Monday, June 30, 2008

Katrina vanden Heuvel: Regional War if Iran Struck

On Morning Joe this morning Katrina vanden Heuvel made some forthright comments about the potential for a strike on Iran. (Fortunately for us, Joe Scarborough was absent from the program. We've discussed his hypocrisy before, and his lack of asking either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama anything insightful when they were interviewed May 6th... See our posts about Joe's dismal showing.)

The panel discussed the Seymour Hersch article noted at the beginning by Mika...

Preparing the Battlefield
The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
by Seymour M. Hersh

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

http://www.dailygotham.com/blog/daniel_millstone/bomb_bomb_bomb_bomb_bomb_iran_redux

US escalating covert operations against Iran-report
Sun Jun 29, 2008

June 29 (Reuters) - U.S. congressional leaders agreed late last year to President George W. Bush's funding request for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran aimed at destabilizing its leadership, according to a report in The New Yorker magazine published online on Sunday.

The article by reporter Seymour Hersh, from the magazine's July 7 and 14 issue, centers on a highly classified Presidential Finding signed by Bush which by U.S. law must be made known to Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders and ranking members of the intelligence committees...

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN29358834


Sunday, June 29, 2008
Hersh's New Article on Iran, H.Con. Res. 362, and The March of the NeoCons to November

http://desertbeacon.blogspot.com/2008/06/hershs-new-article-on-iran-hcon-res-362.html




Buchanan referenced a Congressional resolution 362

Google search results

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=h+con+res+362+&btnG=Search

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjnfCd0bLVY

Obama supporter

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/marystange/gG5hN3

Resolution co-sponsor letter

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Lcnfp_BcrYcJ:www.aipac.org/Publications/SourceMaterialsCongressionalAction/HConRes362.pdf+h+con+res+362&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=26&gl=us

Yahoo answers

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080627063230AA5lx5s

AIPAC

http://capwiz.com/aipac/issues/bills/?bill=11440736

Drudge Retort

http://www.drudge.com/news/109266/truthout-congress-ok-iran-blockade

DetNews Blog


http://info.detnews.com/redesign/forums/feedback/lettersindex.cfm?forum=newstalk&topic=Mr.%20McEvoy--You%20Omitted%20a%20few%20things%20re%3A--H.CON.RES%20362


vanden Heuvel: ... war within the Administration... Admiral Fallon, basically forced out ... Cheney forces wanted military action Iraq...

Buchanan: what does it tell you this has been leaked to Seymour Hersch

thinks there's resistance by the military... may be responsible for the leak to Hersch... we are undermining possibility of indigenous democracy... a dangerous ploy... action may not be taken til after the election... but talk and engage... that's what Barack Obama talks about... if Bush had listened to Collin Powell at the outset... North Korea... would have been a different world... and a different nuclear arrangement if there was willingness to talk... just talk... not endorsing that regime...

Israel may have it's own timeline... Israel does not lead us in this regard...

it'll be a regional war... if we agree to this strike...

Buchanan HR 362... one part this does not authorize president use force or go to war...part demands blocade of Iran... denial of Iran refined oil goods... stop people going in and out... a call for naval blockade and not just
Bush Republicans, Democrats signing on right and left... AIPAC pushing this as number one priority...

Katrina: ...Not here to defend those democrats pushing this legislation. AIPAC does not represent the majority of views of American Jews... a new group called J-Street far more in sync with desire to build a real secure Israel

Need congressional declaration... cannot undertake this action without support... hearings... Andrew Card manifestation of that on the eve of the war in Iraq do a marketing drive... look how they railroaded this Congress on the war on Iraq... cannot have unfettered power abuse the Constitution...

...got Gates and others... how to build a more stable middle East...

Buchanan ... what if he goes with them and starts bombing these sites... what would the democrats do... think they would go along with it...

Katrina... not many... might have a groundswell... impeachment...

Buchanan: ... have 220 co-sponsors on the bill already... enough to pass it...

Katrina ... majority do not want attack on Iran... are we a dictatorship... a constitutional Democracy... we need a new Decider... someone who understands true values of the country will uphold the rule of law... it's engagement not militarism that has made our country strong...

(unofficial transcript from review of video)

Net the Truth Online

Reference over at DU to youtube video of Katrina's lengthy comments (DU some discussion)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlFO-7vfhJc

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x152914

Iran - H. Con. Res. 362 and S. Res. 580

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=308x699

More

Friday, June 27, 2008

Ronald Bailey North Pole Melting Ice Hype 2000

Back in 2000, Reason writer/columnist Ronald Bailey wrote of the hype. What does Mr. We're All Global Warmers, Now have to say, now, about 8 years later, after his conversion in August 2005 to acceptance of something - global warming is happening and man is contributing?

We found out about his change of heart in 2007 and sought to provide balance

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/02/were-not-all-global-warmers-now.html

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/04/were-really-not-all-global-warmers-now.html

Now we find this mini-critique of Bailey clip below...

Interesting to find out what Bailey is writing now...

we're still trying to find out whether Bailey attended any United Nations Climate Change symposiums out of the country just prior to August 2005. After yeares of writing, well such books as, well do a search, now what's he writing...

Ron Bailey, science writer for the libertarian Reason magazine says not so fast. Ron points to lots of contrary facts that argue for a less apocalyptic view of future climate history...

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002452.html


Cause now, the North Pole is supposedly to be ice-free by this summer and/or September, 2008


Net the Truth Online

North Pole May Be Ice Free for First Time This SummerAalok Mehta aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen
National Geographic News
June 20, 2008
Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field.

"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html


North Pole ice 'may disappear by September'
By Paul Eccleston
Last Updated: 2:01pm BST 27/06/2008

Have your say Read comments


Ice at the North Pole may disappear completely within the next few months for the first time in 20,000 years.

Arctic ice melting 'faster than predicted'
Arctic ice 'could be gone in five years'
Arctic sea ice 'melts to all-time low'
Arctic sea ice is now retreating so quickly that scientists say there is now a 50-50 chance that it will have gone completely by September.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/27/eaice127.xml



August 29, 2000 2:40 PM
Alarm on Front Page, Recant on Back
The New York Times backtracks.
By Ronald Bailey

Santa and his elves don't have to panic after all, according to today's New York Times. This is a switch from two Saturdays ago, when the Times breathlessly warned readers on its front page that the North Pole was ice-free for the first time in 50 million years. Even as late as yesterday, a Times lead editorial cited its own alarmist story about finding a "patch of open ocean at the North Pole where the ice would normally be six to nine feet deep" to justify favoring Al Gore's "more assertive approach" to global warming...

...The North-Pole-is-melting story is an all-too-typical example of environmental-alarmist reporting in the Times and other papers. The infamous Limits to Growth report, the Fenton Communications-generated Alar scare, the stories that the Ozone Hole is allegedly ready to open up over Kennebunkport — all were reported on the front page, while more sober assessments based on real scientific data appear later, on the back pages where readers tend to overlook or discount it.

It's no wonder that this continuing credulous imbalance in reporting on environmental issues has got the public spooked. But then again, one can't help wondering sometimes if maybe that's the point...

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTE3ZWU1ZTUyZDc2MDg2ODY1NDc2YmQ0MTA3NzRkYTQ=


Ice has melted at North Pole site
Some say global warming to blame
By John Noble Willford, Saturday August 19, 2000

NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

The North Pole is melting.

The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday. At least for the time being, an ice-free patch of ocean about a mile wide has opened at the very top of the world, something that presumably never before has been seen by human beings and is more evidence that global warming may be real and affecting climate.

The last time scientists can be certain the pole was awash in water was more than 50 million years ago.

"It was totally unexpected," said Dr. James J. McCarthy, an oceanographer, director of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University and the co-leader of a group working for the United Nationssponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control. The panel is studying the potential environmental and economic consequences of marked climate change.

http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/media_coverage/SanDiegoUnionTribune/Ice-has-melted-at-north-pole-site/Ice-has-melted-at-north-pole-site.shtml


On Bailey

Hmm... "We're All Global Warmers Now: Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place" - "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up. All data sets—satellite, surface, and balloon—have been pointing to rising global temperatures. In fact, they all have had upward pointing arrows for nearly a decade, but now all of the data sets are in closer agreement due to some adjustments being published in three new articles in Science today.

People who have doubted predictions of catastrophic global warming (and that includes me) have long cited the satellite data series derived by climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). That data set showed a positive trend of 0.088 degrees centigrade per decade until recently. On a straight line extrapolation that trend implied warming of less than 1.0 degree centigrade by 2100.

A new article in Science by researchers Carl Mears and Frank Wentz from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) identified a problem with how the satellites drifted over time, so that a slight but spurious cooling trend was introduced into the data. When this drift is taken into account, the temperature trend increases by an additional 0.035 degrees per decade, raising the UAH per-decade increase to 0.123 degrees centigrade. Christy points out that this adjustment is still within his and Spencer's +/- 0.5 margin of error. What's the upshot? Although reluctant to make straight-line extrapolations, Christy notes in an e-mail, "The previous linear extrapolation indicated a temperature of +0.9 C +/- 0.5 C in 2100, the new data indicate a temperature of +1.2 +/- 0.5 C." (Ronald Bailey, Reason)

I must admit that Bailey's article had me reread Mears and Wentz out of concern that I had misunderstood or not read it thoroughly. While that inevitably does happen I am pleased to say this is not one of those occasions [as Spencer's own piece makes clear below]. The methodological error handling tropical diurnal adjustments is not in this paper and readers should not confuse the two as Bailey appears to have done.

http://www.junkscience.com/AGWResources.html


Search results produced

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=polar+ice+north+pole+mccarthy&btnG=Google+Search

More finds

http://www.miniato.net/paul/misc/SomeGlobalWarmingLinks.html

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1159050814.shtml

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Second Amendment Individual Right to Gun Ownership!

We never thought we'd see this in our lifetimes. The Second Amendment actually determined to be an inalienable right, inseparable from the "individual."

don't tamper... pretty simple...

Dan Abrams says nope, there is no right to own a gun, it is not a constitutional right unless you are a member of the 'militia.' (June 30, 2008 After reading mail critiquing his former comments)

Right Dan. Only the militia men can 'own' a gun. And while we're at it, because women were not originally considered to be in the militia, guess women nowadays can't own a gun if women want to protect themselves from bodily harm or goverment knocking down their doors for whatever purpose all the men-only in government desire...

Guess if the second amendment wasn't one of the original first ten amendments to the Constitution, nobody in the country would be able to possess a gun either, right. Not even for militia purposes...

Guess if none of the first ten amendments had been added to the basic Constitution we wouldn't have any right to free speech, religion, etc. and etc.

We had thought Dan Abrams capable of some understanding of the Constitution. Obviously not.

Uh Dan, the Constitution doesn't give us rights, neither do the Founding Framers who wrote the Constitution, Dan. The Constitution was written not to idenify our rights by enumerating some of them. We possess inherent rights. Period. The Constitution guarantees all rights to us. Period.

Hope you rethink your position per your statement June 30th...

Maybe you'll have Glenn Beck as a guest on your program.

Uh oh. Dan wrote his law review on the second amendment...

ABRAMS: I wrote my law review on the Second Amendment. I promise, we‘ll get to it.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25411256/

Umm is this Daniel Abrams the same?

What 'Right to Bear Arms'?
By DANIEL ABRAMS; DANIEL ABRAMS, A RECENT GRADUATE OF DUKE UNIVERSITY, WILL ATTEND LAW SCHOOL IN THE FALL.
Published: July 20, 1989

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE6D91330F933A15754C0A96F948260


Looks like it is

An accomplished writer, Abrams has had articles published in, among others: The New York Times, The American Lawyer, and the Yale Law and Policy Review. He also writes a monthly legal column for Men’s Health magazine.

A 1988 alumnus of Duke University, Abrams graduated cum laude with a B.A. in political science. He received his law degree from Columbia University in 1992.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080410/




'Verdict with Dan Abrams' for Thursday, June 26

updated 2:16 p.m. ET, Fri., June. 27, 2008

ABRAMS: But those are policy arguments. I want to stick to the constitutional arguments here. And, Professor Kobach, I see you nodding. Let‘s talk about it. Let‘s talk about the Second Amendment, all right? It‘s real simple and I want you to listen very carefully, Professor, to the first few words of the amendment as I read it to you, all right?

And I‘m going to read that part slowly. “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” OK, that‘s what the amendment is about. So what are they going to do to achieve that? “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Somehow, the U.S. Supreme Court today completely ignores the part about a well-regulated militia and, instead, they say, oh, it‘s all about the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

KRIS KOBACH, FMR. BUSH JUSTICE DEPT. OFFICIAL: Well, I would disagree. The court spent a good 20 or 30 pages dissecting the meaning of the words “well-regulated militia.” And the definition of a militia, broadly accepted by historians at the time, and this is not coming from the NRA, this is coming from the contemporary documents of the time, is that the militia meant all able-bodied males, it was an armed citizenry.

ABRAMS: Let‘s talk about that. All right. Let‘s talk about that.

KOBACH: So a well-regulated—well, let me just—so a well- regulated militia means, in context, a well-trained and armed body of citizens.

ABRAMS: Right. OK. But let‘s talk about that two ways. First of all, you say a militia, all able-bodied males. At the time that meant people 18 to 45, male and white. So according to—if you‘re going to talk about the original intent, then no African-Americans, no women, no older people have the right to possess a gun.

KOBACH: Sure. And voting was limited to people—and of course, voting at the time was limited to people who were white, male and owned property in most states. But, of course, all of these dimensions changed as we moved forward into the 20th Century.

ABRAMS: Oh, so you mean that things have changed and as result, maybe the framers didn‘t envision possessing weapons in big cities. Is that what you mean?

KOBACH: Look, no, you‘ve got to look at it—you‘re twisting this analogy all out of shape. Property rights also were only enjoyed by a select body of citizens at the time the Constitution was framed. We don‘t, therefore, say that property rights today are only enjoyed by white males.

Similarly, we don‘t say that other rights which were enjoyed only by white males at the time of the framing are only enjoyed by white males today.

ABRAMS: Yes. But the problem is—that‘s part of their problem in referring, Professor Rothstein, only to what a militia meant back at the time, which is one of their strongest arguments. But I don‘t see how they get over the well-regulated part.

I mean, that, to me, suggests that you have to be part of some sort of organized, well-regulated militia and not just say, I live in Washington, D.C., and therefore, I have a right to have a gun...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25411256/



Net the Truth Online

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

GLENN BECK

Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban; Antiwar MoveOn.org Ad Uses Baby

Aired June 26, 2008 - 19:00:00 ET

ALAN GURU, ATTORNEY ...It`s clear that the Second Amendment guarantees individual rights to keep and bear arms, and if that right means anything, it means that you have the right to have a basic, simple handgun inside your own home to defend yourself and your family with.

And we`re very gratified that the Supreme Court today affirmed that right and struck down the D.C. gun ban...

NELSON LUND, PROFESSOR, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY: I`m not sure why they would let it stand for so long, but for a very long time, all of the lower courts, the lower federal courts accepted the view that this was a kind of collective right that applied only to people who were serving in a government-organized military organization.

And it really is a great day for the Constitution that the court has thoroughly debunked that reading of the Constitution and adopted the position that this is not only an individual right, but that the core of it is the right to individual self-defense.

GRAHAM: You know, I want to hear this, but it`s hard to cheer guys when something that`s written down in the Constitution is barely held up by a 5-4 margin. What happened to 9-zip on this?

I want to read to you Stephen Breyer from his dissent. In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas? Alan, no untouchable constitutional right at all? In other words your guns are at the whim of the government around you? What`s the point of the Constitution?

GURU: Well, the right is not untouchable. If you`re a felon or if you`re crazy, you can lose your gun rights. But -- but what the government can`t touch is law-abiding citizens` guns. If you are a law abiding, adult, responsible person you are allowed to have a gun, and that`s what the government can`t touch. And the Second Amendment guarantees that right against government interference.

GRAHAM: You know, Nelson, I`d love to see the day in America where the court will stand as strongly behind my right to own a gun as written down in the Constitution as they do a right to a partial birth abortion, which came from, what, a penumbra, an emanation?

Why is there so much hostility to something that normal citizens can see? It`s right there in the text. If we don`t like it, we can amend the Constitution any time we want.

LUND: Well, I think too many people, including four members of this court, as you have suggested, have gotten in the habit of thinking that any constitutional provision must mean whatever they think is good policy.

And another important aspect of this case is that -- is that the court rejected the position taken in Justice Breyer`s dissent, according to which just about any restriction on a fundamental constitutional right should be upheld if the judges think that it will promote public safety on the basis of some kind of cost benefit analysis.

GRAHAM: Alan, I`d like to know what kind of local laws now will be re-looked at? If people are watching out there, obviously, there`s a quilt work of patchwork of laws around the country. What kind of laws are most in danger?

GURU: I think Chicago`s handgun ban is going to be looked at. Other laws that impose huge taxes on gun ownership, laws that basically harass the ownership of guns and don`t serve any compelling government purpose are going to get looked at. Laws that make sense, banning criminals from having guns, for example. Those aren`t going to go away any time soon.

GRAHAM: I know that Senator Obama said he supports the Chicago handgun ban as it exists. It`s kind of hard to figure out the line here, Alan. When you were arguing for the Supreme Court, how much did they talk about the actual impact? Because D.C. has the toughest gun law ban, or they did. And they also had one of the highest gun crime rates.

Did that point come up in the conversation with the Supreme Court?

GURU: It came up in conversation with the court. Obviously, the court wants to be comfortable with what they decide. But the policy decision is made in the Constitution. And we know from looking at 32 years of the gun ban in Washington, D.C., that it`s been a complete and total failure. If anything, the gun ban has made things worse.

But even if the gun ban were a good idea, the fact is it`s an unconstitutional idea. And we made these decisions in the Constitution, and we have to respect the Constitution as it`s written...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/26/gb.01.html





CNN NEWSROOM

Landmark Ruling on Individual Gun Rights; North Korea Turns Over Secrets About Nuclear Program; Taking Part in Medical Studies

Aired June 26, 2008 - 11:00 ET

Breaking news from the Supreme Court this morning regarding your right to own a gun. The high court struck down a sweeping handgun ban in the nation's capital in a sharply divided 5-4 ruling. The court said the D.C. handgun ban violates Americans' constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The ban was one of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Today's ruling settles the decades-long debate over whether gun ownership is an individual right...

...As you said, a landmark decision here. The court, by a 5-4 decision, throwing out D.C.'s sweeping ban on handguns.

Justice Scalia was the one who read the decision from the bench. There has been some discussion about whether the Second Amendment applied to militias and the right to bear arms for use in militias, or whether it was individuals. He said unequivocally this has to do with individuals in this case.

However, importantly, he did note that the court did not mean to imply that anybody could have any kind of weapon any place. He said there still were a time and a place for limitations, for instance, on people who might be felons or mental health issues, on certain types of weapons, on carrying weapons into places like federal buildings, that all to be decided down the road by legislatures and we presume by other courts.

There was, however, a dissent read from the bench. This is not done in every case. I'm told maybe three or four times a year. It was Justice John Paul Stevens who delivered it today. He's usually quite a calm, collected and courtly gentleman.

There was a little tension in what he had to say, a little emotion. He felt that the majority was misguided in this case. He said there is no untouchable constitutional right to keep loaded handguns in the house in an urban area.

He said the court was wading into a political thicket here, one that it should stay out of. He said judicial restraint would be far wiser course of action on this issue. He said a true conservative would be siding with him on this case, not with the majority.

That clearly a jab at the conservatives on this court, including Justice Scalia. As to its practical effect, we expect to hear from D.C. officials shortly, but clearly this just throws out the window the D.C. ban on handguns, also a requirement that long guns in the house be disassembled or put -- have a trigger lock on them, that also gone here today.

There are other D.C. laws that may remain in effect. Both sides here trying to draw the positive out of this. Clearly it's a win for the people who supported the individual right to bear arms...


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/26/cnr.06.html

Sicko Some Facts Incorrect

Michael Moore's film critiqued by Dr. Gupta...

CNN's Dr. Gupta looks at "Sicko" and Some Facts Are Incorrect.

Aired July 9, 2007 - 1900 ET

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/09/sitroom.03.html

Evangelicals Bypass McCain for Libertarian Barr or Constitutional Baldwin?

Evangelicals. Torn on voting for John McCain, according to a guest journalist on Fox 'n Friends who was asked about recent polling?

Then they'll really be torn on voting for Bob Barr if they relinquish voting for McCain in the General Election.

Barr is a former U.S. Congressman who left office a few years ago. He switched his party affiliation in 2006 to Libertarian, and subsequently promoted himself as holding many Libertarian positions.

Unclear: does he hold the prevailing, majority, position on the right to choose on the abortion issue adopted by a larger percentage of Libertarian Party members.

These are staunch Libertarians. They don't proclaim one stance one day, and another the next day.

There has been contention among Libertarians on the issue of abortion over the years with a contingency of members right to lifers.

But Barr has never supported abortion, partial abortion, or the woman's right to choose in any personal instance?

What has he said to Libertarians that they were convinced during their convention process to nominate Barr over several other candidates?

One woman has been a Libertarian Party member and supporter for some 30 years.

The question shouldn't be whether Libertarian Barr can eke out some points to take away votes that otherwise would go to John McCain.

The question should be whether conservative nominee of the Constitutional Party can.

Evangelicals who otherwise were registered Republican and overall supportive of a conservative Republican, including Bob Barr, may ignore both Barr and McCain in the General Election, should they turn out to vote, and vote for Chuck Baldwin.

Notice the media is ignoring Baldwin.

It's not puzzling why. he doesn't have near the "name recognition" Bob Barr has and the media is reluctant to prop up anyone outside the political loop so to speak or that candidate might rise in the public's attention.

Net the Truth Online


Ex-congressman becomes Libertarian '08 candidate
CNN Election Center '08
updated 7:02 p.m. EDT, Sun May 25, 2008

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/



CHUCK BALDWIN WINS CONSTITUTION PARTY NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT
Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief.

http://tobefree.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/skousen-chuck-baldwin-wins-constitution-party-nomination-for-president/


Libertarian Party selects Bob Barr as 2008 presidential nominee
LP.org ^ | 5-25-08 | Press Center

Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2008 5:50:01 PM

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2021189/posts


Libertarian Party Nominates Bob Barr for President
May 25, 2008 in News by Eric Garris | 43 comments

After 6 ballots, the Libertarian Party national convention has nominated former Congressman Bob Barr. Barr has turned around on many major issues since leaving congress. He now favors:

– Ending the Iraq War, withdrawal of all American troops from all foreign countries.

– Ending the federal War on Drugs.

– Repealing the Defense of Marriage Amendment, which he had authored...


http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/05/25/libertarian-party-nominates-bob-barr-for-president/

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

C-Span: Is Going Green the New Patriotism

Caller: major scientists around the world disagree with Al Gore and the concensus scientists who have promoted man's contribution to global warming...

Caller: the free market is the new patriotism

Caller: going green is not the new patriotism, what's the new patriotism... compassion... that's the new patriotism, says the caller.

The segment didn't last very long... a few callers agreed...

Caller: use wood pellets... eliminating the Middle-East oil... more miles per gallon cars... energy alternatives... more wind turbines for homes so can get off the grid... new patriotism... new job opportunities

Rebroadcast

Fayette Poised Right Way Careful Voter Registration Purge

The process the Fayette County Election Bureau has employed to review and potentially purge ineligible voters from the county's voter rolls (some 89,000 plus)is carefully thought out and deserves particular praise for the care being used.

A majority of the board of commissioners, Chairman Vincent Zapotosky and Vincent Vicites, authorized the procedure to begin the voter registration review back in early May. Only one commissioners' meeting has followed since, with the next meeting (June 26 at the Public Service Building at 10 a.m.), one in which commissioners must actually authorize mailings to go out.

Should they do so, the next step will be carefully followed according to federal and state law.

Some 15,000 voters names on the rolls as the low end of those considered for potential removal is no small amount, and the high end, 25,000 evidences the absolute need for the review.

That the board of commissioners and the election bureau are using caution deserves a nod to carrying out a constitutional duty, with care.

The commissioners also can't use a near or more than $30,000 price tag to the effort since there is a county budget surplus, likely in the range of $500,000 if information from a Special Meeting in early June to discuss the less-than-expected amount of such hold accurate.

Net the Truth Online

The Tribune Review:

Dormant Fayette voters may be purged
By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, June 25, 2008

The Fayette County Election Bureau has identified as many as 25,000 registered voters who have not cast ballots in at least five years, putting them at risk of having their names purged from voter rolls.
Laurie Lint, election bureau director, said Tuesday a check of voter registrations turned up between 15,000 and 25,000 people who have not voted in the past five years. Lint conducted the review as the first step in a countywide purge of voter rolls...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_574442.html


Dormant Fayette voters may be purged
By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
County commissioners on Thursday will vote on authorization of the next step, which is to mail out notices to each of the inactive voters. Voters who want to remain on the rolls will be asked to return the notices in postage-paid envelopes to be provided by the county.

Voters who don't respond can still vote in November, should they go to the polls, Lint said.

Inactive voters who fail to respond to the notices, and then subsequently do not vote in November, will have their names purged from the county's voter rolls...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_574442.html


Dormant Fayette voters may be purged
By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, June 25, 2008

The county last purged its voter rolls in 1995, when the Motor Voter Law was enacted. Prior to 1995, the county purged its voter database every year, removing the names of voters who did not go to the polls in four consecutive elections, Lint said.

Lint said she used data provided by the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors, or SURE, to identify voters who have not cast ballots in the past five years. The SURE system notifies each of the state's 67 election bureaus when voters die, move or register in another county.

There are 89,536 registered voters in Fayette County, including 61,887 Democrats and 21,449 Republicans, according to Lint. Voter turnout in the primary election was 42 percent.

Cost for the mailings will be approximately $20,000, Lint said, including $6,500 in postage to send out the notices using the standard bulk rate of 26 cents per mailing. Another $10,500 will be spent on postage for the return envelopes, Lint said, because they are ineligible for the bulk rate.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_574442.html


Herald-Standard

Precinct consolidation plan stalled
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
06/25/2008

Lint also told the commissioners she has plans to send out 25,000 notices to voters as part of a voter purge program prior to the November election. She said the biggest obstacle is having a postage-paid envelope and a bulk rate must be reinstated for the county. Lint said the cost of reinstating the bulk rate would cost $180, but if that were done, it would save $3,000 overall.

Lint said the purge is estimated to cost about $20,000, which includes sending letters that can be sent back in. She said if people vote in the next election they will remain on the rolls, and if they don't respond and don't vote, they would be purged.

The commissioners took no action on the request, but Lint said in response to a question from Vicites that the vote could be taken at next month's meeting to initiate the purge.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19801026&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Monday, June 23, 2008

Laura Bush Empathizes with Michelle Obama Misconstrued

Michelle Obama Grateful For First Lady's Defense

Michelle Obama said Wednesday she was "touched" that first lady Laura Bush came to her defense after she was harshly criticized by Republicans for her February comment that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of the United States.

Obama, wife of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, later clarified her remarks, saying she had always been proud of her country and was particularly proud to see so many people involved in the political process.

In an interview last week with ABC, Bush said, "I think she probably meant 'I'm more proud,' you know, is what she really meant." She said comments in a campaign are closely watched and can be misconstrued...

http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/4304


Road to the White House Dress

Who could resist taking a look to see the dress Michelle Obama wore on The View?

And Obama's comment about pantyhose...

Mad Dash for Michelle Obama’s Dress
by The Staff at wowOwow.com, on Fri Jun 20, 2008

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/mad-dash-for-michelle-obama-s-dress-190148/

Guess McCain Won't Let Foreigners Compete for $300 Million Auto-Battery Prize

According to the article, McCain offers $300 million for new auto battery, amounts to:

The prize would equate to $1 for every man, woman and child in the country.

McCain offers $300 million for new auto battery
Jun 23, 12:00 AM (ET)
By GLEN JOHNSON

PHOENIX (AP) - Sen. John McCain hopes to solve the country's energy crisis with cold hard cash.

The Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting thinks the government should offer a $300 million prize to the person who can develop an automobile battery that
leapfrogs existing technology.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080623/D91FI1EG1.html


Is the battery system already developed and used by GM Chevy Volt in the running? Oops. And furthermore, what about discussions like the following which point to technology not yet scooped up by the big "oil companies"?

