Hey bugs, what'a smoking two very odd comments, almost ridiculous funny,

The Clinton Foundation’s Behind-the-Scenes Battle With a Charity Watchdog Group

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/clinton-foundation-vs-a-charity-watchdog.html

Last Wednesday, Bill Clinton ratcheted up Clintonworld’s counter assault on Clinton Cash, the book by conservative author Peter Schweizer that ignited the latest media frenzy over the former First Couple’s $2 billion foundation. “There's just no evidence," Clinton defiantly told CNN's Christiane Amanpour during an interview at the Foundation’s confab in Morocco.

"Even the guy that wrote the book apparently had to admit under questioning that we didn't have a shred of evidence for this, we just sort of thought we would throw it out there and see if it flies, and it won't fly."
Clinton’s analysis is flawed in at least one regard. As my colleague Jonathan Chait recently wrote, the Clintons’ web of murky relationships and opaque finances exacts a political cost whether or not their critics ever find a there there.

The Clintons, more than anyone, should know that negative press — true or not — can have potentially catastrophic consequences. Remember, it was David Brock’s 1993 American Spectator article alleging that Arkansas state troopers arranged Bill’s trysts, which sparked Paula Jones’s sexual harassment lawsuit, which led to the Supreme Court case, which led to Monica Lewinsky lying under oath about the affair, which led Linda Tripp to turn the tapes over to Ken Starr, which led to impeachment.
Related Stories
The Disastrous Clinton Post-Presidency
If This Is the Best Defense of the Clinton Foundation, She’s in Trouble

The Clinton Foundation scandal cycle is already spinning off new complications. A case in point: After being the subject of a spate of negative newspaper accounts about potential conflicts of interest and management dysfunction this winter — long before Clinton Cash — the Clinton Foundation wound up on a "watch list" maintained by the Charity Navigator, the New Jersey–based nonprofit watchdog.

The Navigator, dubbed the "most prominent" nonprofit watchdog by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, is a powerful and feared player in the nonprofit world. Founded in 2002, it ranks more than 8,000 charities and is known for its independence. For a while, the Clinton Foundation was happy to promote Charity Navigator’s work (back when they were awarded its highest ranking). In September 2014, in fact, the Navigator's then-CEO, Ken Berger, was invited to speak at the Clinton Global Initiative. Of course that was before the Foundation was placed on a list with scandal-plagued charities like Al Sharpton's National Action Network and the Red Cross.

Since March, the Foundation has embarked on an aggressive behind-the-scenes campaign to get removed from the list. Clinton Foundation officials accuse the Navigator of unfairly targeting them, lacking credible evidence of wrongdoing, and blowing off numerous requests for a meeting to present their case. "They're not only punishing us for being t***sparent but are not being t***sparent themselves," Maura Pally, the Foundation's acting CEO, told me by phone from Morocco last week. "Charity Navigator doesn't disclose its donors, but we do and yet that means we're suffering the consequences."

Navigator executives counter that the Foundation has demanded they extend the Clintons special treatment. They also allege the Foundation attempted to strong-arm them by calling a Navigator board member. "They felt they were of such importance that we should deviate from our normal process. They were irritated by that," says Berger.

The feud is a microcosm of all that is exhausting about the Clintons' endless public battles. Generally, it goes like this: bad press about their lack of t***sparency sparks some real-world consequence or censure, the Clintons complain that they’re being held to an unfair standard while their critics contend that they expect to be able to write their own rules, and the resulting flare-up leads to more bad press.

The trouble with Navigator started on Wednesday morning, March 11. Foundation officials became alarmed when they received an anonymous email from the watchdog's Donor Advisory committee informing them they would be added to the list on Friday, March 13, unless they could provide answers to questions raised in newspaper accounts.

Among the press controversies the Navigator cited: A Wall Street Journal report that noted "at least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during [Hillary Clinton's] tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation.” Politico, meanwhile, revealed that the Foundation failed to report to the State Department a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government, a violation of the ethics agreement the Clintons had arranged with the Obama White House.
Politico also reported that the Foundation’s former CEO, Eric Braverman, quit after a “power struggle” with “the coterie of Clinton loyalists who have surrounded the former president for decades.”
With the publication of Clinton Cash on the horizon, Clintonworld surely knew landing on the Navigator’s watch list would be a public-relations debacle.

By early March, Clinton campaign officials were holding regular war-room meetings to orchestrate their defense against the book. Over the next few days, Foundation officials desperately attempted to contact Navigator executives to rebut their claims but, inexplicably, couldn’t get through to anyone on the phone. On the evening of Friday, March 13, Pally sent a detailed email rebuttal. "All of the other organizations on your watch list have had substantiated allegations of financial, fiscal or other impropriety,” she wrote, according to an email the Foundation provided to New York. “The stories you cite about the Clinton Foundation merely point to donations, or gossip around our operations, none of which constitute any wrongdoing.”

It didn't work. During a tense phone conversation on the afternoon of March 17, Pally and Berger argued over the merits of the media's claims about the Foundation. Pally said they were without substance; Berger insisted that since the newspapers published the articles, they were relevant.

"Our whole thing is, if major media outlets say there's something here that you should be aware of, we're not going to be judge and jury on what the media says," Berger later told me. "We felt there had been enough questions." As a matter of practice, the Navigator doesn’t conduct its own investigations.

On its website, they state: “Charity Navigator … takes no position on allegations made or issues raised by third parties, nor does Charity Navigator seek to confirm or verify the accuracy of allegations made or the merits of issues raised by third parties that may be referred to in the CN Watchlist.”

The Navigator invited the Foundation to respond publicly on their website. Instead, Pally asked Berger to meet and review confidential copies of the Foundation's handbook, “Global Code of Conduct,” and board bylaws. Berger declined, feeling it was another effort of backroom dealing and spin. "We were not opposed to having a sit-down meeting. The point was, what is it that we're going to cover? We've already been around the block. What's the value of this?"

Last week, after I contacted the Foundation about being on the watch list, Pally rekindled talks with the Navigator. "I remain at a loss as to what information we can provide to address Charity Navigator’s concerns and be removed from the Watchlist," she wrote Tim Gamory, the Navigator's acting CEO. (Berger left the group last month to start his own consulting business.)

Sure enough, the watch list designation has provided Clinton’s antagonists with more ammunition with which to attack Hillary’s campaign. Already, critics are citing Charity Navigator’s list as a reason to open a federal investigation into the Clintons’ finances. For its part, the Clinton camp sees the episode as another reason to feel aggrieved. But even some Clinton advisers have been frustrated that they don’t appear to have learned from past self-inflicted wounds.

One source told me that last year, a senior adviser lobbied the Foundation to appoint a Republican co-chairman to its board, which was stacked with Clinton loyalists. The adviser submitted a list of GOP names. “It was to shield [the Clintons] from the things they’re reading about now,” the source said. “It didn’t happen.”

Unfortunately for Hillary’s campaign, the Navigator’s policy is that charities that land on the list stay there for a minimum of six months. Sandra Miniutti, the Navigator’s spokesperson, told me that, in order to get off the list, the Clintons need to publicly address each of the controversies raised by the media with a convincing response.

The clock is ticking.

America's Vanishing Worker: The T***h Behind The "Recovery" Propaganda http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-11/americas-vanishing-worker-curious-case-exposing-recovery-propaganda 

The biggest paradox of the so-called US recovery is that in the same report in which the US Department of Labor reported that the US unemployment has dropped to a depression-low 5.4%, a level suggesting near zero "slack" in the labor force, the BLS also indicated that the number of people not in the labor force rose to a fresh all time high of 93.2 million, keeping the participation rate at a level first seen in 1978.

 
How does one make sense of this glaring contradiction and paradoxical data, which one one hand suggest the recovery is fully in place, while on the other screams depression?
For the answer we go to the WSJ's report on the curious case of America's vanishing worker.

To be sure, this "curious case" covers nothing new for regular Zero Hedge readers, but may explain to casual observers how it is possible that America's labor metrics have devolved to such a Schrodingerian state in which the US labor market is both alive and dead, depending on whose propaganda one observes.
For the answer, the WSJ tracks the career, or rather lack thereof, of Denny Ryder of Decatur, Illinois, 47 years old, who is one of hundreds of thousands of (former) employees in the industrial Midwest who has been forced to move away, retire or give up on finding a job. As a result, the unemployment rate in this has fallen even as Denny is no closer to being able to provide for his family.

As the WSJ reports, "by one key gauge of economic health, this industrial city three hours south of Chicago is well on the way to recovery. Hit hard by the recession, when its unemployment rate topped 14%, Decatur over the past year has seen one of the swiftest declines in joblessness in the country, with the rate dropping to 7% in March from 10.2% a year earlier."
The problem: it's nothing but a statistical mirage, a lie.


[L]ook closer, and this city of 75,000 resembles many communities across the industrial Midwest, where the unemployment rate is falling fast in part because workers are disappearing: moving away, retiring or no longer looking for a job.
 
“In cases like that, the unemployment rate makes things look better than they really are,” said Karl Kuykendall, U.S. regional economist at IHS Global Insight. In terms of overall economic growth, he said, “a decline in population and workforce is devastating.”
 
[T]he falling unemployment rate doesn’t tell the full story of a recovery that remains uneven nearly six years after the recession ended. Among the 20 metropolitan areas where unemployment fell by at least 2.7 percentage points in the past year, 16 also saw their workforces shrink over the same period, according to Labor Department data. Half of those were in Michigan or Illinois, including Detroit, Decatur, Flint, Mich., and Rockford, Ill.
 
Most places saw at least some hiring and job creation. In Decatur, though, payrolls fell over the past year due to layoffs, attrition, t***sfers or other causes.
In other words, anyone daring to look closer behind the thin facade of the "recovery" uncovers a rotting, collapsing core: an economy not only not flourishing, but shrinking even as it creates the false impression of growth.
Behold the recovery "mirage" in four simple charts:

Back to Denny Ryder, who wasn’t looking to leave Decatur, where he was born and raised. But he was laid off from a Caterpillar Inc. plant here in late 2013 as the heavy-equipment maker faced a slowdown in demand from mining companies.
What happens next is a story familiar to millions of Americans who not only have no weekly paycheck, but whose plight no longer is even accounted for in the Labor department's monthly assessment of US economic health.


So Mr. Ryder and his wife relocated to Winston-Salem, N.C., last year where he found work at a Caterpillar contractor. While Mr. Ryder was confident he could find a job in Decatur, he didn’t feel it would match the wages and benefits at Caterpillar, where he worked for 19 years. “I probably could have lost a lot of money and found a job in Decatur,” said Mr. Ryder, who has taken to life in North Carolina, from enjoying the hills to swimming in the ocean for the first time.
"Probably." And perhaps, not. That's the magic of proving a negative: it's impossible which is why economists do it all the time.
What one can prove looking at the data, is that any suggestion of a wholesale economic recovery is nothing but Goebbelsian propaganda.


The fitful recovery in Decatur has laid bare challenges building for decades in many places in the Midwest and Northeast. Populations are shrinking, and the workforce is getting older. A historical reliance on manufacturing has hurt aging industrial cities as the U.S. economy continues its shift to service jobs. And the recession expanded the share of the working-age population who don’t have a job and aren’t looking for one.
 
In the Decatur area, the Labor Department’s rough estimates show falling unemployment, a shrinking labor force and declining nonfarm payrolls. But the data don’t explain why the workforce is smaller and where the unemployed are going.
 
There are clues, such as the lunch crowd at the Good Samaritan Inn, a soup kitchen where the Rev. Stacey Brohard is executive director. He said many people lack sk**ls or face other barriers to jobs and have given up on finding work. The recession only increased their ranks, he said.
You mean soaring soup lines aren't counted as employed by the BLS? How is that possible when hookers and drug dealers somehow contribute to GDP in the UK, Spain and Italy? Surely someone at the BLS will promptly fix this oversight.
But it's not just the Labor department's blatant fabrication of a recovery narrative: what is worse is that America's aging workers have been left to fend for themselves even as their absence from any official counts is meant to signify America's f**e economic renaissance.


Decatur’s population skews older—the metro area’s median age was 39.7 in 2013, compared with 37.5 for the U.S. as a whole. Some older workers were laid off or took early retirement during the downturn but remained in the labor force, looking for work. Now, with the stock market near all-time highs, their portfolios look healthier and they feel more comfortable retiring for good, said Ron Payne, a labor market economist at the Illinois Department of Employment Security.
 
Decatur faces a dual challenge: getting older workers retrained so they can extend their careers, and keeping younger workers from moving away. Richland Community College increasingly is concentrating on people over 50 years old—many of whom haven’t been in a classroom in decades.
And it's doing a damn good job: as we also showed last week, the number of Americans 55 and older who do have a job has never been higher. Surely the basis of any solid recovery.

As for the younger ones, why they too are in luck: "City officials are courting young professionals with moves such as banning trucks from downtown, promoting outdoor dining and developing recreational opportunities around Lake Decatur." Speaking of outdoor dining, these are precisely the jobs the young end up getting because if there is one thing America has a record of in addition to jobs for old workers, it is a record number of waiter and bartender jobs as well.
It's not all bad:


Since the recession, the city has built a new water tower, replaced sewer lines and cut the ribbon on a new freight-rail terminal—all with the goal of retaining industrial employers and attracting new ones.
 
“First, it’s recovery, which is the phase we’re probably still in right now, but expansion eventually follows that,” said Ryan McCrady, president of city’s economic-development corporation.
Which is also known as "hope" which always dies last. Sadly, for the vast majority of Americans "hope" is all they have left.
As for the 1% of US society which has reaped the benefits of 7 years of ZIRP and QE, there we will admit: the recovery is all too real.

What's In Store For Gold If Cash Is Outlawed http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-09/russell-napier-explains-whats-store-gold-if-cash-outlawed

Why we didn’t have negative nominal yields in the Depression and the end of QE
Oh the time will come up
When the winds will stop
And the breeze will cease to be breathin’,
Like the stillness in the wind
’Fore the hurricane begins ---
The hour when the ship comes in.
 
And the words that are used
For to get the ship confused
Will not be understood as they’re spoken,
For the chains of the sea
Will have busted in the night
And will be buried at the bottom of the ocean.
When The Ship Comes In (Bob Dylan 1963)
 
The Napier Euro High Yield Capital Guarantee Fund (discussed in the November 12th edition of The Solid Ground) is almost ready for launch. It offers a unique combination of attributes to investors. It has significantly better risk/reward characteristics than both deposits and government debt securities. In short, it is a room full of Euro banknotes.

The launch of the fund will clearly mark the limits to monetary policy and thus the end to QE in Europe. The fund’s many attractive features include:
a small negative yield (my fee), but it yields more than Euro bank deposits and most Euro denominated government debt securities.
The assets are a liability of the central bank and not the commercial banks. While bank deposits, above the level guaranteed by governments, can be bailed-in and frozen during any bank reconstruction, the banknotes nominal value is assured by the central bank. The fund thus offers significant capital protection and enhanced liquidity to any bank deposit.

Unlike longer-dated debt securities of the government, the banknote will not suffer a loss in value should fears of inflation rear their ugly head. While the markets will begin to price future inflation into longer-dated fixed interest securities, the banknote holder suffers no loss at such apprehension. The fund would seek to move from banknotes should recorded inflation appear, as this would impact the real value of investments. The nominal value of the fund cannot decline if inflation expectations rise, ensuring significant protection compared to government debt securities.

Banknotes could be bid up, relative to deposits, as the authorities seek to restrict access. Last week Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen reported that a Swiss bank had refused to t***sform the deposits of a Swiss pension fund into banknotes and that the Swiss National Bank confirmed that they were against the hoarding of banknotes to avoid negative deposit rates. The ECB is just as likely to be against such bank runs as the SNB. Any move to restrict access to central bank liabilities (banknotes) and enforce the holding of commercial bank liabilities (bank deposits) is likely to lead to a premium of one over the other.

Given the capital risk and lower yield on bank money, Gresham’s Law is likely to see banknotes becoming a store of value, while people seek to use the inferior bank deposit as a means of t***saction. Banknotes traded at premiums to bank deposits, albeit in closed banks, in the US in the 1930s.

A premium for banknotes would provide a rising nominal value for the fund.
the fund would hold only Euro notes with a serial number beginning with X, the X denoting that these notes have been printed by Germany. Such notes could also be bid up relative to deposits and even other notes, should investors fear the demise of the Euro and the re-birth of the DM or a northern European ‘NEuro’. Should this occur, the nominal value of the fund would once more rise.

A banknote owner will be able to shift capital to any jurisdiction where the Euro remains fungible. Restrictions on banknote withdrawals and t***sfers of deposits were imposed in Cyprus, as part of the plan to prevent the funding base of the Cypr**t banks moving to other banks in the European Union. The ability to shift capital across borders, should such movement be outlawed, would likely lead to a premium developing for banknotes. Should this occur, the nominal value of the fund would, yet again, rise.

Notes would be held in denominations of 50 Euros. The authorities are already minded to ban the Euro 500 note (known by some as the ‘Bin Laden’ because it is known to exist but is rarely seen). It is rarely seen because the ‘Bin Laden’ is prized by criminals and those seeking to avoid taxation, meaning it’s increasingly likely to be recalled and abolished. Any ban on large denomination notes to combat illegal activity is unlikely, however, to affect the 50 Euro note given its key role in everyday t***sactions in Europe. Those bent on illegal activity may just have to get themselves bigger suitcases to stash their smaller denomination notes.

A premium may develop for such notes, and such suitcases, and should this occurs the nominal value of the fund would, you’ve guessed it, rise.
The fund produces an enhanced yield over bank deposits and most government debt securities, and cannot be subject to a decline in nominal value unlike bank deposits or government debt securities. In some fairly extreme cases it may even produce a capital gain relative to most money (bank deposits).

The only likelihood of loss is in the case of an instant and material rise in inflation that would undermine the real value of the fund. However, unless such inflation developed virtually overnight the fund could be liquidated, without capital loss unlike government securities subjected to an inflationary shock.

The inflation protection offered by banknotes is thus significant given the current yield on government bonds. While government bond prices may rise somewhat further in a deflation, the banknote arbitrage opportunity suggests that the upside for government bond prices in a deflation is very limited.

Government debt securities did not have negative nominal yields in the Great Depression despite gross deflation so why should they they have them now? Thus, those speculating on government bonds to see negative nominal yields go ever lower may not get the capital gains they think are coming their way. Banknotes may even perform as well in a deflation as government debt securities and offer much better protection should an inflationary future appear more likely.

Given this combination of risk characteristics, why would you want to own a government bond or a bank deposit when the Napier Euro High Yield Capital Guarantee Fund is available?

(Before I am inundated with e-mails looking for a prospectus, I should point out that I am independent financial consultant and, am not regulated to look after client monies. Also, I don’t have a basement or a machine gun.)

The attraction of a banknote fund arises due to an arbitrage which creates a limit to monetary policy. It is that limit which contains the key information about financial market reactions for investors. QE cannot force the price of government debt securities much higher and yields much lower, as increasingly banknotes and even bank deposits become attractive to investors compared to government debt. A limit to QE is a big story.

Such an arbitrage opportunity would limit the profits one makes in such bonds during a deflation and both notes and deposits offer major protection from capital losses should there be a major change in inflationary expectations. This would be a world of deflation where the scale of negative nominal rates would have a floor.

Indeed, bond yields could overshoot into negative territory and then rise into a deflation as the limits to negative nominal yields became increasingly clear. Thus the recent rise in the yields of Euroland government securities may not be a signal of inflation at all, but rather a realization that we have reached the arbitrage limits of how far yields can fall.

A world of less growth and deflation, but one where interest rates are clearly stuck in nominal terms, is a very dangerous world for equity investors with surprisingly few gains for bond investors.

Historically the shift from deposits to banknotes was associated with the fear of commercial bank insolvency or illiquidity. That was called a bank run. Today a bank run is the natural consequence of forcing too much central bank liquidity (bank reserves) onto a system which simply does not want them. A banker does not want to accept this short-term funding if he cannot lend the proceeds at a profit.

The only way for the banking system in aggregate to repel such funding is to offer interest rates on deposits (bank liabilities) which force investors into banknotes (someone else’s liability). Tighter regulation and collapsing long-term interest rates mean that profits from lending for Euroland bankers are increasingly illusory.

Banks are keen to repel deposits given the lack of opportunity to use them. If QE reduces the banks’ ability to lend money and also creates an arbitrage from bank deposits into banknotes, will it reflate the economy?

If you think the answer is ‘no’ then European QE will have to stop with fairly negative consequences for the equity market and positive implications for the Euro exchange rate. Evidence of selling of government debt securities with negative yields is thus not necessarily a sign of inflation. A move to bank deposits or banknotes from government debt securities can instead indicate that the limits for QE have been reached.

The more investors focus on the limits to the scale of negative nominal rates, the more they focus on the failure of QE or on Ken Rogoff’s paper on k*****g cash: "Costs and benefits to phasing out paper currency By Kenneth Rogoff, Harvard University."

While he doesn’t quite label banknotes a ‘barbarous relic’, he comes pretty close. The direction of travel in seeking to ban the use of cash is the same as those who railed against gold as a form of money. Once gold was considered too hard a money for society but now paper may be too hard for us to bear. It seems we need the digital money of deposits that shrink when subjected by central bankers to the hot light of negative nominal interest rates!

If banknotes are outlawed you will be forced to hold money that is a liability of a commercial bank (deposits) and refused access to money that is the liability of the central bank (bank notes). You will be forced to accept the risk of losses on a bank failure and banned from an instrument which promises no adjustment in nominal value.

Any such ban would have to be a decision of government and not of the central bank. This means we’ll all have plenty of warning that it is on its way! We will be forced by law to liquidate the Napier Euro High Yield Capital Guarantee Fund and return capital or watch the fund’s value fall to zero as it holds something which has been stripped of legal tender status.

Euroland is not the only place where the limits to monetary policy are becoming more apparent. In the JPMorgan Chase annual report President and CEO Jamie Dimon warned that banks are having to turn away even USD deposits. This analyst has now spoken with three investment managers who have been asked to close their deposit accounts with JPM.

At this stage other bankers still offer positive nominal yields on bank deposits, but how long will that last as orphaned deposits roam the streets of Manhattan, like Oliver Twist, in search of somewhere they can call home?

These orphaned deposits will put downward pressure on interest rates for large-scale depositors and eventually, even in the US, the much reviled greenback may be seen as a store of value relative to bank deposits or Treasuries.

So, should we reach the limits to monetary policy, what’s in store for that ‘barbarous relic’ sometimes known as gold? It would be a period of rapidly rising real interest rates, as a floor on negative nominal interest rates had been set in a period of accelerating deflation. This should be bad for gold. As The Solid Ground has argued before, the de-leveraging which always comes with deflation and falling cash-flow’s would be very positive for the USD. This would also be bad for gold.

However, in such a world, zero-yielding gold would be a high-yielding instrument. If the authorities ever sought to restrict access to banknotes, then gold would suddenly find itself enfranchised as money for the first time in many decades. So, given the scale of these competing forces, it is just too early to say what might happen to the gold price, but the allure of gold will grow the more it becomes clear that central bank fiat has failed and the age of government fiat is dawning.

The time is ever nearer when the price of gold will rise in an era of deflation. In due course, though no time soon, the full force of government fiat will engineer a reflation, albeit one replete with the misallocations of savings and capital so beloved by the bureaucrat.

Then the PhD standard, in which the value of money is linked only to the words of the over-educated, will have ended. The gold price will rise even further, ‘And the words that are used for to get the ship confused will not be understood as they’re spoken, for the chains of the sea will have busted in the night’. And that’s ‘The hour when the ship comes in.’

Why The Powers That Be Are Pushing A Cashless Society ?

This is from a European nation perspective. Though it is happening here in the United States indirectly, by many individual corporations businesses and one country in particular, Peru.

Peru has adopted and is at this moment implementing a cashless society. Which is a financial regulating tool and prototype to come and will be implemented in US shortly there after.

After the Federal Reserve and banks have worked the kinks and bugs out have on a smaller population demographic. Here is a prediction, “Their Here” and “It’s Coming Shortly.”

We Can’t Rein In the Banks If We Can’t Pull Our Money Out of Them
Martin Armstrong summarizes the headway being made to ban cash, and argues that the goal of those pushing a cashless society is to prevent bank runs … and increase their control:

The central banks are … planning drastic restrictions on cash itself. They see moving to electronic money will first eliminate the underground economy, but secondly, they believe it will even prevent a banking crisis.

This idea of eliminating cash was first floated as the normal trial balloon to see how the people take it. It was first launched by Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University and Willem Buiter, the chief economist at Citigroup.

Their claims have been widely hailed and their papers are now the foundation for the new age of Economic Totalitarianism that confronts us. Rogoff and Buiter have laid the ground work for the end of much of our freedom and will one day will be considered the new Marx with hindsight.

They sit in their lofty offices but do not have real world practical experience beyond theory. Considerations of their arguments have shown how governments can seize all economic power are destroy cash in the process eliminating all rights.

Physical paper money provides the check against negative interest rates for if they become too great, people will simply withdraw their funds and hoard cash. Furthermore, paper currency allows for bank runs. Eliminate paper currency and what you end up with is the elimination of the ability to demand to withdraw funds from a bank.
***
In many nations, specific measures have already been taken demonstrating that the Rogoff-Buiter world of Economic Totalitarianism is indeed upon us. This is the death of Capitalism. Of course the socialists h**e Capitalism and see other people’s money should be theirs. What they cannot see is that Capitalism is freedom from government totalitarianism. The freedom to pursue the field you desire without filling the state needs that supersede your own.

There have been test runs of this Rogoff-Buiter Economic Totalitarianism to see if the idea works. I reported on June 21, 2014 that Britain was doing a test run. A shopping street in Manchester banned cash as part of an experiment to see if Brits would accept a cashless society. London buses ended accepting cash payments from July 2014. Meanwhile, Currency Exchange dealers began offering debt cards instead of cash that they market as being safer to travel with. The Chorlton, South Manchester experiment was touted to test customers and business reaction to the idea for physical currency will disappear inside 20 years.

France passed another Draconian new law that from the police parissummer of 2015 it will now impose cash requirements dramatically trying to eliminate cash by force. French citizens and tourists will then only be allowed a limited amount of physical money. They have financial police searching people on trains just passing through France to see if they are t***sporting cash, which they will now seize.

Meanwhile, the new French Elite are moving in this very same direction. Piketty wants to just take everyone’s money who has more than he does. Nobody stands on the side of freedom or on restraining the corruption within government. The problem always turns against the people for we are the cause of the fiscal mismanagement of government that never has enough for themselves.

In Greece a drastic reduction in cash is also being discussed in light of the economic crisis. Now any bill over €70 should be payable only by check or credit card – it will be illegal to pay in cash. The German Baader Bank founded in Munich expects formally to abolish the cash to enforce negative interest rates on accounts that is really taxation on wh**ever money you still have left after taxes.
***
Complete abolition of cash threatens our very freedom and rights of citizens in so many areas.
***
Paper currency is indeed the check against negative interest rates. We need only look to Switzerland to prove that theory. Any attempt to impose say a 5% negative interest rates (tax) would lead to an unimaginably massive flight into cash. This was already demonstrated recently by the example of Swiss pension funds, which withdrew their money from the bank in a big way and now store it in vaults in cash in order to escape the financial repression. People will act in their own self-interest and negative interest rates are likely to reduce the sales of government bonds and set off a bank run as long as paper money exists.

Obviously, government and bankers are not stupid. The only way to prevent such a global bank run would be the total prohibition of paper money. This is unlikely, both in Switzerland and in the United States because the economies are dominated there by a certain “liberalism” to some extent but also because their currencies also circulate outside their domestic economies.

The fact that but the question of the cash ban in the context of a global conference with the participation of the major central banks of the US and the ECB will be discussed, demonstrates by itself that the problem is not a regional problem.

Nevertheless, there is a growing assumption that the negative interest rate world (tax on cash) is likely to increase dramatically in Europe in particular since it is socialism that is collapsing. Government in Brussels is unlikely to yield power and their line of thinking cannot lead to any solution.

The negative interest rate concept is making its way into the United States at J.P. Morgan where they will charge a fee on excess cash on deposit starting May 1st, 2015. Asset holdings of cash with a tax or a fee in the amount of the negative interest rate seems to be underway even in Switzerland.

The movement toward electronic money is moving at high speed and this says a lot about the state of the financial system. The track record of the major financial institutions is nearly perfect – they are always caught on the wrong side when a crisis breaks, which requires their bailouts. The fact that we have already seen test runs with theory-balloons flying, the major financial institutions are in no shape to withstand another economic decline.

For depositors, this means they really need to grasp what is going on here for unless they are vigilant, there is a serious risk of losing everything. We must understand that these measures will be implemented overnight in the middle of a banking crisis after 2015.75.

The balloons have taken off and the discussions are underway. The trend in taxation and reduction of cash seems to be unstoppable. Government is not prepared to reform for that would require a new way of thinking and a loss of power. That is not a consideration. They only see one direction and that is to take us into the new promised-land of economic totalitarianism.

People can’t pull cash out of their bank accounts – for political reasons, because they’ve lost confidence in the bank, or because “bail-ins” are enacted – if cash is banned.

The Financial Times argued last year that central banks would be the real winners from a cashless society:

Central bankers, after all, have had an explicit interest in introducing e-money from the moment the global financial crisis began…
***
The introduction of a cashless society empowers central banks greatly.

A cashless society, after all, not only makes things like negative interest rates possible, it t***sfers absolute control of the money supply to the central bank, mostly by turning it into a universal banker that competes directly with private banks for public deposits. All digital deposits become base money.

The Government Can Manipulate Digital Accounts More Easily than Cash
Moreover, an official White House panel on spying has implied that the government is manipulating the amount in people’s financial accounts.
If all money becomes digital, it would be much easier for the government to manipulate our accounts.

Indeed, numerous high-level NSA whistleblowers say that NSA spying is about crushing dissent and blackmailing opponents … not stopping terrorism.

This may sound over-the-top … but remember, the government sometimes labels its critics as “terrorists“.  If the government claims the power to indefinitely detain – or even assassinate – American citizens at the whim of the executive, don’t you think that government people would be willing to shut down, or withdraw a stiff “penalty” from a dissenter’s bank account?

If society becomes cashless, dissenters can’t hide cash.  All of their financial holdings would be vulnerable to an attack by the government.
This would be the ultimate form of control. Because – without access to money – people couldn’t resist, couldn’t hide and couldn’t escape.

WALL STREET ANALYST: 'SHUT DOWN CLINTON FOUNDATION'
Prominent D.C. attorney joins in call for criminal investigation

NEW YORK – A prominent lawyer and a top government watchdog in the nation’s capital are calling for the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation to be shut down as a Wall Street analyst prepares to issue a second report documenting what he believes is systematic financial fraud warranting a criminal investigation.

Wall Street analyst and investor Charles Ortel, in his first report of his in-depth probe of the Clinton Foundation, found what he characterizes as an elaborate system devised by the Clintons to enrich themselves through schemes such as skimming tens of millions of dollars from U.N. levies imposed on airline travelers.

His second report, some 300 pages of analysis set for release Monday on his website, documents what he calls material irregularities, errors and omissions in financial regulatory reporting since the foundation’s inception.

Ortel believes that once his findings have been studied, state and local law enforcement authorities will initiate multiple criminal investigations and charge the Clintons with “private inurement,” the crime of enriching themselves through a nonprofit organization. He explained that the burden of proof, under state and federal laws, will be on the Clintons to demonstrate that their foundation was not operated as a systematic fraud designed to enrich themselves and their associates.

Peter Schweizer already has charged in his bestselling book, “Clinton Cash,” that the Clintons accepted foreign donations designed to influence U.S. policy when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

After examining Ortel’s first two reports, Tom Fitton, president of Washington-based Judicial Watch, told WND there is now enough evidence to warrant a grand jury investigation into the Clintons’ foundation and its various related charitable entities to examine evidence of extortion, bribery, money laundering, inurement and the destruction of documents.
“The question is no longer whether Hillary Clinton can win the Democratic primaries for president,” Fitton told WND. “The question now is whether Bill and Hillary Clinton can stay out of jail.”
“The REAL B******i Story: What the White House and Hillary Don’t Want You to Know”

Fitton said Judicial Watch is filing Freedom of Information Act requests in its ongoing investigations of the Clinton Foundations and Hillary Clinton’s withholding of emails through the use of a private server while she was secretary of state.

Washington-based attorney Cleta Mitchell, an expert in tax-exempt organizations who has represented tea-party and other conservative groups in the IRS scandal, agreed with Fitton. “I am today going to call on New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman to do his job and file proceedings to demand the Clinton Foundation and its various subgroups immediately stop fundraising in New York until [they] comply with New York law,” Mitchell told WND.

She noted Schneiderman has required that all charitable foundations in the country doing business in New York state be registered in New York and turn over their donor list. “I am demanding the same standard must be applied to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, as well as to the Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Health Access Inc., as well as any other operational units the Clintons have constituted to raise charitable contributions in New York,” Mitchell said.

Ortel has reached the same conclusion. “If the regulatory violations in filing financial reports that I’ve documented had occurred to anyone else other than the Clintons, the Clinton Foundation would have been closed years ago, with state and federal criminal investigations begun immediately,” he said.

Ortel alleges criminal fraud In his second report, Ortel concentrates on the construction and architecture of Clinton Foundation financial statements and required independent audits filed for its largest constituent element, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, also known as CHAI.
Ortel distinguishes his analysis from Schweizer’s analysis of foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation, noting Schweizer admits he does not have proof of a criminal quid pro quo.

Ortel points out that under New York state law, a tax-exempt organization “of a size that the Clinton Foundation attained long ago must file information returns that are wholly true and accurate, not false and misleading.”

“The Clinton Foundation’s declarations to authorities, and, therefore, to the public, are, therefore, fraudulent,” he writes. In New York state, he notes, where the Clinton Foundation has operated for years, state law specifically exempts authorities from burdensome requirements of documenting intent or harm in efforts to prove charity defendants are guilty of criminal fraud.

Ortel’s second report, he says, documents the Clinton Foundation “has repeatedly made declarations that are false while also omitting to state relevant facts concerning the true nature of its endeavors.” “These repeated falsehoods and omissions constitute a long-standing pattern of deception that appears to constitute a criminally fraudulent scheme,” he said.

In a table included in his second report, Ortel documents that Clinton Foundation audit statements in the years 2005 through 2009 were filed with regulators after the Clinton Foundation filed the IRS Form 990 tax reporting statement with the IRS, even though federal law requires the Form 990 to be derived from the audit statement.

Ortel summarized his findings:
For 2005, the IRS filing for the Clinton Foundation was submitted 35 days past the final legally mandated deadline, in violation of federal and state laws.
For 2006, the IRS filing was made just before the final legally mandated deadline; however, the companion, required independent audit was evidently filed 56 days following the IRS filing, which is in violation of federal and state laws.
For 2007, the IRS filing was again made just before the final legally mandated deadline; however, the companion, required independent audit was filed 30 days following the IRS filing, which is in violation of federal and state laws.
For 2008, the IRS filing was made just after the final legally mandated deadline; however, the companion, required independent audit was filed 45 days following the IRS filing, which is in violation of federal and state laws.
For 2009, the IRS filing and the companion audit were submitted by the final legally mandated deadline; however, contends Ortel, these documents and all documents previously mentioned concerning 2005 through 2009 are riddled with material, uncorrected, false, misleading and incomplete statements and financial disclosures.

Ortel explains in his report that “unlike individual taxpayers who stand a small chance of being audited by the IRS after they volunteer information concerning income and expense on relevant tax forms, all public charities of the size the Clinton Foundation has been since its original authorization as a tax-exempt organization must procure an independent audit of their financial statements by a competent and empowered firm of accounting professional who have access to all relevant supporting schedules.”

Ortel notes the independent audit must be attached to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filing as elements of the IRS Form 990 and supporting schedules call for reconciliation of numerous financial figures with information contained in the independent audit.

He finds that for calendar years 2005 through 2009, the Clinton Foundation “filed false and materially misleading informational returns to governmental authorities.”

“In addition, the Clinton Foundation submitted documents it held out to authorities and to the general public as being independent certified audits of its financial statements – these documents (repeatedly submitted after Forms 990 were filed) were neither ‘independent,’ nor ‘audits’ within accepted meanings contemplated under applicable laws.”

Despite an extensive search, Ortel was unable to find on the Clinton Foundation website or on any state or federal government website an independent audit of the Clinton Foundation since inception that validates revenue or expense-line items.

Instead, Ortel notes the BKD accounting firm reliance letters submitted with the Clinton Foundation financial statements for the years 2005-2009 are characterized by BKD as “audit reviews.” This suggests the accounting firm limited the audit to reviewing financial statements produced by the Clinton Foundation without attempting to reconstruct or validate the statements independently.

‘Minimal resources to accounting and legal,’ Ortel further documents that in the years 2007 through 2013, the Clinton Foundation allocated what he considered minimal financial resources to discharge financial reporting requirements, compared to resources spent for travel and conference expenses for the Clintons and other unspecified foundation staff or related persons.

Clinton Foundation expenses for legal and accounting versus travel and conferences, 2007-2013:


Ortel argues the allocation of such minimal resources to legal and accounting constituted fraud. “The Clinton Foundation failed to exercise proper care in operating a sprawling multinational organization prudently to serve valid public interests,” he writes.

‘Misleading statements pleading innocence’ Since April 20, when Ortel issued his first report on the Clinton Foundation, credible representatives of the foundation quickly admitted that publicly available filings submitted in connection with one or more fiscal years contain errors and promised that any material errors found as part of a renewed self-examination would be corrected.

“I also want to address questions regarding our 990 tax forms,” said Maura Pally, acting CEO of the Clinton Foundation, in a statement on the foundation’s website on April 26.
“We have said that after a voluntary external review is completed, we will likely re-file forms for some years,” she said. “While some have suggested that this indicates a failure to accurately report our total revenue, that is not the case. Our total revenue was accurately reported on each year’s form – our error was that government grants were mistakenly combined with other donations. Those same grants have always been properly listed and broken out and available for anyone to see on our audited financial statements, posted on our website.”

Pally continued: “So yes, we made mistakes, as many organizations of our size do, but we are acting quickly to remedy them, and have taken steps to ensure they don’t happen in the future. We are committed to operating the Foundation responsibly and effectively to continue the life-changing work that this philanthropy is doing every day. I encourage you to read more about that good work at www.clintonfoundation.org.”

Ortel accused Pally of trying to mislead the public by suggesting the Clinton Foundation irregularities, errors and omissions in filing financial reports were minor, technical mistakes of no material nature.

“Ms. Pally’s comments are themselves materially misleading for many reasons,” Ortel continues to argue, “including that the Clinton Foundation has neither procured nor published independent audits of any financial statements that were prepared by fully informed and professional accounting firms, and done so on a rigorously considered and consolidated basis in the approximately 15 years since the foundation was created.”

Ortel says Pally should know from her previous work with New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s charitable endeavors, which are much larger than the Clinton Foundation, that prominent public charities “dev**e appropriate resources, both financial and otherwise, to explain fully how they are actually meeting their authorized tax-exempt purposes, how they protect and serve the interests of their donors, and how they take great pains to comply, on a timely and thorough basis with informational report requirements in relevant legal jurisdictions.”

At Bloomberg Philanthropies, Pally provided strategic direction for programmatic activities and oversight of operational management, according to her bio on the Clinton Foundation website.

Ortel further points out that even more recently, Bill Clinton compounded errors in the evolving Clinton Foundation narrative when he stated there was nothing “sinister” in the management or operation of the foundation.
In an interview that aired on NBC’s “Today” show May 4, he said, “There’s almost no new fact that’s known now that wasn’t known when she ran for president the first time.” Ortel insists otherwise.

“Actually, there is something sinister when donors with modest means make contributions to a suspect enterprise which they could have sent to one or more properly organized and validly operating tax-exempt organizations,” he writes.

“Moreover, repeatedly making demonstrably false, materially misleading, and incomplete informational filings concerning the activities of tax-exempt organizations to relevant governmental authorities and to the general public is illegal,” he stresses, “particularly when these are made by someone such as Bill Clinton who is a lawyer, serves as a director and officer, and certainly is in position to exercise significant influence over the Clinton Foundation and over its constituent entities.”

‘Criminal inurement’ In his second report, Otel contends that “given its alleged and continuing offenses,” the “malefactors operating the Clinton Foundation be removed and disciplined, in the process of shutting down the Foundation altogether.”

“So far, the Clinton’s and their supporters have been able to deflect pubic criticism by pointing out that Schweizer’s allegations amount to charging the Clintons with using their foundation to commit bribery, a criminal offense with a very high threshold of proof in a criminal court,” Ortel says.
“My charges involve financial mismanagement and gross irregularities, inaccuracies and other errors in financial reporting, alleging the Clintons were guilty of inurement.”

He says inurement is an offense “so antithetical to the purpose of government allowing tax-favored status to charitable offenses that state and federal law requires closing a foundation found to have committed material errors in financial reporting, with the burden of proof shifting to the foundation to prove financial reporting was done correctly and not done in error as a means of perpetrating a criminal fraud.”

The IRS defines “inurement” in strict terms: “A section 501(c)(3) organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator’s family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests. No part of the net earnings of a section 501(c)(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. A private shareholder or individual is a person having a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization.”

Inconsistent, incomplete and confusing. A search of relevant government databases showed considerable inconsistency and confusion regarding whether or not the Clinton Foundation (listed also as the William J. Clinton Foundation and the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation), the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Health Access Initiative are separately structured corporations registered with the relevant departments of state.

The Clinton Foundation website lists the address of the offices of the Clinton Foundation and CGI as 1271 6th Avenue in New York City. No address is listed for the Clinton Health Access Initiative Inc.

The Clinton Foundation website lists no address for the Clinton Foundation, CGI or CHAI, indicating only that the Clinton P**********l Center is located “along the Arkansas River in Little Rock,” consisting of a museum, a library and archives.

The Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation 2013 IRS Form 990, the most recent such form posted on the Clinton Foundation website, lists the address as 610 President Clinton Avenue, 2nd Floor, Little Rock, Arkansas, with the name of the principal officer, Eric Braverman, listed at 1271 6th Avenue in New York City. The IRS Exempt Organizations Select Check shows the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation listed as a tax-exempt foundation but has no listing for either the Clinton Global Initiative or the Clinton Health Access Initiative Inc.


Separately filed IRS 990s are not available for either the Clinton Global Initiative or the Clinton Health Access Initiative Inc.

For 2013, there is no separate address, IRS Form 990 or separate financial report filed on the Clinton Foundation website for either CGI or CHAI, both of which are reported along with the foundation in the same IRS Form 990 and consolidated in financial statements for the Dec. 31, 2012, report that Price Waterhouse Coopers LLP prepared for the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

New York
A search of the New York Department of State Division of Corporations database on the Internet found no filings in New York state for the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the William J. Clinton Foundation or the Clinton Health Access Initiative Inc. But it found a listing for CGI Global International Inc., registered as a New York corporation with an initial filing date of March 18, 1999, with a New York Department of State process address in Albany, the only listed address.

The New York Department of State corporation database list the “current entity status” for CGI Global International Inc. as “Inactive – Dissolution by Proclamation/ Annulment of Authority (June 25, 2003).” The New York Attorney General’s Office lists the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation as a registered charity incorporated in Arkansas with an address at 610 President Clinton Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas.

The Clinton Health Access Initiative Inc. is registered as an Arkansas corporation with an address at 383 Dorchester Ave., Suite 400, Boston, Massachusetts. The Clinton Global Initiative is not registered as a New York charity. Despite the Clinton Global Initiative not being registered with the New York secretary of state as a corporation licensed to do business, or with the New York attorney general as a charitable foundation registered to do business, the Clinton Foundation website documents the CGI 2014 Annual Meeting was held in New York City on Sept. 21, 2014.

Arkansas
A search of the Arkansas Secretary of State Corporations website under the William J. Clinton Foundation listed as a “fictitious name” produced a listing for the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation at 610 President Clinton Avenue in Little Rock, that detailed 23 “fictitious names,” including the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative and the Clinton Global Initiative. A search of the same database for the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation produced no listing.

A search of the Arkansas Secretary of State Corporations website for the Clinton Health Access Initiative Inc. found an Arkansas corporation under that name with a board of directors different than the board of directors listed in the Arkansas database for the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The Arkansas Secretary of State Corporations website listed the Clinton Health Access Initiative Inc. as a having its principal address at 383 Dorchester Avenue, Suite 400, in Boston, Massachusetts, with John R. Tisdale, Bill Clinton’s lawyer, listed as the local registered agent at 200 West Capitol, Suite 2300, Little Rock, Arkansas.

WND previously reported Ortel’s concern the agreement to extend former Clinton Foundation CEO Braverman’s employment contract in December 2014, combined with his subsequent and sudden departure just days later in January, is suspicious.

On March 1, investigative reporter Kenneth P. Vogel, writing in Politico magazine, found that in December 2015 the board of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation had approved a salary of more than $395,000 plus bonuses to hire the Yale-educated Braverman, while v****g to extend his board term through 2017.

Vogel noted that Braverman, who had worked with Chelsea Clinton at McKinsey & Company consultancy had been recruited “with the former first daughter’s support to help impose McKinsey-like management rigor to a foundation that had grown to a $2 billion charitable powerhouse.”
Braverman’s sudden departure shook the New York financial world.

Ortel, a frequent guest on Bloomberg television and a contributor to the Washington Times and others, began his Wall Street career in 1980 with Dillon, Read, & Co., followed by the Bridgeford Group and Chart Group.
His international investment analysis frequently centers on complex legal and financial structures. He is currently managing director of Newport Value Partners LLC, which provides independent investment research to professional investors. He is a graduate of the Horace Mann School, Yale College and the Harvard Business School.

In an article published Aug. 4, 2009, demonstrating the financial analysis for which Ortel is perhaps best known on Wall Street, Forbes magazine noted he first broadcast his concerns about General Electric’s earnings quality in 2008, when the stock was trading above $30 a share. A year later, GE’s market value had plunge by about $200 billion, to $13 a share.

Amazing, I get to do a two-fer at once with;

(Haughty-Lib and Char4Dew) and will respond accordingly, to both your l*****t-regressive-socialist-liberal-democratic, agendas, comments and gibberish.

Haughty-Lib comment
1. Bottom line is that it's just dishonest to compare the two.

2. Bush's financial crisis was much deeper and worse than the recession
Reagan inherited, and worse than we were told.

3. It's a damn miracle we've recovered as much as we have ... considering.

4. Yes, we all know that trickle down economics can have a false up-tic in economic recovery. But it's short-lived and not a long term solution.
 
5. Thank you to all deciding not to provide counterpoint to my arguments.

6.This will now leave me free to put forth my opinions and not have to listen to lame lies in response.

7. It weeds you all out by default. Honest, intelligent non-bigoted conservatives will have no problem responding and will provide the true challenge I'm looking for. (Assuming there are any of those here.)

8. When one insists on shifting the burden of proof, by default they are admitting that they can't reach their own burden of proof, and instead of honestly admitting they can't, they make the cowardly act of trying to shift the burden.

9. So, every time you insist on shifting the burden of proof, it will be considered a concession on your part.

Char4Dew comment
1. Bad is bad Bush & Reagan do not deserve any of the strokes they are getting from conservatives. None!

Women are Angels. And when someone breaks our wings, we simply continue to fly... on a broomstick. We're flexible like that.


So here goes, "Regressive" the opposite of "Progressives."

First of all, Haughty-Lib. Did you even read the (OPP) post article.
"How Obama’s Style Economic Recovery Compares to Reagan’s Styled Economic Recovery" ! Yes or no ? Answer the question.

Hand's down, Reagan has had the best economic recovery at 4.9 percent GDP growth, since post WWII and it is recorded as such. Obama has the worst recorded at 1.2 percent GDP growth in 6.5 years. That’s what was being discussed in my original article.

Haughty-Lib, Will you or can you respond to the post article, because 90 percent of the way, you show up out of the blue and make a comment.

Not that you can't, its just unexpected. But what I need from you is, fact's to back up your general historical economic assertions, not with opinions. This is the usual Red-Herring-Straw-Man, Regressive-Liberal, common fallacy used in comment and on post discussions i.e. arguments.

Haughty-Lib and Char4Dew, “Everything is an argument,” if I speak out, about your, glorious leader Obama and the regressive-liberial mantra.
Right from the beginning of his unopposed Illinois, US Senate e******n appointment.

(Obama used the Chicago-Daley-Capone-Alinsky Democratic Big-Lie-Theory of discrediting your opponent, which was criminal and illegal from sealed court records to get elected. Wonder if we could do that to Obama's sealed Long-form Birth certificates in Hawaii) Just saying, Tit-for-tat.

My post and article opinions clearly had historical economic facts, and I lived through those times, and can account how the economic recoveries have progressed from post-war and recessionary periods and how they have impacted the USA economy and my fellow American citizen.

By the way, who made you an historical economic genius ?

Char4Dew, as usual, your comments and opinions, well lets just say, they don't add up to very much and that you are unable put two words to an opinion together, let alone back it up with original words or facts.

As I said before Char4Dew, you like to comment for the sake of commenting.

The blind liberal (Char4Dew) leading the other blind blind, Liberal Regressive (Haughty-Lib) on this post article. Amazing. Haughty-Lib your falling into the usual blind Liberal Regressive mantra, opinions, no facts and no Historical economic facts on this post and article.

Oh by the way, is this blind Liberal Regressive, (Haughty-Lib) trying to help rescue the fallen, blind liberal (Char4Dew) who can't put two words together to make a coherent opinion. Haughty-Lib, I hope you can do better. "Just the Fact's Haughty-Lib," Just the facts, As Sgt. Joe Friday would say.

Haughty-Lib, with no-facts and no Historical economic-facts, then you loose your regressive liberal mantra arguments. Just pointing this out to you and Char4Dew. Your just a walking, talking mouth-piece parrot Liberal Regressive.

But Haughty-Lib, as I read your comment, the lingo-regressive-line of comments. That you write, below your comment, i.e. your "story-line" I can see has been used before. I'm not say's your comment, opinion, too my post and article just doesn't mater. It’ just repeat your self, like a broken record, you can do better than that, expand your mind and just listen once to a voice or reason to that junk filled head of yours.

In your comment fallacies, you just say your opinion's and comment, are better but in a underlying psychotic way your saying in your writing (boldly,) shut the f-up everyone. I the Haughty-Lib, the blind, liberal-regressive, know what f-i'm talking about, and your facts just don't matter. Oh noble "oracles of oracles."

a. Haughty-Lib, Your record on the (OPP) website. Number of topics created:
4, Number of messages posted: 1951
b. Char4Dew Your record on the (OPP) website. Number of topics created:
5, Number of messages posted: 702

1. Haughty-Lib, Who and what are you to say that my post, comments and article is dishonest. Who made you Judge, jury and verdict.

When the post article to compare the two P**********l economies of Obama and Reagan and the economic recovery. Haughty-Lib, Comparisons are done all the time get over your opinionated arrogance.

My silly misguided, friend. Thoughts and comparisons are done on a daily basis, in every day life, i.e. about sports figures and definitely in politics all the time, etc. So for you to come out swinging like that, It's just plain stupidity and ignorant of you and your personal commentary opinions.

By the way, who made you an economic genius ?

And you are falling into the trap of an inter-netting Troll on this Website. Which one are you below. ?
a. Sea-Lioning Troll's, Self-Appointed "Good Cop"
b. Concern Troll's, Pseudo-Displays of "Constructive Criticism"
c. Gish Galloping Troll's, Falsehoods nitpicking arguments unrelated details
d. Impersonation Troll's, create h**x impersonation accounts in your name
e. Dog-Piling Troll's, Online silencing, Cyber Mob to discredit a target
g. Gas-Lighting Troll's, Giving false information to cause self-doubt.

On to question two.

2. Haughty-Lib, are you saying that the USA is in a Depression or a Recession ? Obama say's its a recession.

But if you change all the economic statistical data and historical indicators, then yes we are in a depression.

Democrats have such beautiful rose colored glasses on and ignore the economic realities. Dam-Do-Gooders and I speak from experience living in one of the worst liberal bastions state in the USA, Massachusetts, the home of regressive-liberalism.

Haughty-Lib, All the economic indicators during the late 1970's and early 1980's showed under Democratic President Jimmy Carter, his GDP rate was 3.2%. We had out of control inflation rising to 11percent and a interest borrowing rate over 20 percent and a unemployment rate of 10.8 percent.

a. http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720presidents.html
b.http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Jimmy_Carter_Budget_+_Economy.htm

So, Haughty-Lib under Jimmy carter the unemployment rate was much higher than under President Obama's economy. "Jimmy's" Economic record was still better than Obamas. Or do we have to change the statistical numbers and analysis that the government is giving us. "Just the Fact's Haughty-Lib," Just the facts, as Sgt. Joe Friday would say.

3. In my opinion the the USA economy has been so tweaked by the Repucklicans and the Democraps that this economy was doomed to fail either with Bush Jr. or under Obama. Which p**********l candidate was better, I held my nose when I v**ed, because I disliked both 2008 p**********l candidates.

Both party's were guilty of malfeasance and dereliction of duty and fiduciary responsibility during the 2007 and 2008 world and walltreet meltdown... The Democrats in my opinion were the more guilty, more-so than the Republicans.

That said hear's my personal opinion, because the Democrats initiated the economic policies, and the Republicans just followed the polices and did nothing to correct the problems created.

Here was Bush Jr. and Obama's response to the economic crisis. Big business "It's No,t To big to fail." So far we don't even have an accounting to the TARP money Bailouts, and from QE1, QE2 and QE3, to banks and financial institution. This was free money from the American taxpayer.

"Feeding money frenzy began and continues with this Keynesian economics theory. "It was a financial pig trough," for World wide institutions and Wall-Street bailouts, with no Congressional over sites of the Federal reserve spending. In a congressional hearing Hank Paulson, refused to answer that question of where the USA taxpayers money went and was spent on.

Governmental criminals they all should be in jail. Criminals. They were so greedy, Goldman-Sacks even hedged bets on the market to go down, and made billions.

A damn miracle, BS, this was a controlled experiment without any governmental over site and there were whistle-blowers who exposed the credit default swaps, and Mortgage backed securities knew exactly what they were doing.

The same thing happened in the Savings-and Loan scandal in 1989. Trillions of wasted USA taxpayer bailouts with few people being arrested.

Plain and simple, there was poor governmental over site, look at the SEC's, Bernie Made-off ponzi scheme and the on Corzine's MF Global 1.5 billion scandal, Eric holder was his lawyer. amazing and incredible to the ineptness and criminal machinations that are still coming to fruition to ruining the Economy of the USA

So Haughty-Lib, please, don't give me that crap that President Obama saved the world from Credit Default swaps, Mortgage back securities and ten's of millions of people who could not afford a home, because they lied on their loan applications compost.

TARP funds were to be used for the homeowner, not for big business. Look at the millions of homes that were foreclosed upon, and big business and corporations all over the world are purchasing these homes for pennies on the dollar.

4. Haughty-Lib, "Smaller government and less taxes," will always trump, "Bigger government and higher taxes." Common sense, do the math and look at the Historical economic facts. Trickle down economics. "Danger, Danger Will Robinson."

"Danger Will Robinson, common fallacy, Danger, Danger," Red-Herring-Straw-Man, a common fallacy, Haughty-Lib used in a comment and on (OPP) website post discussions i.e. arguments, "Danger Will Robinson."

I'm just pointing out your fallacy arguments. America and its citizens had close to 25 years of continued growth and prosperity under President Reagan economic recovery program. "Just the Fact's Haughty-Lib," Just the facts, as Sgt. Joe Friday would say.

5. Haughty-Lib, It's your comment's that are dishonest, so it is my obligation to point out your fallacious diatribe and extremist mantra.

Lets, debate, but please have some self respect and please bring "Facts and Financial economic historical facts to substantiate your fallacies and lunacy comments.

Haughty-Lib, is this the best you can do is taunt the historic economic realities and facts. Crying wolf and saying nothing in your fallacious diatribe and extremist mantra does nothing to the original premiss, post and article.

"How Obama’s Style Economic Recovery Compares to Reagan’s Styled Economic Recovery" ! Yes or no ? Answer the question.

Unfortunately for you in my original post and subsequent replays, I have given many economic historical facts. Haughty-Lib, when you put forth your opinions, garbage accusation and no economic historical facts, to substantiate your fallacious fallacies, what would a good American is to do.

Tell me what facts can you present, so I don't have to listen to your l*****t-regressive-socialist-liberal-democratic lies and response. "Just the Fact's Haughty-Lib," Just the facts, as Sgt. Joe Friday would say.

7. Haughty-Lib, Honest, intelligent non-bigoted conservatives will have no problem responding and will provide the true challenge I'm looking for. (Assuming there are any of those here.)

Oh is that bate and switch or a sexual pheromone that you are calling out to a heard of wildebeests.

So you want to joust in your economic historical fallacies. Get real, economic historical don't lie, but are often misquoted.

8. When one insists on shifting the burden of proof, by default they are admitting that they can't reach their own burden of proof, and instead of honestly admitting they can't, they make the cowardly act of trying to shift the burden.

You got to be kidding, Haughty-Lib, You have already lost the argument with this forked serpent double-speak.

So your saying your right, because your wrong. Let me give you another analogy and cliché that right up your ally. That your using, let-alone "Up-is down and down is up. What a bunch of horse manuer you are spouting from your second asshole.

The literary term that you are using in your comments are called, "Common Logical Fallacies." Literary writing arguments; i.e. to justify and or support your Socialistic, Progressive, Liberal, Democratic cause.

Haughty-Lib, "here are the most common used and multiple used Logical literary fallacies in the argument." Which you are doing in all of your 9 misguided arguments.
1. Hasty generalizations.
2. Missing the point.
3. Post hoc or false causes.
4. Slippery slope.
5. Weak analogy.
6. Appeal to authority.
7. Ad Populum or to the people.
8. Ad hominem and Tu Quoque or "against the people" and "you too."
9. Appeal to pity.
10. Appeal to ignorance.
11. Straw-man or a water-down argument, like a scare-crow.
12. Red herring, post takes on different tangent, not addressing original issue.
13. False dichotomy or there is only two choices.
14. Begging the question, the reader accepts the conclusion and no evidence
15. Equivocation, two or more meanings to the conversation.
16. Stacking the deck, evidence supporting, opposing argument is rejected or
ignored.

9. So, Haughty-Lib, every time you insist on shifting the burden of proof, it will be considered a concession on your part. I've provided the burden of proof my original post, article and comments have provided economic historical facts.

Which proves being the shadow of doubt Haughty-Lib.

That Reagan beat the pants off Obama in a economic recovery, "How Obama’s Style Economic Recovery Compares to Reagan’s Styled Economic Recovery" !

You see by your fallacious fallacies comments "You talk a lot, but can you walk the walk."

Haughty-Lib, the blind liberal l Regressive on this post article and (OPP) website. Amazing, your falling into the usual blind Liberal Regressive mantra, opinions, no facts and no Historical economic facts on this post and article.

"Just the fact's Haughty-Lib," Just the facts, As Sgt. Joe Friday would say.

Haughty-Lib, with no-facts and no historical economic-facts, then you loose your regressive liberal mantra arguments. Just pointing this out to you and your just a walking, talking mouth-piece parrot Liberal Regressive, with nothing really to say, about the post and article, your just "commenting, for the sake of commenting."

1. Char4Dew, Actually I'm just sad that you are even commenting with this (OPP) site troll. Char4Dew you should know better. But when you lay down with flea's, your bound to get a few flea's also. Char4Dew, can't wait to get the last word in, Ehh-Up as they say in Maine.

Bad is bad Bush & Reagan do not deserve any of the strokes they are getting from conservatives. None!

Char4Dew, as I said earlier in the comment section above, "As usual, your comments and opinions, well lets just say, they don't add up to very much and that you are unable put two words to an opinion together, let alone back it up with original words or facts."

Women are Angels. And when someone breaks our wings, we simply continue to fly... on a broomstick. We're flexible like that.

Char4Dew, "How's that broomstick working out for ya, now." Enjoy the liberal regressive ride-lie that you and many others choose not to back-up their statements with the usual diatribe mantra compost.

Char4Dew, defiantly you're no angel, when your broken your wings, there is no fixing the repairs to the frontal cortex of your brain. Except in your case with a lobotomy. The only other alternative is, continue with taking your prescribed medications.

My suggestion Char4Dew, is that you continue to share with Haughty-Lib, another bong hit, of THC, another bottle, and cheep shot of vodka, another tab of LSD, to get you out of that purple Kool Aid haze stupor, that you have been drinking. This is only, just a suggestion !

My two friends you have a neo-cortex brain disorder. Seek therapy and lots of
psychological help sessions for regressive Do-Gooder syndrome.

Doc110

You left out Bill Clinton, interesting.
(But what about and Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.)

1. With the enormity of the extension of NAFTA and Gatt, the unions lost their bargaining power. You want a raise? Uhoh, we'll just put our plant overseas.

2. Reagan beautifully and sk**lfully got out of the mess that the prior Obama (Jimmy Carter) got us into and started a 25 year boom.

3. I'm an independent, meaning I think things through.

4. You seem to be totally one sided and you make absolutely no sense...

The reply to your questions below will be answered i.e. 1, 2. 3. 4.


Aufie,

You have added information to my original post, and this is very interesting for me to reply, about your post comment. But the original post and article was addressed about Obama and Reagan. "How Obama’s Style Economic Recovery Compares to Reagan’s Styled Economic Recovery" !

Hands-down, The Reagan economy win's over the Obama Economy.

Aufie, My post and rebuttals to (Searching, Char4Dew and Radiance3) were only about the Reagan and Obama, recovery from the recession economies 1979 and 2015 and the comparison’s, using traditional governmental statistics. i.e. GDP, job growth, work force participation, governmental spending ect.

The (OPP) site troll’s would not answer or contribute to which p**********l economic polices on who was better or worse, Reagan vs Obama using this information. But they used some obscure article to justify their opinion's. Thats what a Red-Hering and Straw-Man a common fallacy used in an argument.

They the (OPP) website trolls became belligerent and their obtuse position in the discussion was going no where. So I went tit-for-tat with them. Who win's. I condescendingly baited them to add something to the conversation. Their reply was “never going to happen.”

As to being one-sided, there was no chance to discuss Clinton, or Carter and or both of their economic recessionary economies, were different than Obama and Reagan and have to be addressed separately.

When you discuss a topic on this post you need to stay focused on the post article, not going on tangents and in different directions, Do you not agree ?

2. Reagan has had the best economic recovery at 4.9 percent GDP growth, since WWII and it is recorded as such. Obama has the worst recorded at 1.2 percent GDP growth in 6.5 years. That’s what was being discussed in my original article.

The reason for their behavior, I posted a comment about Obama. The essence, of their underling complaint and comment’s that offended them, was comparison of their glorious leader dismal Obama recovery and economy. They did not want to discuss the issues. Yet the "Emperor, Obama still has no clothes on." This is what actually offended them.

Aufie, So let’s reach some common ground as to your comment to me.

4. My political party affiliation is Independent-conservative-constitution party and do not adhere to either Democrat/Republican-neocon’s party liberal do-gooder mentality. I hold my nose when I v**e. Typically these Democratic-Social programs fail, and fail miserably. i.e.

LBJ-Johnson "War on Poverty," RR-Reagan "The War on Drugs," Bush Jr. The "War on Education," Obama and "AHCA-Obama-Care. These programs all have been abject failures, and poorly implemented, Governmental Social programs, with wasted money spent by taxpayers and Do-Gooder thoughts...

It was a nice thought, Do-Gooder mentality, but poorly thought-out law, poorly implemented and poorly executed, with no end in sight, of ever doing what it was intended to do for the American public. Except, Spend Spend and Spend while expanding Big Government.

1. As to making sense with the American economy, and perspective. We really need to go back 44 years under the Nixon Presidency and his economic policy and Secretary of State Kissinger’s foreign policy’s, both tie together to the crossroads as where America is economically, now.

Nixon co-mingled economics and foreign police together to divide the Soviet and Chinese c*******ts, that was Nixon’s/Kissinger’s ultimate goal. And now look at the C*******t-capitalist economic system now, compared to the USA. Nixon-Kissinger created a Chinese economic monster.

So how did it start 44 years ago ?

During the 60's, 70's and 80's America's industrial companies and corporations were destroying and polluting the "Air, Fresh Water, Salt Water and Land. i.e. Acid Rain, Acid Fog, the Great-lakes were dying from pollution, our rivers were catching fire and the air was brown from the factories and carcinogen waste and sewage, it was criminal.

So, Nixon and Congress came up with a solution in 1979 and made a cabinet post, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This was the beginning of the end of a lot of industries and corporations in America that polluted the air water and land. Large penalties and fine's and EPA Super-Site-Funds

The business and corporations in America had one of three choices.
A. Clean-up their industry pollution, newer technologies and processes.
B. Move to foreign countries and set-up businesses and manufacturing.
C. Lobbyist's for Congress and to the Presidency, to head-off investigations by the EPA.

Nixon-Kissinger devised a plan to send economic development to C*******t China, who were Allied to Vietnam and were supplying them arms for the war effort. The US congress was tired of the cost of the War and the US soldiers that were dying and the Anti-War effort. Congress had just defunded the US military in Vietnam.

The trade agreement with C*******t China in 1971, were epic and solved five problems;
a. The winding down of the Vietnam war.
b. Solving the pollution problem in America.
c. Dividing the C*******ts Soviets and C*******ts China.
d. Record profits for businesses and corporations using peasant workers for pennies on the dollar. Stop and remove the Union AFL-CIO grip on jobs benefits and wages. A win-win for businesses and corporations.
e. The USA went off the Gold Standard and went to petri-Dollars because of the 1973 oil embargo by the Oil Cartel. Using petrol-dollars for currency. 24 cent gas went to .75 cent-$1 Dollar with long lines at the gas pump.

Now the full effects of the EPA did not come into effect with major fine's and penalties until 1977.

During the Carter administration the US was in a major recession, 20 % high interest rates, and businesses closing and because America was in a post-war-recovery. Also government taxation and spending were out of control under Carter and his economic policies.

As you pointed out, Reagan beautifully and sk**lfully got out of the mess that the prior Jimmy Obama Carter got us into, and started a 25 year boom.

What that meant under the Reagan Administration, and economic policies, smaller government and lower taxation for individuals, businesses and corporations. i.e. Interest rates went from 20 % back down to 7-8 %, Government research and spending on Star-Wars defensive missiles, NASA and the downfall of the USSR, and Union busting. Because US jobs were beginning to leave the US to foreign countries or were being closed down.

Another thing that lead to prosperity was that the Fed-Chairman Paul Volcker reversed the further debasement of the US economy and strengthen the dollar.

Now under Bush Sr. trade defects and jobs were going over-sea's at a faster rate. Clinton sealed the manufacturing fate in the USA with the NAFTA trade agreements. Businesses and Corporations were leaving exponentially, with it were Union jobs, no money from dew's, and no money for lobbyist's. NAFTA was that job sucking sound as the toilette flushed.

Clinton lost's his political backing because the Republicans had control of the House and Senate, Clinton was hobbled economically.

Bush Jr, was big government, tax and spend neocon-conservative Republican economy, the "Compassionate Conservative. And in 2007 the crash depression/recession hit. Credit default swaps, Mortgage backed home securities and AIG's f**e insurance program devised and implemented from the Clinton economy.

Now I must have left out a few things, but this 2015 economy at this present time is due to the Nixon-Kissinger economic and foreign policies.

Doc110

Saltwind-78

saltwind-78,
I hope that you all, change your minds when they start catching tarpon where Orlando is now, when the entire California coast is one big desalinization plants and when you can buy pineapples grown in Vermont.

Doc110 thinks it is all a big h**x to make money. He is right.

The corporations don't like changing all their operations to meet new emission standards. That means spending billions out of profits.

saltwind-78, where is the proof, the facts to the claim that Miami, now its Orlando Florida will be under water. The ice caps at our North Pole and Antarctic regions are still there.

El-Nino is being predicted next year for California by the weather forecasters, and Vermont is a northern latitude and plants like pineapples can't survive in northern climates.

The Carbon Tax credits bill was defeated in Congress and wasn't even v**ed on. President Obama was laughing stock, at by the American people and the world for promoting Carbon Tax Credits Initiative and Global-Warming/C*****e C****e.

The (GW) issue was completely vetted by the hacked emails from East Anglia University, England and the professors falsified the scientific data and the collusion that was being brought forward by G****l w*****g initiative conference. Where are they now ?

The CCX corporation and banks have all gone bankrupt and the Kyoto protocol agreements have ended in 2012, they have not been extended and member nations have been dropping like fly's, due to the falsified the scientific data.

The ECX corporation is now trading at .18 euro's and should be going bankrupt soon. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/future/erum5?countrycode=uk

So in all reality, facts and scientific data, the "Carbon Tax Initiative" was a bust for the G****l W*****g extremists and has all the writings the "Worlds Biggest Lie-H**x Perpetrated" on the America people and the World.

It was all always, about the "Money" and the deception that was orchestrated by "Left-wing, Re-gressive, Socialist, Democrat, Proposal's of C*****e-C****e/Global-Warming theorists and the Carbon-Tax-Initiative instigators.

This was all about "Money" and duping people with the "BIG LIE THEORY." the Marx-Hitler-Capone-Alinsky big lie theory.

In the United States of America, Corporations and businesses are spending more and more money to meet the EPA environmental standards for water, air and ground pollution. Tell me where are the Coal fired energy plants, air and water emissions standards for cars and trucks have been met by Corporations and businesses. Where is the Solar investments the the US Government extended Loan's and Grants money's to the tune of 20 Billion dollars ? The majority are bankrupt or are being produced in C*******t/Industrialist China.

The EPA continues to write environmental laws that Corporations and businesses have to adhere to or they will be penalized and will have stiff financial fines.

If the Corporations and businesses don't meet these standards and regulations, they are moving their businesses and industries over sea's or are shutting down operations in the USA. Look at the uncontrolled pollution and environmental effect that is being produced in China.

It's time for you to go and complain to the C*******t-Capalitasit party in China, be care full that you are not imprisoned and or executed for your anti-govermental charges.

As far as US c*****e c****e in California, It's based on the El-Nino and the La-Nina atmospheric and ocean current effects. California is chaparral plant type and are all about the water effect of El-Nino and La-Nina atmospheric and ocean current effects.

1. The La-Nina atmospheric effect is a dry weather seasonal period caused by atmospheric and ocean current effects.

2. The El-Nino atmospheric effect is a wet weather seasonal period caused by atmospheric and ocean current effects.

3. California is chaparral is biological-reagion similar to most of the Mediterranean, parts of Australia and South Africa.

The chaparral plant life; trees, bushes and fauna have adapted to the particular atmospheric and ocean current effects and form this ecology system. Which means that there are indigenous plants and all other trees, plants, fauna and agriculture have ben brought to California.

Drought is a natural order for this type of chaparral ecology. California is divided into two water zones, Northern and Southern section zones.

The southern zone gets the majority of its water from the colorado river, and also from the northern water supply system. The Northern zone gets it's water from the Serra Nevada mountains and rivers, aquifers and d**e water system. Got-it-got-it-Good

As far as desalinization plants, wouldn't that counter the effects of Florida flooding because California's economy, is the 10th largest in the world, and its population keeps growing, and the water usage keeps on increasing.

Vermont is a northern climate the only way that pineapples would grow would be in a solarium/hot-house.

Saltwind-78 Please produce some facts, facts and more facts, then some more Scientific facts, to back up your (GW) extremist claims and proven h**x of G****l W*****g and the now defunct Carbon Tax Credits Initiative, bankrupt CCX and soon to be defunct ESX corporations.

Saltwater-78, I so want to debate you, on your opinions and scientific facts that you clearly cannot produce for our (OPP) post readers. Again crying wolf with out any proof, only brings about more skepticism on your position and not producing any evidence or scientific facts to justify your comments.

Saltwater-78, you only comment for the sake of commenting.

Saltwater-78, you keep banging that drum, its only noise pollution and people and they don't want to hear it any longer, please stop the bleeding and non-sense.

Saltwater-78, I took the time to write out a strong rebuttal to your post comments, your 4 and 5 sentence ranting and raving, are not working in this discussion on this (OPP) post article. "US Senate says c*****e c****e not caused by human's."

The interesting thing that I saw in the merits of the post Article. The article the exposed political nature and the agenda of the v**e in the Senate and the opinions from the Senator's. This was only about the extremist position and the H**x-denyerer's position. The Bill had no chance of passing because they did not have the 60 v**es.

But what was exposed in the article was the controversial topic of (GW) and the Democratic position to show the American nation, to expose the names of the members of the Senate that v**ed against the initiative of the 2016 National and State e******ns.

Are the (GW) extremists people going to shame the (GW) H**x-Denyerer's into submission ?

So Saltwater-78 please, please, please PUT UP, OR SHUT UP with your frantic alarmist (G****l W*****g) rage and lunatic rantings ! ! ! ! ! !

PRM2014 wrote:
Thank you, I like your post and your effort to brake down of what all causes the earth to heat and cool for many years.

All these alarmist are just afraid they will be found out and can't make all that big money. Ones like Big AL GORE.


PRM2014, I guess saltwind-78, took a xantex and calmed down, and I guess we won't be hearing from him/her for a while on this issue. glad you liked my simplistic reply to saltwind-78.

These (GW) alarmists only need simplistic facts and basic rational, common sense to dispel any topic they propose or argue about, it's plain facts and simple facts. Its all about facts, facts, scientific facts that will quiet-down the Liberal-Masses and the dispel hysteria that they produce.

Now lets talk about the true controversy and implications and the Leftwing, Re-gressive, Socialist, Democrat, Proposal's of C*****e-C****e/Global-Warming and the Carbon-Tax-Initiative.

Here's what at stake, and it is truly evil-sinister plan, it's Power-Grabbing, Money-Hungry control by the political elitists.

PRM2014, I guess saltwind-78, took a xantex and calmed down, and I guess we won't be hearing from him/her for a while on this issue. glad you liked my simplistic reply to saltwind-78.

These alarmists only need simplistic facts and basic rational common sense to dispel any topic they propose or argue about, it's plain and simple, its facts, facts, scientific facts that will quiet-down the Liberal-Masses and the hysteria that they produce.

Now lets talk about the true controversy and implications and the Leftwing, Re-gressive, Socialist, Democrat, Proposal's of C*****e-C****e/Global-Warming and the Carbon-Tax-Initiative.

Here's what at stake, and it is truly evil-sinister plan, it's Power-Grabbing, Money-Hungry ploy, and the net end, Do-Gooder result, is world socialism and Re-Distrubutisism of wealth from Prosperous-Nations to Dis-enfranchised-Nations.

Here's what at stake, and it is truly evil-sinister plan, it's Power-Grabbing, Money-Hungry ploy, and the net end, Do-Gooder result, is world socialism and Re-Distrubutisism of wealth from Prosperous-Nations to Dis-enfranchised-Nations.

Most of the media news reporters did not report this story back in 2006-2007, i.e the Carbon-Tax-Initiative plan. When you look at the news articles Carbon-Tax-Initiative, the organization and people that were behind this sweeping Global-Tax-Initiative. When you visualize and see their Global colusion-sinister plan and this is no conspiracy theory, it is facts when you see the articles written on this, i.e. Carbon-Tax-Initiative plan.

It will astound you. You will have a “OMG” moment.

But this is how the Progressives-Regressives work, It's a well thought-out plan i.e. Carbon-Tax-Initiative, which has a beginning-middle and end.
How the, Carbon-Tax-Initiative, play's out and is how it is slowly implemented. It is truly the "Big Lie Theory" Hitler-Alansky-Capone implementation and propaganda for the gullible world masses.

1. http://humanevents.com/2007/10/03/the-money-and-connections-behind-al-gores-carbon-crusad...
2. http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/22/chicago-climate-club-carbon-barack-obama-opinions-contri...
3. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/25/obama-years-ago-helped-fund-carbon-program-pus...
4. http://us4palin.com/barack-obama-al-gore-goldman-sachs-and-the-greatest-swindle-in-human-...
5. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/shorebank.php
6. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7526
7. http://www.libertyjuice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/CCX-Scandal-Chart.pdf
8. http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/252703/rip-al-gores-chicago-climate-exchange-ha...
9. http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/feb2009/gb20090219_851920.htm
10. https://www.wm.edu/as/publicpolicy/documents/prs/world_bank.pdf
11. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629
12. http://theamericanreport.org/2015/04/22/the-betrayal-papers-part-vi-the-chicago-connectio...
13. http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/03/18/under-valerie-jarrett-obama-ww-iii-defeat-fe...

“Prison or President” “Clinton Cash” Author Try's to Wave “Subpoena” in Front of Hillary Clinton !
http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/clinton-cash-author-waves-subpoena-in-front-of-hillary/

The actual question for the 2016 P**********l E******n, IS, "Prison or President" for Hillary Rodham Clinton, I't your choice when you v**e in 2016.

Review the facts, not allegations. Because neither the Clintons, their foundations or their charities are discussing the book “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer.

This is the defining "Harbinger" moment, for American political v**ers in the up-and-coming 2016 P**********l E******n cycle, when it is finished on November 8th, 2016.

Will you v**e for a justify that Americans need a Woman President, as was the justification for the 2008 first Black (Half-White) President ?

What was Obama's Qualifications? From a first term Illinois US Senator with the most far left v****g record in the US Senate. What did he accomplish as a US Senator.

What was Obama's record and accomplishment as an State Senator in Illinois ? We know of his community organizing and Reverend Rights religious background and the controversy of Obama's long form Birth certificate record, which is sealed in the State of Hawaii by order of the Governor.

What was Hillary's record and accomplishment as an State Senator in New York ? What is Hillary's economic policies are in the 2016 e******n. Remember we have a New York Senator v****g record and a clear understanding of what Hillary stood for, while serving in The US Senate,

We have a "Scandal" ridden Secretary of State record as her legacy and scandals persist. B******i Libya, The personal emails on her personal Server, in clear violation of Federal law and statutes. And her Foreign policy on Egypt, Libya, Gaza strip, Al Qaeda and Muslim radical extremism, the war in Syria the war in Russia and Ukraine and finally the 20 percent ownership trade deal of a US uranium mining company.

Scandal, what scandal. Nothing here folks, move along.

Then there is the scandals as First Lady under her husband Bill Clinton tutelage, as Governor of Arkansas and as President of the United States. lets not go into those p**********l scandals. Remember that it is a vast right wing conspiracy !

Now America the Clinton's have a new scandal with the filings of there private non-profit 501-C organizations and charities, that are under scrutiny and the implications and public record facts, that disclose the unscrupulous behaviors of the Clinton's and cash donations never listed. Scandal, what scandal.

Look at the silence and the political spin the Clinton's are doing on the campaign trail on this very subject, Foreign Campaign donations. This has been a very devious plan from her loss in the Democratic campaign of 2007-2008.

This is the "Harbinger" to come that all Americans are v****g for in 2016.

Or does American politics really care about the "Purchasing of the American Presidency" does it really matter by the $$ 2 $$ Billion Dollars e******n war chest the Clintons foundations have amassed. Will Hillary rule and purchase the 2016 American P**********l E******n ?

The choice is yours, the information and facts are your's, to investigate. More of the same political left-wing shenanigan-ism's that we are seeing now by President Obama, his policies and by his Administration will be "Compounded again and again by the Clintons, who were the original, cronyism that Obama has used and followed, during his Presidency...

And the originator of this left-wing shenanigan's by Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Presidency 1992-2000. All the scandals the Clintons were caught up in has been perpetrated by Obama and has been put on steroids to undermine the United States of America.

This is what the 2016 P**********l E******ns are all about. Look at the prophetic Harbinger that is to come if Hillary Clinton is elected President and look at the v**er pandering and political promise's, Hillary Clinton is doling out to the 47 percent-ers and the elitist's in America and around the world. ?

“Prison or President” you v**e your conscience, you decide. Here is the article below Its an interesting read.

Doc110


“Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer says there is an unmistakable pattern of Clinton Foundation donations greasing the skids for political favors throughout Hillary Clinton’s congressional and diplomatic career and no one has been able to discredit the facts in the book.

The thrust of the book is that the Clinton Foundation raked in millions and even billions of dollars from foreign donors who subsequently saw their most important issues addressed favorably by the State Department.

The book has rocked the Clinton campaign for weeks, as the Clinton Foundation was forced to admit that it took foreign donations while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, refiled years worth of tax returns to set the record straight and revealed some 1,100 donors that it hadn’t previously disclosed.

Schweizer says there are a lot of different threads to follow in the various episodes, but he says the basic plot is as old as politics itself.
“This is the oldest story in politics. Follow the money. If you follow the money in this case, you’re talking about a scale of money that is unprecedented,” said Schweizer.

“It’s a classic case of money in politics. When you give money, you want access and you want a favorable opportunity to get things done for your benefit.”

This week, Bill Clinton has spoken out in defense of the foundation’s activities and stated it did nothing that was “knowingly inappropriate.”
At another event, when asked what the money went for, Clinton joked, “I just work here. I don’t know.”

Schweizer is a bit stunned by the response. “I really think it’s been odd, frankly. On the one hand, they’ve said that there’s nothing here, but on the other hand they can’t stop talking about the book,” he said.
From Paul Begala hammering the book on Twitter to a new website and email alerts focused on the book, Schweizer says the Clintons are in major damage-control mode.“If they think there’s nothing there or the book is a dud as they’ve called it, they seem to be taking a lot of actions that show them to be scrambling,” said Schweizer.

He believes the real reason for the concern among Clinton allies is an crystal clear pattern of Hillary Clinton’s State Department rewarding Clinton Foundation donors.

“This is not a book with anonymous sources. There’s not hyperbole here. It’s just laying out the facts. It’s laying out the template of the flow of funds to the Clintons over the template of her official actions as secretary of state. When you do that, you find this very troubling pattern between the two,” said Schweizer.

Schweizer says the actions of the Clintons are especially galling given the laws firmly in place to prohibit foreign donations to political campaigns and political-action committees and clear limits on foreign lobbying of the U.S. government.

“Yet the Clintons have set up this apparatus through the Clinton Foundation and through these so-called speaking fees that I think are more influence payments to Bill Clinton. These mechanisms are a way around foreign entities being able to influence our politics. You see the money pouring in and you see the decisions and the actions being taken for the benefit of those who are paying the Clintons,” said Schweizer.

All of this allegedly took place during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state despite explicit demands from President Obama and the Senate Foreign Relations for the foundation to accept no foreign donations and for its records to be available for review.

“If I was Barack Obama, I would be absolutely furious. This was a condition upon Hillary taking the job as secretary of state. We now know that almost immediately overnight, they violated that agreement,” said Schweizer, who says Obama now needs to decide whether Hillary Clinton’s p**********l ambitions will trump the search for the t***h in this case.
“Are they going to let that supersede the fact that the Clintons flat-out lied to them. In this memorandum of understanding, it was very explicit that they were going to reveal all donors. We now know that they didn’t do that, that there were millions of dollars from some very, very sensitive deals involving very, very sensitive people that was flowing to the Clinton Foundation,” he said.

“Clinton Cash” also asserts that some of the money coming into the foundation was given by some very questionable characters, including African warlords and other disreputable figures. Schweizer believes the company the Clintons were keeping is worth noting.

“I think it’s another red f**g. You’ve got a guy, for example, like Gilbert Chagoury in Nigeria, who has been convicted in Geneva, Switzerland, for money laundering and aid and abetting a criminal enterprise. What he was basically doing was helping the Nigerian dictator [Sani] Abacha take billions of dollars out of the country and put them into Swiss bank accounts,” said Schweizer.

He says people like Chagoury don’t give huge amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation or anyone else just out of generosity. “That’s the kind of person they are spending a lot of time with and taking money from. A guy like Gilbert Chagoury operates in a political culture like Nigeria that is rife with paying bribes. The idea that he’s going to give a large sum of money for the Clintons and not expect something in return is just patently ridiculous,” said Schweizer.

The book further contends that the quid pro quo for Clinton Foundation donors are not unique to the years Mrs. Clinton was running the State Department. Schweizer says it was evident during her years in the U.S. Senate as well. One chapter in the book focuses on a nuclear issue involving India.

“The Indian government wanted access to U.S. civilian nuclear technology. In 2006, legislation was introduced to that effect. Hillary Clinton was not particularly supportive of that. She in fact supported three k**ler amendments that were designed to undermine that bill,” said Schweizer.
“Well, millions of dollars flowed to the Clinton Foundation. Bill Clinton got eight speeches from Indian interests. By 2008, she had completely reversed course and come out in favor of unrestricted access to U.S. nuclear technology by the Indian government,” he said.

Schweizer believes any doubts about whether donations to the Clinton Foundation played a role in the policy shift were answered by one of India’s key players on the issue. Sant Chatwal was a friend and financier for Sen. Clinton who won a prestigious award from the Indian government for convincing her to change his mind. “When he described in interviews what he did, he talked about the fact that getting this bill through cost him millions upon millions of dollars,” said Schweizer.

The policy flip-flops did not stop there, especially after Sen. Clinton became Secretary Clinton. “There are a number of examples in the book where she publicly espoused one position or supported a piece of legislation. But then when she became secretary of state, she reversed course. The question becomes are these just all coincidences or in these dozens of instances is something more afoot,” said Schweizer.

The key to finding iron-clad proof may be gone since Clinton had her personal email server wiped clean of more than 30,000 “personal” emails from her time at the State Department. Schweizer is convinced that controversy is directly related to the Clinton Foundation scrutiny.

“I believe the deletions occurred in large part precisely because of these kinds of t***sactions and communications we’re talking about. But they’re certainly not necessary to convene a grand jury and investigate these subjects,” said Schweizer.

And that is where Schweizer hopes all of his evidence eventually leads – to a serious legal investigation of the Clintons. “My hope is that somebody with subpoena power either on Capitol Hill or a prosecutor is going to convene a grand jury or investigate these matters further,” he said.

saltwind 78, you really need to calm down, take a xantex, relax and take a calm slow deep breath, and try to relax its not good for your emotions and your heart.

This c*****e c****e/g****l w*****g controversy is really getting you all excited for nothing. Because the alarmists in the media and the spoke's people are constantly are raising the (CS) agenda by liberal extremists. So relax, the earth will be here in a day, week, month and for many years to come, try to relax, you're way too emotional.

I took the liberty to break up your rebuttal and comments, to my post article, “50-49 v**e, US Senate says c*****e c****e not caused by human’s.” Obversely this post has offended you and your liberal core, and you feel the need to speak up against the article and me.

Quite frankly I think that you comment for the sake of commenting. Your rebuttals messages on the site reflects your vocal opinions, and you have very few post’s, to show for your efforts.

So here goes saltwind 78, I'll giving you the benefit of the doubt, that your an expert on C*****e c****e and G****l w*****g, which I hope to dis-spell the notion, that all people who disagree with you opinions are not right-wingers and ultra-conservatives.

As we proceed with my reply and dialogue with you, I pray that your frantic emotional fears, will allow logic and common sense to rule the day.

1. Right from the beginning you are in attack-dog mode and have to label people who dissent and disagree with your ideology on c*****e c****e.

Saltwind 78, I'm not a right winger or an ultra-conservatives. I'm just a nice guy who has been misunderstood by your judgmental labeling thoughts, on people who disagree with your personal opinions.

Yes, I'm conservative in my view points on some issues but not all issues. My v**er affiliation is Independent, which means that I look at both sides of an issue and hold my nose as I v**e in e******ns. But that does not make me a wight winger or a ultra-conservative.

I go to church every Sunday and am a (RC) I live by my tenants of my faith and act accordingly. Having served in the military faithfully as a Navy Corpsman, I never went to war or have taken a human life. I do not own a gun but practiced self defense. But that does not make me a wight winger or a ultra-conservative.

2. Saltwind 78, not everyone who dispute the notion and controversial issue of G****l W*****g and C*****e C****e are right-wingers. The people who disagree with the h**x of (GW) do not agree with the presented controversial scientific facts.

The Senate took a v**e on the scientific facts. In 50-49 v**e, US Senate says c*****e c****e not caused by human's. Why ? The (OPP) post and article was very incite-full. the end result was why the Senate v**ed 50-49 on the measure, which required 60 v**es in order to pass.

Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii said this bill was controversial piece of legislation.” The reason for this v**e was, Senate rejected the scientific consensus that humans are causing c*****e c****e, days after NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration argument and findings on (GW) The Senate, with Senator Inhofe’s support, did pass a separate measure saying that c*****e c****e is real — just not that human activity is a cause of (GW).

But in all actuality the real reason for this v**e was, the Democrats pushed for the c*****e c****e v**e, as an attempt to get Republicans on the record in advance of the 2016 e******ns, because polls show that, many Americans believe humans, are causing g****l w*****g. The v**es were offered as non-binding amendments to the bill authorizing construction of Keystone pipe-line.

So the issues and facts presented to the Senate and debated were:
A bill authorizing construction of Keystone XL pipe-line to the (GW) bill, also the carbon-intensive oil sands in Alberta, Canada. Just a reminder all oil is carbon-intensive. FYI

The debate centered around the facts provided by NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. Oh and President Obama words, were presented on the Senate floor, Obama's mocked “I’m not a scientist” line in his State of the Union speech, “Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know what? I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities,” Obama said.

So Saltwind 78, does that mean there is factual scientific proof that there is (GW) ?

The US Senate v**ed down the (GW) evidence and science presented and rejecting NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities assertion that there is (GW). So Saltwind 78, your an expert on C*****e c****e and G****l w*****g, show me the facts and scientific evidence provided to the Senate for debate.

Let me give you some common sense scientific facts that you really should acknowledge. The "Sun" is the prime motivator for heat in our solar system. without the suns solar waves the earth would be a lifeless star. There is the scientific facts about the climatic changes that have occurred over the past 4 plus billion years since life on earth has originated from.

Also the earth has had numerous ice ages and g****l w*****g periods. What is the evidence you ask. Antarctic and Greenland ice core samples. With the use of mass-spectrometer and carbon dating of these Ice core samples we know when they have occurred and also know the periodic atom's imbedded in the Ice core samples. Other physical evidence of ice ages are geological and earth formation changes caused by the glacial Ice sheets on the surface of the earth.

Another factor of g****l w*****g and cooling is that the earth is a celestial star in our solar system. As an expert on C*****e c****e and G****l w*****g what is the temperature of space out side earth's atmosphere. It's minus 270.15 degrees Celsius or minus 457.87 degrees Fahrenheit. The earth looses heat from our atmosphere and gases from our atmosphere.

Here is a proven fallacies' the (GW) theorists provide. The only go back to the late 1600's and early 1700's to make their predictions. What about the last Ice age around 10,000 B.C. and subsequent climate and ocean changes. Where are those facts ? Those scientific facts are ignored and not put in the GW scientific models. Only half of the proof is presented or acknowledged.

Now lets talk about Chemistry and Biology and the effects of GW on plant life and the carbon and gas exchanges that earth life needs to survive.

So Saltwind 78, you are an expert on C*****e c****e and G****l w*****g and the effects on Chemistry and Biology, am I right. ? We’re are talking basic Chemistry and Biology common sense.

What is the composition of Composition earth's air, gases in Earth's atmosphere include:
Nitrogen – 78 percent
Oxygen – 21 percent
Argon – 0.93 percent
Carbon dioxide – 0.038 percent
Water vapor and other gases exist in small amounts as well.

Additional atmospheric gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect

Water vapor. The most abundant greenhouse gas, but importantly, it acts as a feedback to the climate. Water vapor increases as the Earth's atmosphere warms, but so does the possibility of clouds and precipitation, making these some of the most important feedback mechanisms to the greenhouse effect.

Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning f****l f**ls. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of c*****e c****e.

Methane. A hydrocarbon gas produced both through natural sources and human activities, including the decomposition of wastes in landfills, agriculture, and especially rice cultivation, as well as ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere.

Nitrous oxide. A powerful greenhouse gas produced by soil cultivation practices, especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, f****l f**l combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Synthetic compounds entirely of industrial origin used in a number of applications, but now largely regulated in production and release to the atmosphere by international agreement for their ability to contribute to destruction of the ozone layer. They are also greenhouse gases.

CO2 - the major cause of g****l w*****g

G****l w*****g is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases . 72% of the totally emitted greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide (CO2), 18% Methane and 9% Nitrous oxide (NOx). Carbon dioxide emissions therefore are the most important cause of g****l w*****g. CO2 is inevitably created by burning fuels like e.g. oil, natural gas, diesel, organic-diesel, petrol, organic-petrol, ethanol. The emissions of CO2 have been dramatically increased within the last 50 years and are still increasing by almost 3% each year.

But the problem to there rational and scientific reasoning is that they only go back to the year 1989 and say that this is the starting point for measurement of Greenhouse gasses. Thats why Ice core samples are so important because they go back hundreds of thousands of year's this is the actual starting point for scientific measurement. so the graphs and charts are squid incorrectly to favor (GW) greenhouse gas effects and blaming (GW) on man industry and pollution.

Carbon dioxide – 0.038 percent of the earths atmosphere. This is the figure that (GW) scientist are not discussing but should be discussing, this is this a controversial scientific facts that are not being discussed at universities and is a political hot bed of contention on this subject.

Now lets talk about the effects of CO2 in the earths atmosphere and the beneficial effects on plants. Plants absorb CO2 to survive and give off oxygen as a biological chemistry process. So plant life should be growing with this increase of CO2 emissions. Where is the increase of Oxygen in our atmosphere because of land plant, and ocean plant life. ? The chemistry math does not add up in the chemistry equation.

4. As far as US c*****e c****e in California, It's based on the El-Nino and the La-Nina atmospheric and ocean current effects. California is chaparral plant type and are all about the water effect of El-Nino and La-Nina atmospheric and ocean current effects. I don't have any information on Miami Florida i can't comment on, other than its part of the everglades and that is another bio-reagion unto itself.

5. Save our planet the United States has stopped Acid-Rain Acid-Fog pollution back in the 70's and the 80's. The United States passed the Clean Air and Water Act 1977, and has the EPA as its enforcement governmental agency since 1971 and provides for EPA Super-Fund cleanups around the country.
Automobiles have become more fuel efficient and produce less and less emissions. Then there is the electric vehicles and LED lights in your home.

We are doing things here in America. But look at the leading manufacturing governments like China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, India. The US has no control over there economies and the pollution they manufacture.

6. Blinded, I've taken the time to correspond to you and have given factual scientific information for you to understand the science behind (GW)
How does conservative principles have to do with the evidence and facts presented to you about (GW).

The sun is the prime factor to the present day earth changes, prove that Mankind is the reason for (GW) facts, facts, scientific facts.

Back to the post article: US Senate says c*****e c****e not caused by human's.

The chairman of the environment committee, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.,is denier of c*****e c****e, saying it is the “biggest h**x” perpetrated against mankind. Why ? Senator Inhofe also said “The h**x is there are some people so arrogant to think they are so powerful they can change the climate,” Inhofe said Wednesday on the Senate floor. “Man can’t change the climate.”

So tell me do you want to give up your car, stop heating your home in the winter time. Give concrete answers as how to reduce emissions and greenhouse gases. I like the article on passing a bill on cow flatuance http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/28/white-house-looks-to-regulate-cow-flatulence-as-part-of-climate-agenda/

Here is a more laughable moment and article from the White House. http://www.tpnn.com/2014/11/02/white-house-we-dont-have-to-explain-our-global-warming-claims-to-you/

Saltwind 78, in all seriousness, in most all claims and future predictions, the (GW) scientist models have failed miserably, Crying wolf all the time and gets pretty boring, but if you fall into that trap, you repeat the same facts and talking points and you will get yourself all worked up for nothing. Wishing you peace and a good nights sleep.

Frankly put, the science is inconclusive on (GW) More input, more input.

Been busy, and will send more about my theory as what has happened economically and with US foreign policy 44 years ago under Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Hey i know, try code pink as a news sourse

Robert Parry (journalist) at Consortiumnews.com is very much biased reporter and is slanted to the left and the democratic part.

Yes he is an investigative reporter, is his reporting about Republicans vs the Democrats. Yes

Also you do a lot of commenting, and have reviewed your 3533 comments, but hardly any posts. Your a left wing attack dog troll, and comment for the sake of commenting.

As far as Robert Parry and his article that he wrote, it's irrelevant and has to be discounted because of his bias reporting.

Nice try, Try to use another source material in the future,