

First there was the emergence of Russia as a threat to international stability in a form that should not have, but nevertheless did, come as a startling revelation to a complacent free world: a phenomenon which, in cynical partisan terms, played heavily in John McCain's favour. But that was followed, and almost totally eclipsed, by the economic implosion that brought every earlier assumption about the electorate crashing down with it.

So, in one of those bizarre jokes that history sometimes plays, the United States is apparently about to choose as president the most inexperienced, untried and virtually unknowable (because there is so little to know) candidate who has ever run for that office at a time of unquantifiable international risk and unprecedented economic instability: a candidate who, as Bill Clinton revealed in a wonderfully back-handed "tribute", responded to the banking collapse by ringing every expert he could find (including Bill) to ask them what he should be saying.  

And not only does it seem likely that Barack Obama will be elected president, but that he will arrive in office accompanied by a legion of new Democratic senators and congressmen which will give his party a lock on both the executive and legislative branches of government, thus permitting it to do precisely anything it wants.

A week ago in New York, I talked to senior Republicans who were dividing their time between conference calls to the White House to discuss the economic crisis and exasperated confrontations with the McCain campaign team over the ineffectiveness of its strategy. It is almost impossible to exaggerate the state of dissension and dissatisfaction within the higher ranks of the Republican Party - which is why the Obama claim that a McCain White House would simply be George Bush by other means is so ludicrous and disingenuous.

In truth, McCain's status as an outlaw within his own party ("maverick" is much too mild a word) has meant that he has had only the most ambivalent relationship with what was once a very professional Republican campaigning machine. Those members of the Bush team who have been involved with the McCain-Palin ticket have been accused of being so out of sympathy with its message and tone as to be positively counter-productive.

Combine this with the fact that McCain has been running against not just a super-financed Obama machine but the most monolithically hostile media barrage in electoral history, which forced him to spend most of his time and energy on defensive fire-fighting, and you get a sense of why the Republican effort has so often seemed at cross-purposes with itself.

This media phenomenon may yet prove double-edged. There is just a possibility (maybe I am clutching at straws here, but we shall see) that the relentless onslaught from the mainstream press and television networks has made support for McCain unsayable rather than impossible and that this is producing seriously skewed opinion-polling results. This could mean, to put it in British historical terms, that this election will be 1992 (complete with premature victory celebrations) rather than 1997. Interestingly, in the 1992 election it was the issue of tax that brought about Labour's defeat in the face of resounding leads in the polls. And it is tax policy that is Obama's most dangerous ground. It must be surprising to British observers that his proposal to cut taxes for the 95 per cent of people who earn less than $200,000 a year (down, incidentally, from his initial figure of $250,000) has not straightforwardly won the day in the American national debate.

In Britain, such a promise (if believed) would be an electoral free pass to Downing Street. But in the US, voters are aware that the largest category of people who would be hit by Obama's higher tax would be those who own small businesses, as Joe the Plumber famously aspired to do and as many, many of his countrymen already do. Ordinary working-class people in America do not automatically expect to be low earners, or even employees, all of their lives: they believe that through hard work and resourcefulness, they are as likely as anyone to rise in the world. And so they do not necessarily take kindly to someone who wants to penalise them as soon as they break through an income ceiling in order, as Obama fatally put it, to "spread the wealth around".

But there is another facet of Obama taxation with even more serious consequences for the US. In order to pay for his tax cut for 95 per cent of the population (half of whom do not pay income tax and whose "cut" would be in the form of a cash rebate), President Obama and his Democratic Congress would raise the US rate of corporation tax - already the second highest in the world - from 15 to 20 per cent. They also plan to punish through taxation companies that employ people overseas rather than "creating American jobs". These measures would have the almost immediate effect of driving companies and capital out of the US.

In the same "help the little guy" spirit, Obama proposes to raise capital gains tax, thus penalising those whose investment is desperately needed for market recovery. As my economist friends always tell me when I advocate tax cuts for the low-paid: it may seem a morally and politically attractive policy but it doesn't do a damn thing for economic growth. The tiny amounts that the lower-paid receive in such wide-ranging cuts make little difference as a stimulus and if they are balanced by penalties on business and on the investing classes, they are worse than useless.

So what will happen? For what it is worth, I think it will be a close presidential race with the favourite, Obama, winning by a squeak (which is what happened in 1960 when the then favourite, John Kennedy, was the voice of the "future"). Whoever gets the White House, America will eventually return to being what it must be: the economic engine of the world and the greatest testimony to the power of human initiative in history. On both of those counts, it will once again be resented. But it will take a while longer to reach that point under Barack Obama." 

Sunday, November 2, 2008


"Obama Caught Saying Acorn And Friends Will Shape His Presidential Agenda


Sunday, November 2, 2008



ROFL  ROFL  ROFL  ROFL  Green laugh  Green laugh  Green laugh  Green laugh 

Jarasan said early on if the press calls this wrong they're toast.



Inescapable cataclysm! Total destruction! Nowhere to hide! Make peace with your God!

By Bill Whittle

Source NationalReviewOnline

Prepare yourselves, sayeth the news. This thing is coming and you can’t stop it. You’ve seen the numbers. Banks of supercomputers refining to the eighth significant figure the precise moment of impact; the location down to a half mile. The giant Obamaroid bearing down on us: unstoppable by mere puny earthlings; a rock the size of Ireland, immutable, inevitable, crushing and final. Run all you want; you’ll just die tired. This is it. The end of all we hold dear.

And what advice do we hear from political-science advisers, our best and brightest stalwarts rallied to stave off this disaster? What say these wise men in white coats, men that spend decades in labs, dissecting every trend and poll, crunching numbers and assaying intentions to the milligram? What help might we look to them for?

Ah! Some instructions! Something at last, some hope to cling to! Let me just check the official printout here…

    On the morning of impact, grab the sturdiest chair you can find. Move it away from all doors and windows. A basement is your best bet, if you have one. Place the chair in any doorway underneath a load-bearing beam — a steel I-beam is ideal. Sit down and place your feet about two feet apart, firmly pressing down on the floor. Open your mouth slightly to relieve the overpressure from the impact, and the instant you see the flash of light, close you eyes immediately, lean forward as far as you can, put your hands over your ears and kiss your ass goodbye.

You know, I love cheap sci-fi. And one of my favorite lines from an absolutely terrific little cheap sci-fi film is this: History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark.

This attitude of despair is being trumpeted from the Left for the sensible and understandable reason that if they lose this election — with all the advantages they have at this precise point in time — then they can never win. Not ever. And the media is pulling with their teeth now, because if Obama loses they will have destroyed their credibility — for nothing.

