Saturday, January 30, 2010


Good article:

Thomas Frank says that whatever disadvantaged Americans think they are voting for, they get something quite different:

"You vote to strike a blow against elitism and you receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our life times, workers have been stripped of power, and CEOs are rewarded in a manner that is beyond imagining.

"It's like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy."

Friday, January 29, 2010


The following 3 youtube videos give the clearest fact-based information I have heard on the subject of swine flu and the scare tactics put out to the public. This is an interview with a doctor who is intelligent, articulate, and who has done his research.  WELL WORTH WATCHING. Can help you decide whether or not to have the vaccine.  For parents, it's especially important to know for your children's sake.  Upshot: Vitamin D might be the best protection you can get.                  PART ONE   (10 minutes)   PART TWO  (10 minutes)                  PART THREE  (8 minutes)

Dr. Saputo has written an excellent book entitled, A Return to Healing, which describes the problems encountered in our medical system today and suggests that integrative medicine is gaining in popularity as more and more of the population realize the allopathic "scientific" approach is not all it was presented to be.  You can read some reviews of this book on at:   All the reviews give the book 5 stars.

More information and Full chapter excerpts can be found at the following links:


Thursday, January 28, 2010

Poll on Obama's speech: creative humor that happens to be true

The following comment by satirist Andy Borowitz is meant to be creative humor, but it is also sadly true. Given the present stance of the Republican party, bipartisanship will never be achieved by Obama. Republicans hate him and, unlike Democrats, who will strive for the greater good over political rivalry, Republicans would rather see the entire ship go down than to ever make even one concession. Many have lived with husbands or wives like this. Those who have, recognize well the trademarks (and repercussions) of dig-in-the-heels stubbornness that refuses to discuss or compromise on anything. It's their way or the highway. NO ONE in the family profits from such behavior, and the cracks in relationships are often irreparable.

This analogy applies well to the present political scene in Washington. As Republicans continue to stall on important public issues, no thought is being given to the people they supposedly represent--and their needs. With rising health care costs and job losses, the middle class is disappearing, leaving the corporations and their lobbyists in control of the destiny of the nation. Most Republicans think this is exactly how it should be (the rich get richer and the poor get poorer), but they will come to rue their selfish thinking when the democracy on which our country is based cracks to an irreparable state. We are very close to that state now.


WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) - President Barack Obama's State of the Union address has already gotten a big thumbs-down from one key group of voters: Republicans who did not see the speech.

According to an instant poll conducted by the University of Minnesota's Opinion Research Institute, 90 percent of Republicans who did not see the President's speech strongly disagreed with it.

Additionally, 95 percent of Republicans polled agreed with the statement, "If I had seen the President's speech, I'll bet I would have hated it even more."

Davis Logsdon, who supervised the poll, said there were certain difficulties in polling Republican voters: "Many of them would not let us finish asking the question before answering 'No.'"


Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Strange cloud colors before China earthquake

EVER HEARD OF HAARP?  ( 30 minutes before earthquake)    (10 minutes before earthquake)

HAARP:    Jesse Ventura show on HAARP

Pope John Paul II whipped himself

See article at:
Self-flagellation is why he should now be declared a saint, according to the convoluted, self-promoting thinking of the Catholic Church. No wonder the ultra-conservative, back-to-the-dark-ages Opus Dei group plays such a big part in today's church. It's interesting to contemplate that these old-time conservatives took back the papacy and kept control of the church after the sudden mysterious death of Pope John Paul I (33 days into his reign), who apparently wanted to continue updating the church in the vein begun by Pope John. He wanted to clean up the Vatican Bank and its illegal doings. The conservative Cardinals were having none of that. And "POOF!" just like that, he was gone. Poor fellow passed in the night, alone, of a "heart attack." But no autopsy was permitted. I wrote more about this in a November posting on this site, as follows:
Some will think this is "holy" -- they are talking about sainthood for him. Opus Dei members think self-flagellation is a "holy" thing to do, too. (Can you see my eyes rolling?) But then, who would know better what his sins were than he himself? The truly good Pope before him, John Paul I, died very mysteriously after only 33 days as Pope -- many think he was murdered because he planned to change things radically in the Vatican and the Church. John Paul I was actually embarking on a revolution. He wanted to set the Church in a new direction that was considered highly undesirable and dangerous by many high-ranking Church officials.

