The AGW Fraud

Apparently someone had made a FOIA and the data has leaked out. For more information see WattsUpWithThat. The gist of the fraud is that the main science people involved knew they were faking the data, and hiding the truth from the world.

It’s all about the money, the billions in research grants and the trillions in payments to the UN for climate compensations.

Fraud, yes indeed, it was all a fraud from the start.

Hot Air Balloon

Not sure which is the ‘hot air’ and which is the balloon.

Lindsey Graham Destroys Eric Holder

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don’t know. I’d have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I’ve made –

GRAHAM: We’re making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I’ll answer it for you. The answer is no.

Cloward-Piven Strategy

Read about what is going on here.

From Discover The Networks:

* Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called “crisis strategy” or “Cloward-Piven Strategy,” as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.

The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare — about 8 million, at the time — probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a “massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls.” Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be “a profound financial and political crisis” that would unleash “powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level.”

Their article called for “cadres of aggressive organizers” to use “demonstrations to create a climate of militancy.” Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of “a federal program of income redistribution,” in the form of a guaranteed living income for all — working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act.

This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements — mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown — providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.

Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). His tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in Cloward and Piven’s article. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States — often violently — bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law “entitled” them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation.

Regarding Wiley’s tactics, The New York Times commented on September 27, 1970, “There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients, school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests – and, on occasion, rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-out phones.”These methods proved effective. “The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley’s wildest dreams,” writes Sol Stern in the City Journal. “From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city’s private economy.”As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness.

The Cloward-Piven strategy depended on surprise. Once society recovered from the initial shock, the backlash began. New York’s welfare crisis horrified America, giving rise to a reform movement which culminated in “the end of welfare as we know it” — the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill as guests of President Clinton.

Most Americans to this day have never heard of Cloward and Piven. But New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani attempted to expose them in the late 1990s. As his drive for welfare reform gained momentum, Giuliani accused the militant scholars by name, citing their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage. “This wasn’t an accident,” Giuliani charged in a 1997 speech. “It wasn’t an atmospheric thing, it wasn’t supernatural. This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare.”

Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as candidly as they had in their 1966 article. Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued to rely on the tactic of overloading the system. When the public caught on to their welfare scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other sectors of the bureaucracy, wherever they detected weakness.

In 1982, partisans of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new “voting rights movement,” which purported to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed this campaign, the new “voting rights” movement was led by veterans of George Wiley’s welfare rights crusade. Its flagship organizations were Project Vote and Human SERVE, both founded in 1982. Project Vote is an ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett. Human SERVE was founded by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, along with a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James.

All three of these organizations — ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE — set to work lobbying energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton ultimately signed in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is largely responsible for swamping the voter rolls with “dead wood” — invalid registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent people — thus opening the door to the unprecedented levels of voter fraud and “voter disenfranchisement” claims that followed in subsequent elections.

The new “voting rights” coalition combines mass voter registration drives — typically featuring high levels of fraud — with systematic intimidation of election officials in the form of frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of “racism” and “disenfranchisement,” and “direct action” (street protests, violent or otherwise). Just as they swamped America’s welfare offices in the 1960s, Cloward-Piven devotees now seek to overwhelm the nation’s understaffed and poorly policed electoral system. Their tactics set the stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have introduced a level of fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections heretofore encountered mainly in Third World countries.

Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros’s Open Society Institute and his “Shadow Party,” through whose support the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to provide a blueprint for some of the Left’s most ambitious campaigns.

Imagine

Can you imagine the outrage, the shock, the angst, the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments we’d be witnessing from leftist/progressive/liberal idiots if a Republican president was caught doing this?

Class Clown — The Greeter

Dr Lindzen, Deconstructing Global Warming

UPDATE: Probably realizing they didn’t have enough time to rig up new fake data, the UN IPCC today decided to delay for one year a new Kyoto style accord. From a tearful New York Times comes this: Leaders Will Delay Agreement on Climate. Of course it’s all the USA’s fault for the delay, despite having no proof that the AGW hoax was ever real.

Here is part 1 through 6 as a play list

The best take down of the AGW hoax ever. And it’s based on science fact, not fiction.

What Happened To The Kelo House?

Government gone bad, house and home gone for good — Read about it here:

The lot where the Kelo house used to be, as the grandiose plans of government gone wild, went bust. While not Obama’s fault, his reasoning is the same, that lead to this travesty. How is that hopey and changey thing working out for you.

Bye Bye Granny

Senator Gregg: Updated CBO Estimate of House Bill Pulls Back the Curtain on Majority’s Intent to Grow Government by $3 Trillion

Below is a list of the cuts to Medicare contained within the abomination called Pelosi-Care:

• $170 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage (MA) which currently provides benefits to more than 11 million seniors.

o   The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts these cuts “could lead many plans to limit the benefits they offer, raise their premiums, or withdraw from the program.”

o   CBO also predicts 3 million seniors will lose the plan they currently have and the non-partisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) predicts these cuts will result in 1 in 5 seniors no longer having access to an MA plan;

• $143.6 billion in across-the-board cuts by instituting a new, permanent “productivity adjustment” to reimbursement rates for all hospitals, Ambulatory Surgery Centers (ASCs), skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), hospice, clinical laboratories, and durable medical equipment (DME);

• $56.7 billion in cuts to home health agencies by freezing payment rates in 2010, applying the productivity adjustment, and other reimbursement changes;

• $42.3 billion in cuts to the Medicare prescription drug program (Part D) by imposing government price-controls for drugs.  As a result, CBO predicts seniors’ premiums will increase by at least 20%;

• $23.9 billion in additional cuts to SNFs by freezing their payment rates in 2010;

• $14.3 billion in provider reimbursement cuts by reallocating Medicare funding nationally;

• $10.3 billion in additional cuts to hospitals by slashing reimbursements designed to cover uncompensated care;

• $9.3 billion in yet further cuts to hospitals that have a high rate of readmitted patients;

• $8.2 billion in undisclosed cuts determined by the new, unelected “Center for Medicare Innovation;”

• $5.3 billion in cuts to inpatient rehabilitation facilities cuts by freezing payment rates in 2010;

• $3 billion in reimbursement cuts to providers who use imaging equipment (MRI, CT scans, etc);

• $1 billion cut to physician-owned hospitals, effectively legislating these hospitals out of existence.  In some communities, physician-owned hospitals are the only hospital in the community.

• $800 million in additional DME cuts (power wheelchairs); and

• Plus, $14.5 billion in additional miscellaneous cuts to the Medicare program.

Your Future, Standing In Line, Paying For The Privilege

The Joint Economic Committee (JEC) House Republican staff, which earlier this year created a chart mapping the bureaucratic complexity of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s original health care proposal (H.R. 3200), has combined similar analysis by the House Republican Conference with the earlier chart.  The analysis details new additions to the health care bureaucracy contained in the new version of the Speaker’s bill (H.R. 3962) that were not previously listed.  Let’s just say the Speaker’s vision for government-run health care hasn’t gotten any simpler.

“This is the blueprint for a taxpayer-funded mega-bureaucracy,” said House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH).  “The new chart is an astonishing and unsettling glimpse of the future that awaits American health care, should H.R. 3962 be passed by the House and signed into law.”

The chart, completed at the direction of Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), the committee’s ranking House Republican Member, shows that the Pelosi plan has grown even more complex in the months since it was originally unveiled by congressional Democrats.  The new bill – expected to be brought to a vote in the House as early as Saturday – contains all of the bureaucracy of the original plan, plus a whole lot more, the chart illustrates.  The full chart can be seen here:

A bigger, readable version of the chart is here: