Natural News Store

Sunday, December 27, 2009

My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story

Told from the perspectives of the refugees, My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story is a comprehensive chronicle of the tumultuous history and the struggles of the people of Gaza.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

URGENT: Nelson caves, Reid sets 1:00 am Senate vote for EARLY Monday Morning! Take Action!

Tyranny Reigns, The People Be Damned! URGENT: Nelson caves, Reid sets 1:00 am Senate vote for EARLY Monday Morning! Take Action!
This weekend, please call your two Senators at least once before the 1 am cloture vote which will occur very late Sunday night / [or as early as 1 AM] Monday morning! December 19, 2009
Harry Reid (D-NV) finally released his "secret deal" to the public this morning [Saturday, Dec. 19]. It will serve as a substitute for the decoy that was the 2,074-page bill the Senate has been debating for the past three weeks.
Reid also claimed that he has his necessary 60-vote minimum in light of Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) caving in to accept watered-down abortion funding language and announcing his support to end debate.
Harry Reid's Manager's Amendment makes only slight cosmetic changes to this overwhelmingly unpopular legislation, as it still:
* Costs almost $1 trillion - $871 billion (and that's CBO's modest estimate not factoring in the full ten years after it goes into effect), 
* Cuts Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars,
* Raises and imposes a vast array of new taxes on the American people, Allows for federal funding of abortion,
* Retains the CLASS Act (which the Democrat Chairman of the Budget Committee has described as nothing more than a "Ponzi Scheme"),
* Massively expands Medicaid, giving special treatment to a select few states so that taxpayers in VA, AR, and OH will have to pay higher taxes to subsidize the Medicaid program of a favored few, such as NE, MA, and VT.
Harry Reid has filed cloture on his substitute amendment, so the CLOTURE VOTE ON THE MOTION TO END DEBATE will occur very late Sunday night (12/20/09) night/or very early [Monday] morning--thus, weekend calls are imperative! If you wait until Monday morning when the sun rises, it will be too late!
This is a CALL-ONLY alert because less than 48 hours remain before the Senate votes, so calls are needed NOW! This will be our last action alert to pressure Senators on health care, so please take a few moments this weekend to call both of your Senators' district and Capitol Hill Offices. All phone numbers can be found here.
U.S. Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121/Toll-Free (866)220-0044 Ask for your Senators!
PLEASE BE AWARE: There will NOT be a conference committee to further drag out the deliberation process on this health care bill. If the Senate musters together the necessary 60 votes to invoke cloture to proceed to final passage, this will be the last significant vote on health care your Senators will make, so this is the vote that counts.
Final passage requires only a simple majority, so NO votes on final passage are next to irrelevant. CLOTURE is the vote that matters. If it passes, Reid will then take the Senate bill to Nancy Pelosi and say, "Here is the bill, vote on it now, do not allow any amendments." This will facilitate the bill reaching the President's desk before the New Year.


Ben Nelson caves on abortion, announces support for health care bill

Wednesday, December 16, 2009


By Sarah Foster
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
December 16, 2009
© 2009

WASHINGTON: A Republican congresswoman, who has been in the forefront of the fight against the healthcare bill, the climate control bill and other contentious measures, warned in animpromptu interview on Thursday evening, that a fast-tracked, under-the-radar mega-bill by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., designed to overhaul the regulation of the entire financial services industry – and headed at the time for passage by the House -- is “even worse.”

“I know that’s hard to believe, but it is worse in the sense that every American makes financial transactions,” said Michele Bachmann, who represents the people of Minnesota’s Sixth Congressional District. “We all use credit cards, we all write checks. This will all now be controlled by government, and government will ration credit. You can’t have capitalism without capital, and government will decide who gets capital and who doesn’t.”

“The entirety of this bill -- all pinned together like this -- hasn’t even gone through committees,” Bachmann said. “It just went on the floor for three hours of debate. It’s a complete government control of the financial services industry and no one knows about it!”

They do now. Late Friday, despite a surprisingly unanimous Republican opposition, the House approved H.R. 4173: The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. The vote was 223-202, with not a single Republican voting in favor and 27 Democrats voting No. Two Republicans who were present did not vote.

The super-size measure of 1,279 pages (1,500 with amendments), is actually a package of several bills, which when “pinned together”, as Bachmann puts it, exponentially extends the power of the federal government over banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions.

Frank, who heads the House Financial Services Committee, “created the package to serve as a vehicle for getting many major financial services bills, including a systemic risk regulation overhaul, an overhaul of derivatives market regulation, consumer protection measures, a measure restricting executive compensation, and a measure that would create a Federal Insurance Office, through the House quickly,” National Underwriter, a trade publication for the insurance industry, reported.
“Quickly” is the operative word here. As a hedge against possible derailment, Frank did not introduce his bill until Dec. 2, then kept it under wraps until Dec. 8 to ensure the least amount of time for review and debate by House members.

Now H.R. 4173 is in the Senate, and if passed there and signed into law would usher in what CNN describes as “the most sweeping set of changes to the banking regulatory system since the New Deal.”

The changes include creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) to (Title IV), with authority to make decisions for consumers about the kinds of mortgages, small business loans and other financial products they may access. Another innovation is a new bureaucracy called the Financial Services Oversight Council (FSOC) tasked with determining which companies are supposedly at risk and could undermine financial market stability (Title I, Subtitle G).

“We are sending a clear message to Wall Street, the party is over. Never again will reckless behavior on the part of the few threaten the fiscal stability of our people," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a press conference following the bill’s passage. "The legislation will finally protect Main Street from the worst of Wall Street."

But Rep. Jeb Hensarling from Dallas, the top Republican on the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee and an outspoken critic of government super-spending, blasted the measure as “an assault on the fundamental economic liberties of the American citizen.”

“You want a home mortgage -- now you have to get the approval of the federal government,” Hensarling exclaimed. “You want to offer a credit product? The federal government again. You build a successful business -- it can be torn down unless you go to the federal government on bended knee."

A $150 Billion Slush Fund

Although H.R. 4173 was kept out-of-sight, once unveiled critics quickly analyzed its provisions and sent letters to House members urging rejection, which may account for the universal thumbs-down by Republican lawmakers and some Democrats.

Andrew Moylan, Director of Government Affairs for the National Taxpayers Union, in an open letter dated Dec. 10, called on the House to “reject bailouts, taxes, and onerous regulations in H.R. 4173.”

Moylan writes: “Perhaps most disturbingly, the bill raises taxes in order to provide a permanent, $150 billion slush fund to the newly created Financial Services Oversight Council, whose bureaucrats could bail out private institutions at their whims. The American people have been outraged by the failures of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and yet H.R. 4173 would establish a ‘mini-TARP’ which could potentially have even less accountability and greater moral hazard. Investors will gain no certainty from such an arrangement.”

And Matt Kibbe, President and CEO of FreedomWorks, deploredthe “new fees, regulations, and reporting requirements,” the legislation requires, and warned it would threaten jobs, global competitiveness, and economic growth.

“At the same time, the legislation creates sweeping new powers for the federal government.” Kibbe said. “Ultimately, consumers may bear the brunt of the legislation. For example, regulations released by a new consumer protection agency may have unintended consequences that reduce access to credit while raising the price of credit.”

Bachmann on

On Thursday, Bachman, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, took a few minutes from the fight on the House floor to talk by telephone with Scott Baker, co-host of the B-Cast on, about H.R. 4173. It was during this interview that she described the measure as being worse than the healthcare bill.

According to Bachmann the bill makes bailout permanent and gives the president the authority to make future bailouts at his own discretion.

“He never again has to come back to Congress to get money,” she said. 

“He can just go straight to the Treasury, pull out all the money he wants for a favored industry. ... His [credit] czar could place a private business on the systemic risk list – doesn’t have to be a failing business, could be a healthy business -- and the president can bail out anyone that he wants to.”

Bachmann noted that the financial services sector represents 15 percent of the nation’s economy, and some analysts have estimated that since Obama took office, 30 percent of the economy has been brought under federal control and essentially nationalized.

Said Bachmann: “If President Obama gets his way and has government take over healthcare, that’s another 18 percent – 48 percent of the economy the government will have been taken over. The financial services sector is another 15 percent of the economy. If they succeed in [passing H.R. 4173], and if they succeed in taking over the energy sector with the national energy tax, that’s 69 to 70 percent of the economy they will have taken over in less than 18 months.

“So it isn’t that socialism has occurred in our lifetime, it’s in the last 18 months!” she exclaimed.

“Melt the Phone Lines”

As she has been doing in her ongoing fight against the healthcare bill, the congresswoman reached out beyond her district and asked Americans for help – this time to “melt the phone lines” in the offices of their representative and U.S. senators and urge them to vote against H.R. 4173.

“We need people to melt the phone lines of their House members before Friday,” she said. “So here it is Thursday. We need people to be melting the phone lines in the House saying ‘do not vote for Barney Frank’s bill.’ But after that people will have to focus on their senators and tell them “do not vote to have the government take over financial services.”

Baker asked Bachmann if she thought phone calls to members of Congress are effective.

“Absolutely,” she answered. A barrage of phone calls ties up the staff in the offices, which makes them “extremely nervous” but gets the legislator’s attention.

Bachmann said she believes bills like H.R. 4173 can be defeated – though it will take a huge effort.

“I don’t think it’s inevitable that any of this legislation passes,” she said. 

“It’s not inevitable. Can we fight? Yes. Can we win? Yes. But we have to fight with everything that’s in us. I won’t shade this in a pretty shade. This is going to be a difficult fight, but it’s worth it. It’s worth pouring everything else that we have into it.”

“We're the beacons. We're it. If the U.S. goes down, where do we go? What other nation do we go to?” she asked her listeners.
Earlier Stories:

1 - Jim Kouri: Obama, Congress Strive to Bankrupt America: Dec. 13, 2007
2 - Sarah Foster: GOP Congresswoman Warns About AmeriCorps: Apr. 13, 2009

Related Resources:

1 - H.R. 4173: The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, introduced by Barney Frank, D-Mass, with no co-sponsors. 
2 - Michele Bachmann on the B-Cast: A Conservative Call to Action: with Scott Baker and Liz Stephans, (audio), Dec. 10, 2009
3 - Andrew Moylan, Nat’l Taxpayers Union: Open Letter to House of Representatives to Reject the Bailouts, Taxes, and Onerous Regulations in H.R. 4173, Dec. 10, 2009
4 - Matt Kibbe, FreedomWorks: Key Vote "No": Wall Street Act H.R. 4173, Dec. 11, 2009
5 - Jennifer Liberto: Sweeping Bank Reform Bill Clears the House., Dec. 11, 2009

© 2009 NWV - All Rights Reserved

Friday, December 11, 2009

The Hashish Army - This is why we need to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan???

This is what's actually going on... What kind of psychopathic criminals would send American troops to fight and die under conditions like this? By the way, the US and UK news media rants on and on about the Taliban supporting themselves with opium and heroin trading. Since the invasion, Afghanistan now provides at least 80% of the world's opium. It's a $3 billion business. Note that the Taliban's take is around $200 million. For people who can do math, that's less than 10% of the total score. So who's getting the rest? Friends of Uncle Sam/CIA.

Yahoo Issues Takedown Notice for Spying Price List

Whistleblower web site, Cryptome, reveals Yahoo price list for selling its users' email messages and contact lists to government agencies. Yahoo lawyers threaten action if it is not removed, but it remains posted.

Yahoo Issues Takedown Notice for Spying Price List


Yahoo isn’t happy that a detailed menu of the spying services it provides law enforcement agencies has leaked onto the web. Shortly after Threat Level reported this week that Yahoo had blocked the FOIA release of its law enforcement and intelligence price list, someone provided a copy of the company’s spying guide to the whistleblower site Cryptome.
The 17-page guide describes Yahoo’s data retention policies and the surveillance capabilities it can provide law enforcement, with a pricing list for these services. Cryptome also published lawful data-interception guides for Cox Communications, SBC, Cingular, Nextel, GTE and other telecoms and service providers.
But of all those companies, it appears to be Yahoo’s lawyers alone who have issued a DMCA takedown notice to Cryptome demanding the document be removed. Yahoo claims that publication of the document is a copyright violation, and gave Cryptome owner John Young a Thursday deadline for removing the document. So far, Young has refused.
Yahoo’s letter was sent on Wednesday, within hours of the posting of Yahoo’s Compliance Guide for Law Enforcement at Cryptome. In addition to copyright infringement, the letter accuses the site of revealing Yahoo’s trade secrets and engaging in “business interference.” According to the letter, disclosure of its surveillance services (.pdf) would help criminals evade surveillance.
The Compliance Guide reveals, for example, that Yahoo does not retain a copy of e-mails that an account holder sends unless that customer sets up the account to store those e-mails. Yahoo also cannot search for or produce deleted e-mails once they’ve been removed from a user’s trash file.
The guide also reveals that the company retains the IP addresses from which a user logs in for just one year. But the company’s logs of IP addresses used to register new accounts for the first time go back to 1999. The contents of accounts on Flickr, which Yahoo also owns, are purged as soon as a user deactivates the account.
Chats conducted through the company’s Web Messenger service may be saved on Yahoo’s server if one of the parties in the correspondence set up their account to archive chats. This pertains to the web-based version of the chat service, however. Yahoo does not have the content of chats for consumers who use the downloadable Web Messenger client on their computer.

Instant message logs are retained 45 to 60 days and includes an account holder’s friends list, and the date and times the user communicated with them.
Young responded to Yahoo’s takedown request with a defiant note:
I cannot find at the Copyright Office a grant of copyright for the Yahoo spying document hosted on Cryptome. To assure readers Yahoo’s copyright claim is valid and not another hoary bluff without substantiation so common under DMCA bombast please send a copy of the copyright grant for publication on Cryptome.
Until Yahoo provides proof of copyright, the document will remain available to the public for it provides information that is in the public interest about Yahoo’s contradictory privacy policy and should remain a topic of public debate on ISP unacknowledged spying complicity with officials for lucrative fees.
Note: Yahoo’s exclamation point is surely trademarked so omitted here.
The company responded that a copyright notice is optional for works created after March 1, 1989 and repeated its demand for removal on Thursday. For now, the document remains on the Cryptome site.
Threat Level reported Tuesday that muckraker and Indiana University graduate student Christopher Soghoian had asked all agencies within the Department of Justice, under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, to provide him with a copy of the pricing list supplied by telecoms and internet service providers for the surveillance services they offer government agencies. But before the agencies could provide the data, Verizon and Yahoo intervened and filed an objection on grounds that the information was proprietary and that the companies would be ridiculed and publicly shamed were their surveillance price sheets made public.
Yahoo wrote in its objection letter that if its pricing information were disclosed to Soghoian, he would use it “to ’shame’ Yahoo! and other companies — and to ’shock’ their customers.”
“Therefore, release of Yahoo!’s information is reasonably likely to lead to impairment of its reputation for protection of user privacy and security, which is a competitive disadvantage for technology companies,” the company added.
The price list that Yahoo tried to prevent the government from releasing to Soghoian appears in one small paragraph in the 17-page leaked document. According to this list, Yahoo charges the government about $30 to $40 for the contents, including e-mail, of a subscriber’s account. It charges $40 to $80 for the contents of a Yahoo group.
Photo: Jeff Pearce/Flickr
See also:

More than 50 papers join in front-page leader article on the SCAM known as climate change

In an unprecedented bid to launch a global cap and trade scheme and a massive global tax for just living and breathing..."56 newspapers worldwide will run the same front-page editorial promoting the climate-change myth and supporting the globalist agenda at the Copenhagen climate-change conference this week. Here we see the collectivist mainstream media, not as a reporter of events, but as a major participant." ~ G Edward Griffin

More than 50 papers join in front-page leader article on climate change

Opinion piece to be published in 56 papers across 45 countries – including the Guardian, Le Monde and two Chinese papers
  •, Sunday 6 December 2009 18.48 GMT

  • Editorial logo
    The Guardian has teamed up with more than 50 papers worldwide to run the same front-page leader article calling for action at the climate summit in Copenhagen, which begins tomorrow.
    This unprecedented project is the result of weeks of negotiations between the papers to agree on a final text, in a process that mirrors the diplomatic wrangling likely to dominate the next 14 days in Copenhagen.
    Fifty-six papers in 45 countries published in 20 different languages have joined the initiative, and will feature the leader in some form on their front pages.
    Among the titles taking part are two Chinese papers – the Economic Observer and the Southern Metropolitan – and India's second largest English-language paper, The Hindu.
    Some of the world's best known papers, such as Le Monde, El Pais, Russia's Novaya Gazeta and the Toronto Star, are also on board.
    The leader was the work of team of Guardian writers and editors and went through three drafts to arrive at a text that satisfied all the editors involved.
    Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of the Guardian, said: "Newspapers have never done anything like this before but they have never had to cover a story like this before. No individual newspaper editorial could hope to influence the outcome of Copenhagen but I hope the combined voice of 56 major papers speaking in 20 languages will remind the politicians and negotiators gathering there what is at stake – and persuade them to rise above the rivalries and inflexibility that have stood in the way of a deal."
    The Guardian deputy editor Ian Katz, who co-ordinated the project, said: "The fact that papers from Moscow to Miami, with such different national and political perspectives, could agree on an editorial should offer some hope that our leaders might be able to do the same. We are bombarded with so much news and comment about climate change that many people are understandably tempted to go back to bed and pull the duvet over their heads – hopefully this improbable alliance will capture people's attention, and perhaps their imagination too."
    The leader says that overcoming climate change "will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called 'the better angels of our nature'".
    "It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can, too."
    Dubai's Gulf News, the Arabic language paper An Nahar of Lebanon and the Israeli paper Maariv are among the 16 Asian papers involved.
    There are also 11 African papers participating, and nine from north, south and central America combined.
    The sole English-language US paper represented is the Miami Herald. "This initiative offered the Miami Herald's editorial board a terrific opportunity to join other papers across the globe on an issue that is of paramount importance to Florida and to our nation," said the Herald's editorial page editor, Myriam Marquez.
    The 20 European papers taking part include the Irish Times, Liberation, Suddeutsche Zeitung, La Repubblica and Turkish title Hurriyet.
    And delegates in Copenhagen will find that two Danish papers, Dagbladet Information and Danish Politiken, are featuring the leader too.
    Some papers, such as Japan's Asahi Shimbun, were not able to carry a shared leader as that would breach their editorial protocols but are carrying a news report about the initiative.
    Two Australian papers, the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, pulled out at a late stage after the election of climate change sceptic Tony Abbott as leader of the opposition Liberal party recast the country's debate on green issues.
    Peter Cole, head of the journalism department at the University of Sheffield, praised the unprecedented collaboration between newspapers.
    "This is a tremendous initiative and a good counter to the idea that nobody notices that the world is falling apart," he said. "If editors from nearly 50 countries all over the world, including all the major countries that contribute so much to global warming, can all agree, then surely the politicians in Copenhagen would be foolish to ignore it."
    "Only one year ago, during the COP 14 summit in Poznan, governments promised us that they would deliver a breakthrough," said Konrad Niklewicz of Poland's Gazeta Wyborcza.
    "Yet as the Copenhagen summit approached, their courage and leadership started to disappear. Politicians started to behave as we had plenty of time and no disaster looming. Yet the opposite is the case.
    "Science tells us we have no more time, it is now or never. We can't let governments get away with yet another fudge and unfulfilled promises. Speaking with one voice, we will be heard."
    N Ram, editor-in-chief and publisher of India's Hindu, added: "This is a splendid initiative, and with some luck and a lot of hard work it should turn out to be a significant media intervention, an example of how we can perform our social responsibility function. The Hindu feels happy and privileged to be part of this initiative and prospective intervention, and we are of course front-paging the global editorial with the impressive logo (the American absences notwithstanding)."


    By NWV News writer Jim Kouri
    Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
    December 6, 2009
    © 2009

    President Barack Obama and other world leaders are preparing for their international climate change summit in Copenhagen this month and their supporters are ignoring the evidence of fraud and corruption exposed in emails exchanged by leading "climate experts."
    On Friday, Congressman Chaka Fattah (D-PA), a member of the House Appropriations Committee and its subcommittees that oversee funding for federal science, commerce, energy and water development agencies, issued a statement regarding President Obama's global warming diplomacy and upcoming appearance on December 9 at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen

    In his statement, Rep. Fattah said, "Give President Obama credit for changing the game on climate change. His environmental diplomacy will finally place the United States at the forefront of efforts to save our planet."

    "President Obama's pledge to reduce United States greenhouse gas emissions is in line with targets in House legislation that I supported upon passage in June. Those targets lay down a marker for the Senate. We in Congress owe it to the American people and in fact the world community to send the President a comprehensive, action-oriented bill- a necessary complement to his global leadership in climate change," said the congressman.

    Opponent's of so-called Cap-and-Trade environmental legislation are quick to remind Obama's political allies that besides being destructive to the US economy, such legislation is based -- wholly or partially -- on faulty or manipulated science.

    "These liberal-left politicians and activists see an opportunity to use so-called global warming as a means to push forward their Marxist philosophy. Part of the agenda is to take away wealth from the American people and give it to Third-World countries," said political strategist Mike Baker.

    The evidence provided by the intercepted emails of renowned climatologists has created one of the biggest scandals in the last decade -- if not the century, according to Baker.

    Thousands of emails and documents allegedly "stolen" from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and posted online indicate that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years. 

    These leaked emails provide compelling evidence that much of what is being touted as scientific fact is in reality erroneous, fraudulent, and perhaps criminal if participating scientists used their phony research to acquire government grants. 

    Several emails contained discussions about how to best portray data sets, among other topics. Scientists maintain their comments have been taken out of context, but those who fiercely oppose the climate change thesis argue the emails invalidate all the research.
    Even the leftist newspaper Telegraph described its newsroom's shock over discovering that the documents revealed scientists were "cooking the books," in order to prove the earth is warming at an alarming rate. 

    What is even more shocking is that the authors of the emails are not just any old bunch of academics. "Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)," stated Baker. 

    Baker points to the senders and recipients of the leaked emails saying that they are a "who's who" of science. Their ranks include Doctors Michael Mann, Ben Santer, Kevin Trenbeth, and even Al Gore's climate guru, Dr. James Hansen. Gore used Hansen's studies in his Oscar-winning motion picture An Inconvenient Truth.

    Even after being caught with the "smoking gun," they and their defenders have offered every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based. Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offense.

    According to the emails, scientists involved secretly discussed ways they could manipulate the scientific peer review process so that skeptic could not get their articles and papers published in scientific journals. skeptical papers had no access to publication. 

    For example, when Dr. Thomas Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research complained that paleo-climatologist Hans von Storch was responsible for “the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’” and that they “must get rid of von Storch” as an editor of the journal Climate Research.
    Armed with allegedly phony proof against Storch, they succeeded in getting von Storch to resign.

    The scandal is also raising questions about members of the news media being complicit in covering up ClimateGate. For example, a BBC meteorologist and climate change expert, Paul Hudson, admits he was sent the leaked emails a month prior to their discovery by bloggers, radio and television talk hosts and other interested parties.

    Meanwhile in the US, major media outlets continue to ignore the story, according to the media watchdog group, Accuracy in Media. 

    Since the emails where first discovered, ABC had only mentioned the story once, on Sunday’s This Week with George Stephanopolous, and CBS and NBC still has never reported the leaked emails on the morning or evening news, according to AIM. 

    "Rather than focus on this huge scientific scandal, the timing of which is critical considering the cap and trade legislation stalled in the Senate and the upcoming Copenhagen meeting supposedly intended to combat global warming—the mainstream media have done their best to ignore it. 

    "The scandal involves the destruction of data, the manipulation and cover-up of data, and a plan to punish scientific journals that might dare to publish the views of skeptics of the man made global warming theory. They realize that a full airing of the facts would likely undermine an important part of President Obama’s agenda, and expose the corruption of a significant part of the scientific establishment," writes AIM's contributing editor Allie Duzett.

    Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in an interview with the Washington Post from that Obama's decision to go to Copenhagen suggests that "he'll be here at the end to help seal the deal." 

    "The Washington Post is one of the culprits in this enormous cover up," accuses Mike Baker. "And why aren't reporters flocking to Al Gore for his reaction to this proof that climate change is a farce?"

    For years, Al Gore has played the role of a modern day Paul Revere, sounding the alarm regarding potential consequences of global warming in order to gain public attention. Whenever there is a story related to environmental issues, reporters quote Gore. In fact, Fox News Channel on Saturday morning reported that conservatives in Hollywood are demanding that Gore be stripped of his Oscar for his documentary that served as a vehicle to ratchet up global warming fears.

    "But putting aside the fact that Gore has honed his public speaking skills, the fly in the ointment is that he’s a fraud. Like the very global warming movement to which he has attached himself, he’s a snake oil salesman whose sales pitch is laced with scare tactics designed to push the public into embracing a radical, carbon-free agenda that rests on a combination of half-truths and outright fabrications," alleges AWR Hawkins, a conservative writer who holds a Ph.D. in military history from Texas Tech University and writes for Pajamas Media.

    "And Gore’s fraudulence is not only seen in the fact that he pawns a lie, but also in the fact that he refuses to abide by the very lie he pawns," quipped Dr. Hawkins.

    Selected Earlier Stories

    Other Resources / Articles

    1 - Marc Morano’s website:
    2 - Marc Morano’s NewsWithViews Archive: July 2 - Sept. 5, 2009
    3 - Christopher Booker: Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world.' London Telegraph, Dec. 5, 2009
    4 - Christopher Booker: Climate Change: This is the Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation. London Telegraph, Nov. 28, 2009
    5 - U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - March 2009

    Missouri government plots undercover sting operations against families selling raw milk

    Imagine being watched by two undercover cops as you engage in an illicit deal in a deserted parking lot. The buyer hesitantly hands you some cash. You flash a look over your shoulder, just to make sure the coast is clear, then you hand over the contraband. Neither of you says a word. You just nod, acknowledging the deal is done, then you head back to your car and buckle up for the drive home.

    But before you can even put the car into drive, a screeching formation of police cars, surrounds you, sirens wailing. Armed officers leap from their vehicles, guns drawn and sunglasses glaring. "Come out with your hands up!" they shout.

    You slowly open the driver's door of your car and inch out of your seat with both hands raised in surrender, cowering behind the open door. "What did I do, officer? What's my crime?"

    Their answer comes back loud and intimidating: "SELLING RAW MILK!"

    Missouri government plots undercover sting operations against families selling raw milk

    Imagine being watched by two undercover cops as you engage in an illicit deal in a deserted parking lot. The buyer hesitantly hands you some cash. You flash a look over your shoulder, just to make sure the coast is clear, then you hand over the contraband. Neither of you says a word. You just nod, acknowledging the deal is done, then you head back to your car and buckle up for the drive home.

    But before you can even put the car into drive, a screeching formation of police cars, surrounds you, sirens wailing. Armed officers leap from their vehicles, guns drawn and sunglasses glaring. "Come out with your hands up!" they shout.

    You slowly open the driver's door of your car and inch out of your seat with both hands raised in surrender, cowering behind the open door. "What did I do, officer? What's my crime?"

    Their answer comes back loud and intimidating: "SELLING RAW MILK!"

    Missouri government plots undercover sting operations against families selling raw milk

    Missouri government plots undercover sting operations against families selling raw milk

    BofA repays $45B in government bailout funds...REALLY??

    Bank of America repaid its $45 billion TARP loan by drawing from cash on hand and selling new securities. [Forgive our skepticism, but this story has the smell of fish. Is it possible that the Fed "bought" the securities with taxpayers' money? If so, it was merely a bookkeeping trick. We will follow this and report what we learn.] G Edward Griffin

    Bank of America, which announced its agreement with the U.S. Treasury to repay TARP last week, funded the repayment through a combination of cash on hand and the sale of $19.29 billion of securities that would convert into common stock. The stock increase remains subject to shareholder approval.


    By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
    December 11, 2009

    I find it very interesting and disturbing to see how a constitution can be used to trap and enslave the people of the states into a statically fixed and inflexible union, along with an alleged supremacy of federal laws over state sovereignty, when the meaning of that same document can allegedly change over time under the so-called “living constitution” theory. Let us apply first principles to find the truth of the matter. If a constitution’s meaning can change and thus its application and implementation, based upon current variable and assorted conditions, then the union itself must likewise be capable of change, based upon those same considerations.

    Have you not noticed, when someone suggests that the sovereigns of a state have the natural and compactual right to peacefully withdraw themselves from the union (which was formed by the states’ ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1787), there are those self-proclaimed constitution-loving scholars and politicians who proudly protest, “No! You cannot do that! It is not allowed by our constitution! Once you voluntarily entered the union, you have waived your right to leave the union!” In the same breath, those same persons will gladly propose that the meaning and application of our constitution can change over time under a “living constitution” so that our laws may reflect the current conditions of society (of course, determined by those other than the affected sovereigns themselves). They admit too much, for this statement is based upon a principle that necessarily destroys the position that the states have no right to dissolve their compact, or alternatively, destroys the living constitution theory.

    If a constitution’s meaning and application can change over time based upon current conditions, then that necessarily means the union itself is subject to the same fluctuations as determined by the sovereigns that unilaterally became a part of that union. If the goal of a constitution’s force is supposedly to secure freedom, and in the name of that goal, those living-constitutionalists propose that a constitution changes over time, then it necessarily follows by principle of constitutional construction that those states who originally bound themselves to its force can relieve themselves of that force where the circumstances justify its dissolution. Put differently, where the circumstances of their ratification have changed to the point that freedom is best protected by their removal from the union, then removal it is as they choose. But I guess living-constitutionalists would deny the states this right because it would deny ultimate power to the almighty union/federal government--their political god.

    See, you cannot have it both ways: that is, the character and nature of the constitution changes over time, but the force holding those who voluntary entered the union never changes. The constitution provides both the meaning of government limitations and the terms of union. If the meaning can change, then so can the union. If you argue otherwise, please explain how a party to a compact (i.e. constitution) who entered the union upon certain guarantees, promises, protections and limitations is forever bound to that union (by force) when those guarantees, promises, protections and limitations are removed and replaced with meanings and applications contrary and different from those originally promised to be true. This is called “bait and switch” which is considered criminal and illegal in any contract scenario throughout the states in America. Do you think this principle applies less to the most fundamental law in society: that is, in constitutions?

    George Washington did not think so: “The Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.” George Washington and William T. Peck, ed., Washington’s Farewell Address and Webster’s Bunker Hill Orations, (New York: Macmillan Co., original from Harvard University, 1919), 12. Of course, tyranny’s way is to not to change a constitution by the explicit and authentic acts of the people who created the constitution (which of course requires debate, consent and ratification), but by oligarchic methods of court decisions, government precedent and fraud.

    As I have noted before, the “living constitution” idea was the catalyst to America’s War for Independence. It is in fact the trap that would-be tyrants who creep up in republics use to trap and enslave unsuspecting (and of course, ignorant) people in what would otherwise be a free country based upon free principles in a constitution. It is in fact the snare that has been used against the states of America for generations and it is still used today as an extremely useful method for entrapment of sovereign states. The end result: governing the un-consented: tyranny.

    Today marks a distinct point in America’s history where the sovereign states of America have to make a decision about what principles they will submit to: the principles of freedom or the principles of slavery. Decisions are being made in this arena today, and will continue to be made as tyranny’s grip squeezes tighter and firmer around our necks.

    Some will choose freedom. Some will choose slavery. Some may be scared about what this may mean (not giving credibility to such feelings, but only observing them). It may mean economic struggles and political battles. It may mean inconvenience and more responsibility. It may mean political involvement and actually choosing a side. It may mean pains and labors and re-education. But I must ask: is the price of freedom too high? For our founders, they proved what Patrick Henry eloquently stated:

    “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”
    Indeed, America’s founders did not believe the price of freedom was too high--at least with the assumption that their posterity would contribute their minds, hearts and bodies to maintaining that freedom. After having experienced all the hardships of securing freedom for these states in America, John Adams says to his posterity:

    “Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it.” John Adams, Abigail Adams, and Charles Francis Adams, Familiar Letters of John Adams and His Wife Abigail Adams, During the Revolution: With a Memoir of Mrs. Adams, (New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1876), 265.

    Perhaps John Adams has already repented.

    Ultimately, matters of political and societal freedom are determined by those sovereign body-politics that have the power to make and un-make constitutions. The ultimate matter of which states will live in freedom is determined by the body-politic of that state: the people, who comprise the sovereign element of the state. Where lines are crossed, the sovereigns must decide for itself the recourse it will take to redress the usurpation. This is no new concept. James Madison notes the dangers in political battles whereby the federal government usurps power from the states as perpetrated by Congress and the President and confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court decisions. He says in Federalist Paper 39:

    “[The United States Supreme Court decisions are] to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution[, which] is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact.”

    Madison recognized that when the federal government usurps its powers IN THE NAME OF the constitution, this puts the states in a natural position to defend their freedom and their powers. It forces the states to revert back to pre-U.S. Constitution status and to recall those powers once given. As a parenthetical note, Madison also recognized that an appeal to the sword is not necessarily the same thing as dissolution of the compact. It is only when union is forced by tyrants that an appeal to the sword is necessary in self-defense. Otherwise, dissolution of compacts should be peaceful.

    We have been told for years that the meanings and applications of the constitution supposedly have changed over time and that this is in fact constitutionally correct. Well then, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. That is, principles of construction require this conclusion: the sovereigns of the states then most assuredly have the innate right and power to decide whether or not those changes shall apply to their body-politic, in the interest of preserving freedom.

    Otherwise, if states are not allowed to choose their own political and societal fate after they entered into the union, then the federal government most certainly should not be given power which changes over time. One is static and the other is fluid. Yet both are governed by the same document. Moreover, do we see the chains of the constitution binding the federal government (as intended) to the same constraints that they insistently impose upon the people of the states?! Ha! It makes me laugh even to suggest it.

    People of the states, it is time to wake up to our political realities. It is time that we know the traps that have been laid before us. We must be astute statesmen and stateswomen, who know the principles of freedom, who know the nature and character of our union, who know when we are being taken for the gullible servants we have become. It is time that we not fall victim to tyranny’s trap. The States of America must once again look to the principles of freedom and into our own borders and sovereignty for political and societal freedom!

    Go to for articles, speeches and interviews of Timothy Baldwin.

    © 2009 Timothy N. Baldwin, JD - All Rights Reserved

    Timothy Baldwin is an attorney from Pensacola, FL, who received his bachelor of arts degree at the University of West Florida and who graduated from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, AL. After having received his Juris Doctorate degree from Cumberland School of Law, Baldwin became a Felony Prosecutor in the 1st District of Florida. In 2006, he started his own law practice, where he created specialized legal services entirely for property management companies.

    Like his father, Chuck Baldwin, Timothy Baldwin is an astute writer of cutting-edge political articles, which he posts on his website, Baldwin is also the author of the soon-to-be-released book entitled, Freedom For A Change, in which Baldwin expounds the fundamental principles of freedom believed by America’s forefathers and gives inspiring and intelligent application of those principles to our current political and cultural standing.

    Baldwin is involved in important state sovereignty movement issues, including being co-counsel in the federal litigation in Montana involving the Firearms Freedom Act, the likes of which is undoubtedly a pivotal and essential ingredient to restoring freedom and federalism in the states of America. Baldwin is also a member of freedom organizations, such as The Oath-Keepers, and believes that the times require all freedom-loving Americans to educate, invigorate and activate the principles of freedom within the States of America for ourselves and our posterity.