A Case of the Benz

The Crack at the Top of the Washington Monument

2011-08-28T17:04:00.000-07:00

August 23, 2011
The Crack at the Top of the Washington Monument
by Rick Keefe
www.ufohypotheses.com

A 5.9 to 6.0 earthquake rocked the east coast today from Boston to
North Carolina to Chicago, but the epicenter was in Mineral, Virginia.
This earthquake emptied the Pentagon, The White House, Capitol Hill,
and many of the power centers located in skyscrapers along the eastern
seaboard. Government buildings throughout New York City were evacuated.

The National Park Service said engineers found a crack near the top of
the Washington Monument, a symbol of power and control with both
ancient Egyptian and Masonic influences. Park service spokespeople
admitted on the evening of the 5.9 quake that structural engineers had
found a crack where the 555-foot landmark narrows considerably near
its peak.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in that the epicenter was in
Mineral, Virginia and just thirty miles from Monticello, beloved home
of our third and best president, Thomas Jefferson, who stood for and
penned so many of the greatest principles of our free American society?

Happy belated birthday, Thomas, whose birthday was two days earlier on
Augsut 21st.

Consider the state of corruption in the United States, beginning with
the man who most benefitted from JFK’s assasination, Lyndon Johnson,
to Watergate’s Richard Nixon,
enabler Gerald Ford,
and fortunately skipping past Jimmy Carter,
but eroding further with demonic George W. Bush
and his puppet, Ronald Reagan,
lapdog Bill Clinton,
the inane George W. Bush
and his controller, cyborg Dick Cheney,
and now this sell-out Barack Obama.

Obama was supposed to have brought the troops home from Iraq by this
summer, but he has not, and he promised to close Guantanamo Bay but
did not. He had a 59-41 Senate majority for two years and control of
the House, but he failed to pass his promised agenda of legislation
bearing the mark of Democrats’ principles.

So, beginning today, on the day of the Virginia earthquake of August
23, 2011, the monument is to be closed indefinitely to keep the public
safe. If only the public could be safe from their own contemptible
government. And if you think I am joking, remember Katrina and New
Orleans and all those people the do-nothing government allowed to
drown with nearly no emergency response. Bush took three or four days
to even fly near New Orleans. What a low-life.

I guess the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, who was among the very first
Republicans when it meant good things to be a Republican, may have
just rolled over once again, looking down from somewhere above his
beloved country. Jefferson would see a country that more-or-less
tolerated the Abu Grahib tortures without prosecution at the top of
the military chain of command. Today, Jefferson would see a Congress
that ignores the assaults and unethical fascist-like restrictiveness
of the Patriot Acts on our own constitutional freedoms, even the
freedoms of those self-same congresspeople.

I feel confident that Jefferson's spirit was not taking a swipe at
George Washington, a man whom he both admired and was close to for
many years of his life, but instead was taking aim at the state of
decay and corruption we citizens have allowed here via the rigged
elections and bribed governing of the USA.

Maybe Jefferson in spirit just had to twist and shout: “A little
rebellion now and then... is a medicine necessary for the sound health
of government.”

And maybe a little rebellion from the lower and middle classes and
even the lower-half of the upper class is in order. And I am not
taking sides with Democrats or Republicans or other smaller parties,
for we all depend on each other for our bountiful lives here in the
country Jefferson helped form.

But our government is still not resolving to fix the banking crisis,
the lack of lending by the banks, and prosecuting the corporate
criminals who engineered the crisis, because our government is
controlled and bribed by those same criminals.

Our government is dragging its feet to prevent disasters at nuclear
power plants from larger and more frequent earthquakes, is failing to
create more jobs, and is asking us to give up more and more freedoms
in the name of safety from terrorists, as evidenced in the last couple
of years we've been manhandled by the TSA.

I’m not afraid of terrorists, but I am more concerned about secret CIA
torture camps. I am greatly concerned about the string of
commanders-in-chief who have been leading this country for the last
thirty years. Their minds and hearts are seriously deformed and
defective, not just for what the have wrought on America, but for all
the foreign lives they have taken as well. It is called genocide. In
Iraq, the United States has killed over a million people for "weapons
of mass destruction" that did not exist. Millions more were starved by
sanctions, maimed and deformed by white phosphorus, depleted uranium,
and other vicious weapons technology. This is not defense of the USA;
it is offense against foreign people for their resources like oil in
Iraq and Libya, and also opium in Afghanistan.

Let there be peaceful, non-violent expressions far and wide of both
our dissatisfaction with our government, and demonstrations of worthy
ideas and alternatives to the status quo, like Tesla free energy,
single-payer health care, rebuilding our unsafe dams, bridges and
vital infrastructure for better earthquake resistance, an end to
pre-meditated, pre-emptive wars. And let us begin a sound
environmental strategy to clean up the contaminants from corporate
malfeasance like the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexcio (which was
likely caused by an oil war between BP and Halliburton) and prevent
such further environmental catastrophes, not open the seas up to more
drilling.

We should remember that immortal Jeffersonian wisdom, courtesy of the
man who was the author the Declaration of Independence: “A little
rebellion now and then... is a medicine necessary for the sound health
of government." Maybe this
earthquake will inspire us to raise our consciousness and collective
conscience.

And if some of us forget as the illuminati Media Empire coaches us to
do, there will always be others of us who remember the day Monticello
sent a shockwave to DC strong enough to put a crack in the Washington
Monument!

Ben Fulford Reports

2011-07-21T16:36:00.000-07:00

The slow fuse will keep burning through July

July 18, 2011

Although it is impossible to predict exactly how the smoke will twirl off the end of a cigarette, you can predict with certainty that eventually the smoke will be evenly distributed throughout the room. In the same way, while it is impossible to predict the individual twists and turns of the collapse of the Federal Reserve Board and the Western financial system, the end game is not in doubt. In this case, a look at the macro numbers, such things as balance of payments, external debt, tax revenue etc. show clearly that the fall of small dominoes like Greece will lead inevitably to the big Kahuna: the United States.

For now though, the order of collapse appears to be as follows: Greece, Ireland, the Baltic States, Spain, Italy, France and finally the United States. Have no doubt, there is money in the rest of the world to help these countries rebuild and restructure their economies. The rest of the world is also willing and eager to help. However, as a precondition for this help, these countries need to fundamentally change their behavior. So far, they seem too arrogant to understand the reality that they are no longer in charge of the global show. They no longer have the money to pay the actors.

Here is one example from a while ago, the details of which only recently came to light: the appearance of former Japanese Finance Minister Shoichi Nakagawa “drunk” at a G7 press conference in 2009. What really happened is that the Western powers asked Japan to fork up $100 billion to hand over to the IMF. Nakagawa said “sure, we’ll sell $100 billion of US Treasury holdings to pay for it.” He was going to say that at the press conference so, in order to prevent the assembled propaganda media from hearing this, he was drugged. He returned to Japan, resigned and was subsequently poisoned and killed just before he was due to meet this reporter to explain what happened.

Later the Japanese agriculture minister showed up with bandages on his face at a press conference in Japan. He refused to explain why this was. However, we have now found out it was because the rogue element of the US government was trying to extort Japanese agricultural money to pay for their “global” schemes. They were unable to.

The final move was to attack Japan with a tsunami causing seabed nuclear earthquake device in an attempt to extort money. That threat was met with a counter-threat by non-Japanese actors, to blow up the BIS, the Vatican, Chicago, La Defence in Paris and other key Western targets. The message was that nuclear blackmail is not a one-way street. This forced the Bilderberger Western elite to back off threats to cause Mt. Fuji to erupt.

In June, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu phoned Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan and said Israeli companies in charge of security at various Japanese nuclear plants would cause a total nuclear holocaust in Japan. He was told that if he did this then both Mossad US headquarters in Chicago and Israel would also be blown up. After this he backpedalled and Islraeli security was removed from Japan’s nuclear plants and many were shut down as a precaution.

A threat to set off an even worse holocaust along the New Madrid fault line in the US was also subsequently halted by White Dragon Society allies in the United States.

The genocidal cabal that hijacked the Western power centers now find themselves in a very tight spot indeed.

Senator J. Rockefeller, George Bush Senior and their drug-dealing murderer subordinate Richard Armitage have also been told in no uncertain terms they are no longer welcome in Japan. We can also confirm from Japanese military intelligence that Bush slave former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has fled to North Korea in fear of his life.

Other key cabal criminals now in fear of prison include George Bush Jr., Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Tony Blair, Carl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld and their fellow plotters of genocide and a global fascist 4th Reich.

The real question now remains what to do about Barak Obama and his government as well as the bribed, corrupt establishment in Washington D.C. corporate headquarters. A large part of the Pentagon brass support Obama because he was actually elected by a majority of the American people (unlike Bush Jr.). This is a choice for the American people to make.

The creditors of the United States, including China and Japan, are simply saying the military industrial complex needs to retool itself from a parasitical, war-mongering institution into something productive. For example DARPA the Death (nobody is fooled by the name “Defense”) advanced Research Projects Agency will have to change to LARPA (Life Advanced Research Projects Agency).

In any case, it is clear the criminal cabal in the West will not relinquish their power without more of a struggle. All the White Dragon can do for now is to keep them cut off from their funds and prevent them from starting WW3 until they are finally removed from power. That means we need stand back and watch their death throes for a while longer. Perhaps in August humanity will be freed at last.

The UFO Event/Fest/ Gathering

2011-04-11T16:52:00.000-07:00

An exclusive three day event covering various aspects of the UFO situation, past and present.
Speakers - Videos - Group interaction
Relaxed resort setting
Attendance limited to 40 people
Reserve now !

All three days for

$10.00

The UFO Event/Fest/Gathering
June 13-14-15, 2011
Doubletree Hotel
445 S. Alvernon Way
Tucson, AZ 85711

"Coming together to learn"

Information and registration:

Allen Benz
P O Box 182
Tucson, AZ 85702-0182

E-mail: a-benz@excite.com

Why I am running for US Senate by Bill English

2011-03-08T16:22:00.000-07:00

New Mexico resident William S. English explains his reasons for running for the US Senate seat, currently held by the soon retiring Jeff Bingaman.

Acaseofthebenz is also active on ...

2010-11-12T14:41:00.000-07:00

... Facebook

The Fed Trashes the Dollar

2010-11-12T14:27:00.000-07:00

By Patrick J. Buchanan

If it is the first responsibility of the Federal Reserve to protect the dollars that Americans earn and save, is it not dereliction of duty for the Fed to pursue a policy to bleed value from those dollars? For that is what Chairman Ben Bernanke is up to with his QE2, or “quantitative easing.”

Translation: The Fed is committed to buy $600 billion in bonds from banks and pay for them by printing money that will then be deposited in those banks. The more dollars that flood into the economy, the less every one of them is worth.

Bernanke is not just risking inflation. He is inducing inflation.

He is reducing the value of the dollar to make U.S. exports more competitive and imports more expensive, so that we will consume fewer imports. He is trying to eliminate the U.S. trade deficit by treating the once universally respected dollar like the peso of a banana republic.

Sarah Palin has nailed cold what Bernanke is about:
“We shouldn’t be playing around with inflation. It’s not for nothing Reagan called it ‘as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber and as deadly as a hit man.’

“The Fed’s pump-priming addiction has got our small businesses running scared and our allies worried. The German finance minister called the Fed’s proposals ‘clueless.’ When Germany, a country that knows a thing or two about the dangers of inflation, warns us to think again, maybe it’s time for Chairman Bernanke to cease and desist.

“We don’t want temporary, artificial economic growth bought at the expense of permanently higher inflation which will erode the value of our incomes and our savings.”

Egging Ben on is the Nobel-prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. Fed policy is too timid, says Krugman.

When Bernanke said we are not “going to try to raise inflation to a super-normal level,” he blew it, says Krugman, and “there goes the best chance the Fed’s plan might actually work.”

What the Fed should do, he says, is change expectations “by leading people to believe that we will have somewhat above-normal inflation … which would reduce the incentive to sit on cash.”
But “sit on cash” is a definition of saving. Is saving bad? Once, Americans were taught that saving was a good thing.

Not to Krugman. He wants to panic the public into believing the money they have put into savings accounts and CDs will be rapidly eaten up by Fed-created inflation, so they will run out and spend that money now to get the economy moving again.

Whatever the economics of this, the morality of it is appalling.

Imagine a husband and wife with a bright child who are saving to send the boy to the best prep school, then Princeton, then, hopefully, Harvard or Yale Law, so the boy can realize his dream of being a great lawyer and perhaps one day sitting on the Supreme Court.

Krugman is recommending that the Fed goose the money supply to cause a general fear of inflation, so that couple will run and get their money out of the bank and start spending it, because, if they don’t, their own government will start destroying the value of their savings.

This is Weimar[Weimar Republic of Germany] economics.

As for inflation, are not the prices of gold, silver, oil and other commodities flashing signals that it is on the way?

In denouncing Bernanke, even the Chinese are not all wrong. They have followed the monetary policy we created at Bretton Woods in 1944, where we tied the dollar to gold at $35 an ounce, while other nations tied their currencies to the dollar at fixed rates of exchange.

China is being denounced for manipulating its currency when Beijing is adhering to a strict dollar-renminbi exchange rate, while our Fed is manipulating the dollar price to seek competitive advantage.

The other Chinese complaint is that they lent us trillions to buy Chinese goods and now we are robbing them by depreciating the dollar-denominated Treasury bonds they accepted in return for their goods.

Pay back your banker in Monopoly money, and you will find you are soon unable to borrow from anyone anywhere.

In four years, the American people have delivered three straight votes of no confidence in the U.S. government. The Fed, however, retains a confidence that it does not deserve, when one considers that, when it was created in 1913, a $20 bill could be exchanged for a $20 gold piece.

Today, it takes seventy $20 bills to buy a $20 gold piece, which means the dollar can buy in 2010 what you could get for 2 pennies in 1910. Quite a record for a central bank set up to protect the dollar.

If Bernanke’s inflation does not generate growth, confidence in the Fed will also vanish. Then a crisis of capitalism will be at hand.

Historians will not deal kindly with the men who traded the horse of U.S. economic nationalism for the rabbit of the Global Economy.

The Real Truth about UFOs and ETs

2010-08-28T17:03:00.000-07:00

Credit: http://www.youtube.com/user/TZMBigsteelguy

Two incredible whistle blowers, Robert Dean and Clifford Stone, come out and tell the truth. If you are awaiting for a President or Prime Minister to tell you what the truth is, then you are going to be waiting a long, LONG, LONG. Time!!

The Liberal Zone

2010-08-28T16:52:00.000-07:00

You unlock this door with the key of irrationality. Beyond it is another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of no mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and lack of substance, of things and lack of ideas. You've just crossed over into the LIBERAL Zone

Awesome Jan Brewer Fact :) !!!

2010-08-28T16:46:00.000-07:00

You don’t decide whether or not to boycott Arizona. Jan Brewer decides whether or not to let you in.

Beck Rally in D.C. 08-28-2010

2010-08-28T16:13:00.000-07:00

Glenn Beck calls for national revival

A GENTLE REMINDER ;-)

2010-08-23T18:04:00.000-07:00

----- Original Message -----

From: williamsd008

To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;

Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 6:12 PM

Subject: REMINDER....REMINDER....REMINDER

If there were ever anything worth putting on your refrigerator door to daily remind us of what we have to do come November, this is it...

Retribution is less than 3 months away!

Take a look at this and just remember the elections in November 2010.

U.S. House & Senate have voted themselves $4,700 and $5,300 raises.

They voted to NOT give you a S.S. Cost of living raise in 2010 and 2011.

Your Medicare premiums will go up $285.60 for the 2-years

You will not get the 3% COLA: $660/yr.

Your total 2-yr loss and cost is -$1,600 or -$3,200 for husband and wife.

Over these same 2-years each Congressperson will get $10,000

Do you feel used?

Will they have your cost of drugs - doctor fees - local taxes - food, etc., decrease?

NO WAY.

Congress received a raise and has better health and retirement benefits than you or I.

Why should they care about you?

You never did anything about it in the past.

Charlie, Barney et al care about you?

Send the message to these individuals --- “YOU'RE FIRED!”

In 2010 you will have a chance to get rid of the sitting Congress: up to 1/3 of the Senate and 100% of the House!

Make sure you're still mad in November 2010 and remind their replacements not to screw-up.

It is ok to forward this to your sphere of influence if you are finally tired of the abuse.

Maybe it's time for Amendment 28 to the Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.”

Let's get this passed around, folks - these people in Washington have brought this upon themselves! It's time for retribution. Let's take back America.

Iacocca's words.

2010-07-26T13:12:00.000-07:00

Iacocca's words.

'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage with this so called president? We should be screaming bloody murder! We've got a gang of tax cheating clueless leftists trying to steer our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even run a ridiculous cash-for-clunkers program without losing $26 billion of the taxpayers' money, much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'trust me the economy is getting better..'

Better? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned, 'Titanic'. I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the Democrats out along with Obama!'

You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore.

The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Afghanistan, Iran is completing their nuclear bombs and missiles and nobody seems to know what to do. And the liberal press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the 'America' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The Biggest 'C' is Crisis! (Iacocca elaborates on nine C's of leadership, with crisis being the first.)

Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your thumb up your butt and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.

On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A hell of a mess, so here's where we stand.

We're immersed in a bloody war now with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. But our soldiers are dying daily.

We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the world, and it's getting worse every day!

We've lost the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are going to skyrocket again, and nobody in power has a lucid plan to open drilling to solve the problem. This country has the largest oil reserves in the WORLD, and we cannot drill for it because the politicians have been bought by the flea-hugging environmentalists.

Our schools are in a complete disaster because of the teachers union

Our borders are like sieves and they want to give all illegals amnesty and free healthcare.

The middle class is being squeezed to death every day.

These are times that cry out for leadership.

But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point..

Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?

We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping the government will make it better for them. Now, that's just crazy.. Deal with life.

Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, look what Obama did about it!

Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debit, or solving theenergy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.

I have news for the Chicago gangsters in Congress. We didn't elect you to turn this country into a losing European Socialist state. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on NBC or CNN news will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?

Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope - I believe in America. In my lifetime, I've had the privilege of living through some of America 's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: The 'Great Depression,' 'World War II,' the 'Korean War,' the 'Kennedy Assassination,' the 'Vietnam War,' the 1970's oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years since 9/11.

Make your own contribution by sending this to everyone you know and care about. It's our country, folks, and it's our future. Our future is at stake!!

***********************************

LET'S GET THE MUSLIM ROOKIE OUT OF THE WHITEHOUSE!!!

Camp One World Obama Song (Censored)

2010-06-05T12:28:00.000-07:00

Bilderberg Meets In Spain

2010-06-05T11:50:00.000-07:00

Bilderberg is meeting in Barcelona, Spain Right Now!!

http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DJXqj9epGEas&h=bb8ce

June 2, 2010, 125 of the most powerful people in the world are meeting right now, and yet the corporate media hasn't mentioned one word about it to the public. The Secret Bilderberg group intent on a New World Order are revealed in this short clip

The Obama Deception

2010-06-05T11:41:00.000-07:00

What's your reception to the deception??The Obama Deception HQ Full length version

www.youtube.com

The Obama Deception is a hard-hitting film that completely destroys the myth that Barack Obama is working for the best interests of the American people. ...

Mexico's illegals laws tougher than Arizona's

2010-05-29T16:50:00.000-07:00

People who live in glass taco stands shouldn't throw stones or should that be empanadas.Washington Times - Mexico's illegals laws tougher than Arizona's

www.washingtontimes.com

The Washington Times delivers breaking news and commentary on the issues that affect the future of our nation.

Fall of the Republic: The Presidency of Barack Øbama

2010-05-27T20:33:00.000-07:00

Fall Of The Republic documents how an offshore corporate cartel is bankrupting the US economy by design. Leaders are now declaring that world government has arrived and that the dollar will be replaced by a new global currency.

President Obama has brazenly violated Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution by seating himself at the head of United Nations' Security Council, thus becoming the first US president to chair the world body.