Just wondering as it seems really odd fiscal conservative John McCain would propose doling out taxpayers' monies for auto-battery technology that's already being pursued... where're John's wife's stock investments again?

Don't miss this discussion.

Electric Car Recharges In 10 Minutes?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Environment, Money, Science

http://donklephant.com/2006/12/27/an-electric-car-recharges-in-10-minutes/


The auto-car battery wars...

Net the Truth Online

If you aren’t familiar with the Volt, here’s a short introduction: it’s a plug-in electric hybrid vehicle, capable of 40 mile trips before relying on a small internal-combustion generator to repower the battery system...

http://gas2.org/2008/01/14/chevy-volt-where-is-gms-electric-car/


Chevy Volt: Traveling Public Roads and Hitting Its Mark
May 14, 2008 By Michelle Krebs

WARREN, Michigan -- General Motors inched closer to making the Chevrolet Volt a reality in November 2010 as the vehicle's innovative gas-electric powertrain is being test-driven for the first time on public roads and is hitting its target of 40 miles on pure electric power.

http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/05/chevy-volt-traveling-public-roads-and-hitting-its-mark.html


It was a concept, now it's reality.

Volt will be powered entirely by an electric motor and have a battery that can be charged through an ordinary power socket. The Volt's on-board engine will be used only to power the battery on longer trips, GM has said...

All-electric Chevrolet Volt on track for 2010 launch, says GM
June 04, 2008
Wilmington, 04 June 2008: General Motors Corp said that its all-electric Chevrolet Volt was on track for a launch in 2010 after the company's board approved funding for production of the high-profile plug-in vehicle.

"The Chevy Volt is a go," GM Chief Executive, Mr.Rick Wagoner told reporters ahead of the company's annual meeting with shareholders in Wilmington, Delaware.

http://autos.sify.com/News/auto-news-india1089.html


2011 Chevrolet Volt Review and Prices
by Chris Poole

The 2011 Chevrolet Volt will differ markedly from the Prius and other gasoline/electric hybrids. It will also differ in many ways from the racy-looking Volt concept unveiled at the January 2007 Detroit Auto Show. Since that big-buzz reveal, GM has gone out of its way to keep the media fully briefed on the production car’s progress. As a result, we now have a good many specifics about this “extended-range electric vehicle” or E-REV, as GM terms it, though important questions remain.

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2011-chevrolet-volt.htm


Various reports indicate that electronic controls in the 2011 Chevrolet Volt will fire up the gas engine once the battery pack runs down to 30-percent power, then keep cycling the engine to maintain power within a specified band. GM estimates the Volt’s total driving range at 640 miles, which is about double that of most conventional hybrids.

GM also claims the 2011 Chevrolet Volt can run solely on electric power for 40 miles with a full battery charge. That’s in line with studies showing that most Americans drive only about 40 miles a day, so in theory at least, a Volt could go for weeks without using a drop of gas or spewing any CO2...

2011 Chevrolet Volt Review and Prices by Chris Poole


Search volt

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22volt%22+car&btnG=Google+Search

Archive for June, 2008
Video: The Latest With Bob Lutz on the Chevy Volt - Photovoltaic Roof After All?
Posted in: Production, Video
GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz sat down with some bloggers recently and as readers on this blog have pointed out, the videos are on You Tube. This 10 minute segment below had some interesting details about the Volt

http://gm-volt.com/2008/06/


What major issues are keeping the Volt from an earlier release date (I’ve been told 2010):

Posawatz: GM is relatively certain it will be the first auto manufacturer to produce a plug-in hybrid model (regardless of the actual release date), but we want it to be right. The two major factors holding back the Volt’s release are extensive testing requirements and lithium ion battery technology. The batteries aren’t cheap, and they’re produced out of country. They also require extensive testing both in and out of the car before things go into production. Basically, GM won’t release the Volt until it’s proven safe and the batteries work.

The Lithium Ion Batteries:

Posawatz: GM has been pursuing battery technology from two different partnerships with two different chemistries: lithium ion phosphate batteries from the same group that manufactures Black and Decker, and lithium manganese batteries from from another supplier. GM looked at 27 different battery companies before choosing to work with these two, and it’s important to understand that not all lithium ion battery technology is equal. For example, Tesla Motors is using the same type of battery that you would find in a laptop, but GM decided to take a different route to avoid the prohibitive cost of this system.

http://gas2.org/2008/01/14/chevy-volt-where-is-gms-electric-car/


BREAKING: GM awards two battery development contracts for Chevy Volt
Posted Jun 5th 2007 9:30AM by Sam Abuelsamid

This morning during the General Motors annual shareholder meeting Chairman Rick Wagoner made an announcement that will be music to the ears of everyone who is looking forward to seeing a production car based on the Chevrolet Volt concept. Thirteen suppliers had submitted bids to General Motors to supply battery systems for the Volt and GM has now awarded two battery development contracts for the E-Flex program.

The contracts are with Continental Automotive Systems and Compact Power Inc (CPI). The two companies are acting as the battery systems integrators for this program. Continental will be using lithium ion cells provided by A123 Systems while Compact Power is using LG Chem cells. CPI is the North American subsidiary of South Korea's LG Chem...

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/06/05/breaking-gm-awards-two-battery-development-contracts-for-chevy/


An Electric Car Recharges In 10 Minutes?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Environment, Money, Science
That’s the claim for this pretty cool looking “Sport Utility Truck.” And you can go 130 miles on that single charge. Not too shabby.
From TechEBlog:
Powered by the revolutionary Altairnano NanoSafe™ battery pack, Phoenix Motorcars’ zero-emission, all-electric Sport Utility Truck (SUT) can cruise on the freeway at up to 95 m.p.h. while carrying five passengers and [...]

http://donklephant.com/2006/12/27/an-electric-car-recharges-in-10-minutes/

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Henry Lamb: US Tax Policy Horrendous Democrats worsen

Lamb is right on in his assessment. There's a but. Republican policy has fared no better. John McCain has his detractions via his so-called "conservative" voting record. It isn't.

As far as supporting Libertarian candidate for President, Bob Barr, care to know there, too. How did Barr vote on issues of concern.

Net the Truth Online

The 'progressive' taxman cometh

Posted: June 21, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

A farmer told two men they each could have all the watermelons they could harvest in four hours. The first man harvested 100 melons; the second man harvested 200 melons. Before they loaded their trucks, an IRS official appeared and told the first man the government required 28 of his melons as tax. The second man, watching the encounter, began counting out 56 melons for the taxman. The IRS official said to the second man: "no, that's not enough, the government requires 70 of your melons."

Is this fair? Is this right? Is this smart?

Why should the second man, who had the ability and the will to produce twice as much as the first man, be penalized for his effort?

Now meet Joe Hardworker. As a young man, Joe worked hard, paid every penny of tax his government required, and still managed to buy some land as an investment. Now Joe is old. He sold his land for a respectable profit, with the hope it would be sufficient for his retirement. An IRS official appeared and told Joe he must pay the government 15 percent of his profit as a capital gains tax.

"Why?" asked Joe. "I paid tax on the money I earned to buy the land. The government did nothing to increase the value of the land; why does the government deserve any portion of my profit?" The taxman replied: "Just be thankful you sold your land before Barack Obama becomes president. Your tax would be nearly twice as much after he's elected."

...In an ideal world, every person and every corporation would pay the same tax rate on their income, with no deductions for anything. A universal flat tax rate would be fair, and for most people, the rate would be lower than the rate now being paid. A single tax rate would reduce the IRS bureaucracy to a mere shadow of itself. Tax attorneys and CPAs would need to find productive work. First-time employees and low-wage earners could assume the same tax responsibility everyone else bears. Tax returns could, indeed, be no more complicated than a postcard.

This, of course, is not a perfect world. The "progressive" tax rate system arises directly from the socialist philosophy "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Despite all the political rhetoric about fairness, there is nothing fair about the progressive tax system.

Barack Obama thinks it is fair to increase the tax on the man who harvests 200 watermelons and reduce the tax on the man who harvests 100 watermelons, using the flawed logic that since the second man has more, he can afford it. This logic ignores the principle that what a person earns should be his. It ignores the principle of equal opportunity and equal burden. And, perhaps worst of all, it penalizes productivity and success.


Progressive politicians are clamoring to impose "windfall" profit taxes on big oil companies. They are quick to recite the $36 billion in profits big oil reported during the first quarter of 2008. But they fail to mention that this amounts to less than 8 percent of gross income. If progressives can justify this tax, then why is the tax not applied to every corporation that earns 8 percent profit or more? During the last quarter of 2007, Microsoft earned more than 40 percent profit on gross income. There was no cry for a "windfall" profit tax on Microsoft.

U.S. tax policy is horrendous, and every time Democrats gain control, the tax policy worsens. This issue should be among the highest priorities for every voter in 2008.



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67597

Majority Britons disbelieve human cause climate change

Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change


Juliette Jowit, environment editor The Observer, Sunday June 22, 2008 Article history

The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.

The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions

Independents split Obama McCain Comprise One-Third electorate

Scott Keeter being interviewed on C-span

Independent voters are split between Barack Obama and John McCain equally.

Independents make up one-third of the electorate.

Caller calls in about electoral college. Keeter reviews states which could come into play with a base make-up of independents.

While that's all fine and dandy, do independents, those registered to vote, actually go out and vote for one or the other of the two majority party candidates in the General Election, or do independents bypass Republicans and Democrats to vote for a Third-Party.

Keeter doesn't seem to have distinguished between independents who register in a Third-Party, in effect choosing to bypass the two-party electoral process, and those who register to vote in their state but specifically choose a "No-Party" status, or other.