That’s all fine with me. I know what they and the press sayeth. Sayeth I:

      If we are mark’d to lose, we are enow
      To do our party loss; and if to live,
      The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
      God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
      Let he which hath no stomach to this fight,
      Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
      And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
      We would not vote in that man’s company
      That fears his fellowship to vote with us.
      This day is call’d the eve of Elect-ian.
      He that votes this day, and comes safe home,
      Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d,
      And rouse him at the name of Republican
      He that shall live this day, and see old age,
      Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
      And say ‘To-morrow is the fourth of November’
      Then will he strip his sleeve and show his hands,
      And say ‘With these I moved yon levers on election day.’
      Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
      But he’ll remember, with advantages,
      What votes he did cast that day. 

      We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
      For he to-day that shares his vote with me
      Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
      This day shall gentle his condition;
      And gentlemen and lady pundits now-a-bed
      Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
      And hold their book deals cheap whilst any speaks
      That voted with us upon election day.

The original is a speech promising glory in the face of overwhelming defeat. King Henry V went on to win perhaps the most miraculous victory in the history of mankind.

This is not an asteroid we face. It is not preordained, unstoppable, inevitable. It is a choice made by human men and women, an individual decision made a hundred million times and not the cold, precise product of gravity and mass.

I am new to The Show. So perhaps you will let me point out two of my friends from back in the minors, because they have something to say on the matter.

My friend Iowahawk writes some of the most brilliant satire I have ever read. He likes to come across as a beer-swilling gearhead — because he is — but look at this analysis of what probability and polling is and isn’t, which I will proceed to steal a graph or two from, simply so that I may bask in its reflected glory:

    You take a simple random sample of 1000 balls from an urn containing 120,000,000 red and blue balls, and your sample shows 450 red balls and 550 blue balls. Construct a 95% confidence interval for the true proportion of blue balls in the urn.

    …Works pretty well if you’re interested in hypothetical colored balls in hypothetical giant urns, or survival rates of plants in a controlled experiment, or defects in a batch of factory products. It may even work well if you’re interested in blind cola taste tests. But what if the thing you are studying doesn’t quite fit the balls & urns template?

        * What if 40% of the balls have personally chosen to live in an urn that you legally can’t stick your hand into?
        * What if 50% of the balls who live in the legal urn explicitly refuse to let you select them?
        * What if the balls inside the urn are constantly interacting and talking and arguing with each other, and can decide to change their color on a whim?
        * What if you have to rely on the balls to report their own color, and some unknown number are probably lying to you?
        * What if you’ve been hired to count balls by a company who has endorsed blue as their favorite color?
        * What if you have outsourced the urn-ball counting to part-time temp balls, most of whom happen to be blue?
        * What if the balls inside the urn are listening to you counting out there, and it affects whether they want to be counted, and/or which color they want to be?

(And what, I wonder, if all around you, every day, you are told by all of the coolest, hippest, prettiest balls that your color is mean, irrelevant, unpopular, un-cool, evil, old, incompetent, and probably racist? Would you stick to your guns in the face of that, or keep your mouth shut and show ‘em when the curtain closes?)

Iowahawk concludes:

    If one or more of the above statements are true, then the formula for margin of error simplifies to

    Margin of Error = Who the hell knows?

    The moral of this midterm for all would-be pollsters: if you are really interested in how many of us red and blue balls there are in this great big urn, sit back and relax until Tuesday, and let us show our true colors.

Well said, buddy. And finally, this, from

    It may very well be that an army of glum, dispirited and pessimistic conservatives will reluctantly trudge to the polls on November 4, each one imagining they are the only remaining person in the entire country voting for McCain, and lo and behold — they’ll turn out to be a silent majority after all.

That may be the most prophetic sentence of the year.

I don’t want to be the person who sat home and missed being a part of that. And I won’t be.

See you there.  "

  — Bill Whittle lives in Los Angeles and is an on-air commentator for You can find him online at "

Sunday, November 2, 2008


Video "Obama Tells San Francisco He Will Bankrupt The Coal Industry


Sunday, November 2, 2008


Barack Obama Pastor Jeremiah Wright NEW TAPES!!

Extensive collection of clips.


"Barack Obama Pastor Jeremiah Wright NEW TAPES!!!!

Sunday, November 2, 2008


YouTube - Obama Civilian Security

"Obama Civilian Security

Sunday, November 2, 2008


"Senator Stealth

"Senator Stealth
How to advance radical causes when no one’s looking.

By Stanley Kurtz
Source National Review Online

"AUTHOR'S NOTE: When I wrote “Senator Stealth,” just over two months ago, it still seemed realistic to expect that its revelations might stimulate press follow-up. After all, the Wright affair had occasioned significant media interest. Since “Senator Stealth” established that Barack Obama had intimate and long-standing ties to yet another organization with Wright-like anti-American views, the piece’s news value seemed obvious. The Wright affair was no fluke, but part of a systematic pattern. Unfortunately, as Obama moved closer to nominee status, the press circled the wagons and began its own systematic pattern of refusing to question or report on his past.

Beyond its revelation that Obama’s original community organizer home-base is pervaded by anti-Americanism, “Senator Stealth” foreshadows today’s debates over redistributionism, and shows that concerns over Obama’s radical “associations” cannot be separated from the most significant policy disputes of the campaign.

“Senator Stealth” also lays out a way of resolving the contradiction between Obama’s radical past and his apparently moderate present. After learning that incrementalism, rhetorical disguise, and ideological stealth are second nature to Obama’s community organizer compatriots, it’s tougher to take his current self-presentation at face value. More than two months later, the same issues play out in the latest flap over Obama’s ties to the New Party.

Finally, I couldn’t have guessed, more than two months ago, that the Obama campaign, abetted by the press, would have taken refuge in near-total denial of his unsavory associations, from the question of his New Party membership, to the relationship to Bill Ayers, to the links to ACORN. Obama has downplayed or denied these many ties to an extent that is shockingly at odds with the public record, while the press has played along.

As the race tightens, let us hope that, however belatedly, the sheer weight of questions and revelations are beginning to take their toll. — Stanley Kurtz "

"After hearing about Barack Obama’s ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Fr. Michael Pfleger, and the militant activists of ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), it should be clear to everyone that his extremist roots run deep. But the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has yet another connection with the world of far-Left radicalism. Obama has long been linked — through foundation grants, shared political activism, collaboration on legislation and tactics, and mutual praise and support — with the Chicago-based Gamaliel Foundation, one of the least known yet most influential national umbrella groups for church-based “community organizers.”

