Friday, May 10, 2013

PA Bureau of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation Commissioner Faces Citizen Requester Michael J. Cavanagh in Commonwealth Court Challenge to Defend Closure Decision Regarding Undislosed Particulars of Campaign Voucher of State Rep. Timothy Mahoney

Commonwealth Court Docket Case Number 215 M.D. 2013 Not Enough Said blog will have an overview and report of the day's proceedings. More information is available at the site regarding former citizen requests which too, did not produce production of the requested vouchers.

PA Department of State hierarchy

PA Bureau of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation

PA DOS BCEL Commissioner Jonathan M. Marks

Trisha Malehorn, PA DOS BCEL Division of Campaign Finance and Lobbying Disclosure Chief

Tim Mahoney

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Fox Jesse Watters: Ron Paul Misreading and Misinterpreting the Constitution

Nothing in the Constitution about gold and silver, says Bill O'Reilly during a segment wherein Jesse Watters replayed an interview with Ron Paul. Watters proceeds to pronounce Ron Paul is misreading the Constitution... and misinterprets the Constitution...

Of interest, comments on the video of the segments posted at youtube

ron paul is absolutely wrong about what the constitution says

i've already cited the germane clauses, so now i'll give a real world example

president madison is often called the 'father of the constitution' because he's considered its primary author

madison issued $36 million dollars of paper money to finance the war of 1812

madison's actions speak more certainly than any of his previous arguments could have

youtube video Jesse Watters with Ron Paul

As aired on "The O'Reilly Factor" on September 7, 2011.

you're a big gold guy...

As aired on "The O'Reilly Factor" on September 7, 2011.


'Factor' Producer Jesse Watters Confronts Ron Paul September 8, 2011

WATTERS: And you're a big gold guy. You talk about gold a lot. Bill thinks this is fascinating, but it's a little confusing. What do you want to do with gold?

PAUL: Well, I want to just obey the Constitution. The Constitution says only gold and silver can be legal tender. And Bill has a little problem with economic understanding. Have you noticed that? He doesn't pronounce, you know, the words quite correctly, and he admits it that he doesn't know much about it.

WATTERS: Well, enlighten us. What is your idea of what we should do with gold? Is it all in Fort Knox? Should we start digging it up?

PAUL: I just said we should obey the Constitution and make gold and silver legal tender. Why doesn't he care or anybody care about the Constitution? Right now, nobody legalized paper money. Where did that come from? They just ignore it. They talk about the Constitution when it pleases them. But when it doesn't please them, like going to war without a declaration. Go bomb -- go bomb Iran, they might get a nuclear weapon. Well, is there a declaration of war? Why is it that some people, you know, think we should obey the Constitution sometimes and not other times.

WATTERS: So that wasn't so bad. You didn't want to explain that to O'Reilly?

PAUL: Well, he wouldn't have understood it.

WATTERS: Thank you very much.


O'REILLY: All right. Here now is Jesse Watters. Now, I have read the Constitution, and it doesn't say anything about gold and silver. What is he talking about?

WATTERS: No, he is misreading the Constitution. And this theory of his has been around for quite some time. It's just not taken very seriously in most circles. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says Congress has the ability to coin money and regulate the currency and doesn't say anything about gold or silver.

O'REILLY: Gold or silver, right.

WATTERS: And what I think he is saying is that Article 10 does not allow the states to print money. And that's just because you don't want to have Massachusetts having one currency and New York having another.

O'REILLY: Right.

WATTERS: That's chaos.

O'REILLY: Right.

WATTERS: And he's misinterpreting that.

Fox Watters Crude Remarks About Venice Beach Women with Opposing Views on War Uncalled for

On location in Venice Beach, Fox News Network Jesse Watters asked a variety of people a question or two about economic policies, politics, Presidential candidates, world events, and more which was replayed on Bill O'Reilly's The Factor program with a few quips between the two following the segment.

Watters approached two women wearing festive glasses and asked them a question about war.

Starting at 2:28

One woman answered: ...war is war and war is necessary sometimes to bring economy...

The other woman answered: War is not necessary... war is bulls... I'm sorry, I know war stimulates the economy and gives people jobs, but at the end of the day it's all about ego...

The camera cut away to another pair.

During Watters' segment on the O'Reilly Factor, Watters highlighted the two women saying we should give them their own program.

Unfortunately, Watters was less than flattering to both with his snide comments.

For instance, he first said he thought they were both fairly intelligent. But he prefaced that with his surprise they were intelligent.

Why? Could it be because they were out for a good time dressed for the occasion and wearing festive glasses? Would he have said the same about two men who took different positions on his question and also wearing colorful party eye-covering?

The two women took opposing views on the war and adequately conveyed their opinions within a mere few seconds on the spot and in a setting wherein deep questions to say the least are unexpected.

We hope they start a blog together and indeed get a guest spot on the O'Reilly Factor.

Wear the glasses, too.

Feb. 22, 2012 Jesse Watters on the O'Reilly Factor segment Venice Beach

Watters' World in Venice Beach

Jesse Watters scours the beaches of Los Angeles looking for sharp political commentary

Meanwhile, Watters interviewed Presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul about declining to appear in a face-to-face with Bill O'Reilly on the Factor. It's interesting that Watters doesn't ask Paul to explain further his comments about a "gold" standard being re-employed in the USA, instead, Watters claims Paul has "misinterpreted" the Constitution.

September 8, 2011

'Factor' Producer Jesse Watters Confronts Ron Paul

Charles Drevna: No Shortage of Fuel in the USA Ample Supply

What a service, and a disservice. Bill O'Reilly's Feb. 22, 2012 The Factor interview segment with Charles Drevna Round One was way too short for O'Reilly to extract clear details in response to his probing questions.

At the outset of the program, O'Reilly tackled the increase in gasoline prices in his Talking Points memo Oil prices reach critical mass.

He followed his monologue with an introductory setup on the issue and then a quick round of questions to the President of American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.

O'Reilly pinpointed the concerns adequately and focused on capitalism and the concept of supply and demand.

Drevna looked a bit exasperated with O'Reilly, possibly because of O'Reilly's demeanor of shock at what he was hearing as an explanation from Drevna.

Drevna explained too briefly the impact the global market had on prices in the USA.

Need a do-over and a Round Two to Fifty. In fact, how about Bill O'Reilly grills this expert and industry spokesman for the next 50 days. Maybe by then, we will all clearly understand why prices at the gas pump and in the home (home heating/warm winter)are rising if there is plenty of supply of the product - fuel - produced right here in the USA.

Video at Fox

Saturday, January 28, 2012

PA State Legislators Who Sign On to KOZ Tax Exemptions for Gas Industry Need Booted

It's not so astonishing that Pennsylvania state legislators are formulating yet another tax-exemption special for somebody other than the citizen-taxpayers. Residents, homeowners, property owners, and small businesses are still awaiting action on the promise of many who years ago vowed during campaigns for election to "eliminate" real estate property taxes for all once and for all.

Meanwhile, the Keystone Opportunity Zones that began to be designated back in 1999, so-necessary for a limited time - only ten years according to advocates - have been expanded and extended several times since. Many existing sites are so-designated as tax-free zones beyond 2015.

When will the Keystone Opportunity Zones be gone? Apparently, never. The program never quite fufils its goal, does it? That is, Pennsylvania will always need to enable tax forgiveness for some period of time to attract some small business and big business to PA, that's what proponents apparently believe.

Meanwhile, the local municipalities, school districts, and counties that choose to waive property taxes for the KOZ inhabitants, and more, for up to 15 years have yet to decrease spending for the same amount of years, thus, the taxation is spread to the same citizen-taxpayers and small businesses who are barely making headway.

But the Gas Industry and Marcellus Shale ventures - tax-free for 15 years?

One has to wonder. It's election time. Who are these legislators courting? Not the little home and property owner. They've broken promises to totally eliminate property taxes for all.

It is time to throw them all out of office this time around in Primary Elections across Pennsylvania.

Legislative Detail: PA Senate Bill 1237 - 2011-2012 Regular Session

Senate Bill 1237

November 3, 2011 In the News, Newsroom
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Gas drillers’ supply chain drives jobs Joe Napsha

The latest is Valerus Compression Services LP of Houston, Texas, which opened a $4 million service center on Wednesday at the Fayette Business Park off Route 43 in Smithfield.

Valerus is one of about 175 companies in 10 counties that are part of the region’s natural gas supply chain, said Dewitt Peart, president of the Pittsburgh Regional Alliance, an economic development group that is working to get more of those companies to move permanently to the region.

Valerus Compression worked in the region’s gas fields for two years before deciding it needed a local home. Valerus looked at about 10 sites before selecting the Smithfield location, which is close to drilling activity, said Daniel Cannon, senior vice president of North American operations. Its new center in Smithfield industrial park is in a Keystone Opportunity Zone, which offers businesses reduced state and local taxes.

Pennsylvania, two neighbors neighbors vie to procure 'cracker' - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review By Timothy Puko, PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, January 29, 2012

There's a whirlwind of competition swirling among Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia for the chance to start a new generation of industry and manufacturing.

Governors jetting off to Houston. State legislation on the fast track. Big tax breaks to be offered for 15 years in one state and 25 years in another.

Pennsylvania eyes tax deals to lure Shell's 'ethane cracker' - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review By Timothy Puko, PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Saturday, January 28, 2012

Big businesses could be in line for millions of dollars in new tax breaks in Pennsylvania under legislation that may be critical in the state's bid to best Ohio and West Virginia for a petrochemicals plant.

The bill has quietly moved toward passage as state officials court Royal Dutch Shell plc, which plans to spend as much as $4 billion to build an "ethane cracker" in the tri-state area. The plant would create several hundred jobs.

Senate Bill 1237 would expand Keystone Opportunity Zones, special areas that grant businesses broad tax cuts, credits and exemptions to spur economic development. Businesses that invest at least $1 billion and create at least 400 permanent, full-time jobs would get an extra five years of tax breaks -- 15 years in all -- with more breaks for manufacturing and processing businesses, under provisions in the bill.

"By far, (Keystone Opportunity Zones are) a huge competitive advantage for the commonwealth when companies are looking at Pennsylvania," said Steve Kratz, spokesman for the state Department of Community and Economic Development. "The first thing they say to our program office is that 'we're interested in Keystone Opportunity Zones.' "

The Corbett administration supports the legislation because it generally supports the Keystone Opportunity Zones as a way to pump investment into struggling areas that otherwise might not attract it, Kratz said. He declined to discuss what the state has offered Shell.

State leaders have closely guarded their talks with Shell. Offering a sweetened Keystone Opportunity Zone is probably the best way to compete with Ohio and West Virginia, several former state economic officials said.

SB 1237 would allow for 15 new zone expansions statewide. Billion-dollar investors would get an extra five years of no taxes, and manufacturing and processing businesses would get new breaks on state corporate income and capital stock franchise taxes.

Read more: Pennsylvania eyes tax deals to lure Shell's 'ethane cracker' - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Friday, December 23, 2011

Newt Gingrich National Security Advisor Former CFR Program Director

As he'll do with other such appointments, Newt Gingrich has made a revealing selection in his choice of Kiron Skinner as national security advisor to his presidential campaign.

Bio Carnegie Mellon University

Monday, November 7, 2011

Media Advisory: CMU's Kiron K. Skinner, Renowned National Security and Political Strategy Expert, Available To Discuss GOP Campaign

... Skinner, an associate professor of social and decision sciences and director of CMU's Center for International Relations and Politics, serves on the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Executive Panel and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. From 2001-2007, she was a member of the U.S. Defense Department's Defense Policy Board as an adviser on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Additionally, she is the coauthor, along with political scientists Serhiy Kudelia, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Condoleezza Rice, of "The Strategy of Campaigning: Lessons from Ronald Reagan and Boris Yeltsin," which is now used in political science courses at leading research universities. Skinner is currently advising Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign on national security issues.

Gingrich taps CMU expert on foreign relations
Friday, December 2, 2011

Foreign policy expert Kiron Skinner, the director of Carnegie Mellon University's International Relations and Politics department, has joined Republican Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign as a national security adviser.

Read more: Election coverage in Southwestern Pennsylvania - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

CFR Experts GuideThe Council on Foreign Relations' David Rockefeller Studies Program—CFR's "think tank"—is home to more than seventy full-time, adjunct, and visiting scholars and practitioners (called "fellows"). Their expertise covers the world's major regions as well as the critical issues shaping today's global agenda. Download the CFR Experts Printable Guide.

Roundtable on General Foreign Policy Topics
Director: Kiron Skinner

September 1, 2000 - June 30, 2002

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Newt Gingrich Political Ringer Pro Centralized FEMA Homeland Security

Newt Gingrich, in his own words, "centalized" government...

Alex Jones Infowars Nightly News 2011-12-05 video introduction of topic of Newt Gingrich hand in central role of government's FEMA and Homeland Security... at 2:02

... he's a ringer sent in to pose as a libertarian constitutionalist... but his actions, his fruits say the opposite here is Newt Gingrich just after 911... about how he had gotten Homeland Security set up...

U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century
Hart-Rudman Commission

...The United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, also know as the Hart-Rudman Commission, was chartered to review in a comprehensive way U.S. national security requirements for the next century. It began in Phase I by describing the future security environment this nation should anticipate, and in Phase II it delineated a strategy to address that future—to cope with the challenges and seize the opportunities that will constantly confront this great nation. Phase III was focused on changes to the national security apparatus, its structures and process, with an aim toward redesigning it as necessary to succeed in the security environment that lies ahead.

The Commission anticipated that it could not make credible recommendations to improve the national security apparatus without first understanding how that apparatus functioned. This document, Road Map for National Security: Addendum on Structure and Process Analyses, provides a thorough description of this country's national security organizations and processes as they existed in mid-2000.

Before institutional redesigns could occur, or before road maps could be constructed to get the national security apparatus headed in the appropriate direction, the Commission needed to understand how the government was structured and how it went about the business of national security. The seven volumes contained in the Addendum analyze key organizations and processes throughout the Federal government, to include the interagency and inter-branch levels. This Addendum provided a "baseline" of the national security apparatus, and was completed in draft form by the summer of 2000 as the Commission's main Phase III effort began in earnest. It thus laid much of the groundwork for Phase III. The first volume was updated and reedited in February and March 2001. The other volumes remain as originally written.To our knowledge no product has been previously produced that describes the national security structures and processes of the U.S. government in such detail. It should be useful to researchers and professionals seeking a detailed analysis of the national security system.

Following is an excerpt from archives

In 1998, President Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich petitioned Congress to form a 14-member panel called the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century (USCNS/21), also known as the Hart-Rudman Commission, to make strategic recommendations on how the U.S. Government could ensure the nation’s security in the coming years. The independent panel, created by Congress, was tasked with conducting a comprehensive review of American security with the goal of designing a national security strategy.

The Commission’s report, “Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change,” dated January 31, 2001, recommended the creation of a new independent National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA) with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. Government activities involved in homeland security. This agency would be built upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), with the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and U.S. Border Patrol (now part of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within the DHS) transferred into it. NHSA would assume responsibility for the safety of the American people as well as oversee the protection of critical infrastructure, including information technology. Obviously, the Commission’s recommendations were not heeded before 2001, but many of its findings would later be integrated into the justification and legislation behind the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Two other commissions were established to study the terrorist threat during these years: The Gilmore Commission and the Bremer Commission. The Gilmore Commission, also known as the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, produced a series of annual reports beginning in 1999 (with the final report released in 2003). Each of these reports presented a growing base of knowledge concerning the WMD risk faced by the United States, and a recommended course of action required to counter that risk.

The Bremer Commission, also known as the National Commission on Terrorism, addressed the issue of the international terrorist threat. The commission was mandated by Congress to evaluate the nation’s laws, policies, and practices for preventing terrorism, and for punishing those responsible for terrorist events. Its members drafted a report titled “Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism.” This report, issued in the year 2000, arrived at the following conclusions:

· International terrorism poses an increasingly dangerous and difficult threat to America
· Countering the growing danger of the terrorist threat requires significantly stepping up U.S. efforts
· Priority one is to prevent terrorist attacks. U.S. intelligence and law enforcement communities must use the full scope of their authority to collect intelligence regarding terrorist plans and methods
· U.S. policies must firmly target all states that support terrorists
· Private sources of financial and logistical support for terrorists must be subjected to the full force and sweep of U.S. and international laws
· A terrorist attack involving a biological agent, deadly chemicals, or nuclear or radiological material, even if it succeeds only partially, could profoundly affect the entire nation. The government must do more to prepare for such an event
· The President and Congress should reform the system for reviewing and funding departmental counterterrorism programs to ensure that the activities and programs of various agencies are part of a comprehensive plan

Each of these conclusions and recommendations would take on great new meaning in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, and would guide many of the changes incorporated into the Homeland Security Act of 2002. However, in the absence of a greater recognition of a terrorist threat within the borders of the United States, no major programs were initiated to combat the growing risk.

Presidential Decision Directives 62 & 63

As these commissions were conducting their research, President Clinton was addressing other recognized and immediate needs through the passage of several Presidential Decision Directives (PDDs). Terrorist attacks continued to occur throughout the world, aimed at US Government, Military, and private interests. In 1996, terrorists carried out a suicide bombing at the US Military (Khobar Towers) barracks in Saudi Arabia, and in 1998, simultaneous bombings were carried out at the U.S. diplomatic missions in Kenya and Tanzania.

In May of 1998, President Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 62 (PDD-62): Combating Terrorism, which called for the establishment of the Office of the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counterterrorism. The directive’s primary goal was to create a new and more systematic approach to fighting the terrorist threat. PDD-62 reinforced the mission of many U.S. agencies involved in wide array of counterterrorism activities. The new National Coordinator was tasked with overseeing a broad variety of relevant policies and programs including counterterrorism, critical infrastructure protection, Weapons of Mass Destructions (WMD) preparedness and consequence management.

Soon after this directive, President Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD-63): Protecting America’s Critical Infrastructure. This directive tasked all of the departments of the Federal Government with assessing the vulnerabilities of their cyber and physical infrastructures, and to work to reduce their exposure to new and existing threats.

Attorney General’s Five-Year Interagency Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan

In December 1998, as mandated by Congress, the Department of Justice (DOJ), through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), began a coordinated project with other agencies to develop the Attorney General’s Five-Year Interagency Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan. The FBI emerged as the Federal Government's principal agency for responding to and investigating terrorism. Congress had intended the plan to serve as a baseline for the coordination of a national strategy and operational capabilities to combat terrorism. This plan represented a substantial interagency effort, including goals, objectives, performance indicators and recommended specific agency actions to help resolve interagency problems. It clearly did not, however, tear down the walls that prevented interagency sharing of information, as evidenced by the failures that resulted in the success of the 9/11 terrorists.

General Accounting Office (GAO) Findings

The Department of Justice (DOJ) asserted that the Attorney General’s Five-Year Interagency Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan, considered together with related PDDs as described above, represented a comprehensive national strategy to address the terrorist threat. However, after a thorough review, the General Accounting Office (GAO), Congress’s investigative arm, concluded that additional work remained, that would build upon the progress that the plan represented. The GAO contended that a comprehensive national security strategy was lacking.

In the GAO report GAO-01-55T: ‘Combating Terrorism: Comments on Counterterrorism Leadership and National Strategy,’ released March 27, 2001, it is stated that the DOJ plan did not have measurable outcomes and suggested, for example, it should include goals that improve state and local response capabilities. The report argued that without a clearly defined national strategy, the nation would continue to miss opportunities to focus and shape counterterrorism programs to meet the impending threat. It also made the criticism that the DOJ plan lacked a coherent framework to develop and evaluate budget requirements for combating terrorism since there was no signal focal point. The report claimed that no single entity was acting as the Federal Government’s top official accountable to both the President and Congress for the terrorism hazard, and that fragmentation existed in both coordination of domestic preparedness programs and in efforts to develop a national strategy.

The GAO released another report in early September of 2001 (GAO-01-822) entitled ‘Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related Recommendations,’ which it finalized in the last days before the terrorist attacks occurred in Washington and New York. The report stated that the Federal Government was ill-equipped and unprepared to counter a major terrorist attack, claiming also that from sharing intelligence to coordinating a response, the government had failed to put in place an effective critical infrastructure system. It further stated that,

“Federal efforts to develop a national strategy to combat terrorism...have progressed, but key challenges remain. The initial step toward developing a national strategy is to conduct a national threat and risk the national level (agencies) have not completed assessments of the most likely weapon-of-mass destruction agents and other terrorist threats...”

To prevent terrorist attacks, the GAO recommended:

· A national strategy to combat terrorism and computer-based attacks
· Better protection for the nation's infrastructure
· A single focal point to oversee coordination of Federal programs
· Completing a threat assessment on likely WMD and other weapons that might be used by terrorists
· Revising the Attorney General’s Five-Year Interagency Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan to better serve as a national strategy
· Coordinating research and development to combat terrorism

In a later report regarding Homeland Security, (GAO-02-610) ‘Key Elements to Unify Efforts Are Underway but Uncertainty Remains,’ the GAO called for more of the same in terms of needing central leadership and an overarching strategy that identifies goals and objectives, priorities, measurable outcomes, and state and local government roles in combating terrorism since the efforts of more than 40 federal entities and numerous state and local governments were still fragmented. It also called for the term Homeland Security to be defined properly since to date it had not.

September 11, 2001

The attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, could arguably be considered the first national disaster event, outside of wartime, in the history of the United States. It is the first disaster in this country that impacted all Americans, leaving all citizens and communities with an unrelenting sense of vulnerability. The economic consequences of these attacks, felt in all parts of our country and, in fact, around the world, make this disaster event truly global in scope.

The attacks involved the hijacking of 4 commercial airliners by 19 trained terrorists. Three of the four planes were flown into major American landmarks – the two World Trade Center Twin Towers, and the headquarters of the United States military. The fourth, whose target may never be conclusively known, was prevented from reaching its target by passengers on the plane that overpowered its four terrorist hijackers. Almost 3,000 people were killed, and billions of dollars in property damage resulted. The full economic impacts, which include everything from lost revenues to increased spending on terrorism preparedness, may never be known.

This was not a simple act, but one that required years of surveillance, funding, training, intelligence gathering, practice, and breaching of United States immigration law. There were many instances during this time, as were evidenced in the report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) (created to investigate the causes of the 9/11 attacks and means to prevent similar attacks from occurring the future), where individual agencies involved in counter-terrorist activities recognized one or more of these activities. However, insufficient coordination between the agencies prevented the Federal Government system of preventing terrorist attacks from piecing together the larger picture of what exactly was occurring, and as such, the terrorists were ultimately successful in their mission.

excerpt from:
Case 7 - ...
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
File Format: Microsoft Word - Quick View
Case 7.2: The Homeland Security Act of 2002: A New Emergency Management ... In 1998, President Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich petitioned Congress to ...... but President Carter created FEMA to centralize this Federal emergency


FEMA FOIA Requesters

Monday, November 28, 2011

New-t World Order

thinking about New-t for President? You must not have been aware of - so much that makes him the most dangerous of dangers to our "republic" - including, but not limited to, his cozy relationship with the Tofflers.

Net the Truth Online Post Newt Watch March 17, 2007

After Words: Alvin Toffler interviewed by Newt Gingrich

Description: In 1970, the book "Future Shock" put Alvin Toffler on the map as a serious futurologist. His new book, "Revolutionary Wealth" -- written with his wife Heidi -- takes a look at the 21st century. The Tofflers argue that the United States is spearheading a new civilization, but that corporations, government, and social institutions left over from an era of mass production are not keeping up in this rapidly changing world. Alvin Toffler discusses his book with former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. As a young assistant professor at West Georgia State College in the early 70s, Newt Gingrich began working with the Tofflers. He often referred to their work during his political career and even put Toffler books on his required reading list for members of Congress and all Americans.

Creating A New Civilization: The Politics Of The Third Wave
Alvin Toffler and Heidi Toffler and
2 1995
Volume 1, Number 2

Gingrich's Gurus
Summer 1995

Alvin and Heidi Toffler
Foreword by Newt Gingrich
Turner Publishing, 1995, 112 pp.

Newt Gingrich claims that "Alvin and Heidi Toffler have given us the key to viewing current disarray within the positive framwork of a dynamic, exciting future" (p. 14). The book, he thinks, "is an effort to empower citizenslike yourself to truly take the leap and begin to invent a Third Wave civilization" (p. 17).

Newt Gingrich: Mr. New World Order

Establishment throws its weight behind the ultimate RINO globalist

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Monday, November 28, 2011

Desperate to derail Ron Paul’s momentum in New Hampshire, the key early primary state in which polls show Paul has a very real chance of winning, the establishment has thrown its weight behind Newt Gingrich, the ultimate RINO globalist who in reality is about as conservative as Mao Tse-tung.

With the campaigns of Mitt Romney and Rick Perry collapsing, the editorial board of the New Hampshire Union Leader chose to endorse Gingrich on Sunday, a move that the mainstream press immediately hailed as all-important, attempting to bestow kingmaker status on a relatively irrelevant newspaper in the grand scheme of things.

The anointment of Gingrich as Republican frontrunner is just the latest desperate bid to fool voters into supporting anyone other than Ron Paul. From Perry, to Romney, to Cain – the establishment has attempted to crown all of them as top dog – failing every time as each campaign subsequently crashes and burns.

Gingrich will inevitably follow suit because he has more skeletons in the closet than a halloween costume shop. Newt Gingrich is Mr. New World Order – a committed globalist who has publicly made clear his contempt for American sovereignty and freedom on a plethora of occasions, not least when he joined forces with Nancy Pelosi to push the Obama administration’s cap and trade agenda that would have completely bankrupted the country.

“I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good,” Gingrich told PBS Frontline in February 2007.

And if you think that doesn’t sound bad enough, just wait until you read what Gingrich had to say about mandatory health insurance.

“Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it,” he wrote in a 2007 OpEd for the Des Moines Register.

That’s right – self-proclaimed “conservative” Gingrich is an aggressive supporter of Obamacare, just like his rival Mitt Romney.

Gingrich has also been instrumental in pushing political frameworks with the goal of accomplishing global governance.

As Attorney Constance Cumbey writes, Gingrich worked feverishly with his buddy Al Gore back in the mid-90′s to help create the embryonic architecture of a global parliamentary authority.

Gingrich’s support for NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO entrenched his position as an enthusiastic advocate of globalism and sending American jobs abroad, the “giant sucking sound,” as Ross Perot labeled it It was Gingrich who helped Bill Clinton and the Democrats garner enough votes from Republicans to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is now quickly evolving into the North American Union.

Gingrich’s Council on Foreign Relations membership and his close relationship with his mentor Henry Kissinger cements his role as a key agitator for the destruction of U.S. sovereignty. Indeed, during a July 1995 speech, he openly decried the constitution as being a roadblock to a UN-managed global government.

“The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution,” he said. “Under our [constitutional system] – either we’re going to have to rethink our Constitution, or we’re going to have to rethink our process of decision-making.” He went on to profess an oxymoronic belief in “very strong but limited federal government,” and pledged, “I am for the United Nations.”

“In order to understand just how dedicated Gingrich is to destroying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, consider that he described himself as a “conservative futurist” who enthusiastically recommended as Speaker of the House his colleagues read Alvin Toffler’s 1980 book The Third Wave,” writes Kurt Nimmo.

“In the book, Toffler wrote a letter to America’s “founding parents,” in which he said: “The system of government you fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented – a democracy for the 21st century.” According to Toffler, our constitutional system is one that “served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.””

Tuesday, August 09, 2011

Retrial Potential for PA Wrongfully Convicted Munchinki

This is huge news coming down the Pike after decades. More to the story that is for certain than is being reported.

For now, Tribune-Review coverage looks to summarize with just a few key lines.

Prosecutors weigh retrial of 'Bear Rocks Murders' defendant
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Prosecutors have not yet decided whether they will retry a Latrobe man who has served 25 years in prison in a double homicide.

A federal judge on Friday granted David Munchinski, 59, a new trial in the shooting deaths of Raymond Gierke, 28, and James "Petey" Alford, 22, during a drug deal gone wrong at Gierke's Bear Rocks chalet on Dec. 2, 1977.

Prosecutors have up to 120 days to retry the case, but a decision on whether to proceed has not been made.

"We are still considering our options," said Deputy Attorney General Gregory J. Simatic of the state attorney general's Pittsburgh office.

Munchinski and the late Leon Scaglione of New Alexandria were convicted in 1986 in the double homicide. A 1983 trial ended in a mistrial.

On Friday, Chief Magistrate Lisa Pupo Lenihan said Munchinski is entitled to a new trial in the case, known as the Bear Rocks Murders, because prosecutors withheld evidence that would have cast doubts on the man's guilt.

Jack Heneks, district attorney for Fayette County, said he does not expect the case to be referred back to his office for possible prosecution. He said the state Attorney General's Office was brought in to handle appeals in the case because of conflicts of interest that existed before he took over as district attorney from Nancy Vernon, who is now a county judge.

"I would think that those reasons are still in place, for Nancy not handling it," Heneks said, adding he likely has his own conflicts because he was in the public defender's office at the time Munchinski was tried.

Simatic said he will read Lenihan's decision and consult with prosecutors in Harrisburg before deciding whether to proceed to trial.

Noah Geary, a Washington County attorney who represents Munchinski, said prosecutors could decide to appeal, as well, but he feels that Lenihan's order should put an end to the case.

"My hope is they will acknowledge the fact the man was wrongfully convicted and not file an appeal," Geary said. "And due to the fact there was no evidence to support bringing him to trial, that they would acknowledge that and let him be released. He's done 25 years."
As for a retrial, Geary said "there is no evidence" to support one.

More than three decades later, several key players in the case have died. Scaglione died in prison in 1996. A star witness, Richard Bowen, who testified that he drove Munchinski and Scaglione to the murder site, only to later recant in an interview with FBI agents, is also dead.

Read more: Prosecutors weigh retrial of 'Bear Rocks Murders' defendant - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Tuesday, June 07, 2011

Impact Obama Healthcare Plan Firms to Cut

June 6, 2011, 6:54 p.m. EDT

Firms to cut health plans as reform starts: survey
30% of companies say they’ll stop offering coverage
LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) — Once provisions of the Affordable Care Act start to kick in during 2014, at least three of every 10 employers will probably stop offering health coverage, a survey released Monday shows.

While only 7% of employees will be forced to switch to subsidized-exchange programs, at least 30% of companies say they will “definitely or probably” stop offering employer-sponsored coverage, according to the study published in McKinsey Quarterly.

Thursday, May 12, 2011

Gas Drilling Study Baseline Not Used, But Strong Claim Made

Gas Drilling Technique Contaminates Drinking Water, Study Finds

Published May 10, 2011 Associated Press

New research is providing some of the first scientific evidence that a controversial gas drilling technique can contaminate drinking water.

The study published Monday found potentially dangerous concentrations of methane gas in water from wells near drilling sites in northeastern Pennsylvania, although not in central New York, where gas drilling is less extensive.

But in an unexpected finding, the team of Duke University scientists did not find any trace of the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process in 68 wells tested in Pennsylvania and Otsego County in central New York.

In hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, water, sand and chemicals are injected underground to crack the rock and get natural gas to flow into a well. Critics of the technique have worried more about the chemicals since companies have refused to make public the proprietary blends used and some of the ingredients can be toxic.

On average, water from wells located less than a mile from drilling sites had 17 times more methane than water tested from wells farther away, according to the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Methane is not known to be toxic, but in high concentrations it can be explosive and cause unconsciousness and even death, since it displaces oxygen needed to breathe.

Of the 60 wells tested for methane gas, 14 had levels of methane within or above a hazard range set by the Department of Interior for gas seeping from coal mines — all but one of them near a gas well. In nine wells, concentrations were so high that the government would recommend immediate action to reduce the methane level.

Methane is released naturally by bacteria as they break down organic matter. The researchers' analysis shows that the type of methane in the wells with the highest concentrations is coming from deep in the earth, the same place tapped by companies in search of natural gas.

In the most severe case, a homeowner in Bradford County, Pa., who leased her property to a gas company, has so much methane coming out of her tap she can light her water on fire. A natural gas well is located 800 feet from her house.

"Not every homeowner within a kilometer (of a drilling site) will have high methane concentrations," said Stephen Osborn, a postdoctoral associate at Duke University's Center on Global Change. "If you are a homeowner within a kilometer, and our study shows this, I would be a little bit concerned."

What the study does not say is how exactly the methane is getting into drinking water sources, and what part of the drilling is potentially involved. While wells closer to drilling sites had more methane, most of the wells in the study — 85 percent — had some.

Industry groups on Monday faulted the research, saying it did not show that fracking itself was behind the methane contamination, nor did the researchers conduct before-and-after tests to prove the contamination occurred after drilling. The authors themselves suspect that the methane is likely flowing up the sides of the gas well — rather than down pathways created by hydraulic fracturing.

"The authors admit they have no baseline data at all, which makes it impossible to characterize the state of those water wells prior to recent development," said Chris Tucker, a spokesman for Energy in Depth, a national coalition of independent gas producers.

The industry also was critical of the paper's editor, William H. Schlesinger, who selected the study's outside reviewers. Schlesinger, a biogeochemist and president of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, N.Y, has supported moratoriums in New York on hydraulic fracturing permits until its effects are completely understood.

Gas drilling has expanded in Pennsylvania and other states where shale formations are thought to hold lots of natural gas, a clean-burning energy source. To get it, companies need to fracture the rock.

As the technique has proliferated, so too has concern among homeowners, and local, state and federal governments about its potential toll on underground drinking water sources which are unregulated and untested. Two federal agencies have launched their own studies, and the state of Pennsylvania — where numerous homeowners are suing drilling companies over water contamination — views methane as among the most serious risks of gas drilling.

In that state, an investigation into an explosion and fire at a house in December, and another at a home in February, is looking at natural gas drilling as the culprit. And a natural gas drilling company last year agreed to pay $4.1 million to 19 homeowners whose water was contaminated by methane gas, even though the company denies causing the pollution.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Hold the MSG: Food Triggers for Epilepsy and Other Neurological Illnesses

Alison Rose Levy.Health journalist, coach, and
Posted: October 26, 2009
Hold the MSG: Food Triggers for Epilepsy and Other Neurological Illnesses

Last week, 60 Minutes reported on David and Susan Axelrod's search for a cure for epilepsy prompted by their two decade plus experience of the ailment, which their adult daughter has suffered since infancy. But while Katie Couric admiringly covered the researchers seeking to find "the Cure," ie. new anti-convulsive drugs, once again proactive, preventive health care strategies that might help to reduce incidence of epileptic attacks were overlooked.

How ironic it is that in the midst of the health care reform debate, Axelrod, a key Obama aide, is so poorly informed about integrative strategies that could help his own daughter.

For neurological illnesses, including Parkinson's Disease, epilepsy, and others, a body of scientific research demonstrates that certain food additives, singly and in combination with each other, contribute to excessive nerve cell firing; and thus, may be a possible trigger for epileptic attacks and other neurological incidents. In keeping with that, limiting or altogether avoiding these ingredients is a strategy that some integrative physicians recommend, though many who could benefit are unaware of the dangers these common food additives pose.

Because of their activity--stimulating nerve cells to rapidly fire and burn out, ultimately resulting in nerve cell death, the food additives are considered to be "excitotoxins." While some naturally occur in the body, people who consume processed foods are exposed to a much greater amount than ever before since industrial food scientists regularly add them to processed foods to enhance the food's flavor. The most widely used food ingredients that have excitotoxic activity are monosodium glutamate, aspartame, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, and other additives that stimulate the taste buds and mask the flavor of many processed foods, Fresh, natural foods don't require this form of flavor enhancement. The artificial sweetener, aspartame, marketed as NutraSweet, Equal, and under several other brand names, is one of most widely consumed of the food additives with excitotoxic activity.

Nearly all food items sold in convenience stores are full of them, as are many processed, or packaged foods. If you read labels, you will discover that they are listed under many different names; and flavorings such as those in soups, soup mixes, and even many spices will often contain them as well.

With the increase in incidence of neurological illness, including Alzheimer's Disease, a basic proactive health strategy that many integrative practitioners recommend is to limit intake of these food ingredients. More information on excitotoxins can be found in Russell Blaylockm MD's book, Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills. Food Additives: A Shopper's Guide To What's Safe & What's Not by Christine Farlow is a shopper's guide to ingredient names.

For health information, science, and action, get the free ezine, the Health Outlook at