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

_________

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

_________

"It's Time to Worry about Global COOLING

Kevin Roeten

Source Planet Daily

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s not likely greenhouse ‘gassers’ will be converted in 12 years. They’ll be busy looking for something humans have done to make it so cold. "
http://planetdaily.ws/index.php/more/77

"One Down, One To Go

Source Powerlineblog.com

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

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

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

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

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/11/022068.php

_________

November 14, 2008

Source Instapundit.com

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

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

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

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

posted at 10:11 AM by Glenn Reynolds

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/027203.php

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

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

Wow a man of such accomplishment missing something that obvious!!!  Shame!! 

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

______________

"Emanuel Was Director Of Freddie Mac During Scandal

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

By BRIAN ROSS and RHONDA SCHWARTZ
November 7, 2008

Source ABCnews.com

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

Freddie Mac Misrepresented Income, Says SEC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click Here for the Investigative Homepage.  "

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=6201900&page=1

___________

"Emanuel volunteers Americans to do 'a lot'

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

Posted: November 13, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
Source  © 2008 WorldNetDaily

"MSNBC retracts false Palin story; others duped

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stein later realized he'd been had.

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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_en_tv/palin_hoax_1

_________

"Sarah Palin explains

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently John McCain will be on the Leno show tonight. It will be disappointing if he fails to disassociate himself from his classless aides. "
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/11/022053.php

"The 10 wackiest tax write-offs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. It went up in smoke

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

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

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

2. No receipts from above

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

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

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

3. Silence is golden -- and deductible

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. But you can write off the pimp hat

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

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

6. The 'Zoolander' deduction

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

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

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

7. What are you, an Indy driver?

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

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

8. The $50,000 business meeting

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

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

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

9. Finally, the Social Security crisis solved

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

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

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

10. Inflated assets

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

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

This article was reported and written by Jay MacDonald for Bankrate.com."

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/AvoidAnAudit/The10WackiestTaxWriteOffs.aspx

http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2008/11/fair-tax-rally.html

_____

" Directions

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

http://www.gwinnettcenter.com/GuestServices/NavGuestServices.aspx

Connect the dots ......... 

"CLOWARD-PIVEN STRATEGY of Orchestrate Crisis
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967

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

Socialism is defined as

1.  A political theory advocating state ownership of industry

2.  An economic system based on state ownership of capital

"As More Companies Seek Aid, 'Where Do You Stop?"
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27662540/ 

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

International Herald Tribune

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

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

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/12/business/12lobbying.php

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

Click on the questions below to view the answers.

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

https://www.lotterypost.com/blogcomments.asp?i=24929

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

_______

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

Source ap.google.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRxZox4GFoIweckPDP1oRhKBlHOwD94CCDU00

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

______

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

https://www.lotterypost.com/blogcomments.asp?i=25512

_____________

"What price popularity?

Posted by Paul at 10:16 PM

Source Powerlineblog.com 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/11/022036.php

From one of the very best researched sites on the web, Discoverthenetworks.org.

_________________

 "CLOWARD-PIVEN STRATEGY

• Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Karen McMahan
November 04, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

Mandating Equality

Ghilarducci’s plan first appeared in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute: Agenda for Shared Prosperity on Nov. 20, 2007, in which she said GRAs will rescue the flawed American retirement income system (www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Income and Wealth Redistribution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karen McMahan is a contributing editor of Carolina Journal."

http://www.carolinajournal.com/articles/display_story.html?id=5081