Senate defeats Nelson No Fed Funding Abortion

Senate Defeats Nelson Amendment to Stop Abortion Funding in Health Care Bill
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
December 8, 2009

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Senate on Tuesday voted 54-45 to defeat the Nelson amendment that would have removed the massive abortion funding from the Senate government-run health care bill. With the defeat, pro-life advocates will unite behind a concerted effort to defeat the entire health care bill.

The legislation currently allows abortion funding under both the public option and the affordability credits to purchase health care insurance.

The bill contains a slightly-reworded version of the much-maligned Capps amendment, which a House committee approved on a partisan vote and which pro-life groups say is an accounting scheme to hide government-funded abortions.

The Nelson amendment, sponsored by Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, Democrat Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah, would have restored the Hyde amendment principles to the bill to ensure that abortions can't be funded.

Contrary to the claims of abortion advocates during the debate, women would still be able to pay for abortions with their own money and purchase health care insurance to cover their abortions.

Nelson was unable to get enough Democrats to join him in supporting the amendment while two Republicans, pro-abortion Maine Sens. Olympia Snow and Susan Collins, sided with abortion advocates against the amendment.

Sen. Barbara Boxer moved to table (kill) the Nelson amendment and she was joined by most Democrats and opposed by most Republicans.

Democrats who voted no and opposed Boxer's motion to kill the Nelson amendment included Sens. Casey, David Pryor of Arkansas, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Edward Kaufman of Delaware and Evan Bayh of Indiana.

With the Nelson amendment defeated, attention now turns to the vote on the bill itself, and Nelson (but not Casey) has said he would filibuster the bill because of the abortion funding it contains...

...Other issues apart from direct abortion funding are causing pro-life advocates to oppose the health care legislation.

The Senate has also added the Mikulski amendment to the bill that could open the door to forcing every health insurance plan in the country to cover abortions.



http://www.lifenews.com/nat5748.html

Posted Tuesday, December 08, 2009 12:15 PM
Why The Senate's Abortion Debate Does Not Matter
Sarah Kliff
The Senate is now debating one of health-care reform's most controversial provisions: Ben Nelson’s abortion amendment. The language of Nelson's amendment, introduced yesterday, mirrors the strong restrictions of the Stupak amendment and bars plans traded on the government exchange from covering elective abortions. Barbara Boxer, the first Senator to speak in opposition to Nelson’s amendment, was quick to term it “the biggest rollback to a woman’s right to choose in decades.” Meanwhile, Nelson has repeatedly threatened to filibuster any bill without his language. Groups that both oppose and support abortion rights have encouraged members to write letters to their senators on the issue, imploring them to vote one way or another.

But no matter how many letters are written or emotional speeches given, this abortion debate does not actually matter

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/12/08/why-the-senate-s-abortion-debate-does-not-matter.aspx

Global Warming UNraveling

Glenn Beck mentioned the error...concerning ice caps melting and destroying the habitat of the polar bear...

Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY

Covered previously at redstate site

http://redstaterusa.blogspot.com/2009/02/global-warming-keeps-cooling-off.html

EPA given unparalleled power to regulate clean air, says Craig Smith, in 2007...

Interviewed on Fox News Your World, Smith doesn't appear surprised at what might go on in Copenhagen... talks...

Related

EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Pose Threat to Public Health, Welfare / Proposed Finding Comes in Response to 2007 Supreme Court Ruling

Release date: 04/17/2009

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6427a6b7538955c585257359003f0230/0ef7df675805295d8525759b00566924!OpenDocument

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Gold-Stranglehold-Jerome-Corsi/dp/1581824890

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/smith-craig-r/6616

Danger in PA Property Tax Elimination Proposal S.T.O.P.

We'd like to agree with letter-writer on the sentiments expressed in "Stop tax-relief ruse" but find the wording is unclear and sounds very much like the S.T.O.P plan proposed on the grand old USA site.

http://www.grandoldusa.com/

The letter-writer only mentions residences, and neglects to clarify whether the reference applies to primary residential property, all residential property, and/or business or commercial property.

We can only assume then the letter-writer is actually referencing the S.T.O.P. plan.

(it appears we're right on the connection of the Tribune-Review letter-writer, Bednar to the S.T.O.P. proposal as her name and publication of a short letter to Sen. Logan is mentioned by Bob Logue who started the S.T.O.P. effort:

http://www.spedunkie.com/loganresponse.html

If so, that plan does not apply to all residential property, nor does it apply to business property.

And the PA Constitution would need to be amended in order for the proposal to fly.

On our Vote Fix site, we previously analyzed the S.T.O.P. plan.

STOP tax reform plan Guts PA Constitution

http://dirtline.tripod.com/votefix/id104.html

What's sad is most people will read letters-to-the-editor such as the following and actually agree with the contents, but won't understand fully the proposal - if it indeed is the one proposed by S.T.O.P. coalition - applies only to 'primary' residence.

Beware of any legislative proposal which needs any tinkering with our PA Constitution such as a referendum and/or a state Constitutional Convention.

Period.

Net the Truth Online

Stop tax-relief ruse
Tribune-Review
Saturday, December 5, 2009
To all the voters: When you talk or write to the candidates who are running for governor, ask them how they stand on abolishment of all three property taxes.

These include the school, municipal and county taxes. If only the school tax is abolished, we still will be liable for the assessments/reassessments of our properties, and our county and municipal property taxes will keep going up along with the sheriff sales, etc.

We will still be paying rent to the government and our homes will never be ours.

We don't want to hear the words ''reduction" or "relief.'' Tell your senator and representative that we are tired of the 30-year deceptions about ''reducing'' property taxes on our homes and that you want property taxes totally abolished.

We are tired of all of the deceit we keep getting from our representatives and senators, and we are aware of how costly these sheriff sales and assessments are to the taxpayers. They are all fraudulent promises, and we won't stand for it any more.

Don't let them tell you otherwise.

Alene Bednar Ford City

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/dailycourier/s_656046.html

Senator Logan,

I have been advising quite a few Reps to contact you and Rep. Gergely about the STOP plan. Have you heard from any of them? I haven't heard anything about the total abolishment of our property taxes lately either. Where are we on this? Please reply so I can pass your information on to the other members. Sincerely, Alene Bednar.

Senator Logan's reply:

I have not heard from any of them. The bill is introduced and waiting for Republican Leadership to bring this issue up for discussion. But at this time to my knowledge, there are no plans to bring this issue up for debate. Keep up the fight.

Sean Logan

Bob Logue Comments: First, let me commend Alene Bednar (above) and everyone of you and your families and friends who have been contacting your PA Senators and Representatives, as well as the announced candidates for Governor. Keep it up...and encourage others to do the same.

Senator Sean Logan wrote the STOP legislation to abolish all property taxes on primary residences in 2003...and has continuously supported the STOP Primary Residence Protection Plan. He again reintroduced our legislation in the current legislative session.

You will note in Sean's response to Alene's inquiry--that his bill is waiting for 'Republican Leadership to bring this issue up for discussion (in the Senate).' He is right. Movement on legislation to bring to a public referendum, changing the constitution to permit 100% of all property (real estate taxes) to be abolished on primary residences passed the house 192-0 in the last legislative session which ended in 2008. The legislation then went to the Senate and was sent to the Senate Finance Committee. To their credit, the Republicans and Democrats on the Finance Committee voted 12-0 to bring the legislation to the full Senate for debate and a vote. However, the Republican Senate leadership instead sent the legislation to the Appropriations committee to die...which it did as the session ended.

Some in legislature may believe the current economic situation in Pennsylvania and across the US is the wrong time to be considering such a dramatic change in our method of taxation for our schools, counties and municipalities. The opposite is true...

http://www.spedunkie.com/loganresponse.html

Proper Audit Trail After Demolition Sounds Improper

Audit trail looks good on paper, right? UHHUH. Does this item Airport authority seeks condemnation of building already razed seem as ludicrous to others as it seems to us? How did relatives of the Arnold Palmer Regional Airport Authority's chairman acquire anything at any time past or present at the public/private regional airport? Since when is vacant space at an airport worth nearly $200,000 of taxpayers' money? What was the original arrangement?

The most obvious concern is this: if a private citizen or business owner created a proper audit trail after the fact of acquiring something, there would be an investigation.

Looks to us like an investigation is needed on this 'proper audit trail' at the Arnold Palmer Regional Airport in Unity, over in Westmoreland County.

The situation also brings up a host of questions about so-called regionalization of so-called public services not only those concerning airports of whatever size.

In Pennsylvania, authorities are autonomous once created they are subject to very little oversight by those who appoint members to the authority's board.

Deals such as this one can be made and who will look into it? Our 'regional' newspapers?

Net the Truth Online

Airport authority seeks condemnation of building already razed

The Westmoreland County Airport Authority is seeking official condemnation of an already demolished aircraft hangar owned by the family of authority Chairman Anthony M. Ferrante.

Authority Solicitor Donald Snyder filed a "declaration of taking" with the county's Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 24 as a means of confirming the taking of the leasehold interest of the building known as Hangar 14 at Arnold Palmer Regional Airport in Unity.

The building — torn down in October to improve hangar facilities and airport layout — housed 12 spaces owned and rented out by Ferrante's son, Anthony K. Ferrante, and his sister, Bernice Ferrante Lewis, both of Vandergrift, Snyder said.

Hangar 14 tenants were relocated either to rentable spaces in other buildings owned by Ferrante and Lewis or to facilities being rented out by the authority itself, said authority Executive Director Gabe Monzo.

The authority is required to hire an independent appraiser to determine the value of properties it wishes to acquire based on eminent domain guidelines, Snyder said.

Hayden Appraisal Services of Greensburg determined the property to be worth $185,000. The firm's assessment was independently reviewed by Jack Lizza, owner of Professional Real Estate Appraisal Services, also of Greensburg, Snyder said. That amount already has been paid to Ferrante and Lewis, Snyder said.

This purpose of the legal filing was to "create a proper audit trail" as it relates to the recent negotiation, Monzo said.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/westmoreland/s_656314.html

Health Care Insurance Mandate Most Intrusive to Individual

Benjamin Franklin said it best.

Should any health care insurance reform measure pass no matter what its contents in addition to the mandate on individuals and a fine for non-compliance, it will be obvious the "little temporary safety" Franklin warned of - is the mindset of the United States of America's public.

There is still hope you can make your voice heard. For us, however, there is no acceptance of any bill put forth by Congress regarding individual choice to purchase or not purchase, anything, including health care insurance from among private, so-called non-profit entities, or a public option, absolutely no acceptance.

Check out a new website referenced by World Net Daily

Want to sound off on health-care debate?
New website offers free online lobby tool – no matter your opinion
Posted: November 23, 2009

A new online lobby tool allows visitors to take a broad-based survey on the health-care issues facing Congress and transmits the results free to their member of the House of Representatives and both of their senators.

The website, HealthCareVote.com, is the work of Brad O'Leary, publisher of the monthly political insider newsletter "The O'Leary Report" and author of "The Audacity of Deceit" and "Shut Up, America."

"This is a great tool to shake up the current health-care debate in Congress – if people use it," said O'Leary.

Visitors to the site can answer 14 critical questions on health-care reform and then click to automatically send their answers to their senators and congressman. The service is completely free for all users...

... O'Leary has also launched a special television program running on 220 cable and network television stations. The program promotes two messages: 1) Why it's important for everyone to improve personal health and wellness to keep health-care costs down, and 2) Why it's important Americans go to HealthCareVote.com to tell their senators and representatives where they stand in the health-care debate.

The TV special is hosted by Bryant Gumbel with a special appearance by actor Dean Cain...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116904

See WND's coverage of the O'Leary/Zogby poll and its results...

Poll: Americans agree on health insurance
But Obamacare out of step with Zogby-O'Leary respondents

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 14, 2009
11:39 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily




Americans have put aside partisan difference and agree on several significant health care issues, but facets of Obama's health-care plan remain outside of those boundaries, according to a newly released Zogby International/O'Leary Report poll.

"Congress should put forward a health care reform plan that addresses these eight issues on which most Americans agree," Brad O’Leary, publisher of "The O'Leary Report," said today.

"In particular, tort reform and permitting Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines have near universal appeal with voters. New taxes, on the other hand, are almost universally opposed," he said.

O'Leary, besides authoring the report bearing his name, also has written "Shut Up America: The End of Free Speech."

...Regarding support for new taxes on employer-provided health care benefits, only about 12 percent agreed and nearly 78 percent said no.

Likewise, 75 percent said no when asked about raising taxes to fund a government-run health insurance program for the 26 million Americans who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it or the 12 million illegal aliens who lack health insurance. Only 15 percent said that should happen.

A federal proposal that would fine Americans for not purchasing health insurance is a bad idea, according to 70 percent of respondents, and a good idea for 18 percent.

And restrictions for pre-existing conditions should be allowed, according to about 20 percent of the respondents, while 68 percent said no such limits should be permitted.

Regarding the proposed Obamacare "Independent Medicare Advisory Council," which purportedly would make decisions "to deny payment for procedures it deems unnecessary or futile," not even one voter in three supports the idea...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109836

Expect Stew Parties should Health Insurance Mandate Pass

Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional
Why an individual mandate could be struck down by the courts.Article Comments (158) By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY

Federal legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is part of all the major health-care reform plans now being considered in Washington. Such a mandate, however, would expand the federal government’s authority over individual Americans to an unprecedented degree. It is also profoundly unconstitutional.

An individual mandate has been a hardy perennial of health-care reform proposals since HillaryCare in the early 1990s. President Barack Obama defended its merits before Congress last week, claiming that uninsured people still use medical services and impose the costs on everyone else. But the reality is far different. Certainly some uninsured use emergency rooms in lieu of primary care physicians, but the majority are young people who forgo insurance precisely because they do not expect to need much medical care...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416623109362480.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Discussion site daily paul

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/107710

D

ebating the Constitutionality of an Individual Mandate
Jonathan H. Adler • November 5, 2009 3:09 pm

The latest installment of the Federalist Society’s “Originally Speaking” debate series features UC Irvine Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Baker & Hostetler partner David Rivkin sparring over the constitutionality of an individual mandate.

http://volokh.com/2009/11/05/debating-the-constitutionality-of-an-individual-mandate-2/

Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009: Unconstitutional

Michael Connelly
Infowars
September 21, 2009

...However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide...

http://www.infowars.com/affordable-health-care-choices-act-of-2009-unconstitutional/

Dr. Manny: 25% childhood OCD result of PANDAS

On Fox News weekend edition, interviewed by Alison Camerota, Dr. Marc Siegel comments on findings related to the case of a girl who suffers uncontrollable fits of sneezing.

He noted the underlying cause being an infection, but offered the medical condidtion can lead to behavioral situations, including A.D.D.

...strep infection... damages brain on neurological side that could also be medical...

He said along with medication, a behavioral approach has to be undertaken as well.

video Dr. Marc Siegel "Medical Rewind"

http://video.foxnews.com/12239060/medical-rewind

http://www.iseenews.com/watch/bless-you-foxnewschannel

Also Dr. Manny Alvarez comments in the following video

video sneezing girl gets diagnosis called PANDAS

http://video.foxnews.com/12213484/bless-you

Thursday, Dec. 3, 2009 report

Girl Who Sneezes 12,000 Times a Day Gets Official Diagnosis

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579070,00.html

Washington, Dec 4 : An American girl, who sneezes up to 12,000 times a day, has been given an official diagnosis, with doctors saying that she is suffering from PANDAS (Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorder Associated with Streptococcus).

...Symptoms of PANDAS include obsessive or compulsive behaviours, Tourette's syndrome and attention deficit disorder.

http://www.andhranews.net/Health/2009/December/4-Girl-sneezes-43082.asp

Sneezing girl officially diagnosed
Doctors say she has PANDAS
Updated: Wednesday, 02 Dec 2009, 6:32 PM EST
Published : Wednesday, 02 Dec 2009, 5:38 PM EST

Katie Collett
CHESAPEAKE, Va. - For several weeks, WAVY.com has been following Lauren Johnson, the 12 year-old Chesapeake girl who started sneezing in upwards of 12,000 times per day after suffering from a bad cold. Recently, Lauren was officially diagnosed with Paediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorder Associated with Streptococcus, otherwise known as PANDAS.

"Now we can actually treat it as something," says Lauren who is thrilled to finally have a diagnosis.

WAVY.com spoke with Dr. Rosario Trifiletti, a child neurologist treating Lauren. He explained the onset of PANDAS. "Following a common streptococcal infection, the most common of which people are familiar with, the strep throat from a few days to a couple of weeks later, there's a marked change in a child that gets this."

Trifiletti says those changes happen quickly. PANDAS symptoms include:

Cognitive inflexibility, difficult to reason with, as if stuck on an idea
Obsessive/repetitive/compulsive argumentative behaviours
TICS (repetitive vocalisations of body movements)
Tourettes Syndrome
Attention deficits and oppositional/defiant behaviours.
The good news? There is treatment for Lauren and other children who suffer from PANDAS.

"She was placed on antibiotics and has improved considerably," says Dr. Trifiletti.

However, there is some bad news.

"Lauren is at risk of getting this again, so we're probably going to place her on some sort of...a low dose of antibiotics, for a long period of time," says Dr. Trifiletti.

Lauren's family learned the PANDAS diagnosis is relatively unknown. It was discovered only 13 years ago meaning a lot of trial and error.

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/Sneezing-girl-officially-diagnosed

...There are two variants of this disease, one that causes tics and another that causes OCD:

If you are interested in more detail, I highly recommend Moretti's paper "What every psychiatrist should know about PANDAS" http://www.cpementalhealth.com/content/pdf/1745-0...

Another good one that's easier to read is from the school nurse's perspective "PANDAS in the school setting" http://www.schoolnursenews.org/BackIssues/2003/09...

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/Sneezing-girl-officially-diagnosed

Climate Change UNraveling?

While the AP fact checked every aspect of Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue, we have yet to see any fact checking of a mere 100-page account supporting man-made global warming.

That's not surprising since it appears the mainstream media has yet to latch onto any full reporting on:

The Canadians who changed the climate debate

Canadians Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have discovered faulty calculations in some of the key scientific studies behind the reports of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As Richard Foot reports, that's made them pretty unpopular in some circles.

By Richard Foot, Canwest News ServiceDecember 5, 2009

...The "Climategate" e-mails have sparked a scandal -- just ahead of next week's global warming summit in Copenhagen -- for suggesting climatologists may have manipulated data to exaggerate the threat of global warming and conspired to keep contrary points of view out of the scientific journals. But the e-mails are also conspicuous for their repeated, nasty references to two Canadians -- McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick -- who have become a serious thorn in the side of climatologists and others who say the planet is under serious threat from man-made global warming.

Although little-known in Canada, McIntyre and McKitrick -- or M and M as they're called in climate change circles -- have since 2003 put forward evidence of faulty calculations in some of the key scientific studies behind the reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Their work has drawn attention from the U.S. Congress, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Wall Street Journal, which last month called them "the climate change gang's most dangerous apostates."

McIntyre, a Toronto mining analyst and speculator, became intrigued by the climate change issue when the Kyoto Protocol was up for debate in 2002.

He was skeptical of a key piece of science in the IPCC reports of the time -- a graph, based on research by U.S. climatologist Michael Mann, that showed Earth's temperatures had remained relatively stable over the past thousand years then began rising suddenly in the 20th century.

The graph, shaped like a sideways hockey stick, became one of the most convincing illustrations in Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which rallied millions to the cause of global warming. But it reminded McIntyre of the promotional graphs and statistics commonly used by mining promoters in search of investors.

He said he decided -- purely out of curiosity and not because he wanted to shake up the global warming debate -- to carry out some due diligence on the numbers.

Replicating the arcane calculations of climate modelling science would be an impossible task for most people. But McIntyre had been a math prizewinner in high school, had studied pure mathematics at the University of Toronto and had won, but turned down, a mathematics scholarship to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, choosing a business career instead.

"I read Mann's paper and thought, 'What this looks to me is like really overblown and high falutin' language for fairly simple linear regressions and matrix algebra. I figured it would be like doing a big crossword puzzle, so I went at it," he said. "I had no particular expectations that it would be wrong, I just thought it would be interesting. It sounds bizarre in retrospect, but I take up odd interests from time to time."

McIntyre contacted Ross Mc-Kitrick, a University of Guelph statistical economist who was also analyzing the science behind the IPCC reports. Together they unearthed evidence that Mann's calculations were predisposed to producing a hockey stick-shaped graph, with sharply rising temperatures in the 20th century.

They also showed that Mann's calculations ignored the data showing a major warming trend in the 15th century, much like the warming of the 20th century.

"That discovery hit me like a bombshell," wrote one scientist in the MIT Technology Review in 2004. "Suddenly the 'hockey stick,' the poster child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics."

M and M's findings sparked hearings on the science of global warming by the U.S. Congress, and an investigation by the National Academy of Sciences. Their report concluded that while the wider science behind 20th century global warming remains valid, the hockey stick graph and other long-term temperature models were fraught with "uncertainties" and that Mann's calculations "tended to bias the shape of (hockey stick) reconstructions."

Mann was required to publish a retraction about some of his statistical methods in the science journal Nature...

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Canadians+changed+climate+debate/2306516/story.html

Election case interesting but unaccepted as fraud

Not an unexpected development in a Fayette election case. At least there was some news coverage of the denial.

Pa. top court won't hear failed Fayette County candidate's appeal
By The Tribune-Review
Friday, December 4, 2009

The state Supreme Court will not hear the appeal of a failed candidate who alleges impersonators may have voted in place of deceased voters.

In an opinion posted Thursday, the court denied Robert "Ted" Pritchard Sr.'s petition to appeal a Commonwealth Court ruling that upheld a lower court's dismissal of his lawsuit. In addition, the Supreme Court denied Pritchard's emergency motions to stay the election results of the May primary and November general election.

Pritchard had alleged that Fayette County failed to purge voter registration lists, resulting in impersonators possibly voting in place of deceased voters...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_656186.html

ABC News Headlines Secret That Isn't but Revealing

President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al Qaeda Now in Afghanistan
With New Surge, One Thousand U.S. Soldiers and $300 Million for Every One al Qaeda Fighter
By RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW COLE and BRIAN ROSS
Dec. 2, 2009

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861

Ronald Bailey Remember His Conversion to Global Warming

Quite a while back, Ronald Bailey at Reason Mag, wrote an article "We're All Global Warmers, Now."

We thought we'd see what Bailey wrote about the Climate-Gate emails, etc...

For comparison, read a selection of analysis and commentary...

ClimateGate III: The Mystery of the Missing Data

http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/0/6/climategate_iii_the_mystery_of_the_missing_data/

http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/2/4/climate_data_row_man_steps_down/

Just read Bailey's wording very closely. He's not convinced, even if the emails show what it appears the emails show, he's not convinced otherwise than his conversion article, "We're All Global Warmers, Now."

The Scientific Tragedy of Climategate
Can climate change science recover from the damage done by leaked emails?
Ronald Bailey | December 1, 2009

...It is reassuring to think that even if the CRU data are shown to be distorted (either wittingly or unwittingly) other independent sources of data are at hand. But that belief may not be entirely accurate. Besides the CRU temperature data, there are two other leading sources used by the IPCC, one created by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), and the other by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).

While it is true that the scientific groups are independent, as University of Colorado climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. (father of Pielke Jr.) observes, the temperature data sets are not all that independent. Pielke cites the 2006 U.S. Climate Change Science Program report, which noted, "Since the three chosen data sets utilize many of the same raw observations, there is a degree of interdependence." The report further observed, "While there are fundamental differences in the methodology used to create the surface data sets, the differing techniques with the same data produce almost the same results." In 2007, Pielke and his colleagues reported, "The raw surface temperature data from which all of the different global surface temperature trend analyses are derived are essentially the same. The best estimate that has been reported is that 90–95 percent of the raw data in each of the analyses is the same (P. Jones, personal communication, 2003). That the analyses produce similar trends should therefore come as no surprise."

One of the leaked emails from CRU’s Phil Jones appears to confirm this data interdependence: "Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center." Given this interdependence, Jones’ appeal to correlation with other data sets to support the validity of the CRU data is less convincing than one would hope. To the contrary, the fact that the three data sets correlate so well may instead provoke concerns about the validity of all three.

In an email to University of Alabama climatologist John Christy I asked, "Is there a possibility that the teams that compile temperature data could all be making the same set of errors which would result in them finding similar (and perhaps) spurious trends?" Christy replied that he believed this was possible and cited some recent work he had done on temperature trends in East Africa as evidence. In that article he found that using both the maximum and minimum temperature rather than the mean temperature (TMean) used by the three official data sets gives a better indication of actual temperature trends in the region.

Christy found that the maximum temperature (TMax) trend has been essentially zero since 1900 while the minimum temperature (TMin) trend has been increasing. In his email to me, Christy explained, "As it turns out, TMin warms significantly due to factors other than the greenhouse effect, so TMean, because it is affected by TMin, is a poor proxy for understanding the greenhouse effect of 'global warming'." Or as his journal article puts it, "There appears to be little change in East Africa’s TMax, and if TMax is a suitable proxy for climate changes affecting the deep atmosphere, there has been little impact in the past half-century." So if Christy’s analysis is correct, much of the global warming in East Africa reported by the three official data sets is exaggerated. Christy has found similar effects on temperature trend reporting for other regions of the world.

Roger Pielke Jr. notes, "If it turns out that the choices made by CRU, GISS, NOAA fall on the 'maximize historical trends' end of the scale that will not help their perceived credibility for obvious reasons." On the other hand, Pielke Jr. adds that Climategate could dissipate if probing by outside researchers finds that CRU, GISS, and NOAA researchers made temperature data adjustments "in the middle of the range or even low end, then this will enhance their credibility." The good news is that a truly independent set of temperature data has been produced over the past thirty years by NOAA satellites. In general, the global satellite temperature trends tend to be on the low end of the climate computer model projections.

The more benign interpretation of what has been going on in climate change science is that as the man-made global warming narrative took hold among climatologists, research that confirmed the dominant paradigm had a much easier time getting through the peer review process. Meanwhile research that contradicted the paradigm was subject to much greater scrutiny and thus had a harder time making it through the peer review sieve. Scientists are human too and not free from confirmation bias.

But for now, regardless of the motivations of the researchers, damage has been done. How can the world of climate science recover?...

http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/01/the-scientific-tragedy-of-clim

"Climategate" -- Forget the Emails: What Will the Hacked Documents Tell Us?
Ronald Bailey | November 25, 2009

Last week thousands of emails and documents were hacked from the British Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The emails revealed a lot of scientific nastiness and some efforts to suppress climate research with which CRU leaders disagreed.

But I've been wondering what insights about how climate data is put together by CRU researchers the hacked documents and models might hold?

http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/25/climategate-forget-the-emails

It's Not Exactly "Climategate" But ....
Ronald Bailey | November 23, 2009

http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/23/its-not-exactly-climategate-bu

December 1, 2009
‘Reason’ on the Real Tragedy of Climategate
Posted by Lew Rockwell on December 1, 2009 11:30 PM
According to Reason magazine’s head science writer Ronald Bailey, in his December 1 lead story, “the real tragedy of the Climategate scandal is that a lack of confidence in climate data will seriously impair mankind’s ability to assess and react properly to a potentially huge problem.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/44111.html

Related

No Hole in the Blogosphere: Tracking Climate-Gate
By Daniel Foster


Update: 12/2 11:18 A.M.: Reason magazine's science correspondent Ronald Bailey provides a sober, even-handed assessment of the facts of the ClimateGate case that is great for anybody just catching up. In the second half of the piece, Bailey suggests steps that must be taken to reform the way climate science is practiced.

http://www.nationalreview.com/onthenews/?q=ZTI3Njg5NTk3MzgwYjI3MWRmMTVmYjFkYWNiYjZhNmU=

Democratic Underground A Plus for Obama Afghanistan?

What IS US presence in Afghanistan all about?

That question was posed before Barack Obama was elected President when Obama included the potential during remarks while on the campaign trail to the White House.

The question is posed, now that President Obama made his decision and committed more troops in Afghanistan until, 18 months from now.

The question wiill continue to be posed by any number of thinking people throughout the oops can't say occupation, right? Can't say illegal war, right? Can't say impeachement process, right?

Let's see what happened over at Democratic Underground on the questions over Afghanistan. OK.

Net the Truth Online

Afghanistan: Obama Drops The Other Shoe

Michael Brenner
Senior Fellow, the Center for Transatlantic Relations
Posted: November 30, 2009 11:12 AM

The sham Afghanistan strategic review is now revealed for the empty exercise it always was. Escalation was inescapable, for Obama's staunch promotion of a 'necessary war' precluded a serious reappraisal of stakes and risks. Reversing himself would have demanded the kind of courage that is wholly foreign to him. So we are left with an open-ended commitment to an unwinnable war. That outcome speaks volumes about the failings of Obama as a leader as much as his impaired judgment.

The entire process reeks with dishonesty -- a double dishonesty. The White House deceived the country in advertising a root and branch critical analysis of the reasons for our engagement in Afghanistan that never took place. Also, the White House deceived itself in making believe that endless discussions over variations of the same strategy addressed core issues. All of the participants shared the same key assumptions that never have been questioned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x499566

Elsewhere

Obama’s War Speech:
An Unconvincing Flop

by Justin Raimondo, December 02, 2009

Email This | Print This | Share This | Comment | Antiwar Forum

After 92 days of waiting for the Word from on high, the nation received its marching orders from our commander-in-chief – and it was a flop of major proportions. As his West Point audience looked on disdainfully – applauding only twice, and then tepidly – President Obama tried to make the case that his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is really just a prelude to withdrawal. But is it?

"It is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. … As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda … Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere."

Those who were hoping for some real change in our rhetoric, if not our foreign policy, with Obama in the White House are no doubt sorely disappointed right now, because George W. Bush could just as easily have spoken these very same words – and, indeed, he did utter endless variations on this identical theme when justifying our actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the truth of the matter is that there are barely one-hundred al-Qaeda fighters in the whole of Afghanistan – so what are we doing there?

And just in case you were wondering how we are fighting a war without congressional authorization, Obama brings up the legacy of his predecessor, which he stands by without reservation:

"Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America , our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security."

We’re good, we’re legal, this war is legitimate – but is it? There’s no al-Qaeda of any consequence in Afghanistan – so, I ask again, what are we doing there? Nowhere does Obama effectively answer this question, and that is the underlying weakness of this, his worst ever speech. We also get a bit of revisionist history – the kind that isn’t an improvement over the mainstream variety:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/12/01/obamas-war-speech-an-unconvincing-flop/

JBS President John F. McManus Asked to Clarify Position Terror Trials

Publisher of the New American and President of the John Birch Society is asked to explain a response to a question which was asked in a series running in The Hill, entitled The Big Questions.

The Hill

The Big Question: How will the 9/11 trials play out legally, politically?
By Sydelle Moore and Tony Romm - 11/18/09 11:59 AM ET

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer some insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.

Today's question:

Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to hold detainee trials in New York City has attracted criticism from Republicans. Democrats, meanwhile, are accusing the GOP of playing politics. How will this issue play out legally and politically?

...John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:

The decision to try the 9/11 defendants in a civilian court opens up the likelihood that the defendant's right to what is called "discovery" will require providing the defense team with intelligence that will surely make its way back to terrorist allies. These trials should be held in military courts where no such rights exist. Their crimes were acts of war (didn't we go to war as a result?), not the acts of ordinary criminals. The civilian trial of Omar Abdel Rahman after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center led to supplying sensitive information to the defense team, and it ended up in the hands of other terrorists. The lesson should have been learned. There's far more at stake here than political posturing.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/68361-the-big-question-how-will-the-911-trials-play-out-legally-politically

Notice, the republication of the Big Questions with the date November 20, 2009 with John F. McManus' responses at the JBS site does not contain the question posted on The Hill site for Nov. 18, 2009.

Also see listing of similar columns since McManus was included

http://www.johnbirchsociety.org/component/search/hill%2Bbig%2Bquestions/%252F?ordering=newest&searchphrase=all&limit=20

The answer to that question attributed by The Hill to John F. McManus prompted formerly JBS-affiliated William Grigg's posting at Lew Rockwell Blog.

November 21, 2009
An Unexpected Endorsement of the Hitlerian “Terror Tribunals”
Posted by William Grigg on November 21, 2009 11:36 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/43366.html

Grigg and other posters ask for explanation and clarification on the question directly on the John Birch Society's republication of The Hill's Big Questions.

We'd like to see clarification or outright statement the Hill made a mistake in attributing this particular answer to John F. McManus.

The answer attributed to McManus is nothing short of a complete turnaround by the man who wrote of The Insiders, and over the decades ranted about Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission members and a design for all that would be a rejection of the foundational principles of this country, including illegal and "undeclared" wars not authorized by Congressional Acts.

In particular, how would McManus explain this:

excerpt from The Hill

John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:


These trials should be held in military courts where no such rights exist. Their crimes were acts of war (didn't we go to war as a result?), not the acts of ordinary criminals.

Problems with this position coming from the president of the John Birch Society would be numerous. An organization that recognizes the rights guaranteed in the Constituion are unalienable - God-given - is the position of the JBS - and the sanctity of the writ of habeas corpus also recognizes the problematic situation of so-called military courts 'where no rights exist.'

And excusing the position of a military trial where no rights exist with what McManus (attributed by the Hill) says further about the 'terrorists' crimes being an act of war and posing in question form "didn't we go to war as a result?" - that is nothing short of illogical.

so from our perspective, we're holding out McManus and the JBS did not include the question and response from the Hill on its Nov. 20, 2009 piece on select questions and answers because the response was not from John F. McManus.

We could for instance envision Laurie Milroie answering that way, strongly and emphatically so, but not John F. McManus.

As for William Grigg, the situation is clouded further by postings on his blog/website concerning his firing.

Sunday, August 20, 2006
Will Grigg's Birch Blog -- The Lost Episodes

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2006/08/will-griggs-birch-blog-lost-episodes.html

Obviously a major rift occurred between Grigg and the John Birch Society back in 2006. But back around that time, Grigg also considered McManus his friend and colleague.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006
The (Murder-)Suicide of the West

...In what sense would ending the war in May 1945 have been “premature,” when the Japanese leadership had been sending out peace feelers for nearly a year – following the unimaginable horrors of the Battle of Saipan?

In January 1945, the Japanese had quietly provided MacArthur with surrender terms that were, for all practical purposes, identical to those accepted after the terror bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Had those terms “been accepted when first offered, there would have been no heavy loss of life on Iwo Jima (over 26,033 Americans killed or wounded, approximately 21,000 Japanese killed) and Okinawa (over 39,000 U.S. dead and wounded, 109,000 Japanese dead), no fire bombing of Japanese cities by B-29 bombers (it is estimated that the dropping of 1,700 tons of incendiary explosives on Japanese cities during March 9th-10th alone killed over 80,000 civilians and destroyed 260,000 buildings), and no use of the atomic bomb,” writes my friend and colleague John F. McManus...

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/search?q=mcmanus

Shouldn't he have asked McManus directly for either a clarification or a correction before posting to the Lew Rockwell Blog on Nov. 21, 2009?

He doesn't appear to ask if a correction is in order until Nov. 29, 2009.

However, if John F. McManus and the JBS scrubbed the question and answer from their New American in-print publication and website and McManus did indeed respond in the way The Hill report shows, there will be no satisfactory explanation.

If McManus and the JBS clarify that is McManus' answer to the Hill Big Question, we believe the organization will lose its longstanding credibility.

If the scrubbing occurred that is nothing short of hiding the truth and lying for one's own benefit.

The response by what have always appeared to be principled John Birch Society members (finding out the President of the John Birch Society lied by not including the question and answer in the Nov. 20, 2009 piece) would be disastrous for the John Birch Society, not only because of the times we live in, but for future times.

Net the Truth Online

John F. McManus Answers the The "Big Questions" PDF | Print | E-mail
Written by John F. McManus
Friday, 20 November 2009 13:00

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq

Will Grigg said:
Here's the REALLY "Big Question" --
Why did Jack McManus, contradicting the previous JBS position, embrace the neo-con position on "terror tribunals"? --

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/043366.html

Is this one of those "ride-the-wave" decisions? Is Jack hanging ten on a Red State Fascist wave?

November 21, 2009

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq

zman said:
Huh?
I see Will Grigg gets a low rating for asking a legitimate question of Mr. McManus. Perhaps Birchers are no more interested in the truth or asking tough questions than those with more "mainstream" views.

Why did The New American publish a contradictory article (on the issue of trying terrorists in public courts) by Becky Akers on the same day as this article was published?

November 23, 2009

http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/948-becky-akers/2367-trying-terrorists

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq

fleck said:
I would like clarification. Ne disrespect intended.
John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:

"The decision to try the 9/11 defendants in a civilian court opens up the likelihood that the defendant's right to what is called "discovery" will require providing the defense team with intelligence that will surely make its way back to terrorist allies. These trials should be held in military courts where no such rights exist. Their crimes were acts of war (didn't we go to war as a result?), not the acts of ordinary criminals. The civilian trial of Omar Abdel Rahman after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center led to supplying sensitive information to the defense team, and it ended up in the hands of other terrorists. The lesson should have been learned. There's far more at stake here than political posturing."

I say:
I certainly understand the problem with a civilian court procedure. I am not a big fan of military courts either. Can somebody clarify?

What exactly is the JBS position on this?

November 23, 2009

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq

Will Grigg said:
On the subject of needed "clarifications"....
This line from McManus' statement desperately needs one: "Their crimes were acts of war (didn't we go to war as a result?)...."

Is it now the official JBS position that the Constitutional requirement for a congressional declaration of war is a dead letter? It must be, if that statement is to make any kind of sense. Otherwise, with no declaration of war, and the courts in full operation, there is no legal rationale whatsoever for trying those accused criminals before military tribunals, per the controlling precedent, Ex Parte Milligan (1866) -- see http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1865/1865_0

November 24, 2009

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq

Mr. Grigg said:
Correction, Please!
It's been more than a week since Mr. McManus endorsed the unconstitutional use of military tribunals and effectively repudiated the constitutional requirement for a congressional declaration of war. Is this now the official JBS position, given that McManus is the official spokesman and arbiter of JBS ideology? Is the JBS going to retract or correct his statement? Or, in keeping with past performance, will JBS upper management do nothing in the hope that this embarrassment will simply go away -- and then praise itself for displaying "leadership"?

November 29, 2009

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq

Judge Napolitano Sadly Nothing To See Move On

Judge Napolitano: two problems the government (Obama Administration) is taking tax dollars and giving money to people to pay mortgages with... the government has no money of its own, it is borrowing and in debt... and second, the government (Obama Administration) is browbeating banks to forgive the loans/debt.

This only creates a "mess."

Hmmm. Judge Napolitano only had a couple of mninutes on Fox 'n Friends this morning to explain anything and that is negligence on the part of Fox 'n Friends.

Maybe he'll go into more on his own net programming, or other Fox appearances later in the day.

But why the teaser? Obviously to get people who are hooked on Fox to watch all of it.

Meanwhile, we remain skeptical of Judge Napolitano who has been a huge advocate of a second federal Constitutional Convention.

Please read our posts about the issue and the inherent danger of such a convention.

Namely, a convention called by the states according to Article V cannot ever be limited to proposing only those amendments pre-set as a condition to calling the Convention.

The precedent-setting first Convention (1787) call is the basis for the inability to limit delegates to the Convention to any conditions - once they are in session.

At any rate, Judge Napolitano is admirable, but he's not saying anything about the comments of Damon Vickers, either.

We haven't heard any recently and it's only been since Nov. 9. Vickers made his statements on Asia Squawk Box.

We'll check. One would think the Judge and everybody else there at Fox would latch onto Vickers' pronouncements about the coming global financial crisis = global currency = global government = new world order.

Maybe not until it's a done deal.

Net the Truth Online

Related

Joel S. Hirschhorn

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2665-does-larry-sabato-really-want-a-constitutional-convention.html

John McManus: Patriot Act Should Die

so says John F. McManus publisher of The New American magazine, and President of The John Birch Society.

We agree.

Net the Truth Online

John F. McManus Answers the The "Big Questions" PDF | Print | E-mail
Written by John F. McManus
Friday, 20 November 2009 13:00

...The Hill: The House and Senate are moving forward with different bills to reauthorize the Patriot Act, which expires at the end of the year. Will this effort divide Democrats? And will it hamper President Barack Obama's call for unity on healthcare reform?

JFM: The cleverly named Patriot Act is a huge attack on the freedoms of the American people. Passed in the aftermath of 9/11, it was read by few if any members of Congress beforehand. Rather than being reauthorized; it should be allowed to die. There are probably a few Democrats who will opt to close it down. But many Republicans will seek to have it continued because it was passed under the leadership of the GOP president George W. Bush...

http://67.227.136.225/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq

Related

Obama Administration Backs ‘Patriot’ Act Provisions | Print | E-mail
Written by Alex Newman
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 13:00

http://67.227.136.225/jbs-news-feed/5371-obama-administration-backs-patriot-act-provisions

Capitalism: One Minute Case

Thanks to author for the One Minute Case for Capitalism with the original piece here, we don't have to dig from room to room (basement to attic) of papers and notes to find what we read how long ago. Whew, what a timesaver...

too useful to break up.

The One Minute Case For Capitalism
By heroic@gmail.com (David Veksler) from One Minute Cases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/capitalism/

Capitalism a social system based on the principle of individual rights.

A capitalist society is based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights. Under capitalism, all property is privately owned, and the state is separated from economics just as it is from religion. Economically, capitalism is a system of laissez faire, or free markets, where the government plays no part whatsoever in economic decisions.

Capitalism is the only social system compatible with the requirements of man’s life

To pursue the values necessary for his life a society, man requires only one thing from others: freedom of action. Freedom means the ability to act however one pleases as long as one does not infringe on the same and equal freedom of others. In a political context, freedom means solely the freedom from the initiation of force by other men. Only by the initiation of force can man’s rights be violated. Whether it is by a theft, force, fraud, or government censorship, man’s rights can be violated only by the initiation of force. Because man’s life depends on the use of reason to achieve the values necessary for his life, the initiation of force renders his mind useless as a means of survival. To live, man must achieve the values necessary to sustain his live. To achieve values, man must be free to think and to act on his judgment. To live, man must be free to think. To be free to think, man must be free to act. In the words of Ayn Rand, “Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.”

Capitalism recognizes the inherent worth of the individual

In a human society – one that recognizes the independence of each man’s mind – each individual is an end in himself. He owns his life, and no one else’s. Other men are not his slaves, and he is not theirs. They have no claim on his life or on the values he creates to maintain his life, and he has no claim on theirs. In a free society, men can gain immense values from each other by voluntarily trading the values they create to mutual gain. However, they can only create values if they are free to use their minds to exercise their creativity. A man is better living off on his own than as a slave to his brothers. Capitalism recognizes each man as an independent, thinking being.

The individual is an end in himself

Just as no individual has the right to initiate force against anyone, neither does any group of men, in any private or public capacity. It is immoral to initiate force against any individual for any reason. This includes the initiation of force for “the public good.” The “public” is merely a collection of individuals, each possessing the same rights, and each being an end in himself. Any attempt to benefit the “public good” is an immoral attempt to provide a benefit to one group of individuals at the expense of another. In a free society, no individual benefits at the expense of another: men exchange the values they create in voluntary trade to mutual gain. The rule of law in a free society has just one purpose: to protect the rights of the individual.

Capitalism leads to freedom and prosperity

A free, capitalist economy has never existed anywhere in the world. The closest the world came to a free market was during the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain and during the late 19th century in the United States. The Industrial Revolution was a period of unprecedented economic growth and unimaginable improvements in quality of life. In less than two hundred years, the life of most people in the Western world changed from a a short life filled with poverty, plague, and near-constant war to a modern, comfortable existence that even the kings of medieval Europe couldn’t have imagined. Since 1820, the leading capitalist nations have increased their wealth sixteen fold, their populations more than four-fold, their productivity twenty-fold. Annual working hours went from 3,000 to less than 1,700 and life expectancy doubled from thirty to over seventy years. 1

Yet despite the undeniable material superiority of capitalist societies, its critics continue to attack it as inhuman and selfish. What the world lacks is not evidence of capitalism’s practical superiority, but a moral defense of a man’s right to his own life.

Reference

Angus Maddison. Phases of Capitalist Development, p4 (1982)
Further Reading

Andrew Bernstein: The Capitalist Manifesto
Ayn Rand: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
The One Minute Case For Individual Rights
The One Minute Case Against Interventionism
The Bernstein Declaration On the Principles and Possibilities of Capitalism
The Capitalism Site


Posted by Meta Blog at 11:44 AM | TrackBack


http://www.objectivismonline.net/archives/004972.html

http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/capitalism/

Beck May Not Have Listened to Vickers Pronouncements

Posting the entirety of the transcript of the Glenn Beck interview with Damon Vickers which was broadcast on Nov. 17, 2009 in case somehow some of it gets edited out after Beck realizes exactly what Vickers pronounced would happen...

Glenn Beck: One-world Government in Our Future?
November 18, 2009 - 13:35 ET


Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p and 2a ET on the Fox News Channel...
GLENN BECK, HOST: Tonight, I want to talk you to a little bit about un-sustainability. It can't go on this way. It's our debt, the dollar, your money, your children's future, the deficit.

I want to show you this here so you have some framework of what we're going to talk about this hour. We are now at $12 trillion — $12 trillion. But just so you know — that's our national debt. It's like a credit card. It's the accumulation of the deficits. It is at $11.99 trillion, we rounded it to $12 trillion.

And if you think that I'm bashing President Obama, you're wrong. A lot of this came up under George W. Bush. Our national debt — the credit card that we had in 2002 was $5.98 trillion. We're almost at $12 trillion. We have doubled the debt in 7 1/2 years, from $6 trillion to $12 trillion in the blink of an eye.

But let me ask you this question: How long did it take to get the first $6 trillion? Do you want to guess?

The first $6 trillion — we go back to 1995. Yes. No, I don't know why I stopped there. Or, you know, here it is. Here it is — the Reagan years, it had to be there, right? That we spend all that money?

1968, the Great Society, that would have been great.

1945, the end of World War II. No, no.

How about 1930, the Great Depression, huh? No. And I'm out of chalkboard. Can we get some tape? I want to — hang on, this may take a second.

All right. So, we have — it's taking a long time — right now, the producers are, like, he's in the dark. Get some light on him! Really? I look better in the dark. Ask my wife.

All right. So, it's not here, because this is about, what — I'd say this is about 18 — maybe 1865, you know, right around the end of the Civil War. Nope, that's not it.

How about — how about here, you know? Maybe — maybe in the Thomas Jefferson years? No. Nope, nope, not even in the Thomas Jefferson years.

No, it's crazy. We've got to go all the way back. We're going to stop in 17 — I guess I can't even do this — we're going to stop in 1791. 1791 is where we have to stop. Now, that's not the founding of our country — no, no, but this is our first debt, the actual founding of our country was a couple years before, 1791.

Follow this: 1791, 1800, Civil War, turn of the century, the Great Depression, World War II, the Great Society, Ronald Reagan, 1995, 2002 — and we still weren't at $6 trillion.

Now, follow this with me. Watch this. This should blow your mind.

Here we go. Where we estimate it to be next year? Fourteen trillion dollars. That's progress for you.

These are credit cards. We're spending ourselves into oblivion. There is going to be nothing left.

I want to show you a video, something that somebody sent to me last week. It's from CNBC. I don't know, this guy — I don't know anything about this guy that's being interviewed. We did some checking on him and I'll give you his bio in a second.

He's not crazy. He may be wrong but he's not crazy. He was on CNBC's Asia squawk box. I was dumbfounded by this interview because the host didn't say — wait, wait, what? I have never heard anyone on television say this before.

Watch this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, CNBC)

DAMON VICKERS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, NINE POINTS CAPITAL PARTNERS: Oil looks higher, gold looks higher, currencies look weaker — all for the reasons that we talked about before. I mean, you've got huge wage disparities. I don't know how that inevitably resolves itself. It may resolve itself in some type of a global currency crisis.

And then, if the global currency crisis unfolds, then, inevitably, you get, I guess, an alignment under a global government, a new global currency, and a new world order. So, we may be moving towards that.

HOST: Talk a little bit more about this currency crisis you see erupting. What does that assume about what's going to happen to the dollar?

VICKERS: Well, it assumes that the dollar will utterly get destroyed and become virtually worthless.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I can't — I can't take it! I can't take to it. Well, talk to me about this currency crisis. What does that — did I hear it wrong? Play just a little snippet again. What did he say?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VICKERS: If the global currency crisis unfolds, then, inevitably, you get, I guess, an alignment under a global world government, a new global currency, and a new world order.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: That's not good. The guest just said that the dollar would collapse and replace with some sort of global currency.

I mean, have you checked the front page of "Drudge Report" today? China is saying, "Hey, America, you really might want to rethink that whole health care thing, it seems pretty expensive." That is our bank! That's like your bank calling up and saying, "Hey, by the way, I think you guys are spending too much money, that's a pretty big house." If this bank doesn't give us any more loan or if we burn this bank, there is nobody else left.

A one world government, a new world order — and the host doesn't even flinch. Apparently — apparently, that's not even shocking to anybody anymore, or they're not listening.

On the scales of insane things, I just want to show you what we skipped past. Ready? Look at this.

Put it up here.

We're in a recession now. People argue we weren't even in a recession. We're in a deep recession. I think we're on the edge of a depression because of what we're doing.

OK. So, we have skipped a deep recession and skipped depression, even the Great Depression. We went right to the collapse of the dollar, and then he went right to global currency, one world government, and a new world order, like that.

Gosh, I think I would have said, you know, as the host, "What did you just say?"

I invited — because they're not going to do it on CNBC, I thought I would invite Damon Vickers, managing director of Nine Points Capital Partners on to the program.

Damon, what did you just say?

VICKERS: Glenn.

BECK: What did you say?

VICKERS: Well, you know, the trends that are in place are disturbing. I mean, you make great points. I mean, it's — we have a momentum, and the momentum is the weak dollar. It's something that the current administration is in favor of. Printing money is also something that they're in favor because nobody wants to face the consequences of not having to live indulgently.

BECK: OK.

VICKERS: And not only Americans, but also the government as well.

BECK: OK. This — this is — let's get this out of money talk, because this isn't CNBC. Thank you, Jesus. But.

VICKERS: Where's Maria?

BECK: OK. Let's bring this down to everybody's level of understanding. What is happening here is the government is blaming us and saying that we won't live within our means as a society, but they're just promising us this stuff and telling us, no, no, first, during the Bush years, you don't have to worry about the debt. Yes, you do!

Now, they're saying we should worry about the debt, but, oh, no, we're not even close. I look at the "Drudge Report." I look at the Web sites, the financial, I read "Bloomberg." I read "The Financial Times." You can't tell me there isn't signal after signal after signal.

Last I saw was from China on the health care. Japan said we used to be a country of innovators. Now, we're just a protection.

I mean, how come nobody — how come it's only you saying these things?

VICKERS: Well, I'm not beholden to an investment banking firm that has the honored position of distributing government paper. So, and in terms that everybody can understand, when we look at Goldman Sachs and JP Morgans, they were the recipient of so much financial love. They distribute government paper. They distribute the debt to the planet. So, of course, we had to keep those interests in check.

We've got serious problems. I mean, the debt is a problem. It doesn't seem to be a problem to Bernanke. I mean, notice his comments yesterday that he's happy to see the dollar weak and they're not all that concerned.

The problem is — as we see it — is that there are huge disparities in the cost of production for American goods versus the cost of production in Bangladesh or in India, or in Vietnam. These people make money. They get paid what, some of them what, 70 cents, $1 a day.

BECK: Right.

VICKERS: Twenty cents an hour — I mean, incredible wages. These are our servants, really. They're just living outside of the country. Yet, we also, domestically, have to employ people to produce things because not everybody can appear on "The Glenn Beck Show."

I mean, people in Ohio and Michigan actually need to do something.

BECK: Right.

VICKERS: A lot of it involves labor.

BECK: Right.

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: What everybody is saying now and this is what global labor is doing, is they're saying that we're going to be able to bring the world up to our standard. No, they're not. They're not — that's not possible.

What — what we are doing right now is we are spending ourselves into oblivion. It is — are you familiar with the Cloward-Piven strategy?

VICKERS: No. It sounds great.

BECK: No, it doesn't. You got to look this up, because you would — you would understand this. Look up the Cloward-Piven, the Cloward-Piven strategy. It's a — it's a radical Marxist idea that came out of Columbia University, and I'm telling you, Damon, it's being employed right now.

And the idea is: you want to change the culture in America? You want to change the government? You want to overthrow the Constitution? You don't do it with guns. You don't do it anything like that. If you want a redistribution of wealth, what you do is you collapse the system, and then it has to restart.

Well, that's what is happening.

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: They are overwhelming it.

VICKERS: I know there are a lot of conspiracy theories out there. I had the benefit of doing the "Alex Jones Show" last night and I heard — I heard a couple of them. And I'm not disputing that many of them may be actually true. But market forces.

BECK: You don't need them.

VICKERS: . are likely to take.

BECK: You don't need a conspiracy theory.

VICKERS: Yes. But market forces are likely to take us there anyway. The dollar is way too high and other currencies are way too low. So, what you're likely to see is a realignment of currencies. We obviously cannot.

BECK: Say this in terms that people understand. A realignment of currencies doesn't mean anything. What it does mean is, you're going to live closer to the standard of Mexico than you are of America when they realign the currencies, correct?

VICKERS: Yes. That would be — that would be accurate. Our debts are simply too huge. There is no possible way that our labor forces can compete globally on a production cost basis.

When — if you or I, Glenn, were to come up with a brilliant idea, an "Aha, I got something," something Billy Mays might be proud of, maybe we would elect to make it here, but most people don't. When they come up with those great ideas, they're electing to immediately make them those things in the Philippines, or Bangladesh or Mexico.

That didn't happen in the past. In the past, we at least had a 10-, 15-, 20-year period where we created employment in this country. As of this moment, if great, new technologies come along that innovate society, like the arrival of the railroads, that really create an adoption cycle, an investment cycle, a bull market and economic expansion, those things that we're all talking about, they're not likely to land on these shores. The benefits are likely to be made overseas in emerging markets.

BECK: Right.

VICKERS: Beyond that, we don't have anything to export. We don't have oil.

BECK: That's why.

VICKERS: We don't — we are net consumers and net importers of our food. We don't have anything to export.

BECK: How did that happen?

VICKERS: We export promises and debt. And, inevitably, those two roads shall meet. And with the weakness of the dollar on a daily basis and the breakout on gold, it may be that we're moving towards it now.

BECK: America, how does this not make sense to you? I mean, this is the way it would work in your home. How does this not make sense?

How — how is it that we're still talking about insane things, instead of doing this, instead of America having this conversation of — look, look me in the eye, will you live a tough lifestyle right now? Will you — you've got to eventually pay the debt, it's immoral to pass all of this on — would you pay and live without government freebies? You got to work. You got to scratch. It's going to mean — it's going to mean like we live like our grandparents if we do it now.

VICKERS: But.

BECK: And you know what? That's fine. I will do that if my children still have an America at the end of it.

But, Damon, correct me if I'm wrong. If we don't get out of this, this thing will spiral out of control, and it will become — they'll push it up to a bigger, a higher power. Well, America is too-big-to-fail, got to make it into a one-world government, right?

VICKERS: Well, that — yes, that's exactly — that's exactly how it would unfold. You said something brilliant a second ago, which was about indulgence and about not facing the truth.

BECK: Hang on. I'm writing them down.

VICKERS: We are a society — we are a society that, I believe, for the most part medicates ourselves. Now, how do we do that? We do that with alcohol, we do it with drugs, we do it with bad television programs — not yours.

BECK: No, this is a bad TV show. Come on.

VICKERS: But programs — they dull the senses. We medicate ourselves. We take short-term impulsive fixes of buying things that we don't need, and we've accumulated so much. How many homes, how many cars, how many bangles of jewelry? I mean, we're choking on it. We're a society that has become a society where, literally, we stuff the macaroni and cheese in our bodies and we don't — we take out equity lines of credit to suck the fat out of our neck.

BECK: OK.

VICKERS: That is — this is craziness.

BECK: OK. Now, listen, I don't — I don't know about you, I don't have a problem with wealth. I don't have a problem with.

VICKERS: No. Me, neither.

BECK: OK. OK. Good, good. Because I just want to make that clear, I don't. But when you are putting it on a credit card — which is what our country is doing — it becomes insane.

I believe that we will be remembered in the history books only one of two ways. This generation and this time period, right now, we are making history. We will either be looked back on as the dumbest people ever to be on the face of the earth, the most clueless, greedy, obscene, stupid people, or we are going to be looked back on as heroes, because we decided to do the tough thing and live within our means!

And know what that means, gang. It means we're going to have our grandparents' depression nightmares, but they made it, and they were better for it.

And if you just want to ignore it, you know what? You're exactly right. We do medicate ourselves all the time.

We medicate ourselves, and just — as a recovering alcoholic, the media is the enabler. The politicians are the enabler. What they will do over and over? They'll say, "He doesn't have a problem, we don't have a problem, that's not happening." That's an enabler.

Get away from the enablers. Start rooting yourself in the truth.

Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p and 2a ET on the Fox News Channel...

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/33297/

Vickers Lays Out Global Currency Road Beck Nods

Disappointing segment of Glenn Beck's so-called interview of Damon Vickers. Odd the last few seconds some 90 seconds and Beck is not listening? It all just goes right on by his head? Actually, Vickers is not adverse to the global currency. He sees it is a real possibility and he isn't warning us Glenn Beck. In fact, he's informing us this is what must happen because the dollar is too high and the other currencies are too low in relationship to the dollar - that is unsustainable.

Maybe Glenn just doesn't want to get it?

Net the Truth Online

Vickers comments after his appearance... says nothing... not surprising... he let the conspiracy uh cat out of the bag and now he can't talk anymore about the cat uh conspiracy uh cat...

http://www.damonvickers.com/articles?com_id=298

uh wait, Vickers thinks something is up? Some sort of plan? No, he thinks not? What's he really thinking?

Global Balance
by: Damon Vickers
Updated 3:09 pm EDT November 09, 2009

I made some comments in Asia last week that went, -well... Global. We are moving towards a point in time where the unit labor cost differentials.. -the cost of making a toothbrush in the US vs China/Vietnam/ Ecuador must come to a juncture, otherwise we have no means of paying our global debt. Witness rising unemployment. -Now maybe that's the plan all along? I dunno.We can get our house in order or there may be a new order of things on the way... new currencies.. new govts... etc. _The Tape will Tell.

http://www.damonvickers.com/articles?com_id=293

clip transcript GlennBeck.com(partial)

Glenn Beck: No follow up question?
November 17, 2009

Glenn: So, Damon, I've only got 90 seconds and less than 90 seconds and I'd like to have you back and talk about some other things, but give me the biggest warning sign, something that we are going to see in the future that you say, if you start seeing these things, you're if trouble. We've only got about a minute now.

Vickers: Well, nobody's in trouble if they do the right things and the right things is not to own dollars but, well, here's how it could happen. You'll find you may come in on a Monday morning, Glenn, and you may find out the dollar is down not just a percent but down maybe 10, 15 percent overnight and it's not just the dollar. It's also the pound because if it happens like that, it will be a domino effect.

Glenn: Yeah.

Vickers: It won't just be one currency. It will be multiple currencies. What the governments will then do is they will rash shun up interest rates to try to support the dollar. You may see interest rates go up 5, 6 percent in one shot. I think that when that happens, what you'll also find is that even though they have raised interest rates, it still doesn't support the dollar. Then you get, I guess, a meeting of, perhaps, the G 20.

Glenn: 10 seconds.

Vickers: To try to come together to try to formulate some kind of a plan and that plan will probably be some kind of new global currency...

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/33218/

No other segment of the Nov. 17, 2009 interview with Vickers is in transcript form on Beck's site that we can tell.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/list/196/

Vickers Many Conspiracies Might be true not global currency?

A CNBC guest Damon Vickers was later invited onto the Glenn Beck Program to review his particular statement:

“If the global currency crisis unfolds, then inevitably you get an alignment of a global world government. A new global currency and a new world order, so we may be moving towards that,”

http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/damon-vickers-we-are-heading-towards-a-global-currency-new-world-order/

http://www.blogcatalog.com/search.frame.php?term=damon+vickers&id=f5f81bcd2d52c32d7c1731b0f3d1429f

CNBC Report

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33709379

With video of the exchange on CNBC's Asia Squawk Box

Dollar Will be "Utterly Destroyed": Strategist
Published: Friday, 6 Nov 2009 | 3:09 AM ET Text Size By: CNBC.com

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33709379

On CNBC, Strategist Says Dollar Will be ‘Utterly Destroyed’; We Are Moving Toward ‘New World Order’Posted by Ralph Bernardo on November 18, 2009

http://www.disinfo.com/2009/11/on-cnbc-strategist-says-dollar-will-be-utterly-destroyed-we-are-moving-toward-new-world-order/

Beck used the clip as an introduction to his guest, Damon Vickers, wondering why Vickers wasn't asked about the statement then and there.

Beck says he was dumbfounded the CNBC host didn't ask anything about New World Order... currency crisis, etc...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8MLgjUWn8

segment with Beck questioning why the CNBC host didn't ask anything about world government or new world order...

http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/glenn-beck-w-damon-vickers-new-world-order/410315580

Beck says he thought he'd invite David Vickers on his own program.

Vickers noted the trends were disturbing...

What was astonishing, later during the Beck interview, Vickers made a statement at once denying conpiracy theories about his comment - a global currency and world government and a new world order - etc - he noted he was a guest on the Alex Jones program where a couple of conspiracy theories were offered, said many of the theories might be true, but in this case... the market forces are likely to cause a realignment of currencies! Possibly world government is inevitable, too?

Alex Jones interview Damon Vickers

http://www.doomdaily.com/2009/the-alex-jones-show-%E2%80%93-l-i-v-e-%E2%80%93-november-16th-with-damon-vickers/

Alex Jones audio/video interview Damon Vickers (listen intently to Vickers when Jones makes remarks)

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8361

comments about Jones/Vickers

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=144760.0

By the way, listen and watch the Jones interview... see how Vickers comments people are afraid of change...

However, our focus remains on the comments Vickers made on Beck's program. He said he'd been a guest on Alex Jones program yesterday (Nov. 16) and he heard a couple of the conspiracy theories by Jones. He told Beck many of these conspiracy theories might be actually true.

Our response, why didn't Beck stop Vickers then and there and demand to know which Jones' conspiracies he thought might be actually true then? Which are not? And Beck could have asked how can Vickers ever know for sure that true unfettered market forces and not manipulation of market forces cause the realignment of currencies, global currency, global government, and new world order he envisions?

Transcript Nov. 27 rebroadcast Glenn Beck from Nov. 17, 2009

start here at 5:28

:31

Glenn Beck: what we are doing right now is we are spending ourselves into oblivion

:39

Beck: are you familiar with the Cloward Piven strategy

Vickers: no it sounds great

:47

Beck: no it doesn't you gotta look this up. cause you would understand this. Look up Cloward Piven strategy... a radical marxist idea that came out of Columbia University... telling you it's being employed right now... the idea is you want to change the culture in America you want to change the government... you want to overthrow the Constitution... you don't do it with guns... you don't do anything like that... if you want a redistribution of wealth what you do is you collapse the system...and then it has to restart...that's what's happening...overwhelmingly...

Vickers: I know there are a lot of conspiracy theories out there, I had the benefit of doing the Alex Jones show last night... and I heard a couple of them and I'm not disputing that many of them might be actually true...but market forces are likely to take...

Beck interrupts: you don't need a conspiracy theory

Vickers: But the market forces are likely to take us there anyway... the dollar is way too high, and other currencies are way too low... what you are likely to see is a realignment of currencies...our debts are too huge... no possibile way that our labor forces can compete globally on production services... when we come up with a great idea... maybe we would elect to make it here... but now they are immediately making them in...Mexico and Bangladesh...

(transcript Net the Truth Online from video of Beck interview with Damon Vickers) and AOL.UK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku9nfWZLOOo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26cQ3a7daw4

Glenn Beck Transcript includes segment wherein Beck says "you don't need a conspiracy theory."

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/33297/

Say what, Beck? You don't need a conspiracy? Say that again and again, and maybe people will believe you don't need a conspiracy to accomplish a collapse of the (financial) system and to overthrow the Constitution?

What you've described in just a few sentences... if you want to change the culture, if you want to change government...if you want to overthrow the Constitution...

you don't need guns, Beck said.

No you only need some way to "redistribute the wealth by collapsing the system and then it has to restart!"

Not a conspiracy?

Oh it will just happen because it well just will?

What makes Beck look unfortunately like a question-mark himself at this point?

He mentions the Marxist idea that came out of Columbia, tagged the Cloward-Piven strategy, and informss his guest Damon Vickers, this is happening, look it up - this is happening - then he offers a way to obtain the redistribution of wealth (envisioned in the radical Marxist theory that came out of Columbia University?) is by collapsing the system but then Beck denies any evidence of a conspiracy (theory) to accomplish this feat?

Just read one book by Grenville Clark World Peace Through World Law

World Law. World Government. New World Order. Not a conspiracy, right.

Beck lost us a few times before this, but this exchange is the height of his continued irresponsibility.

It's like Beck doesn't want to go too far - evidence of a conspiracy - one that would collapse the system in order to 'redistribute the wealth' - by such as manipulation of the stock market, manipulation by the Federal Reserve of the banking system, and so on - but he wants to put the idea in our minds - the fear - of the potential for a collapse of the system with the goal to redistribute the wealth.

As to his exchange with Vickers, Beck didn't even get out of him why market forces would likely result in a realignment of currencies... and world government no less.

In other words, Beck failed to poke and prod Vickers on the original statement Vickers made and by the end of the interview session we are no more informed about Vickers' statement than before he appeared on Beck's program.

This is more than disappointing given Beck's monologue and interjection wherein he allows "you don't need a conspiracy theory."

Vickers doesn't explain at any point other than to note what has been happening - companies are making more products and taking their production enterprises to lower wage countries... like Mexico and Bangladesh - that's where the companies go now - first... he said, something that hadn't happened before?

Say what? Hasn't happened before? Such has been happening in recent history after the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed, sealed and delivered by the U.S. under Bill Clinton.

Wonder what is Vickers' opinion of NAFTA and CAFTA, etc.?

We'd bet he doesn't see any conspiratorial linkage there, right.

Meanwhile, don't miss the dailypaul.com discussion about Beck's reaction to Vickers.

Here's where we wonder what interview did this person watch?

Beck tries to portray economic collapse as engineered in order to bring about world government (a la Alex Jones), while the person he interviews, Damon Vickers, downplays the conspiracy theory version of things.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/115087

Actually, it was Beck who agreed with Vickers: "you don't need a conspiracy theory."

so in fact, Beck did not try to portray the economic collapse as one that's engineered a la a conspiracy to bring about a new world order.

On the other hand, a review of Alex Jones interview with Vickers shows Jones is not remiss in outlining exactly what the conspiracy is and has been to create a problem or a crisis, turn an about face, and present a solution. Invariably, the solution gives more power to some, curtails rights of the masses, and eradicates freedom.

At this point, we can't disagree with the sentiments expressed about Glenn Beck - he's inconsistent and watch out. We also highlighted Beck's acquiescence on the issue of encouraging a second federal Constitutional Convention a while back.

Aj Show - Damon Vickers - Nine Points Research, Child of Elite gives NWO sales pitch!
Posted: Nov 17 2009, 02:24 PM
Listen to Monday, November 16, 2009: (Start Time 2:08:00)

http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showtopic=7548&st=0

Net the Truth Online

Transcript appears to be missing the section we've highlighted

Glenn Beck: No follow up question?

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/33218/

But here we find

Damon Vickers Mentions Alex Jones On Glenn Beck Show
Infowars
November 18, 2009

In response to Beck’s assertion that Obama and crew are using the Marxist Cloward–Piven strategy to collapse and reformulate society, Damon Vickers mentions the “conspiracy theories” of Alex Jones. Vickers appeared on Alex’s show on November 16. The following video was taken from Beck’s show that aired on November 17. Vickers makes the comment at five minutes, 58 seconds into the video.


http://peopleforfreedom.com/new-world-order-news/economy/damon-vickers-mentions-alex-jones-on-glenn-beck-show/

Alex Jones site video Nov. 16, 2009 guest Damon Vickers

http://www.archive.org/details/AlexJonesRadioShow-November162009

Worth a read

http://www.roguegovernment.com/Estulin:_After_G20,_Oligarchs_Moving_on_African_Union,_Population_Reduction/18049/0/2/2/Y/M.html

http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/bruce-d-collins-dot-com-blog/31cb013075fff106b789722598367d95

http://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/the-council-on-foreign-relations-cfr-and-the-new-world-order/

Whew


http://maxkeiser.com/2009/11/08/sunday-video-club-the-dollar-will-be-utterly-destroyed/comment-page-1/