Judge Gonzo Docket 4145 Is No Longer Hidden From The Public

Chrysler Rejection Opinion by Judge Gonzo Docket 4145 Hidden From The Public

Judge Gonzo Docket 4145 Is No Longer Hidden From The Public. Click On The Link Above For A Copy Of The Document.
.......................................................................................

Public Docket For Chrysler Bankruptcy Has Been Sabotaged To Conceal The Fraudulent Dealer Rejection Opinion by Judge Gonzalez.

Leo Donofrio

Public Docket For Chrysler Bankruptcy Has Been Sabotaged To Conceal The Fraudulent Dealer Rejection Opinion by Judge Gonzalez.

Somebody has seen to it that the public no longer has direct access to the fraudulent opinion written by Judge Gonzalez. This is a very recent development which appears to have happened right around February 1, 2010 – the date Judge Gonzalez was awarded the position of Chief Justice – just four days before he issued his denial of our Motion to Reconsider (docket no. 6341). At that time, I noticed the public docket was not available at all for a few days. Now, upon its return, the most important document pertaining to the rejected Chrysler Dealers’ rights has been mysteriously sabotaged out of the docket.
..........................................................................................

This tells me that our hand going forward on appeal is strong and the villains are trying to hide its strength from bloggers, the public and the press. The Rejection Opinion is a public document and has been available through the public docket from June 19, 2010 until very recently.

Welcome to the new Amerika, kids. If the truth hurts, just hide it from view. If the witness doesn’t say what you want him to say, just change the record to make it appear as if he said what you needed him to say to make the case fit your pre-determined opinion. How the hell would Judge Gonzalez explain his patented “judicial ventriloquism” to his students at NYU School of Law? Oh wait, he won’t have to now that his fraudulent opinion has gone missing.

It appears he’s added magic tricks to his ventriloquism act.

by Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

Obama care is about the implementation of un agenda 21

The real cost of obamacare is 2.3 Trillion not 900 billion as obama claims. Obamacare will not reduce the deficit but massively increase the deficit. The nuclear option or reconciliation as the liberal democrates are not calling it will be used by the IMPOSTER obama to force obamacare on America. Obama won't use the word "reconciliation". "Reconciliation" rules are traditionally used for deficit reduction and health care reform/obamacare will not reduce the deficit.

The bottom line:

Obama will ram obamacare thru congress using the FRAUD of deficit reduction via the "nuclear option" of a 51 vote majority not a 60 vote majority. The BIG LIE is about deficit reduction. Obamacare is not about health care reform. Obamacare is about un agenda 21 or sustainable development. Un agenda 21 is not a conspiracy theory. The state run media is silent on un agenda 21. Obamacare is trojan horse legislation that rips Americans freedoms away. Obamacare is not about healthcare. Obama care is about the implementation of un agenda 21. Story Reports

Sustainable Development or agenda 21 calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of central planning of the entire economy -- often referred to as top-down control.

Earth Summit un agenda 21 or "Sustainable Development"
...........................................................................................
The FRAUD President has said that he wants a health reform bill in large part because it is necessary to get better control of the federal budget. But the bills that have been developed in the House and Senate fall far short of his stated objectives. The spending would far exceed $900 billion through 2019, and the federal budget deficit would increase dramatically, not decrease, when all of the numbers are honestly accounted for.

Looking at these bills over a true 10-year window of full implementation reveals much higher costs. The Senate bill's provisions, even excluding the "doc fix," would total $2.3 trillion over the period 2014 to 2023, with the coverage provisions fully in place.[7] The House bill's true 10-year cost would be comparably high, even excluding the large costs of the physician fee fix.

Obamacare bills are largely paid for by cuts to Medicare of approximately half a trillion dollars. These cuts will presumably be made to payment rates for certain care providers by decreasing inflation updates. The expectation that this will actually occur is almost laughable. At the same time that lawmakers are proposing to pay for health care form using cuts to Medicare, they are trying to pass the “doc fix” legislation to end cuts to Medicare that were enacted to—you guessed it—contain costs. Every year, Congress is supposed to decrease physician payment rates in order to control Medicare spending. And every year, Congress votes to suspend the doctors’ payment decrease due to pressure from the industry. The House recently passed legislation that would get rid of the payment cuts for good. And yet without blinking an eye, they propose to use the same failed method to pay for health care reform.

These cuts to Medicare are even more unlikely considering their full impact. As Capretta points out, “The Chief Actuary of the Medicare program has warned that these arbitrary reductions could have serious consequences for beneficiaries’ access to care, as [they] would push about one out of every five hospital facilities into insolvency.”

The House and Senate bills received positive cost estimates by the Congressional Budget Office based on these weak spending controls and the fact that the CBO analysis looks at the first ten year window, which for both bills, includes ten years of raising revenue, but only six years of spending. The country is facing a fiscal crisis as the population faces a demographic transformation of 30 million citizens entering old age within the next twenty years, Capretta points out. Lawmakers need to acknowledge the precariousness of America’s fiscal future and be honest about the true cost of Obamacare.
.........................................................................................

The Real Budgetary Impact of the House and Senate Health Bills

by James C. Capretta

The Real Budgetary Impact of the House and Senate Health Bills

Looking at these bills over a true 10-year window of full implementation reveals much higher costs. The Senate bill's provisions, even excluding the "doc fix," would total $2.3 trillion over the period 2014 to 2023, with the coverage provisions fully in place.[7] The House bill's true 10-year cost would be comparably high, even excluding the large costs of the physician fee fix.

President Barack Obama pledged in an address to a joint session of Congress in September 2009 that any health care bill he signed would cost no more than $900 billion over 10 years and would not worsen the federal budget deficit in the short or long term.[1]

The bills that have been passed in the House and Senate violate both of those tests. Supporters of these bills point to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimates to support their contention that the health care plans are fiscally responsible. But a closer look at the bills--and what CBO actually said about them--indicates that both spending and the federal debt will go up much more than advertised by the bills' supporters.

Conveniently Ignoring a $200 Billion-Plus "Doc Fix"

Both the President and congressional leaders have signaled that they will not allow a scheduled 21 percent reduction in Medicare physician fees to go into effect in 2010 or later years. Initially, the House bill included a permanent repeal of the planned fee cuts in their version of health reform legislation, released in July 2009, at a cost of $229 billion over 10 years.[2]

However, after the President announced the $900 billion limit in September, House leaders decided to drop this provision from the legislation and pass it in a separate bill. Senate leaders followed a similar course.

But passing a permanent "doc fix" separately does not change the fact that it increases federal spending. When these costs are properly included, neither the House nor the Senate version reduces the federal budget deficit between 2010 and 2019. Assuming about $210 billion for a "doc fix," both bills would actually increase the deficit by $80 billion over a decade.[3]

Non-Coverage Spending in the Bills

In the House bill, the gross cost of the Medicaid expansions and the entitlement to new premium subsidies in the exchange is $1.055 trillion over 10 years. In addition, the House legislation includes scores of other spending provisions costing $230 billion over a decade. With a $210 billion physician fee bill, the total cost of the House's health care effort reaches $1.5 trillion between 2010 and 2019.

In the Senate legislation, the cost of the coverage expansion is $871 billion between 2010 and 2019. Other spending in the bill totals about $90 billion over 10 years. With about $200 billion more for a permanent repeal of the Medicare physician fee cut, the Senate plan's total cost approaches $1.2 trillion.

The Medicare Double-Count

The House and Senate bills rely heavily on Medicare spending reductions to offset the costs of the entitlement expansions. The Senate bill's Medicare cuts total $467 billion.[4] At the same time, the Administration and the congressional sponsors of these bills are also touting the claim that reduced spending from the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund and increased revenues flowing into it would boost the trust fund's reserves and therefore keep the program solvent for several more years.[5] Others have said that this would double-count the same savings twice: once to pay for a new entitlement and again to keep Medicare going.

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf issued a clarification on December 23 and agreed that the Medicare HI savings cannot be counted twice.[6] Either it is used to offset a new entitlement or it is used to improve the government's capacity to pay future Medicare benefits.

CBO estimates that provisions in the Senate bill would increase Medicare HI revenues by $113 billion between 2010 and 2019 and decrease HI spending by $240 billion over that same period. If these tax increases and spending reduction provisions were set aside entirely to improve the capacity to finance Medicare benefits, the Senate bill would lose more than $350 billion in current offsets, which would mean that the bill increased the federal budget deficit by well over $400 billion in the first decade alone. Removing the HI savings from the House-passed legislation would have a similar impact on the bill's bottom line.

