Sunday, September 30, 2012

John Keel on Lee Harvey Oswald

There was no real evidence linking Lee Harvey Oswald to the assassination of Kennedy. Oswald was, in fact, connected with botht:he FBI and the CIA and was a 'sleeper' (inactive agent) being groomcd for an attempt on the life of Cuba's Fidel Castro. Oswald's background as a defector to the Soviet Union (and his marriage to the daughter of a leader in the Soviet security apparatus) would
have cast suspicion on the Soviets and led Cuba to sever relations with that county. What is certain is that the unknown conspirators of the Kennedy assassination were obviously aware of this plan, and by setting Oswald up as 'scapegoat', they provided a perfect cover for their gunmen.

U.S. investigatory agencies were obliged to stumble over themselves and cover up details of the murder in Dallas to protect themselves and their own plan against Castro.

Fossils, Footprints and Fantasy | Central Information

Fossils, Footprints and Fantasy | Central Information

Explorer Paxson Hayes claimed in 1934 that he had discovered the burial ground of a blonde race of giants near unexplored regions of the fabulous Barranca de Cobre in old Mexico. The 'barranca' is a canyon deeper and wider than the well-known Grand Canyon of Arizona. It is located approximately 550 miles south of Nogales, Mexico, and is 20 miles wide and 7,000 feet deep. It contains semi-tropical flora and fauna.
Hayes decided to explore the Barranca de Cobre after listening to Yaqui Indian legends and stories about it. The Indians claimed there were indications of a vast ancient civilization in a great canyon to the south in Mexico. In relating his discovery, Hayes said:
We entered the canyon through the only known opening, a slot in the rock where a river once ran. Close inside the entrance we came onto the ruins of what once must have been a great city consisting of giant buildings. They were constructed of a cement-like masonry that was mixed with bamboo. One of the mosque-topped buildings still contained the stored particles of ancient grain. The grain was later analyzed by Mexican government authorities who said it fell into no classification known today. However, we found no other traces of this lost civilization... there were no burial grounds, and it is in such places that civilizations leave their true histories. I returned to the United States and one night heard a chief of the Yaqui tell of ancient caves that existed about 45 miles north of the 'barranca' where I had discovered the Lost City. The chief said vast burial grounds could be located in the caves. I headed south again with my Yaqui guide, Rafael Garcia, who said he knew the location of the caverns.

We traveled with mules for 90 miles until we reached another deep canyon with sides sloping upwards to a series of mesas. I noticed on the horizon a strange rock formation which resembled a great cathedral in ruins... it seemed symbolic of what we sought. The cave we found began as a tunnel and ended in a chamber about So feet high, 25 feet deep, and 20 feet wide.

We dug down through eight inches of cave deposits until we reached volcanic ash which extended for another twelve inches... beneath all of this we discovered numerous burial wrappings made of woven mats bound with twisted yucca fiber rope. In these ancient wrappings we found 34 mummified remains of men and women... they originally had been between seven and eight feet tall! These giants were blonds, and to complicate the matter, the last body we discovered was that of a pygmy!

We also found two small, four-legged stools, that had been carved from solid pieces of wood... as yet, the wood is unidentified. Our greatest experience, however, was finding the saffron-colored burial robes that were plain except for a beautiful light blue pattern of intricately woven pyramids and triangles. The latter contain tiny white dots... one to three... which recur throughout the pattern. Portions of our discoveries are now in museums in California and Arizona.

'Liquidation Of The UFO Investigators'? Article

'Liquidation Of The UFO Investigators'? Article


A gorilla by any other name, would smell as... sweet

I now have a theory that, of themselves, men never did
evolve from lower animals: but that, in early and plastic
times, a human being from somewhere else appeared
upon this earth, and that many kinds of animals took him for a model, and rudely and grotesquely imitated his
appearances, so that, today, though the gorillas of the Congo and of Chicago are only caricatures, some of the rest of us are somewhat passable imitations of human beings.

Charles Fort

Friday, September 28, 2012

The Film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ — Made By Terrorists? | FrontPage Magazine

The Film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ — Made By Terrorists? | FrontPage Magazine

When it comes to the film Innocence of Muslims, our government and the media use a narrative mired in contradictions and false statements provided by the filmmaker, who himself is an untrustworthy source.

If we stick to what can be proven we might obtain the possibility that terror supporters produced the film. Muhammad Al Dura and Paliwood are two cases in point, showing the type of stunts used by Palestinian terrorists.

So lets examine facts instead of the filmmaker’s fiction:

  Court documents reveal that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the producer of the movie Innocence of Muslims, partnered in a scheme with Eiad Salameh, my first cousin.

Eiad is a Muslim terror supporter and is not an Egyptian Copt.

He comes from Beit Sahour, Bethlehem and is well known by the FBI and the Arab community as a conduit for Middle Easterners who can obtain authentic, legitimate identifications, from passports to credit cards including many nationalities. He then places these identifications in the hands of dubious characters to use for fraudulent purposes.

In fact, I revealed Eiad Salameh way before this whole fiasco erupted—in 2008, and the first knowledge of Eiad and Nakoula was revealed on September 14, 2012 by the Smoking Gun, which provided court documents that prove these two connected in 2009 in a major financial scheme.
The narrative that circulates in the media fails to answer crucial questions behind the mystery of this film.

Thursday, September 27, 2012



FREE Issue 1: ZHEEL the Ever-Changing


Somewhere, someone, always has a knife out | Daily Telegraph Simon Benson Blog

Somewhere, someone, always has a knife out | Daily Telegraph Simon Benson Blog

It may seem a subtle point but just possibly the fact the current ALP is a blocked toilet of unflushed trade union crooks has something to do with why no sane person would want to be in the same room as any of hem, let alone vote for them.

And they know it- you only have to look at the colours of the rainbow adopted by ALP candidates in local elections - any colour but the blood clot red of marxism that the party used to affect as its badge. Now it's bile yellow, fellow traveller green, coalition blue, country party taupe, fascist black, local brothel pink- anything but the red of the traitor's flag.

But whatever colour they hide behind pretty much everyone knows them for who they are now. StumbleUpon

Obamaisms - Dumb Barack Obama Quotes - Gaffes and Obama-isms

Obamaisms - Dumb Barack Obama Quotes - Gaffes and Obama-isms

"And finally, Bos, I just want to say thank you for Youkilis." –joking at a fundraiser in Boston about the Red Sox trading their beloved slugger Kevin Youkilis to Chicago White Sox, Obama's hometown team. The line drew boos from the audience. (June 25, 2012)

"When I meet with world leaders, what's striking -- whether it's in Europe or here in Asia..." -mistakenly referring to Hawaii as Asia while holding a press conference outside Honolulu, Nov. 16, 2011

"We're the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad." —Cincinnati, OH, Sept. 22, 2011

"We're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy." —on Wall Street reform, Quincy, Ill., April 29, 2010

"One such translator was an American of Haitian descent, representative of the extraordinary work that our men and women in uniform do all around the world -- Navy Corpse-Man Christian Brossard." –mispronouncing "Corpsman" (the "ps" is silent) during a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, Washington, D.C., Feb. 5, 2010 (The Corpsman's name is also Christopher, not Christian)

"The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries." --Tampa, Fla., Jan. 28, 2010

"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." –attempting to make the case for government-run healthcare, while simultaneously undercutting his own argument, Portsmouth, N.H., Aug. 11, 2009

"The Cambridge police acted stupidly." —commenting on a white police officer's arrest of black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home in Cambridge, Mass., at a news conference, July 22, 2009

"The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system." --in remarks after a health care roundtable with physicians, nurses and health care providers, Washington, D.C., July 20, 2009

"It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing." --confusing German for "Austrian," a language which does not exist, Strasbourg, France, April 6, 2009

"No, no. I have been practicing...I bowled a 129. It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something." --making an off-hand joke during an appearance on "The Tonight Show", March 19, 2009 (Obama later called the head of the Special Olympics to apologize)

"I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any seances." --after saying he had spoken with all the living presidents as he prepared to take office, Washington, D.C., Nov. 7, 2008 (Obama later called Nancy Reagan to apologize)

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." -- defending his tax plan to Joe the Plumber, who argued that Obama's policy hurts small-business owners like himself, Toledo, Ohio, Oct. 12, 2008

"What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith..." --in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, who jumped in to correct Obama by saying "your Christian faith," which Obama quickly clarified (Watch video clip)

"I'm here with the Girardo family here in St. Louis." --speaking via satellite to the Democratic National Convention, while in Kansas City, Missouri, Aug. 25, 2008

"Let me introduce to you the next President -- the next Vice President of the United States of America, Joe Biden." --slipping up while introducing Joe Biden at their first joint campaign rally, Springfield, Illinois, Aug. 23, 2008

"Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee -- which is my committee -- a bill to call for divestment from Iran as way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon." --referring to a committee he is not on, Sderot, Israel, July 23, 2008

"Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under a McCain...administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change." --Amman, Jordan, July 22, 2008

"How's it going, Sunshine?" --campaigning in Sunrise, Florida

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."

"Hold on one second, sweetie, we're going to do -- we'll do a press avail." --to a female reporter for ABC's Detroit affiliate who asked about his plan to help American autoworkers (Watch video clip)

"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." --at a campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon (Watch video clip)

"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" --after being asked a foreign policy question by a reporter while visiting a diner in Pennsylvania

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." --explaining his troubles winning over some working-class voters

"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society."

"Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions." --exasperated by reporters after a news conference

"You're likeable enough, Hillary." --during a Democratic debate

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." --on a Kansas tornado that killed 12 people StumbleUpon

Articles: Should Mitt Hire Jay Leno and Pat Caddell?

Articles: Should Mitt Hire Jay Leno and Pat Caddell?

Mystifyingly, however, Mitt and his campaign are actually collaborators in this peculiar fiction, repeating the line in their ads and campaign speeches that headline unemployment (U3) "remains over 8 per cent."  And of course, U3 is over 8 per cent.  In fact, U3 is a shocking 11 percent-plus according to numerous serious students of the history of unemployment.  And the concept that explains why it is really 11 and not 8 is relatively simple to understand -- so simple that even a liberal comedian and his audience can do it.
In fact, last week on Leno, they did.
And yet, Team Romney is still loath to mention the real U3 rate.  I suppose it's an interesting commentary on the insulated nature of political consultants that Jay Leno thinks more highly of his liberal audiences' ability to see through the preposterous 8.1 figure than Romney's media sorcerers think of everyone else's ability to do the same.  Getting two enlightened responses from his audience last week, Leno said the following during his opening monologue:
Well, according to the Labor Department, unemployment fell from 8.3 to 8.1 percent last month. But that was because only, that's because, rather, 368,000 Americans gave up looking for work. (NERVOUS AUDIENCE LAUGHTER) 
And today, President Obama said that's a step in the right direction, and he is encouraging more Americans to give up looking for work so the numbers will come down a little bit. (ROBUST AUDIENCE LAUGHTER).
Let me translate: Leno and his audience get it.  Leno was accurately mocking our boy president and the bizarre machinations used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to push our official unemployment rate down to 8.1%.  And his audience was tracking.  They understand not only who put the BS in the BLS, but how they did it.
And why shouldn't they?  The explanatory concept is almost Occupy Wall Street easy.  This is not really a matter of the confusing seasonal adjustment ruses -- nor is it even related to the somewhat confusing "UN and UNDER employment" rate, known as U6.  No, this is simply a matter of "shrinkage in workforce participation."  So how technical is "workforce participation"?  Not very.  What Leno used as his first punch line -- "because, rather, 368 thousand Americans gave up looking for work" -- more or less defines the concept.  I think the technical term is that more Americans are "sitting on their butts."
Yet this notion is now deemed too risky by Romney's wizards.  They must figure this is too confusing of a concept for the campaign to even mention it.
So how ill-advised is this strategy?  Extraordinarily so.  Pat Caddell, who as a Jimmy Carter adviser in 1980 knows a thing or two about trying to re-elect a failed president, put this particular aspect in perspective last week.  "This is, I've said all along, Romney's election to lose and by God he's losing," said Caddell.  "I swear to God...this is the worst campaign in my lifetime.  Hundreds of millions of dollars, they're still not on the air explaining to people that with the labor participation rate, if it was the same as he came into office the unemployment would be 11.2%."
What Caddell is saying is that if we kept score for Obama the way we kept it for Bush, the rate would be 11.2%.  Under Bush, the participation rate of adults was 67.5%.  Now it's only 63.5%.  That's a four-percent grading curve for Obama in effect.  Without getting too deep into the weeds here, what it means is that a full 4% of the would-be work force is simply vaporized out of the math equation for all intents and purposes -- and for Obama's benefit.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