He wanted, first of all, to strip many of the Vatican members of their powers by dismissing them or reassigning them into harmless positions. Six men in particular, stood to lose a great deal if Pope John Paul I remained in power. (These were - Cardinals Marcinkus, Villot, Calvi, Sindona, Cody and Gelli). There was a suspicion of a conspiracy among these men with Villot the instigator and Gelli the executioner. When John Paul II replaced John Paul I, none of the planned edicts of the first John Paul were ever carried out. For more information on this intriguing episode in the Catholic Church, see:

I've read a well-researched book about this alleged conspiracy entitled In God's Name by David Yallop. It presents a very convincing case against the dark elements of the Church's high-ranking clergy and their illegal banking practices that were about to be exposed and up-ended by John Paul I.

To read some fine reviews of this book, go to:

Here is just one of them:

This is a difficult book to digest for faithful Roman Catholics like myself. It is the story of a wonderful priest who loved the poor and wanted the church to improve the quality of life for Catholics. Pope John Paul the First was a man who would not seek to impose Christian solutions on non-Christians; he was someone who was sensitive to social problems and open to dialogue; with a commitment to the search for unity; a good pastor, a good shepherd in the way that Jesus was; a man who sincerely believed that the church should not be out of date but be a relevant, nurturing factor in the lives of Catholics worldwide.

The press called him the "Smiling Pope." However, in reality Albino Luciani who wished to be called Pope John Paul the First and became the first double name in the history of the papacy was a man of enormous faith. What a shame his 33 days as pope in 1978 was the shortest stint since Pope Medici Leo XI in 1605 who only served 17 days. In all likelihood, he had the inner strength and intelligence to be the greatest pope in the history of the Vatican.

To this end, "In God's Name: An Investigation into the Murder of Pope John Paul I," by highly regarded journalist David A.Yallop is a work of monumental research and importance. The author dares to point a finger at the financial corruption within the Vatican. He names names...Michele Sindona, Roberto Calvi, Lucio Gelli, Cardinal John Patrick Cody of Chicago and Bishop Paul Casimir Marcinkus in Vatican City all conducted illegal activities. And Albino Luciani was determined to put an end to it.

This well-written book is difficult to put down. Quite naturally it is officially condemned by the oligarchy in the Vatican. However, I think it is important for all interested in the pursuit of truth to read this compelling book and drawn one's own conclusion. The evidence is hard to ignore. The conclusion is based on facts. It is truly hard to imagine but I am now convinced that Pope John Paul the First was murdered because he dared to promote positive change and rid the Vatican of corrupt banking practices. Highly recommended.


Go to the Vatican Bank if you want money laundered

Vatican bank charged with money-laundering
Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:34:44 GMT

The Bank of the Vatican has been accused of laundering USD 200 million by proxy through an Italian creditor, a report indicates.

The allegation of the Vatican bank's financial corruption has been made by an Italian magazine that pointed to the financial institute's purported involvement in stealth fiscal transactions —via several accounts —with Italy's UniCredit Bank, Russia Today television network quoted the Panorama magazine as reporting.

“This corruption is continuing on a regular basis in the Vatican,” claimed Janathan Levy, a lawyer familiar with the bank.

“Again, there's no reason for a religion to have a bank that does worldwide commercial activities, dealing in gold, dealing in insurance, dealing in property and then hiding behind the Roman Catholic Church," Levy pointed out.

“I had the privilege to walk inside this bank. It's nothing like a bank,” the Russian news channel quoted another lawyer, Massimiliano Gabrieli, as saying.

“If you go there you deposit or withdraw money without limit, without any kind of receipt for the bank and for the client. All you have is a single card with a number,” he stated.