A scientific dictatorship is in its final stages of completion, and laws protecting basic human rights are being abolished worldwide; an iron curtain of high-tech tyranny is now descending over the planet.

OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT

2010-05-27T20:05:00.000-07:00

OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT.

On Wednesday (May 19) Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States

On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd
Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.

Obama can appear before the public and tell us that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.

This has happened in other countries, past and present!

As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.

Read the Article

U.S. Reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better

Exposing the Federal Reserve System - Not Federal and no reserves

2010-04-11T17:56:00.000-07:00

Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC Exposes the Federal Reserve Con

See also: The Creature From Jekyll Island

Chuck Norris on Obamacare and Congress

2010-03-22T20:12:00.000-07:00

Riders on the storm

Chuck Norris warns lawmakers about tempest coming to Washington

Posted: March 22, 2010

1:00 am Eastern

By Chuck Norris

I have so few words to express the depth of my disgust with the unconstitutional path and passing of Obamacare and the corruption in Congress. So let me just tell you about the storm coming to Washington.

The majority of the Americans have voiced ad nauseam grave concerns with and rejection of Washington's health-care bills. Like a host of commentators, I myself have written at least a dozen syndicated articles this last year addressing sound objections. And like you, I've joined rallies, signed petitions and passed along a plethora of reasonable nonpartisan negative critiques of Obamacare. But, at every turn, Washington has ignored us and demonized our opposition.

Obamacare violates commerce laws by forcing Americans to purchase a product and annihilates the federal government's 10th Amendment restrictions over states and U.S. citizens – which is why a whopping two-thirds of states across the nation are right now already legally battling whether federal law can trump state laws via Obamacare. Why can't Washington see the main problem with Obamacare is not its costs, coverage or faulty savings, but that the federal government should not be involved in the health-care business at all! According to the Constitution, such a matter should be left to the states, local communities and citizens.

But that's history now. One-sixth of our economy's gross national product will be controlled by the federal government – and we're supposed to blindly accept that's not a socialistic tendency. That fact is, despite projected deflated Congressional Budget Office savings, Obamacare will morph and inflate (along with its costs) in the years to come. Has any government program not? As President Obama admitted to Fox's Brett Baier in his interview with him last week, "Yes, it's one-sixth of the economy, but we're not transforming one-sixth of the economy all in one fell swoop." There are the key words: "all in one fell swoop."

Mark my words: The terms in this health-care bill eventually will be so far reaching that it will become a major foundation for a fundamentally different America from which will sprout many tentacles that will choke out other freedoms. This is not just a health-care bill, but a metastasizing tool and weapon for all forms of federal intrusion and takeover. Areas that the feds can't presently cover or control, absence and subtlety in the bill's language will provide the springboard for their future rule.

But the time for commentary and dialogue is over. The final hour has come.

Our Constitution is on life support, and the federal government is pulling the plug.

Like before an impending death or brewing storm, there's a hush at the moment, but most of us sense that there's something very, very wrong on the horizon.

It reminds me of a few years ago, when Dr. James Foster, from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, tackled the question, "Is there really a period of calm before a storm?" His answer: There definitely is.

Foster noted, "It was recognized long ago that before a severe storm, the air is still and the birds stop singing and go to shelter."

What's true with weather is also true with Washington.

Many patriots have stopped singing. Some have gone into hiding. Others are gathering wood as we trudge through this Valley Forge. But all will reawaken and fight for the republic our founders laid down for us.

The gray and black clouds are not governmental control, but masses of American citizens and patriots who will continue to swarm tyranny (Democrat and Republican) until it is squeezed out of our nation, just like it was during the Revolution.

For now, all Washington bureaucrats need to know is this: The forecast for the U.S. Capitol in the upcoming weeks and months is definitely thunderstorms. If you encouraged, affirmed, endorsed or voted for Obamacare in any form, expect a dark cloud to precede your exit as we vote you out of office. We will remember in November. That's not only a threat – it's a guarantee.

We, the people, have come to understand the profound wisdom of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote to Mrs. John Adams in 1787, "I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere."

Washington: Pack your bags. Run for shelter. The storm is coming.

Wake up and smell the evil

2010-03-22T18:24:00.000-07:00

David Icke explains how wars are created. It explains the concept of Problem Reaction Solution also known as Thesis, Synthesis, Antithesis and the Hegelian Dialectic developed by philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. This concept has been used in many wars including WWII. Hitler also used this phenomenon to control the minds of the Germans.

ANOTHER PATSY ... ANOTHER COVERUP

2010-03-22T18:18:00.000-07:00

ANOTHER PATSY ...

... ANOTHER COVER UP

By David Icke
Copyright David Icke, 2010. All Rights Reserved

The Obama administration announced its opposition this week to plans for a new investigation to establish who was really behind the anthrax attacks that followed 9/11 in 2001.
Five people were killed and another seventeen were infected by anthrax contained in letters sent to the news media and two Democratic Senators.

This opposition to a new investigation comes from the same President Fake who said:
'My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration.'
Like almost everything else that appears on Obama's teleprompter or passes his lips, it was a lie. The FBI recently closed the anthrax case after an 'investigation' that would give the word 'pathetic' a bad name and the Obama administration is being employed to ensure it never reopens.

The reason for this is simple: the need to continue to keep from the public the fact that the US military-intelligence and Israeli Mossad network was behind the attacks as part of the concerted campaign to instigate the 'war on terror' after 9/11.

We were told at first that Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein could have been behind the attacks (yeah, right), but then it became clear that the source of the anthrax was the US military. As the New Scientist magazine put it:

'The DNA sequence of the anthrax sent through the US mail in 2001 has been revealed and confirms suspicions that the bacteria originally came from a US military laboratory. The data released uses codenames for the reference strains against which the attack strain was compared.

The two reference strains that appear identical to the attack strain most likely originated at the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick (USAMRIID), Maryland.
The new work also shows that substantial genetic differences can emerge in two samples of an anthrax culture separated for only three years. This means the attacker's anthrax was not separated from its ancestors at USAMRIID for many generations.

The FBI 'investigation' focused at one point on Steven Hatfill an American virologist and bio-weapons expert who was described by the Department of 'Justice' as a 'person of interest'.
It proved to be a costly error. Hatfill sued on the grounds that the Justice Department violated his privacy by speaking with reporters about the case and he settled in 2008 for $5.8 million.

The story was back in the headlines in August 2008 when Dr Bruce E Ivins, a top 'biodefence' researcher at Fort Detrick, was said to have committed suicide.

The media reported that the FBI had been about to charge Ivins with the anthrax killings, but a Washington grand jury said that an indictment had not been imminent. Congressman Rush Holt, who represents the area where the anthrax letters were mailed, said the evidence against Ivins was only circumstantial
Germ warfare scientists said there was no evidence that Ivins had the ability to turn anthrax into a powder that could be inhaled and, anyway, there was no identifiable motive for Ivins to commit the crimes.

Truth, justice and evidence, however, are hardly the mottos of federal prosecutors and 'investigators', and they announced that Ivins did the deed and, here we go, worked alone.

They threw in the usual blatant lies that included the claim that 'the genetically unique parent material of the anthrax spores ... was created and solely maintained by Dr. Ivins.' This was nonsense, as biological warfare and anthrax expert, Dr Meryl Nass, said:

'Let me reiterate: No matter how good the microbial forensics may be, they can only, at best, link the anthrax to a particular strain and lab. They cannot link it to any individual.'

It turns out that Ivins was only one of some 100 people who could have handled the vial used in the attacks. Richard Spertzel, a microbiologist who led the United Nations' biological weapons inspections of Iraq, also said that the anthrax used could not have come from the lab where Ivins worked.
The FBI failed to find any anthrax spores at Ivins' house or on anything belonging to him and nor could they show that he ever went near the mailbox in New Jersey from where the anthrax was posted.

But, hey, the guy's dead and can't defend himself so, er, he did it.

The anthrax had been 'weaponized' - the spores made small enough to stay suspended in the air for long periods of time so they could be breathed in. This can be done by adding large amounts of silica to remove the 'electrostatic charge' and allow the tiny particles to float in the air.

The anthrax in one letter included 1.4 per cent of silica which was described by experts as a 'shockingly high proportion' that would only be expected in anthrax that had been deliberately 'weaponized'.

Jeffrey Adamovicz, who supervised Ivins at Fort Detrick, said that Ivins had neither the skills nor the means to attach silicon to anthrax spores. Richard Spertzel pointed out that the facility did not handle anthrax in powdered form - 'I don't think there's anyone there who would have the foggiest idea how to do it.'

The FBI said, ludicrously, that the presence of such high levels of silica was just a case of 'natural variability' when the bioweapons experts were saying that such levels could only be there if the silica had been deliberately added.

The FBI then embarked on a pathetic and doomed attempt to prove that the silica could have been added through accidental absorption. But the scientists contracted to do this at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories failed in 56 attempts to support the FBI claims.

Far from adding 1.4 per cent of silica to anthrax, the results were nowhere even close to that with some attempts as low as .001%.

In short, the anthrax posted in 2001 had been through a process that only top military scientists had the know-how and technology to perform and Dr Bruce E. Ivins was just another 'patsy' to take the blame and hide the real culprits - the government/ military/intelligence cabal.

Congressman Rush Holt, who has closely followed the case from the start, managed to include wording in the 2010 Intelligence Authorization Bill requiring the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to investigate the possibility of a foreign connection to the 2001 anthrax attacks.

Holt said this in a letter to the Chairmen of the House Committees on Homeland Security, Judiciary, Intelligence, and Oversight and Government Reform:

I am writing to ask that your committees, either individually or jointly, conduct a probing investigation of our government's handling of what has been known as the "Amerithrax" investigation.
As you are aware, last week the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced it was formally closing its investigation into the 2001 anthrax letter attacks, commonly known as the "Amerithrax" investigation. The Bureau has maintained since his suicide in 2008 that the late Dr. Bruce Ivins was their principal suspect in the attacks, a conclusion reaffirmed by the FBI when it closed the case last week-despite the fact that the FBI's entire case against Ivins is circumstantial, and that the science used in the case is still being independently evaluated.

To date, there has been no comprehensive examination of the FBI's conduct in this investigation, and a number of important questions remain unanswered. We don't know why the FBI jumped so quickly to the conclusion that the source of the material used in the attacks could only have come from a domestic lab, in this case, Ft. Dietrick. We don't know why they focused for so long, so intently, and so mistakenly on Dr. Hatfill. We don't know whether the FBI's assertions about Dr. Ivins' activities and behavior are accurate. We don't know if the FBI's explanation for the presence of silica in the anthrax spores is truly scientifically valid. We don't know whether scientists at other government and private labs who assisted the FBI in the investigation actually concur with the FBI's investigative findings and conclusions. We don't know whether the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Postal Service have learned the right lessons from these attacks and have implemented measures to prevent or mitigate future such bioterror attacks.

The American people need credible answers to all of these and many other questions. Only a comprehensive investigation-either by the Congress, or through the independent commission I've proposed in the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act (H.R. 1248)-can give us those answers ...

... Given its track record in this investigation, I believe it is essential that the Congress not simply accept the FBI's assertions about Dr. Ivins alleged guilt. Accordingly, I ask that your committees investigate our government's handling of the attacks, the subsequent investigation, and any lessons learned and changes in policies and procedures implemented in the wake of the attacks.

Others on Capitol Hill are supporting Holt in his demands for a new investigation and this is why the Obama administration went public this week in its opposition to such a move.
Peter Orszag, director of Obama's Office of Management and Budget, sent a letter to leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence committees saying that a plan to reopen the anthrax investigation 'would undermine public confidence' in the original FBI investigation 'and unfairly cast doubt on its conclusions'. So never mind that the FBI named the wrong man and its 'investigation' was a disgrace, we mustn't seek to identify the right man, or men, because it would 'undermine public confidence' in the FBI.

A Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/) report this week even suggested that Obama could veto legislation authorizing the next budget for US intelligence agencies if a new investigation is agreed. What was it the guy said again?

'My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration.'

There have been so many corrupt and often evil people who have become US President, but few have had an image so far from reality than Barack Obama. The man is a fraud and a liar of staggering proportions and definitely in the league of world class genetic liars like Tony Blair.

The anthrax story is still more confirmation, not that any more is needed, that the same shadow cabal with the same unfolding agenda remains in power no matter who is officially 'in charge' between the farce we call 'elections'.

The anthrax attacks happened during the administration of Bush and Cheney which was controlled and directed by the so-called neoconservative, or neocon, networks headed by people like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and William Kristol.

The continued cover-up of what happened is now being led by Obama and co who are supposed to be the political opponents of the neocons and the Republicans. Why would they have an interest in suppressing information that would expose the duplicity of the political opposition in killing Americans?

Because the same network that controls the neocons controls Obama. It has been an extraordinarily seamless transition from the 'right wing' Bush to the 'left wing' Obama. In truth they are but one 'wing' and it flaps to order.

The anthrax story is yet another example and there will be so many more

(Note: This newsletter, along with others going back to 2005, is available to view on http://www.davidicke.com/ by logging in and clicking on "newsletter archive" on the left-hand side menu)

.

Stupido-Erudio americanus

2009-03-29T12:04:00.009-07:00

by Craig J. Cantoni

A new species has been found in North America. Its scientific name is Stupido-Erudio americanus. The common name is stupid-educated Americans.

They tend to congregate along the Pacific coast, the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic coasts, and in big cities across the land, especially where neighborhoods have been gentrified, where trendy restaurants serve pretty and tiny haute cuisine, where trendy supermarkets sell organic food grown in cow manure, where factories and refineries are unwelcome and have been exported elsewhere, and where light-rail lines have been built at great expense at the urging of Stupido-Erudio americanus, who, strangely, don't use the lines, preferring instead to drive the Prius, Volvos, BMWs, Porsches, Lexus's, and Infinitis to the trendy restaurants, where they use valet parking.

They have undergraduate and graduate degrees from the best universities; they marry within their own species but believe in diversity; they think that global warming is a serious problem and man-caused; they are non-judgmental about other people, unless the other people are hunters, soldiers, working-class workers, church-goers, Sarah Palin, or Joe the Plumber; they idolize Barack Obama; they think that George W. Bush and New York Times columnist David Brooks are free-market conservatives instead of statists like themselves; they make big bucks as lawyers, regulatory experts, specialized paper pushers, and software writers; they've never set foot in a factory, refinery, mine, meat-packing plant, power plant, or Wal-Mart; and they don't know any engineers, production supervisors, production workers, or other bourgeoisie and proletariats who work in such places and produce the stuff that they and other Stupido-Erudio americanus use.

I recently attended a social gathering of the species, where I pretended to be one of them.
That meant putting on a sensitive air, holding my glass of chardonnay the correct way, talking about my trips to Europe and lamenting that the United States isn't like the Continent, nodding my head in agreement about the ignorance of Republicans, showing off my knowledge of the different varieties of arugula, and tsk-tsking about the lack of funding for public education, the arts, healthcare, green energy and public transit.

My cover was almost blown when someone asked where my kid was thinking of going to college. I responded that his top choice is the engineering school at Purdue Univ. in West Lafayette, Ind.

Looking at me as if I had tracked dog litter across the environmentally-correct floor made of bamboo wood, the stupid-educated American said, "Ugh, West Lafayette is such an awful place to live."

My first impulse was to put the pompous ass into a headlock and dunk his foliated face into a bowl of organic pate.

Instead, I smiled and agreed with him, while thinking to myself that the jerk hates West Lafayette for the very reason that my son, wife, and I like it -- that is, it doesn't have a lot of Stupido-Erudio americanus living there, which means that the students and town folk are unpretentious and down-to-earth, probably due to Purdue's roots as an engineering school. "Yeah," I said, "West Lafayette is not like Princeton, New Jersey."

The stupid-educated American took that as a sign that I was the right species after all. Actually, having lived in the Garden State for 10 years that seemed like 20, I had spent a lot of time in Princeton at business conferences and disliked it because it was overrun with as many Stupido-Erudio americanus as Berkeley, Madison, Cambridge, New Haven, and Georgetown.

When other stupid-educated Americans began talking to me about global warming, I decided to inflict pain on their half-formed brains.

"What are your favorite scientific sources and scientists on the subject?" I asked. No words came out of their mouths, but their eyes blinked, smoke was emitted from their ears, and gears could be heard grinding inside their craniums. Continuing, I said, "My favorite environmental scientist is Dr. S. Fred Singer." Pretending to know who he is, they nodded in agreement, not knowing that he is a highly-credentialed debunker of hypotheses on anthropogenic global warming.

I tortured them on many other subjects, but especially on economics, poverty, healthcare, and political philosophy. Their knowledge was so thin in these subjects that I felt as if I was speaking to chocolate-covered rocks. When their veneer of sugary, politically-correct buzzwords, platitudes, and sophistry was removed, nothing but ignorance appeared underneath.

No doubt, when the children of Stupido-Erudio americanus come home from government school and tell mommy and daddy what they learned that day from unionized teachers, their parents beam with pride. When my kid comes home from school and repeats a canard he heard during the day, I use it as a learning opportunity to tell him the facts.

My son might decide to go to college in West Lafayette, but at least he won't grow up to be a Stupido-Erudio americanus or a chocolate-covered rock.

Craig J. Cantoni is an author, public speaker and president of Capstone Consulting Group of Scottsdale, Arizona, a firm that specializes in developing people, teams and organizations. Mr. Cantoni is a regular contributor to the The Wall Street Journal and The American Compensation Association Journal, and has written for The Indianapolis Star, The Arizona Republic, The Arizona Business Gazette, and other publications.

A "Distinguished Military Graduate" and ex-Army Captain, Mr. Cantoni holds an MBA from St. Mary's University. His wife Kim is a human resources professional, and his son Christopher attends school in Scottsdale, where the family resides.

Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

This article originally appeared at Page Nine #62, published by Alan Korwin, Bloomfield Press, Scottsdale, AZ

Afghanistan South

2009-03-10T15:49:00.007-07:00

by Patrick J Buchanan

Heeding the advice of Gen. David Petraeus, Barack Obama has committed 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan and will keep 50,000 in Iraq after U.S. combat operations end in August 2010.

But are U.S. vital interests more threatened by what happens in Anbar or Helmand than in the war raging along our southern border?

Prediction: After all U.S. troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and Korea have come home, there will be a U.S. army on the Mexican border. For this is where the fate of our republic will be decided, as the fate of Europe will be decided by the millions streaming north from the Maghreb and Middle East, sub-Sahara and South Asia.

Last year, 6,000 Mexicans died in drug-related killings in a war where the tactics are massacre, murder, kidnapping and beheading.

President Felipe Calderon has ordered another 5,000 troops and 1,000 police to the border. Primary target: Ciudad Juarez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso.

Some 2,500 federal troops are already in Juarez, where in 2008 there were 1,600 drug-related murders. Gun battles occur every day. Nationally, 45,000 army troops and police are committed to this war that Mexico is not winning. For, according to the March 3 Washington Times, the Pentagon now estimates the cartels field more than 100,000 foot soldiers.

The chief of police of Juarez just resigned after a cartel threatened to kill an officer every 48 hours if he did not. To prove its seriousness, the cartel murdered four cops, including the chief's deputy. Last year, 50 police officers in Juarez were murdered.

"The decision I am taking is one of life over death," said Chief Roberto Oduna. The chief would seem to have a point. In January, his predecessor's head was found in an ice cooler outside a police station. The mayor keeps his family in El Paso, as they have been threatened with decapitation.

Friday, the State Department declared, "Corruption throughout Mexico's public institutions remains a key impediment to curtailing the power of the drug cartels." Calderon retorts that, while the murders may be committed in Mexico, the cash and guns come from the United States.

With oil revenue down since the price dropped $100 a barrel, and remittances down from Mexican workers in the United States as the U.S. economy tanks, tourism, too, has begun to die. Beheadings in and around Acapulco have not helped. Warnings have been issued to U.S. college kids to avoid Mexico on spring break, as kidnappings for ransom are rampant. Restaurants and bars in Juarez that catered to folks from El Paso and soldiers from Fort Bliss are shutting down.

In February, in the resort town of Cancun, a retired army general sent to create an elite anti-crime unit was kidnapped, tortured and shot. Mexican troops raided Cancun's police headquarters and arrested the chief and dozens of his officers in connection with the murder.

Add a collapsing global economy to a losing war with drug cartels, and Mexico is at grave risk of becoming a failed state, a narco-state, with a 2,000-mile border with the United States.

How does one win a drug war when millions of Americans who use recreational drugs are financing the cartels bribing, murdering and beheading to win the war and keep self-indulgent Americans supplied with drugs?

There are two sure ways to end this war swiftly: Milton's way and Mao's way. Mao Zedong's communists killed users and suppliers alike, as social parasites. Milton Friedman's way is to decriminalize drugs and call off the war.

When Richard Nixon declared the War on Drugs in 1972, Milton, writing in Newsweek, objected on ethical grounds: "On ethical grounds, do we have the right to use the machinery of government to prevent an individual from becoming an alcoholic or a drug addict? For children, almost everyone would answer at least a qualified yes. But for responsible adults, I, for one, would answer no. Reason with the potential addict, yes. Tell him the consequences, yes. Pray for and with him, yes. But I believe that we have no right to use force, directly or indirectly, to prevent a fellow man from committing suicide, let alone from drinking alcohol or taking drugs."

"Am I my brother's keeper?'" asked Milton, answering, "No.

" Americans are never going to adopt the Maoist solution. For the users of drugs are all too often classmates, colleagues, friends, even family. Indeed, our last three presidents did not deny using drugs.

Once, a Christian America outlawed and punished homosexuality, abortion, alcohol, loan-sharking and gambling, all as criminal vice. Now, homosexuality and abortion are constitutional rights. Gambling and booze are a rich source of government revenue. And loan-sharking is done by credit-card companies, and not just the Corleones.

Will we raise the white flag in the drug war, as well? Which is the greater evil? Legalized narcotics for America's young or a failed state of 110,000 million on our southern border?

Some choice. Some country we've become.

STATES SEND WARNING TO FEDS

2009-03-10T14:52:00.008-07:00

States say feds will not usurp powers guaranteed to them by 9th, 10th Amendments

By Pat Shannan

More than 20 states have passed recent resolutions in defiance of the central government’s intrusion into their liberties and governing powers, with all including a demand to obey the Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth Amendments. New Hampshire has issued what may be the harshest “Don’t Tread on Me” caveat of all. Citing its own state constitution, the New Hampshire Legislature has issued its recent resolution “affirming states’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles” and reminding any Washington interventionists of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the U.S. Constitution as well as Part 1, Article 7 of their own state document that declares “. . . that the people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto . . .”

It continued: “Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring: that the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people,’ therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and . . .

“That any act by the Congress of the United States, executive order of the president of the United States of America or judicial order by the judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several states or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

“I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the states without the consent of the legislature of that state.

“II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

“III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.“

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

“V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.“

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and “That should any such act of Congress become law or executive order or judicial order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several states individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the states seeking to form a government.”

Ever since Vermont threatened secession and others of the 20-plus have issued lesser threatening notices of intentions, all have made it clear that they are not happy with the current situation, and the action of all indicates that the New World Order may have a bigger problem on its hands than it initially considered.

The 21 states so far that have either introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments or are about to do so include: Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, Pennsylvania, Maine, Nevada, Kansas, Indiana, Idaho, Georgia, Colorado, California, Arkansas, Alabama, Alaska, and, of course, New Hampshire.

In another defiance of unconstitutional federal controls, governors are telling Washington bureaucrats that, under the 10th Amendment, they cannot dictate spending or other actions to the states. (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”)

“We are telling the federal government that we are a sovereign state,” said Arizona state representative Judy Burges, who is leading an effort in her state to pass a resolution called “Sovereignty: the 10th Amendment.”Oklahoma state Sen. Randy Brogdon (R) introduced a resolution he said would enable his state to “reclaim the 10th Amendment right to reject any and all acts of Congress that go beyond its enumerated powers in violationof the 10th Amendment.”

Republican governors Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Rick Perry of Texas expressed reservations about accepting stimulus funds because they are concerned that the federal government will dictate how it is spent.

The federal government extracts money from their taxpayers, sends a bit of it back and then dictates how it is spent, they argue.

Pat Shannan is a corresponding editor of American Free Press.

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

Obamanomics

2009-03-09T16:05:00.007-07:00

This is your nest egg!

This is your nest egg on Obamanomics!!

Any questions????

http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=5066

Scarier tha Frankenstein ...

2009-02-22T15:08:00.006-07:00

More repulsive than the Creature From The Black Lagoon, it's ...
THE NIGHT OF THE ZOMBIE BANKERS

'Nationalize' the Banks
Dr. Doom says a takeover and resale is the market-friendly solution.

By TUNKU VARADARAJAN

New York

Nouriel Roubini is always dressed in black-and-white.
I have known him for nearly two years, and have seen him in a variety of situations -- en route to class at New York University's Stern Business School, where he's a professor; over a glass of wine in his boyish loft in Manhattan's Tribeca; at an academic conference, seated sagely on the dais; at a bohemian party in Greenwich Village, at . . . oh . . . 3 a.m. -- and he always, always wears a black suit with a white linen shirt.

And so, in black-and-white he was, earlier this week, when he rushed into the office of Roubini Global Economics, his consulting firm in downtown Manhattan, and offered a breathless apology to this correspondent, who'd been waiting for half an hour. "Really sorry I'm late! Charlie Rose taped for way longer than he said he would."

Mr. Roubini -- a month short of 50 -- is in huge media demand, the nearest thing to a rock-star among the economists who hold our fate in their hands these days. The peculiar thing, of course, is that he's in demand because he specializes in predictions of gloom. (He has earned himself the sobriquet of "Doctor Doom.") In person, though, he's anything but a downer.

The man has instant impact on public debate. An idea he floated only last week -- that our "zombie banks" be temporarily nationalized -- aired first on Forbes.com, where he writes a weekly column. It has evolved, in the space of just a few days, from radical solution to almost received wisdom.
Last Sunday on ABC, George Stephanopoulos asked Lindsey Graham, the conservative Republican senator, what he thought about all this talk of bank nationalization. Mr. Graham said that he wouldn't take the idea off the table. And on Wednesday, Alan Greenspan told the Financial Times that "it may be necessary to temporarily nationalize some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring."

Mr. Roubini tells me that bank nationalization "is something the partisans would have regarded as anathema a few weeks ago. But when I and others put it in the context of the Swedish approach [of the 1990s] -- i.e. you take banks over, you clean them up, and you sell them in rapid order to the private sector -- it's clear that it's temporary. No one's in favor of a permanent government takeover of the financial system."

There's another reason why the concept should appeal to (fiscal) conservatives, he explains. "The idea that government will fork out trillions of dollars to try to rescue financial institutions, and throw more money after bad dollars, is not appealing because then the fiscal cost is much larger. So rather than being seen as something Bolshevik, nationalization is seen as pragmatic. Paradoxically, the proposal is more market-friendly than the alternative of zombie banks."
In any case, Republicans must now temper their reactions, he says. "The kind of government interference in the economy that we saw in the last year of Bush was unprecedented. The central bank -- supposed to be the lender of the last resort -- became the lender of first and only resort! With our recapitalizing of financial institutions, and massive government intervention in the markets, we've already crossed a significant bridge."

So, will the highest level of government be receptive to the bank-nationalization idea? "I think it will," Mr. Roubini says, unhesitatingly. "People like Graham and Greenspan have already given their explicit blessing. This gives Obama cover." And how long will it be before the administration goes in formally for nationalization? "I think that we're going to see the policy adopted in the next few months . . . in six months or so."

That long? I ask. "Six months from now," he replies, "even firms that today look solvent are going to look insolvent. Most of the major banks -- almost all of them -- are going to look insolvent. In which case, if you take them all over all at once, you cause less damage than if you would if you took over a couple now, and created so much confusion and panic and nervousness.

"Between guarantees, liquidity support, and capitalization, the government has provided between $7 trillion to $9 trillion of help to the financial system. De facto, the government is already controlling a good chunk of the banking system. The question is: Do you want to move to the de jure step."
Yet another reason why bank nationalization is a good idea, Mr. Roubini continues, is that "we started with banks that were too big to fail, but what has happened, in the process, is that these banks have become even-bigger-to-fail. J.P. Morgan took over Bear Stearns and WaMu. BofA took over Countrywide and then Merrill. Wells Fargo took over Wachovia. It doesn't work! You can't take two zombie banks, put them together, and make a strong bank. It's like having two drunks trying to keep each other standing.

"So if you took over a big bank, and you split the assets in three or four pieces, maybe you create three or four regional or national banks, and they're stronger! Nationalization -- or 'temporary receivership,' if you like, if the N-word is a political liability -- is an occasion to undo the sort of consolidation that has created an even bigger systemic problem. And the only way to do it is by essentially taking them over and breaking them up."

Here, I ask Mr. Roubini whether he has been more right -- more prescient -- in his reading of the economic downturn than all the other famous bears in America. After all, judging by the attention paid to him in the press, it is hard not to conclude that he is the leading guru of the current recession, or "near-depression," as he often calls it. My question, remarkably, induces in him some diffidence. "I don't want to personalize the analysis, you know . . . because, first of all, there were many people who got many of the elements right.

"People like [Robert] Shiller were very worried about the housing bubble. People like Steve Roach were worried about an economy based on asset bubbles leading to consumption bubbles that were unsustainable. People like Ken Rogoff talked about global imbalances in the current account deficit not being sustainable. Nassim Taleb has been worrying for a while about 'fat tail' events . . . . So lots of people signaled concern about things. I was one of those who put the dots together and thus gave a more fleshed-out picture."

To Mr. Roubini, the most interesting question isn't the one of who got it right. Instead, he asks why we "over and over again, get into these periods of irrational exuberance, when not only is there an asset bubble and a credit bubble, but people believe these are sustainable over a long time -- Wall Street, policy makers, rating agencies, academics, journalists . . . ."

What exactly is Nouriel Roubini's economic philosophy? "I believe in market economics," he says, with some emphasis. "But to paraphrase Churchill -- who said this about democracy and political regimes -- a market economy might be the worst economic regime available, apart from the alternatives.

"I believe that people react to incentives, that incentives matter, and that prices reflect the way things should be allocated. But I also believe that market economies sometimes have market failures, and when these occur, there's a role for prudential -- not excessive -- regulation of the financial system. The two things that Greenspan got totally wrong were his beliefs that, one, markets self-regulate, and two, that there's no market failure."

How could Mr. Greenspan have been so naïve, I ask, hoping to get a rise. "Well," says Mr. Roubini, "at some level it's good to have a framework to think about the world, in which you emphasize the role of incentives and market economics . . . fair enough! But I think it led to an excessive ideological belief that there are no market failures, and no issues of distortions on incentives. Also, central banks were created to provide financial stability. Greenspan forgot this, and that was a mistake. I think there were ideological blinders, taking Ayn Rand's view of the world to an extreme.
"Again, I don't want to personalize things, but the last decade was one of self-regulation. But in the financial markets, without proper institutional rules, there's the law of the jungle -- because there's greed! There's nothing wrong with greed, per se. It's not that people are more greedy now than they were 20 years ago. But greed has to be tempered, first, by fear of losses. So if you bail people out, there's less fear. And second, by prudential regulation and supervision to avoid certain excesses."
How does Mr. Roubini think the media has covered the financial crisis? "The problem," he says -- after first stating to me that he intends "no offense!" -- "is that in the bubble years, everyone becomes a cheerleader, including the media. This is the time when journalists should be asking tough questions, and I think there was a failure there. The Masters of the Universe were always on the cover, or the front page -- the hedge-fund guys, the imperial CEO, private equity. I wish there had been more financial and business journalists, in the good years, who'd said, 'Wait a moment, if this man, or this firm, is making a 100% return a year, how do they do it? Is it because they're smarter than everybody else . . . or because they're taking so much risk they'll be bankrupt two years down the line?'

"And I think, in the bubble years, no one asked the hard questions. A good journalist has to be one who, in good times, challenges the conventional wisdom. If you don't do that, you fail in one of your duties."

Mr. Varadarajan, a professor at NYU's Stern School and a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, is executive editor for Opinions at Forbes.

FDR or Ronald Reagan - Which way will Obama go?

2009-01-09T12:51:00.006-07:00

Commentary: From my perspective, it's already perfectly clear. BHO will do whatever his puppet masters - Kissinger, Rockefeller, Bryszinski, James A. Johnson (Perseus Capital)
( http://www.muckety.com/Perseus-LLC/5001487.muckety?big=true ) want him to do!
AB

By Patrick J. Buchanan.

Barack Obama, it is said, will inherit the worst times since the Great Depression. Not to minimize the crisis we are in, but we need a little perspective here.

The Great Depression began with the Great Crash of 1929. By 1931, unemployment had reached 16 percent.

By 1933, 89 percent of stock value had been wiped out, the economy had shrunk by one-third, thousands of banks had closed, a third of the money supply had vanished, and unemployment had reached 25 percent — among heads of households. And in those days, there was no unemployment insurance, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no Social Security, no welfare.

FDR’s answer: vast federal spending, tough new regulations on business and higher taxes — like Herbert Hoover before him, only more so.

The Depression lasted until war orders from the Allies brought U.S. industry back to life. Before 1940, not once did unemployment fall below 14 percent. In May 1939, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testified:

“We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. … I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … and an enormous debt, to boot.”
Politically, the New Deal was a smashing success, with FDR’s landslides in 1932, 1934 and 1936 virtually wiping out the GOP.

Yet, economically, the New Deal was a bust, failing utterly to restore prosperity. Despite the indoctrination of generations of schoolchildren in New Deal propaganda, that is the hard truth.
Consider, now, how Ronald Reagan responded to the economic crisis of 1980, the worst since the Depression. In the “stagflation” of that Jimmy Carter era, interest rates had reached 21 percent and inflation 13 percent.

Reagan’s answer was the tight money policy of Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and across-the-board tax cuts of 25 percent, while slashing the highest rates from 70 percent to 28 percent.
While unemployment hit 10 percent in 1982 and Reagan lost 26 House seats, in 1983 the tax cuts kicked in.

From there on out, it was boom times until Reagan rode off into the sunset, having created 20 million new jobs. “The Seven Fat Years,” author Robert Bartley called them.
Reagan had followed the lead of Warren Harding and Cal Coolidge, who had cut Woodrow Wilson’s wartime tax rates of near 70 percent to 25 percent, resulting in “The Roaring ’20s,” a time of unrivaled prosperity.

The JFK tax cuts of the 1960s, also a Reagan model, were equally successful.

Harding, Coolidge, JFK and Reagan all bet on the private sector as the engine of prosperity. All succeeded. Franklin Roosevelt bet on government. And the New Deal failed. It was World War II that pulled the United States out of the Depression ditch of the 1930s.

Comes now the financial collapse and economic crisis of 2008, inherited by Obama, with 40 percent of all stock values wiped out in a year, foreclosures pandemic, and unemployment near 7 percent and surging.

In crafting his solutions, Obama seems to be brushing aside the Reagan, JFK and Harding-Coolidge models, and channeling FDR and the New Deal Democrats.

Already staring at a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit for the year ending Sept. 30, about 8 percent of the entire U.S. economy, Obama intends to add a stimulus package of $700 billion to $1 trillion, yet another 5 percent to 7 percent of gross domestic product. The resulting deficit would be twice as large as Reagan’s largest, 6 percent of GDP, which was the largest since World War II.

And how is this Niagara of money to be spent?

Hundreds of billions will go out in checks of $500 to $1,000 to wage-earners and individuals who do not even pay taxes. This is much like the George McGovern “demogrant” program of 1972, where every man, woman and child, if memory serves, was to get a $1,000 check from the U.S. government.

Other hundreds of billions will go to shore up state and municipal spending. Other hundreds of billions will go for “infrastructure” projects, another name for earmarks, which is a synonym for pork.
Now, as Obama does not intend to raise taxes, at least now, he is going to have to borrow this near $2 trillion from foreigners or U.S. taxpayers, or the Fed will have to create the money. Undeniably, this will have an impact upon the economy. But what will that impact be?

Where in history, other than World War II, is there evidence that such a mass infusion of spending restored prosperity?

Obama and the Democrats are taking a historic gamble, not only with their careers but with the country. If this monstrous stimulus package, plus the trillions in hot money, do not work; if the two ignite rampant inflation, rather than real growth, we are all out of options. The toolbox is empty.

And what will follow may truly resemble the 1930s.

Obama's War

2008-12-22T11:37:00.004-07:00

by Patrick J Buchanan

Just two months after the twin towers fell, the armies of the Northern Alliance marched into Kabul. The Taliban fled.

The triumph was total in the "splendid little war" that had cost one U.S. casualty. Or so it seemed. Yet, last month, the war against the Taliban entered its eighth year, the second longest war in our history, and America and NATO have never been nearer to strategic defeat.

So critical is the situation that Defense Secretary Robert Gates,in Kandahar last week, promised rapid deployment, before anyTaliban spring offensive, of two and perhaps three combat brigades of the 20,000 troops requested by Gen. David McKiernan. The first 4,000, from the 10th Mountain, are expected in January.

With 34,000 U.S. soldiers already in country, half under NATO command, the 20,000 will increase U.S. forces there to 54,000, a 60 percent ratcheting up. Shades of LBJ, 1964-65. Afghanistan is going to be Obama's War. And upon its outcome will hang the fate of his presidency. Has he thought this through?

How do we win this war, if by winning we mean establishing a pro-Western democratic government in control of the country that has the support of the people and loyalty of an Afghan army strong enough to defend the nation from a resurgent Taliban?

We are further from that goal going into 2009 than we were fiveyears ago.

What are the long-term prospects for any such success?

Each year, the supply of opium out of Afghanistan, from which most of the world's heroin comes, sets a new record. Payoffs by narcotics traffickers are corrupting the government. The fanatically devout Taliban had eradicated the drug trade, but is now abetting the drug lords in return for money for weapons to kill the Americans.

Militarily, the Taliban forces are stronger than they have been since 2001, moving out of the south and east and infesting half the country. They have sanctuaries in Pakistan and virtually ring Kabul.

U.S. air strikes have killed so many Afghan civilians that President Karzai, who controls little more than Kabul, has begun to condemn the U.S. attacks. Predator attacks on Taliban and al-Qaidain Pakistan have inflamed the population there.

And can pinprick air strikes win a war of this magnitude?

The supply line for our troops in Afghanistan, which runs from Karachi up to Peshawar through the Khyber Pass to Kabul, is now a perilous passage. Four times this month, U.S. transport depots in Pakistan have been attacked, with hundred of vehicles destroyed.

Before arriving in Kandahar, Gates spoke grimly of a "sustained commitment for some protracted period of time. How many years that is, and how many troops that is ... nobody knows."

Gen. McKiernan says it will be at least three or four years before the Afghan army and police can handle the Taliban

.But why does it take a dozen years to get an Afghan army up to where it can defend the people and regime against a Taliban return? Why do our Afghans seem less disposed to fight and die for democracy than the Taliban are to fight and die for theocracy? Does their God, Allah, command a deeper love and loyalty than our god,democracy?

McKiernan says the situation may get worse before it gets better.Gates compares Afghanistan to the Cold War. "(W)e are in many respects in an ideological conflict with violent extremists. ...The last ideological conflict we were in lasted about 45 years.

"That would truly be, in Donald Rumsfeld's phrase, "a long, hard slog."

America, without debate, is about to invest blood and treasure,indefinitely, in a war to which no end seems remotely in sight, if the commanding general is talking about four years at least and the now-and-future war minister is talking about four decades.

What is there to win in Afghanistan to justify doubling down our investment? If our vital interest is to deny a sanctuary there to al-Qaida, do we have to build a new Afghanistan to accomplish that? Did not al-Qaida depart years ago for a new sanctuary in Pakistan?

What hope is there of creating in this tribal land a democracy committed to freedom, equality and human rights that Afghans have never known? What is the expectation that 54,000 or 75,000 U.S.troops can crush an insurgency that enjoys a privileged sanctuary to which it can return, to rest, recuperate and recruit for next year's offensive?

Of all the lands of the earth, Afghanistan has been among the least hospitable to foreigners who come to rule, or to teach them how they should rule themselves.

Would Dwight D. Eisenhower -- who settled for the status quo ante in Korea, an armistice at the line of scrimmage -- commit his country to such an open-ended war?

Would Richard Nixon? WouldRonald Reagan?

Hard to believe. George W. Bush would. But did not America vote against Bush? Why is America getting seamless continuity when it voted for significant change?

Source: www.buchanan.org

Hey, Hey, BHO ...

2008-12-22T11:17:00.006-07:00

Back in the '60s, the chant went "Hey, Hey, LBJ - How many kids did you kill today?" In light of the item below, many the new chant should be "Hey, Hey, BHO - How many kids will have to go?"

Afghanistan could get 30,000 new US troops
By JASON STRAZIUSO

(AP)

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - The top U.S. military officer said Saturday that the Pentagon could double the number of American forces in Afghanistan by next summer to 60,000 - the largest estimate of potential reinforcements ever publicly suggested.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that between 20,000 and 30,000 additional U.S. troops could be sent to Afghanistan to bolster the 31,000 already there.

This year has been the deadliest for U.S. forces in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban for hosting al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Suicide attacks and roadside bombs have become more dangerous, and Taliban fighters have infiltrated wide swaths of countryside and now roam in provinces on Kabul's doorstep.

U.S. commanders have long requested an additional 20,000 troops to aid Canadian and British forces in two provinces just outside Kabul and in the south. But the high end of Mullen's range is the largest number any top U.S. military official has said could be sent to Afghanistan.

Mullen said that increase would include combat forces but also aviation, medical and civilian affairs support troops.

"So some 20,000 to 30,000 is the window of overall increase from where we are right now," he told a news conference at a U.S. base in Kabul. "We certainly have enough forces to be successful in combat, but we haven't had enough forces to hold the territory that we clear."

Overall, there are more than 60,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan. Mullen said any increased U.S. deployment would be directly tied to force levels in Iraq, where U.S. commanders are drawing down troops.

"The Taliban and extremists are more sophisticated and effective," Mullen said. "They haven't won any battles but they certainly have increased the level of violence, and we're very focused on that. That's why the additional forces are so important, to be able to provide security for the Afghan people so these other areas can be developed."

U.S. officials already have plans to send four ground brigades and an aviation brigade to Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has approved the deployment of the aviation brigade, defense officials told The Associated Press. And 10th Mountain Division forces will deploy next month to two provinces that neighbor Kabul - Wardak and Logar, which have seen an influx of militants over the last year.

Mullen said that after the additional U.S. troops are added over the next eight months, only improvements in Afghanistan's governance and economic situation will affect the strength of the insurgency.

But the chairman conceded that the U.S. may have misjudged the central government's ability "to have the kind of impact that we wanted."

Afghanistan, Mullen said, has never been run by a strong central government, and the U.S. may look to communities and tribes in the country's provinces to take on a greater role in future strategy.
He called U.S. goals in Afghanistan "moderate," and said the long-term U.S. vision is for a country that can govern itself while respecting international law, while providing both material and economic security for its people.

Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

2008-10-27T16:17:00.008-07:00

Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why

Column By MICHAEL S. MALONE

Oct. 24, 2008 —

The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist.

You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I'm cut. I am a fourth-generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kan., during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian).

My hard-living -- and when I knew her, scary -- grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los Angeles Times. And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer. I've spent 30 years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national byline before he earned his drivers license.

So, when I say I'm deeply ashamed right now to be called a "journalist," you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.

Now, of course, there's always been bias in the media. Human beings are biased, so the work they do, including reporting, is inevitably colored. Hell, I can show you 10 different ways to color variations of the word "said" -- muttered, shouted, announced, reluctantly replied, responded, etc. -- to influence the way a reader will apprehend exactly the same quote. We all learn that in Reporting 101, or at least in the first few weeks working in a newsroom.

But what we are also supposed to learn during that same apprenticeship is to recognize the dangerous power of that technique, and many others, and develop built-in alarms against them.

But even more important, we are also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure, Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to approach that ideal as closely as possible.

That means constantly challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views and never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge people or institutions we admire. If we can't achieve Olympian detachment, than at least we can recognize human frailty -- especially in ourselves.

Reporting Bias

For many years, spotting bias in reporting was a little parlor game of mine, watching TV news or reading a newspaper article and spotting how the reporter had inserted, often unconsciously, his or her own preconceptions. But I always wrote it off as bad judgment and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious advocacy.

Sure, being a child of the '60s I saw a lot of subjective "New" Journalism, and did a fair amount of it myself, but that kind of writing, like columns and editorials, was supposed to be segregated from "real" reporting, and, at least in mainstream media, usually was. The same was true for the emerging blogosphere, which by its very nature was opinionated and biased.

But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth.

I'd spent my entire professional career scrupulously pounding out endless dreary footnotes and double-checking sources to make sure that I never got accused of lying or stealing someone else's work -- not out of any native honesty, but out of fear: I'd always been told to fake or steal a story was a firing offense & indeed, it meant being blackballed out of the profession.

And yet, few of those worthies ever seemed to get fired for their crimes -- and if they did they were soon rehired into even more prestigious jobs. It seemed as if there were two sets of rules: one for us workaday journalists toiling out in the sticks, and another for folks who'd managed, through talent or deceit, to make it to the national level.

Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

But what really shattered my faith -- and I know the day and place where it happened -- was the war in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I'd already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.

I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story & but it never happened.

The Presidential Campaign

But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.

Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press.

I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather -- not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake -- but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play.

The few instances where I think the press has gone too far -- such as the Times reporter talking to prospective first lady Cindy McCain's daughter's MySpace friends -- can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha bureau.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

Joe the Plumber

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.

Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man. So much for speaking truth to power. So much for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

I learned a long time ago that when people or institutions begin to behave in a matter that seems to be entirely against their own interests, it's because we don't understand what their motives really are. It would seem that by so exposing their biases and betting everything on one candidate over another, the traditional media is trying to commit suicide -- especially when, given our currently volatile world and economy, the chances of a successful Obama presidency, indeed any presidency, is probably less than 50/50.

Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes & and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain's. That's what reporters do. I was proud to have been one, and I'm still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.

So why weren't those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don't see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn't; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.

Bad Editors

Why? I think I know, because had my life taken a different path, I could have been one: Picture yourself in your 50s in a job where you've spent 30 years working your way to the top, to the cockpit of power & only to discover that you're presiding over a dying industry. The Internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers and your top young talent. Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes and disappeared. Your job doesn't have anywhere near the power and influence it did when your started your climb. The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect you any more, and there is a very good chance you'll lose your job before you cross that finish line, 10 years hence, of retirement and a pension.

In other words, you are facing career catastrophe -- and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway -- all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.

And then the opportunity presents itself -- an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career.

With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.

And besides, you tell yourself, it's all for the good of the country &

This is the opinion of the columnist and in no way reflects the opinion of ABC News.

Michael S. Malone is one of the nation's best-known technology writers. He has covered Silicon Valley and high-tech for more than 25 years, beginning with the San Jose Mercury News as the nation's first daily high-tech reporter. His articles and editorials have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, the Economist and Fortune, and for two years he was a columnist for The New York Times. He was editor of Forbes ASAP, the world's largest-circulation business-tech magazine, at the height of the dot-com boom. Malone is the author or co-author of a dozen books, notably the best-selling "Virtual Corporation." Malone has also hosted three public television interview series, and most recently co-produced the celebrated PBS miniseries on social entrepreneurs, "The New Heroes." He has been the ABCNews.com "Silicon Insider" columnist since 2000.

Commentary

Mr. Malone, an honest journalist, (gee, that's almost a contradiction in terms) has correctly assessed the situation. Maybe he and Bernard Goldberg could get together and actually create an honest and informative publication of some sort.

Let the word go forth to the executive suites of media organizations across the land - keep on with this infernal bilge that you allow your lackeys to spew forth on a constant basis and you will witness an even further erosion of your circulation and / or viewership. Smaller numbers of readers/ viewers means you can't charge advertisers as much i..e decreased revenues. Decreased revenues mean smaller paychecks or maybe even NO paychecks.

This message should also be heeded by the executives of the firms that advertise in the various media. The American public can always decide that they are not going to support your firms and buy other products. Lower sales = lower profits = smaller paychecks

.In summary, message to all members of "management" whether you are CEO, CFO, VP of News, Managing Editor, Assignment Editor, etc. - if you keep on the current path you will be stabbing yourselves in your wallets.

Liquidating the Empire

2008-10-17T10:31:00.009-07:00

By Patrick J. Buchanan

October 14, 2008

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers."

So Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon advised Herbert Hoover in theGreat Crash of '29.

Hoover did. And the nation liquidated him -- and the Republicans.]

In the Crash of 2008, 40 percent of stock value has vanished,almost $9 trillion. Some $5 trillion in real estate value has disappeared. A recession looms with sweeping layoffs, unemployment compensation surging, and social welfare benefits soaring.

America's first trillion-dollar deficit is at hand.

In Fiscal Year 2008 the deficit was $438 billion.

With tax revenue sinking, we will add to this year's deficit the$200 to $300 billion needed to wipe the rotten paper off the books of Fannie and Freddie, the $700 billion (plus the $100 billion inadd-ons and pork) for the Wall Street bailout, the $85 billion to bail out AIG, and $37 billion more now needed, the $25 billion for GM, Chrysler and Ford, and the hundreds of billions Hank Paulson will need to buy corporate paper and bail out banks to stop the panic.

As Americans save nothing, where are the feds going to get the money? Is the Fed going to print it and destroy the dollar and credit rating of the United States? Because the nations whose vaults are full of dollars and U.S. debt -- China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arabs -- are reluctant to lend us more. Sovereign wealth funds that plunged billions into U.S. banks have already been burned.

Uncle Sam's VISA card is about to be stamped "Canceled.

"The budget is going to have to go under the knife. But what gets cut?

Social Security and Medicare are surely exempt. Seniors have already taken a huge hit in their 401(k)s. And as the Democrats are crafting another $150 billion stimulus package for the working poor and middle class, Medicaid and food stamps are untouchable. Interest on the debt cannot be cut. It is going up. Will a Democratic Congress slash unemployment benefits, welfare,education, student loans, veterans benefits -- in a recession?

No way. Yet, that is almost the entire U.S. budget -- except for defense, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and foreign aid. And this is where the axe will eventually fall.

It is the American Empire that is going to be liquidated.

Retrenchment has begun with Bush's backing away from confrontations with Axis-of-Evil charter members Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs, and will likely continue with a negotiated peace in Afghanistan. Gen. Petraeus and Secretary Gates are already talking "reconciliation" with the Taliban.

We no longer live in Eisenhower or Reagan's America. Even the post-Cold War world of George H. W. Bush, where America was a global hegemon, is history. In both relative and real terms, the U.S.A. is a diminished power.

Where Ike spent 9 percent of GDP on defense, Reagan 6 percent, we spend 4 percent. Yet we have two wars bleeding us and many more nations to defend, with commitments in the Baltic, Eastern Europe,and the Balkans we did not have in the Cold War. As U.S. weapons systems are many times more expensive today, we have fewer strategic aircraft and Navy ships than Ike or Reagan commanded. Our active-duty Army and Marine Corps consist of 700,000 troops, 15 percent women, and a far higher percentage of them support rather than combat troops.

With so few legions, we cannot police the world, and we cannot afford more. Yet, we have a host of newly hostile nations we did not have in 1989.

U.S. interests in Latin America are being challenged not only by Cuba, but Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras. Brazil, Argentina and Chile go their own way. Russia is reasserting hegemony in the Caucasus, testing new ICBMs, running bomber probes up to U.S. air space. China, growing at 10 percent as we head into recession, is bristling over U.S. military sales to Taiwan. Iran remains defiant. Pakistan is rife with anti-Americanism and al-Qaida sentiment.

The American Empire has become a vast extravagance.

With U.S. markets crashing and wealth vanishing, what are we doing with 750 bases and troops in over 100 countries?

With a recession of unknown depth and duration looming, why keep borrowing billions from rich Arabs to defend rich Europeans, or billions from China and Japan to hand out in Millennium Challenge Grants to Tanzania and Burkina Faso?

America needs a bottom-up review of all strategic commitments dating to a Cold War now over for 20 years.

Is it essential to keep 30,000 troops in a South Korea with twice the population and 40 times the wealth of the North? Why are McCain and Obama offering NATO memberships, i.e., war guarantees against Russia, to a Georgia run by a hothead like Mikheil Saakashvili, and a Ukraine, millions of whose people prefer their kinship to Russia to an alliance with us?

We must put "country first," says John McCain.

Right you are, Senator. Time to look out for America first.

My Bailout Plan

2008-09-29T13:27:00.004-07:00

By Joseph Farah

WorldNet Daily

Congress is beginning debate on a $700 billion plan for U.S. taxpayers to bail out banks, mortgage companies and investment firms that made bad loans to unqualified consumers, including illegal aliens, and became insolvent as a result.

Officials say this plan is designed to protect us from further harm and to prop up the teetering economic system the government has created.

I have a better idea.

Let's not put more money into the hands of those who created the problem. Let's put the money into the hands of the people who were victimized. Why should the victims pay twice and the victimizers get off scot-free?

Here's my plan:
Those who bled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dry by lying about the government-created mortgage companies' real worth so they could secure billions in personal bonuses should make restitution. They should be forbidden from ever holding any government job or position in the financial world for the rest of their lives.

Anyone who made more than $1 million a year in the other failed banks and institutions should be forced to contribute all their income in excess of $1 million a year to my bailout program.

The chairmen of the Senate and House banking oversight committees should be forced to resign in disgrace from their positions.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who literally started the first bank run in California with his irresponsible public statements, should be forced to resign from the Senate.

All candidates for federal political office who received contributions from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or any executives of those institutions, or the other failed banking, mortgage and investment firms, should be required to give the money to the bailout fund.

Since the Bush administration is trying to sell the idea that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac actually hold assets of greater value than the cost of their proposed bailout, I suggest they auction those institutions off to the highest private bidders.

Instead of paying $700 billion to prop up the institutions that created the mess, I propose $700 billion be paid directly to those victimized by the scandal – the American people – in the form of a tax cut. This would stimulate the economy and help the country grow its way out of this crisis.

I'm sure this plan has a few holes in it. That's because I made it up in about 15 minutes.

But I'm also certain it is far better than any official plan being floated in Washington today.

So, I'm asking you to get on board. Make amendments if you like. But tell those scoundrels in Washington stop picking your pocket and your children's pockets with this bailout of the banking class.

If my business goes belly up because of bad decisions I make in running it, no one is going to bail me out. I fail to see why businesses thousands of times bigger than mine should face no risk and, in effect, be insured against mistakes and bad judgment by the taxpayers of the United States.

This is not the way the free market works.

What is at stake in this bailout scheme is not just amounts of money few of us can even imagine.

What is at stake is not just massive tax increases in the future. What is at stake is not just rewarding criminals and shysters.

What is at stake is whether America will protect the last vestiges of a free enterprise system for our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

No more quick fixes that, in fact, cost us far more in the long run.

No more cover-ups of wrongdoing.

No more rewarding the worst kind of fiscal irresponsibility.

Harlem minister on media hypocrisy

2008-09-29T13:17:00.005-07:00

Harlem minister Rev. James D. Manning speaks out on the Mainstream Media's (MSM) hypocrisy about chastising Sarah / Bristol Palin regarding out of wedlock pregnancy when Obama himself was born out of wedlock.

http://www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr09-03-08.html

The Birk Economic Recovery Plan

2008-09-29T12:12:00.004-07:00

The Birk Economic Recovery Plan

I’m against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I’m in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.

To make the math simple, let’s assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up.. So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend. Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let’s assume a tax rate of 30%. Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam. But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.

A husband and wife has $595,000.00. What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage – housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans – what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college – it’ll be there
Save in a bank – create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car – create jobs Invest in the market – capital drives growth
Pay for your parent’s medical insurance – health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean – or else
Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back.
And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we’re going to re-distribute wealth let’s really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( “vote buy” ) economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President.

If we’re going to do an $85 billion bailout, let’s bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!

As for AIG – liquidate it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to being American General. Sell off the real estate. Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here’s my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn’t.

Sure it’s a crazy idea that can “never work.”

But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!

How do you spell Economic Boom?

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion

We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC.

And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest

.Kindest personal regards,

T. J. Birkenmeier,
A Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic
PS: Feel free to pass this along to your pals

House Rejects Bailout

2008-09-29T12:00:00.003-07:00

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House on Monday defeated a $700 billion emergency rescue package, ignoring urgent pleas from President Bush and bipartisan congressional leaders to quickly bail out the staggering financial industry.

Stocks plummeted on Wall Street even before the 228-205 vote to reject the bill was announced on the House floor.

When the critical vote was tallied, too few members of the House were willing to support the unpopular measure with elections just five weeks away. Ample no votes came from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle.

Bush and a host of leading congressional figures had implored the lawmakers to pass the legislation despite howls of protest from their constituents back home.

The overriding question for congressional leaders was what to do next. Congress has been trying to adjourn so that its members can go out and campaign. And with only five weeks left until Election Day, there was no clear indication of whether the leadership would keep them in Washington. Leaders were huddling after the vote to figure out their next steps.

A White House spokesman said that President Bush was "very disappointed."

"There's no question that the country is facing a difficult crisis that needs to be addressed," Tony Fratto told reporters. He said the president will be meeting with members of his team later in the day "to determine next steps."

"Obviously we are very disappointed in this outcome," Fratto said. ". There's no question that the country is facing a difficult crisis that needs to be addressed. The president will be meeting with his team this afternoon to determine the next steps and will also be in touch with congressional leaders."

Monday's mind-numbing vote had been preceded by unusually aggressive White House lobbying, and spokesman Tony Fratto said that Bush had used a "call list" of people he wanted to persuade to vote yes as late as just a short time before the vote.

Lawmakers shouted news of the plummeting Dow Jones average as lawmakers crowded on the House floor during the drawn-out and tense call of the roll, which dragged on for roughly 40 minutes as leaders on both sides scrambled to corral enough of their rank-and-file members to support the deeply unpopular measure.

They found only two.

Bush and his economic advisers, as well as congressional leaders in both parties had argued the plan was vital to insulating ordinary Americans from the effects of Wall Street's bad bets. The version that was up for vote Monday was the product of marathon closed-door negotiations on Capitol Hill over the weekend.

"We're all worried about losing our jobs," Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., declared in an impassioned speech in support of the bill before the vote. "Most of us say, 'I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it—not me.' "

With their dire warnings of impending economic doom and their sweeping request for unprecedented sums of money and authority to bail out cash-starved financial firms, Bush and his economic chiefs have focused the attention of world markets on Congress, Ryan added.

"We're in this moment, and if we fail to do the right thing, Heaven help us," he said.

The legislation the administration promoted would have allowed the government to buy bad mortgages and other rotten assets held by troubled banks and financial institutions. Getting those debts off their books should bolster those companies' balance sheets, making them more inclined to lend and easing one of the biggest choke points in the credit crisis. If the plan worked, the thinking went, it would help lift a major weight off the national economy that is already sputtering.
The fear in the financial markets send the Dow Jones industrials cascading down by as over 700 points at one juncture. As the vote was shown on TV, stocks plunged and investors fled to the safety of the credit markets, worrying that the financial system would keep sinking under the weight of failed mortgage debt.

Seven better uses for $700 billion

2008-09-25T16:50:00.007-07:00

by Matt Woolsey for Forbes.com

If the bailout sounds like a lot of money, that's because it is. What else it could buy? How about health insurance for everyone, or fixing all the roads and bridges?

Wall Street's crisis is about to become Main Street's crisis, as bank credit freezes and loans dry up. The government's fix: $700 billion to buy up the bad loans choking the system.

It's a monster plan, but there's little choice, according White House and Federal Reserve officials. Though much of the money may return to the nation's coffers over time as the Treasury sells off the mortgage-backed assets it will purchase, the bailout will severely limit what the government can afford to spend on health care, energy, infrastructure and education in the years ahead.

New bridges and guilt-free electricity Let's start with the nation's infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates our nation's bridges need $180 billion in repairs, with our rail infrastructure in need of $185 billion in maintenance. California wants to spend $40 billion for the nation's first high-speed rail network to connect Southern and Northern California.

Saskia Sassen, a professor on Columbia University's Committee on Global Thought, points out that infrastructure investments would feed directly into gross domestic product, based on job and enterprise growth. And we certainly have the builders to do it. Unemployment in construction is 40% higher than in manufacturing.

Arizona Public Service, an electric utility, is building the nation's largest solar power array in the desert near Gila Bend, Ariz. It will be able to power 70,000 homes using only the sun's rays -- and will create thousands of high-tech green energy jobs. Construction costs will be about $1 billion, but the utility says the 3-square-mile project will pay for itself in about seven years. With $699 billion left over, you could put even more of the Southwest's desert to work in creating clean energy.

Peace of mind for the environment and our bodies Health care and climate change are other major concerns. Kenneth Thorpe, a professor of health policy at Emory University, points out that for $150 billion you could provide every American with private health insurance and create a universal automated health-information system.

When you consider that the National Cancer Institute receives $5 billion a year in funding, you could multiply its budget by 10 and provide private health care to every American.

McKinsey, a consulting firm, estimates it will cost the U.S. economy $150 billion a year to stabilize greenhouse gases by 2030. For three years, $700 billion could pay for the cost of both health care plans (in case one doesn't work) and cover the cost to reduce carbon emissions.

Defend the borders, the economy and our academic edge Since global trade isn't going away anytime soon and America's ports are getting increasingly crowded, using the money for port expansion might be a smart idea. According to the American Association of Port Authorities, container volumes at U.S. ports have increased by 7% a year over the past 20 years, far outpacing capacity growth.

National security is also a concern. After five years in Iraq, most estimates for the war's cost tally into the $500 billion range. Unlike investments in distressed assets, paying for the Iraq war won't produce a return, but $700 billion would stem the government's future debt obligations to its creditors.

Then there's education. The U.S. currently spends about $500 billion annually on public education, yet still finds itself slipping behind many other industrialized nations when it comes to giving the next generation the skills it needs to compete globally.

The difference, of course, is that government spending for any of this would require a massive tax increase, with no chance of getting any of the money back. The upside: At least it would be a sure bet.

The Crash of 2008 - The party's over

2008-09-21T13:45:00.007-07:00

By Patrick J. Buchanan

The Crash of 2008, which is now wiping out trillions of dollars of our people’s wealth, is, like the Crash of 1929, likely to mark the end of one era and the onset of another.

The new era will see a more sober and much diminished America. The “Omnipower” and “Indispensable Nation” we heard about in all the hubris and braggadocio following our Cold War victory is history.

Seizing on the crisis, the left says we are witnessing the failure of market economics, a failure of conservatism.

This is nonsense. What we are witnessing is the collapse of Gordon Gecko (”Greed Is Good!”) capitalism. What we are witnessing is what happens to a prodigal nation that ignores history, and forgets and abandons the philosophy and principles that made it great.

A true conservative cherishes prudence and believes in fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and a self-reliant republic. He believes in saving for retirement and a rainy day, in deferred gratification, in not buying on credit what you cannot afford, in living within your means.

Is that really what got Wall Street and us into this mess — that we followed too religiously the gospel of Robert Taft and Russell Kirk?

“Government must save us!” cries the left, as ever. Yet, who got us into this mess if not the government — the Fed with its easy money, Bush with his profligate spending, and Congress and the SEC by liberating Wall Street and failing to step in and stop the drunken orgy?

For years, we Americans have spent more than we earned. We save nothing. Credit card debt, consumer debt, auto debt, mortgage debt, corporate debt — all are at record levels. And with pensions and savings being wiped out, much of that debt will never be repaid.

Our standard of living is inevitably going to fall. For foreigners will not forever buy our bonds or lend us more money if they rightly fear that they will be paid back, if at all, in cheaper dollars.

We are going to have to learn to live again without our means.

The party’s over

Up through World War II, we followed the Hamiltonian idea that America must remain economically independent of the world in order to remain politically independent.

But this generation decided that was yesterday’s bromide and we must march bravely forward into a Global Economy, where we all depend on one another. American companies morphed into “global companies” and moved plants and factories to Mexico, Asia, China and India, and we began buying more cheaply from abroad what we used to make at home: shoes, clothes, bikes, cars, radios, TVs, planes, computers.

As the trade deficits began inexorably to rise to 6 percent of GDP, we began vast borrowing from abroad to continue buying from abroad.

At home, propelled by tax cuts, war in Iraq and an explosion in social spending, surpluses vanished and deficits reappeared and began to rise. The dollar began to sink, and gold began to soar.
Yet, still, the promises of the politicians come. Barack Obama will give us national health insurance and tax cuts for all but that 2 percent of the nation that already carries 50 percent of the federal income tax load.

John McCain is going to cut taxes, expand the military, move NATO into Georgia and Ukraine, confront Russia and force Iran to stop enriching uranium or “bomb, bomb, bomb,” with Joe Lieberman as wartime consigliere.

Who are we kidding?

What we are witnessing today is how empires end.

The Last Superpower is unable to defend its borders, protect its currency, win its wars or balance its budget. Medicare and Social Security are headed for the cliff with unfunded liabilities in the tens of trillions of dollars.

What we are witnessing today is nothing less than a Katrina-like failure of government, of our political class, and of democracy itself, casting a cloud over the viability and longevity of the system.

Notice who is managing the crisis. Not our elected leaders. Nancy Pelosi says she had nothing to do with it. Congress is paralyzed and heading home. President Bush is nowhere to be seen.
Hank Paulson of Goldman Sachs and Ben Bernanke of the Fed chose to bail out Bear Sterns but let Lehman go under. They decided to nationalize Fannie and Freddie at a cost to taxpayers of hundreds of billions, putting the U.S. government behind $5 trillion in mortgages. They decided to buy AIG with $85 billion rather than see the insurance giant sink beneath the waves.

An unelected financial elite is now entrusted with the assignment of getting us out of a disaster into which an unelected financial elite plunged the nation. We are just spectators.

What the Greatest Generation handed down to us — the richest, most powerful, most self-sufficient republic in history, with the highest standard of living any nation had ever achieved — the baby boomers, oblivious and self-indulgent to the end, have frittered away.

We The People Brings Federal Lawsuit to Stop AIG Bailout

2008-09-21T12:26:00.010-07:00

On the day following the 221st anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution, WTP Chairman and constitutional activist Robert Schulz today filed a federal lawsuit in United States District Court in Albany seeking to halt the execution of the emergency bailout of American International Group, Inc. (AIG) by the United States Government and the Federal Reserve.

The lawsuit asserts that the commitment of public funds and credit for the direct benefit of privately owned AIG is an ultra vires action by the United States Government and Federal Reserve, i.e., beyond the limited legal authority granted by the Constitution. The lawsuit asks for a "show cause" hearing demanding that the Government produce evidence of its legal authority to commit public funds for such a purpose, as well as emergency and permanent injunctions halting the bailout transaction.

Beyond the Constitutional deficiencies, the bailout establishes a dangerous precedent enabling the Fed and/or Government to nationalize virtually any business or property within the United States without legal authority or congressional approval.

The defendants include the Federal Reserve System, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the U.S. Treasury, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson Jr. and the United States Government.

The WTP Foundation today issued a press release citing Schulz:

"Beyond the moral hazard and dangerous precedent established by this action, it is of vital importance that the American people recognize that the present financial crisis is a direct and predictable result of decades of constitutional violations by the Federal Government. Through a long-standing policy of disinformation and collusion with the Federal Reserve and Wall Street financial elite, the United States Federal Government has denied public access to information about the secretive operations of the privately owned and operated Federal Reserve and its monopoly control of America's money system.

"This monopoly control of our currency by a private banking cartel has resulted in increasing distortion, volatility and cyclical (boom and bust) economic conditions in the U.S. and abroad. America's fiat currency (produced from thin air) is manipulated by the Federal Reserve for the benefit of its owners, major Wall Street financial institutions and the Federal Government and is not unaccountable to the taxpayers. These abuses of the Constitution have taken our financial system to edge of the abyss. The chickens have come home to roost."

Press Release: http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/AIG/AIG-PressReleaseSept18-2008.pdf

Complaint: http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/AIG/AIG-Complaint-9-18-08.pdf

Memorandum of Law: http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/AIG/AIG-MemoLawSupptTRO-9-18-08.pdf

Affidavidit in support of complaint: http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/AIG/AIG-Decl-Schulz-9-18-08.pdf

Edgar Mitchell Statement regarding UFOs - July 24, 2008

2008-07-27T12:48:00.005-07:00

Edgar Mitchell was the Lunar Module Pilot for Apollo 14

Aliens have contacted humans several times but governments have hidden the truth for 60 years, the sixth man to walk on the moon has claimed.

Apollo 14 astronaut Dr Edgar Mitchell, said he was aware of many UFO visits to Earth during his career with NASA but each one was covered up.

Dr Mitchell, 77, said during a radio interview that sources at the space agency who had had contact with aliens described the beings as 'little people who look strange to us.'

He said supposedly real-life ET's were similar to the traditional image of a small frame, large eyes and head.

Chillingly, he claimed our technology is 'not nearly as sophisticated' as theirs and "had they been hostile", he warned 'we would be been gone by now'.

Dr Mitchell, along with with Apollo 14 commander Alan Shepard, holds the record for the longest ever moon walk, at nine hours and 17 minutes following their 1971 mission.

'I happen to have been privileged enough to be in on the fact that we've been visited on this planet and the UFO phenomena is real,' Dr Mitchell said.

'It's been well covered up by all our governments for the last 60 years or so, but slowly it's leaked out and some of us have been privileged to have been briefed on some of it.

UFO theorists believe Roswell in New Mexico was the site of an alien crash in 1947

'I've been in military and intelligence circles, who know that beneath the surface of what has been public knowledge, yes - we have been visited. Reading the papers recently, it's been happening quite a bit.'

Dr Mitchell, who has a Bachelor of Science degree in aeronautical engineering and a Doctor of Science degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics claimed Roswell was real and similar alien visits continue to be investigated.

He told the astonished Kerrang! radio host Nick Margerrison: "This is really starting to open up. I think we're headed for real disclosure and some serious organisations are moving in that direction.'

Mr Margerrison said: 'I thought I'd stumbled on some sort of astronaut humour but he was absolutely serious that aliens are definitely out there and there's no debating it.'

Officials from NASA, however, were quick to play the comments down.

In a statement, a spokesman said: "NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe.

'Dr Mitchell is a great American, but we do not share his opinions on this issue.'

How You can Still Vote fo Ron Paul

2008-07-25T15:22:00.006-07:00

.... and Make the NeoCons Stock Up on Their Supply of Depends Panties!

By Linda Muller

Today is the day! I just bought 2 tickets for Ron Paul's Rally for the Republic in Minneapolis.

I have every excuse not to go: I'm bogged down with work; Money is tight; Company is scheduled to visit me on those dates; And the toughest part of all is I care for my 80 year-old sister who is frail and in a wheelchair

.Yet, she said to me, "We must go! This rally is the most important thing we can do right now for our country."

So I bought the tickets. Now I'll probably spend a couple grand for flights, hotel, food and car rental. It will be worth every penny.

Please go to our website at: http://buchanan.org/blog/

View the following info:

-- VIDEO: Top Reasons Why All Buchanan Brigaders Must Rally in Minnesota!

-- VIDEO: Pat Buchanan Predicts Ron Paul Crowd Will Rock GOP Convention

-- UPDATE: Letter from Ron Paul on the Rally [also see below]

-- HOT NEWS: Campaign for Liberty Ticket Bomb on Friday July 25th!

Here's hoping I'll see you in Minneapolis!

Linsa Muller

PS-- Tickets go on sale today for the Ron Paul Rally for theRepublic in Minneapolis. Almost 5,000 tickets sold in the first hour. Order your tickets today so you won't miss out of the most important date in our R3volution! http://rally.campaignforliberty.com/

PPS - The Ron Paul R3volution March in DC was a beautiful sight. As expected, patriots marching to our nation's capitol were ignored by the media. You can see some videos/news here:http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?paged=3

--------Letter from Ron Paul:

First, from August 31 to September 2 in Minneapolis, we will host a handful of events that will shake the political establishment.Everything will culminate on Tuesday with the official launch of the Campaign for Liberty at the Rally for the Republic.

The Campaign for Liberty will be the largest organization for peace, freedom, the Constitution, and sound money in American history. It will launch in grand fashion with lots of special guests and - if the early television and print inquiries we've received are any indication - plenty of media attention.

I would like to personally invite you and your family to join me and thousands of others in Minneapolis for these events and send a message to the Republican Party.

Tickets will go on sale for the Rally for the Republic this Friday,July 25 @ 10AM CST. We want this to be an unforgettable day, so we are holding a ticket bomb all day Friday in the tradition of our famous money bombs. How many seats can we sell on the first day?

In patriotic fashion all tickets will cost $17.76, so you can afford to bring the whole family.

This leads me to the second big announcement. After measuring the excitement and enthusiasm, we decided that the Williams Arena at the University of Minnesota was just too small to hold you.Therefore, we are making a significant upgrade. The Rally for theRepublic will now take place at the Target Center, the largest arena in Minneapolis!

This promises to be the most spirited and provocative political event of the year! We held some very large rallies during the presidential campaign, but I have never attempted anything of this scale before. Its success rests entirely in your hands.

Later this week I will announce two internationally renowned musicians as headliners for the Rally for the Republic. We'll also be joined by rock star Aimee Allen, NBC's Tucker Carlson, BarryGoldwater Jr., Gov. Gary Johnson, conservative stalwart Grover Norquist, former Reagan deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein, presidential historian Doug Wead, MTV's Adam Curry, musician Mark Scibilia, and Frank Sinatra impersonator Rick Ellis. Other special guests will be announced soon.

My staff has been working overtime to provide you with three full days of entertainment. Please visit the schedule page of the website and read all about upcoming events. We also have a lodging page to help you find accommodations in Minneapolis.

Together we are taking back our government and restoring the republic. Please join me in Minneapolis to kickoff the Campaign for Liberty and support our Revolution. Can I count on you to be there?

In Liberty,

Ron Paul

P.S. I know that you have done so much already, but with both major party nominees threatening to lead us into bankruptcy at home and more wars abroad, the success of the Rally for the Republic and the launch of the Campaign for Liberty is crucial. Please do what you can to be in Minneapolis August 31 - September 2 and send a loud and clear message of freedom, peace, and prosperity

.-----Update from the Campaign for Liberty:

It's time to buy your tickets! Today at 10:00AM CST tickets go on sale for the Rally for the Republic in Minneapolis on September 2.

All Tickets sell for $17.76. The best seats will go fast so be the first in line at 10:00AM CST. You can buy up to 8 tickets for you,your family, friends, and co-workers.

Are you going to participate in the Ticket Bomb? Can we sell out the Target Center?

All eyes will be on us in Minneapolis as Republican National Committee delegates ascend on the Twin Cities. All RNC delegates and alternates who want to attend our event will have a reserved seat. This is our greatest opportunity to make a statement and take our Party back. Join us in Minneapolis on September 2 as we witness history.

A true revolution is occurring. It's time to stand up for our Constitution and restore the republic!

Every major broadcasting network is lining up to cover our event and the kickoff of the Campaign for Liberty. Stories have already been written by the Associated Press, ABC, CBS, CNN, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Minneapolis Star Tribune, just to name a few.

We will be treated all day by musicians, special guests, and performers. And the evening will afford a legendary speech by Dr.Ron Paul. This will be the most courageous moment of Dr. Paul's career. You won't want to miss it.

Linda Muller is webmistress for www.buchanan.org

545 People

2008-07-13T13:34:00.004-07:00

By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget.

The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations.

The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ .

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Proposed ban on illegal immigrants stirs uproar in Fremont, Neb.

2008-07-13T12:57:00.011-07:00

July 11, 2008

BY CINDY GONZALEZ AND JUDITH NYGREN
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITERS

A proposed law aimed at banishing illegal immigrants from Fremont, Neb., would require every renter —whether they were born in the United States or immigrated here — to obtain an occupancy license through the city.

The proposal has sparked an outcry among advocates for Latinos. Nebraska Appleseed attorney Norm Pflanz said he is confident that many Fremont citizens will join in opposition once they understand the full impact of the ordinance — on their lives as well as those of immigrants.

Fremont's is the first city council in the state to propose an ordinance that would ban harboring and renting to illegal immigrants. Lawmakers in other U.S. localities have introduced similar initiatives, often later struck down by the courts, according to national immigration groups.

Bob Warner, the longtime councilman who sponsored Fremont's proposal, said he did so because residents were "sick and tired" of what he said was the federal government's lax enforcement of immigration laws.

He said Fremont residents want their own immigration laws.

"I'll fight to the dying end to do what they want," Warner said. "I don't know why everybody is making a mountain out of something that is very simple.

"The proposal that went to the council for a public hearing this week calls for all renters to fill out an application verifying their legal right to be in the United States. The applications would be submitted to local police for verification, and an occupancy license would be issued.

Every person occupying a rented home or apartment would have to hold an occupancy license at a cost of $5 each. A new license would be needed every time a resident relocated to a different rental unit.

Providing false information on the application would subject the license holder to a fine of up to $500. Those who occupied a rental unit without a valid license would be subject to the same fine.

Landlords would have to see the license before renting a unit. The ordinance, however, does not stipulate a penalty for landlords who fail to comply.

The Nebraska Mexican-American Commission issued a statement on Thursday saying it was disappointed with "racial and anti-immigrant remarks" made at the Fremont council meeting. Tuesday was the first opportunity for the public to speak about the ordinance.

Angel Freytez, commission spokesman, said some opponents of the ban left the meeting early because they felt there was inadequate security. One opponent of the ordinance later broke into tears because of the "hateful" statements, said Freytez, who called the behavior at the meeting "shameful."

"Instead of raising the level of dialogue over the immigration issue," Freytez said, "they are degrading it.

"Pflanz, the Appleseed attorney, said some people in the audience of Latino and Asian descent overheard remarks aimed at them: "There's an illegal. There's an illegal."

"The atmosphere was very hostile to anyone who wanted to oppose the ordinance," Pflanz said.

When he and others in his group rose to leave the council chambers during a 10-minute break, a police officer approached, Pflanz recalled. "He said, 'I think I'm going to escort your group to your cars.'

"While Pflanz wouldn't say whether he thought the escort was necessary, he said he "was most grateful" for the service.

Said Councilman Warner: "Does it get out of hand? Absolutely."

However, he said, the anger and raised voices simply reflected the frustration felt by many of his constituents.

Mary Marsh, another council member, said she did not sense uneasiness or feel there was a threatening atmosphere at the meeting.

"People expressed their opinions," she said. "That is a given right in the United States of America.

"Marsh was among five of eight council members who earlier had directed the city attorney to draft the ordinance. She said she was undecided how she would vote in August but thought the community should have a say on how the town handles illegal immigration.

Fremont officials said no single local event or trend sparked the proposed ordinance.Rather, Warner said, the frustration he and others had already felt increased after a committee of the Nebraska Legislature prevented full debate on an anti-illegal immigration proposal supported by Gov. Dave Heineman.

The legislation would have required verification of immigration status for anyone seeking state benefits. Blocking that discussion compounded irritation with the federal government over what some see as ineffective enforcement efforts.

The current draft of the Fremont ordinance does not include a ban on hiring, but Warner said he wants that included — along with penalties for renting to and harboring illegal immigrants.

Fremont — with a population around 25,000, about 30 minutes west of Omaha — includes a Hormel Foods pork processing plant that relies on immigrant labor.

