There was an error in this gadget
0
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rusty Weiss
Date: Monday, April 9, 2012
Subject: Weather Underground Meets Occupy Wall Street
Good Morning,
Wanted to share a report about a recent meeting between some Weather Underground members (high-level, cop-killing, bomb-making types) and our own chapter of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Occupy Albany.
I guess the reason I'm sharing this one is because it was something I had discussed with Andrew Breitbart prior to his passing. I won't claim to have known him very well, but anytime there were questions to be asked, I could always find Mr. Breitbart on Facebook to help me out. This was something we thought would be good for the Big sites, and the report has finally been completed. I guess it's my Breitbart motivated moment.
If you can, please share.
Here is the Big Peace article: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/04/09/occupiers-meet-with-an-all-star-collection-of-domestic-terrorists
And here is the original in-depth report: http://usasurvival.org/ck04.02.2012.html#axzz1r0ZWJtnD
Thanks everyone!
Rusty
--
Please visit The Mental Recession at http://mentalrecession.blogspot.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--------
'Hunger Games' star: 'Screw PETA'
Peterson's Hunting
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=1369998be7956797&attid=0.1&disp=emb&zw&atsh=1>
"Hunger Games" Oscar nominee Jennifer Lawrence is apparently as cool in real life as she is playing Katniss, a bowhunting supersurvivor in the blockbuster movie. The 21-year-old beauty gutted a squirrel in the most talked-about scene for her role in 2010's "Winter's Bone" (for which she was nominated). The scene was not faked, she told Rolling Stone magazine: "I should say it wasn't real, for PETA," she said. "But screw PETA." Read & Comment
__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
New Members 2
Visit Your Group
Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to Individual-Sovereignty-owner@yahoogroups.com
<http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/yg/logo/us.gif>
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=2420737/grpspId=1705303292/msgId=266118/stime=1334016784/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848627/nc3=5522131>
__,_._,___
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
"This is why I placed a question mark in the title to this blog. Is this a really meaningful debate between Obama and the Republicans? Shall Americans drink a lethal brew that is dyed red or dyed blue? What difference does it make?"
Obama vs. Ryan and the Republicans?
Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on April 6, 2012 11:22 AM
Obama has opened fire on Paul Ryan's plan for government spending. Romney has endorsed the Ryan plan. This debate will go on until election day.
Both parties view the nation as "one". Both parties view the economy as "one". Both assume that the powers of government over the nation and the economy are legitimate. Therefore, they both frame the debate in terms of the size and disposition of government revenues and spending in how well they create economic growth and wealth in some macro or national sense.
The heart of the debate, in their terms, is very simple. Is government taxing and spending productive for the economy? Obama over and over says that government taxing and spending is productive for the economy, but of course he soft-pedals tax increases and burdens.
The Republican position is cloudier and weaker in one aspect of this debate because Republicans support government spending too and have initiated many substantial programs as Obama correctly points out. In another aspect, their position is stronger. They argue basically that government spending is productive but subject to diminishing returns. If deficits are huge, that is, in their view, a signal that previous government spending (which the Democrats are fond of calling investments) is not generating increased wealth, and thus income, and thus tax revenues. And so the Republicans propose federal budgets that bring the government budget into balance, not that they ever will enact such measures.
Obama claims that his budgets will result in growth and balance, but that claim is his weak spot and open to heavy criticism from the Republicans, although they walk a tightrope because they too favor lots of government spending. Obama is cloudy (evasive) on when, if ever, government spending becomes unproductive and when, if ever, deficits are brought down by the higher taxes generated by higher economic growth (without raising tax rates).
So, in sum, Obama's strongest debating point is that Republicans admit that some (indeed much) government spending is good for the economy, and he then criticizes them for not spending enough. Ryan's and the Republicans' strong point is their claim that too much government spending runs into diminishing returns. This shows up in huge deficits, slow economic growth, high unemployment, burdens on future generations, and higher tax rates. Obama counters that by blaming all of this on his predecessors.
Two sentences from a 2009 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report crystallize the bounds of the debate:
"Under current laws and policies, rapidly rising health care costs and an aging population will sharply increase federal spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Unless increases in revenues kept pace with escalating spending, or spending growth was sharply reduced, soaring federal debt would weigh heavily on economic output and incomes."
Obama claims that revenues will grow because more government spending now and in the future is more productive, especially as he is the Wise Man who, when re-elected, will eliminate waste and redirect that spending into productive channels.
Ryan and the Republicans don't believe this, of course. Their claim is that the federal debt is already soaring and already weighing on wealth creation, although of course, in their view, not (and never) that part of it that supports military spending or that part of it that they concede is "good" spending. And of course they disavow their responsibility in bringing government finances into such a sorry condition in their past administrations and votes.
Unlike these two parties, the anti-state contingent, which includes libertarians (one would hope), anarchists of many stripes, anarcho-capitalists, voluntarists, panarchists, minarchists, Ron Paul and his many supporters, secessionists, small government supporters, freedom-lovers, supporters of a constitutional republic, etc. (these categories not being mutually exclusive or exhaustive), all of these I say recognize or should recognize that existing government as conducted by the existing state is raising (robbing) and wasting vast sums of money in unproductive ventures, indeed counterproductive ventures that destroy wealth, impede the production of wealth, not to mention destroying lives in the most blind, cruel, and insensitive ways. Similarly, it is regulating behavior with the same effects. It is only through the ability of Americans to work around all of this, openly and underground, with a strong heritage of invention and entrepreneurship, that has allowed them to make headway against the state's onslaught.
So, getting back to the central question: Is government taxing, regulation, and spending productive for the economy? Instead of citing mountains of research done by libertarians, this time around I will cite a short summary written by Brian M. Riedl at the Heritage Foundation. He makes the case quite well as to why government spending does not stimulate economic growth. He references studies that find this empirically. He comes right out and says "Mountains of academic studies show how government expansions reduce economic growth."
Are either Obama or the big spending Republicans (which is nearly all of them) listening? Do they read? Are they seriously interested in the progress and freedom of Americans? They condemn themselves by their own votes. How many have the courage to lead, which means telling Americans truths that are unpleasant as well as going against the accepted currents of false thoughts and beliefs? How many are willing to educate themselves, admit their errors, and change their positions?
Are journalists interested? Do they read and think? Are they willing to challenge both parties the way that Ron Paul has?
We are going to hear a debate on government and the economy for the next 7 months. Americans will be asked to make a choice between Romney and Obama. This is a choice between ingesting a lot of poison and a lot more of poison. Both sides support poisonous policies.
This is why I placed a question mark in the title to this blog. Is this a really meaningful debate between Obama and the Republicans? Shall Americans drink a lethal brew that is dyed red or dyed blue? What difference does it make?
Debate is one thing. Governing is another. Once in office, the two plans of the two parties will end up converging through compromise and politics. Voting in elections won't matter.
The more meaningful debate is on other grounds: pro-state or anti-state. Or: pro-taxes versus anti-taxes.
What did Lincoln say, "Can we, as a nation, continue together permanentlyforeverhalf slave, and half free?" Can domestic tranquility be maintained if half of us Americans pay income taxes to the other half that doesn't? How long before that erupts into debate or serious friction? How long before that alone divides the supposed nation? What happens if those who pay income taxes for the benefit of others begin to become anti-state in large numbers while tax recipients become pro-state?
Obama vs. Ryan and the Republicans?
Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on April 6, 2012 11:22 AM
Obama has opened fire on Paul Ryan's plan for government spending. Romney has endorsed the Ryan plan. This debate will go on until election day.
Both parties view the nation as "one". Both parties view the economy as "one". Both assume that the powers of government over the nation and the economy are legitimate. Therefore, they both frame the debate in terms of the size and disposition of government revenues and spending in how well they create economic growth and wealth in some macro or national sense.
The heart of the debate, in their terms, is very simple. Is government taxing and spending productive for the economy? Obama over and over says that government taxing and spending is productive for the economy, but of course he soft-pedals tax increases and burdens.
The Republican position is cloudier and weaker in one aspect of this debate because Republicans support government spending too and have initiated many substantial programs as Obama correctly points out. In another aspect, their position is stronger. They argue basically that government spending is productive but subject to diminishing returns. If deficits are huge, that is, in their view, a signal that previous government spending (which the Democrats are fond of calling investments) is not generating increased wealth, and thus income, and thus tax revenues. And so the Republicans propose federal budgets that bring the government budget into balance, not that they ever will enact such measures.
Obama claims that his budgets will result in growth and balance, but that claim is his weak spot and open to heavy criticism from the Republicans, although they walk a tightrope because they too favor lots of government spending. Obama is cloudy (evasive) on when, if ever, government spending becomes unproductive and when, if ever, deficits are brought down by the higher taxes generated by higher economic growth (without raising tax rates).
So, in sum, Obama's strongest debating point is that Republicans admit that some (indeed much) government spending is good for the economy, and he then criticizes them for not spending enough. Ryan's and the Republicans' strong point is their claim that too much government spending runs into diminishing returns. This shows up in huge deficits, slow economic growth, high unemployment, burdens on future generations, and higher tax rates. Obama counters that by blaming all of this on his predecessors.
Two sentences from a 2009 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report crystallize the bounds of the debate:
"Under current laws and policies, rapidly rising health care costs and an aging population will sharply increase federal spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Unless increases in revenues kept pace with escalating spending, or spending growth was sharply reduced, soaring federal debt would weigh heavily on economic output and incomes."
Obama claims that revenues will grow because more government spending now and in the future is more productive, especially as he is the Wise Man who, when re-elected, will eliminate waste and redirect that spending into productive channels.
Ryan and the Republicans don't believe this, of course. Their claim is that the federal debt is already soaring and already weighing on wealth creation, although of course, in their view, not (and never) that part of it that supports military spending or that part of it that they concede is "good" spending. And of course they disavow their responsibility in bringing government finances into such a sorry condition in their past administrations and votes.
Unlike these two parties, the anti-state contingent, which includes libertarians (one would hope), anarchists of many stripes, anarcho-capitalists, voluntarists, panarchists, minarchists, Ron Paul and his many supporters, secessionists, small government supporters, freedom-lovers, supporters of a constitutional republic, etc. (these categories not being mutually exclusive or exhaustive), all of these I say recognize or should recognize that existing government as conducted by the existing state is raising (robbing) and wasting vast sums of money in unproductive ventures, indeed counterproductive ventures that destroy wealth, impede the production of wealth, not to mention destroying lives in the most blind, cruel, and insensitive ways. Similarly, it is regulating behavior with the same effects. It is only through the ability of Americans to work around all of this, openly and underground, with a strong heritage of invention and entrepreneurship, that has allowed them to make headway against the state's onslaught.
So, getting back to the central question: Is government taxing, regulation, and spending productive for the economy? Instead of citing mountains of research done by libertarians, this time around I will cite a short summary written by Brian M. Riedl at the Heritage Foundation. He makes the case quite well as to why government spending does not stimulate economic growth. He references studies that find this empirically. He comes right out and says "Mountains of academic studies show how government expansions reduce economic growth."
Are either Obama or the big spending Republicans (which is nearly all of them) listening? Do they read? Are they seriously interested in the progress and freedom of Americans? They condemn themselves by their own votes. How many have the courage to lead, which means telling Americans truths that are unpleasant as well as going against the accepted currents of false thoughts and beliefs? How many are willing to educate themselves, admit their errors, and change their positions?
Are journalists interested? Do they read and think? Are they willing to challenge both parties the way that Ron Paul has?
We are going to hear a debate on government and the economy for the next 7 months. Americans will be asked to make a choice between Romney and Obama. This is a choice between ingesting a lot of poison and a lot more of poison. Both sides support poisonous policies.
This is why I placed a question mark in the title to this blog. Is this a really meaningful debate between Obama and the Republicans? Shall Americans drink a lethal brew that is dyed red or dyed blue? What difference does it make?
Debate is one thing. Governing is another. Once in office, the two plans of the two parties will end up converging through compromise and politics. Voting in elections won't matter.
The more meaningful debate is on other grounds: pro-state or anti-state. Or: pro-taxes versus anti-taxes.
What did Lincoln say, "Can we, as a nation, continue together permanentlyforeverhalf slave, and half free?" Can domestic tranquility be maintained if half of us Americans pay income taxes to the other half that doesn't? How long before that erupts into debate or serious friction? How long before that alone divides the supposed nation? What happens if those who pay income taxes for the benefit of others begin to become anti-state in large numbers while tax recipients become pro-state?
GOP Deception
Posted by Laurence Vance on April 7, 2012 05:22 PM
Although I loathe Obama as much and probably more than the Republicans (since I also loathe him for being a warmonger like them), the graph on the RNC website blaming Obama for high gas prices is deceptive. If you look at gas prices for the last 30 years, it is evident that they began to drastically increase after Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. After reaching over $4 a gallon, gas prices made a sudden drop before the 2008 election (but not enough to help the Republicans win the presidency). Now they have come back up under Obama. Bush and Obamabirds of a feather.
GOP deception. Are you surprised? The GOP has masqueraded as the party of limited government for years. The truth, of course, is just the opposite. Will I be voting Republican in November to keep Obama from winning? The lesser of two evils is still evil. And in the case of the GOP, it is just the perceived evil anyway.
Strip-Searching America: Florence v. County of Burlington
By John W. Whitehead
April 03, 2012
In a devastating 5-4 ruling that not only condones an overreach of state power but legitimizes what is essentially state-sponsored humiliation and visual rape, the U.S. Supreme Court recently declared that any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials without reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is carrying a weapon or contraband. The five-man majority rationalized their ruling as being necessary for safety, security and efficiency, the government's overused and all-too-convenient justifications for its steady erosion of our freedoms since 9/11.
This ruling stems from the case of Albert Florence who was erroneously arrested for failing to pay a traffic fine and forced to submit to two egregious strip and visual body-cavity searches at two different county jails. Ironically enough, the supposed crime for which Albert Florence was arrested (having an unpaid traffic fine) is not a criminal offense in New Jersey, while being strip searched for something other than a crime is a criminal offense. Florence, an African-American man in his mid-thirties, was on his way to Sunday dinner in 2005 with his then-pregnant wife and 4-year-old son when they were stopped by a New Jersey State Police trooper. Florence's wife was driving. However, after showing his ID, Florence found himself handcuffed, arrested and taken to jail. After spending six days in jail, Florence was finally able to prove his innocence.
Outraged, Florence sued the jail officials who had needlessly degraded his bodily integrity. A federal appeals court sanctioned the blanket strip search policy, which was then affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a nutshell, what Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, concluded was that it is impractical"unworkable" was the phrase usedto expect overworked jail officials to have to take the time to distinguish between harmless individuals guilty of nothing more than driving without a seatbelt and those who pose a true threat and may be reasonably suspected of carrying drugs or weapons.
Of course, the Constitution insists that a workable solution must be foundone that squares with the Bill of Rights. But in an age when the courts show greater deference to bureaucracy than democracy, making life easier for harried jailers trumps the Constitution. Consequently, any person who is arrested, no matter how minor the alleged criminal act, can now be subjected to a degrading strip search. Examples of minor violations which could now lead to a strip search are many and include "violating a leash law, driving without a license and failing to pay child support."
These blanket strip searches are not for the faint of heart. A typical strip search, as described in a prison manual and cited by Justice Stephen Breyer in his dissent, involves:
a visual inspection of the inmate's naked body. This should include the inmate opening his mouth and moving his tongue up and down and from side to side, removing any dentures, running his hands through his hair, allowing his ears to be visually examined, lifting his arms to expose his arm pits, lifting his feet to examine the sole, spreading and/or lifting his testicles to expose the area behind them and bending over and/or spreading the cheeks of his buttocks to expose his anus. For females, the procedures are similar except females must in addition, squat to expose the vagina.
One can certainly understand the need for such precautions when dealing with dangerous criminals. But is there really any reason to subject a mother arrested for driving with her children unbelted to such an invasive strip search? What about the nun arrested for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration? Or the activists arrested in a free speech protest or those who engage in acts of nonviolent civil disobedience? In keeping with this ruling, any and all of these individuals could now find themselves subjected to exposing their naked bodies in a variety of poses designed to "show all" to the prying eyes of government officials.
Frankly, I doubt that Anthony M. Kennedy, John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.the five justices who seemed to have no trouble inflicting such humiliations on the populacewould be inclined to condone such dehumanizing treatment were there even the slightest possibility that they might be subjected to it. It is a testament to the elitist mindset that prevails in our judicial system today that these five men can rest easy knowing that they will never be subjected to any such violation of their persons. It is only average Americansthe so-called "great unwashed masses"who will have to worry about being subjected to this state-sanctioned brand of humiliation and bodily violation. (It may seem a paltry consolation for those forced to endure these searches, but at least Justice Breyer, joined in his dissent by his female counterparts on the benchJustices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kaganrecognized that these visually invasive strip searches constitute a serious invasion of privacy.)
This ruling is far from the first occurrence of the Supreme Court's elitism, detachment, cluelessness about how average Americans live, and lack of concern about the degree of humiliation to which we are subjected by government officials. In their decision in Kentucky v. King, for instancea ruling that completely undermines the Fourth Amendment requirement of a warrant before entering someone's homethe Court held that police officers can forcibly enter a person's home, without a warrant and for nonviolent offenses, based only on the mere suspicion that the occupant may possess an illegal substance (most likely marijuana). Now with its decision in Florence v. County of Burlington, the Court has driven another stake through the heart of the Fourth Amendment, the constitutional guarantee that people should be free from unreasonable search and seizure by government agents.
This ruling also further reinforces the idea that we are all to be treated as suspects. A forcible strip search upon arrest inverts the presumption of innocence into the presumption of guilt. Before even being allowed to call a lawyer, the arrestee is faced with the dehumanizing treatment of a strip search, a security measure traditionally reserved for those suspected of a serious crime or already proven guilty.
Doubtless this ruling will pave the way for even greater abuses to be meted out on the populace by the total security state. Now that these blanket strip searches no longer have to be restricted to hardened criminals and suspected murderers, it won't be long before folks arrested for innocuous offenses such as jaywalking or kids who start a food fight at school find themselves forced to strip naked and spread eagle. What's to stop the police from strip-searching children accused of minor offenses such as schoolyard scuffles? It's not so far fetched as one might think. Baltimore police have come under fire for arresting and handcuffing three 9-year-old girls and an 8-year-old boy, a scenario which, under this ruling, could have resulted in a strip search of young children.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Florence is also an affront to international law and universal human rights, which the United States purports to uphold. According to Article 5 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Yet there is nothing more degrading or inhuman than forcibly strip-searching a person arrested for a minor crime. Just ask Albert Florence who described the experience of being strip searched as "humiliating. It made me feel less than a man."
Despite giving the green light to these blanket strip searches in the name of safety and security, the Supreme Court has in the past recognized that strip searches are traumatic. In 2009, the Court ruled that school officials' strip search of a 13-year-old girl was an unconstitutional violation of her rights. Unfortunately, despite the fact that police and jail officials are not trained in matters of constitutional law, let alone matters involving human dignity and bodily integrity, the justices deferred to the judgment of police and jail officials in Florence. Yet having essentially gifted jailers with carte blanche authority to strip search individuals at will, the Court may find it has opened a proverbial can of worms.
Although most Americans are very compliant, many will not readily submit to these strip searchesespecially not if they are innocent of any serious criminal wrongdoing. It's unlikely that a woman arrested for not seat belting her child or paying a traffic ticket on time will placidly disrobe and spread her body parts. And what will happen when she refuses? Will she be forcibly stripped of her clothes? Will she be subjected to an enhanced patdown and virtual strip search, akin to what the TSA has been meting out to passengers? Will she find herself facing even more onerous charges carrying even great penalties, such as those levied against individuals found to have resisted arrest?
In light of the fact that approximately 13 million people are introduced to American jails in any given year, we may soon see millions of people needlessly strip-searched over minor offenses such as unpaid traffic fines. What remains to be seen is whether this license to strip-search will become the next weapon of compliance to be used against those who question the power of the state. For the moment, however, thanks to the Supreme Court, visually invasive strip searches will at least be the hallmark of jailhouses across the United States.
