Cato's Analysis of The State of the Union Address

In this video The Cato Institute fact checks The State of the Union Address and provides a detailed look at some of the Presidents statements.

The Cato Institute was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane. It is a non-profit public policy research foundation headquartered in Washington, D.C.

For more information go to www.cato.com

Job Creation Success

Reason TV reviews some of the jobs successfully created by the Obama administration.

Letter From Congress to the President on Israel

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


Below is a letter signed by more than 50 members of Congress to President Obama asking him to address the issue of the protective wall that Israel has built to keep out terrorists (Hat tip to Investigative Project on Terrorism).

http://www.mpac.org/docs/Gaza-letter-to-Obama.pdf

While giving lip service to Israeli concerns for safety against terrorists, they call for a lifting of a blockade that would prevent certain items like construction materials and fuel from entering into Gaza. I am not familiar with each and every name, but all the names I recognize are Democrats.


Below is a list of members of Congress who have received donations from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Read and compare the recipients with the signatories to the above letter.

-Source: Wall Street Journal/Market Watch





FROM the Senate:
Barbara Mikulski – D-MD
Paul Durbanes – D- MD
Debbie Stabenow – D-MI
Dick Durbin – D-IL
Kent Conrad – D- ND

From the House:
Joe Sestak – D-PA
John Conyers – D-MI (#4)
Keith Ellison – D-MN
Jesse Jackson, Jr. – D-IL (#6)
Danny Davis – D-IL
Gary Miller – R- CA
Loretta Sanchez – D-CA
Linda Sanchez – D-CA
Jan Schakowsky – D-IL
Gregory Meeks – D-NY
Albert Wynn – D-MD
Betty McCollum – D-MN
Lois Capps – D-CA
Bill Pascrell – D-NJ
Benjamin Cardin – D-MD
Elijah Cummings – D-MD
Gerry Connelly – D-VA
Anna Eshoo – D-CA
Bob Filner – D-CA
Wayne Gilchrest – R-MD
Mike Honda – D-CA
Dennis Kucinich – D-OH (#5)
Barbara Lee – D-CA (#7)
Zoe Lofgren – D-CA
John Dingell – D-MI (Tied #7 w/Lee)
James Moran – D-VA (#2)
Nick Rahall – D-WV (#1)
Charles Rangel – D-NY
Dutch Ruppersberger – D-MD
Pete Start – D-CA
Chris Van Hollen – D-MD
Andre Carson – D-IN
Shelia Jackson Lee – D-TX (#9)
Adam Schiff – D-CA
Mary Jo Kilroy – D-OH
Darrell Issa – D-CA (#3)
Carolyn Kilpatrick – D- MI (#8)
Jim McDerrmott – D-WA (#10)
Nancy Pelosi – D- CA

Numbers beside name are the top ten cash recipients.



Note that there are two Republicans on the list (Gary Miller-CA and Wayne Gilchrest-MD). In addition, Darrell Issa is incorrectly listed as a Democrat. The rest are Democrats. Do you detect a trend here?

Obama's State of the Union Speech

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk






President Obama's SOTU speech may have been a sign that state of the union speeches are not designed for great orators-which Obama apparently used to be. With few exceptions, it might as well have been Gerald Ford up there speaking. All in all, Obama's speech was technocratic, delving into such exotic items as the economy, jobs, and other minutia. I don't see this as an event that will turn Obama's fortunes around. I think within the next few days, it will drag his ratings down lower.

A couple of signs that the speech wasn't going to go well were when Harry Reid was caught on camera in the first ten minutes about to doze off. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) was also caught texting during the speech.

Off topic: If you ask me, that blue carpet on which the President walks down the aisle on his way to the podium should be renamed "Brownnoser Blvd."

And did you get a load of Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden? Memo to White House: Never put the president in front of those two characters. The TV audience had to have been distracted by those two clowns, Biden resplendent in his bright purple tie and Cheshire smile with Pelosi matching in her lavender dress and Cheshire smile. Actually, Pelosi wasn't there. Madame Tussaud sent over a wax effigy with strings attached to pull her up and down Howdy Doody style for the applause lines.

And where was Hillary?

Well, she was over at some conference in London telling the Yemeni government that they need to cut down on corruption. Add that to her list of "accomplishments".

And how many of you noticed as the camera scanned the audience how old and decrepit those faces were? I hate to sound partisan, but the worst were the Dems. Can we say "term limits"?

Remember a few days ago in Ohio when Obama said, "It's not about me"? Well, his speech last night was ALL about him. How many times did he use the words, "I", "me", "my"? How many times did he use the term "invest", which really means "spend"? Did he say something about a partial spending freeze? Yes, he did. How's that gonna work?

He also spoke out against earmarks. Has he forgotten those 9,000 or so that were in his stimulous package?

But the worst was when he called out the Supreme Court for their recent decision against McCain-Feingold. As he scolded them like school children, his Democrat minions stood and applauded while the justices sat silently and sullenly. Sam Alito was actually caught on camera, silently mouthing the words, "that's not right or "that's not true". Alito was apparently referring to Obama's statement that foreign corporations could now contribute unlimited funds into American elections-a totally false claim.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Or maybe Alito meant, "that's not right what you are doing to us".

Watch for this moment to be talked about nationally until Obama issues some sort of apology, which he should. On the other hand, the Dems are already lining up to condemn Alito. First out of the box is that horse's ass from Vermont, Patrick Leahy, who talked about "when justices stayed out of politics". For crying out loud, Alito didn't say anything. He winced and mouthed it to himself. What's next? Will we watch to see if his eyes contract? The point is that the President did something to my knowledge unprecedented. He castigated the Supreme Court in front of Congress and a national TV audience while they were sitting right there-and mis-characterized the decision to boot. He was wrong and should apologize to the entire court.

Off topic: Speaking of the Supreme Court, did you see Ruth Bader Ginsburg last night? Not looking well.

Obama really gave it a half-hearted effort when talking about the econonmy and jobs. Ditto for national security. While acknowledging that business is the biggest engine for creating jobs, he went right into what the government should do. The truth is that Obama's silly claim to have saved millions of jobs with his stimulus package is bogus. He created or saved GOVERNMENT jobs and did zilch for the private sector. But now he is calling for a JOBS BILL!! Along the way, of course, he attacked the banks, insurance companies, CEOs, and Wall Street. I didn't hear him say anything about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their misdeeds. Did he mention Barney Frank's name? No.

War on terror? We're going to leave Iraq. Nothing about sending top terrorists to New York for federal trials. Nothing about the Justice Department's decision to give the Detroit bomber an attorney and put him into a federal court.

And of course, he indirectly slapped George W Bush around by talking about how horrible things were when he came into office. Well, nothing's changed and he has been here a year now.

What was the classiest moment of the night? That would be when he gave the obligatory salute to the First Lady. Michelle graciously simply smiled and motioned for the crowd to sit down. Classy.

Quite unlike a former first lady I could name but won't. (You know who.)



And Chris Matthews said what????


Somebody please give that man a washcloth.

Osama bin Laden goes Green

Just when it looked like the global warming fraud was in its last throes, James Hansen and Al Gore found a new ally. Terrorism is more stylish if you claim it's to save the earth. Osama bin Laden is going green.

Aljazeera reports that they have obtained a new audio tape from bin Laden. In his message, Osama says he holds the US and other industrial nations responsible for global warming. He criticizes George Bush for rejecting the Kyoto pact and condemns global corporations.

"This is a message to the whole world about those responsible for climate change and its repercussions," he said, "whether intentionally or unintentionally and about the action we must take."

Seeming tapped into the global warming propaganda website RealClimage.org, he goes on to say that "Speaking about climate change is not a matter of intellectual luxury - the phenomenon is an actual fact."