What would be interesting to determine how many voters registered in the two-majority parties and the Third-Party category of independents switched voter registration in those states with closed primaries to vote in this election vs in past years?

A caller mentioned Ron Paul was ignored by the mainstream media.

Actually, if you look closely at the coverage, he wasn't ignored. He made the rounds of all the networks.

Plus, Paul has espoused being a Libertarian, but he isn't registered as a Libertarian, he's registered as a Republican.

As his campaign was rumored to about to be suspended, he was asked if he'd make a run as a Libertarian. He stated he was a Republican and wanted to work within.

Well of course he wanted to work within the Republican Party tag as he couldn't be elected even in his own district otherwise since (unfortunately) the number of registered Libertarians is far less than Republicans.

And Texas has some odd registration procedures as well.

His name was on the ballot in Texas for both Republican nominee for president and to retain his district representative seat.

He overwhelmingly won his seat in that Primary against an opponent some 70 percent, but he had a dismal showing in that same district for President.

check our site posts on that issue...

Keeter broached the potential independents/Republicans who were Ron Paul supporters might now support the Libertarian candidate for President, Bob Barr.

But Keeter didn't go into all the baggage Barr carries with his background as a staunch conservative Republican in Congress for many years.

C-Span covered the Libertarian Convention process which included all of the candidates for the nomination participating in a panel Q & A session.

See C-Span archives

Update

Note: Libertarians and Constitutional Party members are not going to have much of an impact on whether or not John McCain convinces enough conservative "Republicans" to vote for him to outdistance the amount of liberals (progressives) and moderate liberals who vote for Barack Obama. It's actually the true "independents" who will make the difference in this election. Those who are affiliated with "no party" or listed in the voter registry as of no party affiliation.

They are fed up with the two-party system, believing that system is entrenched in corruption to the extent it gives incumbents an overwhelming edge in elections.

Both groupings, independents and Third-Party independents, has longstandingly been disenchanted with any with the two-majority party policies.

But those independents not connected to a Third Party will have a choice this election in two candidates who both bring something "different" from pure Party affiliation.

It remains to be seen whether either Obama or McCain can convince those independents that things in Washington will be drastically different with either at the head of the country.

Net the Truth Online

Scott Keeter Pew Research Center

http://people-press.org/commentary/?year=2008

Libertarians 'may send a message' to the GOP

By David Brown
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, June 23, 2008

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_574066.html

Friday, June 20, 2008

McClellan A Sellin during Testimony Denies Knowledge Editor Bush Disliker

Gotta laugh. The man writes a book in which he documents nothing, he has no direct knowledge of anything, and he testifies before a Democrat-majority Congressional Committee but says "nothing new," ok so he didn't have to take the fifth either because he really knows "nothing" as he was not present during meetings, oh, except for one time when as Assistant Press Sec. he sat in on some meeting for Ari Fleicher...

One Republican congressman pressed McClellan about his editor making a statement of distain for President George W. Bush... did you know your editor didn't like Bush much? Uh, no, responds McClellan, I had no idea...

Uh, Scott, should you be proven wrong on that, in other words, you were aware of the statement made by your editor, and you thus lied before Congress, after swearing to tell the truth and the whole truth, uh, guess what, they can charge you with perjury...

Tracking... now who was that editor???

And how many times did Scott mention his book? And gotta love, uh, no, that's not in my book cause I wasn't present at that meeting...

Laughing all the while writing...

Net the Truth Online

Friday, June 20, 2008 19:25 EDT
McClellan takes the stand
Scott McClellan found himself in an unfamiliar position on Friday. There were reporters hanging on his words, and lights and cameras focused on him, but he was criticizing the Bush administration, not defending it.

McClellan, the former White House press secretary, came back to national attention recently when the contents of his tell-all book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," leaked, showing he'd become a strong critic of the Bush administration since he left it in 2006. And because of those criticisms, the House Judiciary Committee called him to testify to see if he could shed any light on certain subjects, especially the leak of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

As my friend Steve Benen notes, there wasn't much new information revealed during McClellan's testimony. (Not too surprising -- the man did just write a book, after all, and presumably the juiciest bits are in there.) But there were some very interesting moments.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/06/20/mcclellan/index.html


Good writing

http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/8170-Scott-McClellans-Testimony.html

Newsweek Poll: Obama 51% McCain 36%

CNN's Jack Cafferty wanted to talk about the bounce Obama got in the polls taking the lead over John McCain rather than the new seal unveiled by the Obama campaign that resembles the Great Seal of the United States...

We see reason enough for both... it's amazing what and who you find when searching for polling results

Update

Obama widens lead over McCain: Newsweek poll
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has opened up a double-digit lead over Republican John McCain two weeks after he clinched the nomination, a new poll published on Friday showed.

The nationwide poll conducted by Newsweek showed Obama leading McCain by a margin of 51-36 percent, indicating that he might have got a bounce from his recent primary victory over Hillary Clinton.

Newsweek said the survey of 1,010 adults nationwide on June 18 and 19, 2008 has a margin of error of 4 points.

Obama's edge in the latest poll is larger than in other recent surveys. A Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday found Obama had a only a 5-point lead.

Obama was tied at 46 percent with McCain in a previous Newsweek poll completed in late May, when he was still battling Clinton for the nomination, Newsweek said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080621/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc

Barack’s Bounce
The latest NEWSWEEK Poll shows the Democrat with a 15-point lead over McCain.

By Michael Hirsh | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jun 20, 2008 | Updated: 3:37 p.m. ET Jun 20, 2008

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465


Newsweek poll results
Friday, June 20, 2008 by Dave Winer.

http://www.scripting.com/stories/2008/06/20/newsweekPollResults.html

Play of the Day: Obama debuts new seal
By NEDRA PICKLER – 2 hours ago

CHICAGO (AP) — For anyone trying to picture Barack Obama as president, his campaign offered a visual aid.

A new seal made its debut on Obama's podium Friday as he held a round-table discussion with Democratic governors. The seal, with a blue background and an eagle in the center clutching arrows and an olive branch, might remind some of the presidential version.

But on closer look, the seal is full of symbols representing Obama's campaign of change.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iKP3NU_C-pVoJn7nmhclRf_3RDYAD91E0SG0G

Misunderstanding responsible for Obama Canada NAFTA assurances

Obama Denies Assuring Canada on NAFTA
March 3, 2008 - 6:47pm
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer

SAN ANTONIO (AP) - Barack Obama said Monday that his campaign never gave Canada back-channel assurances that his harsh words about the North American Free Trade Agreement were for political show _ despite the disclosure of a Canadian memo indicating otherwise.

According to the memo obtained by The Associated Press, Obama's senior economic adviser told Canadian officials in Chicago that the debate over free trade in the Democratic presidential primary campaign was "political positioning" and that Obama was not really protectionist.

The adviser, Austan Goolsbee, said his comments to those officials were misinterpreted by the author, Joseph DeMora, who works for the Canadian consulate in Chicago and attended the meeting.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=213&sid=1356024

Who Will Pay Off Hillary Clinton Campaign Debts? Step Up

Read the Malveaux comments about Ethel Kennedy's fundraiser and then the whopper...

Senator Clinton has called on 100 of her top campaign fund-raisers to meet with her and Obama next week at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., to join forces.

Uhm. Now why does Clinton need Obama to pay off her $20 to $30 million in debt when she can get her fundraisers to raise $50 to $100 million for Obama for the General?

Why not have your top fundraisers pay off your own debt first, then any left-overs can be sent Obama's way. Um, if he will take money from lobbyists such as who've contributed to Hillary's campaign...

It appears Obama really doesn't need much help from Hillary since such as the Kennedy's are on their own, without arm-twisting from Hillary, supporting Obama.

The woman is in denial, sad to watch.

Net the Truth Online

Hillary Clinton Set to Campaign With Barack Obama; McCain's Border Wars; Interview With David Axelrod
Aired June 20, 2008 - 16:00 ET


MALVEAUX: Clinton and Obama met secretly for an hour a couple of weeks ago to try to get comfortable with one another following their bitter race. Voters, to be sure, will be watching their body language on the campaign trail. While close associates of the two say they haven't exactly kissed and made up, they have been working hard to merge their teams.

OBAMA: And I look forward to working with her.

MALVEAUX: This week, Obama reached out to key voting groups who had supported Clinton -- Hispanics, union leaders and White women. Wednesday, Obama hosted a Democratic National Committee fund-raiser at the home of Ethel Kennedy, where Clinton and Obama loyalists gave $28,000 a pop to the party. Senator Clinton has called on 100 of her top campaign fund-raisers to meet with her and Obama next week at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., to join forces.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Clinton's advocates say it's in Obama's interest to retire her debt, because the less time Clinton has to spend fund- raising, the more time she has to go out and campaign for Obama. And secondly, with her high-powered donors, she has the ability to raise anywhere from $50 million to $100 million for him -- Wolf.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/20/sitroom.01.html


Ethel Kennedy to host $6 million dinner for Barack Obama
BLOOMBERG NEWS

Thursday, June 19th 2008, 12:42 AM

Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Senator Robert Kennedy, is opening her Hickory Hill home in Virginia for a fundraiser featuring Barack Obama that is expected to swell Democratic campaign coffers by almost $6 million.

Tonight's $28,500-a-plate dinner represents the latest effort by the Kennedy family to help elect Obama, who was described by Caroline Kennedy as offering "the same sense of hope and inspiration" as her father, the late President John F. Kennedy.

Caroline Kennedy is helping vet prospective vice- presidential nominees, while Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts delivered his endorsement of Obama in January.

Obama and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean will headline the event, which is expected to draw 200 people, Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. Donations will go to the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee, according to the invitation.