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/strip_searching_america_florence_v_county_of_burlington1
"For at least a hundred years, people have repeatedly warned that the world is running out of oil. In 1920, the US Geological Survey estimated that the world contained only 60 billion barrels of recoverable oil. But to date we have produced more than 1000 billion barrels and currently have more than 1500 billion barrels in reserve. World petroleum reserves are at an all-time high. The world is awash in a glut of oil. Conventional oil resources are currently estimated to be in the neighborhood of ten trillion barrels. The resource base is growing faster than production can deplete it.
"In addition to conventional oil, the US has huge amounts of unconventional oil resources that remain untouched. The western US alone has 2000 billion barrels of oil in the form of oil shales. At a current consumption rate of 7 billion barrels a year, that's a 286-year supply."
Demise of Peak Oil Theory
by David Deming
Peak Oil is the theory that the production history of petroleum follows a symmetrical bell-shaped curve. Once the curve peaks, decline is inevitable. The theory is commonly invoked to justify the development of alternative energy sources that are allegedly renewable and sustainable.
Peak Oil theory was originated by American geologist M. King Hubbert. In 1956 Hubbert predicted that US oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. When production peaked in 1970, it was interpreted as proof that Hubbert's model was correct and that US oil production had entered a period of inexorable and irreversible decline. Unanswered was the question of whether or not US production had declined simply because it had become cheaper to purchase imported oil.
Peak Oil is a theory based upon assumptions. Like other scientific theories, it is subject to empirical corroboration or falsification. Although Hubbert correctly predicted the timing of peak US oil production, several of his other predictions based on Peak Oil theory were wrong.
Hubbert predicted that the maximum possible US oil production by 2011 would be one billion barrels. But actual production in 2011 was two billion barrels. Hubbert predicted that annual world oil production would peak in the year 2000 at 12.5 billion barrels. It didn't. World oil production in 2011 was 26.5 billion barrels and continues to increase. Hubbert was grossly wrong about natural gas production. In 1956 he predicted that by 2010 US annual gas production would be 4 TCF. But in 2010, US wells produced more than 26 TCF of gas.
The flaw of Peak Oil theory is that it assumes the amount of a resource is a static number determined solely by geological factors. But the size of a exploitable resource also depends upon price and technology. These factors are very difficult to predict.
The US oil industry began in 1859 when Colonel Edwin Drake hired blacksmith Billy Smith to drill a 69-foot-deep well. Subsequent technological advances have opened up resources beyond the limits of our ancestors' imaginations. We can drill offshore in water up to eight-thousand feet deep. We have enhanced recovery techniques, horizontal drilling, and four-dimensional seismic imaging. Oklahoma oilman Harold Hamm is turning North Dakota into Saudi Arabia by utilizing hydraulic fracturing technology. US oil production has reversed its forty-year long decline. By the year 2020, it is anticipated that the US will be the world's top oil producer.
For at least a hundred years, people have repeatedly warned that the world is running out of oil. In 1920, the US Geological Survey estimated that the world contained only 60 billion barrels of recoverable oil. But to date we have produced more than 1000 billion barrels and currently have more than 1500 billion barrels in reserve. World petroleum reserves are at an all-time high. The world is awash in a glut of oil. Conventional oil resources are currently estimated to be in the neighborhood of ten trillion barrels. The resource base is growing faster than production can deplete it.
In addition to conventional oil, the US has huge amounts of unconventional oil resources that remain untouched. The western US alone has 2000 billion barrels of oil in the form of oil shales. At a current consumption rate of 7 billion barrels a year, that's a 286-year supply.
Nine years ago, I predicted that "the age of petroleum has only just begun." I was right. The Peak Oil theorists, the malthusians, and the environmentalists were all wrong. They have been proven wrong, over and over again, for decades. A tabulation of every failed prediction of resource exhaustion would fill a library.
Sustainability is a chimera. No energy source has been, or ever will be, sustainable. In the eleventh century, Europeans anticipated the industrial revolution by transforming their society from dependence on human and animal power to water power. In the eighteenth century, water power was superseded by steam engines fired by burning wood. Coal replaced wood, and oil and gas have now largely supplanted coal. In the far distant future we will probably utilize some type of nuclear power. But for at least the next hundred years, oil will remain our primary energy source because it is abundant, inexpensive, and reliable.
Petroleum is the lifeblood of our industrial economy. The US economy will remain stagnant and depressed until we begin to aggressively develop our native energy resources. As Harold Hamm has said, "we can do this." What's stopping us is not geology, but ignorance and bad public policy.
http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming9.1.1.html
"In addition to conventional oil, the US has huge amounts of unconventional oil resources that remain untouched. The western US alone has 2000 billion barrels of oil in the form of oil shales. At a current consumption rate of 7 billion barrels a year, that's a 286-year supply."
Demise of Peak Oil Theory
by David Deming
Peak Oil is the theory that the production history of petroleum follows a symmetrical bell-shaped curve. Once the curve peaks, decline is inevitable. The theory is commonly invoked to justify the development of alternative energy sources that are allegedly renewable and sustainable.
Peak Oil theory was originated by American geologist M. King Hubbert. In 1956 Hubbert predicted that US oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. When production peaked in 1970, it was interpreted as proof that Hubbert's model was correct and that US oil production had entered a period of inexorable and irreversible decline. Unanswered was the question of whether or not US production had declined simply because it had become cheaper to purchase imported oil.
Peak Oil is a theory based upon assumptions. Like other scientific theories, it is subject to empirical corroboration or falsification. Although Hubbert correctly predicted the timing of peak US oil production, several of his other predictions based on Peak Oil theory were wrong.
Hubbert predicted that the maximum possible US oil production by 2011 would be one billion barrels. But actual production in 2011 was two billion barrels. Hubbert predicted that annual world oil production would peak in the year 2000 at 12.5 billion barrels. It didn't. World oil production in 2011 was 26.5 billion barrels and continues to increase. Hubbert was grossly wrong about natural gas production. In 1956 he predicted that by 2010 US annual gas production would be 4 TCF. But in 2010, US wells produced more than 26 TCF of gas.
The flaw of Peak Oil theory is that it assumes the amount of a resource is a static number determined solely by geological factors. But the size of a exploitable resource also depends upon price and technology. These factors are very difficult to predict.
The US oil industry began in 1859 when Colonel Edwin Drake hired blacksmith Billy Smith to drill a 69-foot-deep well. Subsequent technological advances have opened up resources beyond the limits of our ancestors' imaginations. We can drill offshore in water up to eight-thousand feet deep. We have enhanced recovery techniques, horizontal drilling, and four-dimensional seismic imaging. Oklahoma oilman Harold Hamm is turning North Dakota into Saudi Arabia by utilizing hydraulic fracturing technology. US oil production has reversed its forty-year long decline. By the year 2020, it is anticipated that the US will be the world's top oil producer.