OK, so he's looking for support from the Kool-Aid drinkers on the far left, and going green may mean that he gets more of it than he already has. But wait! Just when it seems he's pegged, the crafty politician in a cave shows that he has something for everyone. "They are also behind globalization and its tragic implications. And whenever the perpetrators are found guilty, the heads of state rush to rescue them using public money."

Quite clever. He's looking for a combination of complaints that may be attractive to a majority of Americans. There must be a reason. I don't want to start rumors, but, will it be Osama verses Obama in the 2012 Democratic primaries, or is he positioning himself for a guest commentator spot on MSNBC? Maybe in his next tape, he'll tell us whether he notices that Obama is black.

State of The Obama

With Democrats fighting one another and blaming Obama for loss of support, and Obama Himself apparently creating rumors of a fundamental ideological shift (at least in the astigmatic eyes of Bill O'Reilly), one might think the State of the Union address would have turned out to be another best-ever-in-world-history rhetorical feast such as helped win Him the election. Slick as the presentation may have been, it left an opportunity for opposition commentary to address actual content issues quite clearly.

Robert Costa quotes Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) in defining “The Obama Doctrine” in the corner of National Review Online. Representative Ryan laments what he describes as Obama's dependence on Keynsian (“tax and spend”) economic policy.

“This president, unfortunately, is no student of economics,” says Ryan. “His dogged devotion to Keynesianism came through tonight in how he used its principles to complement his political ideology. Spend more money, he said, create more government jobs, and all will be fine. He actually believes that government spending is pro-growth, good for the economy, and the best way to create jobs. I don’t think it ever occurs to him that when we borrow and spend more money to create jobs that we’re also taking away from other sectors of the economy. Tonight, he returned again and again to the notion that the government must take money out of the economy — through borrowing and taxes — to create more government jobs. That’s become the Obama doctrine.”

The Cato Institute fact-checks Obama's State of the Union address and suggests alternatives to Hillary/ObamaCare proposals that might actually work.



Even a short list of responses would be incomplete on this occasion, without Glenn Beck.



Just for a laugh, click for yet another gushing response from vote-Republican-in-Mass-is-a-vote-against-health-reform .. Continuous-Foot-in-Mouth Man, MSNBC's own Chris Matthews. I forgot he was black."

President Obama Slams Supreme Court at State of the Union...While They Were Sitting in Front of Him

In a gross violation of the separation of powers, President Obama called out the Supreme Court at the State of the Union while they were sitting right in front of him. He criticized their decision about the McCain-Feingold Act and allowing corporations to donate an unlimited amount of money to political causes.

This type of behavior is unheard of, especially in a State of the Union when every branch of government is present. This behavior spits in the face of separation of powers.

However, Samuel Alito, Justice of the United States Supreme Court, got the last hit...watch this video of the exchange:

Is Harry Reid Finished?

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



"He looks so peaceful."

"Yes. Almost as if he were asleep."

(Apologies to Henry Waxman for blocking out his haaandsome face.)


Let's be honest. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is not the most charismatic guy in the world. Far from it. When Reid walks into a room, the paint on the walls starts peeling, flowers die, babies cry and dogs growl. Even Nancy Pelosi cringes when Reid puts his arm around her.

Yet, this guy has risen to the top of the Senate. Just goes to prove that old adage about things that rise to the top.

Now, it looks like Reid is nearing the end of his Senate career and about to embark on his new career as a lobbyist. (You heard it here first.) Facing an election next fall, Reid's poll numbers show him some 30 points behind his Republican competitor-whoever that is. Hell, a recent poll even showed Reid lagging behind that other famous Nevada resident, O.J. Simpson, were he to declare his candidacy. (Just kidding.)

The fact is with Reid leading a Democratic majority and a far-left president in office, the public has finally realized what a shifty-deal-making goof Reid really is. The nation has spoken rather loudly and clearly on the subject of health reform, yet Reid is still scheming to ram this deal down our throats because-or rather- if he can. Hell, he's the parliamentary expert, he has the majority and if there's a way to do it, he's gonna do it, by golly. Buy off a couple of senators with sweetheart deals that apply only to their states? Let's do it (Louisiana-Nebraska). Change the procedure to get that 51 vote majority instead of that pesky 60-vote majority? (Reconciliation). Let's do it. What we have here is a deal-maker-and not much else.

Of course, ten months is a long time in the electoral process, and things could change between now and November. More deals could be made, ACORN could escape its, uh, legal predicament in Nevada, and thus, be freed up to uh, shall we say register enough people to vote for Reid, and voila! Another great victory for the Democrats. Hopefully, the sparsely-inhabited state of Nevada doesn't have enough cemeteries to produce enough voters for Reid. Of course, they could always round up all those guys on the Vegas streets who pass out porn flyers to passers-by. They could make the difference, you know.

But if things continue along their present trend, which I think they will, Harry Reid will take his deal-making skills to Washington's famed red-light district on K Street* come 2011, helping out his sons who are already DC lobbyists. (You didn't think he was going back to Searchlight, Nevada, did you?)

What, you say? He would have to wait two years or something like that, according to the law? Silly me. Reid will have to call himself a "consultant". Pardon my goof.

*K Street- Where many of Washington's lobby firms are located.

Obama Uses Teleprompter at Elementary School

In a sign that this President doesn't relate to any American, this proves he can't even relate to children.

He uses a teleprompter to talk with elementary school kids....

Obamanomics

In this video Timothy P. Carney explains that Barack Obama's "progressive" rhetoric masks good old-fashioned crony capitalism. Mr. Carney is the author of Obamanomics: How Barack Obama is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses. He is also a columnist for Washington Examiner

If you missed the post on "Crony Capitalism" here is another video that provides further insight in the mess that is our current financial system. It further illustrates how a marriage between big government and big corporations is an unholy alliance.

Ron Paul: State of the Republic Address

This is a must watch video to really understanding what is happening in our Republic. Share with your friends and make this a viral video around the internet:







R3VOLUTION!

The Financial Side of Global Warming Fraud

"In the climate-change debate, the companies on the ‘environmental’ side have the most to gain," writes Lawrence Solomon.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud. He presented a series of articles in the Financial Post probing the financial motives, companies, and people behind the global warming scam. The first is Enron's other secret.

We all know that the financial stakes are enormous in the global warming debate — many oil, coal and power companies are at risk should carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases get regulated in a manner that harms their bottom line. The potential losses of an Exxon or a Shell are chump change, however, compared to the fortunes to be made from those very same regulations.

The climate-change industry — the scientists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and, most importantly, the multinationals that work behind the scenes to cash in on the riches at stake — has emerged as the world’s largest industry. Virtually every resident in the developed world feels the bite of this industry, often unknowingly, through the hidden surcharges on their food bills, their gas and electricity rates, their gasoline purchases, their automobiles, their garbage collection, their insurance, their computers purchases, their hotels, their purchases of just about every good and service, in fact, and finally, their taxes to governments at all levels.

These extractions do not happen by accident. Every penny that leaves the hands of consumers does so by design, the final step in elaborate and often brilliant orchestrations of public policy, all the more brilliant because the public, for the most part, does not know who is profiteering on climate change, or who is aiding and abetting the profiteers.

Some of the climate-change profiteers are relatively unknown corporations; others are household names with only their behind-the-scenes role in the climate-change industry unknown. Over the next few weeks, in an extended newspaper series, you will become familiar with some of the profiteers, and with their machinations. This series begins with Enron, a pioneer in the climate-change industry.