BBC News - Rochdale abuse: Social services 'missed opportunities'

BBC News - Rochdale abuse: Social services 'missed opportunities'

The secret word not mentioned by the BBC: the pedos are ISLAMIC. All islamic. StumbleUpon

BBC News - Julian Assange row: Ecuador and UK to 'seek solution'

BBC News - Julian Assange row: Ecuador and UK to 'seek solution'

Pity he's not an islamic terror cleric, then he'd be in the UK for the rest of his natural life, eh? StumbleUpon

Articles: Climate Realism

Articles: Climate Realism

Even with the Kyoto Protocol due to expire at the end of this year, Obama persists in giving highest priority to climate change policy if re-elected.  Does the U.S. really want to lead the world in committing economic suicide?  It pays to look at the rapidly disappearing scientific rationale for trying to mitigate a putative future global warming.
In an essay "Why the Global Warming Skeptics are Wrong" in the New York Review of Books of Feb. 22, 2012, Yale professor William D. Nordhaus attempts to counter the arguments of a group of 16 prominent scientists who published an essay, "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," in the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 27, 2012.
Two crucial points may have been overlooked in the debate:
**Evidence for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is problematic.
**A modest warming is likely to be beneficial -- not damaging.
First, some background: I have known Bill Nordhaus for about 40 years; he certainly is no wild-eyed alarmist, but rather a highly respected specialist in environmental economics.  Through his association with the U.N. climate-science panel, he is familiar with the main arguments supporting the IPCC's contention that human activities, mainly rising carbon dioxide levels from energy generation, have been responsible for much of past warming.  He does not question this IPCC claim; however, I have no reason to believe that he supports any of the drastic CO2-mitigation schemes -- be they carbon sequestration or alternative "green" energy projects -- or that he has illusions about the efficacy of the Kyoto Protocol or similar measures of international control. 
So I will simply try to address questions Prof. Nordhaus posed in his NYRB essay, to which I responded in a (Aug. 16) letter in the NYRB.  I wanted my response to reach NYRB readers, typically liberal academics, lawyers, and teachers.
1. Is the planet in fact warming?  This crucial question cannot be answered honestly unless one specifies the time interval referred to.  Clearly, the climate has warmed since the last Ice Age.  It has also warmed since about 1850, in recovering from the Little Ice Age (roughly 1400-1800 AD).  But is has not warmed since the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago, or since the Holocene Optimum, which reached even higher temperatures 5,000-8,000 years ago.  Nor has it warmed during the past decade.
Coming closer to the present, we see a warming between 1910 and 1940, which is real but not caused by human activities.  Most would agree that the Earth's surface cooled slightly between 1940 and 1975 -- even though carbon dioxide, a greenhouse (GH) gas, had been steadily increasing during this period.  Temperature data show a sudden, unexplained jump around 1976-1977.  Surface weather stations then report a modest increase in temperature up to the year 2000 -- although different analyses disagree on details and have been frequently revised.  Many people, including Nordhaus, tend to identify this reported increase as caused by the almost parallel increase in CO2.  In its Summary, the latest IPCC report (2007) states explicitly that this reported (surface) warming trend is sure (>90%) evidence for anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
**We note, however, that the atmosphere, both over land and ocean, did not warm during this same post-1978 period -- even though atmospheric theory and every climate model predicts that the tropical atmosphere should warm nearly twice as rapidly as the surface.  This atmospheric evidence comes from instruments in weather satellites, producing the only truly global data -- and, independently, from thermometers in balloon-borne radiosondes.
**In 2000, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences assembled a team of distinguished scientists to discuss the puzzle of surface warming in the absence of an atmospheric warming trend.  However, their report, "Reconciling observations of global temperature change," could not reconcile the disparity.
**I note that an analysis of ocean data has shown no significant warming during the period of 1978 -2000.  Independent non-thermometer data (so-called proxies, like tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites, etc.) also show no warming trend between 1978 and 2000.  Significantly, there has been no warming for the past decade.  All this, in spite of constantly rising CO2 levels.
The inescapable conclusion -- or perhaps I should say suspicion -- is that land-based weather stations may be reporting just local temperature increases but that there is negligible global warming.  If correct, this surmise would remove the main evidence for the IPCC's claim about the existence of appreciable AGW.
2. Are human influences an important contributor to warming?  Obviously, the answer must be no -- if one accepts the evidence about the nonexistence of recent warming.  Nevertheless, it should be stated that since CO2 is a GH, and since most if not all of its increase is human-caused, there must be some minor human contribution to climate change.  The real scientific puzzle, not mentioned by Nordhaus, is why the observed  temperature trends are so much smaller than what models calculate.
3. Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?  Lawyers might say, Yes, this is what the Supreme Court ruled in 2007, but scientists are not so sure.  A pollutant, by definition, must produce harmful effects.  CO2 is a natural constituent of the atmosphere, non-toxic, invisible, having no physiological effects we know of -- even at high concentrations.  Its definition as a pollutant relies entirely on its alleged causation of significant global warming and on the additional assumption that a warmer climate is damaging.
(We should take note that CO2 is Nature's plant fertilizer.  The world's important crop plants developed when CO2 levels were much greater than today's.  Innumerable experiments have demonstrated that higher CO2 concentrations are beneficial for plant growth and therefore benefit global agriculture.  Plants not only grow faster, but require less water.  All of this is well-known to agricultural experts and to the owners of commercial greenhouses, who often raise CO2 levels artificially to increase productivity.  Perhaps we should be grateful to China, the world's largest emitter of CO2.)
However, before considering CO2 as a "criteria pollutant" subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act, the Supreme Court ruling requires the EPA to demonstrate by independent research that higher levels of CO2 are damaging to "human health and welfare."  But the EPA's Endangerment Finding and supporting Technical Support Document (TSD) have been attacked by a large number of plaintiffs.  The case was lost before the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia; it is likely that it will return to the Supreme Court, which may get a chance to modify its 2007 decision. 
4. Are we seeing a regime of fear for skeptical climate scientists?  Being fairly senior, I am not much affected by the animosity towards skeptics, revealed by the leaked e-mails from Climategate.  However, I seem to have lost friends in the academic community and have had considerable difficulty in getting technical papers published in journals whose editors have openly expressed their bias.  My real concern is for younger scientists who are just trying to establish their professional careers.
5. Are the views of mainstream climate scientists driven primarily by the desire for financial gain?  This is a leading question; I would assume that scientific curiosity is the main driving force.  Financial gain may be only one of several additional factors, along with prestige and academic advancement, invitations to important conferences, prizes, etc.  However, I would point to the large sums, about $20 billion during the past decade, that the government has spent on climate research, of which only a tiny fraction has gone to skeptics.  I also note the multi-million-dollar grants to "mainstream" climate scientists by private foundations, and even by oil companies such as Exxon and BP.  Not surprisingly, the number of scientific publications is roughly proportional to this level of financial support.
6. Is it true that more carbon dioxide and additional warming will be beneficial?  Briefly, my answer is yes.
First, Nordhaus correctly states that net benefits (benefits minus costs) should be maximized.  This is mathematically equivalent to the well-known result that one should increase pollution control as long as marginal benefits exceed marginal costs.  As an expert economist, however, Nordhaus should expand his discussion of more important points:
**The discount rate plays a crucial role in the present case, where costs are incurred today, while benefits may be realized 100 years hence.  Nordhaus himself uses realistic discount rates of 4%, but he should be more critical of others, like Lord Nicholas Stern, who use discount rates close to zero, which severely skews any cost-benefit analysis by greatly over-estimating the present dollar-value of benefits.
**Further, one must ask if there is really any net damage at all from a warmer climate.  I wonder why Professor Nordhaus never mentions the work of Yale resource economist Robert Mendelsohn and his 23 economist-colleagues, whose acclaimed book concludes that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels would actually enhance GDP-raising average income, prosperity, and general welfare.  True, there are also respected economists who hold a different view; the 1996 report of the IPCC lists results of several of their analyses.  While these agree surprisingly well on the total amount of damage, I found that they strongly disagree on individual sectors (like agriculture and others) that make up these totals.  And they all assign large economic damage to sea-level rise -- even though there is no observational evidence for an influence of short-term (decadal) temperature changes on the rate of rise of sea level.
Finally, it should be obvious, perhaps, but needs to be stated explicitly that if a warmer climate produces positive net benefits rather than damages, then, in principle, one cannot even conduct a cost-benefit analysis.  Nor should one try to mitigate emissions of CO2 in any way; our current policies are simply misguided.