The same separatist, anti-American theology of liberation that was so boldly and bitterly proclaimed by Obama’s pastor is shared, if more quietly, by Obama’s Gamaliel colleagues. The operative word here is “quietly.” Gamaliel specializes in ideological stealth, and Obama, a master student of Gamaliel strategy, shows disturbing signs of being a sub rosa radical himself. Obama’s legislative tactics, as well as his persistent professions of non-ideological pragmatism, appear to be inspired by his radical mentors’ most sophisticated tactics. Not only has Obama studied, taught, and apparently absorbed stealth techniques from radical groups like Gamaliel and ACORN, but in his position as a board member of Chicago’s supposedly nonpartisan Woods Fund, he quietly funneled money to his radical allies — at the very moment he most needed their support to boost his political career. It’s high time for these shadowy, perhaps improper, ties to receive a dose of sunlight.

The connections are numerous. Gregory Galluzzo, Gamaliel’s co-founder and executive director, served as a trainer and mentor during Obama’s mid-1980s organizing days in Chicago. The Developing Communities Project, which first hired Obama, is part of the Gamaliel network. Obama became a consultant and eventually a trainer of community organizers for Gamaliel. (He also served as a trainer for ACORN.) And he has kept up his ties with Gamaliel during his time in the U.S. Senate.

The Gamaliel connection appears to supply a solution to the riddle of Obama’s mysterious political persona. On one hand, he likes to highlight his days as a community organizer — a profession with proudly radical roots in the teachings of Chicago’s Saul Alinsky, author of the highly influential text Rules for Radicals. Obama even goes so far as to make the community-organizer image a metaphor for his distinctive conception of elective office. On the other hand, Obama presents himself as a post-ideological, consensus-minded politician who favors pragmatic, common-sense solutions to the issues of the day. How can Obama be radical and post-radical at the same time? Perhaps by deploying Gamaliel techniques. Gamaliel organizers have discovered a way to fuse their Left-extremist political beliefs with a smooth, non-ideological surface of down-to-earth pragmatism: the substance of Jeremiah Wright with the appearance of Norman Vincent Peale. Could this be Obama’s secret?

Before outlining Gamaliel’s techniques of political stealth, we need to identify the views that they are camouflaging. These can be found in Dennis Jacobsen’s book Doing Justice: Congregations and Community Organizing. Jacobsen is the pastor of Incarnation Lutheran Church in Milwaukee and director of the Gamaliel National Clergy Caucus. Jacobsen’s book, which is part of the first-year reading list for new Gamaliel organizers, lays out the underlying theology of Gamaliel’s activities. While Jacobsen’s book was published in 2001, it is based on presentations Jacobsen has been making at Gamaliel’s clergy-training center since 1992 and clearly has Galluzzo’s endorsement. So while we cannot be sure that Obama has read or taught Doing Justice, the book certainly embodies a political perspective to which Obama’s more than 20 years of friendship with Galluzzo, and his stint as a Gamaliel instructor, would surely have exposed him.

In Jacobsen’s conception, America is a sinful and fallen nation whose pervasive classism, racism, and militarism authentic Christians must constantly resist. Drawing on the Book of Revelation, Jacobsen exhorts, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! . . . Come out of her, my people, so that you do not take part in her sins.” The United States, Jacobsen maintains, employs nationalism, propaganda, racism, bogus “civil religion,” and class enmity to bolster its entrenched and oppressive corporate system. Authentic Christians forced to live in such a nation can “come out of Babylon,” says Jacobsen, only by entering into “a perpetual state of internal exile.”

Of course, many believers do feel at home in the United States, but according to Jacobsen, these inauthentic and misguided Christians have been lulled into the false belief that the United States is somehow different from other countries — that it stands as a genuine defender of freedom and democracy. According to Jacobsen, the desire of most Americans to create a safe, secure life for themselves and their families constitutes an unacceptable emotional distancing from the sufferings of the urban poor. Jacobsen says that whenever he feels himself seduced by the American dream of personal security — this “unconscionable removal from the lives of those who suffer” — he rejects its pull as the deplorable “encroachment of America on my soul.” To “feel at home in the United States,” maintains Jacobsen, is not only to fall victim to a scarcely disguised form of political despotism; it is to betray Christianity itself.

Although Jacobsen acknowledges that the sufferings of the poor in America do not quite rise to the level of the Nazi Holocaust, he nonetheless finds a similarity:The accommodation and silence of the church amidst Nazi atrocities are paralleled by the accommodation and silence of the church in this country amidst a calculated war against the poor.” He recounts being present at the Pentagon “to fast and vigil with a group of religious resisters against the madness of nuclear build-up and militarism generated in that place” and is horrified when he sees that many in the American military actually think of themselves as Christians. For Jacobsen, this means that the church has “aligned itself with oppressive forces and crucified its Lord anew.”

Jacobsen has a low opinion of the food pantries, homeless shelters, and walk-a-thons that make up so much religious charitable activity in the United States. All that charity, says Jacobsen, tends to suppress the truth that the system itself is designed to benefit the prosperous and keep the poor down. He complains: “The Christians who are so generous with food baskets at Thanksgiving or with presents for the poor at Christmas often vote into office politicians whose policies ignore or crush those living in poverty.” “Most churches do not operate on the basis of healthy agitation,” he says, but instead “on the basis of manipulation, authoritarianism, or guilt-tripping.”

The solution, says Jacobsen, is community organizing: “Metropolitan organizing offers a chance to end the warfare against the poor and to heal the divisions of class and race that separate this sick society.” “Militant mass action . . . fueled by righteous anger,” he maintains, offers authentic community, and therefore “the possibility of fulfillment in a vacuous society.” He continues: “If the pain and human degradation all around us doesn’t stir up within us sufficient anger to want to shake the foundations of this society, then it’s probably best for us to go back to playing church.”

Other than the sense of community that is generated by militant struggle, what does Jacobsen offer as the cure for America’s ills? He is short on detail here, but there are tantalizing hints. Jacobsen invokes the communal property and absence of private ownership that prevailed among early Christians as a possible model. Despite his initial skepticism regarding such selflessness, says Jacobsen, he has seen this sort of “radical sharing of limited resources” on a trip to a poor African church in Tanzania. Unfortunately, says Jacobsen, “the church in the United States lacks community. The American church by and large is privatistic, insular, and individualistic. It reflects American culture.”

These, then, are the beliefs at the spiritual heart of the Gamaliel Foundation’s community-organizing efforts. They show clear echoes of Jeremiah Wright’s and James Cone’s black-liberation theology, and it’s evident that Obama has an affinity for organizations that embody this point of view. But a question arises. Gamaliel’s goal is to build church-based coalitions capable of wielding power on behalf of the poor. These congregation-based organizations are supposed to counterbalance and undercut America’s oppressive power structures. Yet if most American Christians are deluded servants of a sinful and oppressive system, how can they be molded into a majority coalition for change? Given the privatistic, insular, and individualistic character of American culture, theological frankness might backfire and drive away potential allies, exactly as happened with Reverend Wright. Thus arises the need for stealth.

It might have been all but impossible to penetrate the strategic thinking of Obama’s cohorts if not for the fortuitous 2008 publication of Organizing Urban America: Secular and Faith-based Progressive Movements, by Rutgers political scientist Heidi Swarts. This is the first book-length study of the organizing tactics and political ideologies of Gamaliel and ACORN, the two groups to which Obama’s community-organizing ties are closest. Swarts’s study focuses on Gamaliel and ACORN in St. Louis, but given the degree of national coordination by both groups, the carry-over of her findings to Chicago is bound to be substantial. Because Swarts is highly sympathetic to the community-organizing groups she studies, she was granted an unusual degree of access to strategic discussions during her period of fieldwork.

Swarts calls groups like ACORN and (especially) Gamaliel “invisible actors,” hidden from public view because they often prefer to downplay their efforts, because they work locally, and because scholars and journalists pay greater attention to movements with national profiles (like the Sierra Club or the Christian Coalition). Congregation-based community organizations like Gamaliel, by contrast, are often invisible even at the local level. A newspaper might report on a demonstration led by a local minister or priest, for example, without noticing that the clergyman in question is part of the Gamaliel network. “Though often hidden from view,” says Swarts, “leaders have intentionally and strategically organized these movements that appear to well up and erupt from below.”

Although Gamaliel and ACORN have significantly different tactics and styles, Swarts notes that their political goals and ideologies are broadly similar. Both groups press the state for economic redistribution. The tactics of Gamaliel and ACORN have been shaped in a “post-Alinsky” era of welfare reform and conservative resurgence, posing a severe challenge to those who wish to expand the welfare state. The answer these activists have hit upon, says Swarts, is to work incrementally in urban areas, while deliberately downplaying the far-Left ideology that stands behind their carefully targeted campaigns.

While ACORN’s membership is fairly homogeneous, consisting chiefly of inner-city blacks and Hispanics, congregation-based community organizations like the Gamaliel Foundation tend to have more racially, culturally, and politically mixed constituencies. The need to overcome these divisions and gather a broad coalition behind its hard-Left agenda has pushed Gamaliel to develop what Swarts calls an “innovative cultural strategy.” Because of the suspicions that blue-collar members might harbor toward its elite, liberal leaders, Gamaliel’s main “ideological tactic,” says Swarts, is to present its organizers as the opposite of radical, elite, or ideological. As Swarts explains, they deliberately refrain from using leftist jargon like “racism,” “sexism,” “classism,” “homophobia,” “oppression,” or “multiple oppressions” in front of ordinary members — even though, amongst themselves, Gamaliel’s organizers toss around this sort of lingo with abandon, just as Jacobsen does in his book.

Swarts supplies a chart listing “common working-class perceptions of liberal social movements” on one side, while displaying on the other side Gamaliel organizers’ tricky tactics for getting around them. To avoid seeming like radicals or “hippies left over from the sixties,” Gamaliel organizers are careful to wear conventional clothing and conduct themselves with dignity, even formality. Since liberal social movements tend to come off as naïve and idealistic, Gamaliel organizers make a point of presenting their ideas as practical, pragmatic, and down-to-earth. When no one else is listening, Gamaliel organizers may rail at “racism,” “sexism,” and “oppressive corporate systems,” but when speaking to their blue-collar followers, they describe their plans as “common sense solutions for working families.”

Although the Gamaliel agenda is deeply collectivist and redistributionist, organizers are schooled to frame their program in traditional American, individualist terms. As Swarts puts it:

    What makes [Gamaliel’s] ideology liberal rather than conservative is that it advocates not private or voluntary solutions but collective public programs. They seek action from the state: social welfare programs, redistribution, or regulation. . . . But publicly [Gamaliel and other congregation-based groups] usually emphasize individual responsibility on the part of authorities.

What Gamaliel really wants, in other words, is for the public as a whole to fork over funds to the government, but they’re careful to frame this demand as a call for “personal responsibility” by particular government officials.

The relative homogeneity of ACORN’s membership allows it to display its radicalism more openly. According to Swarts, ACORN members think of themselves as “oppositional outlaws” and “militants unafraid to confront the powers that be.” Yet even ACORN has a deeper, hidden ideological dimension. “Long-term ACORN organizers . . . tend to see the organization as a solitary vanguard of principled leftists,” says Swarts, while ordinary members rarely think in these overtly ideological terms; for them, it’s more about attacking specific problems. In general, ACORN avoids programmatic statements. During a 1980 effort to purge conservatives from its ranks, however, the organization did release a detailed political platform — which Swarts calls “a veritable laundry list of progressive positions.”

Although ACORN’s radicalism is somewhat more frank than Gamaliel’s, ACORN has an “innovative cultural strategy” of its own. ACORN’s radicalism is incremental; it’s happy to work toward ambitious long-term goals through a series of baby steps. For example, although ACORN has fought for “living wage” laws in several American cities, these affect only the small fraction of the workforce employed directly by city governments. The real purpose of ACORN’s urban living-wage campaigns, says Swarts, is not economic but political. ACORN’s long-term goal is an across-the-board minimum-wage increase at the state and federal levels. The public debate spurred by local campaigns is meant to prepare the political ground for ACORN’s more ambitious political goals, and to build up membership in the meantime.

Throughout his career, Obama has drawn on all of these strategies. In Illinois’s Republican-controlled state senate, Obama specialized in incremental legislation, often drawn up in collaboration with groups like Gamaliel and ACORN. His tiny, targeted expansions of government-financed health care, for example, were designed to build political momentum for universal health care. And his claim to be a “common-sense pragmatist,” rather than a leftist ideologue, comes straight out of the Gamaliel playbook.

New evidence now ties Obama still more closely to both organizations. Not only was Obama a trainer for Gamaliel and ACORN, he appears to have used his influence to secure a major increase in funding for both groups — arguably stretching the bounds of propriety in the process.

In 2005, the year after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, the Washington, D.C.–based Center for Community Change released a report titled “Promising Practices in Revenue Generation for Community Organizing.” One of the report’s authors was Jean Rudd, Obama’s friend and the president of the Woods Fund during Obama’s years on that foundation’s board. Buried deep within the report lies the story of Obama’s role in expanding the Woods Fund’s financial support for groups like Gamaliel and ACORN.

Since the start of his organizing career, Obama was recognized by the Woods Fund as “a great analyst and interpreter of organizing,” according to the 2005 report. Initially an adviser, Obama became a Woods Fund board member, and finally board chairman, serving as a key advocate of increased funding for organizing during that period. In 1995, the Woods Fund commissioned a special evaluation of its funding for community organizing — a report that eventually recommended a major expansion of financial support. Obama chaired a committee of organizers that advised the Woods Fund on this important shift.

The committee’s report, “Evaluation of the Fund’s Community Organizing Grant Program,” is based on interviews with all the big names in Obama’s personal organizer network. Greg Galluzzo and other Gamaliel Foundation officials were consulted, as were several ACORN organizers, including Madeline Talbott, Obama’s key ACORN contact. Talbott, an expert on ACORN’s tactics of confrontation and disruption, is quoted more often than any other organizer in the report, sometimes with additional comments from Obama himself. The report holds up Gamaliel and ACORN as models for other groups and supports Talbott’s call for “‘a massive infusion of resources’ to make organizing a truly mass-based movement.”

Support from the Woods Fund had importance for these groups that went way beyond the money itself. Since community organizers often use confrontation, intimidation, and “civil disobedience” in the service of their political goals, even liberal foundations sometimes find it difficult to fund them without risking public criticism. As the report puts it: “Some funders . . . are averse to confrontational tactics, and are loathe [sic] to support organizing for that reason. They essentially equate organizing with the embarrassment of their business and government associates.” The Woods Fund is both highly respected and one of the few foundations to consistently support community organizing, so its money acts as a kind of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, providing political cover for other foundations interested in funding the hard Left. Obama apparently sought to capitalize on this effect, not only by expanding the Woods Fund’s involvement in organizing, but by distributing the Woods report to a national network of potential funders.

Formally, the Woods Fund claims to be “non-ideological.” According to the report: “This stance has enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government ‘establishments,’ without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship.” Yet ACORN received substantial funding from Woods, apparently aided by Obama’s internal advocacy, and we now know that ACORN members have played key roles as volunteer ground troops in Obama’s various political campaigns. That would seem to raise the specter of partisanship.

A 2004 article in Social Policy by Chicago ACORN leader Toni Foulkes, titled “Case Study: Chicago —The Barack Obama Campaign,” explains that, given Obama’s long and close relationship to ACORN, “it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers” in Obama’s campaigns. Perhaps ACORN volunteers observed the technical legalities and helped Obama merely in their capacity as private citizens. Even so, it seems at least possible that Obama used his position at a supposedly nonpartisan foundation to direct money to an allegedly nonpartisan group, in pursuit of what were in fact nakedly partisan ends.

Given Obama’s political aspirations, it’s notable that the focus of his Woods Fund report is its call for “improving the tie between organizing and policy making” and shifting organizing’s focus from local battles to “citywide or statewide coalitions.” The report boldly criticizes Saul Alinsky himself for being excessively focused on local issues, complaining that “he did not seek to fundamentally upset the distribution of power in the wider society.”

The ultimate goal of all these efforts — fundamental disruption of America’s power structure, and economic redistribution along race, poverty, and gender lines — is entirely compatible with the program outlined by Dennis Jacobsen in Doing Justice. Obama could hardly have been unfamiliar with the general drift of Gamaliel ideology, especially given his reputation as an analyst of community organizing and his supervision of a comprehensive review of the field.

Even after becoming a U.S. senator, Obama has maintained his ties to the Gamaliel Foundation. According to an October 2007 report for the University of California by Todd Swanstrom and Brian Banks, “it is almost unheard of for a U.S. Senator to attend a public meeting of a community organization, but Senator Obama attended a Gamaliel affiliate public meeting in Chicago.” Given this ongoing contact, given the radicalism of Gamaliel’s core ideology, given Obama’s close association with Gamaliel’s co-founder, Gregory Galluzzo, given Obama’s role as a Gamaliel consultant and trainer, and given Obama’s outsized role in channeling allegedly “nonpartisan” funding to Gamaliel affiliates (and to his political ground troops at ACORN), some questions are in order. Obama needs to detail the nature of his ties to both Gamaliel and ACORN, and should discuss the extent of his knowledge of Gamaliel’s guiding ideology. Ultimately, we need to know if Obama is the post-ideological pragmatist he sometimes claims to be, or in fact a stealth radical. "

— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center."

Sunday, November 2, 2008


"IRS, Justice Target Undisclosed Assets In Swiss Accounts

Have heard about these accounts ever since I can remember so am wondering how many who and where are going to make tomorrow's headlines. 

Fair Tax eliminates all federal income taxes including FICA, capital gains and death tax.

There's approx.  20+% EMBEDDED TAX included in the purchase price of all goods and services that WE ALREADY PAY WITHOUT REALIZING IT.  These EMBEDDED TAXES WOULD BE TOTALLY ELIMINATED under Fair Tax, along with tax loopholes.  IRS eliminated, April 15th filing eliminated along with cost and nuisance of paperwork to comply with our ridiculously complex tax code. 

People would bring home all their paychecks!!!!!

Bet Fair Tax gains some traction soon. 


"IRS, Justice Target Undisclosed Assets In Swiss Accounts

By David S. Hilzenrath
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 1, 2008; D01


"At the Beverly Hills office of criminal defense lawyer Edward M. Robbins Jr., anxious new clients are showing up with an unexpected problem.

The clients put money in Swiss bank accounts, where it was supposed to stay secret. But now those depositors fear the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department will gain access to their bank records, Robbins said.

"They're coming in from the cold. They're nervous," Robbins said.

And with good reason, the former federal prosecutor said. A lawyer who specializes in tax cases, Robbins thinks the government is gearing up to prosecute large numbers of Americans for failing to disclose foreign accounts on their tax returns and evading taxes on income generated by the accounts.

"If I were one of these guys with 10 to 50 million in my account, I'd be having an aneurysm," Robbins said. "It's an extremely dangerous situation for these guys."

The legendary secrecy of Swiss banks has come under fresh assault lately from U.S. and European authorities who say their citizens have used the privacy to hide assets and dodge taxes.

The U.S. effort to capture back taxes targets Americans who hold undeclared accounts at UBS, one of Switzerland's largest banks. The developments could put UBS in legal jeopardy and undo the reputation for confidentiality that has helped make a small nation in the Alps a magnet for international deposits.

UBS, which also has extensive operations in the United States, has been under investigation by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

"UBS takes this matter very seriously and is working diligently with both Swiss and U.S. government authorities, consistent with Swiss law and the legal frameworks for intergovernmental cooperation and assistance," UBS spokesman Mark Arena said by e-mail.

Over the summer, the IRS won permission from a federal court to demand that UBS turn over the identities of an estimated 19,000 American clients who have failed to disclose their Swiss-based accounts on U.S. tax returns. It remains unclear what has or will come of that effort. Swiss law restricts the bank's ability to breach client confidentiality. Swiss law also gives clients the opportunity to oppose the release of their names through a judicial process that could slow any disclosures.

"All of these names have to be checked, and each case has to be looked at," Swiss embassy spokeswoman Emilija Georgieva said, declining to say whether the Swiss have turned over any identities to the U.S. government, yet.

Washington lawyer Martin Lobel, chairman of the Tax Analysts information service, said the Swiss government appears to be "using the legal process to delay until people forget about it," and he predicted that "nothing much is going to happen." Even if the IRS got the names of 19,000 UBS depositors, the agency couldn't handle the volume, Lobel said.

However, Robbins said it appears that criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department, as distinct from the civil lawyers handling the IRS demand, are gaining access to such details through a parallel investigation. The Beverly Hills lawyer said he recently contacted the Justice Department on behalf of a new client and was told a prosecutor already had the client's name.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment for this story. The IRS did not respond to repeated inquiries.

The curtains began to part on UBS late last year when a depositor named Igor M. Olenicoff, a California real estate billionaire, pleaded guilty to one count of filing a false tax return. Then, in June, a former UBS employee pleaded guilty to helping Olenicoff conceal $200 million and evade taxes of $7.2 million. The former banker, Bradley Birkenfeld, gave investigators details of how UBS allegedly catered to wealthy Americans, potentially violating U.S. banking and securities laws, according to a Senate report.

As described in Senate and court records, UBS bankers allegedly helped clients set up sham companies in offshore havens such as the Bahamas to conceal the identity of account holders. To solicit new clients, bankers not licensed to do business here traveled to art shows, yachting competitions and other upscale events in the United States, falsely declaring at times that they were entering the country for pleasure.

They were trained to avoid and detect surveillance by U.S. law enforcement; one internal training document prepared them for the possibility that they could be "intercepted by an FBI agent."

They allegedly kept American clients informed about their investments by carrying account information to the United States in encrypted form. They allegedly advised clients to misrepresent withdrawals from their Swiss accounts as loans and to tap their Swiss funds by purchasing jewels and art while traveling abroad.

In one instance, Birkenfeld used an American client's funds to buy diamonds. Then, the banker snuck the stones into the United States in a tube of toothpaste, according to a statement of undisputed facts filed in connection with his June guilty plea.

When Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, convened a hearing on the subject in July, he estimated that the abuse of offshore havens worldwide costs the United States about $100 billion annually. The U.S. government isn't the only one concerned. Last month, when representatives of 17 nations met in Paris to discuss international financial transparency, German and French ministers said Switzerland should be added to a blacklist of tax havens, the Swissinfo news service reported.

About 20,000 U.S. clients have about $18 billion on deposit with UBS in Switzerland, and about 19,000 of the clients have not disclosed their accounts to the IRS, the Swiss bank has told Senate investigators, according to a July report by the subcommittee staff. By Birkenfeld's reckoning, such accounts generated about $200 million of annual revenues for UBS, according to court records.

Called to testify before the subcommittee in July, a top UBS official invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. But another UBS executive expressed contrition and promised the bank would cooperate with U.S. authorities.

"UBS genuinely regrets any compliance failures that may have occurred. We will take responsibility for them. We will not seek to minimize them. On behalf of UBS, I am apologizing. I am committing to you that we will take the actions necessary to see that this does not happen again," said Mark Branson, UBS's chief financial officer of global wealth management.

Some Americans familiar with the situation say UBS could strike a cooperative posture secure in the knowledge that the Swiss government could protect its clients. Still, UBS could be forced to choose between violating Swiss law and its stringent privacy protections or defying U.S. law and putting its U.S. business at risk. In his Senate testimony, UBS's Branson noted that almost 32,000 of the company's 80,000 employees were based in the United States.

James Nason, a spokesman for the Swiss Bankers Association, said, "UBS itself cannot decide to hand over client data because then it would be violating Swiss law." Any Swiss bank "waits for instructions from the Swiss authorities," Nason said, adding, "Switzerland doesn't allow fishing expeditions."

Nason put blame elsewhere, saying, "Attacks on Switzerland usually come from countries that have a relatively low level of taxpayer honesty."

Beverly Hills lawyer Robbins represented Olenicoff, which might help explain why, as he related, about 20 other UBS clients have turned to his law firm. In New York, attorney Bryan C. Skarlatos, who specializes in criminal tax law, said his firm has been approached by dozens of people who hold offshore accounts at UBS and other banks. They wanted to come clean with the IRS before getting caught up in a crackdown, he said.

Whether or not the Swiss officially give up clients' secrets, the U.S. government could have other ways of getting information. For example, bank employees have an incentive to expose tax evaders to the IRS, Skarlatos said, because whistle-blowers could receive 30 percent of the money they help the government collect. "

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this story. "

Saturday, November 1, 2008


"Is Obama Wright? - Pastor Jeremiah Wright & Senator Barack

"Is Obama Wright? - Pastor Jeremiah Wright & Senator Barack

Saturday, November 1, 2008


"Would You? video

YouTube - Would You?

Saturday, November 1, 2008


Obama Handles A Crisis video

Click here for Hillary Supporters for McCain Larry Sinclair Video

Saturday, November 1, 2008


"Obama Calls Low Taxes "Selfishness"

"Obama Calls Low Taxes "Selfishness"

Saturday, November 1, 2008


"An "idiot wind" or a useful idiot?

"An "idiot wind" or a useful idiot


Posted by Paul at 9:18 PM

"The Washington Post editorial board attacks John McCain for making an issue of Barack Obama's association with Rashid Khalidi. The Post is disturbed that the McCain campaign characterizes Khalidi as "a PLO spokesman." But the Los Angeles Times has reported that "when Khalidi taught at a university in Beirut, he often spoke to reporters on behalf of Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization." And Khalidi's association with the PLO was evident in an interview in 1981 (at a time when Arafat's organization was launching terrorist attacks in Israel and creating havoc in Lebanon). In the interview Khalidi referred to the exiled PLO's growing standing among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, saying "we have built up tremendous links with the Palestinians 'on the inside' in different ways. We can render them services ... we've never been stronger there, and the trend is continuing."

The Post acknowledges that Khalidi's views are at odds with the ones that Obama presents in the presidential campaign. But it calls Khalidi's views "complex" and notes that even though he doesn't appear to favor a two-state solution, he thinks that the alternatives are suspect too.

In reality, Khalidi's views are not so much "complex" as hard to discern due to his poor writing. As far as I can tell from the article in the Nation magazine on which the Post relies, Khalidi doesn't like either a two-state solution or a one-state nation solution in which Jews and Arabs co-exist. Since he plainly hates the status quo, Israeli Jews can reasonably wonder what Khalidi has in mind for them. The Mediterranean Sea comes to mind.

The Post's main point is that Obama doesn't agree with Khalidi's views (whatever their precise nature) but, as "a man of considerable intellectual curiosity," he probably just wanted "to hear out a smart, if militant, advocate for the Palestinians."

The Post is correct that there would be nothing wrong with hearing Khalidi out. But Obama did more. Their relationship was longstanding. And when Khalidi moved from Chicago, not only did Obama toast the "militant advocate," but in doing so praised him for "offer[ing] constant reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases." In other words, Khalidi affected Obama's thinking, causing him to believe that his disagreements with Khalidi were the result of "blind spots" and "biases." This suggests that, in Obama's view, Khalidi was right and he was wrong on at least some matters.

Until Obama explains how this process played out, McCain has every right to raise the issue and to press for the tape that might well shed additional light on the matter (though if the Los Angeles really promised not to make the tape public, I think it is within its rights to keep that promise).

The Post informs us that when it contacted Khalidi about the matter, he said he was waiting for the "idiot wind [to] blow over." The Post adopts Khalidi's phrase as the title for its editorial and notes that the idiot wind "is likely to keep blowing for four more days." One might say the same about the Post's election coverage.

UPDATE: According to Fox News, in 1991 Khalidi wrote an obituary for Salah Khalaf, a founding member of the terrorist Black September organization which, among other things, carried out the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics. Khalaf was known as Israel's most-wanted terrorist. Fox News reports that in the obituary Khalidi praised Khalaf and said he would be "sorely missed by the Palestinian people to whom he devoted his life."

But the Post isn't worried. After all, Khalidi went to Yale.

JOHN adds: This strikes me as a major story. Salah Khalaf, better known as Abu Iyad, masterminded the murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. By his own account in his memoirs, he personally selected the terrorists who carried out the attack and delivered weapons to them. So the fact that he was a leading terrorist was anything but a secret. Nevertheless, when Khalaf was murdered in 1991, Obama's close friend Rashid Khalidi praised him and said that he would be "sorely missed." He was, no doubt, missed by those who approve of terrorist mass murders. It is fair to say that Khalidi, a representative of the PLO, was among that number.

It was shortly after this that Obama and Khalidi became friends and, as Obama has said, Khalidi "offered constant reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases." Isn't this a bit odd, to say the least? A person of normal sensibility would say that someone who praises the founder of Black September and the perpetrator of the Munich horror suffers from "blind spots and biases." (I, actually, wouldn't put it that politely.) So what was it, exactly, that Obama learned from Khalidi? Why did he, by his own account, find Khalidi to be not only a congenial friend but a mentor of sorts?

In short, what sort of a person would consider a professor who speaks for Yaser Arafat's PLO and mourns the death of a proud terrorist, the perpetrator of one of the 20th century's vilest acts, to be not just a profound thinker but a moral compass? That is to say: what sort of a person is Barack Obama?  "

Saturday, November 1, 2008


"Rashid Khalidi Referred to Arafat�s PLO As �We�

"Rashid Khalidi Referred to Arafat’s PLO As ‘We’
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor
"( – Rashid Khalidi, the Columbia University professor whose friendship with Sen. Barack Obama is raising questions, says he was never a spokesman for the PLO, but his strong PLO leanings were evident at a time when Yasser Arafat’s group was mounting terror attacks in Israel and causing mayhem in Lebanon.
And while Khalidi may not have been speaking on behalf of the PLO, during interviews he occasionally used the word “we” when speaking of the organization.
In one 1981 interview, Khalidi referred to the exiled PLO’s growing standing among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, saying “we have built up tremendous links with the Palestinians ‘on the inside’ in different ways. We can render them services … we’ve never been stronger there, and the trend is continuing.”
Sen. John McCain’s campaign has urged the Los Angeles Times to release a video reportedly showing Obama speaking at an event in Chicago about his friendship with Khalidi.
The newspaper last April reported on the 2003 event, which took place when Khalidi was leaving Chicago for a new job, a professorship of Arab studies, at Columbia University.
“Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking,” the LA Times said.
“His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been ‘consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases … It’s for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation – a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,’ but around ‘this entire world.’”
The newspaper said Khalidi had praised Obama, “telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat.”
The report also mentioned that the event had been filmed and said that “a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.”
After conservative bloggers raised questions about the unaired videotape, the McCain campaign issued a statement Tuesday.
“A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi,” said campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb.
“The election is one week away, and it’s unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job – make information public.”
LA Times editor Russ Stanton in a statement said that paper had not published the video “because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it. The Times keeps its promises to sources.”
Attacks, atrocities
Obama’s relationship with Khalidi has become an issue because during his campaign for president, the Illinois senator has portrayed himself as strongly pro-Israel.
Khalidi has denied being a spokesman for the PLO during his years in Lebanon, when he taught political studies at the American University of Beirut in the second half of the 1970s and the early 1980s.
During that period, the PLO was based in the Lebanese capital, having been expelled from Jordan after an abortive attempt to topple King Hussein. In Beirut Arafat’s group established a “state within a state” taking over entire residential areas, setting up roadblocks, and extorting protection taxes. The PLO became a party to Lebanon’s civil war, backing Muslims against Maronite Christians.
PLO atrocities against Christians reached a climax in early 1976, when PLO fighters killed 582 inhabitants of the Christian town of Damour, south of Beirut, before turning it into a stronghold. According to published accounts, the terrorists pillaged and ransacked the town and its churches, desecrated a Maronite cemetery by digging up and robbing corpses, and used the interior of the St. Elias Church for a shooting range and a garage for PLO vehicles.
From its Lebanon stronghold, the PLO mounted cross-border terrorist attacks against Israel, culminating in a deadly assault that cost the lives of 35 Israeli civilians. Israel retaliated by sending in the army in 1978, pushing the PLO out of southern Lebanon. PLO shelling of northern Israel continued until Israel’s invasion in 1982 led to the PLO’s final expulsion from Lebanon, and it relocated to Tunisia.
Khalidi began teaching in Beirut in 1976, the year of the Damour massacre.


Excerpt from New York Times report published on June 11, 1979.
Over the following years, he was quoted a number of times in media reports, giving a Palestinian perspective on events.
On June 11, 1979, a New York Times report assessed Palestinian views of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty signed that March, following the Camp David accord the previous year.
Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat was the first of Israel’s enemies to sign a peace deal with the Jewish state, officially recognizing Israel, and many Palestinians worried about the implications for the PLO’s armed campaign.
The New York Times story, by Youssef Ibrahim quoted Khalidi – whom it called “a professor of political science who is close to [Arafat’s faction] Fatah” – as saying, “We are in a make-it-or-break-it period.”
“If we don’t turn the tide, if what Sadat is doing is not decisively repudiated, if the idea that Sadat has brought peace is allowed to stick without regard to Palestinian rights, then we are done in,” Khalidi said.
‘We’ve never been stronger’
On January 6, 1981 the Christian Science Monitor quoted Khalidi – a professor of political science “with good access to the PLO leadership” – in a report examining the incoming Reagan administration’s Mideast options.
If a “hard-line anti-Palestinian view” dominated the Reagan administration, he said, then “[t]he PLO will probably perceive the new administration as basically hostile – possibly more hostile than the Carter administration.”
Khalidi in the story appeared at least highly supportive of the PLO, if not actually speaking on its behalf. He also seemed to refer to the PLO as “we” on occasion.
“All you’ll see during the coming period of stalemate, which is all you can attain without the PLO, is the PLO getting stronger and stronger internally,” he said.
“It is already happening. When was the last time people inside the Palestinian movement solved their differences with guns? A long time ago – apart from executing traitors. We are much more mature these days – the most sophisticated political constituency in the Arab world.”
Arguing that the PLO’s standing among Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza had grown, he said, “Quite apart from the politics of it, we have built up tremendous links with the Palestinians ‘on the inside’ in different ways. We can render them services, often through our compatriots in the West, that King Hussein, for example, could never match. We’ve never been stronger there, and the trend is continuing.”
Another Christian Science Monitor story, on June 2, 1981, referred to “Rashid Khalidi of the Institute of Palestinian Studies” (apparently a reference to the Institute for Palestine Studies, an institution set up in Lebanon in the 1960s. In 1971 it launched its Journal of Palestine Studies, a publication Khalidi has written for on occasion since then. He is its current editor.)
Khalidi was quoted again by the New York Times in April 26, 1982 – two months before Israel invaded Lebanon – when a report by Thomas L. Friedman described him as “a Palestinian professor at the American University of Beirut.”
At the time the PLO was under pressure from the Lebanese government not to provoke an Israeli reaction to its attacks. Khalidi commented on PLO strategies, again using the word “we.”
“If we break the cease-fire now it would not only play into Israel’s hands but would also divert world attention away from the popular uprising on the West Bank, which is equally important to the PLO’s long-term objectives,” Khalidi said.
On June 9, 1982, three days after Israel invaded, another Friedman report for the New York Times described Khalidi as “a director of the Palestinian press agency, Wafa,” and quoted him as saying the Israelis were out to “crush the PLO.”
Wafa was a PLO-owned and PLO-funded news agency. Khalidi’s wife, Mona, worked for Wafa when they lived in Beirut. She currently works for Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.
Wafa remains today the news agency of the Palestinian National Authority, the self-rule administration set up by Arafat after the Oslo Accords enabled him to return to the disputed territories. "

Saturday, November 1, 2008


"Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama

"Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama

By Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 10, 2008

"A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world." ........
............"And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.

At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than either of his opponents for the White House.",0,1780231,full.story

Saturday, November 1, 2008


Press would be all over this one if ...

Were this any relative of McCain-Palin camp or any one remotely associated with them it would be top of the hour headlines for several days.


"AP: Obama aunt from Kenya living illegally in US 

"WASHINGTON – Barack Obama's aunt, a Kenyan woman who has been quietly living in public housing in Boston, is in the United States illegally after an immigration judge rejected her request for asylum four years ago, The Associated Press has learned.

Zeituni Onyango (zay-TUHN on-YANG-oh), referred to as "Aunti Zeituni" in the Democratic presidential candidate's memoir, was instructed to leave the United States by a U.S. immigration judge who denied her asylum request, a person familiar with the matter told the AP late Friday. This person spoke on condition of anonymity because no one was authorized to discuss Onyango's case. ......."

........."A spokesman for Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said Saturday that he had no idea how Onyango might have qualified for public housing with a standing deportation order. He said he's not involved in the operations of the agency, even though he appoints the head, because it runs mainly on federal and state dollars.

William McGonagle, deputy director of the Boston Housing Authority, said when contacted: "I know nothing about it and I've got no comment." "


May 2024   April 2024   March 2024   February 2024   January 2024   December 2023   November 2023   October 2023   September 2023   August 2023   July 2023   June 2023   May 2023   April 2023   March 2023   February 2023   January 2023   December 2022   November 2022   October 2022   September 2022   August 2022   July 2022   June 2022   May 2022   April 2022   March 2022   February 2022   January 2022   December 2021   November 2021   October 2021   September 2021   August 2021   July 2021   June 2021   May 2021   April 2021   March 2021   February 2021   January 2021   December 2020   November 2020   October 2020   September 2020   August 2020   July 2020   June 2020   May 2020   April 2020   March 2020   February 2020   January 2020   December 2019   November 2019   October 2019   September 2019   August 2019   July 2019   June 2019   May 2019   April 2019   March 2019   February 2019   January 2019   December 2018   November 2018   October 2018   September 2018   August 2018   July 2018   June 2018   May 2018   April 2018   March 2018   February 2018   January 2018   December 2017   November 2017   October 2017   September 2017   August 2017   July 2017   June 2017   May 2017   April 2017   March 2017   February 2017   January 2017   December 2016   November 2016   January 2013   October 2011   September 2011   August 2011   July 2011   June 2011   May 2011   March 2011   January 2011   December 2010   October 2010   September 2010   August 2010   July 2010   June 2010   May 2010   April 2010   March 2010   February 2010   January 2010   December 2009   November 2009   October 2009   September 2009   August 2009   July 2009   June 2009   May 2009   April 2009   March 2009   February 2009   January 2009   December 2008   November 2008   October 2008   September 2008   August 2008   July 2008   June 2008   May 2008   April 2008   March 2008   February 2008   January 2008   December 2007   November 2007   October 2007   April 2007   March 2007   February 2007   January 2007   December 2006   November 2006   October 2006   September 2006   August 2006   July 2006   June 2006   May 2006   April 2006   March 2006   February 2006   January 2006   December 2005   November 2005   October 2005   September 2005   August 2005   July 2005   June 2005   March 2005   November 2004   October 2004  

Powered by Lottery PostSyndicated RSS FeedSubscribe