This is the latest of several million-dollar fundraising events to help the DNC close its fundraising gap with the Republican National Committee. Through April 30, the RNC had $40.6 million in the bank, compared with $4.4 million for the Democrats.

The Democratic Party is raising the money without taking contributions from political action committees or registered federal lobbyists, a policy announced by Obama June 5.

On May 31, former Vice President Al Gore headlined a million-dollar fundraiser in New York City. Earlier this month, an Obama-DNC event on Park Avenue yielded about $3 million, as about 100 guests paid $28,500 apiece for dinner...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/06/18/2008-06-18_ethel_kennedy_to_host_6_million_dinner_f.html
Obama's Health Reform Needs Medicine

by James R. Edwards, Jr.
Posted: 06/19/2008
Health care needs reforming, but Sen. Barak Obama’s proposal fails to get the fix right.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27077

Curiouser and Curiouser Matt Cooper married Grunwald

Guess who provided consultant advertising work for the Hillary Clinton campaign and who's married to somebody who obtained so-called 'leaked' info about Valerie Plame.

Nothing to see here, just move on, nothing to see here... nothing at all potentially sickening about this... just ignore...

wonder who Judith Miller married?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=judith+miller+married&btnG=Search

Jason Epstein

Judith Miller's Husband Goes on Cruise
By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 12:39:25 PM EST

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/07/27/280/21702

Hmm. Search our site for posts about Valerie Plame - it's fascinating. Was she a covert CIA agent? Undercover, or not at the time her name was leaked? Who actually leaked her name to anybody?

Food for thought

Joe Wilson himself is Judith Miller's source

http://liberalutopia.blogspot.com/2005/07/joe-wilson-himself-is-judith-millers.html

Amazing what a search produces

http://www.answers.com/topic/judith-miller-v-us-matthew-cooper-and-time-inc-v-us

Net the Truth Online

Look Who’s Hitched!
The secret lives of Washington’s power couples
By T. A. Frank
And there was Time’s Matthew Cooper, married to Mandy Grunwald, onetime media specialist for Bill Clinton and current ad guru for Hillary Clinton...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0705.frank.html


Donors Worried by Clinton Campaign Spending
By MICHAEL LUO, JO BECKER and PATRICK HEALY
Published: February 22, 2008

The advertising firm owned by Mandy Grunwald, the longtime media strategist for both Mrs. Clinton and Bill Clinton, the former president, has collected $2.3 million in fees and expenses, and is still owed another $240,000...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/politics/22clinton.html


Matt Cooper

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=matt+cooper+valerie+plame&btnG=Search

Related

Fundraising info Huffington Post site

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/

Many Clinton Campaign Donors Lobbyists

MSNBC reporting Hillary Clinton to release list of campaign donors to Barack Obama, and many of them are "lobbyists."

Exactly. And one of the numerous reasons Obama should not assume Hillary Clinton's campaign debts in any way, not one dime.

Net the Truth Online

Great find

--Perry Bacon Jr.

Edwards, Obama Press Lobby Issue
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards both sharply attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton's statement on Saturday that she would continue to accept money from lobbyists because they "represent real Americans."

In an interview at a campaign event in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Edwards said "Democratic candidates, and for that matter all candidates, should just say we're not taking these peoples' money anymore because it's the way to take their power away from them, and it's the way to bring about the change that this country needs."
Edwards says lobbyists "rig the system."

Obama, in an interview while campaigning in Le Mars, Iowa was even more direct in criticizing Clinton. "I profoundly disagree with her statements," Obama told the AP. "This campaign is going to come down to whether you believe that it's enough just to get somebody other than George Bush in the White House to fix what ails Washington, or do you think we need to set a fundamentally new course."

He added, "If you don't think lobbyists have too much influence in Washington, then I believe you've probably been in Washington too long."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/06/edwards_obama_keep_pressing_lo.html

Supportive Hillary Clinton Voters Should Part With One Buck to Retire Debt

What a great suggestion. If all Hillary Clinton supporters would just give $1 a piece, and a few dozen giving more, the campaign debt Clinton mounted in the last months of her campaign could be completely retired, without a tit-for-tat agreement with Barack Obama for appearances she is scheduled to make with her beginning next week.

One woman made the rounds of talk show programs this morning stating she's mounting a support John McCain campaign. She does not believe Barack Obama is qualified to be President of the United States.

Guess she and others like her won't be sending Clinton that buck since Clinton will be making her peace with Obama to get a piece of his contributors' cash flow.

If the quote from the New York Daily News is accurate and true, for this reason alone, Obama should reject the idea of any of his funding sources - direct from the people who support him - going to retire Clinton's self-imposed debt.

Hillary Clinton struggles with debt
BY KENNETH R. BAZINET and MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Thursday, June 19th 2008, 7:27 PM

...Clinton's best shot at retiring her debt now lies with Obama, who has built the best political cash machine ever seen. Sources said she wants Obama to tap his full grass-roots ATM, but negotiations were ongoing.

At stake for Team Obama is getting Clinton out working for him as soon as possible. "She will not go out until they have an agreement," said a senior source, adding that a deal certainly would be reached...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/06/19/2008-06-19_hillary_clinton_struggles_with_debt.html



If she can spend money she doesn't have on her own behalf, expecting somebody else will be responsible if she doesn't have enough to cover the costs, how great would she have been handling our budget in our house, the White House.

Worse, if her financial backers backed out the day she suspended her campaign, what does that say about their belief in Hillary Clinton?

Volumes. If they supported her before, why aren't they supporting her now, when she's some at least by most accounts $20 to $30 million in debt, with $11 million owed to herself?

It's as if they don't want to contribute to force Barack Obama into yet another position of well to put it starkly, subserviance to Hillary Clinton.

Who can forget Clinton virtually shaking her finger at Obama after an (accurate) email message citing her supporting NAFTA during her husband's administration and saying her famous line: "Shame on you, Barack Obama, shame on you?"

She has demands of potentially by many assessments the next President of the United States, and then she'll do something for him out of the goodness of her heart?

Get real. Obama should not pay one cent of Clinton's campaign debt or he will look like more than a wimp.

Not only all of that. who were contributors to Hillary Clinton's campaign? Do any of them remain to be paid who are the lobbyists Barack Obama so rails against? Are any employees of firms which lobby Washington politicians?

If Obama pays them by assuming some of Clinton's debts, what does that say about his acceptance of their influence on campaigns?

Clinton may still owe a few firms operated by whom?

Mark Penn's firm

Sun Feb 24, 9:10 PM Pacific
Mark Penn's lobbying shop is headed by John McCain's top adviser
...Hillary Clinton's chief strategist is Mark Penn, and Charlie Black, John McCain's top adviser, is chairman of BKSH, the DC-based lobbying subsidiary of Burson-Marsteller -- of which Mark Penn is CEO.

Yes, this is the same lobbyist Barack Obama was referring to when he criticized John McCain for allowing lobbyists to conduct their business on board his bus.

BKSH is a bipartisan lobbying firm. Black, the chairman is the top Republican. The top Democrat is R. Scott Pastrick, who like Penn, supports Hillary Clinton.

Mark Penn's personal interests would clearly be best served by a Hillary Clinton victory.

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/02/mark-penns-lobb.html


McCain & Hillary Share The Same Lobbying Firm
By Hope 4 Obama, DNC- CA Delegate At-Large - Feb 28th, 2008 at 12:58 pm EST
Also listed in: 8 groups

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/hope4/gGggpK


It's not as if the Obama campaign isn't aware that Hillary Clinton and John McCain share "the same lobbying firm."

They know, so Obama should know.

And he should put a stop to any notion his campaign will foot the bill for any portion of Hillary Clinton's debts, as obviously, some of that debt will go to the very type of firms Obama slams for debasing lobbying tactics.

Take a look at this find. Last August...

Edwards, Obama Press Lobby Issue
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards both sharply attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton's statement on Saturday that she would continue to accept money from lobbyists because they "represent real Americans."

Obama, in an interview while campaigning in Le Mars, Iowa was even more direct in criticizing Clinton. "I profoundly disagree with her statements," Obama told the AP. "This campaign is going to come down to whether you believe that it's enough just to get somebody other than George Bush in the White House to fix what ails Washington, or do you think we need to set a fundamentally new course."

He added, "If you don't think lobbyists have too much influence in Washington, then I believe you've probably been in Washington too long."

After two weeks in which candidates of both parties have criticized Obama's statements on foreign policy, with Clinton calling one of his stances "naive," Clinton's comments at Yearly Kos, a convention for liberal bloggers, has offered Obama a chance to tout his "change" theme while attacking his chief rival.

--Perry Bacon Jr.

Posted at 6:01 PM ET on Aug 6, 2007

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/06/edwards_obama_keep_pressing_lo.html



Oh my goodness CNN Wolf Blitzer The Situation Room a report by Suzanne Malveaux... She says it might be in Obama's interest to retire Hillary's campaign "debt" because she has some high powered fundraisers who can help raise millions.

Say what. She can't get them to contribute to her now after she pulled out, suspended her campaign, whatever, to get her out of debt, but right, they're going to contribute to Obama so "he" can retire her campaign debt.

What kind of insanity is this?

Hillary Clinton Set to Campaign With Barack Obama; McCain's Border Wars; Interview With David Axelrod

Aired June 20, 2008 - 16:00 ET

MALVEAUX: This week, Obama reached out to key voting groups who had supported Clinton -- Hispanics, union leaders and White women. Wednesday, Obama hosted a Democratic National Committee fund-raiser at the home of Ethel Kennedy, where Clinton and Obama loyalists gave $28,000 a pop to the party. Senator Clinton has called on 100 of her top campaign fund-raisers to meet with her and Obama next week at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., to join forces.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Clinton's advocates say it's in Obama's interest to retire her debt, because the less time Clinton has to spend fund- raising, the more time she has to go out and campaign for Obama. And secondly, with her high-powered donors, she has the ability to raise anywhere from $50 million to $100 million for him -- Wolf.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/20/sitroom.01.html


THE SITUATION ROOM

Obama and Clinton to Campaign Together; McCain's Path to War Hero; McClellan Speaks on Capitol Hill
Aired June 20, 2008 - 18:00 ET

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/20/sitroom.03.html


Seriously, did Malveaux even understand what she was reporting? Obama should pay off Clinton's debts so she won't have to "fundraise" for herself, she can concentrate on getting her big donors to raise $50 to $100 million for him?

And Wolf Blitzer, usually keen to catch such nonsense, just let's it all pass on by.

The same spot featuring Malveaux's report was played during Anderson Cooper, and Cooper looked like a blank slate. His eyes looked glazed over, like, oh, ok clinton has to be free from fundraising for herself so she can get her big donors to contribute $50 million to Obama, ok.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/acd.html

What a disappointment from CNN.

No better at MSNBC, though we didn't catch Hardball tonight or Olbermann. Well, Olbermann might have caught on...

CLINTON: GOTTA PAY OFF THAT DEBT
Posted: Friday, June 20, 2008 9:14 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Clinton
TPM’s Greg Sargent reported, “On a private conference call [yesterday], Hillary urged her top fundraisers in no uncertain terms to throw their weight behind Barack Obama, and directly asked them in surprisingly candid terms to give or raise money to help her pay off her campaign's debt. At the same time, in a move that took some participants on the call by surprise, she also clarified that she was not asking their help in paying off her personal loans to the campaign. Interestingly, Hillary also suggested that she would soon be making public statements about the media coverage of the campaign, as well as the ways ‘women were discussed,’ saying that she would ‘be doing more on that as we go forward.’”

“‘I am going to do everything I can to ensure victory for Senator Obama,’ Hillary told her fundraisers on the call. ‘I am asking each of you to do the same. I really believe we've got to see a Democrat sworn into the White House this January.’”

That conference call came amid this news: "Clinton's fund-raising has run so dry she'll likely have to eat the entire $11 million loan she gave her campaign, sources said," the New York Daily News says. "Clinton's push to retire her debt -- more than $20 million including her loan -- is going so poorly that getting help paying it down has become a major point of negotiation with Barack Obama, who wants Clinton to help smooth things with angry Clinton die-hards, sources said."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/20/1157198.aspx


Again, if the donors aren't helping Clinton pay off her own debts what power does she have to ask they help Obama. They're going to help Obama because they want to help Obama win, not because Hillary Clinton has some power over them to make them help Obama.

What's politico saying here?

HRC’s reward: Bundle of campaign cash?
By KENNETH P. VOGEL | 6/12/08 4:11 AM EST
Though Hillary Rodham Clinton racked up more than $30 million in debt during her Democratic primary campaign, she could emerge from her loss with a bundle of campaign cash to either play kingmaker or mount another campaign of her own.

At her disposal are a handful of accounting maneuvers — some never before tried in presidential politics — that would render her political debt practically insignificant, while at the same time freeing up $24 million in currently off-limits cash, according to interviews with her lawyer and outside campaign finance experts.

Enhancing her flexibility is that all but $1 million of her $9.5 million in unpaid bills at the end of April was owed to allies and political firms unlikely to cause her legal or political headaches by demanding prompt payment.

In fact, their assumed — but unspoken — cooperation is a key part of the New York senator’s most likely path to robust campaign finances.

That financial path would go something like this: Reclassify as a contribution most of the $11.4 million or more she loaned her campaign, which would be a personal financial hit because she wouldn’t be able to recoup much of it. Ask her donors to redirect $23.7 million they gave for her presidential general election campaign to her Senate campaign committee.

Meanwhile, try to raise some fast cash — possibly with assistance from her vanquisher, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama — to pay off vendors who might sue her presidential campaign, leaving “friendly” debt to be paid down gradually as she raises money from her Senate perch.

A riskier route would be to ask her general election donors to redirect — or “redesignate,” in campaign finance parlance — their general election contributions to Obama’s presidential campaign as part of a deal under which the Illinois senator would ask his donors to give to Clinton to help her

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11020.html


Oh right, let's make a deal, Obama, all to help you, of course, of course. Repeat it often enough and maybe he'll believe...

Clinton asks top donors to meeting with Obama
By JIM KUHNHENN and BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writers
Wed Jun 18, 2:13 AM ET

The meeting is set for June 26 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, several top Clinton fundraisers said Tuesday. The former first lady will introduce Obama to her financial backers.

Jonathan Mantz, Clinton's national finance director, notified donors about the meeting by e-mail Tuesday and urged them to attend and to contribute to Obama, who clinched the Democratic Party's nomination on June 3.

Two people closely involved with Clinton's fundraising said the meeting had taken on added urgency after several of her money "bundlers" complained that they felt their concerns weren't heard during meetings last week with Obama campaign officials in New York and Washington.

Both individuals spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the meeting.

Among other things, the donors want to make sure Obama knows that in order to get their help he needs to help Clinton pay down her campaign debt. As of the end of April, Clinton had more than $20 million in debt, a figure that likely increased by the time she suspended her campaign June 7.

Obama cannot use his campaign money to help Clinton with her debt, which includes at least $11 million of her own money. But he can encourage his donors to contribute to her campaign.

The two fundraisers who discussed the meeting said many donors also are furious that Obama's campaign hired Patti Solis Doyle as chief of staff to Obama's eventual running mate, calling it a slap in the face to Clinton and an implicit acknowledgment that she would not be on the ticket with him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_obama_meeting


Haha. this is so funny. Clinton's donors want Obama to pay off Clinton's debts, right, then they'll contribute to Obama, but for now, they're sorta, kinda, upset with Obama, so there, take that Obama. Just cause you raised some astronomical amount of money during the primaries without US, don't think you can do it again, without US, Hillary Clinton supporters to the end...

After all people, she did just "suspend" her campaign. No guarantee she's not sending a message to her "delegates" to cause a stir come August.

Net the Truth Online

Excellent posts

Bailing out Hillary Clinton's Campaign Debt
By Russell Parker - Jun 8th, 2008 at 12:05 am EDT

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/russellparker/gG5BcF

hokies4ever Fri Jun-20-08 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #1 6.

If each one of those 'supporters' gave $1 to her campaign, her debt would be paid off

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6388305

Hillary Clinton: Puts Her Own Selfishness Above The Country
by The Bagof Health and Politics
Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:06:14 AM PDT

http://openthread.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/20/93853/8794/64/538940

By MICHAEL LUO, JO BECKER and PATRICK HEALY
Published: February 22, 2008
Correction Appended

This article was reported by Michael Luo, Jo Becker and Patrick Healy and was written by Mr. Healy.

...The high-priced senior consultants to Mrs. Clinton, of New York, have emerged as particular targets of complaints, given that they conceived and executed a political strategy that has thus far proved unsuccessful.

The firm that includes Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist and pollster, and his team collected $3.8 million for fees and expenses in January; in total, including what the campaign still owes, the firm has billed more than $10 million for consulting, direct mail and other services, an amount other Democratic strategists who are not affiliated with either campaign called stunning.

Howard Wolfson, the communications director and a senior member of the advertising team, earned nearly $267,000 in January. His total, including the campaign’s debt to him, tops $730,000.

The advertising firm owned by Mandy Grunwald, the longtime media strategist for both Mrs. Clinton and Bill Clinton, the former president, has collected $2.3 million in fees and expenses, and is still owed another $240,000...


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/politics/22clinton.html

Obama Campaign: Public Financing Occurring Daily

Interviewed this morning on CNN's American Morning by John Roberts... spokesman Robert Gibbs says the Obama campaign sees public financing occurring daily.

Roberts quotes Russ Feingold... spokesman says Feingold is introducing another bill regarding campaign financing for the General Election... how can he say its not broken.

Get the transcript

CNN Wolf Blitzer and Jack Cafferty discuss Obama opting out of public campaign financing... interview with David Axelrod...

clip

AXELROD: Let me say that the whole point of campaign finance laws is to try and reduce the influence of large money in our politics. No one's done more to do that at the presidential level than Senator Obama in this campaign. Because of the grassroots support that he's had, 1.5 million or more contributors, average donation less than $100, he's really returning control to people at the grassroots.

He's refused money from lobbyists, federal lobbyists. He's refused money from PACs. He's now -- now the Democratic National Committee has followed suit.

He's asked these 527 committees who pledged so large in the last campaigns to stand down, and two of the larger ones have disbanded. He's doing more to reform our system as a candidate than anybody in my memory.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: But isn't the real -- yes, let me just say, isn't the decision behind this, and let's be blunt, this is going to help him be elected president of the United States? Because he can obviously raise $200 million, $300 million, maybe $400 million, which is a lot more than $85 million that he would get under public financing.

Isn't that the real reason why he's doing this, smart policies?

AXELROD: Wolf, let's be clear about one thing. John McCain's taking this money in the general election, but it doesn't preclude him from raising money for the Republican National Committee. And he's already raised tens and tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars for the Republican National Committee.

By the time this is through, between Senator McCain, the Republican National Committee, and the 527s that he refuses to discourage, they're going to spend plenty of money. And they may well spend more money than we do.

We need to be prepared for that, and we're going to be prepared for that. But on the system of public financing, there's still no clarity as to whether Senator McCain is operating legally right now.

