Global Warming Is Fact, and Denial Won't Change Climate Back

Physicist Joseph Romm admits ‘trivial mistakes’ but says the greenhouse is heating while we argue

Big Oil wants us to remain addicted to oil, a major source of carbon pollution. So it and other special interests have conducted an aggressive disinformation campaign for more than a decade to convince Americans that there's a major disagreement among scientists on the dangers posed by carbon pollution, just as the tobacco industry disputed the science to keep smokers addicted.

Yes, the 3,000-page review of the scientific literature by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 has a couple of "trivial mistakes" in it, as the Washington Post put it. But as a physicist who writes on climate issues, I've read much of the original literature and talked to dozens of the leading climate scientists. The real story was captured in a recent headline in Scientific American: "Despite Climategate, IPCC Mostly Underestimates Climate Change."

The British Royal Academy, the oldest scientific body in the world, and the Met Office, part of the United Kingdom's Defense Ministry, noted that "even since the 2007 IPCC Assessment, the evidence for dangerous, long-term, and potentially irreversible climate change has strengthened."

The basic science is clear. Naturally occurring, heat-trapping gases keep the planet about 60 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, giving us the livable climate we have today. Since the industrial revolution, humankind has spewed vast quantities of extra greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, into the atmosphere, causing more and more heat to be trapped. And so the atmosphere is warming. Deke Arndt, climate monitoring chief at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in October, "The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record." It may have seemed like a cool January in parts of this country, but globally it was the hottest January in the satellite record. And while it may be counterintuitive, we actually get more snowstorms in warm years.

The Bush administration concluded in a 2008 report, "It is well established ... that the global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases." That study noted that we're already seeing more extreme weather events.

In the past million years, the climate was primarily driven by natural cycles initiated by changes in Earth's orbit, which led to emissions of greenhouse gases, an amplifying feedback that caused rapid warming after long ice ages. As pre-eminent climatologist Wallace Broecker wrote in 1995, "The paleoclimate record shouts out to us that, far from being self-stabilizing, the Earth's climate system is an ornery beast which overreacts even to small nudges."

Now we are punching the beast in the face. If we don't act quickly, by midcentury carbon dioxide concentrations in the air will reach levels not seen in 15 million years, when it was 5 to 10 degrees warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher, a 2009 study concluded.

The good news is that sea levels don't rise as fast as temperatures, but the bad news is that everywhere you look around the planet, ice is disappearing much faster than expected. Whereas the IPCC had ignored dynamic effects and predicted sea levels might rise perhaps only 1 to 2 feet in this century if we took no action to reduce emissions, major studies since 2007 put the estimate at 3 to 6 feet, enough to generate 100 million environmental refugees or more. Other studies warn that the U.S. Southwest could become a permanent dust bowl post-2040, with Kansas in the Midwest above 90 degrees some 120 days a year.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said in January: "You'll never have energy independence until you clean up the air, and you'll never clean up the air until you price carbon."

We can preserve clean air and a livable climate for our children while slashing the $1 billion a day we send overseas to buy foreign oil and generating millions of good jobs in clean energy industries. But only if the bipartisan effort to pass a comprehensive climate bill led by Graham succeeds. It's time to blow away the smoke once and for all.

Read why the global warming "consensus" is no such thing, by Sen. James Inhofe.

• Check out our editorial cartoons on Global Warming.
• See our slideshow: 10 Winners from Obama's Green Jobs Incentives.

By Joseph Romm

Joseph Romm, a physicist, climate expert, and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, blogs at ClimateProgress.org and is author of Straight Up and Hell and High Water.

Weather warning: Big freeze coming to the GTA

Winter's back - at least for a day or so.

Forecasters say temperatures will sink to a brisk minus 8C overnight Thursday, but an emerging cold front will make Friday — and the start of the weekend — feel much colder, a harsh minus 20C.

Throughout the day, the Friday sunshine will be deceiving so remember to wear layers, meteorologists warn, especially since Friday night’s temperature is expected to dip to a significant low of minus 5C. Winds will make it feel even colder.

Temperatures will remain about 7 degrees below seasonal norms — meaning no patio weather, especially with rain forecast for Sunday, along with 4C temperatures.

“It's still March, so you have to remember, we're normally not that warm. We might have had warm weather lately, but it wasn't here to stay,” said Desjanelle Matthews, a meteorologist with Environment Canada.

The good news is temperatures should rise back to double digits by Monday and a high of 13C predicted for next Wednesday, said Dave Phillips, Environment Canada meteorologist.

Global Warming - Six myths about "deniers"

© Murdo Macleod
The 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley aka Christopher Monckton is seen by his home at Carie, Loch Rannoch, Scotland.

They've been compared to "flat earthers" and even "Holocaust deniers". And, as the recent "Climategate" email scandal reveals, they have been blacklisted in certain professional circles. Scientists who disagree with the current consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) are dismissed by some colleagues and politicians as ignorant and irrelevant. Though there are certainly cranks out there who lend credence to this stereotype, not everyone who rejects the idea that global warming is a planetary crisis brought about by burning fossil fuels deserves to be vilified.

There are numerous myths surrounding those who are wrongly labeled "deniers". Most of them can be distilled into six basic accusations:

1. "Deniers" believe the climate has not warmed.

No one questions that there has been a slight, but unmistakable increase in global temperature since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the early nineteenth century. Global average surface temperature has risen approximately 0.9°C since 1850. But not all scientists attribute this change to the human addition of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases to the air. Those who oppose the prevailing view on AGW point out that since temperatures began to increase well before CO₂ levels were considered significant (c. 1940), a considerable part of this warming is due to natural variations in the climate. Such variations in the past have brought about abrupt climate changes with large swings in temperature.

Numerous articles have appeared in scientific journals over the last several years documenting a warm bias in official temperature measurements. This bias, which may account for up to half of the reported warming, is due largely to changes in land cover - especially the geographic expansion of cities which creates "urban heat islands." An ongoing survey of over 1000 climate reporting stations in the United States, shows that 69% are poorly sited resulting in errors of 2°C to 5°C or more (www.surfacestations.org). Surface data has also been impaired from station dropout. Over two-thirds of the world's stations were dropped from the climate network around 1990. Most of them were colder, high latitude and rural stations.

2. "Deniers" are not real scientists.

Some of the world's foremost atmospheric scientists, physicists, astronomers, and geologists disagree with the current consensus on anthropogenic global warming. These include Richard Lindzen (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Roger Pielke Sr. (University of Colorado), Roy Spencer and John Christy (University of Alabama), Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), Robert Carter (James Cook University, Australia), Fred Singer (University of Virginia), Will Happer (Princeton University), and Nils-Axel Mörner (Stockholm University). In addition to these, there are hundreds of credentialed scientists at universities around the world who reject the hypothesis that CO₂ induced warming dominates changes in earth's climate system.

Though science is not based on authority, the inclusion of such high profile scientists should raise red flags when advocates claim that the "science is settled."

3. "Deniers" are a tiny minority of scientists.

"Nay-sayers" are overshadowed by a vast majority of learned scientific bodies that support the consensus. But most scientific organizations, such as the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, and the National Academies of Science, do not poll their members. Decisions and position statements are made by a small group of officials at the top of the organization. This has created sharp unrest within some professional societies.

The American Meteorological Society is a case in point. A recent survey of AMS broadcast meteorologists revealed that 50% of the respondents disagreed, and only 24% agreed, with the statement that, "Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced." When asked if, "Global climate models are reliable in their projections for a warming of the planet," only 19% agreed, while 62% disagreed (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Oct. 2009).

As the number of those who oppose the consensus grows, it appears that the "deniers" are not a tiny minority as is often claimed.

4. "Deniers" are anti-environmental shills of Big Oil.

Only a small number of scientists who challenge the current consensus have direct ties to the fossil fuel industry. Most are funded by university departments, governments, or private institutions. Many receive no funding at all. Unfortunately, no amount of evidence can unseat the deeply held belief among some, that opposition to the AGW hypothesis is part of a conspiracy funded by big oil. The underlying fear is that any scientific research subsidized by big corporate money will be compromised.

But the blade cuts both ways. Climate research among those who espouse the prevailing view is supported by billions of dollars from government grants and green industries that have a vested interest in global warming. Why should research conducted or funded by environmental organizations and green energy be regarded as more reliable? Whether science is bought and sold by deep pockets, or made subservient to a political or philosophical ideology, the result is the same: Truth is compromised.

5. "Deniers" think CO₂ is irrelevant.

The issue is not whether CO₂ is irrelevant, but, rather, how relevant is it? The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) maintains that CO₂ induced warming dominates the climate system. They project that increasing emissions will result in a 2°C to 6°C rise in global average temperature by the year 2100.

This has been widely misunderstood by the public to mean that energy absorbed and reradiated by atmospheric CO₂ is the direct cause of the warming. In reality, the IPCC claims that CO₂, acting alone, will result in only a 1.2°C rise in temperature. The rest depends on whether the climate amplifies (positive feedback) or diminishes (negative feedback) CO₂ forcing.

This is where the real dispute lies. Climate "sensitivity" is based on numerous interactions that are poorly understood. Scientists who disagree with the IPCC's conclusions are not contesting the fact that CO₂ can cause atmospheric warming (.3°C according to more conservative estimates). They disagree with the science behind the water vapor feedback mechanisms that are said to amplify this warming on a global scale. The complex and chaotic processes underlying these mechanisms, especially as they relate to cloud formation and precipitation, exceed the limits of our knowledge. As a result, climate feedback is not simply the product of numerical calculations ("straightforward physics") as is often supposed, but depends extensively on large scale estimates (parametrization) by computer modelers.

"Deniers" demand empirical proof and are quick to point out that the water vapor feedback hypothesis is poorly supported by hard evidence, and even contradicted by the absence of warming in both the oceans and the atmosphere over the last several years. In fact, some scientists (Lindzen, Spencer, etc.) theorize that water vapor and cloud cover act like a thermostat (negative feedback) to maintain the earth's temperature in approximate equilibrium.

6. "Deniers" believe humans have no impact on climate.

Scientists who challenge the status quo point out that we live in regional and local climates with vast differences in temperature and precipitation - differences that far outweigh changing global averages. Given these differences, the idea of "average global temperature" seems rather meaningless. More importantly, the human impact on climate is far greater at regional and local scales than it is on a global scale. These impacts include land use and land cover changes (e.g., deforestation, agriculture, urbanization) and aerosol pollution (e.g., soot, sulfur, reactive nitrogen, dust). Any one of these modifications can significantly alter temperature, evaporation, cloud cover, precipitation, and wind over a region - and perhaps beyond.

Though the global surface area of agricultural land alone is greater than the size of South America, the IPCC has largely ignored the influence of land cover and aerosols on regional climates. Moreover, climate models have shown no skill in projecting regional climate changes decades in advance.

But a wave of new research is forcing scientists to reevaluate the impact of these factors. Some have already concluded that the effect of CO₂ has been overstated while regional changes in land use and aerosol pollution have been grossly underestimated. One recent study of U.S. climate has concluded that land use changes alone may account for 50% of the warming since 1950 (Environmental Science and Technology, December, 2009).

"Deniers" vs. the "Consensus"

Though "deniers" unanimously agree that CO₂ is not the main driver of climate change, they represent a diversity of scientific viewpoints on issues of climate change, green energy, and the environment - perhaps a greater diversity than scientists who are in lock-step with the consensus. The Climategate scandal has exposed a concerted effort on the part of some IPCC scientists to enforce this consensus by denying access to crucial data and marginalizing anyone who questions the scientific basis of their conclusions. Stealthy tactics like this undermine scientific progress which depends on a robust exchange of information and ideas.

Skepticism is at the heart of the scientific method. So it is ironic that those who have challenged the prevailing orthodoxy are regarded as outcasts. Fortunately, science is not settled by popular vote or authority, but by empirical evidence. History has not always vindicated the majority view or justified the assumed authority of "official science." Consequently, it may be the "deniers", rather than their opponents, who have the last word on global warming.

Bill DiPuccio served as a weather forecaster and lab instructor for the U.S. Navy, and a Meteorological/Radiosonde Technician for the National Weather Service. More recently, he was the head of the science department for Orthodox Christian Schools of Northeast Ohio.

"The Only People Who Still Might Be Fooled Are the American Taxpayers, Who Are Ultimately Responsible When the Bills Come Due"

The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial last August pointing out that the American people are just about the only ones fooled by the government's use of off-balance sheet, SIV-type accounting to hide the debts of Fannie, Freddie, Social Security and Medicare:

The bigger issue is that all of Fan[nie] and Fred[ie]'s liabilities, whether kept inside the companies or hidden in a dark corner of the Treasury, are now Uncle Sam's responsibility. Moving their bad assets into a new Baddie Mae would only preserve the fiction that there is a difference between the government's obligations and those of Fan and Fred. Not even Barney Frank could believe that any more.

***

For the moment, despite 80% government ownership, their $85 billion bailout cost (with more losses to come) and their $5.4 trillion in taxpayer liabilities remain off-balance-sheet in the mold of Enron's special purpose vehicles or Citigroup's SIVs.

The politicians who created and pampered Fan and Fred like it that way. They know that offering federal "guarantees" looks much cheaper, in the official accounting, than actual outlays. But whether it's Fan and Fred, or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation or the Federal Housing Administration, these deferred promises seem to come due sooner or later. Perhaps the politicians would be less profligate in issuing such guarantees if they had to admit the cost up front.

Putting Fannie and Freddie on the national books would in an instant increase the national debt held by the public by 75%—to $12.7 trillion, from $7.3 trillion today. The nearby chart shows that this takes debt as a share of GDP to nearly 90%, or nearly double the peak it reached in the 1980s when the political class was hyperventilating even as the Reagan deficits were falling as a share of GDP. Congress would have to add that $5.4 trillion to the increase in the federal debt limit that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is now requesting. But that would be truth-in-budgeting. Wall Street has sold Fannie paper to the world as if it were as taxpayer guaranteed as Treasury bills, and now we know it is.

Even as the companies careened toward failure a year ago, the Bush Administration was desperate to show it would cover all Fan and Fred debt. The Obama Treasury has been no different and has ginned up the two companies to expand their debts amid the housing meltdown by guaranteeing more residential mortgages. The Federal Reserve has bought $543 billion of Fannie and Freddie mortgage-backed securities and has plans to buy up to $1.25 trillion worth by year end. Foreign debt holders get the message. The only people who still might be fooled are the American taxpayers, who are ultimately responsible when the bills come due.

The larger issue is the integrity of the national balance sheet. As government spending soars, the political temptation to use off-balance-sheet vehicles of various sorts will only increase. Barney Frank is even pushing a bill to make the feds guarantee U.S. municipal debt. The danger is that the federal government will itself become the next Enron, with its biggest liabilities hidden from view, officially denied or tucked away in special purpose vehicles like Fannie Mae. Until the next crisis hits.

It's bad enough that the political class has played this dishonest game with the long-term liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, which are also kept off the balance sheet. But at least those IOUs are held by another branch of the government and can be legislated away by some future Congress. Debt held by the public can't be repudiated without the U.S. descending into Argentina-ville. It's time to come clean about the debts our government is racking up, and Fannie and Freddie are a good place to start.

Financial experts such as Nouriel Roubini and Bill Gross know, of course, that it is all a Ponzi scheme.

Foreign debt holders know about America's financial situation, which is why purchases of Treasuries by foreign central banks are declining.

But the American people are in for one rude shock ...

Vatican axes trial for alleged sex abuse priest

Photo

John Pilmaier from Milwaukee, left, and Peter Isely of the SNAP bureau (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) show pictures of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI, left, and of father Lawrence Murphy, as they stage a press conference in front of The Vatican Thursday, March 25, 2010. SNAP members denounce Benedict's handling of the case that involved father Murphy, who died in 1998, accused of molesting some 200 deaf boys as he worked at the former St. John's School for the Deaf in St. Francis from 1950 to 1975.AP Photo/Pier Paolo Cito

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican on Thursday strongly defended its decision not to defrock an American priest accused of molesting some 200 deaf boys in Wisconsin and denounced what it called a campaign to smear Pope Benedict XVI and his aides.

Church and Vatican documents showed that in the mid-1990s, two Wisconsin bishops urged the Vatican office led by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — now the pope — to let them hold a church trial against the Rev. Lawrence Murphy. The bishops admitted the trial was coming years after the alleged abuse, but argued that the deaf community in Milwaukee was demanding justice from the church.

An American protester in Rome on Thursday called the Murphy case an "incontrovertible case of pedophilia."

Despite the extensive and grave allegations against Murphy, Ratzinger's deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ruled that the alleged molestation had occurred too long ago and that Murphy — then ailing and elderly — should instead repent and be restricted from celebrating Mass outside of his diocese.

The official, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone — now the Vatican's secretary of state — ordered the church trial halted after Murphy wrote Ratzinger a letter saying he was ill, infirm, and "simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood."

The New York Times broke the story Thursday, adding fuel to a swirling scandal about the way the Vatican in general, and Benedict in particular, have handled reports of priests raping children over the years.

On Thursday, a group of Americans who say they were sexually abused by clerics staged a press conference outside St. Peter's Square in Rome to denounce Benedict's handling of the case and gave reporters church and Vatican documents on the case.

Afterward, Italian police detained four Americans for 2 1/2 hours because they didn't have a permit for the news conference and suggested they get a lawyer in case a judge decided to press charges, the Americans said.

"We've spent more time in the police station than Father Murphy did in his life," Peter Isely, the Milwaukee-based director of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said after his release.

Speaking at the earlier press conference, Isely called the Murphy case the most "incontrovertible case of pedophilia you could get."

"The goal of Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, was to keep this secret," he said, flanked by photos of others who say they were abused and a poster of Ratzinger. "We need to know why he (the pope) did not let us know about him (Murphy) and why he didn't let the police know about him and why he did not condemn him and why he did not take his collar away from him."

The Vatican issued a strong defense in its handling of the Murphy case. The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said there was no cover-up and denounced what it said was a "clear and despicable intention" to strike at Benedict "at any cost."

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, issued a statement noting that the Murphy case had only reached the Vatican in 1996 — some 20 years after the diocese first learned of the allegations. He also said Murphy died two years later — in 1998 — and that there was nothing in the church's handling of the matter that precluded any civil action from being taken against him.

In fact, police did investigate the allegations at the time and never proceeded with a case, Lombardi noted. He said in the statement that a lack of more recent allegations was a factor in the decision not to defrock Murphy and noted that "the Code of Canon Law does not envision automatic penalties."

Murphy worked at the former St. John's School for the Deaf in St. Francis from 1950 to 1975. His alleged victims were not limited to the deaf boys' school. Donald Marshall, 45, of West Allis, Wisconsin, said he was abused by Murphy when he was a teenager at the Lincoln Hills School, a juvenile detention center in Irma in northern Wisconsin.

"I haven't stepped in a church for some 20 years. I lost all faith in the church," he told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday. "These predators are preying on God's children. How can they even stand up at the pulpit and preach the word of God?"

Church and Vatican documents obtained by two lawyers who have filed lawsuits alleging the Archdiocese of Milwaukee didn't take sufficient action against Murphy show that as many as 200 deaf students had accused him of molesting them, including in the confessional, while he ran the school.

While the documents — letters between diocese and Rome, notes taken during meetings, and summaries of meetings — are remarkable in the church officials' repeated desire to keep the case secret, they do suggest an increasingly determined effort by bishops, albeit 20 years later, to heed the despair of the deaf community in bringing a canonical trial against Murphy.

Ratzinger's deputy, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, though, shut the process down after Murphy wrote Ratzinger a letter saying he had repented, was old and ailing, and that the case's statute of limitations had run out.

"I have just recently suffered another stroke which has left me in a weakened state," he wrote Ratzinger. "I have repented of any of my past transgressions, and have been living peaceably in northern Wisconsin for 24 years. I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood."

"I ask your kind assistance in this matter," he wrote the man who would be pope within a decade.

According to the documentation, in July 1996, then-Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland sent a letter seeking advice on how to proceed with Murphy to Ratzinger, who led the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1981 until 2005, when he was elected pope.

Weakland explained that he was writing because he had only recently learned that the reason Murphy stopped working in 1975 was because he had been accused of soliciting sex in the confessional, one of the gravest sins in canon law.

Weakland received no response from Ratzinger, and in October 1996 convened a church tribunal to hear the case.

In March 1997, Weakland wrote to the Vatican's Apostolic Signatura, essentially the Vatican high court, asking its advice because he feared the statute of limitations on Murphy's alleged crimes might have expired.

Just a few weeks later, Bertone told the Wisconsin bishops to begin secret disciplinary proceedings against Murphy according to 1962 norms concerning soliciting sex in the confessional, according to the documents.

But a year later, Bertone reversed himself, advising the diocese to stop the process after Murphy wrote to Ratzinger. Bertone suggested that Murphy should instead be subject to "pastoral measures destined to obtain the reparation of scandal and the restoration of justice."

The archbishop then handling the case, Bishop Raphael Fliss, objected, saying in a letter to Bertone that "I have come to the conclusion that scandal cannot be sufficiently repaired, nor justice sufficiently restored, without a judicial trial against Fr. Murphy."

Fliss and Weakland then met with Bertone in Rome in May 1988. Weakland informed Bertone that Murphy had no sense of remorse and didn't seem to realize the gravity of what he had done, according to a Vatican summary of the meeting.

But Bertone insisted that there weren't "sufficient elements to institute a canonical process" against Murphy because so much time had already passed, according to the summary.

Weakland, likening Murphy to a "difficult" child, then reminded Bertone that three psychologists had determined he was a "typical" pedophile, in that he felt himself a victim.

But Bertone suggested Murphy take a spiritual retreat to determine if he is truly sorry, or otherwise face possible defrocking.

"Before the meeting ended, Monsignor Weakland reaffirmed the difficulty he will have to make the deaf community understand the lightness of these provisions," the summary noted.

The documents contain no response from Ratzinger.

The documents emerged even as the Vatican deals with an ever-widening church abuse scandal sweeping several European countries. Benedict last week issued an unprecedented letter to Ireland addressing the 16 years of church cover-up scandals there. But he has yet to say anything about his handling of a case in Germany known to have developed when, as cardinal, he oversaw the Munich Archdiocese from 1977 to 1982.

After Murphy was removed from the school in 1974, he went to northern Wisconsin, where he spent the rest of his life working in parishes, schools and, according to one lawsuit, a juvenile detention center.

Previously released court documents show Weakland oversaw a 1993 evaluation of Murphy that concluded the priest likely assaulted up to 200 students at the school.

Weakland resigned as archbishop in 2002 after admitting the archdiocese secretly paid $450,000 to a man who accused him of sexual abuse.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press.

Bank Collapse Coming 10K Limit on Wire Transfers 2010

Click this link ...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRwsa-yzV48

Ron Paul on Freedom Watch 03/24/10

Click this link ..... http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=10964

Jesse Ventura On Bonnie Hunt (part 1)

Click this link ...... http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=10965

Peter Schiff 03/24/2010 Health Care Bill -- bad medicine & unconstititional

Click this link ...... http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=10967

EU must die: Farage on Euro plunge, Wilders ban and slagging the president

Click this link ..... http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=10970

Marijuana Medical Papers: 1839- 1972

If the following documents do not open, go here to download Acrobat Reader.]

Preface
Introduction
I: FROM EAST TO WEST
On the Preparation of the Indian Hemp or Gunja, W.B. O'Shaughnessy, M.D. (1839)
II: PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AND SPECULATIONS(21K pdf file)
On the Haschisch or Cannabis Indica, J. Bell, M.D. (1857) (84K pdf file)
Cannabis Indica Poisoning, J.C. O'Day, M.D. (1899)(22K pdf file)
Two Cases of Poisoning by Cannabis Indica, J. Foulis, M.D., F.R.C.P. Ed. (1900) (56K pdf file)

Letter from L.M. Wheeler, Director of Dept. of Product Development, Parke-Davis.
The Physiological Activity of Cannabis Sativa, H. C. Hamilton, M.S., et al. (1913) (68K pdf file)
Description of the Hashish Experience, R. P. Walton, M.D. (1938) (136K pdf file)
III: THERAPEUTIC EXCURSIONS(17K pdf file)
Report of the Ohio State Medical Committee on Cannabis Indica (1860) (115K pdf file)
The Use of Indian Hemp in the Treatment of Chronic Chloral and Chronic Opium, E. A. Birch, M.D. (1889) (22K pdf file)
Therapeutical Uses and Toxic Effects of Cannabis Indica, J. R. Reynolds, M.D. (1890) (29K pdf file)
Cannabis Indica as an Anodyne and Hypnotic, J. B. Mattison, M.D. (1891) (43K pdf file)
Marihuana: Therapeutic Application, R. P. Walton, M.D. (1938) (40K pdf file)
Antiepileptic Action of Marihuana Active Substances, J. P. Davis, M.D., and H. H. Ramsey, M.D. (1949) (22K pdf file)
Cannabis Substitution as an Adjunct Therapeutic Tactic in the Treatment of Alcoholism, T. H. Mikuriya, M.D. (1969) (39K pdf file)
IV: RECENT ACUTE CLINICAL STUDIES(21K pdf file)
“La Guardia Report”: Medical Aspects, S. Allentuck, M.D. (1944) (206K pdf file)
A Clinical and Metabolic Study of Acute Intoxication with Cannabis Sativa and Its Role in the Model Psychosis, F. Ames, M.D. (1958) (238K pdf file)
Clinical and Psychological Effects of Marijuana in Man, A. T. Weil, M.D., et al. (1969) (168K pdf file)
Comparisons of the Effects of Marijuana and Alcohol on Simulated Driving Performance, A. Crancer, Ph.D., et al. (1969) (83K pdf file)
V: CHEMICAL AND PHARMACOLOGICAL STUDIES (28K pdf file)
Clinical and Physiological Notes on the Action of Cannabis Indica, H. A. Hare, M.D. (1887) (38K pdf file)
A Contribution to the Pharmocology of Cannabis Indica, B. R. Marshall, M.D. (1898) (234K pdf file)
Dispensatory of the United States of America, 20 Ed.: Cannabis Indica, J. P. Remington, Ph.M., F.C.S., et al. (1918) (90K pdf file)
Marihuana, R. Adams, Ph.D. (1942) (333K pdf file)
The Active Principles of Cannabis and the Pharmacology of the Cannabinols, S. Loewe, Ph.D. (1940) (247K pdf file)
Recent Developments in Cannabis Chemistry, A. T. Shulgin, Ph.D. (1972) (240K pdf file)
VI: SOCIAL ORIGINS OF THE MARIHUANA LAWS (13K pdf file)
The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, C. Musto, M.D. (1971) (138K pdf file)

Conspiracy Theory - Reason vs. the Crowd

What is the definition of a Conspiracy Theory? Wikipedia definition here, Another definition of "Conspiracy Theory" from Webster's Online Dictionary:
" A conspiracy theory is the belief that historical or current events are the result of manipulations by one or more secretive powers or conspiracies."

Where on Earth might one hear of such a paranoid idea? How about from President John F. Kennedy?


Or how about President Eisenhower? Watch this segment of the entire Eisenhower farewell below:


-------------------
UPDATE APRIL 16, 2009 How about Abraham Lincoln? From Lincoln's "House Divided" speech: CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT :
"We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen -- Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance -- and when we see these timbers joined together and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding, or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in -- in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck."
------------------
UPDATE NOV 4, 2009
Nixon: International money speculators are the gainers when international monetary crises strike:

----------------
Click here for a page with links to articles by many authors stating their case regarding conspiracy theories. Some of the authors state that they "Don't believe any conspiracy theories." I don't see how it is reasonable for a person to state that they don't believe in any conspiracy ever - especially when many have historically been found to be true! And remember - theory precedes conclusion until evidence has been gathered. Also - what good would a police detective be that NEVER considered conspiracy in their efforts to solve crimes - all crimes? The point is - don't let anyone convince you to discount conspiracy - first look at the evidence. Stop and think - if you were guilty of conspiracy, and the law was hot on your trail - wouldn't it be in your best interest to point and laugh at the detectives and claim they were "crazy conspiracy theorists?" That said - let's continue...

So what are the connotations of the phrase "conspiracy theory?" They are negative are they not? Doesn't one immediately think "kooky", "crazy", "crackpot" etc...? Why? If past presidents are among those warning us of the dangers of misplaced power falling into the hands of groups (military-industrial complex) then who are those advising us not to pay attention? Who are those telling us it is irrational to consider that people may secretly scheme in ways that are against the best interests of the public? Jefferson told us "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." He did NOT add "...but don't worry about conspirators or conspiracies!"


If being vigilant means considering conspiracies, which means formulating theories, then do it! Who are the originators of labels, like conspiracy theorist, that discourage Americans from heeding the warnings from past Presidents? Why would so many people in the corporate media ceaselessly label those who dare publicly to theorize about a conspiracy as if it is an irrational act? If one hopes to find truth shouldn't all possibilities be considered? How about the possibility of conspiracy? Do you think Abraham Lincoln would have been well advised to consider there was a conspiracy to assassinate him? What would todays corporate media have to say about a conspiracy theory to kill Abraham Lincoln the night before a conspirator shot him? Would you call Obama's guardians "crazy" for considering a conspiracy against him? Let's take a look at history...


Historical Conspiracies:

1. Gunpowder Plot
2. Rosenberg Conspiracy
3. John Anthony Walker , Click here for another article on the Walker spy family from Pete Early.
4. Abraham Lincoln Conspirators , Click here for more on Lincoln's conspirators.

So if we are to learn from history we must accept that conspiracy theories are rational considerations for Homo Sapiens - because CONSPIRACIES HAPPEN! This means that it is a citizen's duty to consider conspiracies as explanations for events. Yes, consider as a possibility. Why? So that in the case that there is indeed a conspiracy we get to the truth. If the evidence shows no support for the hypothesis of conspiracy then it is eliminated as a possible explanation. The important lesson to learn is to LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. Just consider it. But please ignore the pleas of the corporate media to disregard evidence because they think you are foolish for considering a possibility that just may be true.

Some current conspiracy theories:

1. One World Government Conspiracy theories: Article from 321Gold on Warburg
2. 911 Conspiracy Theories vs. Government Conspiracy Theory vs. Coincidence Theory
From- P44 "The Crowd a Study of the Popular Mind" Gustave LeBon:
"However indifferent it may be supposed, a crowd, as a rule, is in a state of expectant attention, which renders suggestion easy. The first suggestion formulated which arises implants itself immediately by a process of contagion in the brains of all assembled, and the identical bent of the sentiments of the crowd is immediately an accomplished fact."

Isn't this exactly what happened on 911 with the difference that the crowd was assembled on a television set instead of as a mob in the street? Was there time for anyone to apply critical thought? Why would anyone on that fateful day, 9-11-2001, apply critical thought when they are watching events unfold on their television? But after later examination of the video evidence isn't it odd how quickly the same conclusion reached by the 911 commission was reached in seconds by some guy in a Harley hat and Harley shirt on the street on 911? The same EXACT story? "Then I witnessed ..."


But who would benefit from such a disaster? In other words Que Bono? (or Cui Bono? if you prefer the Latin.) I wonder how much this gentleman made as a result of the 9-11 "attacks?" Look him up - see what you think.


How about the military-industrial complex as mentioned by President Eisenhower? Do you think they experienced any benefit from the disaster of that day?

But hasn't the government looked into all of this? What about the 911 Commission Report? Hasn't that put all this to rest? I suppose that depends if you've seen the work of private citizens who've taken time off from their lives, like David Ray Griffin , and written many books about the subject, including 911 Commission Omissions: Omissions and Distortions. This is worth examining:


As American citizens will we actively participate in the making of history, or will we sit on the sidelines accepting as fact the unsubstantiated images provided to us via television?

It is every citizen's duty to become informed and involved in our own way. If you are not a citizen of the USA - so what? We need your help in spreading the truth. Knowledge is power - and gaining knowledge is the first step. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step - I wish you, reader, if you haven't already, please join those of us who've taken that step.

UPDATES
DEC 29, 2008 Do you recognize the voice?
JAN 10, 09 George Washington's Blog - Good article on disinfo
Jan 18, 2009 Anthony Beever can discern truth but you can't
Please read this on Kennedy - give it some thought
(CLICK) for a conspiracy theorist (whatever that is)
French Professor sacked for 911 conspiracy theory

UPDATE JULY 10, 2009 David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi -impenetrable logic vs. fallacy
UPDATE AUGUST 3, 2009 LOU DOBBS reporting on Obama going for NAU
UPDATE AUGUST 27, 2009 EXPOSED: The Carlyle Group VIDEOVIDEOMUSTSEE
UPDATE OCTOBER 28, 2009 Official explains NAU

Don’t believe the numbers, Obamacare is a financial disaster

It’s done.

The health care overhaul, the biggest legislative initiative since LBJ’s Medicare bill, has become the law of the land. The cost, says the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), is ONLY $940 billion over the next 10 years. Better yet, adds the CBO, it will reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over those same 10 years.

Let me see if I got this right. The Obama administration and its congressional allies would like us to believe that the biggest piece of legislation in 45 years, one that will expand medical coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans, that will set up two new huge entitlement programs – health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits – is going to cost just $940 billion while reducing the U.S. government’s fiscal deficit by $138 billion?

Sorry, I don’t buy it.

In a recent Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the director of the CBO from 2003 to 2005, now president of the American Action Forum and obviously someone in the know, doesn’t buy it either. I quote:

…the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

Now this makes more sense. According to Holt-Eakin’s calculations, instead of a reduction of $138 billion in the U.S. government’s deficit, we have an increase of $562 billion. And although Holtz-Eakin doesn’t explicitly say it, that means the total cost of this bill over the next 10 years is not $940 billion but a whopping $1.6 trillion. That’s a negative swing of $700 billion.

The full Op-Ed is here and I highly suggest a read.

From where I sit though, the true cost of this bill, and the impact on the U.S. government’s deficit, looks to be higher than even Holtz-Eakin contends for two reasons.

First, the bill front-loads tax revenues and back-loads spending; specifically, the new taxes the bill mandates are set to begin immediately while the new spending it authorizes will not begin in earnest until four years out. In other words, the full cost of this bill and the negative impact it will have on the deficit are being grossly underestimated.

Drawing from Holtz-Eakin’s Op-Ed, have a look at my rough, though I think closer approximation of the true cost of this bill:

Based on this simple exercise, the 10-year cost of this bill when fully implemented, what financial analysts call its normalized run rate, is a huge $2.7 trillion, yielding a negative blow to the deficit of an equally huge $1.6 trillion. Now, I admit I may be guilty of some double counting with this simple calculation, but by the same token, the bills provisions ramp up over time, meaning this calculation is likely not capturing the full cost of every program.

To put these numbers into perspective, when in full swing, the provisions in this bill will generate $270 billion more in spending per year, or 8% of the government’s fiscal 2009 spend. It will require $160 billion more in borrowing capacity per year, or 11% of government’s 2009 borrowing requirements. And it will be done by a government that currently sports a deficit to GDP ratio of 10.5%.

This on an economy considered doing well when it’s growing at 3% per year.

Second, the $1.6 trillion deficit increase that my arithmetic yields is likely too low, for the new taxes mandated by the bill and assumed as revenue by the CBO are simply not going to be realized, quite possibly at anywhere near the CBO’s estimates.

Indeed. Not only does history teach us that raising taxes is largely self-defeating, inhibiting production, income and employment and therefore the hoped for increase in government revenue, but so too does sound economic logic.

You see, higher taxes discourage the factory worker from taking overtime to earn a few more bucks, a spouse from seeking a job to help with the family budget or a seasoned executive from working a few more years, instead of opting for early retirement. Combined with unemployment insurance, higher taxes may even discourage an unemployed worker from seeking new employment, at least until his unemployment benefits run out.

Higher taxes discourage entrepreneurs from starting new business ventures, expanding existing ones and of course hiring new workers. And when those taxes become particularly onerous, those same entrepreneurs may even close up shop.

And, most importantly, higher taxes discourage people from saving and investing, the very fuel for economic growth. It is these kinds of taxes, more than any other, that deprive the economy of the funds necessary to grow production, income, and employment, especially when those taxes, like the taxes in this bill, target those most able to save and invest – the so-called “rich.”

Now, without all these people doing what they do best, hampered as they will be by this bill’s burdensome taxes, the hoped for new tax revenue coming the government’s way, the same revenue assumed in the CBO’s revenue assumptions, will be sure to disappoint.

What this means is that my $1.6 trillion deficit impact is likely just the beginning of even higher government deficits and larger borrowing requirements to come. Then again, leaving the costs of government spending programs to future generations has been the modus operandi in Washington for years.

I’m not here to debate the government’s role in health care. What I am here to say is that in the end Obamacare will prove a financial disaster for America, no different that LBJ’s Medicare, which I think is what the boys and girls in Washington originally set out to fix.

One final thought. When’s the last time a government program began and ended with its opening salvo. Unless this bill is overturned in the Supreme Court or repealed by a future Congress, this baby may just be getting started.

A full update on the U.S. government’s financial condition, tables and graphs tracking 50 years of financial metrics, can be found here courtesy of THE CONTRARIAN TAKE.

Obama Transportation Secretary: ‘This Is the End of Favoring Motorized Transportation at the Expense of Non-Motorized’

(CNSNews.com) - Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has announced that federal transportation policies will no longer favor “motorized” transportation, such as cars and trucks, over “non-motorized” transportation, such as walking and bicycling.

LaHood signed the new policy directive on March 11, the same day he attended a congressional reception for the National Bike Summit, a convention sponsored by a bicycling advocacy group, the League of American Bicyclists. LaHood publicly announced his agency’s new direction four days later in a posting on his blog—“Fast Lane: The Official Blog of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation”--where he effusively described it as a “sea change” for the United States.

“Today, I want to announce a sea change,” LaHood wrote. “People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.”

LaHood’s policy statement not only called for this change to take place in programs funded by the federal government, but also said the federal government would “encourage” state and local governments to do the same in their own programs.

“The establishment of well-connected walking and bicycling networks is an important component for livable communities, and their design should be a part of Federal-aid project developments,” said LaHood's policy statement.

“Because of the benefits they provide, transportation agencies should give the same priority to walking and bicycling as is given to other transportation modes,” it said.

LaHood's policy statement envisions the development of a transportation system in which people walk and bike for short distances and rely on mass transit for longer trips. “The primary goal of a transportation system is to safely and efficiently move people and goods,” said LaHood's statement. “Walking and bicycling are efficient transportation modes for most short trips and, where convenient intermodal systems exist, these nonmotorized trips can easily be linked with transit to significantly increase trip distance.”

On May 21, LaHood told reporters at the National Press Club that the “Partnership for Sustainable Communities’ his department had formed with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing—sometimes known as the “livability initiative”--was designed to “coerce” people out of their cars.

“Some in the highway-supporters motorist groups have been concerned by your livability initiative,” said the moderator at the National Press Club event. “Is this an effort to make driving more torturous and to coerce people out of their cars?”

“It is a way to coerce people out of their cars,” said LaHood.

The moderator later asked: “Some conservative groups are wary of the livable communities program, saying it's an example of government intrusion into people's lives. How do you respond?”

“About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people's lives,” said LaHood. “So have at it.”

Motorists now pay a federal tax of 18.3 cents on every gallon of gasoline they buy, and 24.4 cents on every gallon of diesel fuel. These taxes fund the federal Highway Trust Fund. According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, 26 percent of the money in this trust fund was diverted in fiscal 2008 to pay for things other than highways and roads. Of the total of $52 billion spent that was spent that year, $9.7 billion went to mass transit, even though mass transit passengers accounted for only 1.6 percent of surface-transportation passengers. The highway trust fund also gave $80 million that year to build trails.

Bank seizes money from school districts embroiled in risky investments

A European bank that lent money to five Wisconsin school districts that made risky investments has seized $5.6 million from district-controlled trusts to try to compel district officials to repay the debt.

DEPFA Bank took the action earlier this week after a year of fruitless efforts to work out a restructuring of $165 million worth of loans to the districts' trusts that have been in technical default for more than two years.

"We are taking the steps that we can take, and we are very much interested in restructuring the loan," DEPFA Bank spokesman Walter Allwipher said Wednesday.

Officials with the school districts - Kenosha, Kimberly, Waukesha, West Allis-West Milwaukee and Whitefish Bay - used the borrowed money plus other existing or borrowed assets to purchase $200 million worth of complex investment vehicles called collateralized debt obligations.

The districts had planned to use quarterly interest payments from the investments to help fund non-pension retirement payments, with the expectation that the full amount of the investment would be returned to them after seven years and used to pay off their debts to DEPFA.

But the investments began to lose most of their value amid the global financial crisis in 2008 and now are believed to be nearly worthless. The five school districts have sued Stifel, Nicolaus Co., Inc. and Royal Bank of Canada in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, claiming the two investment banks misled them about the nature of the districts' investments.

C.J. Krawczyk, one of the lawyers representing the districts, said DEPFA's action would have little effect on the schools' operating budgets. The money held in the trusts was likely leftover payments from the investments that had been used to pay DEPFA's interest payments, although it also could include some of the equity the districts originally contributed to the trust funds, he said.

"Frankly, we've been expecting them to take this action for some time," Krawczyk said.

Earlier this month, the districts were sent letters notifying them that DEPFA was demanding they pay the full amount of the principal and interest due on each of their loans.

That notice cleared the way for the bank to seize the trust fund assets earlier this week.

The amounts taken from each district's trust were:

• Kenosha: $632,757.61

• Kimberly: $134,233.10

• Waukesha: $2,441,826.27

• West Allis-West Milwaukee: $1,552,092.65

• Whitefish Bay: $891,615.31

"This is the means that we have, and we mean to protect our rights as best we can," Allwipher said.

Krawczyk said the bank took the action after securing its quarterly payment earlier this month. With no funds left in the trusts, he said he was unsure how the districts would make their interest payments to DEPFA in the future. "I can't speculate on how the districts will respond," he said.

Also on Wednesday, the state Assembly held a hearing to consider a bill that would omit school districts from a list of governmental entities that could be sold unregistered securities. Although this is an issue in the districts' lawsuit, Krawczyk said it might not be considered anything more than "instructive" by the judge in the ongoing lawsuit, given that such a statute was not in place when the districts were sold the investments.

The Enemy Amongst Us

On Monday, AIPAC kicked off yet another of its policy conferences which usually features a who’s-who of Israel-obedient politicians (you might be thinking that includes the entirety of Congress and the Executive Branch, and I say ‘well almost’). As most of us know, AIPAC is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. I won’t spend much time on that but there really are a few key points to note.

First, don’t think of AIPAC as an official Political Action Committee or PAC, subject to the same US federal laws and regulations a PAC is. Think of AIPAC as an unofficial political action committee not subject to these laws and regulations. Think of it as the single most powerful and influential political lobby group in existence in the United States. Understand that this was born out of the American Zionist Council which in 1951 was registered as a foreign agent for Israel. It spawned the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs before being crunched into the obscure acronym it is now. Understand also that if you want to be elected to any federal position of relevance in the country, you will need its blessing. All of the major politicians in the US government have courted AIPAC and the interests that group represents.

There was a report published back in 2006 from two well known and respected researchers at Harvard and the University of Chicago. These political science and government policy researchers were better known and much less respected under the kosher-party-line after they published a book called “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” which is worth the read. Now I am no scholar in the field of political science and international affairs nor do I have a Doctorate or PhD in anything. But I think I agree with the two that do have all the above and wrote this book.

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

“No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical…..The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only U.S. security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the U.S. been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?”

With that background, we can jump to my main point. The AIPAC conference which kicked off this week featured Hillary Rodham Clinton. As we all know she is Barack Obama’s nominated Secretary of State and at one time she was posturing for the top position that the Obaminator now holds. I think she was a lot closer to securing that position than a lot of my friends may have thought. She is as versed and indoctrinated in the will of The Tribe as any politician in the history of this country. And that point alone, which is more important than the natural level of testosterone or estrogen produced by a politician, is enough to put any person in the White House. The will of The Tribe put the first Black man in the White House and it will also put the first woman in the White House. Hillary is certainly at the very top of that very short list.

If you are like me, anything resembling a Clinton will put the hair on your neck at end. We suffered through two terms, eight years, of her husband who probably at one time had the strongest will of The Tribe support of any president in history. We watched his impeachment make a spectacle and laughing stock out of this country. And we can see the latest tool of the Clinton political dynasty pick up exactly where Slick Willy left off.

So Madam Hillary took the stage and made sure she said enough to confuse those that don’t matter and to pay homage to the only ones that do matter when it comes to her political future. She stroked the will of The Tribe while dropping enough sound bytes to give the kosher-party-line enough fuel for the Middle East game of “Smoke and Mirrors”.

So the most useful article is from Aljazeera but the videos of the speech available at the JTA site, among others. You really should watch it for yourself, as well as any of her previous speeches bowing down to the AIPAC throne. You need to keep the above point in mind, the deliberate balance of meaningless sound bytes to feed the kosher-party-line with the applause raising sermon that was designed specifically for this audience. I have seen reports that she got eight standing ovations. Compare what you hear and see in the video to headlines in the US media that covered the speech. If you have not seen a US politician speaking at an AIPAC event, you really should.

Hillary Clinton at March 2010 AIPAC Conference

“The forces that threaten Israel also threaten the United States of America. . .Let me assure you as I have assured you on previous occasions, for President Obama and for me, and for this entire administration, our commitment to Israel’s security is rock solid, enduring and forever. . . Let me be clear. The United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. . . . We will not compromise our commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring these nuclear weapons. . . . And of this you [Israel] can be absolutely sure. The United States and the American people will stand will you. . . . God bless Israel and God bless the United States of America.”

Remember, I saw this first in Aljazeera which is not a cog in the kosher-party-line machine, quite the opposite. Aljazeera is the place people like Osama bin Laden go when they have something to say and don’t want the kosher-party-line to remove anything of relevance.

On a related note, I also read today that a recent poll conducted by CNN/Opinion Research Corporation found that under 20% of the respondents felt that Israel was either unfriendly or an enemy of the United States. That is encouraging until you note that roughly 80% feel like Israel is either a friend or ally. That tells me that the kosher-party-line machine is still running strong.

Click here for original Aljazeera article

Click here for original JTA videos and article

KBR's Idle Hands in Iraq

The megacontractor's been making millions from mechanics who put in as little as 43 minutes a month. And as more GIs come home, the waste could get even worse.

It was just a single contract for a single job on a single base in Iraq. The Department of Defense agreed to pay the megacontractor KBR $5 million a year to repair tactical vehicles, from Humvees to big rigs, at Joint Base Balad, a large airfield and supply center north of Baghdad. Yet according to a new Pentagon report [PDF], what the military got was as many as 144 civilian mechanics, each doing as little as 43 minutes of work a month, with virtually no oversight. The report, issued March 3 by the DOD's inspector general, found that between late 2008 and mid-2009, KBR performed less than 7 percent of the work it was expected to do, but still got paid in full.

The $4.6 million blown on this particular contract is a relatively small loss considering that in 2009 alone, the government had a blanket deal worth $5 billion with KBR (formerly known as the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root). Just days before the Pentagon released the Balad report, KBR announced it had won a new $2.3 billion-plus, five-year Iraq contract. But the inspector general's modest investigation offers new insight into just how little KBR delivers and how toothless the Pentagon is to prevent contractor waste. Moreover, the government's own auditors predict that as the military draws down its forces in Iraq, KBR will keep most of its workforce intact, enabling it to collect $190 million or more in unnecessary expenses. Much of any "peace dividend" from the war's gradual end—potentially hundreds of billions of dollars—could wind up in the hands of contractors.

On March 29, the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting—which Congress set up in early 2007 to investigate waste and corruption in the military private sector—will hold a hearing to examine whether contractors are doing their part to prepare for leaving Iraq. Some commissioners are raring for a showdown with KBR over its drawdown plan—or lack thereof. The commission's co-chair, former Republican congressman Christopher H. Shays, said in a statement: "Considering that KBR was just awarded a task order—now under protest—that could bring them up to $2.3 billion in new [Iraq-related] revenues, it's very important that we get a clear picture of the quality of planning and oversight during the Iraq drawdown."

The Balad report is likely to be a hot potato at the hearing. Commissioner Charles Tiefer tells Mother Jones the report is a "dynamite critique" of the firm's practices. "The numbers translate into an astonishingly large pool of KBR employees standing around idle and having the government be charged," he says.

What the DOD investigators found in Balad was astounding. Army rules require that its civilian maintenance employees are actively working 85 to 90 percent of the time they are on the clock. Yet KBR's own records showed that its workers were only engaged in labor an average of 6.6 percent of the time they were on duty. The DOD ran its own numbers, and its findings were even worse. In September 2008, for example, KBR had 144 maintenance employees at Balad, available to work 16,200 hours. Their actual "utilization rate" was a paltry 0.63 percent—which means that each of the 144 KBR employees averaged about 43 minutes of work for the entire month.

How did such a large bunch of thumb-twiddling mechanics go unnoticed? The Pentagon investigators found that the Army had no system in place to police how much work its contractors were actually doing. Plus, the unit in charge of KBR's operation at Balad reported that the contractor wouldn't reveal how many mechanics it employed there "because it believed the information was proprietary." The investigators (who eventually got the KBR data) note that as of last August, the number of KBR mechanics at Balad has since dropped to 75, but they conclude diplomatically that "opportunities for additional reductions of tactical vehicle field maintenance services at [Balad] may exist, which may provide additional cost savings to DOD." In other words, the Army should consider sending even more contractors home.

Some in the military appear to accept such waste as a matter of course. Col. Gust Pagonis, an assistant chief of staff for the 13th Expeditionary Sustainment Command, which took over command of Balad last August, responded to the DOD inspector general by explaining that "the contracting of maintenance capabilities, though not efficient, was effective in ensuring units did not experience low readiness rates and being able to perform the mission." Translation: The KBR contractors were essentially being kept around on reserve, just in case. Tiefer doesn't buy that argument. "That might justify a limited overcapacity, but nothing approaching KBR's levels," he says.

As the military draws down its own numbers in Iraq, that "just in case" fleet shows few signs of going home. By this August, all US combat personnel are slated to be out of Iraq, leaving a force of about 50,000 "combat support" troops. Yet if the DOD's own optimistic estimates are accurate, there will still be 75,000 contractors in Iraq at the end of summer—or 1.5 contractors for every soldier. KBR had 17,095 employees in Iraq as of last September, but when its subcontractors are included, it oversees as many as 58,000 workers. The firm has promised to reduce its staff in Iraq by 5 percent each quarter, but that may not be fast enough. Last November, April G. Stephenson, the then-head of the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), testified to the contracting commission that KBR could cost the government another $193 million in unnecessary manpower between then and the August 2010 withdrawal date for combat forces. "When the military reduced its troop levels from 160,000 to 130,000—a 19 percent reduction—KBR's staffing levels remained constant," she told the commission, adding that KBR had so far refused to share "a detailed, written plan to reduce staffing levels in consonance with the military drawdown."

She added that the $193 million estimate was "conservative"; if KBR fails to meet its withdrawal goals, the price tag could balloon by hundreds of millions more. "The drawdown in Iraq and these Iraq task orders are going to become a deep pocket for these contractors," she told the panel. In light of the Balad report, Tiefer cautiously agrees. "If KBR has underutilized rates in many of its operations anywhere near the rates found by the inspector general study...that would support a search for savings on the order of $300 million," he says.

Transcript Of States Lawsuit Against The United States Dept. Of Health

The following is the official transcript of a lawsuit made up of 13 States of the U.S.A against the Health Dept. and Co due to the Health Care Bill as proposed and passed by Democrats in the House of Representatives et al.

France Backs Away From Carbon Tax

Environmental Regulations: While U.S. politicians try to keep the idea alive here, the French have announced cancellation of their version of cap-and-trade. They say it will hurt their competitiveness. Vive la France.

Moments of crisis concentrate the mind wonderfully, or at least they should. In France, as public-sector workers mount a nationwide strike and fallout continues from the ruling party's heavy defeat in regional elections, Prime Minister Francois Fillon has indicated that his government will abandon plans to introduce a domestic carbon tax.

"We have to amplify measures that help reinforce the competitiveness of our economy," Fillon told the Reuters news agency. But what about all those green jobs? What about saving planet Earth from imminent planetary doom? Sacre bleu!

France would have been the largest country to impose a carbon tax as part of its efforts to tackle alleged man-induced climate change. It still hopes for an EU-wide tax, which would hamper everybody's economy. Unlike here, France prefers not to lead by example, hoping others will follow.

When the new tax was first approved by parliament last year, President Nicolas Sarkozy hailed it as a vital weapon against global warming. But it was struck down by France's highest court just 48 hours before it was due to come into effect.

The Constitutional Council said there were too many exemptions for certain industries in the tax plan, and that a minority of consumers would bear the burden. The French too, it seems, like to pick industrial winners and losers.

While France embraces economic reality, the lemmings on this side of the pond are still headed for the economic and environmental cliff. "In the wake of health care's passage, we have a strong case to make that this can be the next breakthrough legislative fight," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said in a prepared statement.

"Many senators who want to see a comprehensive energy and climate bill passed have been consumed with the drive to get health care passed."

Kerry et al. figure that with health care reform rammed down our throats against our wishes, the time is right, before the wrath of the governed who no longer consent is felt in November, to also ram cap-and-trade down our throats.

Twenty-two Democratic senators who have signed a letter calling for climate legislation within the year said Monday that White House officials can now "pour their energy and attention" into the issue.

Working with Kerry is Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who told reporters Monday that he was "still committed to trying to roll out a vision of how you can price carbon and make it business-friendly. We're still going to do that."

Explain why you sold Britain's gold, Gordon Brown told

Gordon Brown has been ordered to release information before the general election about his controversial decision to sell Britain's gold reserves.

Gordon Brown pushed ahead with the of Britain's gold despite serious misgivings at the Bank of England, it is believed Photo: REX/ALAMY

The decision to sell the gold – taken by Mr Brown when he was Chancellor – is regarded as one of the Treasury's worst financial mistakes and has cost taxpayers almost £7 billion.

Mr Brown and the Treasury have repeatedly refused to disclose information about the gold sale amid allegations that warnings were ignored.

Following a series of freedom of information requests from The Daily Telegraph over the past four years, the Information Commissioner has ordered the Treasury to release some details. The Treasury must publish the information demanded within 35 calendar days – by the end of April.

The sale is expected to be become a major election issue, casting light on Mr Brown's decisions while at the Treasury.

Last night, George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, demanded that the information was published immediately. "Gordon Brown's decision to sell off our gold reserves at the bottom of the market cost the British taxpayer billions of pounds," he said. "It was one of the worst economic judgements ever made by a chancellor.

"The British public have a right to know what happened and why so much of their money was lost. The documents should be published immediately."

Between 1999 and 2002, Mr Brown ordered the sale of almost 400 tons of the gold reserves when the price was at a 20-year low. Since then, the price has more than quadrupled, meaning the decision cost taxpayers an estimated £7 billion, according to Mike Warburton of the accountants Grant Thornton.

It is understood that Mr Brown pushed ahead with the sale despite serious misgivings at the Bank of England. It is not thought that senior Bank experts were even consulted about the decision, which was driven through by a small group of senior Treasury aides close to Mr Brown.

The Treasury has been officially censured by the Information Commissioner over its attempts to block the release of information about the gold sales.

The Information Commissioner's decision itself is set to become the subject of criticism. The commissioner has taken four years to rule on the release of the documents, despite intense political and public interest in the sales. Officials have missed a series of their own deadlines to order the information's release, which will now prevent a proper parliamentary analysis of the disclosures.

It can also be disclosed that the commissioner has held a series of private meetings with the Treasury and has agreed for much of the paperwork to remain hidden from the public. The Treasury was allowed to review the decision notice when it was in draft form – and may have been permitted to make numerous changes.

In the official notice, the Information Commissioner makes it clear that only a "limited" release of information has been ordered.

Ed Balls, who is now the Schools Secretary, Ed Miliband, now the Climate Change Secretary, and Baroness Vadera, another former minister, were all close aides to the chancellor during the relevant period.

If the information is not released by the end of April, the Treasury will be in "contempt of court" and will face legal action. A spokesman said last night that the Treasury was not preparing to appeal against the ruling.

How auctions cost taxpayer £7bn

• The price of gold has quadrupled since Gordon Brown sold more than half of Britain’s reserves.

• The Treasury pre-announced its plans to sell 395 tons of the 715 tons held by the Bank of England, which caused prices to fall.

• The bullion was sold in 17 auctions between 1999 and 2002, with dealers paying between $256 and $296 an ounce. Since then, the price has increased rapidly. Yesterday, it stood at $1,100 an ounce.

• The taxpayer lost an estimated £7 billion, twice the amount lost when Britain left the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992.

• The proceeds from the sales were invested in dollars, euros and yen. In recent years, most other countries have begun buying gold again in large quantities.