The British London Telegraph, has recently ranked the Bank of the Vatican ahead of the Bahamas, Switzerland and Liechtenstein in banking secrecy.

The Vatican has denied all charges.

November 23, 2001

Vatican Bank Top 10 Money Laundering Destination

According to one global source, the Vatican is the main destination for over $55 billion in illegal Italian money laundering and the number 8 destination worldwide for laundered money, ranked well ahead of such offshore havens as the Bahamas, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein.

In a recent report by the London Telegraph and the Inside Fraud Bulletin, the Vatican was named as a top "cut out" country along with the offshore banking centers of Nauru, Macao, and Mauritius. A "cut out" country is one whose banking secrecy makes it is all but impossible to trace laundered funds back to their source.

The Vatican Bank is desperately resisting a legal action for an accounting of stolen World War II assets in a San Francisco Federal court (Alperin v. Vatican Bank) filed by Serb and Jewish Holocaust survivors. Contrary to the above reports, a declaration filed under penalty of perjury by the Vatican Bank's attorney, Franzo Grande Stevens, states in part that the Vatican Bank's "fundamental purpose is to promote pious acts" and that its depositors "are essentially limited to Vatican state employees, members of the Holy See, religious orders, and persons who deposit money destined, at least in part, for works of piety." Stevens also declared to the court that the Pope controls the Vatican Bank and that bank records are not retained after ten years.

It seems that the Vatican Bank, a major illegal money laundering operation, is hiding behind the benign image of John Paul II. Given the Vatican Bank's alleged involvement with Nazi loot and current links to organized crime, a reckoning cannot be far off. The accumulating evidence points to a more piratical than pietical Vatican Bank


Confidential documents on mysterious death of Dr. David Kelly to be released

Key sentence in following article:  Dr Kelly, a former UN weapons inspector, was exposed as the source of a BBC report questioning the government claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed in 45 minutes., let's think: who would have wanted him done away with? Who had the most to lose if his words were taken seriously? Give up? Here's the answer: The finger points directly at Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Blair & Company. They've tried to keep these records from the public, with requests that the secret files should be closed for THIRTY years and the medical reports, including post-mortem photos, be closed for SEVENTY years.

Stay tuned...but don't expect anything like full disclosure. Oh my, no.  We can't have anything like Truth floating around, now, can we?  To see full article, go to:


Confidential medical evidence about the death of David Kelly, the expert in biological warfare, is to be released.

Lord Hutton, the retired law lord who chaired the inquiry into Dr Kelly’s death, has indicated that he will release to a group of doctors the medical records and results of the post-mortem examination that have to date remained unpublished. His 2004 report, commissioned by Tony Blair, concluded that Dr Kelly killed himself by cutting his wrist with a blunt gardening knife.

It was reported at the weekend that the medical reports including the post-mortem examination findings by Dr Nicholas Hunt, a pathologist, and also photographs of Dr Kelly’s body, are to remain classified for 70 years.

There is also a 30-year ban on publication of records provided to the inquiry but not produced in evidence.

The restrictions on publication were notified to a group of doctors who are challenging the Hutton verdict, arguing that the evidence does not support suicide.

A letter from a senior official at Oxfordshire Council said that Lord Hutton had requested that records provided to the inquiry that were not produced in evidence should be closed for 30 years and that the medical reports, including the post-mortem reports and photographs, be closed for 70 years.

But last night the doctors heard through their lawyers that the evidence would be released.

Last year they published a medical dossier saying that Lord Hutton’s conclusion that Dr Kelly killed himself by severing the ulnar artery in his left wrist after taking an overdose of prescription painkillers was untenable because the artery is small and hard to access; and severing it would not in any case cause death.

Dr Michael Powers, QC, one of the doctors involved, said last night: “Obviously we welcome this news that Lord Hutton is now going to disclose the medical reports and any post-mortem reports.

“We particularly welcome it if it can be assured that we shall have access to all the material, so that we consider it.

“Obviously as doctors we undertake not to make public anything that is of a personal or distressing nature to the family.”