He opted in at one point, he opted out at another point. He used being in the system to get a loan, to get on ballots. Then he said, no, I'm not part of the system. And that issue is still being looked at as he spends all this money in the primary season toward his general election campaign.

So for all his pieties, there are many questions about how he's operating in this campaign. Plus, his average donation is much, much higher, more -- closer to $1,000 than $100. And so I -- you know, I don't think that he is in a position to moralize too much about this.

BLITZER: But it is smart politics on your part, isn't it?

AXELROD: Well, I think that it's good politics to be competitive with your opponents. We expect our opponents to spend a lot of money and to do it with a ferocity that has become the hallmark of the Republican Party in these national elections.

Nobody in America believe the Republicans are not going to have a lot of money. And if you look at how they're raising money at $28,000 a pop for the Republican National Committee, you can see that there's not going to be any tag days over there for John McCain.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/20/sitroom.01.html

Artic Wilderness Oil Drilling Budge Prices 41 Cents Barrel

Bill O'Reilly on the Factor promotes drilling for more domestic oil and slams the speculators for driving up the prices on their dicey scheming to make a profit. He supports some sort of restraints imposed by Congressional action. Can you believe it... and the Factor No Spin Zone guy has the nerve to claim he's libertarian on economic issues???

Lou Dobbs Tonight not too interested in finding the truth about the minimal effect drilling in ANWR would have on oil prices, but highly incensed a Hillary Clinton supporter a governor receives a few interruptive boos at a Barack Obama event when she speaks for ten minutes about who, Hillary Clinton.

Uh Lou, the Governor deserved the boos, it's not about Hillary Clinton any more... and Obama's staunch supporters weren't booing her because she supported Hillary, but because she continues to promote Hillary and the idea Hillary was the target of "sexism." That's been debunked, but few are picking up on it because they love controversy.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/17/ldt.01.html

Drill, drill, drill, that's the refrain on many programs discussing the high price of oil now and what Congress should do.

Fox 'n Friends this morning speaking to a Democrat congressman who supports drilling in ANWR. Rep. Gene Green (D-TX)... millions of acres under lease... enforce it... large areas could be productive...

Crisis says Brian Kilmeade... need extraordinary measures...

Green wants to make sure speculators aren't taking more out of it... want make sure what we do is environmentally safe.

Previous guest just relayed to the trio speculators actually drive down prices, not up.

Green is asked if the former guest is telling the truth (doocey snickers while asking the question) Green responds the speculators impact the price anywhere from 40 dollars up ...drives up the cost of barrel of oil... sometimes free enterprise can run amuck... we have to sometimes put limitations controls on it...

Yep... CATO experts ought to love that Rep. Green. But think the trio at Fox 'n Friends will balance the discussion?

Why not a real debate with the two guests facing off so we can get at the truth, not the hype.

The big push is for more drilling. Watch the mainstream media push along for whatever their reasons.

One network, CNN, over the past week, interviewed a guest - a reporter from U. S. News and World Report, Marianne Lavelle. We found the article on which the reporter made her remarks.

Now imagine, this article was written in May, yet nobody bothered to interview the writer until this week. And only one network, one time.

Checking for the transcript for the correct date. So far, haven't found that.

CNN Transcripts for June 17, 2008

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2008.06.17.html

Net the Truth Online

Speculators don't deserve all the blame for oil prices
By James Saft ReutersPublished: June 19, 2008

It's always nice to have a scapegoat, and in the end it often doesn't matter much if it's witches, sunspots or, in the case of soaring prices for food and energy, those nasty speculators.

A growing chorus, from U.S. lawmakers to OPEC producers, has laid the blame for commodity price inflation on "hot money" bets by investors.

Facing considerable political pressure, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in the United States and its British counterpart reached a deal with ICE Futures Europe to impose regulations on U.S. crude futures traded in London, though it said that it had found "no smoking gun" linking price rises to speculators.

It is impossible to know for certain if leveraged speculative bets by hedge funds and banks are a significant contributor to the run-up in commodities prices, but there are reasons to be skeptical.

First, the evidence doesn't support it. But almost as importantly, it is one of those arguments that, if true, would be almost unbelievably convenient.

Francisco Blanch, head of global commodities research at Merrill Lynch in London, said he found no link between speculative activity and systematic price increases in commodities.

"So far the available data doesn't support the idea that speculators are driving prices up: quite the contrary," Blanch said. "We are in a stage of denial with regards to inflation."

There has been a massive rise in recent years in contracts held on exchange-traded commodities futures, which some argue shows speculative activity.

But, Blanch pointed out, many of the markets that have seen the largest rises in this trading, like sugar and lean hogs, haven't seen the kind of price appreciation experienced by oil and others.

Blaming investors in index investments in commodities doesn't work either, Blanch argued, nor is there a clear correlation between open interest on futures and spot prices.

Indeed, many commodities that are not part of indexes, like coal, rice and iron ore, have gone up considerably over the past several years despite the fact that being outside the index makes them essentially immune to speculative money flows.

Researchers at Barclays point out that the size of assets committed to commodity index investment, which they estimate at $140 billion, is tiny in comparison to the $5.4 trillion of futures trading that happens every month in the 25 commodities that are commonly included in indexes.

To be sure, we can't dismiss the influence of speculators out of hand. Speculation, aided and abetted by regulation that is too lax and monetary policy that is too loose, has been at the heart of many spectacular asset market rises in recent times, with the housing bust a prime example.

The better explanations are fundamental.

There has been an explosion in marginal demand from Asia and emerging countries. And in many markets, notably oil, large producing nations may not see it in their best interests to maximize production, especially given the low rates of return now on offer for the money their oil will fetch. Companies are also being slow to ramp up production, preferring what they see as a safer strategy of buying back shares and paying out dividends...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/19/business/col20.php


Arctic Drilling Wouldn't Cool High Oil Prices
Federal energy analysts say it would take 10 years for production to begin, and its impact could be very modest
By Marianne Lavelle
Posted May 23, 2008


Drilling for oil beneath the pristine tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would do little to ease world oil prices, the federal government's energy forecasters said in a new report issued in a week that saw oil surpass $130 per barrel for the first time.

Congress has fought bitterly for years over whether to allow oil companies access to the Alaska refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, a habitat for seabirds, caribou, and polar bears. Oil company executives, called to Capitol Hill for a grilling over high oil prices, pointed to the untapped resources of ANWR and off the U.S. coastlines as evidence that Congress was as much to blame for the tight global supplies of crude as the petroleum industry.

But the U.S. Energy Information Administration, an independent statistical agency within the Department of Energy, concluded that new oil from ANWR would lower the world price of oil by no more than $1.44 per barrel—and possibly have as little effect as 41 cents per barrel—and would have its largest impact nearly 20 years from now if Congress voted to open the refuge today. EIA produced the analysis in response to a request by Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, who noted that the last time the agency had taken a look at the economics of ANWR production was in 2000, when oil was $22.04 a barrel.

Higher world oil prices don't necessarily mean that oil companies could pull more crude out of ANWR, the EIA said. Some advanced methods of extraction may be limited by the features of the Alaska North Slope; for example, steam injection could endanger some of the permafrost, the EIA noted.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/05/23/arctic-drilling-wouldnt-cool-high-oil-prices.html



Related

McCain Reverses Course on Oil Policy; Obama's Disunited Party; Special Mortgage Treatment For Democratic Senators?

Aired June 17, 2008 - 20:00 ET

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

MATTINGLY (voice-over): The federal moratorium McCain is talking about has been in effect for 26 years, since 1982. Congress imposed it in a furious reaction to President Ronald Reagan's interior secretary, James Watt, who wanted to open up U.S. coasts for oil drilling.

At the time, members of Congress and much of the public were worried about the possibility of massive oil rigs ruining ocean views, the threat of air pollution, and the risk of oil spills. A huge one off Santa Barbara in 1969 coated 35 miles of California's coastline. Renewing the drilling moratorium became a yearly battle in Washington.

To end that, in 1990, the first President Bush announced that offshore drilling would be off-limits for 10 years along nearly all of California, Washington, Oregon, New England from Rhode Island up, and off the southwest Coast of Florida.

(on camera): President Clinton extended it to 2012. But the second President Bush is pushing to at least ease that ban. And the pressure to do that grows everyday with gasoline over $4 a gallon, because, when it comes to offshore oil and the waters of the United States, there is a lot out there.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Eighty percent of the Outer Continental Shelf is off-limits. That part alone, if we would just use that part of this oil, we would have actually a 35-year supply for gasoline for our cars. We would have heating oil for the millions of homes for the next hundreds of years.

MATTINGLY: As for the old worries about pollution, McCain says:

MCCAIN: It's safe enough these days that not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage from the battered rigs off the coasts of New Orleans and Houston.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: David back with me now.

And, David, let me ask you about that, what McCain just said. Did technology or advances really prevent these oil spills after the big hurricane? MATTINGLY: According to a government report that came out after those two hurricanes, the technology did indeed help that. There was -- it what they called a successful use of underground safety valves on these oil rigs that prevented a catastrophic release of oil into the Gulf.

In fact, this report defined the loss of petroleum products into the Gulf of Mexico from these two hurricanes as minimal. But there are environmental organizations who would argue about this. Those two hurricanes in total released about 16,000 barrels of petroleum products into the Gulf. And they say that was not minimal, no matter how the government might try to slice it.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/17/ec.01.html


Blitzer interview the chairman and CEO of Chevron, Dave O'Reilly.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/17/sitroom.03.html

Putting Your Home on an Energy Diet
by Marianne Lavelle
Thursday, April 24, 2008

http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/104904/Putting-Your-Home-on-an-Energy-Diet