BladeRunner, I would expect such a nonsensical reply from you. Sorry, my friend, but the consensus is in, and the funding for the denial movement has long been known -- the American Tobacco Institute, oil companies such as Exxon-Mobil and oil interests such as the Koch Brothers, and other commercial interests who have much to lose once the public became aware of the facts.

Your comments about Teller, of course, are irrelevant. He never was a climate specialist or anything faintly related to that, and I am afraid that rubbing elbows with other people involved in the atomic bomb just didn't make him one. (Didn't do the same for them, either.)

There are four or five people who have all been active been active in trying to muddy the waters about several related subjects -- the smoking/cancer connection, acid rain, the ozone hole, and g****l w*****g to mention some. Right through the decades these four folks' names appear as active deniers. Their names are Fred Seitz (now deceased), Fred Singer, Robert Jastrow, Bill Neirenberg, with one or two more recent additions to the roster.

Over decades, these folks have been active in trying to deny the existence and/or relevance and/or importance of the smoking/Cancer connection, acid rain, g****l w*****g and the ozone hole. They have gone together from cause to cause to cause, depending on where the money was. And what do you think they have in common, beyond a willingness to lie and distort and muddy the waters ? They were all involved in the early stages of the Cold War in the atomic research with Teller.

They have been funded by a variety of right-wing organizations, including the George C. Marshall Institute, the American Tobacco Institute, the Cato Institute, and Heritage Foundation. And guess who funded them for their activities in trying to deny the existence and importance of acid rain, the ozone hole, the smoking/Cancer connection and g****l w*****g -- the tobacco and the oil industries ! One of the things these four or five folks have in common is that along with Teller they all worked on the atomic bomb back in World War II ! The funding mechanisms are well-known and are a matter of record.

And let me parenthetically mention here that what is really going on has been not a scientific fight, but a fight against government regulation. That is actually what has been behind their activities. The list of their lies, distortions and misrepresentations is enormous and well-known. Many could easily be listed.

If you are trying to impress us somehow with the fact that you studied quantum mechanics, it doesn't work. I had a physics teacher who was fairly famous at the time -- J. Robert Oppenheimer. What amazes me is that with your supposed grasp of quantum physics you seem never to have learned the nature of science and the scientific method. Science comes from investigating a phenomenon, observing/testing of it, writing up the results for peer-reviewed publications, and thus subjecting one's finding for careful review and scrutiny. Your "experts" writing to deny g****l w*****g did not do this. They wrote in the popular press, or in a few cases with dummy publications set up to appear as though the articles were in Academy of Science publications, which in fact they were designed to look like but actually were not. The list of deliberate lies and deceptions is so long that one could spend a day describing them. If your "experts" are so scientifically correct, why do they have to engage documented, dishonest efforts to deceive instead of subjecting their denials to valid scientific publications for peer review, which they did not do?

As I mentioned earlier, this dispute about c*****e c****e is not really about c*****e c****e. It is about trying to convince the public that government regulation is unnecessary.

At this point I seriously wonder what your purposes really are. Are they to debate honest misrepresentations of fact on these issues ? Or are you just a minor player with them who receives benefits from muddying the waters about c*****e c****e ? Intellectually, when one examines your "scientific" statements, you haven't a leg to stand on. Either you are a paid shill for some entities or you are just a fool who doesn't understand the nature of science and who has been fooled and bamboozeled.

I stand by my post in that when people are treated with respect, they return the favor. What you posted is a list of right wing talking points without one shred of evidence to support your claims. This country is and always has been a nation of immigrants, and for you to believe that those immigrants are arriving just to v**e Democrat is beyond ignorant. Just as our forefathers did, they are looking for a better life.....period. The consequences of people, like you, who are totally anti-immigration, is the loss of support by everyone who thinks just the opposite. This includes the majority of v****g Americans, so there is no need to recruit v**ers when the right wing dialog continues to be one of the exclusion of all who look and talk differently. Until that changes, and I doubt it will, the GOP will eventually become a party of the past. People are on to the "right wing dog whistles", r****t innuendo, and exclusionary tactics.

The Clintons lined their joint bank accounts with millions of dollars from Bill’s speaking fees from foreign governments, government related organizations and multinational corporations.