The CLASS Act Gimmick

Both the House- and the Senate-passed bills would stand up an entirely new entitlement program for long-term care services. Under the Community Living Assistance Services and Support (CLASS) Act, eligible participants would be required to pay premiums well in advance of receiving any benefit payments. Consequently, starting this new program from scratch would produce one-time "savings" from premium collections before any beneficiaries start drawing benefits. These premium collections, however, would be needed later to meet entitlement obligations.

This is again a case of double-counting. The premiums are set aside in a fund to pay future claims, but they are also counted by the bills' sponsors as an offset for expanding health coverage. The CLASS Act premiums total $72 billion over 10 years in the Senate bill and $102 billion over the same period in the House bill.

The True 10-Year Window

None of the key provisions to expand coverage would go into effect until 2013 in the House bill and 2014 in the Senate bill. Meanwhile, many of the spending reductions, such as the cut in Medicare Advantage payment rates, would kick in much earlier, as would the tax increases. Consequently, both bills have 10 years worth of spending and revenue "offsets" paying for only six or seven years worth of spending.

Looking at these bills over a true 10-year window of full implementation reveals much higher costs. The Senate bill's provisions, even excluding the "doc fix," would total $2.3 trillion over the period 2014 to 2023, with the coverage provisions fully in place.[7] The House bill's true 10-year cost would be comparably high, even excluding the large costs of the physician fee fix.

The Certainty of Future Entitlement Expansions

Both the House and Senate bills assume that the new entitlement spending for coverage expansion can be held down with so-called firewall provisions, which essentially preclude many tens of millions of individuals from gaining access to premium subsidies. These firewall rules would create large disparities in the federal subsidies made available to workers inside and outside the exchanges. And there would be tens of millions more families outside the exchange than in it, according to CBO.

If enacted as currently written, pressure would build to treat all Americans fairly, regardless of where they get their insurance. One way or another, the subsidies provided to those in the exchanges would be made more widely available, driving the costs of reform much higher than CBO's estimates currently indicate.

An Honest Accounting

The President has said that he wants a health reform bill in large part because it is necessary to get better control of the federal budget. But the bills that have been developed in the House and Senate fall far short of his stated objectives. The spending would far exceed $900 billion through 2019, and the federal budget deficit would increase dramatically, not decrease, when all of the numbers are honestly accounted for.

James C. Capretta served in the Office of Management and Budget during the Bush Administration and is a Fellow in the Economics and Ethics Program of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

.........................................................................................
Hitler's T4 Program Revived In Obama's Health-Care `Reform'. You will have no recourse because the government can't be sued nor will there be any appeal after a committee determines you are unworthy or life. This is what national health care is all about. Yes there are "death care" panels. In effect "killing off old people" its not crazy or stupid to say that because your health care would be determinded by one of several panels, with no appeal. I WOULD CALL THIS A DEATH PANEL!!

Oamacare is The Destruction of Lives Unworthy of Life and is hitlercare warmed over. Un agenda 21 is the blueprint obama is using. The jig is up. The cat is out of the bag. The scam is exposed.

Obamacare template

UN Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right.

...........................................................................................
The Trouble With "Sustainable Development"

By Tom DeWeese

The Trouble With "Sustainable Development"
...........................................................................................
Many Americans appear to be awakening from their slumber of apathy as government forces are making their move for total control of our lives.

But there is a major component missing from those protests. There is a nearly universal lack of understanding of the issue of Sustainable Development and the dangers it poses to our liberty. Consequently, that issue is being left out of the protests.

Meanwhile, as thousands attend the TEA Parties and protest the Federal Reserve, taxes, and out of control federal government, inside their local city halls, international forces are busy turning the communities into little soviets.

We cannot win this battle to restore our Republic if we don’t understand that what we face is not a bunch of random issues -- but a complete agenda of control -- Sustainable Development. Cap N Trade, global warming, population control, gun control, open borders and illegal immigration, higher taxes, higher gas prices, refusal to drill American oil, education restructuring, international IDs, natural health supplement control, food control, farming "reform," control of private property, NAIS and UN Global Governance are all part of the Sustainable Development/Agenda 21 blueprint.

Cities that are currently enacting Sustainable Development policies.

If this is happening in your town (and it is), I urge you to challenge your local city council and mayor to stop these polices. The battles now must be fought on the local level. Remove Sustainable Development from every community and policies out of the federal government will be neutralized. And only then can we be on our way to restoring the American Republic. ------ Tom DeWeese

Sustainable Development: The root of all our problems

In his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore warned that a "wrenching transformation" must take place to lead America away from the "horrors of the Industrial Revolution." The process to do that is called Sustainable Development and its’ roots can be traced back to a UN policy document called Agenda 21, adopted at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992.

Sustainable Development calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of central planning of the entire economy -- often referred to as top-down control. Truly, Sustainable Development is designed to change our way of life.

In short, it’s all about wealth redistribution. Your wealth into a green rat hole.

(This is obama's goal. To spread the wealth around or wealth redistribution. The global warming HOAX is a tool he plans to use to spread the wealth around as he has stated he will do.) Story Reports

During the Cold War, communists tried to get us to surrender our liberties and way of life for the wisdom of Karl Marx. Americans didn’t buy it.

But now, they have taken the same clap trap and wrapped it all in a nice green blanket, scaring us with horror stories about the human destruction of the environment -- and so we are now throwing our liberties on the bon fire like a good old fashioned book burning -- all in the name of protecting the planet.

It sounds so friendly. So meaningful. So urgent. But, the devastation to our liberty and way of life is the same as if Lenin ordered it.

We now have a new language invading our government at all levels. Old words with new meanings fill government policy papers. The typical city council meeting discusses "community development," "historic preservation," and "partnerships" between the city and private business.

Civic leaders organize community meetings run by "facilitators," as they outline a "vision" for the town, enforced by "consensus." No need for debate when you have consensus! People of great importance testify before congressional committees of the dire need for "social justice."

Free trade, social justice, consensus, global truth, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, open space, heritage, comprehensive planning, critical thinking, and community service are all part of our new language.

What are they really talking about? What mental pictures come to mind when those words are used? George Orwell realized that those who control language and manipulate key phrases can control policy.

The language is being changed and manipulated to quietly implement a very destructive policy. Whenever you see or hear these words, know that, in every case, they are defining one thing - the implementation of Sustainable Development.

Rather than good management of resources, Sustainable Development has come to mean denied use and resources locked away from human hands. In short, it has become a code word for an entire economic and social agenda.

I have spent most of the past 12 years studying every facet of this new political agenda which is fast becoming a revolution -- touching every aspect of our businesses, our public education system, our private property, our families and our individual lives.

Interestingly, it is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It’s not liberal or conservative. It is being implemented on a purely bipartisan basis. It is now the official policy of the United States, put in force by literally every department of the government. It is the official policy of every state government, and nearly every city, town and county in the nation.

But, I warn you, accepting the perception that Sustainable Development is simply good environmental stewardship is a serious and dangerous mistake.

So what is Sustainable Development? The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society.

To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control.

Keep in mind that America is the only country in the world based on the ideals of private property. But, private property is incompatible with the collectivist premise of Sustainable Development.

If you doubt that, then consider this quote from the report of the 1976 UN’s Habitat I conference which said: "Land. . . cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice."

According to Sustainablist doctrine, It is a social injustice for some to have prosperity if others do not. It is a social injustice to keep our borders closed. It is a social injustice for some to be bosses and others to be merely workers.

Social justice is a major premise of Sustainable Development. Another word for social justice, by the way, is Socialism. Karl Marx was the first to coin the phrase "social justice."

Some officials try to pretend that Sustainable Development is just a local effort to protect the environment -- just your local leaders putting together a local vision for the community. Then ask your local officials how it is possible that the exact language and tactics for implementation of Sustainable Development are being used in nearly every city around the globe from Lewiston, Maine to Singapore. Local indeed.

Sustainable Development is the process by which America is being reorganized around a central principle of state collectivism using the environment as bait.

The best way to understand what Sustainable Development actually is can be found by discovering what is NOT sustainable.

According to the UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report, items for our everyday lives that are NOT sustainable include: Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paved and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment (capitalism, free markets).

Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Rio Earth Summit in 1992 said, ". .. Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -- involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable."

Are you starting to see the pattern behind Cap and Trade, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and all of those commercials you’re forced to watch about the righteousness of Going Green? They are all part of the enforcement if Sustainable Development.

And one of the most destructive tools they use to force it on us is something called the "precautionary principle." That means that any activities that might threaten human health or the environment should be stopped -- even if no clear cause and effect relationship has been established -- and even if the potential threat is largely theoretical.

That makes it easy for any activist group to issue warnings by news release or questionable report and have those warnings quickly turned into public policy -- just in case.

Many are now finding non-elected regional governments and governing councils enforcing policy and regulations. As these policies are implemented, locally-elected officials are actually losing power and decision-making ability in their own communities. Most decisions are now being made behind the scenes in non-elected "sustainability councils" armed with truckloads of federal regulations, guidelines, and grant money.

The three Es

According to its authors, the objective of Sustainable Development is to integrate economic, social, and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.

The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making Nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society. As such, every societal decision would first be questioned as to how it might effect the environment. To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; land use, education, and population control and reduction.

Social Equity

As stated, Sustainable Development’s Social Equity plank is based on a demand for "social justice." Today, the phrase is used throughout Sustainablist literature. The Sustainablist system is based on the principle that individuals must give up selfish wants for the needs of the common good, or the "community." How does this differ from Communism?

This is the same policy behind the push to eliminate our nation’s borders to allow the "migration" of those from other nations into the United States to share our individually-created wealth and our taxpayers-paid government social programs. Say the Sustainablists, "Justice and efficiency go hand in hand." "Borders," they say, "are unjust."

Under the Sustainablist system, private property is an evil that is used simply to create wealth for a few. So too, is business ownership. Instead, "every worker/person will be a direct capital owner." Property and businesses are to be kept in the name of the owner, keeping them responsible for taxes and other expenses, however control is in the hands of the "community." That policy is right out of the Socialist handbook.

Economic Prosperity

Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based on one overriding premise: that the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor. It dictates that, if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must first be taken from the rich. Consequently, Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based not on private enterprise but on public/private partnerships.

(This is exactly the policy obama has executed since he became the first FRAUD president. Obama is destroying private interprise on purpose and he is engrafting the government into private partnerships.) Story Reports

In order to give themselves an advantage over competition, some businesses -- particularly large corporations -- now find a great advantage in dealing directly with government, actively lobbying for legislation that will inundate smaller companies with regulations that they cannot possibly comply with or even keep up with. This government/big corporation back-scratching has always been a dangerous practice because economic power should be a positive check on government power, and vise versa. If the two should ever become combined, control of such massive power can lead only to tyranny. One of the best examples of this was the Italian model in the first half of the Twentieth Century under Mussolini’s Fascism.

Together, select business leaders who have agreed to help government impose Sustainablist green positions in their business policies, and officials at all levels of government are indeed merging the power of the economy with the force of government in Public/Private Partnerships on the local, state and federal levels.

As a result, Sustainable Development policy is redefining free trade to mean centralized global trade "freely" crossing (or eliminating) national borders. It definitely does not mean people and companies trading freely with each other. Its real effect is to redistribute American manufacturing, wealth, and jobs out of our borders and to lock away American natural resources. After the regulations have been put in place, literally destroying whole industries, new "green" industries created with federal grants bring newfound wealth to the "partners." This is what Sustainablists refer to as economic prosperity.

(This is the true meaning of the obama stimulus slush fund. Its purpose is not to stimulate the economy but to destroy the economy for the purpose of sustainable development. This is the goal of obama and the un. Complete control of everyone and loss of freedom.) Story Reports

Ecological Integrity

"Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms." from the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty presented at the 1992 UN Earth Summit.

(As you can see the UN wants you to, in effect, worship mother earth. The un considers all creatures equal and considers humans just another creature.) Story Reports

This quote lays down the ground rules for the entire Sustainable Development agenda. It says humans are nothing special -- just one strand in the nature of things or, put another way, humans are simply biological resources. Sustainablist policy is to oversee any issue in which man interacts with nature -- which, of course, is literally everything. And because the environment always comes first, there must be great restrictions over private property ownership and control. This is necessary, Sustainablists say, because humans only defile nature.

Under Sustainable Development there can be no concern over individual rights -- as we must all sacrifice for the sake of the environment. Individual human wants, needs, and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of social planners. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance said in its 1995 report: "Human activity... combined with unprecedented increases in human numbers... are impinging on the planet’s basic life support system. Action must be taken now to control the human activities that produce these risks"

(The un is saying humans are like an infestation that must be controlled because they are destroying "mother earth". People are impinging on mother earth's life support. Humans must be controlled and eliminated if necessary.) Story Reports

Under Sustainable Development there can be no limited government, as advocated by our Founding Fathers, because, we are told, the real or perceived environmental crisis is too great. Maurice Strong, Chairman of the 1992 UN Earth Summit said: "A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally-damaging consumption patterns. The shift will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations."

(Obama is increasing government every day. He does not want limited government but bigger government to control Americans while working agenda 21 with the un to achive his goal of complete control of America.) Story Reports

The politically based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform the American systems of government, justice, and economics. It is a masterful mixture of socialism (with its top down control of the tools of the economy) and fascism (where property is owned in name only -- with no control). Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is not liberal, nor is it conservative. It is a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind.

The Trouble With "Sustainable Development"

Campaign For Liberty: Featured Articles by Tom DeWeese

(These articles reveal what I have been trying to understand. It puts the obama agenda puzzle into a clear picture. Obama and the UN are in bed togeather. Their offspring worship mother earth and want to destroy the US economy. Obama and the UN are producing green bastards that consider humans equal with the animals and elevate mother earth above everything else. America's are being sacrificed on the alter of global warming/climate change.) Story Reports

Now we know why obama's speech is lacking

The state run media isn't reporting all the facts about barry. It seems barry has a drinking problem. Doctors tell Barack Obama to quit smoking and cut down on the booze.
..........................................................................................

The doctors also recommended "moderation of alcohol intake".

When a person is told to moderate his alcohol consumption, that tells me he's drinking too much. And I'm not the only one who interpreted the word "moderation" in that way.

How many beers a day would Obama need to be drinking before his doctor would recommend "moderation of alcohol intake"?

Interesting question.

Now, some could argue that moderation also could mean that he should increase his alcohol intake in order to get the optimal health benefits, but I highly doubt it. It's clear President Obama enjoys adult beverages from all pictures of him in various settings with some kind of adult beverage in his hand, whether it's a beer or a glass of wine at White House dinners and parties, which according to reports he has quite often.

We don't exactly know much President Obama is drinking, but the Mayo Clinic, a hospital system that President Obama praised for its ability to provide outstanding medical care while keeping health care costs down, says this about moderate drinking:

You've likely heard to drink in moderation, but what does that mean? And why is moderation important?

Moderate alcohol use seems to offer some health benefits, particularly for the heart. But too much alcohol raises the stakes, putting you at risk of adverse health consequences.

Whether you drink is up to you and your doctor. But here are some points on alcohol consumption to consider.

Benefits of moderation

Moderate drinking is defined as two drinks a day if you're a male 65 and younger, or one drink a day if you're a female or a male 66 and older. A drink is defined as 12 ounces (355 milliliters) of beer, 5 ounces (148 milliliters) of wine or 1.5 ounces (44 milliliters) of 80-proof distilled spirits.

So if the president's doctors recommended "moderation of alcohol intake" that signals he is drinking more than the maximum recommended two drinks a day, which in the long run can be detrimental instead of beneficial to his health. Now does that mean he's a drunk? Who knows.

One thing for sure he is "drunk" on power.

The inept way he speaks without a teleprompter is a telltale sign something is wrong.

Makes one question how much barry is drinking. He is drinking too much but how much?

Slow down barry, you can't drink away your troubles. Don't use the bottle to induce self esteem. Be a man. Grow up.

Walk like a man. Talk like a man. Get off the booze.

Doctors tell Barack Obama to quit smoking and cut down on the booze

Global warming is a HOAX and these facts prove it

"Global warming" is a political concoction. It is a pretext to massively increase the size of government. The worldwide Marxist movement invented this as a pretext to attack industry and redistribute wealth.

"Global warming" is a political concoction. Climate Depot Evidence

Obama says he's not a Bolshevik but the Communist Party USA loves Obama. "CPUSA and Obama Platforms are Identical." August 8th, 2008: "Forget for the moment about Bill Ayers and Obama's other Communist friends and mentors of the distant past," and they go on to cite how his agenda and theirs are platforms, Obama's and the CPUSA, are identical.

Because obama is a bolshevik, communist marxist he uses the HOAX of "global warming" to attack industry to redistribute the wealth as he said he would do before the election.

Obama told America he would "spread the wealth around". This is what a communist does. Obama is a marxist. This is why he is pushing his obamacare. Obamacare will spread the wealth around by destroying the insurance industry. Obamacare will also cause the death's of millions in the future. Panels of "experts" will determine who will see a doctor or go to a hospital. Panels of "experts" will determine what doctor you can go to for obamacare. Panels of "experts" will determine when you can get an operation. Panels of "experts" and a "health czar" will determine how much you pay to wait in a cue or line before you can get needed care. Most likely you will die waiting for obamacare panels to say you can live.

Massive tax increases to industry and individuals will result in the economy further being destroyed. Obamacare includes huge tax and crimminal penalties.

Obama will require you to buy obamacare or you will be fined or put in jail if you don't.

This is what a state run government does. The state tells you what to do and when to do it. Individual freedom is now controlled by the state. Obama wants to change America into a controlled central state government that is controlled by communists. Obama is a traitor and a communist who is destroying America every chance he gets.
.........................................................................................
Mark Landsbaum: What to say to a global warming alarmist

Mark Landsbaum: What to say to a global warming alarmist
.........................................................................................

It has been tough to keep up with all the bad news for global warming alarmists. We're on the edge of our chair, waiting for the next shoe to drop. This has been an Imelda Marcos kind of season for shoe-dropping about global warming.

At your next dinner party, here are some of the latest talking points to bring up when someone reminds you that Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won Nobel prizes for their work on global warming.

ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"

FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?

ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.

SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of "going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence." We're shocked.

AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.

Man made global warming is a total hoax. Obama is a total hoax. The state run media wants you to believe this hoax. Don't believe their lies about the global warming hoax. Don't believe obama's lies about global warming. Don't believe anything obama says without checking his quotes out. You will find he is a habitual liar. Obama like al gore must continue to use the state run propaganda machine to further their goals.

The main goal is to coverup their FRAUD. They are total frauds. The persons of al gore and barry sorento must hide their true intentions. People are invested in the global warming HOAX. Industry is invested in the global warming hoax. People are invested in the obama hoax. Because industry and individuals are invested in the hoax of obama and global warming they are more than willing to perpetuate the HOAX for their own greed. The defective product will continue to be "sold" to the public. Their will be no recall of the HOAX from obama. The HOAX will continue to be sold as a real product that can be used to relieve the grief man has created to destroy the planet. Al gore carbon credits are the bengay of global warming. Green jobs must be created to further the HOAX of man made global warming. Hoax jobs. Hoax president. It all adds up. Story Reports

Some people can think for themselves. Others let the government controlled media to do their thinking. Some people believe lies. Others seek to verify statements and data.

The people who believe in global warming don't verify data or statments. If they did their belief in the lie of global warming would be changed. These people ignore the facts.

If you ignore the facts and believe lies you will believe global warming is real.

These same type of people believe in obama. They ignore the facts. They believe what obama says. They never check out what obama says. Ignoring the facts becomes the truth to people who believe obama and man made global warming.

The strange fact is people who believe obama ignore the fact obama has been proven to be a HOAX as has man made global warming.


Its like they have to much to loose to face the truth. Its easy to go along with the crowd even if the crowd is all wrong.

Some people like obama speak of consensus.

A consensus is general agreement among a group of people.

Consensus is not fact. Fact is not consensus.

The global warming HOAX is based on facts that are not valid. The consensus among global warming scientists cannot be proven nor backed up with facts that indicate the consensus is valid.

A valid consensus is based on facts that are valid.

A consensus means nothing if it is not base on facts that are valid.

Obama's election was based on a consensus of voters who agreed obama was the best choice for president based on invalid facts.

The invalid facts or hidden facts about obama were propagated by the liberal news media to the general public. Anyone who checked out the state run media propaganda knew obama was a hoax and fraud.

America is waking up to the facts about obama and man made global warming.

Nov 2010 is when obama gets a restraining order by the "court" of American voters.

Obama is similar to satan in that he too knows his time is short.

Climate Depot If you want to know the truth.