Climate: The Debate is Indeed Over – Skeptics Won

Lawrence Solomon explains that Climategate was the last nail in the coffin for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and thus the whole scientific fraud intended to generate fear of climate for profit; in Canada's National Post: Dirty climate data.

The data from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University — headquarters for Climategate — is now discredited. This discredits any findings by other research bodies that relied on the Climategate data.

How much falls from Climategate, whose participants read like a Who’s Who at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Not much, says CRU’s disgraced director, Phil Jones, pointing out that CRU’s data for global temperatures is but one of several datasets, all in general agreement. Besides, many argue, CRU was no linchpin to the science. The IPCC relied on numerous other sources. Throw CRU out, they say, and the IPCC’s conclusions remain unshakable.

In truth, if you throw CRU out, you’ve eviscerated the findings of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the most recent and most definite opus from the UN. This is the report, received with universal acclaim in 2007, which scarily stated: “The warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”

The argument over global warming requires evidence that the globe is warming in dangerous ways. This evidence the IPCC presents forcefully in its third chapter on surface and atmospheric warming, which rests overwhelmingly on the official global temperature record of the United Nations World Meteorological Organization, called the HADCRUT3 temperature dataset.

And who produced the HADCRUT3 dataset for the World Meteorological Organization? The Hadley Centre of the UK government’s meteorological office (the HAD of HADCRUT3) and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (the CRU).

Lawrence Solomon: Dirty climate data.

UN Report on Global Warming-False

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


Remember that UN (IPCC) report on global warming that led to a Nobel Prize last year?

"Uhhh....yeaaaaah."


Well, guess what.

It turns out that now the IPCC is apologizing because a critical part of that report was bogus.

As in BOGUS.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

In the report, the IPCC claimed that the Himalayan glaciers were melting at such a fast pace that by 2035, they would disappear. In that report, they relied on a telephone conversation with an Indian scientist who is disowning statements accredited to him in the report. In addition, they overestimated the size of the glaciers by a few hundred thousand square kilometers.

Oh, and that year 2035? Actually, it was a typo. What they really meant to say was 2350!!!



And here's the kicker. This was the report that resulted in these boobs getting a Nobel Prize!!

And Al Gore?

Unavailable for comment

But this gets even better. In the past week, I have posted about the head of the California Air Resources Board, radical environmentalist Mary D Nichols, who hired a guy named Hien Tran to do a study on the connection between diesel particulate matter in the air and premature deaths. Based on this guy's fraudulent study, California has passed a regulation that is forcing diesel truck owners to re-do their engines at a cost of thousands of dollars and jobs as well. Turns out Mr Tran had a false resume and holds a PHD from a diploma mill in London operated by a US fugitive on the lam for serial child molestation charges. Nichols kept that bit of info hidden from her colleagues on the board as they passed the new regulation.

So now, listen below as Nichols appears on a panel in September 2008 with none other than UN Environmental head Rajendra Pachauri, one of the major actors at Copenhagen, and who accepted the Nobel Prize on behalf of the IPCC. Listen as they dismiss global warming skeptics as "flat-earthers".

http://odeo.com/episodes/23331982-Pachauri-and-Nichols-Are-Humans-to-Blame-for-Global-Warming

It's called "connecting the dots". Two frauds, who have now been linked to phony studies, sitting together and calling skeptics, "flat-earthers".

UN's Rajendra Pachauri-You be the judge.

Still believe in global warming?

"Uhhhhh........"

"Gary Fouse is a Pathetic 'Shabbos Goy'"

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



George Galloway and friends in Gaza


That is the comment I received from "Anonymous" this morning in response to my latest posting on a Zionist Organization of America press release on the George Galloway/Viva Palestina controversy.

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2010/01/zoa-press-release-on-george-galloway.html


I have to confess that I did not understand what the term meant, so I asked a couple of Jewish friends during the day and learned this:

A "Goy" is a Gentile, which I already knew. A "Shabbos Goy" is a Gentile who is hired by Orthodox Jews during the Sabbath to perform certain every day duties that Orthodox Jews are not supposed to do, such as turning electrical appliances on and off. It is a Yiddish term and to Jews is not offensive.

If I get Mr/Ms. Anonymous' bent, however, I would infer that this person is accusing me of being a Gentile tool of Jews because I am criticizing George Galloway, Viva Palestina, defending Israel and speaking out against anti-Semitism. If that is what "Anonymous" is implying, then I wear the label with pride.

In fact, I am grateful to "Anonymous" for making my point-namely that there is an anti-Semitic (Jewish) angle to all the Israel-bashing that goes on. My feud with Galloway began on May 21 of last year when he appeared at UC-Irvine and solicited funds for Viva Palestina to put together convoys to deliver supplies and who knows what else to the Hamas government that runs Gaza. These deliveries have caused demands for the Department of Justice to investigate Galloway's fund-raising in the US in support of a terrorist organization (Hamas). On May 21, Galloway called me a liar when I recounted pro-Palestinian rallies in the US that featured demonstrators yelling things like, "Long Live Hitler" and "Jews back to the ovens". Galloway made a fool out of himself because these incidents are well documented on YouTube and can be found on this blog as well as many others.

The pro-Palestinian lobby in the US, which is made up of Middle-Eastern activists and professors who have joined arms with far-left activists and professors, insists that they are not anti-Semitic-only anti-Zionist. For some that may be true, but for many others, it is merely a semantic game. Make no mistake; there is a strong anti-Jewish element present.

George Galloway strongly denies that he is anti-Jewish. I will take him at his word on that because I have no information to the contrary. Yet, he is firmly allied with forces that are anti-Jewish. Hamas itself is anti-Jewish. If you don't believe me, read their charter. On one of the past Viva Palestina convoys to Gaza, Galloway was accompanied by a "reporter" from the viciously anti-Jewish web site "La Voz de Aztlan", a radical site based in Los Angeles. This handful of Latino radicals has two basic issues; the Southwest US should revert to Mexico and Jews are evil and the cause of countless problems in the world. The anti-Semitic articles in the website go way beyond the issue of Israel; they attack Jews as people.

They have also attacked me in the web page of the UC-Irvine newspaper, New University.

I, of course, have raised the connection between Galloway, Viva Palestina and La Voz de Aztlan both on this blog and the UC-Irvine campus newspaper. I have listed the anti-Jewish articles that this toxic website has published. They are there and speak for themselves.

Now comes "Anonymous" with his/her statement that I am a "pathetic Shabbos Goy". Does this statement make me angry or defensive? Hardly. That is because the statement proves my point about why I got involved in all this controversy to begin with a few years ago. I stand against anti-Semitism and will not stand idly by when anti-Semitic voices come to my campus and spread their hateful poison. It has to be exposed because history shows us where this sentiment can lead.

So to "Anonymous", I say thank you for confirming my argument. You are not the first "Anonymous" to come to my site and make anti-Jewish statements, and you will not be the last. I note, however, that you and your like-minded thinkers have all chosen to remain anonymous rather than attach your name to your beliefs-as I always do. That means only one thing; you are cowards. Yet, I cannot blame you. If I had beliefs like you, I wouldn't sign my name either.

Economic Black Hole: 20 Reasons Why The U.S. Economy Is Dying And Is Simply Not Going To Recover

by: Michael Synder

Even though the U.S. financial system nearly experienced a total meltdown in late 2008, the truth is that most Americans simply have no idea what is happening to the U.S. economy.  Most people seem to think that the nasty little recession that we have just been through is almost over and that we will be experiencing another time of economic growth and prosperity very shortly.  But this time around that is not the case.  The reality is that we are being sucked into an economic black hole from which the U.S. economy will never fully recover.

The problem is debt.  Collectively, the U.S. government, the state governments, corporate America and American consumers have accumulated the biggest mountain of debt in the history of the world.  Our massive debt binge has financed our tremendous growth and prosperity over the last couple of decades, but now the day of reckoning is here.
And it is going to be painful.

The following are 20 reasons why the U.S. economy is dying and is simply not going to recover....

#1) Do you remember that massive wave of subprime mortgages that defaulted in 2007 and 2008 and caused the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression?  Well, the "second wave" of mortgage defaults in on the way and there is simply no way that we are going to be able to avoid it.  A huge mountain of mortgages is going to reset starting in 2010, and once those mortgage payments go up there are once again going to be millons of people who simply cannot pay their mortgages.  The chart below reveals just how bad the second wave of adjustable rate mortgages is likely to be over the next several years....



#2) The Federal Housing Administration has announced plans to increase the amount of up-front cash paid by new borrowers and to require higher down payments from those with the poorest credit.  The Federal Housing Administration currently backs about 30 percent of all new home loans and about 20 percent of all new home refinancing loans.  Tighter standards are going to mean that less people will qualify for loans.  Less qualifiers means that there will be less buyers for homes.  Less buyers means that home prices are going to drop even more.

#3) It is getting really hard to find a job in the United States.  A total of 6,130,000 U.S. workers had been unemployed for 27 weeks or more in December 2009.  That was the most ever since the U.S. government started keeping track of this statistic in 1948.  In fact, it is more than double the 2,612,000 U.S. workers who were unemployed for a similar length of time in December 2008.  The reality is that once Americans lose their jobs they are increasingly finding it difficult to find new ones.  Just check out the chart below....



#4) In December, there were also 929,000 "discouraged" workers who are not counted as part of the labor force because they have "given up" looking for work.  That is the most since the U.S. government first started keeping track of discouraged workers in 1949.  Many Americans have simply given up and are now chronically unemployed.

#5) Some areas of the U.S. are already virtually in a state of depression.  The mayor of Detroit estimates that the real unemployment rate in his city is now somewhere around 50 percent.

#6) For decades, our leaders in Washington pushed us towards "a global economy" and told us it would be so good for us.  But there is a flip side.  Now workers in the U.S. must compete with workers all over the world, and our greedy corporations are free to pursue the cheapest labor available anywhere on the globe.  Millions of jobs have already been shipped out of the United States, and Princeton University economist Alan S. Blinder estimates that 22% to 29% of all current U.S. jobs will be offshorable within two decades.  The days when blue collar workers could live the American Dream are gone and they are not going to come back.  

#7) During the 2001 recession, the U.S. economy lost 2% of its jobs and it took four years to get them back. This time around the U.S. economy has lost more than 5% of its jobs and there is no sign that the bleeding of jobs is going to stop any time soon.

#8) All of this unemployment is putting severe stress on state unemployment funds.  At this point, 25 state unemployment insurance funds have gone broke and the Department of Labor estimates that 15 more state unemployment funds will likely go broke within two years and will need massive loans from the federal government just to keep going.

#9) 37 million Americans now receive food stamps, and the program is expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day.  The United States of America is very quickly becoming a socialist welfare state.

#10) The number of Americans who are going broke is staggering.  1.41 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009 - a 32 percent increase over 2008.

#11) For decades, the fact that the U.S. dollar was the reserve currency of the world
gave the U.S. financial system an unusual degree of stability.  But all of that is changing.  Foreign countries are increasingly turning away from the dollar to other currencies.  For example, Russia’s central bank announced on Wednesday that it had started buying Canadian dollars in a bid to diversify its foreign exchange reserves.

#12) The recent economic downturn has left some localities totally bankrupt.  For instance, Jefferson County, Alabama is on the brink of what would be the largest government bankruptcy in the history of the United States - surpassing the 1994 filing by Southern California's Orange County.

#13) The U.S. is facing a pension crisis of unprecedented magnitude.  Virtually all pension funds in the United States, both private and public, are massively underfunded.  With millions of Baby Boomers getting ready to retire, there is simply no way on earth that all of these obligations can be met.  Robert Novy-Marx of the University of Chicago and Joshua D. Rauh of Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management recently calculated the collective unfunded pension liability for all 50 U.S. states for Forbes magazine.  So what was the total?  3.2 trillion dollars.

#14) Social Security and Medicare expenses are wildly out of control.  Once again, with millions of Baby Boomers now at retirement age there is simply going to be no way to pay all of these retirees what they are owed.

#15) So will the U.S. government come to the rescue?  The U.S. has allowed the total federal debt to balloon by 50% since 2006 to $12.3 trillion.  The chart below is a bit outdated, but it does show the reckless expansion of U.S. government debt over the past several decades.  To get an idea of where we are now, just add at least 3 trillion dollars on to the top of the chart....



#16) So has the U.S. government learned anything from these mistakes?  No.  In fact, Senate Democrats on Wednesday proposed allowing the federal government to borrow an additional $2 trillion to pay its bills, a record increase that would allow the U.S. national debt to reach approximately $14.3 trillion.

#17) It is going to become even harder for the U.S. government to pay the bills now that tax receipts are falling through the floor.  U.S. corporate income tax receipts were down 55% in the year that ended on September 30th, 2009.

#18) So where will the U.S. government get the money?  From the Federal Reserve of course.  The Federal Reserve bought approximately 80 percent of all U.S. Treasury securities issued in 2009.  In other words, the U.S. government is now being financed by a massive Ponzi scheme.

#19) The reckless expansion of the money supply by the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve is going to end up destroying the U.S. dollar and the value of the remaining collective net worth of all Americans.  The more dollars there are, the less each individual dollar is worth.  In essence, inflation is like a hidden tax on each dollar that you own.  When they flood the economy with money, the value of the money you have in your bank accounts goes down.  The chart below shows the growth of the U.S. money supply.  Pay particular attention to the very end of the chart which shows what has been happening lately.  What do you think this is going to do to the value of the U.S. dollar?....



#20) When a nation practices evil, there is no way that it is going to be blessed in the long run.  The truth is that we have become a nation that is dripping with corruption and wickedness from the top to the bottom.  Unless this fundamentally changes, not even the most perfect economic policies in the world are going to do us any good.  In the end, you always reap what you sow.  The day of reckoning for the U.S. economy is here and it is not going to be pleasant.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/economic-black-hole-20-reasons-why-the-u-s-economy-is-dying-and-is-simply-not-going-to-recover

Michael Snyder is an attorney, a Christian activist and a conservative blogger who lives and works in Arlington, Virginia.  More of his work can be found at his daily news blog (http://themostimportantnews.com/) and on his blog about conservative politics (http://thetruthwins.com/).

Is "Blackjack Barry" slicker than "Tricky Dick" ?

By Vincent F. Shapanus

Has President Obama recalibrated Americas anger back at President Bush?President Obama apparently has informed George Stephanopoulos during his interview today that the anger that drove Americans to vote Scott Brown into office into office is the same anger the swept him into office last year. He further states that the source of that anger is from President Bush’s last 8 years in office. He is correct that Americans were angry with Bush and that anger propelled him into office. But he is wrong in thinking that the same anger is what perpetuated Scott Brown’s election to the Senate. America was angry with Bush and elected Obama. Obama has failed to uphold what he promised America and American’s are angry that Obama is ramming his socialist agenda down their throat. Surely Mr. President you must be joking.

Well what more could we really expect from President Obama other than deceit, transference, subterfuge or finger pointing. After all he is a politician and a very good one. He used a golden tongue with the magic of empty promises and jelly legged America into electing him. When you fly on a red carpet in to Washington and then use it to pull over the eyes of America and then you lie on it you have succeeded in selling snake oil to the majority of Americans. The only difference between President Obama, President Johnson, President Nixon, President Ford, President Carter, President Bush, President Clinton, and President Bush Jr., is the color of their carpet is not red but some other color but it is still a carpet. President Obama reminds me much of President Nixon but I think Obama is a little more devious than Tricky Dick. Nixon was impeached for his enemy list and Obama used the internet for his. Brown won in Massachusetts because America in against the radical policies of Obama and Health Care is at the top of the list. America is Angry because what Obama promised is not being delivered. What he warned America that others would do he has done himself. Obama's post election rally reminded of the Ray Bradbury Novel "Something Wicked This Way Comes." When a Politician walks into a room I think of Shakespeare’s “By the Prick of My Thumb Something Wicked This Way Comes."

If anyone wants to blame anyone on what has happened to America then they should blame all those responsible. The list is long and it goes back generations if not centuries. Finally America has had enough. Unfortunately for President Obama the shit has finally hit the fan on his watch. But President Obama should not forget that he too is part of the reason and he is the tip of the Iceberg that will end the long run that career politicians have enjoyed in Washington. Last night American’s finally said “The Buck Stops Here.”

Scott Brown Wins Epic Upset for Kennedy Senate Seat

Breaking News!!!!

Republican Scott Brown has won the special election in Massachusetts for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.

From the AP:

BOSTON – In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in a U.S. Senate election Tuesday that left President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in doubt and marred the end of his first year in office.

The loss by the once-favored Coakley for the seat that the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy held for nearly half a century signaled big political problems for the president's party this fall when House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates are on the ballot nationwide.

More immediately, Brown will become the 41st Republican in the 100-member Senate, which could allow the GOP to block the president's health care legislation and the rest of Obama's agenda. Democrats needed Coakley to win for a 60th vote to thwart Republican filibusters.

Man-Made Global Warming - A Dead Issue Scientifically

More people believe in haunted houses than in man-made global warming.

Obama Administration Shuts Down Oldest Gun Show in Central Texas

In an attempt to degrade the 2nd Amendment in this country the Obama Administration has shut down the oldest gun show in the state of Texas.

From Infowars:

In a disturbing update to a story covered in-depth today on the Alex Jones Show, Texas grocery retailer HEB has banned Texas Gun Shows from holding a monthly gun show. HEB is the lease holder on the property where the gun show was held.

Congressional Democrats and their Constitution-hating allies have proposed two bills in an attempt to shut down gun shows. The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009 (H.R. 2324) was introduced in the House by the notorious gun-grabber Carolyn McCarthy of New York. Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced similar legislation, the Gun Show Background Check Act of 2009 (S. 843), in the U.S. Senate. As of October 2009, the House version of the bill had 35 co-sponsors (mostly Democrats) and the Senate version had 15 co-sponsors, all Democrats.

This is just the first step in an attempt to take away the American peoples guns. The government fears the fact that ordinary citizens have the capability to defend themselves against invaders to their houses and government tyranny.

It is time to stand up for our Constitution and protect the precious rights we still have and that includes the 2nd Amendment.

Support Conservative for Change

If you would like to support this website in order to keep it up and running you can do one of two things...donate directly using this button:

Or you can purchase Liberty Merchandise through the following links:

End the Fed Jeffersonian T-Shirt by Libertymaniacs
Make a customized tee shirt online at Zazzle

 

You Get What You Vote For Shirt by Libertymaniacs
Browse other Police T-Shirts

 

Gadsden Don't Tread On Me T-Shirt by Libertymaniacs
See other Don T-Shirts

Don't Tread on Me by rbentley85
Buy a shirt online from zazzle

Ron Paul for President 2012 by libertyoutfitters
Browse more 2012 Bumper Stickers

I appreciate any help you can provide!!

R Bentley
Editor-n-Chief
Conservative for Change

Crony Capitalism

Big business is in bed with the government and that is what has created the economic mess we are currently going through. John Stossel explains this in great detail in the following videos. It will take a little while to watch the whole thing but will bring some understanding of the true etiology of this diseased economy and who is truly responsible.

California Air Resources Board "Expert"

By Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



I just posted an article (on fousesquawk) about the effort of the California Air Resources Board to pass legislation that would criminalize drivers having their tires under-inflated. This is the same state agency that has relied on a study of diesel emissions and premature death conducted by one Hien Tranh Tran. This study would be the basis for new regulations requiring truck and diesel engine drivers to basically have new engines installed in their vehicles.

But who is Hien Thanh Tran? Well, we are not really sure who he is. He says-or said- he had a PHD from the University of California at Davis. Not quite.

Here is what one web site says about Mr Tran.

http://killcarb.org/tranpage.html

It turns out that Mr Tran holds a "doctorate diploma" from Thornhill University in London.

If you have never heard of Thornhill University, join the crowd. It turns out that this is nothing more than a diploma mill. Check out this article by Chris Reed.

http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/afb/archives/033291.html

As you can see, it gets better. Thornhill University's "President" is a guy named Avrohom Mondrowitz, who reportedly fled from New York to Israel to avoid prosecution for serial child molestation charges that date back to the 1980s.



So this is how the California Air Resources Board comes up with its data used to justify insane regulations and control over our lives. They use a study by some guy with a fraudulent resume and a "diploma" from a diploma mill run by a fugitive on the lam on child molestation charges.

And where does it all end? More obtrusive laws that affect our lives. That, ladies and gentlemen is how our government works in California.


"Ja, ja!"

12 Signs That 2010 Is Going To Be A Really, Really Bad Year For The Democrats And The Obama Administration

by: Michael S.

The 2010 election is still almost 10 months away, but already every indication is that if the election was held today, the Democrats would suffer a crushing defeat. So will things get better for the Democrats by the time election day rolls around? Well, actually the truth is that things are only likely to get worse for the Democrats and the Obama administration in 2010. As the U.S. economy continues to fall apart, and as health care and national security continue to take center stage on the national scene, an increasing number of voters are likely to become disenfranchised with the Democratic Party. The following are 12 signs that 2010 is going to be a really, really bad year for the Democrats and the Obama administration....

#1) Health care "reform" has been a total nightmare for Obama and the Democrats. The majority of Americans have been horrified to learn that the plan put forward by the Democrats will make purchasing health insurance mandatory, will raise taxes, will give the government unprecedented control over health care decisions, will result in much fewer health care choices for the average American and will push U.S. government deficits through the roof. Approval ratings for the health care "reform" bill have been hovering in the 30s, and considering that this is the centerpiece of the Democratic agenda, this is a really, really bad sign for Obama and the Democrats.

#2) In fact, more Americans than ever are sick and tired of the financial mess that the U.S. government is getting us all into. The truth is that the U.S. government is drowning under an absolute mountain of debt and all of the spending that Barack Obama is doing is only making it worse. To finance this debt, the U.S. Treasury has been forced to issue so many new bonds that the rest of the world cannot possibly buy them all. So who is buying them all up? The Federal Reserve. In fact, the Fed is now purchasing approximately 80 of all new U.S. debt.

#3) But even with all of this reckless government spending the unemployment situation in the U.S. is still absolutely brutal. When even Wal-Mart is closing stores you know things are really bad. Wal-Mart just announced this past week that it will close 10 money-losing Sam's Club stores and will cut 1,500 jobs in order to reduce costs. So if even Wal-Mart has to shut down stores, what chance do other retailers have?

#4) In fact, some areas of the U.S. are a total economic nightmare at this point. The mayor of Detroit recently said that the real unemployment rate in his city is somewhere up around 50 percent. When things get that bad, the party out of power starts to look better and better.

#5) So just how bad are things when compared to past recessions? During the 2001 recession, the U.S. economy lost 2% of its jobs and it took four years to get them back. This time the U.S. economy has lost more than 5 percent of its jobs and there is no sign that the bleeding of jobs will stop any time soon. Those who do not have jobs are much likelier to consider voting for the party out of power.

#6) The reality is that more Americans are in financial trouble than at any point in recent times. Americans are going broke at a staggering pace. 1.41 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009 - a 32 percent increase over 2008. This is not a trend that is going to help the Democrats.

#7) We are also seeing a record number of mortgage defaults. According to a report that was just released, delinquent home loans at government-controlled mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac surged 20 percent from July to September. In fact, things are such a mess at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that the Obama administration recently removed the caps on the amount of financial assistance that the U.S. government will be giving these two entities. Whether or not Obama created this mess is not the issue. What is the issue is that an increasing number of Americans are blaming him for this mess.

#8) In fact, many analysts believe that the the housing crash is far from over. They say that a massive "second wave" of mortgage defaults is getting ready to hit the U.S. economy starting in 2010. In fact, this "second wave" is so frightening that even 60 minutes is reporting on it. When this second wave does hit, most Americans are going to place responsibility for it in the laps of the Obama administration.

#9) Now there is even concern that the recent global deep freeze could end up seriously affecting food prices in American supermarkets in 2010. As the past several decades have clearly shown, Americans tend to vote according to how their pocketbooks are doing, and if food prices shoot through the roof that will not help Obama and the Democrats at all.

#10) In addition, recent polls indicate that the majority of Americans are so concerned about terrorism that they would be willing to sacrifice certain freedoms in order to feel safer. Considering the fact that terrorism is considered to be an issue that greatly favors the Republicans, this has got to be very concerning to the Democrats.

#11) On the foreign policy front, Obama risks alienating the Jewish vote by continuing to insist that Israel give East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. The truth is that the Jewish vote is crucial for the Democrats and Obama in places like Florida, and by taking such a hardline anti-Israel position, Obama is not winning any new friends in the Jewish community.

#12) Also, Barack Obama is continuing to push for a treaty with Russia that would reduce the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal to approximately 10 percent of the size that it was at the height of the cold war. Such an irresponsible approach to national security is surely not going to win Obama and the Democrats many friends among moderate voters who are concerned about security issues.

Any way you cut it, 2010 is shaping up to be a very bad year for the Democrats. Barack Obama's approval rating has already been plummeting like a rock, and there does not seem to be much hope of that turning around any time soon. In fact, if the signs above are any indication, the 2010 election could end up being really, really good to the Republicans.
But with Obama still in the White House until at least 2012, will they be able to do much to clean up the mess?

Hansen Nailed for US Climate Data Manipulation

By Roger F. Gay

More fraud reported in global warming scam.

The leaked Climategate emails and data that's sent shock waves through the warming camp lately dealt directly with a British climate data center. Data produced at the NASA Goddard Space Center at Columbia University by James Hansen has been shown to suffer from similar manipulations.

Hansen is a global warming extremist and close advisor to Al Gore, who captured international attention for speeches in which he's called for Nuremberg style trials against oil executives and “deniers” who criticize his work. When questioned by Bush administration officials, he made news when a leftist Washington law firm sued for “whistle blower” status. His claim was that the Bush administration was trying to suppress the truth about catastrophic man-made global warming.

Computer programmer E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo looked into the analysis underlying Hansen's global warming claims. Not surprisingly, they discovered that Hansen's results were fraudulent, the result of “tricks” similar to those used in Britain.

In particular, Smith and D'Aleo discovered that; of some 6,000 weather stations, Hansen cherry-picked about 1,000 that gave higher temperatures and ignored the rest. Since this still resulted in evidence of cooling, he applied a mathematical formula to “hide the decline.” The fake results consistently showed warming in support of his political and financial interests.

Video coverage by KUSI News, San Diego.

Are Americans Paying Taxes to Organized Criminal Networks?

By Roger F. Gay

They just couldn't let it go. Even after exposure of illegal activities, bills showed up in Congress and in state legislatures to find more ways to give money to ACORN. If there was any silver lining, it could have been the awakening of taxpayers to the current reality. Beyond “tax and spend,” there's the eerie question of where all the money is going. A heck of a lot of it could be illegal, and in support of illegal operations, simply theft.

At most, Americans have typically gotten only a superficial view of the federal budget. Political issues are presented in big and certainly superficial terms. Much of the information given about big spending decisions is wrong. Why? Because many of the reasons for a big budget have nothing at all to do with the “issues.” They are merely excuses for spending. The public gets a view based on unleashed marketing practices, without normal legal constraints against out-and-out fraud.

It seems that practically the only beneficiaries of big health care reform, for example, come from a simple expansion of Medicaid. The only beneficiaries of “climate change” reforms are Big Energy companies and politically connected “businessmen” like Al Gore who are in on the scam. Both initiatives have extreme down-sides for taxpayers and the economy as a whole. These realities have little to nothing to do with what promoters are saying with exaggerated claims about the “uninsured” and demonization of critics.

What is the Constitutional authority for Congress to give money to ACORN? There isn't any. When Nancy Pelosi was asked for Constitutional authority for the federal government to take control of health insurance, she responded that “promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end.” It's the kind of fundamental misinterpretation that one might expect from a grade-schooler. If it were true, it would mean that the federal government can spend money on anything it wants. There would be virtually no Constitutional limit to federal government power or abuse of that power.

They could for example, give $400 million to Al Gore just because they felt like it and he could give a percentage privately back to each Congressional supporter. It would make Al Gore happy as well as the politicians receiving the kick-backs. That would be ok under Pelosi's “broad authority” to promote welfare.

The Constitutional role of the federal government includes support for the “general welfare” of the United States, not welfare programs. The term “welfare” was not used in reference to social programs until long after the Constitution was written. Throughout history however, federal courts have allowed compromises and sometimes giant leaps in limit-busting expansions to federal power. What we have called the “welfare program” for the past few decades actually started as a veteran's benefit to provide for families of fallen and disabled soldiers, related to the federal government's authorized role in national defense. It was then expanded, bit by bit in response to butter and guns arguments, then eventually on to the creation of an all-encompassing welfare state. (More on this below.)

The “slippery slope” theory of American government held that allowing the federal government to exceed its Constitutional authority here and there would establish precedents that would then allow greater and more rapid expansions of government power. This would eventually lead to a collapse of the Constitutional system along with disappearance of freedom and individual rights. The theory has obviously held, for the current Congress respects no limits to their power and is addicted to proposals that would accomplish the task. It has often been said that the “slippery slope” leads to socialism. But is the appearance of a socialist revolution in Washington merely another marketing trick? Are we really sliding into the deepest pits of plain, old-fashioned criminal corruption? History suggests that we are.

Constraints against federal power have relaxed, more rapidly since the 1960s. In the 1970s, conservative members of Congress complained that it looked like “liberals” wanted to turn any good idea into a federal program. By the 1980s, the ideas no longer needed to be good. They only needed to be marketed in a manner that would make them feel like they might be good. During the 1990s, disguised as “welfare reform,” the federal government took over marriage and family. It was likely the greatest social and political change in American history, at least since Roe v. Wade. For the first time in history, the welfare program had grown to encompass everyone, regardless of income and no matter whether you asked to be involved or not. The federal government immediately began to collect detailed personal and financial information on every American, as if authorized to investigate alleged welfare fraud in every case. The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sanctioned it all by redefining marriage and family law from Civil Law to “social policy;” in effect abolishing individual rights and protections against government intrusion. (P.O.P.S. v Gardner, 1993)

Federal family law reform involved “public-private partnerships.” This meant creation of private companies supported by federal funds designed to carry out government functions. The marketing theme was child support enforcement and “deadbeat dads” who, it was alleged, burdened the welfare system by refusing to support their own children. The reform had the support of nearly all bureaucrats on federal and state payrolls and was consistently supported by government funded studies.

But subsequent private studies uncovered a pattern of collusion. Nearly all non-payment problems were due to non-ability to pay or the subject of an on-going legal dispute. Statistics supporting reform typically included all payments made late or subsequently reduced by court order rather than just money owed, were not limited to welfare cases, and often stretched back decades. Government supported studies were often conducted by people with clear conflicts of interest – those who made money or stood to make money directly from the reforms. There was also a revolving door between government social system bureaucracies and the private partner companies where much more money could be made. A few state legislators were jailed after passing legislation for personal profit and a Michigan Attorney General lobbied for additional funding while running a controversial private child support enforcement organization. Legislation also included additional support for judicial operations, subject to performance measures, while ordinary support was being cut back.

If you were alive in the 1990s and had an ounce of common sense, Shakespeare's words might have come to mind. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Particularly during the mid to late part of the decade, we were deluged with a daily dose of “deadbeat dad” propaganda from nearly every television station, magazine, and newspaper in the country. The result of reform was an expansion of the welfare system and a much higher cost, with nearly no compensating effect. Still today, child support enforcement companies suck down billions of taxpayer dollars a year while providing no worthwhile services, bureaucrats continue through the revolving door, and ordinary citizens suffer the loss of individual rights. We had entered the exponential growth phase of a federal money machine driven by manufactured crises.

Bill Clinton used “deadbeat dad” propaganda heavily in both presidential campaigns even though he doubtless understood it to be a marketing myth. At the time the scheme was being fully implemented, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton had offices in the White House. Hillary Clinton hatched her health care reform effort, based on nothing. The parallels between the family law scheme and Gore's global warming scam are quite striking. Government studies producing false and misleading results in support of government expansion and intrusion, broad support from people on government payrolls, a massive propaganda campaign with critics attacked and demonized, public-private partnerships that receive huge contributions from government and forced contributions from the private sector while providing no worthwhile services. Gore's plan, as well as health care reform, are much larger and involve much more money. Gore's scam is global, but so was the family law scheme. Led by the USA, similar family law reform in most of the western world followed. The difference is that Gore's scheme will allow Gore to collect on all international operations, whereas public-private partnerships had previously been local.

Forty years ago, such schemes would have gone off without a hitch. The public would have been none the wiser. Politicians would have been careful to hide ulterior motives. In the past, the public accepted fundamental change pretty much without complaint, often because they were simply not told. The “conservative” verses “liberal” debate seemed like it amounted to something and we thought that the Constitution and the courts would save us eventually if something really important went wrong.

It seems that big public scamming has become more formulaic. The current generation of politicians has only known success of the method. So they “geared up” to bigger and bolder schemes and carry them out with less concern for getting caught. In fact, the new generation of followers do not seem to have the need to be as bright as the original creators. That brings us back to ACORN. Why not pick an existing organization – one that already has a nefarious character – and just funnel money to them. It's particularly easy if it has already created its own marketing myth – it's own feeling of a good idea, if the president already has an established relationship, and the attack on critics is already defined – racists! Domestic terrorists using the Constitution as an excuse!

But then, somebody might notice. And with so many government scams effecting so many people already – the truth might generally be believed. Support for current initiatives is relatively low and diminishing as more and more critics have become more concerned about corruption. Especially with repetition, the whole master-plan – the “formula” itself might be exposed. If stupidity isn't the reason for such brazen moves as we are watching today, what is? Maybe they just believe that they are already so powerful that there is nothing the public can do to stop them. Without Constitutional rights and protections against government intrusion and only a semblance of democracy, what can anyone do?

Real World DC

It is incredible what politicians will say and do to get elected. You would think the American public would see right through it, but they drank the kool-aid and elected Barack Obama and other progressives anyway. Had they done a little research and checked out the man's associations and his socialist agenda maybe they would have made a different choice.

The video above is from Reason.tv. It is too late to do anything about it now, but keep it in mind the next time you vote and hold them accountable for their lies!

Featuring Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Rangel, Robert Byrd, Barney Frank, Max Baucus…and billions of taxpayer dollars.


Written and produced by Meredith Bragg.

Deprogramming Yourself After Global Warming Scam

By Roger F. Gay

Confronting your own false beliefs can be a daunting task, even more so when coupled with an overwhelming level of corruption in the world around you, steering you the wrong way. Coming to grips with the latter can end your days of innocence about mass media and politics.

For years now, people around the world have been pummeled with false information about global warming. Politicians and special interest groups have issued “dire warnings.” Al Gore predicts deadly weather. Government reports, United Nations committees, Oscar award, Nobel Peace prizes, and what about that supposed “scientific consensus” all pointing to catastrophic climate change caused by human activity?

People have a need to make logical sense of the world around them. And for the uninitiated, such long term pressure to accept the global warming hoax as “truth” doesn't seem to make sense unless it is true. In the absence of knowledge, it is easy to naturally sense, as some of us put it, that repetition must equal truth – a kind of assessment process based on statistical consensus. The more you hear a thing, the more it seems to be supported. If a majority believes it, then it is more likely to be true than if it is a minority opinion.

Big Lie politics includes typical patterns of behavior. One very good way to help make sense of this world, to understand and protect yourself against it in the future, is to become familiar with common propaganda techniques. Study the common techniques defined below and see how many you recognize in catastrophic, man-made global warming propaganda.

Propaganda Techniques (Source: Wikipedia, December 16, 2009)

Common media for transmitting propaganda messages include news reports, government reports, books, leaflets, movies, radio, television, and posters. In the case of radio and television, propaganda can exist on news, current-affairs or talk-show segments, as advertising or public-service announce "spots" or as long-running advertorials. Propaganda campaigns often follow a strategic transmission pattern to indoctrinate the target group. This may begin with a simple transmission such as a leaflet dropped from a plane or an advertisement. Generally these messages will contain directions on how to obtain more information, via a web site, hot line, radio program, et cetera (as it is seen also for selling purposes among other goals). The strategy intends to initiate the individual from information recipient to information seeker through reinforcement, and then from information seeker to opinion leader through indoctrination.

A number of techniques based in social psychological research are used to generate propaganda. Many of these same techniques can be found under logical fallacies, since propagandists use arguments that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid.

Some time has been spent analyzing the means by which propaganda messages are transmitted. That work is important but it is clear that information dissemination strategies only become propaganda strategies when coupled with propagandistic messages. Identifying these messages is a necessary prerequisite to study the methods by which those messages are spread. Below are a number of techniques for generating propaganda:
"The Pope is Antichrist" - 1521 propaganda print by Lucas Cranach the Elder, commissioned by Martin Luther.

* Ad hominem

A Latin phrase which has come to mean attacking your opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments.

* Ad nauseam

This argument approach uses tireless repetition of an idea. An idea, especially a simple slogan, that is repeated enough times, may begin to be taken as the truth. This approach works best when media sources are limited and controlled by the propagator.

* Appeal to authority

Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position, idea, argument, or course of action.

* Appeal to fear

Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling anxieties and panic in the general population, for example, Joseph Goebbels exploited Theodore Kaufman's Germany Must Perish! to claim that the Allies sought the extermination of the German people.

* Appeal to prejudice

Using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition. For example, the phrase: "Any hard-working taxpayer would have to agree that those who do not work, and who do not support the community do not deserve the community's support through social assistance."

* Bandwagon

Bandwagon and "inevitable-victory" appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to join in and take the course of action that "everyone else is taking."

* Inevitable victory: invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already or at least partially on the bandwagon are reassured that staying aboard is their best course of action.
* Join the crowd: This technique reinforces people's natural desire to be on the winning side. This technique is used to convince the audience that a program is an expression of an irresistible mass movement and that it is in their best interest to join.

* Black-and-White fallacy

Presenting only two choices, with the product or idea being propagated as the better choice. (e.g., "You are either with us, or you are with the enemy")

* Beautiful people

The type of propaganda that deals with famous people or depicts attractive, happy people. This makes other people think that if they buy a product or follow a certain ideology, they too will be happy or successful. (This is more used in advertising for products, instead of political reasons)

* Big Lie

The repeated articulation of a complex of events that justify subsequent action. The descriptions of these events have elements of truth, and the "big lie" generalizations merge and eventually supplant the public's accurate perception of the underlying events. After World War I the German Stab in the back explanation of the cause of their defeat became a justification for Nazi re-militarization and revanchist aggression.

* Common man

The "'plain folks'" or "common man" approach attempts to convince the audience that the propagandist's positions reflect the common sense of the people. It is designed to win the confidence of the audience by communicating in the common manner and style of the target audience. Propagandists use ordinary language and mannerisms (and clothe their message in face-to-face and audiovisual communications) in attempting to identify their point of view with that of the average person. For example, a propaganda leaflet may make an argument on a macroeconomic issue, such as unemployment insurance benefits, using everyday terms: "given that the country has little money during this recession, we should stop paying unemployment benefits to those who do not work, because that is like maxing out all your credit cards during a tight period, when you should be tightening your belt."

* Demonizing the enemy

Making individuals from the opposing nation, from a different ethnic group, or those who support the opposing viewpoint appear to be subhuman (e.g., the Vietnam War-era term "gooks" for National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam aka Vietcong, (or 'VC') soldiers), worthless, or immoral, through suggestion or false accusations.

World War I poster by Winsor McCay, urging Americans to buy Liberty Bonds

* Direct order

This technique hopes to simplify the decision making process by using images and words to tell the audience exactly what actions to take, eliminating any other possible choices. Authority figures can be used to give the order, overlapping it with the Appeal to authority technique, but not necessarily. The Uncle Sam "I want you" image is an example of this technique.

* Euphoria

The use of an event that generates euphoria or happiness, or using an appealing event to boost morale. Euphoria can be created by declaring a holiday, making luxury items available, or mounting a military parade with marching bands and patriotic messages.

* Disinformation

The creation or deletion of information from public records, in the purpose of making a false record of an event or the actions of a person or organization, including outright forgery of photographs, motion pictures, broadcasts, and sound recordings as well as printed documents.

* Flag-waving

An attempt to justify an action on the grounds that doing so will make one more patriotic, or in some way benefit a group, country, or idea. The feeling of patriotism which this technique attempts to inspire may not necessarily diminish or entirely omit one's capability for rational examination of the matter in question.

The Finnish Maiden - personification of Finnish nationalism

* Glittering generalities

Glittering generalities are emotionally appealing words applied to a product or idea, but which present no concrete argument or analysis. A famous example is the campaign slogan "Ford has a better idea!"

* Half-truth

A half-truth is a deceptive statement which may come in several forms and includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may utilize some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade blame or misrepresent the truth.

* Intentional vagueness

Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application. The intent is to cause people to draw their own interpretations rather than simply being presented with an explicit idea. In trying to "figure out" the propaganda, the audience forgoes judgment of the ideas presented. Their validity, reasonableness and application may still be considered.

* Obtain disapproval or Reductio ad Hitlerum

This technique is used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. Thus if a group which supports a certain policy is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible people support the same policy, then the members of the group may decide to change their original position. This is a form of bad logic, where a is said to equal X, and b is said to equal X, therefore, a = b.

* Oversimplification

Favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex social, political, economic, or military problems.

* Quotes out of Context

Selective editing of quotes which can change meanings. Political documentaries designed to discredit an opponent or an opposing political viewpoint often make use of this technique.

* Name-calling

Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices in their hearers in the intent that the bad names will cause hearers to construct a negative opinion about a group or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish hearers to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions about a matter apart from impartial examinations of facts. Name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against the an idea or belief on its own merits.[1]

* Rationalization

Individuals or groups may use favorable generalities to rationalize questionable acts or beliefs. Vague and pleasant phrases are often used to justify such actions or beliefs.

* Red herring

Presenting data or issues that, while compelling, are irrelevant to the argument at hand, and then claiming that it validates the argument.

* Labeling

A Euphemism is used when the propagandist attempts to increase the perceived quality, credibility, or credence of a particular ideal. A Dysphemism is used when the intent of the propagandist is to discredit, diminish the perceived quality, or hurt the perceived righteousness of the Mark. By creating a 'label' or 'category' or 'faction' of a population, it is much easier to make an example of these larger bodies, because they can uplift or defame the Mark without actually incurring legal-defamation. Example: "Liberal" is a dysphamsim intended to diminish the perceived credibility of a particular Mark. By taking a displeasing argument presented by a Mark, the propagandist can quote that person, and then attack 'liberals' in an attempt to both (1) create a political battle-ax of unaccountable aggression and (2) diminish the quality of the Mark. If the propagandist uses the label on too-many perceivably credible individuals, muddying up the word can be done by broadcasting bad-examples of 'liberals' into the media. Labeling can be thought of as a sub-set of Guilt by association, another Logical Fallacy.

* Repetition

This type of propaganda deals with a jingle or word that is repeated over and over again, thus getting it stuck in someones head, so they can buy the product. The "Repetition" method has been described previously.

* Slogans

A slogan is a brief, striking phrase that may include labeling and stereotyping. Although slogans may be enlisted to support reasoned ideas, in practice they tend to act only as emotional appeals. Opponents of the US's invasion and occupation of Iraq use the slogan "blood for oil" to suggest that the invasion and its human losses was done to access Iraq's oil riches. On the other hand, "hawks" who argue that the US should continue to fight in Iraq use the slogan "cut and run" to suggest that it would be cowardly or weak to withdraw from Iraq. Similarly, the names of the military campaigns, such as "enduring freedom" or "just cause", may also be regarded to be slogans, devised to influence people.

* Stereotyping or Name Calling or Labeling

This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable. For instance, reporting on a foreign country or social group may focus on the stereotypical traits that the reader expects, even though they are far from being representative of the whole country or group; such reporting often focuses on the anecdotal.

* Testimonial

Testimonials are quotations, in or out of context, especially cited to support or reject a given policy, action, program, or personality. The reputation or the role (expert, respected public figure, etc.) of the individual giving the statement is exploited. The testimonial places the official sanction of a respected person or authority on a propaganda message. This is done in an effort to cause the target audience to identify itself with the authority or to accept the authority's opinions and beliefs as its own. See also, damaging quotation

* Transfer

Also known as Association, this is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. It evokes an emotional response, which stimulates the target to identify with recognized authorities. Often highly visual, this technique often utilizes symbols (for example, the Swastika used in Nazi Germany, originally a symbol for health and prosperity) superimposed over other visual images. An example of common use of this technique in America is for the President's image to be overlaid with a swastika by his opponents.

* Unstated assumption

This technique is used when the propaganda concept that the propagandist intends to transmit would seem less credible if explicitly stated. The concept is instead repeatedly assumed or implied.

* Virtue words

These are words in the value system of the target audience which tend to produce a positive image when attached to a person or issue. Peace, happiness, security, wise leadership, freedom, "The Truth", etc. are virtue words. In countries such as the U.S. religiosity is seen as a virtue, making associations to this quality affectively beneficial.