Warner, a member of the council for 20 years, said he can't go to church, a restaurant or a keno parlor without someone approaching him and saying, "'By God, this stuff has got to stop.'"

Fremont Mayor Donald Edwards said his main concern is that the city enact a law that can withstand legal challenge and is enforceable.

Pflanz expressed hope that church leaders, advocates and "the everyday" people of Fremont will make their voices heard before the council takes up the issue again. Tuesday's discussion "did not reflect well on Fremont, and it didn't reflect well on the vast majority of people in Fremont" who want to live in an inclusive community, he said. •

Contact the writer: cindy.gonzalez@owh.com

Contact the Omaha World-Herald newsroom

Benz Speaks! 3 ways to lower gas prices

2008-06-24T12:47:00.005-07:00

Newt Gingrich speaks on Congress's role in the continuing energy crisis and ways that the American people can help turn the tide on rising energy prices.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY

On the Second Amendment Dont Believe Obama

2008-06-17T14:32:00.004-07:00

NRA - ILA

·11250 Waples Mill Road · Fairfax, Virginia 22030 ·800-392-8683

Friday, June 06, 2008

The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms

But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1
FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.2
FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4
FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5
FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6
FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7
FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8
FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9
FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10
FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11
FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14
FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9

1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219)
2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 20087. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)
3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217)
4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html)
5. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004 SB 2165, vote 20.
6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php)
7. “Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)
8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7. (http://www.joycefdn.org/pdf/98_AnnualReport.pdf)
9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)
10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.
11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.
12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html)
13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html)
14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement.)

Mad About High Gas Prices? A Simple Solution

2008-06-17T13:51:00.011-07:00

By Ron Ewart

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

There are only 545 people who essentially run the entire country. Americans are 300,000,000 strong.

It only takes a small percentage of that 300,000,000 to change policy.
Why is it we Americans are so weak that we stand around and do nothing when a major problem is staring us in the face? That’s not the American can-do spirit for which we are known.

All it takes is an idea that will sweep the country like a fast-moving infectious virus and gas prices will come down almost instantly.

Why are those 545 people purposely doing everything in their power to cut America off at her knees, while no such restrictions are being observed by any other country? The U. S. Congress has made almost all areas for drilling for oil, natural gas and mining coal on our sovereign lands, off limits. We cannot convert coal to oil. We cannot build any new hydro-electric, gas, coal or nuclear fired power plants and we can’t build any new refineries. What possible reasons could justify such derelict actions by our elected officials? The reason is they are pandering to the national and international radical environmentalists and socialists who have conquered America and taken her over without a shot being fired, for what has become a religious cult, coupled with mass hysteria over the environment!

Oil is literally the life blood of our economy. Cut it off or restrict it and our economy dies, or erupts into an upward inflation spiral as it is doing now. The question is, are we Americans going to force this congress to reverse course on crude oil extraction, in the interest of the American people and America’s economy? Or are we just going to complain and do nothing? And why on earth would we consciously make oil sheiks and dictators rich beyond their wildest dreams with our money, when we can do something about it? Why indeed!

Do you want to see gas prices come down? All it takes is a significant percentage of the American people to demand that those 545 people who control America, instantly open up areas of all known oil reserves in the United States to oil exploration by the oil companies. That’s it! The U. S. Congress could make it happen in a week, if they had the will and the anger of the American people urging them. The American people’s anger is there in spades, but the will of the U. S. Congress has to be forced upon them by those angry Americans. And don’t buy into this garbage about man-caused global warming (MCGW), CO2 emission limits and the cap and trade fraud. MCGW was invented by government and radical environmentalists to control and tax you. Its authors are international, one-world-order elitists and they will have their way if we don’t stop them. And don’t buy into the greed of the oil companies. That’s the pure propaganda of government to direct you away from who really is responsible; them. In fact, most of the oil profits are going to the dictators of government-run oil producing nations, like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

So how do we convince the U. S. Congress to act? Let the American people know who is causing the high gas prices and get the American people to "esplain" it to the perpetrators, in no uncertain terms.

Here is a one solution, if done on a large enough scale, has an absolute guarantee of success. We propose a simple little image that can be printed up on sheets of 10-up, 2” x 4” mailing labels that are manufactured by Avery. The blank labels can be purchased at any office supply store for pennies. This simple image would be posted on gas station pumps every time an angry American fills up his or her gas tank. It could sweep the country in a matter of 30 to 60 days and we could see relief at the pumps shortly thereafter, if the Congress acts appropriately under the political pressure. If Congress doesn’t act, we can get even angrier and Hell hath no fury than a whole bunch of angry Americans. Above is the image we propose. We call it the “High Gas Price Gas Pump Sticker”.

This High Gas Price Gas Pump Sticker, with instructions, is also available on the NARLO website at www.narlo.org/hgp.html.

To insure maximum distribution of this image and the WORD document, send it on to your e-mail list, encouraging the recipients to do the same. Also, print up these Avery sheets, cut them up in individual images and pass them out to others you know.

WE THE PEOPLE have more power than those 545 disconnected people in Washington DC. All we need do is exercise that power for what we know is right. Don’t let the 545 people in Washington DC, reduce America to the level of a third-world country. In the honor of those brave souls that came before you that defended our freedom, let’s show the rest of the world that we still have some American “hot” red blood running through our veins. When we pull this off, you can watch the speculators of oil run for cover. Just think. Some of those speculators, that have been bringing you pain at the pumps, could go broke, the dictators will lose some of their power and our money could stay in the U. S. where it belongs.

And you Canadians, you can apply the same pressure on your government by coming up with your own “High Gas Price Sticker”. But for God’s sake, do something to save yourself from the tyranny of an out-of-control government, before it is too late! We are Americans. We can do anything when we put our minds and our backs to it.

This High Gas Price Gas Pump Sticker, with instructions, is also available on the NARLO website at http://www.narlo.org/hgp.html.

One final note. We wish to acknowledge and to thank Mr. Frank Flettre of Duval, WA,, a consistent NARLO supporter, for giving us this idea.

Ron Ewart, President, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RURAL LANDOWNERS. An organization dedicated to re-establish, preserve, protect and defend property rights
Ron can be reached at:

r.ewart@comcast.net

Arizona already has a law to keep mentally ill from obtaining guns

2008-06-16T17:17:00.006-07:00

By Ken Rineer

In a story in the Arizona Daily Star ("Loopholes allow the troubled to arm," June 7), Associated Press journalist Arthur H. Rotstein wrote, "But Arizona has no law requiring the information concerning mentally ill citizens be sent to the national databank. And none is in the works."

Rotstein quoted State Rep. Pete Hershberger, R-Tucson, as saying, "Requiring that would be very difficult to do in Arizona because of the political climate, and it would be a very difficult path to decide where to draw the line. But that's not to say that it's not appropriate."

Hogwash! Rotstein should do his homework before making such a claim and Rep. Hershberger should know better — he has been in the Legislature for a long time.

The Arizona Revised Statutes are clear. ARS 36-540 subparagraph N states, "If a person has been found, as a result of a mental disorder, to constitute a danger to self or others and the court enters an order for treatment pursuant to subsection A of this section, the court shall grant access to the person's name, date of birth, Social Security number, date of commitment and, on termination of treatment by court order, date of termination to the Department of Public Safety to comply with the requirements of Title 13, Chapter 31 and Title 32, Chapter 26."

In the Arizona Department of Public Safety's fiscal 2007 annual report, on Page 98, it is stated, "In May 2007, Maricopa and Pima County authorities began submitting information to DPS on persons adjudicated as mentally defective who are subsequently prohibited from possessing, transferring and purchasing firearms. Submission protocols are being developed by four additional counties while dialogue continues with the nine remaining jurisdictions. The information is exchanged with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and indexed into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The NICS database is used by licensed firearm dealers to determine eligibility for firearms purchases."

A judge determined that David Nickolas Delich, the suspect in the killing of Tucson police Officer Erik Hite, was a danger to himself or others in 2004, after this law was passed in 2003.
On Jan. 8, HR 2640, a bill to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, became Public Law 110-180. This federal legislation provides grant money to states and tribal governments to adopt systems to report individuals who have been barred from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons to the National Instant Check System.

This information was widely reported, including in this paper. If a state or tribal government does not comply, monies will be withheld from them as a penalty.

What is the media's fixation on loopholes when no loophole exists?

Place the blame squarely where it belongs, on Delich, not some ghost loophole.

However, I suggest an investigation into why Delich was not in the system as a prohibited possessor and which law-enforcement agency or court dropped the ball.

Write to Ken Rineer at purist2@juno.com .

Ken Rineer is President of Gun Owners of Arizona (GOAz)

Pat Buchanan's Message to Obama

2008-06-13T16:02:00.010-07:00

by Patrick J. Buchanan

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no government anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Barack talks about new "ladders of opportunity" for blacks.

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for "deserving" white kids.

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.

Living in FEMA Land II

2008-06-13T15:36:00.009-07:00

FEMA gives away $85 million of supplies for Katrina victims

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- FEMA gave away about $85 million in household goods meant for Hurricane Katrina victims, a CNN investigation has found.

The material, from basic kitchen goods to sleeping necessities, sat in warehouses for two years before the Federal Emergency Management Agency's giveaway to federal and state agencies this year.

James McIntyre, FEMA's acting press secretary, said that FEMA was spending more than $1 million a year to store the material and that another agency wanted the warehouses torn down, so "we needed to vacate them."

"Upon review of our assets and our need to continue to store them, we determined that they were excess to FEMA's needs; therefore, they are being excessed from FEMA's inventory," McIntyre wrote in an e-mail.

He declined a request for an on-camera interview, telling CNN the giveaway was "not news."
Photos from one of the facilities in Fort Worth, Texas, show pallet after pallet of cots, cleansers, first-aid kits, coffee makers, camp stoves and other items stacked to the ceiling.

FEMA said some of the items were donations from companies after Katrina, but most were purchased in the field as "starter kits" for people living in trailers provided by the agency. And even though the stocks were offered to state agencies after FEMA decided to get rid of them, one of the states that passed was Louisiana.

Martha Kegel, the head of a New Orleans nonprofit agency that helps find homes for those still displaced by the storm, said she was shocked to learn about the existence of the goods and the government giveaway.

"These are exactly the items that we are desperately seeking donations of right now: basic kitchen household supplies," said Kegel, executive director of Unity of Greater New Orleans. "These are the very things that we are seeking right now. FEMA, in fact, refers homeless clients to us to house them. How can we house them if we don't have basic supplies?"

Watch the great FEMA giveaway »
Kegel's group works with FEMA and other local organizations to rehouse victims of Katrina, the 2005 hurricane that flooded New Orleans and killed more than 1,800 people along the Gulf Coast. Community groups say thousands of people are still living in abandoned buildings in the city, though fewer than 100 people remain housed in tents.

Kegel said FEMA was told in regular meetings that Unity was desperate for household supplies and that the group has been forced to beg for donations. But she said FEMA never told Unity and other community groups that it had tens of millions of dollars worth of brand-new items meant for storm victims.

She said she learned of it from CNN, which found that those items never made it to people such as Debra Reed.

"An honest person like me didn't get nothing," said Reed, 54, who recently moved from a tent beneath a New Orleans bridge to a home with the help of Kegel's group. "I'm gonna turn, 'cause I'm gonna cry. I didn't get nothing. I fought to get my money, but they wouldn't give it to me. So I ended up going under the bridge."

FEMA confirmed that it had kept the merchandise in storage for the past two years and then gave it away to cities, schools, fire departments and nonprofit agencies such as food banks. In all, General Services Administration records show, FEMA gave away 121 truckloads of material.

McIntyre said that most of the items given away were not "standard-issue type supplies" that FEMA would have distributed after other disasters. He said that using the GSA, which manages federal property, to get rid of those stockpiles was "standard process."

Asked whether FEMA believed that

Katrina victims no longer needed the items, McIntyre wrote: "If the state did not request the supplies, then FEMA would not know." Watch Kegel describe "the needs are just overwhelming" »

Pallets at the Fort Worth warehouse were piled high with boxes of buckets, boots, cleansers, mops and brooms. There were stacks of tents, lanterns and camp stoves for people still displaced, as well as clothing, bedding, plates and utensils.

Meanwhile, Kegel said, Unity's clients can take only "one fork, one spoon, one knife; they can only take one plate. We don't have enough to go around."

But FEMA said the items were no longer needed in the stricken region. So it declared them "federal surplus" and gave them away.

Federal agencies such as the Bureau of Prisons, Postal Service and Border Patrol got first dibs on the material when FEMA started giving it away. Other agencies that received items include the National Guard, U.S. Marshals Service, the Air Force and Navy and the departments of Agriculture, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security, according to a list the GSA provided to CNN.

These items also were offered to all states -- yet Louisiana, where most of the people displaced by the storm live, passed on taking any of them.

John Medica, director of the Louisiana Federal Property Assistance Agency in Baton Rouge, said he was unaware that Katrina victims still had a need for the household supplies.

"We didn't have anybody out there who told us they wanted it," Medica said.
Instead, 16 other states took the free items.

"Louisiana Recovery Authority Director Paul Rainwater is taking the lead on determing where this serious breakdown in communication occured and ... is working to pursue options for the state to still make use of these important supplies," said Michael DiResto of the Division of Administration.
DiResto said Rainwater has already taken up the issue with a FEMA official.

Kegel said she could not understand how Medica could not be aware of the need in the New Orleans area.

She said she had not heard of the agency and was not registered with them, but after CNN's interview, the agency contacted her about registering Unity of Greater New Orleans so it could qualify for available supplies in the future

Federal judge has porn on his website

2008-06-11T13:11:00.012-07:00

From the Los Angeles Times

9th Circuit's chief judge posted sexually explicit matter on his website

By Scott Glover
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 11, 2008

One of the highest-ranking federal judges in the United States, who is currently presiding over an obscenity trial in Los Angeles, has maintained his own publicly accessible website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos.

Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, acknowledged in an interview with The Times that he had posted the materials, which included a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal. Some of the material was inappropriate, he conceded, although he defended other sexually explicit content as "funny.

"Kozinski, 57, said that he thought the site was for his private storage and that he was not aware the images could be seen by the public, although he also said he had shared some material on the site with friends. After the interview Tuesday evening, he blocked public access to the site.

Asked whether the contents of his site should force him to step aside from the pending obscenity trial, Kozinski declined to comment. Opening statements in the trial are scheduled for this morning. In the case, Ira Isaacs, a filmmaker based in Los Angeles, is accused of distributing criminally obscene sexual-fetish videos depicting bestiality and defecation.

Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor who specializes in legal ethics, told The Times that Kozinski should recuse himself from the Isaacs case because "the public can reasonably question his objectivity" concerning the issues at hand.

Gillers, who has known Kozinski for years and called him "a treasure of the federal judiciary," said he took the judge at his word that he did not know the site was publicly available. But he said Kozinski was "seriously negligent" in allowing it to be discovered.

"The phrase 'sober as a judge' resonates with the American public," Gillers said. "We don't want them to reveal their private selves publicly. This is going to upset a lot of people."

Gillers said the disclosure would be humiliating for Kozinski and would "harm his reputation in many quarters," but that the controversy should die there.

He added, however, that if the public concludes the website was intended for the sharing of pornographic material, "that's a transgression of another order."

"It would be very hard for him to come back from that," he said.

Kozinski said he would delete some material from his site, including the photo depicting women as cows, which he said was "degrading . . . and just gross." He also said he planned to get rid of a graphic step-by-step pictorial in which a woman is seen shaving her pubic hair.

Kozinski said he must have accidentally uploaded those images to his server while intending to upload something else. "I would not keep those files intentionally," he said. The judge pointed out that he never used appeals court computers to maintain the site.

The sexually explicit material on Kozinski's site earlier this week was extensive, including images of masturbation, public sex and contortionist sex. There was a slide show striptease featuring a transsexual, and a folder that contained a series of photos of women's crotches as seen through snug fitting clothing or underwear. There were also themes of defecation and urination, though they are not presented in a sexual context.

Kozinski, who was named chief judge of the 9th Circuit last year, is considered a judicial conservative on most issues. He was appointed to the federal bench by then-President Ronald Reagan in 1985. He has a national reputation for a brilliant legal mind and has developed a reputation as a champion of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression. Several year ago, for example, after learning that appeals court administrators had placed filters on computers that denied access to pornography and other materials, Kozinski led a successful effort to have the filters removed.

The judge said it was strictly by chance that he wound up presiding over the Issacs trial in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. Appeals court judges occasionally hear criminal cases when they have free time on their calendars and the Isaacs case was one of two he was given, the judge said.

Kozinski said he didn't think any of the material he posted on his website would qualify as obscene."Is it prurient? I don't know what to tell you," he said. "I think it's odd and interesting. It's part of life."

Before the site was taken down, visitors to http://alex.kozinski.com were greeted with the message: "Ain't nothin' here. Y'all best be movin' on, compadre."

Only those who knew to type in the name of a subdirectory could see the content on the site, which also included some of Kozinski's essays and legal writings as well as music files and personal photos.

The judge said he began saving the sexually explicit materials and other items of interest years ago."People send me stuff like this all the time," he said.

He keeps the things he finds interesting or funny with the thought that he might later pass them on to friends, he said.

scott.glover@latimes.com

Times staff writers Ben Welsh and Eric Ulken contributed to this report.

Living in FEMA Land

2008-06-11T12:45:00.005-07:00

BILOXI, MS) June 3 -- What are people who receive FEMA assistance doing
to help themselves? That's the question NBC 15's Andrea Ramey asked
those who have been staying for free in hotel rooms after they moved out
of FEMA supplied travel trailers. What she found out is there are some
who are doing very little.

The scorching heat puts many at the Quality Inn poolside, but for
Gwenester Malone, she chooses to beat the heat by setting her thermostat
to sixty degrees. Malone's room for the past three months, along with
three meals daily, have all been paid for by taxpayers.

"Do you work?" asked NBC 15's Andrea Ramey.

"No. I'm not working right now," said Malone.

Malone says she can't drive and it's too hot outside to find work within
walking distance. "Since the storm, I haven't had any energy or pep to
go get a job, but when push comes to shove, I will," said Malone.

Just a few blocks away, Kelley Christian also stays at a hotel for free.
She says she's not taking advantage of her situation, but admits it's
easy to do. "It's too easy. You know, once you're there, you don't have
to pay rent," said Christian. "I kept putting it off and putting it off
and now, I'm tired of putting it off."

She says she'll be out of the hotel and in an apartment by the end of
the month. Push came to shove for Christian when police found a meth lab
in a hotel room directly below her. "All kind of people in white suits
pulled all kind of chemicals out here. There was enough to line up about
three cars worth of chemicals. It scared the heck of me," said Christian.

Taxpayers also paid for that meth lab. The men police arrested were
receiving FEMA assistance. The hotel owner says he'll now have to spend
$5,000 to clean out the room.

As for Malone, she says she's not seeing any drug activity at her hotel.
It's too nice she says. Why would she want to leave?

FEMA has not been able to provide the exact totals as to how much all
the meals and hotel rooms are costing taxpayers, but FEMA has said
repeatedly it works with people continuously to find permanent housing,
and it will not leave anyone homeless.

Since Katrina hit the Gulf Coast nearly three years ago, the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Mississippi has charged more than 275 people with
FEMA fraud.

Reported by: Andrea Ramey
WPMI TV NBC Ch 15
Mobile, AL
Email: aramey@nbc15online.com

Benz Speaks! How much is a billion?

2008-06-11T12:03:00.005-07:00

This is too true to be funny.

The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend,but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of it's releases.

A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.

A billion dollars ago was only
8 hours and 20 minutes,
at the rate our government
is spending it.

While this thought is still fresh in our brain...
let's take a look at New Orleans ...
It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.

Louisiana Senator,
Mary Landrieu (D)
is presently asking Congress for
250 BILLION DOLLARS
to rebuild New Orleans ..

Interesting number...
what does it mean?
Well... if you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans
(every man, woman, and child)
you each get $516,528

Or... if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.
Or... if you are a family of four...
your family gets $2,066,012.

Politicians and Bureaucrats, wherever you are

Are all your calculators broken??

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax Luxury Tax Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax Road Usage Tax (Truckers) Sales Taxes Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago...and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt...

We had the largest middle class in the world...

and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What happened?

Can you spell 'politicians!'

And I still have to press '1' for English.

I hope this goes around the USA at least 100 times

What the heck happened????

Benz Speaks! An Arab-American Woman Speaks To The Muslim Community

2008-06-03T16:04:00.004-07:00

A reader writes:

Allen,

"Can you put this on your blog or write it to publish? This is one of those messages that needs to be heard far and wide........One voice of wisdom in the chaos of the media. Like Bill Cosby's message to the Black community, this one speaks to all Muslims to clean up their own act before slashing everyone else's. Ever wonder why we call ancient people "civilizations"? They all ated in barbaric ways to their conquered people....kill and rob in all directions. Help yourself to any others anytime anywhere.....The superior force got to slash and burn. Maybe this woman is trying to say that it's time human beings stop murdering in the name of religion of any kind and spend their energies not in revenge but in contructive pursuits. I agree with her. She is brave andcourageous....."

WATCH THIS BEFORE IT'S TAKEN OFF THE WEB

It is extremely surprising that the Arab financed TV in Dubai would allow this to air.

Be sure and watch this, it is so powerful. She is one impressive woman. Here is a powerful and amazing statement on Al Jereeza television.

The woman is Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American psychologist from Los Angeles.

I would suggest watching it ASAP because I don't know how long the link will be active.

This film clip ( 05:28 ) should be shown around the world repeatedly!

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=nul

Benz Speaks! - As we approach this Memorial Day Weekend...

2008-05-23T16:03:00.009-07:00

... in a lot of the corporate boardrooms across America, there is no patriotism. Many of America's largest companies have rejected various requests to say the Pledge of Allegiance before the start of their annual stockholders' meetings. The pieces below, I think, show this quite. well.

Corporate Elites Reject Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S.

by Ralph Nader

Dozens of America's largest and most famous corporations have refused a modest request to recite the pledge of allegiance at their annual shareholders meetings. In response to a written request by left-leaning free trade opponent Ralph Nader, only one of 100 CEO's of America's biggest corporations said that reciting the pledge was a good idea. Most did not respond or rejected the idea outright.

In his letter, Nader asked the CEO's "to establish a regular practice at every annual shareholders meeting whereby you and the board of directors stand and, in the name of your domestically chartered corporation, pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it stands.....

Carol Sanger, vice president of Ohio-based Federated Department Stores, Inc., gave the only positive response, saying "we...think it would be a positive statement on many levels." But the other tycoons ignored the request or denounced it as a bad idea.

Aetna Insurance CEO Richmond Huber told Nader, "I believe that demanding recitations of allegiance -in language that may not reflect the beliefs of all persons present -is actually contrary to the principles on which our democracy was founded."

August Busch of Anheuser-Busch said his company does not want to be linked to the U. S., saying "While our company headquarters remains in St. Louis, we are a global company."
He said that the company's shareholders meetings "include many international employees, shareholders, representatives, and visitors."

Other responses to the pledge request:

Allstate: AMOCO: Anheuser-Busch ARCO: Caterpillar: Citicorp: Delta Airlines: Ford: GM: Hewlett-Packard: Johnson & Johnson: J.P. Morgan: Kimberly-Clark: Kodak: 3M: MCI: Motorola: New York Life: Prudential: RJR Nabisco:

"inappropriate" "does not plan to include" "we see no reason to" "no plans to do so" "would not be productive" "not our practice" "will not implement" "inappropriate" "unnecessary" would "not be productive" "not appropriate" "we do not agree" "not. ..appropriate" "would not be productive" "unacceptable" "unacceptable" "will not be adopting" will "not consider" "do not plan on" it "not at this time"

Patriotism in the Boardroom

by Patrick J Buchanan

Not until two-thirds of the states ratified the Constitution did America become one nation under God. Yet some patriots still date the birth of the nation to Philadelphia, July 4, 1776.

And as we celebrated the 222nd anniversary of that glorious day, many feared we are losing our country. The new century, we are instructed, wilI see an end of nations, as each surrenders its sovereignty to immerse itself in the Global Economy.

Across the Atlantic, the nations of Europe are giving up control of currencies, economies and borders to the European Union. New power centers replace old capitals, and a mighty rival has risen up to chalIenge the nation-state -the transnational corporation.

"General Motors now has a bigger budget than the government of Denmark," writes the traditionalist newsletter Triumph of the Past, "Toyota surpasses Norway, WalMart tops Poland, and Ford exceeds South Africa. Mitsubishi and Unilever outsize Indonesia and Vietnam. In fact, the hundred biggest economies in the world are equally divided between businesses and governments." As America headquarters more of these behemoth businesses than any country, we are told the future belongs to us.

But are these transnationals completely loyal to America?

Corporate gadfly Ralph Nader decided to test the issue. He wrote to the 100 largest U.S. corporations, urging that, at their next shareholders meetings, their CEOs lead the company in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States. From the responses, one would have thought "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy had just demanded that the entire 1950 Harvard facl,llty take a loyalty oath.

"[D]emanding recitations of allegiance -in language that may not reflect the beliefs of all persons present -is actually contrary to the principles on which our democracy was founded," thundered Dick Huber of Aetna, of a pledge some of us took every school day.

Allstate said the pledge of allegiance would be "inappropriate at a business meeting." Why? Countless unions open their meetings with it. August Busch of Anheuser-Busch declared, "While our company headquarters remains in St. Louis, we are a global company." Our shareholders' meetings, he went on, "include many international employees, shareholders, representatives and visitors."

But if U.S. Olympic medal winners can stand in silence as the national anthems of other athletes are played, why cannot foreign visitors stand in respect as August A. Busch III booms out the pledge of allegiance to the flag and republic of the United States?

Arco and Amoco said no. AT&T said it would consider it. Defense contractor Hewlitt-Packard said a pledge of allegiance to the flag would "not be a productive use of time." Said Boeing, "It is the opinion of the board that it is not necessary to institute the practice you propose." Boeing's CEO Phil Condit two years ago expressed his hope that the world, 20 years hence, would no longer see Boeing as an American company but a global one.

,Bristol-Myers found the suggestion of a pledge of allegiance "an interesting one which we have not considered before.... We will have to carefully consider whether the proposal advances the best interests of the company, its shareholders and employees."

Caterpillar "concluded that a symbolic once-a-year gesture would not be a productive use of our time at our stockholders' meeting." But a recital of the flag pledge takes 15 seconds!

Calling itself an "international company," Coca-Cola said, "If a share owner were to propose that we pledge allegiance, we would certainly consider it in the context of our global business." Dayton-Hudson called the pledge not "consistent with the goal of running an efficient annual meeting."

Delta said no.

Kodak said a pledge of allegiance to the flag "would not be a productive use of our shareholders' time." Kodak must "maintain a global perspective to compete effectively in a global economy."

Ford Motor does "not believe that the concept of 'corporate allegiance' is possible." 3M said it would be "disrespectful" to other countries where it operates "to ask them to be bound by a pledge of allegiance to a country not their own." But in what country does 3M belong?

American taxpayers guarantee the Export-Import Bank loans of these companies; we bailout their investments via the International Monetary Fund; U.S. Marines have been sent to protect their property; and U.S. consular officials and presidents have promoted their sales. If they cannot pledge loyalty to America, why should Americans be loyal to them?

Consider the response of Federated Stores: Good idea; we will take it up!

Happy Independence Day! And may Americans never stop celebrating it, our global corporate elite notwithstanding.

McCain Dumps Both Hagee and Parsley

2008-05-23T15:20:00.002-07:00

By RICK KLEIN with JOHN SANTUCCI

May 23, 2008

This is one way to avoid those new baggage surcharges.
Sen. John McCain's rough run continues -- the unending stream of lobbyists now joined by a new pastor and an old pastor in being shown the door. (One day, two rejected endorsements -- there's a sign of cardiovascular strength.)
Whose health should give us more concern -- McCain's, or the McCain campaign's?
Much more on the former Friday -- with the release of his long-delayed medical records. (Three hours for 400 pages -- read fast -- and the AP got a preview to set the day's agenda.)
As for the campaign -- Team McCain unloads the laundry in a week where the main story has still been the Democrats. But all that time to rest and rejuvenate while the Democrats spar has resulted in what, exactly?
McCain, R-Ariz., may be a young and vibrant 71, but his campaign (in the midst of its roughest week since wrapping up the nomination) suddenly seems tired before its time.
"Republicans are increasingly concerned that he could wind up badly outgunned, saddled with serious deficiencies in money, organization and partisan intensity against the likely Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama," Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen report for Politico.
"After making a promising debut as their nominee, McCain has worried many Republicans by seeming to flounder during the past few weeks," they write. "Some see the McCain campaign as a pale imitation of the well-financed Bush campaigns, both models of precision and ruthless efficiency."
The AP's Philip Elliott: "Republican John McCain has been slow to take advantage of his potential head start for the presidency against Democrats, who are better organized and generate more excitement among voters."
It was the Nazi comments that put McCain over the edge with the Rev. John Hagee, after months of controversy over the endorsement: "crazy and unacceptable," he called Hagee's words, in rejecting his endorsement perhaps minutes before Hagee withdrew it.
"A source close to McCain told ABC News the Arizona senator thinks these sentiments [about Hitler doing God's will] are crazy, and that back in February when the campaign accepted Hagee's endorsement, no one on the campaign, and certainly not McCain, had any idea that Hagee believed these types of things," ABC's Jake Tapper reports.
The Rev. Rod Parsley joined Hagee overboard -- and it only took hours, not months, for McCain to toss him there.
"I believe there is no place for that kind of dialogue in America, and I believe that even though he endorsed me, and I didn't endorse him, the fact is that I repudiate such talk, and I reject his endorsement," McCain said in a statement Thursday, per ABC's Bret Hovell.
Just hours earlier, ABC's Brian Ross reported on "Good Morning America" that Parsley had called Islam "the mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil," and said Islam is an "anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world."
It all serves to obscure McCain's message: "At the start of his Northern California fundraising and campaign trip, the dominant news of the day was not on McCain's official agenda," per the San Francisco Chronicle's Carla Marinucci and John Wildermuth.
"McCain's visit underscored how the senator's presidential campaign has been challenged on multiple fronts by potentially damaging news. Those stories included the planned and limited release of his health records to a handful of media outlets today -- raising questions about his medical history -- along with a new focus on his ties to lobbyists."
What makes the Hagee/Parsley issues particularly troublesome for McCain is the damage it does to the his brand; how easy is it to point out that this would not have happened to McCain 2000?
"Mr. McCain has been courting Christian conservatives after attacking them eight years ago as 'agents of intolerance,' " Neela Banerjee and Michael Luo write in The New York Times. "The latest Hagee remarks to surface may strike at the heart of Mr. McCain's efforts to reach a critical group of voters, Jews, some of whom have viewed Mr. Obama with suspicion."
"In the end, it was just too much," David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network writes. (And what took so long?)
It could have a lasting impact: "John McCain's rejection of John Hagee's endorsement today is the starkest example yet of McCain's ham handed approach to dealing with the Christian Right and with handling religious matters generally," Beliefnet's Dan Gilgoff writes. "It's a striking contrast to era of George W. Bush."
Gilgoff continues: "Having been newly chastened by the Hagee ordeal, McCain may be loath to reach out to other Religious Right figures. Come November, that cold shoulder could have McCain in more political hot water than controversial endorsements from evangelical leaders."

McCain, Parsley and Hagee

2008-05-22T16:03:00.004-07:00

McCain Pastor: Islam Is a 'Conspiracy of Spiritual Evil'

By BRIAN ROSS, AVNI PATEL and REHAB EL-BURI

May 22, 2008—

Despite his call for the U.S. to win the "hearts and minds of the Islamic world," Sen. John McCain recruited the support of an evangelical minister who describes Islam as "anti-Christ" and Mohammed as "the mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil."
McCain sought the support of Pastor Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, Ohio at a critical time in his campaign in February, when former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was continuing to draw substantial support from the Christian right.
At a campaign appearance in Cincinnati, McCain introduced Parsley as "one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide."
Campaign aides positioned Parsley right behind McCain for photographers, apparently unconcerned about Parsley's well-established denunciations of the Islamic faith in a book "Silent No More" and on DVDs of sermons about Islam.
"Islam is an anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world," Parsley says on the DVDs reviewed by ABC News.
"America was founded with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed," Parsley says, "and I believe Sept. 11, 2001 was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."
Parsley's views and his connection to the McCain campaign are now beginning to show up on Arab Web sites and newspapers.
Al Moheet, a regional Arabic Web site operating in Egypt, carries the story with a picture of McCain and the headline: "McCain's Spiritual Adviser Calls for the Destruction of Islam."
"If there is a McCain presidency, he will start with a serious handicap in the Arab world," said former CIA intelligence officer John Kiriakou. "And the handicap is that it is already assumed in Muslim countries that they will not get a fair shake from a McCain administration," said Kiriakou.
In a statement to ABC News about Parsley's comments, McCain's campaign said the senator "obviously strongly rejects such statements." The campaign did not answer the question of whether it was aware of Parsley's widely publicized statements prior to seeking his endorsement in February.
McCain has not disassociated himself from the pastor, but the campaign statement said, "Just because someone endorses John McCain doesn't mean he endorses all of their views."
McCain has repeatedly urged the U.S. to show respect for Islam. "Our goal must be to win the 'hearts and minds' of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists," McCain told the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles on March 26.
But well before he was asked to endorse McCain, Pastor Parsley took a much different view about moderate Muslims in his book and sermons. "I would counter respectfully that what some people call extremists are instead mainstream Muslim believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam," he said.
McCain said in his March speech, "We must remember that our freedoms are not only defended by our diplomacy and military power but, very importantly, by the decency and respect with which we treat one another."
Parsley says he can be silent no more about Islam. "I will rail against the idea that the God of Christianity and the God of Islam are the same being. I will sound the alarm about the pernicious agenda of the enemies of my country and the cross of my Christ, and I will proclaim the truth at every opportunity."
Parsley, through a spokesperson at his church, declined to be interviewed by ABC News.
In a statement, a spokesperson, Gene Pierce, said Parsley's comments "were in response to militant Islamic leaders' repeated pledges to kill Americans and destroy the United States and Western culture and democracies."
His Web site, said the spokesperson, "also makes a distinction between Muslim terrorists and the vast majority of peaceful Muslims."
Parsley says he has served in the public ministry for more than 30 years and now has a congregation of more than 12,000 people.
He hosts the television show "Breakthrough" on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, aired on 1,400 television and cable channels around the world.
Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

Benz Speaks! - - Approval of U.S. Congress lower than Bush

2008-05-14T12:35:00.003-07:00

Gee! What a surprise!!

I wonder why??

Could it possibly have something to do with behavior of its members -- both at work and after work?????

Published: May 14, 2008 at 10:23 AM

WASHINGTON, May 14 (UPI) -- The approval rating of the U.S. Congress dropped to near-record levels and is lower than U.S. President George Bush's mark, a Gallup poll indicates.The telephone survey of 1,017 U.S. adults indicates 18 percent of those interviewed May 8-11 approve of the current Congress. The score matches record lows from similar Gallup polls in August 2007 and March 1992.Gallup said Wednesday the reason for the low approval rating is because "rank-and-file Democrats are providing no support cushion for the Democratic-controlled institution."The same poll indicated approval ratings of Bush hover around his record lows, with 29 percent of respondents voicing support for the president.Gallup reported a sampling error of 3 percentage points.

Race Cards and Speech Codes

2008-05-14T11:14:00.007-07:00

By Patrick J Buchanan

"Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

So said Bill Clinton in New Hampshire of Obama's claim to have been a constant opponent of the war. Clinton cited Obama's voting record, which was the same as Hillary's in his early Senate years.

Yet, for this, the ex-president, designated by Toni Morrison as "our first black president," was charged with playing the race card.Clinton spent days explaining the "fairy tale" remark.Came then the morning of the South Carolina primary, where Barack was rolling up a smashing victory. Bill volunteered: "Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina, twice, in '84 and '88. And he ran a good campaign, and Sen. Obama's running a good campaign."That broke it. Bill Clinton was openly "playing the race card."Now, undoubtedly, Clinton was trying to belittle, to diminish the importance of the South Carolina vote for Obama. But why is it racist to say what Clinton was implying: That, in a Southern state where a huge share of the Democratic vote is African-American, a strong black presidential candidate can be expected to do well?Political history proves this. What is racist about saying it?Aware of the truism, every political analyst was looking closely at the racial breakdown of the South Carolina vote.Last week came Hillary's turn. After her victory in Indiana and loss in North Carolina, which pundits said rang down the curtain on her presidential bid, she advanced an argument candidates have used since primary elections began. "I can win -- and my opponent can't."The argument was made against Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan.In an interview with USA TODAY, Hillary argued that the coalition she has put together would be stronger against John McCain than the coalition Barack has cobbled together.She began by relating an AP article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.""There's a pattern emerging here," said Hillary. "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on."This shot Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post into low orbit."As a rationale for why Democratic Party super-delegates should pick her over Obama, it's a slap in the face to the party's most loyal constituency -- African Americans -- and a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry ..."Clinton implies but doesn't quite come out and say ... that Obama is black -- and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist."But Hillary was saying no such thing. Describing her coalition, she was implying that Obama's coalition -- a George McGovern-Jesse Jackson combine embracing 90 percent of African-Americans, plus liberals, students and cause people -- has less chance of beating McCain than does she and her more Middle American coalition.Democrats, not liberal Democrats, are the swing votes who decide presidential races. Here Hillary beats Obama three to two or two to one, North and South.Has she no right to make this argument? Can Brother Robinson explain exactly how Hillary can describe her Ohio-Pennsylvania coalition without using the dread word "white"?Some of the reaction to the Clintons, whose once-universal support among African-Americans has crashed, is due to the immense stake black Americans have come to invest in the Obama candidacy. But some of this is something else, something more sinister.Bill and Hillary Clinton are not playing a race card. Rather, the liberal media and some black journalists with sentimental, emotional or ideological investments in Obama are playing the intimidation card.They are setting limits around what may and may not be said about Obama. They are seeking to censor robust adversarial speech where Barack is concerned, by branding as racists "playing the race card" any who make Barack run the same paces as anyone else.The Clintons are today victims of a double standard that has long been employed against conservatives.Even African-Americans critical of Obama are feeling the lash. In Saturday's Washington Post article, "Black Community Is Increasingly Protective of Obama," reporter Darryl Fears writes, "Standing in the path of Obama's campaign has been dangerous" for prominent blacks.Bill and Hillary have lost luster and sustained damage to their reputations because, in the Democrats' universe, such smears stick. The question for Republicans is whether they will let themselves be intimidated, as they too often are, from using legitimate political weapons to defend what they still have.It is thus a sign of trouble ahead that John McCain declared the Rev. Wright off limits and berated the North Carolina GOP for bringing him up. Let your adversaries circumscribe the content of your campaign, and you usually end up losing your campaign.

Did somebody say something about Government "Budget Deficits"?

2008-05-07T10:44:00.010-07:00

by Dick Fojut

Our State and Local government "BUDGET DEFICITS" may not reflect large SURPLUSES of CAFR money income our governments' ACTUALLY possess! For example: in 2003, the State of Arizona had an $11.45 BILLION SURPLUS of Taxpayers money it was not using! The City of Phoenix had a SURPLUS of $2.34 BILLION! (See details further below.)

WHY ARE MEDIA PEOPLE NOT PUBLICLY ASKING ABOUT THESE LARGE, SOME HUGE, CAFR SURPLUSES OF MONEY?

CAFRS are the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports sent each year to Washington, revealing the ACTUAL financial investment earnings, income, etc., and SURPLUSES of money separately possessed by 84,000 Government related entities - States, Counties, Cities, School Districts, Pension Funds, etc.

A State ONE BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET DEFICIT sounds enormous! (It was in Orange County too years back! See further below how they "solved" their deficit.*)
But publicly reported yearly BUDGETS and BUDGET DEFICITS do not reveal ACTUAL government financial conditions - especially SURPLUSES! Only the CAFRS do!

If there are LARGE SEPARATE ("off normal budget") CAFR SURPLUSES in the State of Arizona, its counties, cities and school districts, etc., it appears possible the proposed money-saving closing of schools, non-hiring, layoffs of teachers and other public employees - and tax increases - may NOT be as critically necessary as thought! (Probably the great majority of government officials, employees - and media editors, reporters are unaware of the CAFRS and CAFR surpluses.)

About the CAFRS: the COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORTS...
Since 1946 (legislated by a wiser Congress), 84,000 Government entities including States, Counties, Cities, School Districts, etc., have been required yearly to report the ACTUAL accumulated financial assets and income they each separately possess.

---------------------------
THE NATIONAL CAFR SCANDAL WAS FIRST EXPOSED BY WALTER BURIEN...

Arizonan Walter Burien http://cafr1.com/ was the first to alert us that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports have intentionally been kept largely "invisible" to the American public, now for over 60 years!

Burien further revealed that:

The composite totals of investment assets held internationally by USA government is staggering. Between local and Federal government, the total of liquid investment assets held Internationally is a conservative sixty (60) Trillion dollars.

- And if Burien is correct with these percentages, note the following incredible revelation about behind-the-scene government ownership of American Big Businesses:

...Government owns most through Bond - Loan investment / stock ownership [EXAMPLES: 82% stock ownership of Microsoft Corporation, Disney 61%, AOL - Time Warner 58%, EXXON 72%] to manufacture abroad so that Government would realize greater returns on their investments at the Peoples of the USA's expense in jobs and wealth retention.

------------------------------

About Arizona specifically...

In 1999 Burien persuaded fellow Arizonan, retired Air Force Intelligence Officer and expert Govenment Auditor, Lt. Colonel Gerald Klatt, to do the necessary accounting to reveal the yearly CAFRS for some 39 States including Arizona - along with the two major Arizona counties and some cities. Colonel Klatt (cafrman.com), did so each year - until he died in 2004. The following CAFR reports are only through 2003. (But it should reasonably be expected that the CAFR government surpluses TODAY in 2008 total MORE than shown through 2003.) Valid question: Are the current proposals to cut teachers, government employees, services and increase taxes REALLY necessary? Consider the following...

Separate CAFR surpluses in Arizona through the year 2003 (from Klatt's website)...

The State of Arizona Has At Least $11.45 Billion In Surpluses of the Taxpayers Money it is not using.
FY 2003 Report
http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-AZ-S1.htm
----------------------
Phoenix Has At Least $2.34 Billion In Surpluses of the Taxpayers Money it is not using.
FY 2003 Report
http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Phoenix-AZ-CY1.htm
---------------
Maricopa County Has At Least $845 Million In Surpluses of the Taxpayers Money it is not using.
FY 2003 Report
http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-MaricopaCounty-AZ-C1.htm
-------------------
Pima County Has At Least $239 Million In Surpluses of the Taxpayers Money it is not using.
FY 2003 Report
http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-PimaCounty-AZ-C1.htm
-----------------
Scottsdale Has At Least $483 million In Surpluses of the Taxpayers Money it is not using.
FY 2003 Report
http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Scottsdale-AZ-CY1.htm
---------------
Tempe Has At Least $341 Million In Surpluses of the Taxpayers Money it is not using.
FY 2003 Report
http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Tempe-AZ-CY1.htm
-----------
Glendale Has At Least $385 Million In Surpluses of the Taxpayers Money it is not using.
FY 2003 Report
http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Glendale-AZ-C1.htm
----------------
Mesa Has At Least $245.4 Million In Surpluses of the Taxpayers Money it is not using.
FY 2003 Report
http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Mesa-AZ-CY1.htm
---------------
One nearby State...
The State of CALIFORNIA Has At Least $59.83 Billion In Surpluses of the Taxpayers Money it is not using.
http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-CA-S1.htm
FY 2003 Report

"RAINY DAY FUNDS."
I've lived in Tucson for over 50 years, but until about year 2000 when some of us asked about the CAFRS, I had never heard about any "RAINY DAY FUND" - that our then County Manager said he "didn't want to dip into." Soon after, the then Arizona Governor also mentioned "not wanting to dip into the State RAINY DAY FUND." Recently on TV I heard one Network commentator say that some States may have to "dip into their RAINY DAY FUNDS." I am suspicious the term "RAINY DAY FUND" has been presented locally and nationally, to avoid admitting the existence of the publicly unknown (often HUGE) CAFR surpluses of money funds not being used (or returned to Taxpayers) by local and State governments!

----------------------------

*Referred to at top, about another (past) ONE BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET DEFICIT - in Orange County, California... The following is extracted from Burien's article further down "CAFRS: THE BIGGEST SECRET"

* When Orange County lost a little over $1 billion in derivatives investments, they were crying "poverty" and threatening to shut down schools, police would have to be laid off etc. However someone dug into the Orange County CAFR and found out that the county had about $16 billion in profitable investments! The county, from their profitable liquid investment funds / cash position could have continued performing the same services, without collecting one dime in taxes, and could have done so for another 11.9 years from the existing funds prior to running out of money! The crying stopped.

* While he was a Mayor, Jesse Ventura's city council wanted to raise $360,000 in taxes to cover a short fall on their "city budget for schools." Ventura objected when he discovered the city owned $48,000,000 in idle investments funds from which the $360,000 could be drawn from without raising taxes!

From Walter Burien's current website...

THE GOVERNMENT OWNS IT "ALL" BY INVESTMENT - By Walter Burien
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report - CAFR
http://cafr1.com/
May 2, 2008

Excerpts only...

THE CAFR SHELL GAME - THE REVOLUTION - BE A PART OF IT!

"GROSS" INCOME of government is now 1/3rd "TAX" income and 2/3rds NON-TAX income derived from: return on INVESTMENTS and money generated from government Enterprise projects.

------------------
Any Company or in fact Country can be "made" or "broken" through the use of those government investment funds. China just cut off further new US "Government" investments, now several trillion dollars worth in China so that would not happen. China learned by seeing what happened to Mexico then Russia.
_______________

The #1 Profit makers for Government from their investments are: The War Industry; Oil Companies; Pharmaceuticals; and Banking. (300% to 400% profits) - for NY CLICK HERE (on web page) TO SEE THE INVESTMENTS SHOWN IN JUST ONE (1) CAFR ( 2006 - NYSR-CAFR ) or for CA ( 2006 - CALPERS - CAFR ) .pdf file

---------------

Local and Federal Government's gross income in 1999 was 8.5 trillion dollars and the entire population's of the USA gross income, "net after taxation" 4.8 trillion dollars.

------------------

After you look at a state CAFR review, then look at your many city, county, school district, State University CAFR. Government Enterprise operation such as Toll ways, Bridges, Ports, water, sewer, power, recycling, CAFRs should then be looked at.
Pensions, self-funding debt financial authorities, self insurance authorities CAFRs should be looked at also. As of 2005 there are over 84,000 "individual" Annual Financial Reports (the CAFR) produced by just our local government operations. Each with their own investments and cash accounts...

--------------------

The composite totals of investment assets held internationally by USA government is staggering. Between local and Federal government, the total of liquid investment assets held Internationally is a conservative sixty (60) Trillion dollars.

---------------------

Could it be that our own Government over the last several decades has been promoting to those fortune 500 companies, of which Government owns most through Bond - Loan investment / stock ownership [EXAMPLES: 82% stock ownership of Microsoft Corporation, Disney 61%, AOL - Time Warner 58%, EXXON 72%] to manufacture abroad so that Government would realize greater returns on their investments at the Peoples of the USA's expense in jobs and wealth retention.

Additional articles by Burien...
CAFRs: The BIGGEST Secret -
$60 Trillion Invested By Fed, State, & Local Governments! 6-30-00
http://www.rense.com/general2/bigsecret.htm

Excerpts only...

Reported - but for all purposes HIDDEN from American taxpayers - Local, State and Federal governments currently hold about 60+ trillion dollars of profitable investments in real estate, pension funds, insurance companies, liquid investment funds, bond financing accounts and corporate stock portfolios (32 Trillion) over 53% of America's stock market, and a large percentage of the international stock market, etc., are all revealed in their required filing of CAFRs (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) and noted reports therein.

Walter Burien, who has been blowing the whistle on this gargantuan scam, says, "Americans OWN the majority of America's WEALTH and don't know it." With the profits rolling in from international investments, you now know the true motive behind NAFTA and GATT.

* When Orange County lost a little over $1 billion in derivatives investments, they were crying "poverty" and threatening to shut down schools, police would have to be laid off etc. However someone dug into the Orange County CAFR and found out that the county had about $16 billion in profitable investments! The county, from their profitable liquid investment funds / cash position could have continued performing the same services, without collecting one dime in taxes, and could have done so for another 11.9 years from the existing funds prior to running out of money! The crying stopped.

* While he was a Mayor, Jesse Ventura's city council wanted to raise $360,000 in taxes to cover a short fall on their "city budget for schools." Ventura objected when he discovered the city owned $48,000,000 in idle investments funds from which the $360,000 could be drawn from without raising taxes!

------------------

CAFRs And Pending US 'Economic Collapse

By Walter J. Burien, Jr
WalterBurien@cafr1.com
http://www.rense.com/general74/cafrss.htm
Oct. 29, 2006
Excerpts only...

1. Composite wealth may now be 80 trillion but I always use a conservative 60 trillion plus. This money is standing investment and cash accounts.

2. There "is" an Economic Disaster looming. Government in their greed to hoard the wealth has taken over the market. In fact government "is" the market now.

In 1929, the public was the primary holder and they would and did have panic selling spree causing the collapse. Now government is the primary holder and they orchestrate continued gains to perpetuate their balance sheets.

Here a bubble exists but a bubble under ultimate control. If 100% of the public panicked and sold every share they owned, the market would have a severe dip but then come right back and then shoot higher with government now picking up most of those shares at a discount and then by effect would own 100% of the market.

Government did this before and after 911. They had massive short derivatives held going into 911 whereby a few trillion were picked up on those derivatives almost overnight as time goes when the derivatives were exited from.

-----------------------

The Government Economy Con-Game = "Derivatives"

By Walter Burien
http://CAFR1.com/NGE.html
March 15, 2008

A few excerpts only...

One way Government now "creates wealth" out of thin air is by covertly taking it "all" as a monopoly from everyone else. The ever-growing 516 trillion dollar international derivative market is a key tool used by Government to do just that. Read the article linked below, (see URL links in website article) but before you do, please read my comments below the link first:

Many of these investment funds are now managed outside of the US (off-shore) with trillion dollar US Government account balances that are not even visible for ease of inspection per their trading activity.. Do the lower level government employees know this? No, for most they do not.

Last year the Chinese Government cut off further US Government investments in China (US Government investment funds, especially on their derivatives market were taking over). India on the same day put restrictions on US Government investments in their derivatives market for the same reason also. The following day the US Stock Market was down 650 points. (Some thought the game was over, but it was not)

But don't worry about the US Stock market foolks, whoops, sic: folks) US Government local and federal owns the primary corporations in the US Market by composite stock ownership. Private sector ownership is insignificant in comparison. Salute Comrades!

To have a NWO (New World Order) under your control, derivatives are an important step to knock-out all opposition by taking their wealth and they will come in-line for management soon enough and then be accepted into the ranks of the inside players...

Not a peep on TV per the core of this game? Well, Silence is Golden it seems.

Dick Fojut is a long time Tucson resident and businessman.

Benz Speaks! - When ordinary lying isn't enough, you need help!

2008-05-05T11:52:00.005-07:00

James Madison on Enemies of Public Liberty

2008-05-05T11:44:00.004-07:00

Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
-James Madison

McCain's Jeremiah Wright?

2008-05-04T15:11:00.006-07:00

By FRANK RICH

BORED by those endless replays of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright?

If so, go directly to YouTube, search for “John Hagee Roman Church Hitler,” and be recharged by a fresh jolt of clerical jive.

What you’ll find is a white televangelist, the Rev. John Hagee, lecturing in front of an enormous diorama. Wielding a pointer, he pokes at the image of a woman with Pamela Anderson-sized breasts, her hand raising a golden chalice. The woman is “the Great Whore,” Mr. Hagee explains, and she is drinking “the blood of the Jewish people.” That’s because the Great Whore represents “the Roman Church,” which, in his view, has thirsted for Jewish blood throughout history, from the Crusades to the Holocaust.

Mr. Hagee is not a fringe kook but the pastor of a Texas megachurch. On Feb. 27, he stood with John McCain and

endorsed him over the religious conservatives’ favorite, Mike Huckabee, who was then still in the race.

Are we really to believe that neither Mr. McCain nor his camp knew anything then about Mr. Hagee’s views? This particular YouTube video — far from the only one — was posted on Jan. 1, nearly two months before the Hagee-McCain press conference. Mr. Hagee appears on multiple religious networks, including

twice daily on the largest, Trinity Broadcasting, which reaches 75 million homes. Any 12-year-old with a laptop could have vetted this preacher in 30 seconds, tops.
Since then, Mr. McCain has been shocked to learn that his clerical ally has made many other outrageous statements. Mr. Hagee, it’s true, did not blame the American government for concocting AIDS. But he did say that God created Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for its sins, particularly a scheduled “homosexual parade there on the Monday that Katrina came.”
Mr. Hagee didn’t make that claim in obscure circumstances, either. He broadcast it on one of America’s most widely heard radio programs, “Fresh Air” on NPR, back in September 2006. He reaffirmed it in a radio interview less than two weeks ago. Only after a reporter asked Mr. McCain about this Katrina homily on April 24 did the candidate brand it as “nonsense” and the preacher retract it.

Mr. McCain says he does not endorse any of Mr. Hagee’s calumnies, any more than Barack Obama endorses Mr. Wright’s. But those who try to give Mr. McCain a pass for his embrace of a problematic preacher have a thin case. It boils down to this: Mr. McCain was not a parishioner for 20 years at Mr. Hagee’s church.

That defense implies, incorrectly, that Mr. McCain was a passive recipient of this bigot’s endorsement. In fact, by his own account, Mr. McCain sought out Mr. Hagee, who is perhaps best known for trying to drum up a

pre-emptive “holy war” with Iran. (This preacher’s rantings may tell us more about Mr. McCain’s policy views than Mr. Wright’s tell us about Mr. Obama’s.) Even after Mr. Hagee’s Catholic bashing bubbled up in the mainstream media, Mr. McCain still did not reject and denounce him, as Mr. Obama did an unsolicited endorser, Louis Farrakhan, at the urging of Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton. Mr. McCain instead told George Stephanopoulos two Sundays ago that while he condemns any “anti-anything” remarks by Mr. Hagee, he is still “glad to have his endorsement.”

I wonder if Mr. McCain would have given the same answer had Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted him with the graphic video of the pastor in full “Great Whore” glory. But Mr. McCain didn’t have to fear so rude a transgression. Mr. Hagee’s videos have never had the same circulation on television as Mr. Wright’s. A sonorous white preacher spouting venom just doesn’t have the telegenic zing of a theatrical black man.

Perhaps that’s why virtually no one has rebroadcast the highly relevant prototype for Mr. Wright’s fiery claim that 9/11 was America’s chickens “coming home to roost.” That would be the Sept. 13, 2001,

televised exchange between Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who blamed the attacks on America’s abortionists, feminists, gays and A.C.L.U. lawyers. (Mr. Wright blamed the attacks on America’s foreign policy.) Had that video re-emerged in the frenzied cable-news rotation, Mr. McCain might have been asked to explain why he no longer calls these preachers “agents of intolerance” and chose to cozy up to Mr. Falwell by speaking at his Liberty University in 2006.
None of this is to say that two wacky white preachers make a Wright right. It is entirely fair for any voter to weigh Mr. Obama’s long relationship with his pastor in assessing his fitness for office. It is also fair to weigh Mr. Obama’s judgment in handling this personal and political crisis as it has repeatedly boiled over. But whatever that verdict, it is disingenuous to pretend that there isn’t a double standard operating here. If we’re to judge black candidates on their most controversial associates — and how quickly, sternly and completely they disown them — we must judge white politicians by the same yardstick.

When Rudy Giuliani, still a viable candidate, successfully courted Pat Robertson for an

endorsement last year, few replayed Mr. Robertson’s greatest past insanities. Among them is his best-selling 1991 tome, “The New World Order,” which peddled some of the same old dark conspiracy theories about “European bankers” (who just happened to be named Warburg, Schiff and Rothschild) that Mr. Farrakhan has trafficked in. Nor was Mr. Giuliani ever seriously pressed to explain why his cronies on the payroll at Giuliani Partners included a priest barred from the ministry by his Long Island diocese in 2002 following allegations of sexual abuse. Much as Mr. Wright officiated at the Obamas’ wedding, so this priest officiated at (one of) Mr. Giuliani’s. Did you even hear about it?

There is not just a double standard for black and white politicians at play in too much of the news media and political establishment, but there is also a glaring double standard for our political parties. The Clintons and Mr. Obama are always held accountable for their racial stands, as they should be, but the elephant in the room of our politics is rarely acknowledged: In the 21st century, the so-called party of Lincoln does not have a single African-American among its collective 247 senators and representatives in Washington. Yes, there are appointees like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice, but, as

we learned during the Mark Foley scandal, even gay men may hold more G.O.P. positions of power than blacks.

A near half-century after the civil rights acts of the 1960s, this is quite an achievement. Yet the holier-than-thou politicians and pundits on the right passing shrill moral judgment over every Democratic racial skirmish are almost never asked to confront or even acknowledge the racial dysfunction in their own house. In our mainstream political culture, this de facto apartheid is simply accepted as an intractable given, unworthy of notice, and just too embarrassing to mention aloud in polite Beltway company. Those who dare are instantly accused of “political correctness” or “reverse racism.”

An all-white Congressional delegation doesn’t happen by accident. It’s the legacy of race cards that have been dealt since the birth of the Southern strategy in the Nixon era. No one knows this better than Mr. McCain, whose own adopted daughter of color was the subject of

a vicious smear in his party’s South Carolina primary of 2000.

This year Mr. McCain has called for a respectful (i.e., non-race-baiting) campaign and has gone so far as to

criticize (ineffectually) North Carolina’s Republican Party for running a Wright-demonizing ad in that state’s current primary. Mr. McCain has been posing (awkwardly) with black people in his tour of “forgotten” America. Speaking of Katrina in New Orleans, he promised that “never again” would a federal recovery effort be botched on so grand a scale.

This is all surely sincere, and a big improvement over Mitt Romney’s

dreams of his father marching with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Up to a point. Here, too, there’s a double standard. Mr. McCain is graded on a curve because the G.O.P. bar is set so low. But at a time when the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll shows that President Bush is an even greater drag on his popularity than Mr. Wright is on Mr. Obama’s, Mr. McCain’s New Orleans visit is more about the self-interested politics of distancing himself from Mr. Bush than the recalibration of policy.
Mr. McCain took his party’s stingier line on Katrina aid and twice opposed an independent commission to investigate the failed government response. Asked on his tour what should happen to the Ninth Ward now, he called for “a conversation” about whether anyone should “rebuild it, tear it down, you know, whatever it is.” Whatever, whenever, never mind.

For all this primary season’s obsession with the single (and declining) demographic of white working-class men in Rust Belt states, America is changing rapidly across all racial, generational and ethnic lines. The Census Bureau

announced last week that half the country’s population growth since 2000 is due to Hispanics, another group understandably alienated from the G.O.P.
Anyone who does the math knows that America is on track to become a white-minority nation in three to four decades. Yet if there’s any coherent message to be gleaned from the hypocrisy whipped up by Hurricane Jeremiah, it’s that this nation’s perennially promised candid conversation on race has yet to begin.

Frank Rich is a columnist for The New York Times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Rich