But you won’t see all of the details on Hilary’s mandatory financial reports filed and publicized while she was secretary of state.

Was she hiding something from us?

Sure looks like it, because Hillary’s financial disclosures routinely omitted the sponsorships of many of Bill’s lucrative speeches. Federal law required her to publicly disclose the “source” of honoraria to Bill, but she apparently interpreted that to mean the entity that wrote the check, not the entity that paid or contributed to it.

Bill had no duty to publicly disclose anything. But in a Jan. 9, 2009, letter to the State Department ethics officer, Clinton lawyer David Kendall volunteered that “President Clinton would provide the “identities of the host(s) (the entities that pay the speaker’s fee) of proposed paid speeches.” And he did.

But Hillary’s public list of payees for speeches is a lot different than Bill’s private list.

A comparison of the two shows a wide disparity in what he told them and what she told us. Thanks to Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information lawsuit, Bill’s filings are public and reveal who is really paying the Clintons.

Here are some of the highlights:

- Hillary disclosed “Power Within” as the source of five speeches in 2009 and 2010, totaling $955,000. Power Within, produced by lifestyle guru Anthony “Tony” Robbins, was the event planner. But the sponsor for the events was TD Bank, a major investor and proponent of the Keystone Pipeline, which Hillary’s State Department had to approve. Hillary mentioned nothing about the generous benefactor and ignored her blatant conflict of interest.
- The Vancouver Board of Trade was listed as the source of a 2009 speech for $175,000, but according to Bill, TD Bank was one of several sponsors. Was there something about this $1,130,000 from TD Bank Hillary didn’t want us to know?Hillary did disclose an additional $455,000 from TD in 2009 and 2010, so the total take from TD for the two years was $1,585,000.
- Teck Resources, Ltd.,a Canadian mining company was a co-sponsor at the Vancouver event. Donald Lindsey, CEO of Teck is also the president of the Vancouver Board of Trade. Bill Clinton announced a partnership with Teck Resounces for a “Zinc Nutrition Initiative” to eliminate zinc deficiencies in poor countries. Teck is also a contributor to the Clinton-Guistra Sustainable Growth Initiative.
- Hillary disclosed the Silicon Valley Business Information Council as the “source” for an October 21, 2011, speech for $200,000. But Bill’s filing indicated that the money came, in part, from the Suzhou People’s Government, a provincial People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) government. Additional sponsors included the California State Friendship Committee, an organization that fosters relationships with China and California legislators. The Committee paid for a trip by Rep. Mike Honda to China to meet government ministers. Another sponsor was the China Association of Science and Technology Industry Parks, another Chinese government-related organ.
- A $300,000 speech to FOSUN in New York was listed by Hillary, but Bill’s submission indicated that it was FOSUN Intl., a Chinese conglomerate and Prudential Financial that sponsored the event. The event was moderated by Fosun CEO Guo Guangchang, an active member of elite PRC political committees, such as the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, Standing Committee of All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce. And Prudential Financial participated in CGI, the Clinton Global Initiative. Get the picture?
- A $150,000 fee Hillary disclosed as coming from the Canadian National Exhibition, Toronto Canada. Nothing indicated that this was funded by Canadian tax money. Local newspapers reported that only 9,000 of the 25,000 tickets available were sold and that taxpayers might have to foot the bill because of the terms of a federal grant to cover the costs. Coca-Cola was one of the corporate sponsors of the CNE and has been a partner in several CGI projects.
- A speech to C3 Summit, LLC was disclosed by Hillary. Bill indicated he would be giving the keynote address to the C3 Summit on U.S.-Arab Relations. The main sponsor was the Government of Bermuda, which promoted Bermuda as a Shariah law-friendly financial center.
- Hillary’s disclosure of a $325,000 speech to Magic Dreams Productions did not mention another sponsor, the Panama Government Authority on Tourism, that Bill had disclosed.
- Hillary disclosed Bill’s $500,000 speech i to Nova Nordisk in Dubai. That speech was sponsored by the UAE Minister of Health. Novo Nordisk participated in CGI.
- The disclosure of Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative (AGEDI) does not mention that it, too, is a UAE government-sponsored initiative.The UAE has donated between $10-20 million to the Clinton Foundation.
- Hillary disclosed a speech in Egypt for the American Chamber of Commerce for $250,000. Bill disclosed it as the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt and a sponsor of Etisalat, a UAE government-related company that provides 60 percent of its profits to the UAE government.
- A Uni Strategic speech in Taiwan for $400,000 is listed on Hillary’s financial; Citibank, Taiwan, and HSBC, Taiwan were sponsors.
- Hillary disclosed the speech for $300,000 for the Tanmiah Group in Saudi Arabia, without mentioning it was a group with strong government ties and that the speech was to the Global Competitiveness Forum, hosted by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.Saudi Arabian interests have donated between $30-60 million to the Clinton Foundation.

If foreign governments were to send the U.S. secretary of state checks totaling millions of dollars for her personal use, it would trigger a big scandal. But, disguised as speaking fees for Bill Clinton, few questions were asked.

Given Hillary’s filings, which are misleading at best, its time to start asking some serious questions.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/the-real-sources-of-bill-clintons-speaking-fees/#vIlrCtmomO1c7Sqr.99

Your information about the NSA is mostly accurate and supports the notion that her emails can and probably already have been recovered. I would assume the committee and Gowdy have had access to them. They are going to look pretty bad if they get her on the stand and she points out that they have the emails in hand.

As to the law, yes, I would like to see it if you have it available, especially the part referring to the use of personal email accounts for gov business. Her predecessor did the same and the issue wasn't specifically addressed until after the left the post.

As to the security of her server, I have no idea, but I would guess that she got it form the same place everyone else in gov got theirs and has the same security measures, but I don't know that for sure.

One question regarding with holding documents. Why wasn't that an issue in the previous 8 hearings on the subject. The GOP lead house report made no mention of it, agree that the administration had acted properly and thus, as quietly as a mouse, released the report late the day before Thanksgiving. Fox hardly mentioned it. Big surprise there.

And now, their latest report is being withheld, to me, for political reasons.

I have no love for the present administration or Clinton, but I do think that the GOP is hurting their chances and quite possibly are handing the presidency to Clinton if they don't get with it on this. Gowdy is even saying that this thing might d**g into 2016. He claims for lack of the release of documents. Which ones? He claims some were requested two years ago. I'm sure there are issues of secrecy which have to be maintained which might account for that, if true, but he doesn't go into why they documents in question haven't been released. If this were genuine, I'd think they would be making more out of this, at least the "reasons" given for the documents not being provided.

I appreciate your measured response.

You mention her illegal use of personal emails. There was no rule on or off the books about that prior or during her run as Sec of State. She is required, in rather loosely stated language, to preserve he emails related to gov business. Wiping her server is an odd thing for sure, but one cannot wipe emails from the matrix and simple searches by the gov hackers, NSA or who ever can and probably already have, gotten the emails in question to the investigation committee. They are NOT motivated to reveal them because of their lack of the content required to make their fictional point.

You mention a few other issues which, while possibly damning, are not relevant to the B******i incident.

If all that is true, then yes, she should not be allowed to run for president, but in this country, one is innocent unless proven guilty. However, the B******i investigation would not be the venue for investigaI ting that. One need not bring character issues into that. Its not a court of law.

NEWS FROM THE HILL

Inline image 1

Flat Tax Makes 2016 Comeback


By Bernie Becker - 04/20/15
The Flat Tax Is Back

Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have both floated an across-the-board tax rate as they've launched their 2016 p**********l bids.

Neither Cruz nor Paul has spelled out the exact details of their plan, but both senators clearly see the flat tax as a way to appeal to both free-market conservatives that advocate for broad-based tax cuts, and the Tea Party sympathizers concerned with government intrusion.

“Moving to a simple flat tax and just padlocking the IRS — I think that is a powerful populist issue,” Cruz said Friday on “The Adam Carolla Show.”

But moving the government to a single tax rate — a plan popularized by Steve Forbes almost 20 years ago — also has its share of critics on the right, underscoring the debate within the GOP about how to best craft economic policy.

On top of that, a Republican p**********l candidate who pushes for a flat tax could have difficulty selling that plan to the broader e*****rate, should they win the GOP nomination.

Mitt Romney, for instance, released a second tax plan after his rivals for the 2012 GOP nomination rolled out more aggressive proposals — only to be hammered in his race against President Obama as seeking to raise deficits and shift the tax burden toward the middle-class.

“When you look at the polling data, I don’t think there’s an untapped demand for a tax code that would lower top tax rates for wealthy Americans to a level they haven’t been in a century,” said Jim Pethokoukis of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, who believes Republicans need to do more than promote tax cuts for the rich.

Cruz has said that he’s currently developing the particulars of his tax plan, which he expects to release in the coming months.

When he launched his campaign this month, Paul explicitly called for a 17 percent across-the-board tax rate, an idea he had talked about for months. But the Kentucky Republican has since scrubbed his website of those sorts of details, and a spokesman for Paul told The Hill that the candidate’s tax plan “will be released in the next few weeks.”

The spokesman, Sergio Gor, declined to say whether Paul’s plan would be a flat tax. But Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation told a Chicago radio station recently that he was working on such a proposal with the senator.

The two candidates’ push for a flat tax allows them to capitalize on the growing conservative anger at the IRS. But it also shows the enduring popularity of supply-side economics among Republicans three decades after President Reagan was in office.

“This is almost theological among Republican primary v**ers,” said Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the left-leaning Brookings Institution and Urban Institute. “They really do think this is the only way to reform the tax code.”

Back in the 2012 campaign, upstart GOP candidates like Herman Cain and former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) latched on to the flat tax as they sought to gain traction in the race, while former Gov. Rick Perry (R) of Texas turned to the flat tax as he sought to revive a f**gging campaign. Paul and Cruz, on the other hand, are viewed as potential top-tier candidates in the 2016 field.

Supporters say a flat tax would be much simpler, thus saving taxpayers many of the some 6 billion hours they currently spend complying with the tax code. But advocates also insist that a flat tax would give a spark to the economy by drastically reducing the top marginal tax rates and giving people more incentive to save and invest.

“The flat tax is absolutely crucial to turbo charging our molasses-like economy,” Forbes said at a Heritage Foundation event last month.

For those reasons and more, tax analysts say they expect other GOP candidates in the 2016 race to at least propose slashing the top rate for individuals and businesses, especially after conservative critics have dinged the tax plan of Sen. Marco Rubio, another p**********l candidate.

Rubio (R-Fla.) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) have proposed reducing the top individual rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, while seeking to boost incentives for families.

The two senators also call for a lower corporate rate and rolling back taxes on estates and capital gains. But Rubio has been put on the defensive by charges from the right that he is seeking, among other things, “to buy middle-class v**es.”

Gleckman said that one issue for Republican candidates will be figuring out what to pair with tax plans calling for cuts at the high end. Candidates could choose to shift more of the tax burden toward the middle-class to limit the impact on the deficit, or decide to cut taxes for almost everyone, he said.

Pethokoukis echoed those concerns, and has added that a flat tax plan that focused solely on economic growth could leave behind many middle-class families

But he also maintained that the differences were probably overstated between the Rubio plan that deviates somewhat from GOP convention and the flat tax proposals.

“There doesn’t need to be this huge split,” he said. “All these candidates are going to be talking about cutting taxes.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just think a New Flat Tax, no deduction of no more IRS "B.S." (The only reason Left & RINO's like the screwed up tax code in place is it give then more control over "We the People"!)...

Then if they could do the "fix" everyone knows the Soc. Sec. needs...

Then we STOP all Foreign Aid (Foreign Welfare)...

Pull ALL our Diplomats out of ALL Hostile Foreign Countries, along with ALL Diplomates Dependents from ALL Foreign Countries hostile or otherwise (stop our dollars from being spent outside the U.S.)...

Maybe even reinvent the role of our military in the World (No longer World Police, let the U.N. do its job!), bring majority of Military home for "rest & refit" (except in vitale bases outside U.S. & our territories!)...

Stop ALL payments to the U.N. until they repay monies owed us!

And tell them to move out of N.Y. (Maybe Geneva or The Heige), its nothing more than a spy ring for our enemies, we can sell the building to the highest bidder (We need the money)...

This would be a good start for any Conservative Leader... Don D.