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project.  His specialty is atmospheric and space physics.  An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere.  He is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute.  He co-authored NY Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years.  In 2007, he founded and has chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports (see  For recent writings see and also Google Scholar.

BBC News - Fenland Black Oak: 5000-year-old tree found in Norfolk

BBC News - Fenland Black Oak: 5000-year-old tree found in Norfolk

Giant oaks died around 7000 years ago when a rise in sea level relative to the land caused rivers to back-up and flood the fens. 

A rise in sea level relative to the land? What the fuck else is a sea level rise supposed to be relative to? What a load of weasel words horseshit these pinheads write. StumbleUpon

Prometheus is set on a world orbiting Jupiter

No doubt it is a byproduct of the film Prometheus' terrible science (to match its accents, charisma-free actors and insipid plot), but the Vickers character (why cast Theron as anything other than the female lead, a surefire better bet than the rubbery brunette) tells the Captain that they're half a billion miles from men on Earth. That puts them at Jupiter.

It's one more strange or careless quirk of the Ridley Scott version of Alien- that the creatures are either in our solar system or very close to it. The Engineer hologram sequence- more at home in films like Sphere from the 1990s- seems to imply transgalactic scale. Perhaps it's just another example of that TV Trope bad science thing where science fiction gets its scales hopelessly wrong. But two years to get to Jupiter would make the low tech science of the film quite appropriate.

Soldiers, Listen


Tuesday, September 25, 2012

For the Working Class by Michael Thompson

For the Working Class by Michael Thompson

                                              An essay by Michael Thompson
                                   (listen to Michael being interviewed about this essay)
Michael Thompson was born in 1947, and raised in working class Balmain until the early 1960s when his family moved to Sydney’s western suburbs. He left school at 14, working in a number of labouring jobs. At 20 he travelled overseas and returned to Australia not long before Gough Whitlam was elected in 1972. He got a job as a builders’ labourer in the Sydney CBD, and was involved in the so called “Green Bans”. In 1979 and 1985 Michael was awarded degrees in economics and law under the University of NSW’s mature age student scheme. Since then he has been a senior adviser to the late Peter Cook, then federal minister for Industrial Relations, a consultant to the national law firm Clayton Utz, an Adjunct Professor at the Queensland University of Technology, and a consultant to Leighton Contractors. He is the author of Labor Without Class: The gentrification of the ALP (Pluto Press, 1999).

    1.   Introduction 

This is the story of the university-educated middle class Left’s rise to power by installing themselves as Australia’s moral guardians, dividing the electorate into race, gender and other such groups for whom they claim to speak, and then holding the Labor Party to electoral ransom if it fails to tailor its policies to their political agendas.
It tells of their tactic of character assassinating the working class, and of how they looked after themselves very nicely.
  1. The new class
There is a “new” class whose identity and political machinations are largely hidden from the working class. They call themselves “progressives”, while conservatives call them “inner city elites” or the “political elite”. However, for the most part, I will call them the “chattering class” as they love nothing better than sitting down to good food or a café latte and chattering away about politics. It’s their religion and sport rolled into one.
The chattering class is drawn from among the tertiary-educated middle class who have gone to university since the 60s, where they imbibed the social causes of feminism, multiculturalism, environmentalism and the like, which their counter-culture professors and lecturers had imported from America. They now occupy many of the senior positions in politics, the ABC and SBS, universities, schools, government departments and agencies, courts, discrimination and other such boards and NGOs, but also in the private, non-traded goods sector (e.g. journalists and in human resource management).
  1. “You’re so vain you probably think this [essay’s] about you, don’t you?”
The chattering class consider themselves morally superior to other classes – Michael Warby calls it their “moral vanity”. As one of their number, Pamela Bone, put it, “it is usually the educated middle-classes who are more imbued with notions of justice and equality than any other group”.[1]
They stereotype the working class as racists, sexists, environmental vandals (“deniers”), homophobes and neo-Nazis – as shown in most Australian made movies, such as Priscilla Queen of the Desert and Romper Stomper. A seething mass of nasty little prejudices, genetically predisposed to froth at the mouth and bark like junk-yard dogs on hearing the “dog whistle” of any populist demagogue, like Pauline Hanson.
The chattering class can’t openly smear the working class; instead, they themselves turn to the cowardly act of dog whistling, using labels such as “rednecks”, the “mob”, the “masses” and the “great unwashed” so as not to be seen singling out the working class as a class, since this would make their stereotyping plain for all to see.
In large part, this dog whistling is the job of chattering class broadcasters, journalists and commentators in the so-called “quality media”, who would have us believe their views largely reflect public opinion, notwithstanding that on most cultural (and many economic) issues they are invariably to the left of centre. If widespread disagreement with their views should surface during any public debate, they straightfacedly denounce ordinary Australians as holding extreme right-wing views. And why not? There can be no come back. For they know the working class don’t listen to Radio National, read the broadsheet newspapers or watch the ABC or SBS, and so their dog whistling is out of range of the working class’s hearing. Anyway, the working class's level of education does not give them the confidence to publicly debate those with tertiary education and, therefore, if any one of them is foolhardy enough to try they can easily be shouted down.
A favourite tactic for driving home working class moral inferiority and for undermining their confidence is to discredit the institutions they grew up believing in. Three examples of this tactic will suffice: sport, the church and the ANZAC tradition.
Footballers don’t set themselves up as role models, nor should they be harshly judged as such. Moreover, to suggest that ordinary Australians can’t appreciate the prowess of footballers without seeing them as role models for their children, is a sign of the contempt in which they are held by chattering class broadcasters, journalists and commentators.
A recent front page report in The Courier-Mail revealed that “[m]ore than 300 Queensland teachers are under investigation for inappropriate behaviour …[and] almost all 26 teachers who had their registrations suspended or cancelled in the past year were cited for sexual misconduct.”  It further revealed that a “state-employed teacher went from school to school, leaving a trail of complaints about indecent behaviour to young children, before losing his job”, and it “also highlighted an issue with teachers leaving private schools under a cloud and being re-hired by Education Queensland.”[2]
There was no such coverage in the quality media. But if the report had revealed that Catholic priests rather than public school teachers were the subject of investigations into alleged paedophile behaviour on such a scale, they without doubt would have given the investigation blanket coverage, at least until such time as the clergy were punished and removed, compensation paid, and apologies made to the victims, or charges laid and convictions entered – to be dragged up again at the first opportunity.
The chattering class claim the ANZAC tradition is not relevant to today’s Australia, or that it risks glorifying war. A view obviously not shared by all those young Australians who each year make the pilgrimage to the dawn service at Anzac Cove.
  1. The gimme class
The social causes so beloved of the chattering class are frequently the source of employment opportunities in the public sector for those among them wanting to “make a difference” (e.g. those employed in the poverty industry and appointed to boards), hence their calls for increases in public spending. But their conflict of interest doesn’t end there, for they also oppose means testing and defend middle class welfare/”social engineering” (e.g. Family Payments Parts A and B and flexible work provisions in the Fair Work Act). And then there’s their rampant nimbyism.
The chattering class’s claim to moral superiority is accompanied by their incessant chant of “gimme”, “gimme”, “gimme”.
The other side of this coin is the working class’s continued under-representation at university – despite decades of government so-called “free” tertiary education initiatives.
Equity in higher education is a zero sum game (i.e. for one to win another must lose), with the chattering class having the most to lose from its introduction. Not surprisingly, therefore, they claim that working class under-representation is a result of their not valuing higher education (the implication being that working class parents are unconcerned about their childrens' future). The real cause is the working class’s lack of horizons and confidence. Society undermines the former by stereotyping them as intellectually inferior, in such Australian made television programs as Kath and Kim, while making no effort to help them expand their horizons beyond those of their family.
  1. “I’ve got the world on a string, sittin’ on a rainbow …”
From their positions of power and influence the chattering class speak to politicians with a single, clamouring voice in support of their social causes.
Power within the Labor Party is now in the hands of careerists who treat the ALP (even the prime ministership) as but one step in their career paths: they believe in nothing. To them, the working class are losers. The careerists have gained the upper hand over those who, while they make politics their career, remain committed to the working class.
The careerists’ strategy involves winning the electoral support of the chattering class. To this end they willingly kowtow, tailoring Labor’s policies and candidate selection processes to demands made by chattering class “activists”. But if pandering to the activists is one of the balls the careerists have in the air, the other is the fear of offending working class sensibilities – although only rarely does this lead them to defend working class values. For they fear, far more, the electoral retribution threatened by the chattering class, for whom working class values are anathema. The chattering class would rather Labor lose an election, wait for the “it’s time” factor to kick in, and get what they can from a conservative government until such time as Labor is returned to office.
To justify their takeover of the Party, and undermine the working class’s call on it, chattering class members and politicians are at great pains to paint the pre-Whitlam ALP as morally tainted. In particular, they claim the White Australia policy was solely racially motivated, rather than predominantly aimed at protecting Australian workers from cheap imported labour.
The careerists think their juggling of the social movements and the working class makes them the masters of political power in Australia. On the surface it may look that way. But by bluffing the careerists into believing they speak for all women, all migrants and so on, and by their hollow threats to cast Labor into the political wilderness if the Party’s policies don’t reflect the social movements’ agendas, activists have proven themselves to be not jugglers, but rather the master puppeteers of Australian politics, in whose hands are held the strings that manipulate the careerists’ political moves.
  1. Strategy, what strategy?
The fact is that while Labor cannot win government with the working class vote alone, neither can it win without it. Witness the result of the working class deserting the Party in droves at the 1996 election because of the disrespect shown them and their values – only to swell the ranks of “Howard’s battlers”.
An alternative electoral strategy would have been - and still is - a contemporary working class made up of blue collar workers, routine white collar workers (many of who are women in the services sector), the long-term unemployed, and women from lower socio-economic backgrounds who choose to be homemakers, plus small business people and the self employed who share many of the working class’s values such as democratic government, rule of law, love of country, hard work, traditional family, personal responsibility and mutual obligation, and compassion for the genuinely needy. The Party should also appeal to those among the tertiary-educated middle class for whom socio-economic background remains the overarching source of disadvantage in Australia today. For them, the working class are not the moral and intellectual dregs of Australian society, but people whose disadvantage is for the most part not of their own making but historic; they were born into it and, therefore, governments should do all they can to ensure their children enjoy equality of opportunity with those from more fortunate backgrounds.
This is the natural constituency for any new Labor.
  1. “Who loves you baby?”
Despite – or may be its because of – the Party’s hacks, focus group pollsters and political advisers, the careerists are blind to the true feelings that the working class harbour towards Labor.
The working class know that the only role the Party sees them fit for is dumb service on polling booths, letter boxing, door knocking and the like. Activities that chattering class members do not deign to do – unless it’s in support of a local nimby issue.
The working class also question the ALP's commitment to Ben Chifley’s broad aim of “bringing something better to the people, better standards of living, greater happiness to the mass of the people” – embodying as it does their aspirations of a job for their kids, and a chance to improve their lot in life. For as one prominent member of the chattering class put it, “a chance for the working class to actually get the same share of the goods and resources as the middle class” has no place in “a more equal society”.[3]
However, what undoubtedly would gall them most of all is the realisation that their Party is at best embarrassed by them. Their leaders never confront the chattering class’s stereotyping of them. Nor do they point out their finer qualities, such as:
·         The sacrifices they willingly make for their children, which given their often meagre resources and precarious employment are above those the middle class is called on to make for their children.
·         Their ongoing belief in the rule of law and democratic government, unlike the Communist Party stooges and their fellow travellers who not only did not, but who also mocked the working class for being duped by “the system”.
·         Their achievement in making a success of multiculturalism, for it is they who, with remarkably little tension, have shared their suburbs and jobs, and intermarried with migrants and refugees.
  1. Conclusion
It’s now time for all the ALP’s traditional working class supporters – not just the Howard battlers – to seriously think about abandoning the careerists who have whored their Party to the chattering class. Labor's claim to working class loyalty has been forfeited.