Dr Kelly, a former UN weapons inspector, was exposed as the source of a BBC report questioning the government claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed in 45 minutes.


Monday, January 25, 2010

The Day Kennedy Died - Riveting article about doctor who was there

The following article might provide a wake up call for all those who trust the government's findings in the Warren Commission and think the matter is resolved.  This doctor's remembrance of treating Kennedy in Parkland Hospital--and the kinds of wounds he really sustained--is proof that there was a gigantic cover up that continues to this day.  Are there still some naive souls out there who believe the government wouldn't lie to us? Who think conspiracies are bunk and that the government couldn't possibly keep secrets like that from the public?  Hmmm.....if you're among the ever-shrinking numbers of that group, you might want to read this article. This doctor's story will hold your interest.


Sunday, January 24, 2010

Radiation treatment -- can kill...and does Important article

The government, hospitals and AMA have tried to keep this information from reaching the public...this is a very important article to read and remember.

Friday, January 22, 2010

Sunday, January 17, 2010

The Great Tea Party Rip-off

Excellent column by Frank Rich. Although many Republicans can't stand Michael Steele, they can't get rid of him, either. Funny how these political machinations sometimes reverse on must have sounded great at the time ("Hey, let's appoint an African-American to be the head of the Republican National Committee" -- "Yeah, what a great idea! We'll get back the black vote!") OOPS!


Republican Conservative and Dem. Liberal lawyers team up on issue of gay rights

For once, Ted Olson of the political right side is on the moral right side. The so-called "Christian" Tea Party Republican types have too long stood in the way of equal rights for gays. If those self-proclaimed Christ followers actually followed Christian principles, gays would have been afforded equal rights in all ways long ago.

By Maureen Dowd

It has been quite a journey for Ted Olson. He’s gone from being the conservative lawyer who helped crown W. by winning the Bush v. Gore case before the Supreme Court, to being a lesbian.

“Maureen,” he told me in his gravelly voice, “one of the biggest lesbian groups in this country told me I’m already an honorary lesbian.”

Did it make you feel different, I wondered.

“I still like women very much,” he wryly replied, as his biking pal, liberal adversary and now co-counsel David Boies laughed, snacking on a crust of sourdough bread in their temporary office on Mission Street.

In 2000, Olson and Boies sparred with each other in Washington over which candidate would marry the country. Now they have joined forces here to spar with Prop 8 defenders over who can marry.

“Ted Olson and David Boies, so what are they up to?” Olson laughed, summarizing the confusion and conspiracy theories that their union inspired.

As the sun set on the Bay Bridge behind him and the curtain dropped on the first week of the dramatic trial to challenge the constitutionality of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, Olson reviewed the case: “We’re going to explain why allowing same-sex couples to have that same right that the rest of us have is not going to hurt heterosexual marriages. It has no point at all except some people don’t want to recognize gays and lesbians as normal, as human beings.”

Boies, wearing a flag pin on his lapel, said that the state of California is engaged in “gay bashing.” He spoke intensely about the gay and lesbian plaintiffs, who offered poignant testimony about their loving relationships and about wanting to be liked and accepted: “These people are people you would want your child to grow up and marry. You can be a child molester and get married. You can be a wife beater and get married. You can be a child-support scofflaw and get married. The importance of that emotional relationship is so vital to the pursuit of happiness that even prison felons, who aren’t really procreating, have a right to get married.”

Noting the rabid effort being made to restrict marriage to only those who can protect its sanctity, a chuckling Olson reeled off some names: “Tiger Woods, Eliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford, Kobe Bryant, Bill Clinton.”

I asked Olson if he misted up, as many in the courtroom did, when Jeff Zarrillo, a 36-year-old manager at AMC Entertainment, testified that he loved his partner “probably more than I love myself.”

“Yes,” Olson replied, noting that he finds himself getting weepy a lot, including when a bright lawyer in his Washington law firm approached him in the library to tell him she was a lesbian mother of two and she was grateful to him.

“I think there’s something the matter with you if you don’t care enough to feel the suffering that they’ve been through and if you’re not emotionally upset about the fact that we’re doing an immense amount of harm to people,” he said. “We’re not treating them like Americans. We’re not treating them like citizens.”

Boies said the problem was generational, and they have to try the case before judges their own age who might find it hard to move beyond old prejudices. (Although this judge, a libertarian-tilting George H. W. Bush appointee, Vaughn Walker, who likes to hire magicians for the court’s annual dinner, has been so accommodating to their side that Ed Meese complained he was tilting the case.)

“I’ve got a grandson who’s a senior in college, and he can’t imagine fighting over this issue,” Boies said. “It’s like explaining to my daughter that there was a time when women didn’t have the right to vote and couldn’t own property.”

The anti-gay-marriage proponents whipped up a moral frenzy in 2008, suggesting conjugal parity would harm children, summon the devil, tear down churches and melt civilization. But Olson argued in his opening statement that the discrimination gays experience “weakens our moral fiber in this country.”

While Charles Cooper, the lawyer on the anti-gay-marriage side, cited President Obama’s declaration that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, Olson noted that Obama’s parents could not have married in Virginia before he was born.

I asked the lawyers if they were disappointed that the president who had once raised such hope in the gay community now seemed behind the curve.

“Damned right,” Boies snapped. “I hope my Democratic president will catch up to my conservative Republican co-counsel.”

Olson added: “I’m not talking about Obama, but that’s what’s so bad about politicians. They say, ‘I must hasten to follow them, for I am their leader.’”

Obama sees himself as such a huge change that he can be cautious about other societal changes. But what he doesn’t realize is that legalizing gay marriage is like electing a black president. Before you do it, it seems inconceivable. Once it’s done, you can’t remember what all the fuss was about.

Sign in to Recommend


David Michael Green has written a dynamite appraisal of Palin, McCain, and the Republican party as it now stands. Don't miss this one. Am sure he speaks for millions of us as he tells the glaringly obvious truth (obvious to anyone with eyes and a modicum of intelligence). How did these hare-brains (apologies to rabbits everywhere) come so close to the presidency? Oh yes, the way was paved by the first hare brain named Duhmbya.

It's bad enough having an intelligent man like Obama as president, who is having trouble honoring his promises of Change You Can Believe In. Just imagine what could be happening to us now if Sarah Palin and John McCain had gotten into the White House. OMG! No. Don't even go there. It's too scary to contemplate. Yet the Tea Party nutsos are advocating a Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck ticket for 2012. I don't know whether to cheer them on (could there be anything more insane?) -- or run terrified to the hills. How many nutso voters do you think would vote for such an abominable ticket? Looking at the Republican spokesnuts like Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, O'Reilly, and Malkin, and realizing they have millions of "dittohead" (can there be a more demeaning term?)
followers, I'm afraid it could be far too many!!! Read Green's take on this frightening possibility at:

Saturday, January 16, 2010

T.R. worse than G.W.Bush? Read on...

Misadventures of America's Worst President
(Surprise--it's NOT G.W. Bush)
by Ed Tant

Though the stone image of President Theodore Roosevelt stares resolutely from the heights of Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, a new book strips Teddy bare and cracks the granite face of this nation's 26th president.

"The Imperial Cruise: A Secret History of Empire and War," by James Bradley is a readable and revealing portrait of the racism and warmongering of the youngest man ever to serve as president, exposing flaws of character and policy that have been buried by most historians who have written about Roosevelt, who died 91 years ago this month.

James Bradley's father, John Bradley, was one of the U.S. Marines who raised the American flag on Iwo Jima during one of the most iconic and patriotic scenes of World War II. In "The Imperial Cruise," historian Bradley traces the roots of the American war in the Pacific back to the foreign policy of Teddy Roosevelt and says, "Maybe my father didn't have to suffer through World War II in the Pacific."

"The Imperial Cruise" takes its title from a diplomatic mission orchestrated by Roosevelt in 1905. Embarking from the port of San Francisco, the seagoing diplomats traveled to the newly annexed Hawaii, then on to Japan, Korea, China and the Philippines, where the United States had been fighting a long and brutal war against indigenous tribes that was reminiscent of the Indian wars not so many years before, a war that also had parallels with today's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

William Howard Taft, Roosevelt's secretary of war who would become his handpicked successor in the White House, led the diplomatic delegation, negotiating secret and unconstitutional treaties with Asian leaders while reporters on the cruise were distracted by the wild-child antics and shipboard romance of Roosevelt's daughter Alice, who went along for the trip, keeping the Roosevelt name in the news while Taft made deals for trade and military might.

At Harvard and Columbia, the student Teddy Roosevelt was steeped in doctrines of white supremacy and Aryan myth taught by professors at those universities. Roosevelt carried those doctrines with him all his life, calling blacks "a perfectly stupid race" and comparing Native Americans to "wild beasts." In 1897, just four years before he became president, Roosevelt wrote that "democracy needs no more vindication for its existence than the fact that it has kept for the white race the best portions of the new world's surface."

The now largely forgotten American war in the Philippines was nothing short of a race war waged by America against the Filipino population. Waterboarding was used as torture by U.S. soldiers, who gleefully sang a marching song called "The Water Cure." Filipinos were called "Pacific Negroes" and "brainless monkeys" by American military men.

In 1906, when the U.S. army massacred about 1,000 Muslim men, women and children in the Philippines, the outraged writer and anti-war activist Mark Twain called the carnage the work of "Christian butchers." Teddy Roosevelt called the war crime which predated the My Lai massacre by more than 60 years "a brilliant feat of arms that upheld the honor of the American flag."

When I interviewed historian Howard Zinn in 2004, I asked him to name America's most overrated president. Without hesitation, he said, "Theodore Roosevelt." James Bradley's new book proves that Zinn was right. Bradley is the author of the best-selling books "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Flyboys." His newest book, "The Imperial Cruise," deserves to sail right to the top of the best-seller lists as well.

Saturday, January 09, 2010


I've given up on expecting any real change from Obama and Company. Disappointment doesn't even begin to describe how I feel. It's apparent he is marching to the drumbeat of those who really run this country.

By David Sirota

As a follow up to yesterday's explosive news, check out today's an amazing - and hideous - interchange between CNN reporter Ed Henry and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about new evidence that Tim Geithner's New York Fed instructed AIG to hide information from SEC regulators (by the way, big kudos to Henry for trying to get some answers):

Q: Robert, Does the White House believe that Secretary Geithner should testify on the Hill, turn over any documents he has, to sort of clear this up?

MR. GIBBS: Ed, I'd point you to the Treasury Department. I'm sure you've already talked to them. Secretary Geithner was not involved in any of these emails. These decisions did not rise to his level at the Fed. These are emails and decisions made by officials at an independent regulatory agency --

Q: But how do you know that he wasn't involved? He was the leader of the New York Fed.

MR. GIBBS: Right, but he wasn't on the emails that have been talked about and wasn't party to the decision that was being made.

Q: Well, Republican Congressman Issa says there are probably thousands of more emails and he may not be on some that some people have looked at. In the interest of transparency would the White House want more -- I mean, you run AIG now, essentially --

MR. GIBBS: I would point you to the Department of Treasury, which I think will tell you that --

Q: But what does the White House believe?

MR. GIBBS: I just gave you what the White House believes.

Q: Well, no, you gave me the Treasury Department -- no, what do you believe? Do you believe that more emails should come out so we can learn --

MR. GIBBS: What I said was I'm -- I don't know what the story is about the emails. I would tell you that there are not emails that involve Secretary Geithner in this instance. This is emails and decisions that are being made by two people. That decision did not rise to his level.

Q: Okay, last thing on this. Various liberals have jumped on this and other stories about Secretary Geithner, to say that he really is not fit to serve as Treasury Secretary. He still has the President's full confidence?

MR. GIBBS: Of course.

Three things here:

1. Notice that the White House is not denying that illegal action may have occurred - the administration is only making the (preposterous) assertion that the regulatory filings of the largest corporation in the New York Fed's receivership somehow "didn't rise" to Geithner's level. That's right, we're expected to believe the decisions to authorize and then hide multi-billion-dollar taxpayer-financed sweetheart deals for Geithner's friends at Goldman Sachs and all the other big banks obviously - obviously! - "didn't rise" to Geithner's level. Hmm...where have we heard this "no controlling legal authority" argument before...hmm...oh, right - from top Enron executives. And I thought the President was telling us that he believed in "buck stops here" accountability for those at the top, right? Guess not.

2. Gibbs insists Geithner "wasn't party to the decision that was being made" to instruct AIG to hide information from the SEC. He offers no proof of this, other than the fact that Geithner himself isn't on the select emails that have been released. But when pressed about whether Geithner may have known, Gibbs later says "I don't know what the story is about the emails." He also refuses to answer whether the White House will instruct the Treasury Department to release all of AIGs emails to clear up the record, as a group of independent former prosecutors have called for, and as the White House has the power to do because AIG is now owned by the taxpayers. I guess those promises to make this administration "the most transparent in history" are out the window.

3. The fact that the White House can learn about this scandal and then blindly insist that the man at the center of it has the absolute confidence of the president is stunning - and sickening. Van Jones name appears on an ancient (and by the way, perfectly legal) letter of opinion (one that he doesn't even remember signing) about something that has nothing to do with his current job, and that's supposedly worthy of being immediately fired. Tim Geithner heads an institution that helps Goldman Sachs steal $12 billion through AIG and then helps AIG hide that fact - not only does he not get fired from his job as the top financial regulator in America, he gets the full confidence of the President of the United States.

UPDATE: A friend emails me with a very smart explanation for the Van Jones/Tim Geithner discrepancy: "Tim Geithner is rich, white, fiscally conservative & connected to many of the wealthy donors of Obama," he says. "Van Jones is not wealthy, Black, and a street organizer to the poor & working class folks whose vast voting support actually put Obama in the White House. What's so amazing about the double standard? It's the basis of our oligarchy." Exactly.

Saturday, January 02, 2010

A short online video of major importance

You won't want to miss this's less than 10 minutes long and includes interviews with Clifford Stone and Bob Dean, two extremely credible former military men (who had high security clearances), in which they talk about UFOs and visitors from other dimensions. See it at:

I've met and spoken with Bob Dean many times at UFO conferences. He is very intelligent, an excellent speaker, highly credentialed as a former military man, and one of the most sincere, articulate people I've ever met. He and Clifford Stone have been repeatedly threatened by the military throughout the many years they have been revealing to the public what they have seen and what they know about UFOs and our military. Yet they continue to speak out because of their absolute belief in the moral duty they have to tell the truth to the people, who have a right to know.

I believe all the UFO programs on TV now may well be the government's effort to gradually and slowly inform the public about the presence of UFOs in our midst. You can see these shows almost nightly (for sure weekly) on the History channel, Natl. Geo channel, Discovery channel, etc. There is a new series called UFO Hunters that is on weekly on one of those channels. Often you will see programs about abductions, in which people claim to have been taken and examined/treated/experimented on by thin, large-eyed aliens known as "grays." There were 3 programs of this nature on television within the past couple weeks. I suspect the government thinks it won't be able to contain the truth much longer, no matter how much they stonewall, so they have given the go-ahead to get the word out through the media, but grudgingly and slowly... Just my suspicion, but you may have noticed, as I have, how many programs of this nature can be seen on TV these days. And, of course, the Internet is chock full of information for those who are curious enough to look for it. This is one of the most important (if not THE most important) story of our time in history, yet the major media still snickers when it reports sightings of UFOs. Flor many years, I have been convinced that a good portion of the people are far, far ahead of the media in their understanding of what is really going on in our world.

Watch this short video clip and see what you think....

If this clip interests you, you may want to watch a longer video (which I also recommended several months ago) of Bob Dean's presentation to an interested audience in Europe: