"I feel pretty, oh so pretty. I feel pretty and witty and gay. And I pity any _________ who isn't me today."
MikeH.
MikeH.
30 June 2010
28 June 2010
Knowing The Rules
"The enemy, properly goaded and guided in his reaction, will be your major strength." - Saul Alinsky
If you are a frequent listener to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, you have no doubt heard them make reference to Saul Alinsky and his book, "Rules for Radicals." For the most part, the rules they speak about usually pertain to stratagem used by members of the current regime to help bring about a desired end by manipulating human behavior in opponents and the court of public opinion.
So, I decided it was time I learned more about Alinsky; to get inside his head so that I could better understand what his rules for radicals are, how many there are and why Alinsky had a desire to scrap truth, justice and the American way.
Prior to doing my homework for this posting, I had pretty much assumed that Saul Alinsky was an evil socialist son of a bitch and that his book, "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals" was intended as a guide for all the evil socialist sons of bitches who are intent on the "fundamental transformation" of America. But, it seems I may have been wrong in my assumption.
Alinsky was an American community organizer and writer who died in 1972. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. His organizing skills were focused on improving the living conditions of poor communities across North America, primarily in African-American ghettos. His ideas were later adapted by some U.S. college students and other young organizers in the late 1960s and formed part of their strategies for organizing on campus and beyond.
For Alinsky, organizing was the process of highlighting whatever he believed to be wrong and convincing people that they can actually do something about it. If people feel they don't have the power to change a situation, they stop thinking about it. (Note as a possible parallel: Alinsky was once ask, if because of his strict Jewish upbringing, he ever encountered anti-semitism while growing up in Chicago during the early 1900s. He replied, "it was so pervasive you really didn't even think about it; you just accepted it as a fact of life.")
During an interview, Alinsky was asked if he ever considered becoming a Communist party member and he replied, "not at any time. I've never joined any organization, not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. I could never accept the rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism." Playboy Magazine had compared Alinsky to Thomas Paine as "one of the great American leaders of the non-socialist left.
Alinsky was a Democrat (of the old school) who believed Americans, in the 1970s, were living in frustration and despair, worried about their future and ripe for a turn to radical social change and to become politically active citizens. He feared the middle class would be driven to a right wing viewpoint, "making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday." His stated motive: "I love this goddamn country and we're going to take it back."
In the opening paragraph of chapter one of Rules for Radicals, Alinsky writes, "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be, The "Prince" was written by Machiavelli for the Haves, on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots, on how to take it away.
Whether Alinsky was a bad guy with bad intentions or, a good guy whose ideas became little more than a useful tool from a useful idiot, to be used by evil, for evil, I'll leave for you to decide.
Alinsky's Rules: (He emphasizes these rules must be translated into real life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand)
Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear and retreat.
Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. "You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
Rule 5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It's hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. "If your people aren't having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic."
Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions, and use all events of the period for your purpose. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage."
Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.
Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, "Okay, what would you do?"
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don't try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
And that's it! Eleven simple rules that, when applied to nearly any confrontational interaction, can bring about, a somewhat predictable, desired end. However, in a separate chapter, Alinsky suggests that the perennial question, "does the end justify the means," is meaningless as it stands. The real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, and always has been, "does this particular end justify this particular means?"
I believe it's important to know and understand these rules so that they can be recognized when put into play. This may allow for a non-predictable response to be given, turning their desired end into their failed end.
MikeH.
If you are a frequent listener to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, you have no doubt heard them make reference to Saul Alinsky and his book, "Rules for Radicals." For the most part, the rules they speak about usually pertain to stratagem used by members of the current regime to help bring about a desired end by manipulating human behavior in opponents and the court of public opinion.
So, I decided it was time I learned more about Alinsky; to get inside his head so that I could better understand what his rules for radicals are, how many there are and why Alinsky had a desire to scrap truth, justice and the American way.
Prior to doing my homework for this posting, I had pretty much assumed that Saul Alinsky was an evil socialist son of a bitch and that his book, "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals" was intended as a guide for all the evil socialist sons of bitches who are intent on the "fundamental transformation" of America. But, it seems I may have been wrong in my assumption.
Alinsky was an American community organizer and writer who died in 1972. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. His organizing skills were focused on improving the living conditions of poor communities across North America, primarily in African-American ghettos. His ideas were later adapted by some U.S. college students and other young organizers in the late 1960s and formed part of their strategies for organizing on campus and beyond.
For Alinsky, organizing was the process of highlighting whatever he believed to be wrong and convincing people that they can actually do something about it. If people feel they don't have the power to change a situation, they stop thinking about it. (Note as a possible parallel: Alinsky was once ask, if because of his strict Jewish upbringing, he ever encountered anti-semitism while growing up in Chicago during the early 1900s. He replied, "it was so pervasive you really didn't even think about it; you just accepted it as a fact of life.")
During an interview, Alinsky was asked if he ever considered becoming a Communist party member and he replied, "not at any time. I've never joined any organization, not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. I could never accept the rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism." Playboy Magazine had compared Alinsky to Thomas Paine as "one of the great American leaders of the non-socialist left.
Alinsky was a Democrat (of the old school) who believed Americans, in the 1970s, were living in frustration and despair, worried about their future and ripe for a turn to radical social change and to become politically active citizens. He feared the middle class would be driven to a right wing viewpoint, "making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday." His stated motive: "I love this goddamn country and we're going to take it back."
In the opening paragraph of chapter one of Rules for Radicals, Alinsky writes, "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be, The "Prince" was written by Machiavelli for the Haves, on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots, on how to take it away.
Whether Alinsky was a bad guy with bad intentions or, a good guy whose ideas became little more than a useful tool from a useful idiot, to be used by evil, for evil, I'll leave for you to decide.
Alinsky's Rules: (He emphasizes these rules must be translated into real life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand)
Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear and retreat.
Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. "You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
Rule 5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It's hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. "If your people aren't having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic."
Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions, and use all events of the period for your purpose. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage."
Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.
Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, "Okay, what would you do?"
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don't try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
And that's it! Eleven simple rules that, when applied to nearly any confrontational interaction, can bring about, a somewhat predictable, desired end. However, in a separate chapter, Alinsky suggests that the perennial question, "does the end justify the means," is meaningless as it stands. The real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, and always has been, "does this particular end justify this particular means?"
I believe it's important to know and understand these rules so that they can be recognized when put into play. This may allow for a non-predictable response to be given, turning their desired end into their failed end.
MikeH.
27 June 2010
GaGa, Zero And Facebook Fan Record
According to msnbc.com, there is a race on to see who will log ten million Facebook fans first, Lady GaGa or the Big Zero. Friday morning, His Zipness was leading by some 30,000 hits, reported CNN. (no bias there, right!!!) A short time later, Lady GaGa's numbers surged ahead to 9,162,832 to Zero's 9,122,063 hits.
Although I have no use for either, my money is on O to win by a landslide. Miss (or Ms. or Mr.) GaGa needs to understand; NaDa has the experience when it comes to voter fraud. As I type this, the new and improved ACORN, and SEIU, are busy "stuffing" the ballots.
MikeH.
26 June 2010
No Commentary Required
But if I did have something to say, I'd probably be required to change my URL to a .XXX address.
25 June 2010
More History Lessens
That good looking fella, in the photo above, is former Soviet Premier, Nikita Khrushchev. Way back on 18 Nov. 1956, he was addressing Western ambassadors at a reception at the Polish embassy in Moscow when he made the statement "My vas pokhoronim!" Generally, this is translated into English as "We will bury you!" However, that translation is somewhat distorted. The actual quote reads: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will dig you in!"
This was during the stupidly named period of time known as the "Cold War." It may have been "cold" in that neither the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. were actively engaged in a conventionally understood means of warfare, but it was a very hot war of wills and psychological browbeating. There was a recurring rattling of sabers and the very real threat of a possible all out nuclear exchange between the two countries. So, of course, that four word statement certainly seemed to be a serious threat suggesting the U.S. would surely fall, if or when, the nukes started dropping.
English musician Sting in his song "Russians" written in 1985 said:
Mr. Khrushchev said we will bury you
I don't subscribe to his point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too.
Some six years later, 24 Aug. 1963, Khrushchev remarked during his speech in Yugoslavia, "I once said 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you." This statement is understood to be a reference to the Marxist saying, "The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism." (Proletariat: the social class who does unskilled manual labor)
To expand on this a bit further; written in chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto: "What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are it's own gravediggers. It's fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." (Bourgeoisie: the social class between the lower and upper classes)
To understand this thinking requires an understanding of the events that led to the Russian Revolutions, of which there were several in 1917. In my best attempt at a nutshell synopsis: Prior to and into World War I, the Russian people were increasingly ignored by the Russian Empire of Tsar Nicholas II. Living conditions were and continued to become more deplorable, especially as the Russian economy was depleted as a result of funding the war effort.
Russian soldiers were being sent to fight without uniforms or proper clothing for the conditions, food and, without firearms. Only five months into the war, some 390,000 Russian men had lost their lives and nearly 1,000,000 were injured. Soldiers didn't feel they were being treated as human beings, or even as valued soldiers, but rather as a raw material to be squandered for the purposes of the rich and powerful.
Back home, the main problems were food shortages and rising prices. Inflation pushed real incomes down at an alarmingly rapid rate and shortages made it difficult to buy even what one could afford. Strikes increased and so did crime; but, for the most part, people suffered and endured, scouring for food. Working class women in St. Petersburg spent up to forty hours per week standing in food lines. Many were forced to begging or turning to prostitution or crime and grumbling about the rich, and wondering when and how this would all come to an end.
Nicholas was blamed for all of the crises, and what little support he had left began to crumble. In November 1916, he was warned that a terrible disaster would grip the country unless a constitutional form of government was put in place. In typical fashion, Nicholas ignored the warnings and his regime collapsed a few months later during the February Revolution of 1917.
(For my own convenience and in an effort to keep this nutshelled, I am going to go hyper-simple)
Understanding that the masses of the time were poorly educated and unskilled, they were easily taken to the idea that the rich and powerful were bad and a government run by the working class would result in a better deal for the working masses. A government geared to social policies to benefit all of the people, and in a manner that put everyone into one social class. A class wherein the words of Karl Marx would be realized; "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." In short... the redistribution of wealth.
Leon Trotsky said that the goal of socialism in Russia would not be fully realized without the success of the world revolution. And a revolutionary wave caused by the Russian Revolution lasted until 1923. Despite initial hopes for success in the German Revolution, in the short lived Hungarian Soviet Republic and others like it, no other Marxist movement succeeded in keeping power in it's hands.
Joseph Stalin later rejected this idea, stating that socialism was possible in one country. However, in 1924, Stalin reversed his position and used the argument that success of socialism does require the workers of other countries in order to make it happen. The thinking boiled down to, the more countries under communist rule, the less chance the masses might see and be swayed by that nasty old capitalism.
This was during the stupidly named period of time known as the "Cold War." It may have been "cold" in that neither the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. were actively engaged in a conventionally understood means of warfare, but it was a very hot war of wills and psychological browbeating. There was a recurring rattling of sabers and the very real threat of a possible all out nuclear exchange between the two countries. So, of course, that four word statement certainly seemed to be a serious threat suggesting the U.S. would surely fall, if or when, the nukes started dropping.
English musician Sting in his song "Russians" written in 1985 said:
Mr. Khrushchev said we will bury you
I don't subscribe to his point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too.
Some six years later, 24 Aug. 1963, Khrushchev remarked during his speech in Yugoslavia, "I once said 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you." This statement is understood to be a reference to the Marxist saying, "The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism." (Proletariat: the social class who does unskilled manual labor)
To expand on this a bit further; written in chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto: "What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are it's own gravediggers. It's fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." (Bourgeoisie: the social class between the lower and upper classes)
To understand this thinking requires an understanding of the events that led to the Russian Revolutions, of which there were several in 1917. In my best attempt at a nutshell synopsis: Prior to and into World War I, the Russian people were increasingly ignored by the Russian Empire of Tsar Nicholas II. Living conditions were and continued to become more deplorable, especially as the Russian economy was depleted as a result of funding the war effort.
Russian soldiers were being sent to fight without uniforms or proper clothing for the conditions, food and, without firearms. Only five months into the war, some 390,000 Russian men had lost their lives and nearly 1,000,000 were injured. Soldiers didn't feel they were being treated as human beings, or even as valued soldiers, but rather as a raw material to be squandered for the purposes of the rich and powerful.
Back home, the main problems were food shortages and rising prices. Inflation pushed real incomes down at an alarmingly rapid rate and shortages made it difficult to buy even what one could afford. Strikes increased and so did crime; but, for the most part, people suffered and endured, scouring for food. Working class women in St. Petersburg spent up to forty hours per week standing in food lines. Many were forced to begging or turning to prostitution or crime and grumbling about the rich, and wondering when and how this would all come to an end.
Nicholas was blamed for all of the crises, and what little support he had left began to crumble. In November 1916, he was warned that a terrible disaster would grip the country unless a constitutional form of government was put in place. In typical fashion, Nicholas ignored the warnings and his regime collapsed a few months later during the February Revolution of 1917.
(For my own convenience and in an effort to keep this nutshelled, I am going to go hyper-simple)
Understanding that the masses of the time were poorly educated and unskilled, they were easily taken to the idea that the rich and powerful were bad and a government run by the working class would result in a better deal for the working masses. A government geared to social policies to benefit all of the people, and in a manner that put everyone into one social class. A class wherein the words of Karl Marx would be realized; "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." In short... the redistribution of wealth.
Leon Trotsky said that the goal of socialism in Russia would not be fully realized without the success of the world revolution. And a revolutionary wave caused by the Russian Revolution lasted until 1923. Despite initial hopes for success in the German Revolution, in the short lived Hungarian Soviet Republic and others like it, no other Marxist movement succeeded in keeping power in it's hands.
Joseph Stalin later rejected this idea, stating that socialism was possible in one country. However, in 1924, Stalin reversed his position and used the argument that success of socialism does require the workers of other countries in order to make it happen. The thinking boiled down to, the more countries under communist rule, the less chance the masses might see and be swayed by that nasty old capitalism.
The number one country in the world, where one can bask in the warm rays of capitalism, is the United States. And for more than half a century, the U.S. has been the number one target of the communist's efforts to trash capitalism and bring about communist rule. And the entire time the cold war sabers were rattling, drawing all attention to bear on possible attacks by conventional means, the communists were busy with a far more unconventional plan. The infiltration of every segment of American society, including American politics, by American home grown communists.
So, that's it, in a nutshell. Everything wrong that is going on in America today is pretty much a direct result of communist influence, working to transform or destroy us from within. And they go by different names to baffle and befuddle us, like "progressives." And they use any means necessary to drive us apart and keep us a fragmented society, like race, religion and their old favorite, social status (class warfare). And if the Communist Manifesto and Nikita Khrushchev have the final say, it will be the highly disgruntled proletariat in America who will be digging the grave to bury capitalism.
I encourage you to do your own research into the Russian Revolution and get into the heads of the communists so that you can explain to others the whys and the hows that are conveniently being left out of history classes in schools throughout our country. It is the deliberate dumbing down and re-education of our younger generations; the ones undereducated and unskilled who will eagerly accept socialism.
MikeH.
So, that's it, in a nutshell. Everything wrong that is going on in America today is pretty much a direct result of communist influence, working to transform or destroy us from within. And they go by different names to baffle and befuddle us, like "progressives." And they use any means necessary to drive us apart and keep us a fragmented society, like race, religion and their old favorite, social status (class warfare). And if the Communist Manifesto and Nikita Khrushchev have the final say, it will be the highly disgruntled proletariat in America who will be digging the grave to bury capitalism.
I encourage you to do your own research into the Russian Revolution and get into the heads of the communists so that you can explain to others the whys and the hows that are conveniently being left out of history classes in schools throughout our country. It is the deliberate dumbing down and re-education of our younger generations; the ones undereducated and unskilled who will eagerly accept socialism.
MikeH.
24 June 2010
NOTICE OF IMPORTANCE:
Jennifer III, over at the "I'll Take Liberty" blog has important news in her post "The Plan" It is well worth your attention.
MikeH.
UPDATE: It appears she has changed the plan, or at least removed it.
MikeH.
UPDATE: It appears she has changed the plan, or at least removed it.
23 June 2010
Can You Say "Outed"
From an msnbc.com report, The Louisiana judge who struck down the Big Zero administration's six month ban on deep-water oil drilling in the Gulf Of Mexico has reported extensive investments in the oil and gas industry, according to financial disclosure reports.
OK, with a year and a half into Zero's regime, it has become common knowledge that one is likely to be publicly coated in a thick layer of schmooze should one openly oppose the regime. Such is now the case of Judge Martin Feldman, a 1983 appointee of President Ronald Reagan.
Extensive Investments: In a 2008 financial disclosure report, Feldman claimed owning less than $15,000 worth of stocks in Transocean Ltd., the company that owned the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. The report further showed investments in Ocean Energy, Quicksilver Resources, Prospect Energy, Peabody Energy, HALLIBURTON, Penworth Energy Trust, Atlas Energy Resources, Parker drilling and others. Halliburton was also involved in the doomed Deepwater Horizon project.
Well, now we know His Honor lacks honor... he has money in the ultra evil conglomerate, Halliburton!!!
He is one of many federal judges across the Gulf Coast region with money in oil and gas. Several have disqualified themselves from hearing spill related lawsuits and others have sold their holdings so they can preside over some of the 200-plus cases.
I think I see a pattern emerging here. Gulf Coast region + oil and gas industry + investing in said industries = judges on the take.
Although Feldman ruled in favor of oil interests Tuesday, one expert said his reasoning appeared sound because the six month ban was overly broad. "There's been some concerns that he is biased toward the industry, but I don't see it in his opinion," said Tim Howard, a Northwestern University law professor who also represents business and people claiming economic losses in several spill related lawsuits. "They (Zilch & pals) overreacted and just shut down the industry rather than focusing on where the problems are.
So, we have a law expert who says the judge made a sound decision. But we must note the fact that the expert has a vested interest in spill related matters. I could be wrong here, but I'll venture a prediction that there are probably several legal experts with a vested interest in the spill related matters.
Josh Reichert, [on the other hand] managing director of the Pew Environment Group, said the ruling should be rescinded if Feldman still has investments in companies that could benefit. "If Judge Feldman has any investments in oil and gas operators in the Gulf, it represents a flagrant conflict of interest," Reichert said.
I wonder if the job prerequisites for the managing director's position at Pew Environment Group includes a degree in law? Or is this guy just another greenie (read: green-weenie) who has his own greenie agenda to push?
Alrighty then. We have the basic drift. Judge Feldman is a crooked S.O.B who invests his money into those evil conglomerates. He only ruled against Zip's drilling ban to insure he and his big business buds will continue to rake in the big bucks. But wait!!! There's more.
... Feldman frequently jokes with lawyers before his court about his friendship with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, known for his strict interpretation of the Constitution as written more than 200 years ago.
THAT'S IT!!! He's a subversive cork-sucker who is dead set on keeping Americans lock in the yoke of archaic ideas from a band of rebellious bastards from 200-plus years ago. And, he makes jokes in his court proceedings. What more could he possibly be up to?
(uh oh, here it is) Feldman was appointed in May to a seven year term on the "secret" Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, according to court records. The court meets "secretly" to consider requests for wire taps in national security cases, such as those involving foreign terrorist groups.
I suppose my first question would have to be; Who appointed Judge Feldman to the F.I.S Court? My second question may seem a wee tad trivial but, I'm gonna go for it regardless. How does one (such as a reporter) obtain access to court records that provide information on judges appointed to a secret court that decides matters of national security? If it doesn't already, shouldn't such reporting fall under the heading of seditious? It's certainly more of a seditious act than what we bloggers, of the patriotic faith, are doing.
Of course, the article didn't bother to mention the fact that Zero's ban, which suspended operations on 33 drilling rigs, put hundreds of oil worker's (est. at around 1,200) jobs on the endangered list, which in turn, would have caused an economic dip for the entire Gulf region. Sure... I can see where Judge Feldman had only his interests in mind when he made his ruling.
Folks, it was only a few years ago that the former administration received severe and prolonged political fire, from the democretins, over the "outing" of C.I.A super spy, Valerie Plame. Will anyone, on either side of the political aisle, grow a set of central dangling extremities and bring this "outing" to the forefront of the people's minds? (especially those who still believe in the hope and change bull-schmooze, as promised by His Nada-ness) It's early yet but I kinda think this won't see much light of day.
OH, by the way... did anyone happen to hear the report that BP had donated a million dollars to Big O's presidential campaign fund? And now you see how he rewards his friends.
MikeH.
OK, with a year and a half into Zero's regime, it has become common knowledge that one is likely to be publicly coated in a thick layer of schmooze should one openly oppose the regime. Such is now the case of Judge Martin Feldman, a 1983 appointee of President Ronald Reagan.
Extensive Investments: In a 2008 financial disclosure report, Feldman claimed owning less than $15,000 worth of stocks in Transocean Ltd., the company that owned the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. The report further showed investments in Ocean Energy, Quicksilver Resources, Prospect Energy, Peabody Energy, HALLIBURTON, Penworth Energy Trust, Atlas Energy Resources, Parker drilling and others. Halliburton was also involved in the doomed Deepwater Horizon project.
Well, now we know His Honor lacks honor... he has money in the ultra evil conglomerate, Halliburton!!!
He is one of many federal judges across the Gulf Coast region with money in oil and gas. Several have disqualified themselves from hearing spill related lawsuits and others have sold their holdings so they can preside over some of the 200-plus cases.
I think I see a pattern emerging here. Gulf Coast region + oil and gas industry + investing in said industries = judges on the take.
Although Feldman ruled in favor of oil interests Tuesday, one expert said his reasoning appeared sound because the six month ban was overly broad. "There's been some concerns that he is biased toward the industry, but I don't see it in his opinion," said Tim Howard, a Northwestern University law professor who also represents business and people claiming economic losses in several spill related lawsuits. "They (Zilch & pals) overreacted and just shut down the industry rather than focusing on where the problems are.
So, we have a law expert who says the judge made a sound decision. But we must note the fact that the expert has a vested interest in spill related matters. I could be wrong here, but I'll venture a prediction that there are probably several legal experts with a vested interest in the spill related matters.
Josh Reichert, [on the other hand] managing director of the Pew Environment Group, said the ruling should be rescinded if Feldman still has investments in companies that could benefit. "If Judge Feldman has any investments in oil and gas operators in the Gulf, it represents a flagrant conflict of interest," Reichert said.
I wonder if the job prerequisites for the managing director's position at Pew Environment Group includes a degree in law? Or is this guy just another greenie (read: green-weenie) who has his own greenie agenda to push?
Alrighty then. We have the basic drift. Judge Feldman is a crooked S.O.B who invests his money into those evil conglomerates. He only ruled against Zip's drilling ban to insure he and his big business buds will continue to rake in the big bucks. But wait!!! There's more.
... Feldman frequently jokes with lawyers before his court about his friendship with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, known for his strict interpretation of the Constitution as written more than 200 years ago.
THAT'S IT!!! He's a subversive cork-sucker who is dead set on keeping Americans lock in the yoke of archaic ideas from a band of rebellious bastards from 200-plus years ago. And, he makes jokes in his court proceedings. What more could he possibly be up to?
(uh oh, here it is) Feldman was appointed in May to a seven year term on the "secret" Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, according to court records. The court meets "secretly" to consider requests for wire taps in national security cases, such as those involving foreign terrorist groups.
....................
I suppose my first question would have to be; Who appointed Judge Feldman to the F.I.S Court? My second question may seem a wee tad trivial but, I'm gonna go for it regardless. How does one (such as a reporter) obtain access to court records that provide information on judges appointed to a secret court that decides matters of national security? If it doesn't already, shouldn't such reporting fall under the heading of seditious? It's certainly more of a seditious act than what we bloggers, of the patriotic faith, are doing.
Of course, the article didn't bother to mention the fact that Zero's ban, which suspended operations on 33 drilling rigs, put hundreds of oil worker's (est. at around 1,200) jobs on the endangered list, which in turn, would have caused an economic dip for the entire Gulf region. Sure... I can see where Judge Feldman had only his interests in mind when he made his ruling.
Folks, it was only a few years ago that the former administration received severe and prolonged political fire, from the democretins, over the "outing" of C.I.A super spy, Valerie Plame. Will anyone, on either side of the political aisle, grow a set of central dangling extremities and bring this "outing" to the forefront of the people's minds? (especially those who still believe in the hope and change bull-schmooze, as promised by His Nada-ness) It's early yet but I kinda think this won't see much light of day.
OH, by the way... did anyone happen to hear the report that BP had donated a million dollars to Big O's presidential campaign fund? And now you see how he rewards his friends.
MikeH.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