To contact Michael about this essay email:

Monday, September 24, 2012

Blog: Obama campaign send desecrated flag down the memory hole

Blog: Obama campaign send desecrated flag down the memory hole

What if the Obama campaign had a disaster and the media refused to report it? I suspect we are about to find out.
The Obama campaign has in effect confessed to what I called "virtual flag desecration" with the grotesque Obama flag campaign stunt, offering a "limited edition" Obama flag.

Now John Hinderaker of Powerline reports:
the Obama campaign has quietly ditched the flag poster, which now returns an error message if you try to buy it at the Obama store.

It never happened, see? Just a tech gltich, evidence gone.
This is contemptible behavior. People who love the flag, who fought for it, or who lost loved ones fighting for it, deserve an apology for this desecration. Now they try to pretend it never happened.
The media don't want to touch this story with a ten foot pole, but had the Romney campaign done something patently offensive to a large segment of the population, they would talk of nothing else.
Can a media boycott of a story keep it under covers if it involves compelling visual material? The Obama flag, combined with the contemporaneous imagery of the Benghazi terror attack, tells a story of an out of touch guy with too high an opinion of himself.
This kind of behavior is worthy of contemptuous mockery, and offers endless opportunities for humor. It wouldn't hurt if Romney or Ryan mentioned it, noted how they're pretending it never happened.  That will make it harder for the media to keep the story bottled up.
President Obama is responsible for his campaign's actions. Going stealth on the Obama flag operation was not a smart move -- if our side can throw this back in their faces with sufficient verve.

Read more:

Blog: Missing piece surfaces in the Obama puzzle (updated)

Blog: Missing piece surfaces in the Obama puzzle (updated)

Nobody knows for sure how Barack Obama managed to get into and pay for the elite higher education he received, particularly given his self-admitted lackadaisical approach to school in his younger years. The president's decision to keep his higher education records a secret is considered unworthy of attention by the mainstream media.
Students of Obama's rise have long been intrigued by a television interview granted by Percy Sutton, the borough president of Manhattan, and one of the most influential black politicians in New York City, in which he stated that:
 he had been introduced to Obama "by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend's name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal adviser to one of the world's richest men. He told me about Obama." (snip)
 He also revealed that he had first heard about Obama 20 years previously in a letter where al-Mansour wrote, "there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?"
Sutton concluded in the interview, "I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly."
At the time the interview was granted in 2008, the Obama campaign succeeded in keeping it out of the mainstream media by having family members put out the story that Sutton in essence was a doddering old man. That's all the media lackeys needed as an excuse to consign the interview to the memory hole, protecting the American public from any disturbing connections of President Obama to the Saudis.
But, as the Bard write, "The truth will out." Not from the media lickspittles of Manhattan and the beltway, of course, but from a newspaperman in Kalispell, Montana fercryin'outloud. Frank Miele, of the Daily Inter-Lake newspaper was reading through old newspaper and came across a syndicated column written by a Chicago Tribune columnist in 1979 that provides a fascinating light on the nature of the cabal that seems to have formed around Barack Obama.
So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the "rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions." The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, "It's not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states."
Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer - Donald Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.
Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the "proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz" in September 1979, and that "the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be announced in December." Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package funded by OPEC and never found it verified.
You would think that a program to spend "$20 million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans" would be referred to somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven't found any other word of it.
Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn't, but what's particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who "for several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America's blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students" was also the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.
The kicker here is that the 1979 column was written by none other than Vernon Jarrett, longtime influential Chicago black leftist, close friend of Frank Marshall Davis, and father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, the closest aide to President Obama, and a major figure in his rise within the Chicago political world.
There is no proof of anything here, of course. We don't know that a close associate of the Saudi royal family funneled oil money into the education of Barack Obama (and presumably other Americans) on spec, hoping he would rise through the political system and be in a position to cripple American oil production and take a hard line against Israel's defense against a nuclear attack. There is no proof ot it. But there is a reasonable suspicion, given the pedigrees of Jarrett and Sutton, that these influential figures actually do know something about the inside story of the curious, inexplicable rise of Barack Obama on the slender reed of his actual accomplishments in life.
Update from Cindy Simpson:

I also researched this a bit yesterday when the news first hit, and found some more interesting connections/pieces:
  • The Sutton story was "BenSmithed" in 2008 here.
  • The Lynn Sweet "exclusive" article that mentioned the Obama campaign disclosure info on Obama's student loan $'s.
  • Amanda Carpenter's Townhall column which described Mansour's beliefs and why the connection to Obama would be damning.
  • Kenneth Timmerman's articles on Newsmax.    This one is especially interesting because it addresses in detail Obama's tax returns and candidate disclosures on interest/loans.
  • It's also interesting to recall the nine people charged with illegally accessing Obama's student loan records.
  • Also recall Paul Kengor's work on Frank Marshall Davis and the fact that he worked with Vernon Jarrett in Chicago.
Isn't it interesting to see all these pieces coming together?

Read more: StumbleUpon

Bob Katter .. Saying it as it is:

On the basis of this email, the day will come when the ANZAC Day Parade will
be banned, RSL's will close and Australian soldiers will wear a different
uniform. As Bob Katter says below, the Australian flag is already forbidden
in some public areas. Sometimes I wonder if we can still call this place
Australia - it's already owned by many foreign countries now with huge
investments in place.
Whether you love him or hate him, he hits a raw nerve!

Bob Katter .. Saying it as it is:

My great, great, great grandfather watched as his friends died in the Boer
War. My grandfather watched and bled as his friends died in World Wars 1&2.
My grandfather watched as his friends & brothers died in the Depression of
32. My father watched as his friends died in Korea . I watched as my friends
died in Vietnam, Malaya & Borneo, East Timor & Desert Storm. Our sons and
daughters watched & bled as their friends died in Afghanistan and Iraq .
None of them died for the Afghanistan and Iraq Flag. Every Australian died
for the Australian flag.

At a Victorian high school foreign students raised a Middle East flag on a
school flag pole. Australian students took it down. Guess who was
expelled...the students who took it down.

West Australian high school students were sent home, because they wore
T-shirts with the Australian flag printed on them.

Enough is enough.

This message needs to be viewed by every Australian; and every Australian
needs to stand up for Australia . We've bent over to appease the
Aussie-haters long enough. I'm taking a stand.

I'm standing up because of the hundreds of thousands who died fighting in
wars for this country, and for the Australian flag.

And shame on anyone who tries to make this a racist message.

AUSTRALIANS, stop giving away Your RIGHTS!


This statement DOES NOT mean I'm against immigration!

YOU ARE WELCOME HERE, IN MY COUNTRY, welcome to come legally:

1. Get a sponsor!
2. Learn the LANGUAGE, as immigrants have in the past!
3. Live by OUR rules! Dress as we Australians Do
4. Get a job!
5. Pay YOUR Taxes!
6. No Social Security until you have earned it and Paid for it!
7. NOW find a place to lay your head!

If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone, then YOU'RE

We've gone so far the other way...bent over backwards not to offend anyone.

Only AUSTRALIANS seem to care when Australian Citizens are being offended!


If you do not Pass this on, may your fingers cramp!

Written by Bob Katter

Hillary Clinton Aide Tells Reporter To “Fuck Off” And “Have A Good Life”

Hillary Clinton Aide Tells Reporter To “Fuck Off” And “Have A Good Life” StumbleUpon

Articles: Bill and Hillary and Huma and Anthony

Articles: Bill and Hillary and Huma and Anthony

As Bill Clinton once again takes center stage at the Democratic National Convention, let's amuse ourselves by screening the vilest soap opera in American history: Bill and Hillary and Huma and Anthony.
This one's got it all: two sham marriages, sexual perversions, and national treachery at the highest level.  Naturally, the "mainstream media" refuses to inform you of it, but that's why I'm here.
If you've scratched your head trying to puzzle out the complex inter-relationships between these glamorous grifters, stop scratching.  I'm about to unveil a Grand Unified Theory that explains why Huma Abedin, the alleged Muslim Brotherhood asset who's the top aide of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, chose to marry disgraced ex-Congressman Anthony Weiner in an interfaith ceremony performed by matrimonial expert Bill Clinton.
America first learned of Huma Abedin in 2007, in a worshipful Vogue article titled "Hillary's Secret Weapon: Huma Abedin Oversees Every Minute of Senator Clinton's Day."  Featuring glossy photos of designer-clad Huma, the article rhapsodized about her "wrinkle-free" Prada suit, "flawless" skin, and "long, luxurious hair" with "bouncy waves you see mostly in shampoo commercials."
The photo of Huma statuesquely displayed on a chair drew attention, as did the eyebrow-raising descriptions of Huma's and Hillary's mutual adoration.  That attention intensified as Hillary became secretary of state and installed Huma as her top aide.  Mumblings could be heard about the nature of their relationship and the unusual background of Huma, who grew up in Saudi Arabia.
Someday we may look back upon the intern scandals of the Clinton White House with amazement at our preoccupation with Bill, Monica Lewinsky, and cigars.  The bigger scandal may have been in First Lady Hillary's office, where Huma Abedin waltzed into her internship as a new college graduate, despite her screamingly obvious Muslim Brotherhood family ties.
Five Congress members, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, have raised concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the federal government, with special emphasis on Huma's role at State.  For their trouble, they have been hysterically accused of McCarthy-style witch-hunts, by everyone from Jon Stewart to John McCain to GOP honcho Ed Rollins.
Naturally, Barack Obama defended Huma at his annual Ramadan dinner, praising her as an "American patriot" to whom the American people owe a "debt of gratitude."  Surely, that settles it.  After all, no one understands American patriotism quite like Barack Hussein Obama.
Nevertheless, despite all the elite venom hurled at Michele Bachman for unmasking Huma, the evidence against Abedin is overwhelming.  Andrew McCarthy, Walid Shoebat, and Diana West have factually established that the Muslim Brotherhood is the Abedin family business, and that Huma herself worked in it for years, editing the family's Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.
Now, let's pave the way for Anthony Weiner, Huma Abedin's national joke of a husband, to make an appearance.  Somewhere in 2010, the Clintons may have decided that their public embrace of Huma as their "second daughter" wasn't quite cutting it anymore, and they needed to set up a more conventional-looking arrangement.
Enter Anthony Weiner, the bachelor congressman with a panting lust to be mayor of New York.  I suggest that, in classic Clintonian fashion, a deal was struck.  The Clintons would endorse Weiner for mayor if he would marry Huma Abedin.
The situation was win-win for everyone. The rumors about Hillary immediately subsided, which pleased Bill, who plans to make her president.  Weiner gained the backing of the formidable Clinton machine, thereby sprinting to frontrunner status in the highly competitive mayoralty race.  And Huma got to keep her top-secret security clearance at State, and look forward to the day when she could pray in the Ground Zero mosque, gazing down at the World Trade Center site as first lady of New York City.
If you don't think the Weiner-Abedin union is a political deal, ask yourself: on what basis could it possibly be anything else?  Shortly after their marriage, Weiner committed a Twitterectomy of his career, tweeting lewd photos of himself to young women around the country.  But in addition to being a cheating pervert, Weiner is widely known as a nutcase, exposed in the New York Times for temper tantrums that left him unable to keep staff.  And he has no money, thereby rendering him unable to provide Huma with the glamorous lifestyle she requires.
Most importantly of all, Weiner is not a Muslim.  Huma's religion allows Muslim men to marry non-Muslim women, but forbids Muslim women from marrying outside the faith.  Yet Huma remained unsullied by honor killing threats from the usual Islamic enforcers; instead, the party line seemed to be that Huma's marriage was adorable.
Even now, the outrageous Clintonian shenanigans continue.  We've just learned that Huma, her unemployed husband Anthony, and their baby Jordan are moving into a $3.3-million Park Avenue apartment owned by a longtime Clinton crony and top Obama bundler.  You and I may have to live within our means, but in Clinton World, such rules never seem to apply.
Now as Bill formally nominates Obama for a second term, both men are complicit in Hillary's scandal that should be the shame of the nation.  But what's an historic disgrace to us is less than a shrug to them.  Bill has been taking Saudi money by the barrel for years, and Obama admires the Muslim Brotherhood.
In fact, working with Hillary's State Department, Obama has helped to install the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and throughout the Middle East, using the "Arab Spring" turmoil to empower these sworn America-haters.
And now here comes the icing on the treachery cake: Obama and Hillary reportedly have informed Iran that they've abandoned Israel, leaving the only Jewish State to face a nuclear Iran alone.  How proud the Abedin family must be of their little girl!
Conventional wisdom has it that Hillary is a formidable contender for president, but I suspect that that may not be true.  For one thing, her appearance and behavior are both falling apart, as she drunkenly carouses in public with exclusively female friends.  And for another, the American public may not be so forgiving as the Bill and Hillary and Huma and Anthony saga unfolds.

Mysterious Money and Motive Behind Monster Mosque in Murfreesboro

Mysterious Money and Motive Behind Monster Mosque in Murfreesboro

Why is it that after 9/11, mosque construction in America has nearly doubled?
It’s not as if the population of Muslims in America suddenly spiked – not even close. Muslims make up less than 1 percent of the United States population. So is there any logical explanation for the rapid expansion of new mosque construction?

One need only look to the history of 1,400 years of Islamic conquest to understand that according to the Hijra, the Islamic doctrine of cultural invasion, Muslims are required to build mosques following a successful attack.

Blithering Idiot Conservationists: BBC Nature - Earthworm invasion: Aliens causing more harm than good?

BBC Nature - Earthworm invasion: Aliens causing more harm than good? StumbleUpon

Put Me In Charge Of Benefits Local Authority Housing Jobs NHS

Put Me In Charge Of Benefits Local Authority Housing Jobs NHS

Put me in charge of benefit payments.

I’d get rid of cash payments and provide vouchers for bags of rice, tins of powdered milk, tins of beans, blocks of cheese and basic sanitary items. If benefit scroungers want steak, burgers, takeaways and junk food, then they can get a job.

Put me in charge of the NHS.

The first thing I’d do is provide all women on benefits with birth control implants. Then, test them all for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If benefit scroungers want to use drugs, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes AND reproduce, then they can get a job.

Put me in charge of local authority housing.

Maintaining the property, by keeping it clean and in a good state of repair, would be compulsory. The ‘home’ would be subject to inspections at anytime and all possessions inventoried. If benefit scroungers want a plasma TV, Sky Sports and Movies  or an Xbox 360, then they can get a job … and their own home.

Put me in charge of job centres.

You will either search for employment each week, no matter what the job entails, or you will report for community work. This may mean clearing the road verges, pavements and open spaces of rubbish or painting and repairing local authority housing …. or whatever else that’s necessary to help maintain public property and amenities that are paid for by the tax payer. If benefit scroungers want fancy 20 inch alloys, low profile tyres and a ‘dooof dooof’ stereo, then they can get a job.

And before anyone starts whining, that I’ve infringed on someone’s human rights, please note that all of the above is voluntary. If you want the hard earned cash of the taxpayer … and any housing assistance, then it’s up to you to accept the rules.

AND before anyone says that any of this this would be demeaning, or ruin someones self esteem, or was sexist … please consider that if taxpayers are expected to pay for other people’s shortcomings, then we should at least attempt to make them learn about the consequences of making poor life choices.

The current system rewards those people who continue to make poor life choices.

AND FINALLY …while anyone is on benefits or living in local authority housing, they will no longer have the right to VOTE! That would be a conflict of interest. If benefit scroungers want to vote, then they can get a job.

Bring On The Revolution tattered union jack flag broken britain immigration benefit scroungers
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...