For at least a hundred years, people have repeatedly warned that the world is running out of oil. In 1920, the US Geological Survey estimated that the world contained only 60 billion barrels of recoverable oil. But to date we have produced more than 1000 billion barrels and currently have more than 1500 billion barrels in reserve. World petroleum reserves are at an all-time high. The world is awash in a glut of oil. Conventional oil resources are currently estimated to be in the neighborhood of ten trillion barrels. The resource base is growing faster than production can deplete it.
In addition to conventional oil, the US has huge amounts of unconventional oil resources that remain untouched. The western US alone has 2000 billion barrels of oil in the form of oil shales. At a current consumption rate of 7 billion barrels a year, that's a 286-year supply.
Nine years ago, I predicted that "the age of petroleum has only just begun." I was right. The Peak Oil theorists, the malthusians, and the environmentalists were all wrong. They have been proven wrong, over and over again, for decades. A tabulation of every failed prediction of resource exhaustion would fill a library.
Sustainability is a chimera. No energy source has been, or ever will be, sustainable. In the eleventh century, Europeans anticipated the industrial revolution by transforming their society from dependence on human and animal power to water power. In the eighteenth century, water power was superseded by steam engines fired by burning wood. Coal replaced wood, and oil and gas have now largely supplanted coal. In the far distant future we will probably utilize some type of nuclear power. But for at least the next hundred years, oil will remain our primary energy source because it is abundant, inexpensive, and reliable.
Petroleum is the lifeblood of our industrial economy. The US economy will remain stagnant and depressed until we begin to aggressively develop our native energy resources. As Harold Hamm has said, "we can do this." What's stopping us is not geology, but ignorance and bad public policy.
http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming9.1.1.html
Prosecutor won't use grand jury in Trayvon Martin shooting case
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
WordPress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Fox News Hires Supporter of Jeremiah Wright and Derrick Bell
Posted By Cliff Kincaid On April 6, 2012 @ 6:39 pm In AIM Column | 1 Comment
Fox News is once again moving to the left, hoping to avoid left-wing attacks on its news operations and commentators. But the move risks alienating conservative viewers. The current controversy involves new Fox News contributor Santita Jackson, who lists the notorious Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., as being among her personal "activities and interests" on her Facebook page [1].
Wright, who was Obama's pastor for 20 years and baptized Obama's children, became a major controversial figure during the 2008 presidential campaign when it became known that he blamed the 9/11 terrorist attacks on American foreign policy and claimed the U.S. manufactured the AIDS virus to kill black people.
The link [2] on the Santita Jackson page, which promotes matters of personal interest to Ms. Jackson and other things she likes to do, directs people to Wright's official home page.
But her taste for racial and divisive politics has taken on added significance in view of a blog post [3] from 2010, in which Jackson praised New York University law professor Derrick Bell, who has recently become known as "Obama's Beloved Law Professor" at Breitbart.com because of videos [4] showing the President embracing him. J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer, wrote [5], "Both Obama and Bell demanded that Harvard hire professors on the basis of race. Obama and other students rallied to Bell's side after Bell quit teaching in an attempt to force Harvard to implement race-based hiring policies."
He added, "The Obama-Bell connection is the latest in a pattern of Barack Obama's associations with individuals who promoted a racially divisive America."
Santita Jackson praised [3] Bell's decision to leave Harvard in the context of criticizing Obama's decision to appoint white feminist Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Kagan's hires "while serving as law dean at the Harvard Law School have served to give me pause," she said, noting the reported failure to hire one single African-American, Latino or Native American. "NYU Law Professor Derrick Bell left the Harvard Law school in 1992 over this very issue," Jackson noted.
Equally significant, Jackson's bio [6] describes her as a founding contributor to The Grio, a website dedicated to black news and opinion owned by MSNBC and which is produced in cooperation with [7] NBC News. She lists The Grio as being among her other activities and links to a description of the site.
Hence, Fox News is sharing personnel with a rival network, another indication of the channel's move to the left.
It is apparent that the left-wing attacks on Fox News, many of them directed through the Soros-funded Media Matters group, have taken their toll.
Conservative reactions to the Fox News hiring of Jackson have been blistering. At The Blaze, a website published by Glenn Beck, who was fired from the channel after representatives of George Soros objected to his scrutiny of the billionaire, one person commented [8], "Seriously Fox what are you thinking? You are going to push away the base of viewers that have kept you at number 1…Why mess with something that was working? Good luck though to jj daughter. I am not attacking her I am attacking the leadership at Fox for alienating the viewership over and over again with their PC garbage…"
"JJ" is a reference to her father Jesse Jackson, who has run for the Democratic Party presidential nomination and is a prominent supporter of President Obama. On the rival MSNBC network, Jackson recently suggested that criticism of Obama's performance in office has been racist. Obama is "under some venomous attack," he said [9]. "I mean, the captain of the ship is an African-American who has taken us out of an economic crisis on an upward swing, but there are those who are willing to sink the ship just to destroy the captain."
Another reader comment on The Blaze said of the Fox News decision to hire Jackson's daughter: "Ever since the News Corps scandal, Fox has begun a rapid slide to the left. They are BECOMING the corrupt lame-stream-media they used to rail against!"
It is not known if Fox News understood that Santita Jackson, in addition to being the daughter of left-wing activist and Democratic Party politician Jesse Jackson, has been promoting Jeremiah Wright or Derrick Bell. Fox News host Sean Hannity frequently talks about how he used his program during the 2008 campaign to expose Wright and his influence over Obama.
It was later revealed that Wright, at a September 17, 2009, anniversary celebration of Monthly Review, a Marxist publication, had praised [10] Marxism and discussed his ties to communists in El Salvador and Nicaragua and the Libyan government. He called America "land of the greed and home of the slave."
Santita Jackson's "interest" in Wright, a form of expressing support for the controversial minister, can only add to concerns that Fox News is moving to the left so fast it is not checking out its left-wing contributors. Her praise for Bell is equally dismaying.
More than two years ago, Fox News hired—and then fired—Marc Lamont Hill as a paid commentator, after AIM revealed [11] that he had an easily documentable record in support of cop-killers.
Santita Jackson comes from Chicago, which is Obama's home base, and hosted a radio show on Chicago's WVON, which just happens to carry a show by the notorious Al Sharpton. Next to Sharpton, who hosts a TV program on MSNBC, her father may be the most vocal race baiter and agitator in the nation. Sharpton promoted the Tawana Brawley hoax, in which a black woman falsely claimed being raped by white men.
Sharpton and Jackson have both been quick to jump on the Trayvon Martin shooting, in order to promote the idea that America is a racist nation in which blacks are profiled, shot and killed for no reason. However, facts emerging in this controversial case demonstrate that the shooter, George Zimmerman, a Hispanic, may have shot and killed Martin in self-defense, after a violent confrontation, and that Martin, a black teenager, had been in trouble at his school and suspended. Investigations into the case continue, although the use of lethal force in self-defense is permitted under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.
Although she is going to work for Fox News Channel as a paid contributor, Santita Jackson has never said anything on the public record that is complimentary to the cable channel. Hence, the hiring looks like a sop to the critics of the cable channel.
Even more embarrassing for Fox News, her Facebook page identifies liberals Anderson Cooper and Roland Martin of CNN as being her favorite media personalities. She and Martin are long-time friends.
One other reader comment at The Blaze was that if Fox News keeps moving left, it will start resembling CNN.
In an AIM blog post, "Fox Veers Left, Hires Jesse Jackson's Daughter [12]," Don Irvine noted that "Jackson will join a growing legion of left-wingers at Fox that includes Jehmu Greene and Sally Kohn. Greene is the former president of the Women's Media Center, which was founded by Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem, and Kohn is a former senior strategist for the Soros-funded Center for Community Change."
Irvine added, "Fox's moves to beef up its liberal lineup continue to confound conservatives who see no need for the top-rated cable news network to give liberals even more of a voice than they currently have. They already have MSNBC and CNN, along with the rest of the mainstream media. If this hiring trend continues, Fox runs the risk of alienating its conservative audience to the point that they will look elsewhere for their news, and eventually end Fox's long run as the top cable news network."
Although her left-wing political views are nothing new, and only add to what Greene and Kohn already provide on various Fox News programs, there is no doubt that Santita Jackson has a fascinating personal story. She lost more than 200 pounds after gastric bypass weight-loss surgery. She is also said to be a dynamic singer. She sang at President Clinton's second presidential inauguration and attended Obama's inauguration.
But her political views, of course, are what are getting attention since her hiring by Fox News.
In addition to being a fan of the anti-American Rev. Wright, her Facebook page lists the radical demagogic Catholic Priest Father Michael Pfleger as one of her favorite interests. Pfleger, who has known Barack Obama since his days as a community organizer in Chicago, called on Christian churches on March 25 to put a hoodie on their altar as "a sign of solidarity" with Trayvon Martin, the black teenager who wore a sweatshirt with a hood before his confrontation with Zimmerman.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Pfleger was hailed as "a friend" of Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ and declared [13] in remarks from the pulpit that Hillary Clinton thought she was "entitled" to the Democratic presidential nomination because she was white.
Interestingly, Santita Jackson lists the law firm of Tamara N. Holder as being among other "activities and interests" on her Facebook page [1]. Holder, who is also a paid Fox News contributor, says in her biography [14] that she "works closely with Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. in crafting and executing public policy initiatives, together with programs to increase opportunities for minorities and the economically disadvantaged."
"Tamara single-handedly founded a pro bono legal clinic at Rev. Jesse L. Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition," one of her other websites declares [15]. A criminal attorney in Chicago, her law firm "has successfully defended the most serious of felony cases, from murder to possession of drugs and guns."
Tamara Holder identifies herself on her Twitter page [16] as a lobbyist and "government consultant" but does not disclose who she is lobbying or consulting for.
Not surprisingly, one article [17] discloses that she has been a frequent guest on the radio, including on such programs as "The Al Sharpton Show" and "The Santita Jackson Show."
The Santita Jackson show has now moved from radio to TV, courtesy of the Fox News Channel. Is her father next in line for a show on the "conservative" channel?
Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org
URL to article: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/fox-news-hires-supporter-of-jeremiah-wright-and-derrick-bell/
URLs in this post:
[1] Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/people/Santita-Jackson/1098566226
[2] link: http://www.facebook.com/RevJeremiahWright
[3] blog post: http://santitajackson.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/elena-kagan-is-this-the-best-they-could-do/
[4] videos: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/07/buzzefeed-selectively-edits-obama-tape
[5] wrote: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/08/obamas-beloved-law-professor-derrick-bell
[6] bio: http://santitajackson.wordpress.com/about/
[7] in cooperation with: http://www.thegrio.com/about/
[8] commented: http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/04/05/jesse-jacksons-daughter-starts-new-gig-at-fox/
[9] he said: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/jansing-and-co/46927525#46927525
[10] praised: http://www.aim.org../aim-column/controversial-new-video-of-obamas-pastor/
[11] revealed: http://www.aim.org../press-release/aims-kincaid-applauds-fox-news-channels-firing-of-marc-lamont-hill/
[12] Fox Veers Left, Hires Jesse Jackson's Daughter: http://www.aim.org../don-irvine-blog/fox-veers-left-hires-jesse-jacksons-daughter/
[13] declared: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWigzBClEk8
[14] biography: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamara-n-holder
[15] declares: http://www.theholderposition.com/about/
[16] her Twitter page: http://twitter.com/#%21/tamaraholder
[17] article: http://askville.amazon.com/Tamara-Holder/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=56883173
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
[[ New name: Barack Otraitorbama ]]
ForgeryGate: Blackmailed By Putin, Obama Betrays United States And Her Allies
April 7, 2012 By Doug Book
inShare32
While the American media provide cover for the Constitutionally ineligible Barack Hussein Obama, Vladimir Putin and the nation of Russia are reaping a treasure trove of defense secrets and missile technology by threatening to reveal the true history of the Manchurian Candidate.
Obama has spent millions to prevent his personal story from being revealed to the American public. Records have been destroyed, information has been hidden, false claims have been advanced, potential whistle-blowers have been threatened and official documents have been forged. Enabled by a complicit media and the craven cowardice of political opponents, the most egregious felonies in the nation's history have served to make the American people easy prey for the schemes of a dedicated Communist and committed enemy of our Constitutional Republic.
And those schemes have included the betrayal both of the United States and her allies.
- In 2009 Obama scrapped the long awaited missile defense system for Poland and the Czech Republic because Russia objected.
- He has refused to keep secret the technical data on the U.S Standard Missile-3, as called for in the 2012 defense authorization bill.
- Obama will not pledge to keep American missile technology from China, North Korea and Iran, as it would "…interfere with [his] constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs…"
- Obama will provide Russia information on every Trident missile supplied to Great Britain as part of an arms control deal signed with Russian President Medvedev.
- Leaked cables show that the US will now provide Russia with ALL serial numbers of Trident missiles transferred to Britain.
- Obama proposes the United States CUT its nuclear arsenal by 80%, yet demands no reciprocity on the part of Russia or any of America's enemies.
- Joe Miller, 2010 US Senate candidate from Alaska, reports that, under the guise of drawing a boundary, 7 Alaska-area islands and oil rich sea beds containing perhaps billions of barrels were given to Russia in an unannounced, secret deal by Obama's State Department.
Under Obama's programs, by 2016, defense will account for 20% of the national budget, yet bear over HALF of the deficit-reduction cuts.
In mid-March, Obama declared he would "…provide the Russians with detailed technical information about the anti- missile systems he plans to base in Eastern Europe…"
And Congressman Darrell Issa said that "the American people should be very afraid," continuing with "I judge that in fact he is going to sell out our national defense after the election."
On March 26th, Obama's conversation with outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was accidentally picked up on an open microphone. "This is my last election…After my election I have more flexibility," Obama told Medvedev, who said he would relay that message to the new Russian "president" Vladimir Putin. "On all of these issues, but particularly missile defense this, this can be solved but it's important for him (Putin) to give me space."
Why would an American President need to secretly petition a notorious KGB thug for "space?" Because Vladimir Putin is aware of Obama's criminal abuses of the United States and the American people. He has Obama by the throat, possessing information which can put the Manchurian Candidate in prison for a lifetime. And he is using that information to literally blackmail the American president into betraying the U.S. and her allies around the world.
And though Barack Obama has certainly needed no persuasion to betray the American people and inflict massive damage on the United States since his election, that treachery is now proceeding according to a schedule and terms dictated by Putin, making the guilt of the American President even more obvious and his chances for re-election more tenuous. Thus, the plea for space.
How much MORE damage could the treasonous Barack Obama cause with another 4 years in power? And who might blackmail him next?
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Travis <twmccoy@gmail.com>
Date: 2012/4/7
Subject: Barack Obama Foreign Student - American Media Threatened into Silence
To:
From: Travis <twmccoy@gmail.com>
Date: 2012/4/7
Subject: Barack Obama Foreign Student - American Media Threatened into Silence
To:
Barack Obama Foreign Student - American Media Threatened into Silence
29.03.2012 16:03
By Dianna C. Cotter
On March 7th, 2012, Pravda called out the U.S. press for its deliberate neglect of the largest scandal in modern American history. Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio released credible forensic evidence that Barack Obama, presumed President of the United States, presented to the world a forged Birth Certificate on April 27th, 2011.
Since then, the scandal has only expanded. Former United States Postal Service worker Allen Hulton has recently come forward with compelling testimony given under Oath, which leads to only one conclusion: Barack Obama attended College in the United States as a Foreign Student.
In the summer of 2008 the presidential primary season was winding down, and America could not help but note the fervor a significant number of media personalities expressed while supporting the candidacy Barack Obama. Indeed, it was collectively decided within the liberal media, that Obama's associations with racist pastors and violent domestic terrorists was to be suppressed.
The exposure of the "Journolist" email scandal in 2010 made this glaringly clear: Stories like Obama's ties to Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. of the Trinity United Church, and more relevant, to Bill Ayers and his radical past in the Weather Underground Organization were to remain largely un-reported and uninvestigated. Any realistic investigation into Barack Obama's background was to be minimized, inquiries eventually mocked, and investigators labeled racists.
These tactics have isolated honest media who could and should have reported on these and other important stories yet have inexplicably remained silent. Now we know why. More on this in a moment.
The Postman
Retired United States Postal Worker Allen Hulton recently signed a sworn affidavit for the Maricopa County, Arizona Cold Case Posse convened by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, attesting under oath, to conversations with Mary Ayers, the mother of Bill Ayers. He made his testimony public in a three hour long taped interviewed on March 19th, 2012. Mr. Hutton, by signing an affidavit has subjected himself to laws regarding perjury, not something to be taken lightly as telling the truth is now for him a requirement of law.
His testimony states Mary and Tom Ayers (Parents of Bill ''I don't regret setting bombs" Ayers) were sponsoring Barack Obama as a foreign student, and financially supporting his education.
This is a huge revelation on not one, but two separate fronts.
Bill Ayers of dubious "Weatherman" fame, was not just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood", as then candidate Obama brushed aside. The video linked here comes from a televised DNC Debate in the summer of 2008. As Hillary Clinton revealed then, Obama served in a paid position on the Woods Foundation with Bill Ayers and the two were involved in several projects dispersing millions of dollars over several years.
Realistically, the Ayers family could be said to have adopted Barack Obama, if not as a son then certainly as a kindred Marxist spirit, and treated him to one of the finest educations possible.
There is little doubt Mr. Obama has been less than honest with regard to the Ayers family and their significance in his life.
As disingenuous as this is, it is by no means the most important revelation.
If correct, and Obama was introduced to Hulton as a Foreign Student, this means Barack Hussein Obama would have been using a Foreign Passport to get and prove his foreign student status for entrance into Occidental College, Columbia, and later Harvard Universities. Because Hulton has signed an Affidavit, this cannot be disregarded as mere hearsay; it is instead evidentiary in nature.
The significance of this development may not be immediately apparent until one recognizes American law regarding citizenship status. Citizenship laws as expressed in Title 8 of the United States Code states the use of a Foreign Passport constitutes adult recognition of relinquishment of American Citizenship:
8 USC 1481
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality-
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; 8 USC 1481
Using a foreign passport in order to obtain status as a foreign student is precisely that, proof of naturalization in a foreign state.
The child Barack Obama became an Indonesian Citizen when he was adopted by his stepfather Lolo Soetoro and the family's subsequent relocation to Indonesia. Young Barack by law needed Indonesian Citizenship in order to attend school, and his adoption provided this. Indeed, in young Barack's situation adoption was necessary to gain it.
In his defense, Obama supporters have claimed for years if the president had lost his American Citizenship as a child, he did not in fact lose it because the actions of a parent cannot permanently remove a child's American natural born citizenship status. This fallacious argument once had some validity within the confusing morass that is American Citizenship law, the nature of which is a challenge for immigration attorneys even today.
However, Hulton's story and sworn affidavit would confirm that Barack Obama renounced what American citizenship status he had as an adult over the age of 18, by attending college as a foreign student using a foreign passport.
This would explain the president's refusal to release his college records. These records will easily prove or disprove his status as a Foreign Student. This is the importance of U.S. Postal worker Allen Hulton's testimony. Unless Obama formally renounced that foreign citizenship, there is the distinct possibility he is not an American Citizen, let alone a Natural Born Citizen.
In reality, due to his father's British heritage, Mr. Obama was never a Natural Born Citizen to begin with, and admitted precisely this on his "Fight the Smears" website, stating that he was born under the British Nationality Act of 1948. This website "http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/" has since been removed from the live internet to re-direct to Attackwatch.com "http://www.attackwatch.com/". Clearly Mr. Obama has relied upon confusing the American people as much as possible in order to make the truth as difficult as possible to ascertain.
Selective Service Fraud
Equally unreported by the U.S. media is that of the Selective Service Card which registered Barack Obama for the Draft in 1980. Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse released information on March 1st 2012 that this document is also "Highly Suspicious" of being a forgery, along with Mr. Obama's "Long Form Birth Certificate" which was released by the president in the White House press room on April 27th, 2011.
One of the few media outlets reporting fully on the Cold Case Posse is the Tea Party Tribune of Arizona. On March 21st, the Tribune reported that Sheriff Arpaio has asked the Selective Service headquarters in Virginia for the original card itself in an effort to determine its authenticity within the Selective Service System. According to the Tribune, Sheriff Arpaio expressed his confidence that the agency would investigate the matter. This remains to be seen.
Has the wider American media addressed any of this in context? It may be the largest scandal in American history, certainly the most significant constitutional crisis the nation has faced since the end of the Civil War...
No.
They don't dare.
Censorship: It is not a rumor.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The First Amendment will not prevent a few thugs funded by a private citizen or corporation from paying strategic individuals personal visits though, will it? Now we know why the remaining honest media has remained suspiciously silent.
Rumors of censorship of the American press have circulated at various times over the last several years. It seemed impossible that credible and realistic questions could exist concerning Barack Obama's qualifications for President, yet be somehow missed by the main stream media. Indeed, the media in general is very aware of these questions, however they cannot ask them, let alone report on them. Just one example is Media Matters, funded by the George Soros Foundation, which has repeatedly and openly threated Talk Radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and his advertisers. Many have given in to the threats merely to stay in business.
In late May 2011 Dr. Jerome Corsi PhD. published "Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President". At about the same time, a concerted behind the scenes effort was made to silence the press with regard to the ever increasing questions about Barack Obama's eligibility.
A telephone interview March 22nd with Cold Case Posse Lead investigator Mike Zullo revealed the Posse had received "highly credible" information from three separate, unrelated, credible sources detailing information regarding a nationally syndicated Conservative Talk Radio show. This major very well-known host had a fill-in the day the script called for a discussion of Barack Obama's persistent and unanswered questions regarding his citizenship status.
The executive producers of the national show, 3 hours before air time, pulled the script literally leaving the temporary host with no script whatsoever.
For a nationally syndicated show, this is absolutely unheard of, particularly with a fill-in doing the show. Programing is scheduled days in advance as hours of work and preparation often go into them; it is after all a business and one which must inform accurately. To have a script tossed just hours before airing is simply not done without explanation or substitution.
Lead Investigator Zullo revealed in this conversation that several individuals have come forth to provide testimony; the identity of these witnesses is being withheld for their protection. They identify producers, reporters, T.V. and radio personalities who have been told specifically by intimidating individuals who state clearly, they are not going to report on this story. These witnesses have been told: "If you breathe a word about it on air, we will make certain you never work in this business again," said Investigator Zullo. Apparently those making the threats have the power to carry through on them.
Some of these witnesses have been told this along with a sinister inquiry into how a family member is doing over at XYZ (details have been changed to protect witness identity), or some other means of letting that person know the powers that be know exactly where their family members are...
There are a few however with the courage to speak out and report on this story. Talk radio show host Rodger Hedgecock recently had Sheriff Joe Arpaio on his show. "This is probably the biggest censorship blackout in the history of the United States..." said Arpaio, "Why?" he continued, "Because it has to do with the White House? The President?".
How can the American media possibly pass on a story so huge, and so important - fraud committed by a sitting president? - Simple, it has quite simply been threatened into silence, and law enforcement is now well aware of it.
Those who are threatening the media are apparently dead serious: to the extent that no member of the media who has been threatened is willing to admit publically to it. However, there are several who have given their witness testimony, but have done so under the very strictest of confidentiality agreements. Collectively they are afraid of losing their jobs, or of their employees being further threatened.
This is no game, this is no rumor. Sheriff Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse have the information directly from witnesses who have specific knowledge of the threats, and there are a significant number of informants. Whoever is making these threats has the power to make those threats happen. It is being taken so seriously that no major media outlet has dared to break the silence.
Lead investigator Zullo, mirroring the comments of Sheriff Arpaio commented, "This is probably one of the most concerning aspects of this investigation." When asked if this was thuggery, the reply came without hesitation, "That's exactly what it is."
Media moguls at the levels of a Rupert Murdoch are justifiably nervous. The implicit threat - beyond the direct threats made to their employees - involve investigations of media outlets along with their websites and their parent companies by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
"During our investigation, we actually were told [that media] had been threatened with FTC investigations. Commentators [had been] threatened with their jobs." Lead Investigator Zullo told Bob Unruh of World Net Daily on March 7th. These are the auspices of the federal government with the resources of a powerful nation backing them. The justifications for using such power are almost unlimited as RedState pointed out in August of 2011.
These federal agencies can yank broadcasting licenses, or take a variety of other actions which have the effect of making it impossible to do business let alone broadcast. It's a brutal quid pro quo: don't breathe a word on Barack Obama's citizenship issues or constitutional qualifications for the office he has usurped, and we will let you stay in business.
To be brutally clear, the power and backing of the United States Federal Government is being used to silence the press about Barack Obama. Either outright or through coercion, the media is complicit in covering up the crimes of the fraud Barack Obama and his unconstitutional government. These patterns are clear and unmistakable.
Part two of this column will report on 9 State Attorneys General who have taken the unprecedented step of listing the continuing crimes of the Obama Administration with the clear intent to prosecute, which has also received little media attention.
Update 3-29-2012:
Selective Service Office refuses investigation:
Richard S. Flahavan, associate Director of Public & Intergovernmental Affairs wrote to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, stating: "This Agency has no evidence that President Obama's 1980 registration is not authentic..." Continuing he said, "However, if you have any credible evidence to the contrary and believe that a Federal crime has been committed, we suggest that it be turned over immediately to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to pursue,". Given the FBI is under the office of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, it seems unlikely that any Federal investigation would lead anywhere other than into a dusty filing case in a basement somewhere in Washington D.C..
Sheriff Arpaio has written back to the office which is directed by Selective Service Director Lawrence G. Romo, asking for clarification.
"If your office has the original, authentic Selective Service registration form for Barack Obama from July 29, 1980, please indicate whether or not you are in possession of this document," Arpaio wrote in his reply.
"If the document is in your possession, please make it available for inspection by my Sheriff's Office investigators. We will travel to your facility to analyze it.". The Sheriff has given Romo's office 10 days in which to reply to his request.
Mrs. Cotter is a senior at American Military University, recipient of the Outstanding Student Essay of 2009, a member of Delta Epsilon Tau and Epsilon Pi Phi Academic Fraternities and on the Dean's and President's Lists for academic achievement. She has published at American Thinker, Examiner.com, Accuracy in Media, Family Security Matters, Post and Email, and English Pravda.
The author can be contacted at Cotter.d.c@gmail.com, or at DiannaCotter.com
Дмитрий Судаков
Copyright © 1999-2012, «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
