We should fire them all and reelect new public servants who actually do our business!!

The state constitution must be changed. How did we let this happen? And how much money are we losing because WE elected incompetents?

I agree. But how can we revolt if our state senators have the power and would be the ones to vote amendments into the constitution. I'm sure I'm not the only New Yorker who feels helpless.

The New York electorate revolt is long overdue. Albany has been dysfunctional for years. The Senate and Assembly members get entrenched because of no term limits. They then develop a sense of entitlement and stop working for the people. They think it's all about them.

TYT Exclusive: Fox’s Talking Points on Al Franken Obtained from Today's FOX and Friends / July 3, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/m5mq2h
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcMPFS1l2-k&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Etheyoungturks%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded

Noam Chomsky on “Crisis and Hope: Theirs and Ours”
July 03, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/no6oyg
Noam Chomsky, the MIT professor, author and dissident intellectual, just turned eighty years old this past December. He has written over 100 books, but despite being called “the most important intellectual alive” by the New York Times, he is rarely heard in the corporate media. We spend the hour with Noam Chomsky. He spoke recently here in New York at an event sponsored by the Brecht Forum. More than 2,000 people packed into Riverside Church in Harlem to hear his address, titled “Crisis and Hope: Theirs and Ours.” In his talk, Chomsky discussed the global economic crisis, the environment, wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, resistance to American empire and much more.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/3/noam_chomsky_on_crisis_and_hope

Who Won the Election? Who Cares?
Florida recount consortium muffles results of months of efforts
January/February 2002 / http://tinyurl.com/lqnqyp
On November 7, 2001, a reader of the political website MakeThemAccountable.com made a series of predictions about how the news media would cover a long anticipated review of uncounted Florida ballots from the 2000 presidential election:

The data will show that Gore won, but the article will be written to obscure that fact.... The headline will proclaim that Bush definitively won. The headline will be on page one.... The rest of the article, which will describe, albeit opaquely, that Gore really won, will be on [the jump].

That's pretty much what happened.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1095

Democracy Counts / Al Gore Won Florida
The Media Consortium Florida Ballot Project
Dan Keating / The Washington Post
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf

F*CK AL GORE!

Global Warming: At the cap-and-trade hearings, it was revealed that not everyone will suffer from this growth-killing energy tax. A congresswoman wanted to know why sea levels aren’t rising but Gore’s bank account is.

When Gore left office in January 2001, he was said to have a net worth in the neighborhood of $2 million. A mere eight years later, estimates are that he is now worth about $100 million. It seems it’s easy being green, at least for some.

Gore has his lectures and speeches, his books, a hit movie and Oscar, and a Nobel Prize. But Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., was curious about how a man dedicated to saving the planet could get so wealthy so quickly. She sought out investment advice we all could use in a shaky economy.

Last May, we noted that Big Al had joined the venture capital group Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers the previous September. On May 1, 2008, the firm announced a $500 million investment in maturing green technology firms called the Green Growth Fund.

Last Friday, Gore was the star witness at the hearings on cap-and- trade legislation before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Blackburn asked Gore about Kleiner-Perkins, noting that at last count they “have invested about a billion dollars invested in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation that we are discussing here today.”

Blackburn then asked the $100 million question: “Is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?” Gore gave the stock answer that “the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it but every penny that I have made I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.”

Last May, we also noted that on March 1, Gore, while speaking at a conference in Monterey, Calif., admitted to having “a stake” in a number of green investments that he recommended attendees put money in rather than “subprime carbon assets” such as tar sands and shale oil.

He also is co-founder of Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offsets that allow rich polluters to continue with a clear conscience. It’s a scheme that will make traders of this new commodity rich and Bernie Madoff look like a pickpocket. The other founder is former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood.

As Stephen Milloy, author of “Green Hell,” points out, Goldman Sachs is lobbying for climate change legislation and is part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange, where carbon credits from cap and trade would be traded.

Others hope to cash in along with Gore. On Earth Day 2007, the various NBC networks gave 75 hours of free air time to Gore to hype climate change. NBC is owned by General Electric, perhaps the largest maker of wind turbines and other green technology in the world. It, too, stands to benefit financially from cap and trade, as Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly has noted, connecting dots others won’t.

Gore’s altruism is phony. According to a March 6 Bloomberg report, Gore invested $35 million of his own money not in green nonprofits, but with the very profitable Capricorn Investment Group LLC, a Palo Alto, Calif., firm that directs clients to green investments and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products.

As reported on Green Hell Blog, Capricorn was founded by the billionaire former president of eBay Inc., Jeffrey Skoll, who also happens to be an executive producer of Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

by Richard Morrison
January 28, 2009

Washington, D.C., January 28, 2009—In testimony today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former Vice President Al Gore recommended that Congress take dramatic action to combat the threat of global warming, including passing the pending economic stimulus bill which includes billions of dollars in taxpayer handouts for alternative energy. Gore neglected to emphasize, however, that he is the Chairman of a for-profit investment fund that would directly benefit from greater subsidies for so-called “clean” energy projects.
“Former Vice President Al Gore has warned that we need to examine the financial interests of people in the global warming debate. Fair enough,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute Director of Energy & Global Warming Policy Myron Ebell. “What we discover in looking at the policies that Mr. Gore advocated in his Senate testimony is that they will make him and his friends extremely wealthy at the expense of consumers, who will be stuck with skyrocketing energy prices.”

Gore’s company, Generation Investment Management, states that its investment strategy, in part, is to “find, fund and accelerate green business.” The companies targeted by renewable energy subsidies, grants and other federal spending are the same ones Gore and his partners are betting on to turn large profits. There’s nothing wrong with making a profit, but doing so at taxpayer expense rather than in a competitive marketplace is generally considered cynical and greedy – far from the disinterested environmental activist image that Gore presents to the world.

“Gore’s concerns are overblown and his ‘solutions’ remain grossly expensive pipe dreams,” said Senior Fellow Iain Murray. “Global warming is a potential risk, but Gore’s program represents a potentially disastrous misallocation of resources – straight from our wallets to his bank account.”

Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange--the rest of the story



By Judi McLeod Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Good news to know that the truth will always out--even when you’re Barack Obama.

“Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress” is a FOXNews story by Ed Barnes. In short, “While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.”

The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”

And that’s only the beginning of this tawdry tale, Mr. Barnes.

The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong.

For years now Strong and Gore have been cashing in on that lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.”

Gore, self-proclaimed Patron Saint of the Environment, buys his carbon off-sets from himself--the Generation Investment Management LLP, “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C., of which he is both chairman and founding partner. The Generation Investment Management business has considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms that currently exist, including the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Strong, the silent partner, is a man whose name often draws a blank on the Washington cocktail circuit. Even though a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of an Oil-for-Food beleaguered Kofi Annan, the Canadian born Strong is little known in the United States. That’s because he spends most of his time in China where he he has been working to make the communist country the world’s next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is the big cheese in the underworld of climate change and is one of the main architects of the failing Kyoto Protocol.

Full credit for the expose on the business partnership of Strong and Gore in the cap-and-trade reduction scheme should go to the investigative acumen of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR).

The tawdry tale of the top two global warming gurus in the business world goes all the way back to Earth Day, April 17, 1995 when the future author of “An Inconvenient Truth” travelled to Fall River, Massachusetts, to deliver a green sermon at the headquarters of Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI). MMTI was a firm that proclaimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste. Gore praised the Molten Metal firm as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and make money for investors at the same time.

“Gore left a few facts out of his speech that day,” wrote EIR. “First, the firm was run by Strong and a group of Gore intimates, including Peter Knight, the firm’s registered lobbyist, and Gore’s former top Senate aide.”

(Fast-forward to the present day and ask yourself why it is that every time someone picks up another Senate rock, another serpent comes slithering out).

“Second, the company had received more than $25 million in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) research and development grants, but had failed to prove that the technology worked on a commercial scale. The company would go on to receive another $8 million in federal taxpayers’ cash, at that point, its only source of revenue.

“With Al Gore’s Earth Day as a Wall Street calling card, Molten Metal’s stock value soared to $35 a share, a range it maintained through October 1996. But along the way, DOE scientists had balked at further funding. When in March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry, they took action: Between that date and October 1996, seven corporate officers--including Maurice strong--sold off $15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value. On Oct. 20, 1996--a Sunday--the company issued a press release, announcing for the first time, that DOE funding would be vastly scaled back, and reported the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.

“On Monday, the stock plunged by 49%, soon landing at $5 a share. By early 1997, furious stockholders had filed a class action suit against the company and its directors. Ironically, one of the class action lawyers had tangled with Maurice strong in another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company called AZL Resources, chaired by Strong, who was also a lead shareholder. The AZL case closely mirrored Molten Metal, and in the end, Strong and the other AZL partners agreed to pay $5 million to dodge a jury verdict, when eyewitness evidence surfaced of Strong’s role in scamming the value of the company stock up into the stratosphere, before selling it off.

In 1997, Strong went on to accept from Tongsun Park, who was found guilty of illegally acting as an Iraqi agent, $1 million from Saddam Hussein, which was invested in Cordex Petroleum Inc., a company he owned with his son, Fred.

These are the leaders in the Man-made Global Warming Movement, who three years later were to be funded by the man who was to become President of the United States of America.

If we follow the time line on where Obama was during the funding of the Chicago Climate Exchange, he was still a professor at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law, with his law license becoming inactive a year later in 2002.

It may be interesting to note that the Chicago Climate Exchange in spite of its hype, is a veritable rat’s nest of cronyism. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is its honorary chairman, The Joyce Foundation, which funded the Exchange also funded money for John Ayers’ Chicago School Initiatives. John is the brother of William Ayers.

What a flap when it was discovered that the senator from Chicago had nursed on Saul Alinsky’s milk, had his political career launched at a coffee party held by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and sat for 20 years, uncomplaining in front of the “God-dam-America pulpit of resentment-challenged Jeremiah Wright.

Folk were naturally outraged that the empty suit who would go on to become TOTUS was spawned from such anti-American activism.

But the media should have been hollering, “Stop Thief!” instead.

The same Chicago Climate Exchange promoting public rip-off was funded by Obama before he was POTUS.

Even as man-made global warming is being exposed as a money-generating hoax, Obama is working feverishly to push the controversial cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme through Congress.

Obama was never the character he created for himself in the fairy-tale version in “Dreams of My Father”. He’s the agent of Change and Hope for cohorts making money down at the Chicago Climate Exchange.

The Barbarians are pushing at the gate of the Global Warming fraud, and to borrow a line from children playing Hide and Seek, Here they come, ready or not!

THE NEVER-ENDING PORK PARADE
'STIMULATING' EVERYTHING BUT ECONOMY

July 4, 2009

THERE'S an old joke about a fantastic three- legged pig and a farmer. It comes in many versions. In some tellings, the pig saves the farmer's life. In another, it can talk. The punch line always comes after a visitor asks, "So how come he only has three legs?"

"Because," the farmer explains, "you don't want to eat a pig like that all at once."

More and more, it seems the Obama administration has just that attitude toward the economic crisis: doling out pork for as long as possible.

Recall the White House mantra of "never let a crisis go to waste." Though the economic implosion had specific causes stemming from the financial and housing markets and how they were regulated, President Obama insisted that the items on his campaign wish list -- overhauling health care, imposing carbon cap-and-trade and reforming education -- would be the real solutions to the crisis.

"The fact is, our economy did not fall into decline overnight," Obama told Congress in February. And only by "investing" in policies formulated years before "toxic asset" became household words could America get out of the crisis.

As a result, we're now stuck with some of the most absurdly counterproductive legislation imaginable. The national debt is growing faster than the GDP. According to the Congressional Budget Office, within 10 years Uncle Sam's publicly held debt will double to 82 percent of GDP. The CBO predicts that by 2038, our debt will be 200 percent of GDP. Debt siphons off growth for the simple reason that dollars go to paying it off rather than investing in something productive.

Meanwhile, thanks to ongoing trade deficits and relentless borrowing, America's financial status is deteriorating rapidly. The Commerce Department reported last week that the value of foreign assets owned by Americans is $19.89 trillion, while the value of American assets owned by foreigners is $23.36 trillion. In other words, we are a "net debtor" to the tune of $3.47 trillion. That represents a 62 percent increase over 2007. Foreigners, most significantly China, own nearly 50 percent of our government's public debt.

So while the Obama administration frets over the largely phony idea that we are dangerously dependent on foreign oil (Canada sends us as much oil as the Persian Gulf region, and Mexico not much less), we are increasingly threatened by dependence on foreign bondholders who could wreak havoc on the dollar and our interest rates far more easily than OPEC could cut off our oil.

And what are we doing in response? For starters, the House passed carbon cap-and-trade legislation that essentially adds an onerous and inefficient energy tax on everyone, outsources jobs to carbon-profligate India and China and raises tariffs in an attempt to stem the inevitable bleeding of jobs and manufacturing. (The last time we raised tariffs in the midst of a bad recession, we got the Depression.)

Rather than have America invest in new oil and gas jobs (among the highest-paying of any industry), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists that one-time gigs weatherizing Granny's attic and replacing light bulbs are preferable.

Worse, even if you think climate change is a huge threat, the bill's own supporters admit its impact on global warming will be trivial. But, we're told, we must lead by example. Of course, we've led by example in refusing to exploit our oil reserves for three decades, and so far no one has followed us.

Then there's health-care "reform," aspects of which the administration insists will save money. But according to the CBO, the whole thing will cost $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion. The savings will allegedly come from government-imposed efficiency -- which approaches "jumbo shrimp" as an oxymoron. It's funny how nobody has been talking up Medicare as a source of huge savings, and yet that's the model: Medicare for everyone.

In fairness, the Obama administration did tackle the financial crisis more directly. It passed a $787 billion stimulus bill that hasn't prevented unemployment from soaring. (In January, when the stimulus was on the table, the administration estimated joblessness would peak at just above 8 percent; it's now 9.4 percent and rising.) Maybe that's because the bulk of the stimulus wasn't meant to kick in until 2010 and beyond -- after the administration's predicted robust economic growth began. Or maybe it's because much of it was intended to pay for a pent-up wish list of Democratic projects.

Now Obama is publicly mulling the possibility of a "second stimulus" that would in fact be the third stimulus (let's not forget President Bush's $168 billion "booster shot for our economy"), paid for with money we don't have or with tax hikes we don't need. But, hey, anything's worth it to savor the pig for as long as possible.

Obama Dismantles Free Press

2009 July 2

One of the lessons history teaches us is that the further a country moves to the left, the more restrictive its press becomes. In a true Marxist state, the press is an extension of the government and acts as the party’s official mouthpiece. Competition, freedom to report accurately, and dissent are not allowed. Punishments for transgressions are swift and severe. The most egregious example of this was the former Soviet Union.

Today, all true socialist and communist countries lack a free press. North Korea, led by the the demented Kim Jung Il; Cuba, led by the Marxist Castro brothers, Venezuela, led by the the megalomaniac Hugo Chavez; and Communist China are the most familiar examples of the above axiom. Some of the countries mentioned lost their freedom of press almost immediately after a revolution — China and Cuba, for example. Others lost it by degrees. Chavez dismantled Venezuela’s free press a little at a time, all the while consolidating his own power. As he became stronger, the press became weaker, until ultimately, it merely became a transcription service for his speeches.

As our country lurches further to the left, we are starting to see the familiar pattern emerge. The administration of Barack Obama has chosen the Venezuelen model. Slowly and methodically, the government’s fingers are wrapping around the neck of the free press.

The first assault was in the form of the “Fairness Doctrine,” an effort to purge conservatives from the airwaves.

Next came the phony “Town Hall Meetings” with the public, where cherry-picked Obama supporters were allowed to toss pre-screened softball questions designed not to embarass the president.

Now, the same concept of pre-screening both the questions and the questioners has been applied to “White House Press Corps Meetings,” the latest of which was such a fiasco that it prompted an angry exchange [video here] between liberal correspondent Helen Thomas and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs!

Said Thomas: “Nixon didn’t try to do that. They [the Nixon administration] couldn’t control [the media]. They didn’t try…. What the hell do they think we are, puppets?”

The answer, Ms. Thomas, is “Yes.”

Rasmussen Poll: Obama's Popularity Plunging:

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:27 PM

The latest Rasmussen daily tracking poll shows that President Barack Obama for the first time has a negative approval index — more Americans disapprove of his job performance than approve.

In an exclusive Newsmax interview, pollster Scott Rasmussen also disclosed that, if the economy does not improve over the next year, Obama's numbers will deteriorate even further — and Democrats will suffer in 2010.

Rasmussen is founder and CEO of Rasmussen Reports and co-founder of the sports network ESPN. He has been an independent public opinion pollster for over a decade, and most major news organizations cite his reports.

Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella asked Rasmussen for an overview of the latest tracking poll.

"The raw numbers are pretty straightforward — 31 percent of Americans strongly approve of the way Barack Obama is handling his job, 33 percent strongly disapprove," Rasmussen said.

"Before the last week we never had a circumstance where the number who disapprove outweigh the number who approve. So we're in new territory. Right now the approval index, at minus two, is as low as it's been.

"What we've seen in the last month is a growing number of people who strongly disapprove, and we're seeing it at a time when the president's honeymoon is coming to an end and people are beginning to look at the policies that he's promoting."

The closeness of the approve/disapprove numbers are "yet another indicator of how evenly divided our nation is," he added.

On specific issues, Rasmussen disclosed:

"When we talk about healthcare reform and the proposal the president is talking about, the country is fairly evenly divided. But those who have strong opinions tend to oppose the plan more than support it.

"On the cap-and-trade legislation [to reduce carbon emissions], 42 percent believe it's going to hurt the economy. Only 19 percent believe it's going to help.

"The takeover of General Motors is strongly opposed.

"Right now those things are weighing the president down. What's going to tell over the next year is how the economy performs. If a year from today, GM is doing great and throwing off profits and getting the taxpayers their money back, people will say we were wrong, the president was right, and it's great for him. But if GM is back asking for more bailouts, the president's numbers will be substantially weaker than they are today . . .

"If the economy responds negatively over the next year, it is going to hurt the Democrats in 2010.

"What the passage of legislation will actually do is bring ownership of the economy and economic performance more and more into Barack Obama's camp.

"Just over a month ago, 62 percent of Americans said that no matter what's happened in the last six months, George Bush is still more to blame for the economic mess than Barack Obama. That number fell to 54 percent, and the more of Obama's policies that are put in place, the more the blame or perhaps the credit will shift to the current president."

Rasmussen also found:


The country is evenly split between those who approve of the way Obama has responded to the disputed elections in Iran and the repression of demonstrations that followed, and those who disapprove and believe he has not been aggressive enough.


More Americans strongly oppose Obama's healthcare plan than strongly support it.


About 30 percent of Americans favor a single-payer healthcare system, but a majority will oppose it.

"Americans like the idea of healthcare reform in theory, in the abstract," Rasmussen said.

"Only 35 percent think this system is in good or excellent shape. But people like the coverage they get by themselves. Among the insured, 70 percent say their own coverage is good or excellent. Among all Americans, only 8 percent say their coverage is poor."

Powell airs doubts on Obama agenda:

July 3, 2009

Colin Powell, one of President Obama's most prominent Republican supporters, expressed concern Friday that the president's ambitious blitz of costly initiatives may be enlarging the size of government and the federal debt too much.

"I'm concerned at the number of programs that are being presented, the bills associated with these programs and the additional government that will be needed to execute them," Mr. Powell said in an excerpt of an interview with CNN's John King, released by the network Friday morning.

Mr. Powell, a retired U.S. army general who rose to political prominence after a long and accomplished military career, said that health care reform and many of Mr. Obama's other initiatives are "important" to Americans.

But, he said, "one of the cautions that has to be given to the president -- and I've talked to some of his people about this -- is that you can't have so many things on the table that you can't absorb it all."

"And we can't pay for it all," said Mr. Powell, who was the first African-American to serve as secretary of state, under former President George W. Bush. He was also national security adviser to President Reagan, and was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President George H.W. Bush from 1989 to 1993.

Mr. Powell was considered a possible Republican presidential candidate as early as 1996, and in 2007 he donated the maximum amount allowed to Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who won the GOP primary. But less than a month before last fall's general election, Mr. Powell endorsed Mr. Obama over Mr. McCain.

Mr. Powell's comments represent the growing concern that began with hard-line fiscal conservatives but is now spreading to moderates about the rate of government spending and debt under President Obama, and the long-term impact on the country's fiscal sustainability and national security.

The national debt stands currently at $11.5 trillion and the deficit for the current fiscal year is projected to be close to $2 trillion.

Mr. Powell expressed alarm at "budgets that are running into the multi-trillions of dollars" and "a huge, huge national debt that, if we don't pay for in our lifetime, our kids and grandkids and great-grandchildren will have to pay for it."

"So, I think the president, as he moves forward with his initiatives, has to start really taking a very, very hard look at what the cost of all this is. And, how much additional bureaucracy [will] be needed to make all of this happen?" Mr. Powell said.

I just witnessed Richard Miniter editor of the Washington Times on C-Span and a caller was cut off by the Black Anchor for stating the truth.

The caller said Richard Miniter is a neo-con propagandist and was cut off forthwith!

What is this world coming to when someone speaks the truth and gets cut off on TV?

Sincerely,

Eric Arthur Blair

America's newest security threat: Global Warming
Retired four-star General Zinni calls global warming a serious security threat / December 27th, 2007 Video
General Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.)

Admiral Frank “Skip” Bowman, USN (Ret.)

Lieutenant General Lawrence P. Farrell Jr., USAF (Ret.)

Vice Admiral Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.)

General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.)

Admiral T. Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.)

Admiral Donald L. “Don” Pilling, USN (Ret.)

Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, USN (Ret.)

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

General Charles F. “Chuck” Wald, USAF (Ret.)

General Anthony C. “Tony” Zinni, USMC (Ret
http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/National%20Security%20and%20the%20Threat%20of%20Climate%20Change.pdf

Pastor: Obama has no 'black experience' to speak of :

7/3/2009
A conservative black pastor and former NFL linebacker says he's highly offended that President Obama would compare the plight of homosexuals to that of blacks during the Civil Rights Era.

On Monday, President Obama told a gathering of homosexuals at the White House that he is aware that many of them "don't believe progress has come fast enough," and compared their struggles to those of blacks during the Civil Rights Movement.

Ken Hutcherson, the senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Washington, says the comments are especially disturbing from an individual who is supposed to be familiar with "the black experience."

"But I guess we...have to ask, 'Even though he is black because his father was, what is his "black experience"?' He doesn't have any. He was raised by a white mother and a white grandmother, so this man has about as much black experience as my Doberman Pinscher -- and I guarantee [that] my Doberman Pinscher doesn't have any," he points out. "There is nothing, nothing that compares between what the Afro-Americans went through and what homosexuals are going through now."

Hutcherson expresses disgust with evangelicals who still support President Obama, despite his promotion of policies that are at odds with scripture. He says such individuals are part of the "evangellyfish" movement in America.

"A person can be as black as a piece of coal, [but] if he goes against God's biblical views, I would not support him, I would not endorse him, I would not even give a smile in his direction so people could even think that I endorse him," he states, "because God is my God, the Bible is my playbook, and I run it the way it is written."

During his speech to homosexuals on Monday, Obama suggested that Christians like Hutcherson who oppose homosexuality on biblical grounds hold to "worn arguments and old attitudes

Bush Gore Election:

Democrat appointees on the Florida Supreme Court acted in a highly partisan manner in an attempt to steal the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election from Republican George Bush and give it to Democrat Al Gore.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Florida Supreme Court intervened in the Democrat Party lawsuit involving the Florida Presidential Election, which is unusual because the courts usually avoid becoming involved in election matters which are normally left up to the legislative and executive branches of government unless fraud is involved. This is especially true after an election is over. The Courts are normally extremely reluctant to change the outcome of an election. In this case, no fraud was alleged or involved. In addition, the Florida Supreme Court took an even more extraordinary action by bringing this case to itself. Normally, a case would be brought to a higher level court, including the State or U.S. Supreme Court, by the plaintiff or defendant appealing the case to the higher court. It is extremely rare for any court to bring a case to itself. In fact, it is so rare that it typically does not occur in any given year. It is even more rare, and probably the first occurrence in U.S. history, for a State or U.S. Supreme Court to bring to itself a court case involving an election. A search of all court case records for the entire history of each state Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court will probably verify this as fact. Thus, the Florida Supreme Court committed two extremely rare acts simultaneously.

In this case, the Florida Supreme Court ignored the Florida Statutes and Constitution, and violated the separation of powers by usurping the power and authority of the legislative and executive branches of state government, including the discretionary power of the Secretary of State. The Florida State Supreme Court came up with an implausible, irrational interpretation of Sections 102.111 and 102.112 that the Secretary of State shall not ignore late county election returns and that the deadline shall be extended to an arbitrary date picked by the court. There is no language in the Florida Statutes that states that Florida courts, including the Florida Supreme Court, have the discretion or authority to extend the statutory deadline or to accept late county election returns for inclusion in the certified state election results.

Thus, it is absolutely certain that the Democrat appointees on the Florida Supreme Court acted in a highly partisan manner in an attempt to steal the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election from Republican George Bush and give it to Democrat Al Gore.

Bush v. Gore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bush v. Gore

Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 11, 2000
Decided December 12, 2000
Full case name George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al.
Docket nos. 00-949
Citations 531 U.S. 98 (more)
121 S. Ct. 525; 148 L. Ed. 2d 388; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 8430; 69 U.S.L.W. 4029; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9879; 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 6606; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 26
Prior history On writ of certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court
Subsequent history Florida Supreme Court decision reversed and case remanded to that court
Argument Oral argument
Holding
In the circumstances of this case, any manual recount of votes seeking to meet the December 12 “safe harbor” deadline would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist

Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer

Case opinions
Per curiam.
Concurrence Rehnquist, joined by Scalia, Thomas
Dissent Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent Souter, joined by Breyer; Stevens, Ginsburg (all but part C)
Dissent Ginsburg, joined by Stevens; Souter, Breyer (part I)
Dissent Breyer, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg (except part I-A-1); Souter (part I)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. II, amend. XIV; 3 U.S.C. § 5
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided on December 12, 2000. The case effectively resolved the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Only eight days earlier, the United States Supreme Court had unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), and only three days earlier, had preliminarily halted the recount that was occurring in Florida.

In a per curiam decision, the Court in Bush v. Gore ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. Three concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.

The decision allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's electoral votes to stand. Florida's 25 electoral votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 electoral votes, defeating Democratic candidate Al Gore, who ended up with 266 electoral votes (with one D.C. elector abstaining). A majority (270) of the electoral votes is needed to win the Presidency or Vice Presidency in the Electoral College.

Yes, Gore DID win!

The Purge and Other Crimes

Scalia On Bush v. Gore: Get Over It! --Supreme Court Justice Tells CBS It's Nonsense to Say the Decision Was Politically Motivated 24 Apr 2008 People who believe the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision giving the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush was politically motivated should just get over it, says Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia denies that the controversial decision coup d'etat was political. [No, maggot, we don't 'get over' a coup. Moreover, we won't put up with a third one, already simmering nicely on the Reverend Wright-flag pin back burner. --LRP]

U.S. media have lost the will to dig deep By Greg Palast 27 Apr 2007 Back in December 2000, I received two computer disks from the office of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Analysis of the data, plus documents that fell my way, indicated that Harris' office had purged thousands of African Americans from Florida's voter rolls as "felons." Florida now admits that many of these voters were not in fact felons. Nevertheless, the blacklisting helped cost Al Gore the White House. I reported on the phony felon purge in Britain's Guardian and Observer and on the BBC while Gore was still in the race, while the count was still on. Yet the story of the Florida purge never appeared in the U.S. daily papers or on television. Until months later, that is, after the Supreme Court had decided the election, when it was picked up by the Washington Post and others. U.S. papers delayed the story until the U.S. Civil Rights Commission issued a report saying our Guardian/BBC story was correct... At that point, protected by the official imprimatur, American editors felt it safe enough to venture out with the story. But by then, George W. Bush could read it from his chair in the Oval Office.

First, see the original reporting of the Purge by Greg Palast, then, see the mainstream coverage, below.

"Yes, Gore DID win!"

Evidently in your fantasy world only but not according to the rest of the entire world.

Colonel Bud Day, Medal of Honor recipient:


"Our make-believe president is a know nothing fool who thinks that pouring a little water on some one's face, or hanging a pair of women's pants over an Arabs head is TORTURE. He is a meathead."

------------------------------------------------------------

The prelude to the “response” below, from Colonel Bud Day, Medal of Honor recipient – prisoner of war survivor – reads “I didn’t expect to be reminded of my treatment some 36 years ago on this holiday weekend but our politicians find it worthy to ignore what some have tried to recount to them, who have actually been there.”
****************************************************************************
I got shot down over N Vietnam in 1967…a sq commander.
After I returned in 1973… I published 2 books that dealt a lot with “real torture” in Hanoi. Our make believe president is branding our country as a bunch of torturers when he has no idea what torture is.

As for me…put thru a mock execution because I would not respond…pistol whipped on the head…same event… Couple of days later…hung by my feet all day. I escaped and got recaptured a couple of weeks later… I got shot and recaptured. Shot was OK…what happened after was not.

They marched me to Vinh… put me in the rope trick, trick…almost pulled my arms out of the sockets. Beat me on the head with a little wooden rod until my eyes were swelled shut, and my unshot, unbroken hand a pulp.

Next day hung me by the arms…rebroke my right wrist…wiped out the nerves in my arms that control the hands…rolled my fingers up into a ball. Only left the slightest movement of my L forefinger. So I started answering with some incredible lies.

Sent me to Hanoi strapped to a barrel of gas in the back of a truck.

Hanoi…on my knees…rope trick again. Beaten by a big fool.

Into leg irons on a bed in Heartbreak Hotel.

Much kneeling–hands up at Zoo.

Really bad beating for refusing to condemn Lyndon Johnson.

Several more kneeling events. I could see my knee bone thru kneeling holes.

There was an escape from the annex to the Zoo. I was the Senior Officer of a large building because of escape…they started a mass torture of all commanders.

I think it was July 7, 1969…they started beating me with a car fan belt. In first 2 days I took over 300 strokes…then stopped counting because I never thought I would live thru it.

They continued day-night torture to get me to confess to a non-existent part in the escape. This went on for at least 3 days. On my knees…fan belting… cut open my scrotum with fan belt stroke. Opened up both knee holes again. My fanny looked like hamburger…I could not lie on my back.

They tortured me into admitting that I was in on the escape…and that my 2 room-mates knew about it.

The next day I denied the lie.

They commenced torturing me again with 3- 6- or 9 strokes of the fan belt every day from about July 11 or 12rh…to 14 October 1969. I continued to refuse to lie about my roommates again.

Now, the point of this is that our make-believe president has declared to the world that we (U.S.) are a bunch of torturers… Thus it will be OK to torture us next time when they catch us….because that is what the U.S. does.

Our make-believe president is a know nothing fool who thinks that pouring a little water on some one’s face, or hanging a pair of woman’s pants over an Arabs head is TORTURE. He is a meathead.

I just talked to MOH holder Leo Thorsness http://www.pbs.org/weta/americanvalor/stories/thorsness.html who was also in my sq in jail…. as was John McCain … and we agree that McCain does not speak for the POW group when he claims that Al Gharib was torture… or that “water boarding” is torture.

Point out the stupidity of the claims that water boarding …which has no after effect… is torture. If it got the Arab to cough up the story about how he planned the attack on the twin towers in NYC … hurrah for the guy who poured the water.

BUD DAY, MOH

——————————————————

Below: a link to an excellent/detailed article about Colonel Bud Day–more graphic torture then what is mentioned above…

The article mentions/documents too, how in 1990 he fought again for all the Veterans and servicemen/women when the government denied health care for Veterans and stated that those who served did so at their own risk…. John McCain is in the article-and documents how he was instrumental in getting TRICARE going.

(I posted/shared this-not aiming to tarnish or detract anything from John McCain or any other Veteran–who can really/rightly judge anyone unless they’ve really have walked in their shoes?– Colonel Bud Day being a P.O.W. has the moral authority to raise/answer questions about the what/how/meaning of torture-as do any of the other surviving P.O.W. who survived the years of brutality and torture.

For one who survived-the repeated life threatening marathons of tortures and the memories of their brothers who did not—from their perspective—trying to equate water boarding of only three terrorist to a regime of years of disabling/disfiguring/life threating torture of many gives clarity and insight to an issue that has been used politically to divide our country rather than unite it in strength….. Colonel Bud Day MOH, once again deserves our respect/thanks in his dedicated service to our country.

By Daria Anne DiGiovanni Friday, July 3, 2009

In a tainted political climate that bears more resemblance to reality TV than it does to the vision of America put forth by our Founding Fathers, it’s no wonder that so many good people reject the idea of running for office. It’s a double-edged sword: the USA desperately needs honorable, dedicated citizens to answer the call to public service and execute their duties with, as Governor Palin often quotes, “a servant’s heart,” yet to do so comes at tremendous personal and professional peril. And after what the Palin family has endured over the past year, why on earth would anyone who fervently believes in God, country and Constitution ever want to subject themselves to such vile, undeserved treatment?
Yes, I was just as shocked (and saddened) as the rest of the country when Governor Sarah Palin announced her resignation today. Long before she emerged onto the national scene as the VP nominee, I knew about Sarah Palin. I watched her discuss energy issues thoroughly and intelligently with people like Larry Kudlow and Glenn Beck.
I was struck by her obvious knowledge on this critical issue. Given the facts that 1.) America is funding its own destruction by buying oil from Third World Countries that hate us; and 2.) this country also has an abundance of natural resources, along with the sophisticated technology to tap into them in the most environmentally sound way possible, it seemed a no-brainer that a proven leader and naturally charismatic person like Palin would take her rightful place in some kind of national office, where she could do the most good.
And when John McCain made what was probably the only smart decision amid a sea of incredibly bad ones during the 2008 campaign, I expected a tough fight. I knew it would most likely get ugly, given the horrific treatment of George W. Bush by the left over the preceding eight years. But I have to hand it to the Daily Kos/HuffPo/Wonkette/MSNBC/NYT crowd: when it comes to Governor Palin and her family, they’ve attained a new and unprecedented nadir of viciousness.
Immediately following the announcement of Palin as VP nominee, the slobbering, highly threatened Obamamedia engaged in full frontal assault, descending on Wasilla like vultures in a frenzied attempt to dig up and hurl as much mud as they possibly could at Palin and her family. Sandwiched in-between that first defaming US Magazine issue (hot off the presses, just in time for the RNC), and the recent hit-job by Vanity Fair were ad nauseam smears:
1. Speculation that Trig Palin, her youngest son was actually her daugher Bristol’s child (a medical impossibility)
2. Excoration of the Governor for choosing to give birth to her handicapped baby
3. Lies about Troopergate
4. Lies about banning books
5. Lies about the Bridge to Nowhere
6. References to Palin and her family as “white trash”
7. Accusations of racism for wearing a white jacket at a campaign rally
8. Distortions of things she’d said in interviews (e.g. Tina Fey, “I can see Russia from my house")
9. Hostile, unfair interviews at the hands of Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric
10. Backstabbing from McCain insiders including unsubstantiated charges of having “post partum depression”
11. References to being a “slutty flight attendant”
12. Verbal sexual assaults on her 14 year-old daughter by a perverted 60+ year-old comedian
13. Refusal to acknowledge or publicize any of her accomplishments like the natural gas pipeline and the fact that Alaska under her leadership, is one of the country’s most fiscally solvent states
14. 15 bogus ethics charges resulting in $500,000 of legal fees
15. Recent, despicable photoshops of her Down syndrome baby
And the list goes on and on. Regrettably, many on the right including Kathleen Parker, Peggy Noonan, and Heather MacDonald were quick to pile on. If not engaging in below-the-belt attacks, other conservatives bemoaned her lack of qualifications and/or gravitas. Of these, Charles Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, Byron York and Rich Lowry are the most notable.
Nothing really new here: whether the assault comes from the right or left, it’s ultimately a case of the elites vs. the everyday man and woman. Sarah Palin doesn’t speak with an affected East Coast accent. She didn’t attend an Ivy League College, nor does she hail from an acclaimed political pedigree. She’s just an ordinary (though quite beautiful), hard-working American with a passion for her country, a relentless work ethic and a genuine desire to serve. There was a time in our history when these qualities were revered and celebrated. Sadly, those days appear to be over, as style has defeated substance, and celebrity has superceded accomplishment in the perilous Age of Obama.
As someone who looks upon Palin as a role-model and a woman of remarkable character, I have nothing but admiration for the way she’s carried herself through this entire spectacle. Reflecting upon the last eight months, it’s an amazing testament to her strength and character that she came this far. While I am disappointed she will no longer serve as Alaska’s governor, I fully respect and understand her decision. When 80% of her time is spent defending herself against false accusations (and racking up exorbitant legal bills in the process), it’s not humanly possible to devote herself to her actual job—serving the people of her state. And Sarah Palin is that rare breed of politician who actually takes her responsibilities seriously; it’s a tragedy for our nation that there aren’t many more like her in the halls of Congress.
Savor your victory lefties and elitist’s. But just know that when it comes to true grit, integrity and quality, none of you are fit to tie Sarah Palin’s running shoes. May all the vitriol you’ve directed at her and her family return to you tenfold.