• Feed RSS
There was an error in this gadget
0
RBI slashes key policy rates to boost growth
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Tuesday cut interest rates for the
first time in three years by 50 basis points in a bid to push
industrial growth and stimulate economy -- a move that may also see
interest rates falling on housing, automobile and commercial
loans.http://post.jagran.com/rbi-cuts-interest-rates-to-boost-
growth-1334643472

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

0
MCD polls: BJP heading towards huge win, bucks anti-incumbency
Bucking the anti-incumbency against it in the civic polls, the
Bharatiya Janata Party is leading from most of the 272 wards in the
early trends. The Congress's poor showing continues in the civic
polls.

Of the 17 results declared by the State Election Commission so far,
BJP has bagged 16 wards in all the three corporations while Congress
has won one seat.

As per the trends available, BJP is leading in 131 wards out of the
total 272 wards while Congress is ahead in 66 seats. Others, including
BSP, is ahead 54 seats.

http://post.jagran.com/mcd-polls-bjp-heading-towards-huge-win-1334632939

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Senate Republicans Vote Down The Buffet Tax Rule, Vote Them Out of Office!

BREAKING: Buffett Rule fails in Senate


Take back Congress from the 1%

Donate now so we can take back Congress for the 99%.


Today in a close vote, the Senate failed to pass the Buffett Rule, a
groundbreaking piece of legislation that would have made millionaires
and billionaires pay their fair share. So while the middle and working
class will be paying their fair share in taxes on Tax Day tomorrow,
many of the 1% will not.

The GOP obstructionists voted against the Buffett Rule, just like they
voted for the Medicare-killing Ryan budget. They're basically Robin
Hood in reverse - robbing from the 99% to give ever more lavish tax
breaks to the rich.

The majority of the country wants the Buffett Rule but they just
ignored us. They can't be changed, they can only be defeated.

So we've got a plan to defeat these right-wing zealots by registering
and turning out progressive voters this fall in key states and
congressional districts. Will you donate $5 right now to help us take
back Congress from the 1%?


With your help, we'll be working in:

• 8 of the 12 states key in deciding the presidential election;
• Nearly half of the Congressional seats needed to win the majority
in the U.S. House, including some of the most progressive candidates
in the country like Ann McLane Kuster (NH-2);
• 7 key U.S. Senate races, including 2 of the top progressive
Senate candidates – Sherrod Brown in Ohio and Tammy Baldwin in
Wisconsin. And with Sen. Olympia Snowe stepping down, we have an
opportunity to pick up an additional Senate seat in Maine!
• 2 of the most competitive Governors' race in the country (NH and WV);
• 1 of the most important ballot initiatives in the country
(overturn Ohio's anti-voting rights law H.B. 194);
• 9 states with key state legislative races that could determine
control of a legislative body or deny a right-wing supermajority;


These are all states where USAction and our affiliates have been
long-time leaders waging issue campaigns, building coalitions and
creating a progressive infrastructure, and where we will continue to
do so long after Election Day. The core of the 2012 plan is based on
two paid organizers in each congressional district recruiting 400
volunteers and coordinating a 4-month volunteer canvass that can build
our base by contacting at least 7,500 voters that support us and
getting them to vote.

To be successful, however, we need to start these volunteer canvasses
by May 15th - that's just 1 month away! Your donation of $5 today can
help us fund these organizers and their outreach, and make the
difference in November. Then next year we can pass a Buffett Rule, and
bring sanity back to our government.


We need a Congress that works of, by and for the people — not just the
1%. Donate $5 now so we can take back Congress for the 99%.

Thank you for all you do,
David Elliot
USAction / TrueMajority

https://secure.truemajority.org/o/2/p/salsa/donation/common/public/?donate_page_KEY=7174&track=BuffettVote_email_2905&Email=Tommysnews@gmail.com


--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

0
WASHINGTON -- The top U.S. military officer said Monday the nation's
military leadership is embarrassed by allegations of misconduct
against several U.S. military members at a Colombia hotel on the eve
of President Barack Obama's visit over the weekend.

"We let the boss down," Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference. He said he
regretted that the scandal, which also involved 11 Secret Service
agents accused of cavorting with prostitutes at the hotel, diverted
attention from Obama's diplomacy at a Latin America summit.

"I can speak for myself and my fellow chiefs: We're embarrassed by
what occurred in Colombia, though we're not sure exactly what it is,"
Dempsey added.

Pentagon officials said earlier Monday that the number of military
members involved in the scandal may be greater than the five
originally cited.

Pentagon press secretary George Little said that he could not provide
a specific number, but that military members who are being
investigated were assigned to support the Secret Service in
preparation for Obama's official visit to Cartagena. He said they were
not directly involved in presidential security.

"We believe that there may be more than five involved in this
incident," Little said.

The Secret Service sent 11 of its agents home from Colombia amid
allegations that they had hired prostitutes at a Cartagena hotel. The
military members being investigated were staying at the same hotel,
Little said.

Appearing with Dempsey at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta
said U.S. troops are expected to abide by "the highest standards" of
behavior whether they are at home or abroad. He noted that a military
investigation is under way and promised that if wrongdoing is
confirmed, "these individuals will be held accountable."

Army Col. Scott Malcom, chief spokesman for U.S. Southern Command,
which organized the military team that was assigned to support the
Secret Service's mission in Cartagena, declined to say how many
additional service members are under investigation. He also would not
say which branch of the military they were from.

"We are still putting together all the facts," Malcom said.

A defense official in Washington said at least some of those under
investigation are members of the Army. The official spoke on condition
of anonymity because the matter is under active investigation.

Malcom said a colonel from the Southern Command staff, whom he would
not identify by name, had been sent to Cartagena to gather facts. He
said at least five military members under investigation were being
flown to Miami Monday.

The U.S. Southern Command had announced on Saturday that five service
members assigned to the presidential mission in Colombia had violated
curfew and may have been involved in "inappropriate conduct."

In a statement Saturday, Air Force Gen. Douglas Fraser, commander of
Southern Command, said he was "disappointed by the entire incident"
and that "this behavior is not in keeping with the professional
standards expected of members of the United States military."

The Secret Service placed the 11 agents on leave while the agency
reviews what happened.

"I expect that investigation to be thorough, and I expect it to be
rigorous," Obama said Sunday. "If it turns out that some of the
allegations that have been made in the press are confirmed, then of
course I'll be angry. ... We are representing the people of the United
States, and when we travel to another country, I expect us to observe
the highest standards."

California Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of a House investigative panel,
said he wasn't certain whether Congress would hold hearings on the
alleged misconduct. But lawmakers will be looking "over the shoulder"
of the Secret Service, he said, to make sure that the agency's methods
for training and screening agents aren't endangering the nation's
VIPs.

------

Associated Press writer Pauline Jelinek contributed to this report.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


Tax and Spending Issues
How America Spends Nearly $1 Trillion a Year Fighting Poverty -- and Fails
April 16, 2012

Forty-eight years after President Johnson declared war on poverty, the number of poor people in the United States remains stubbornly high.  Various administrations have increased the number of programs helping those with incomes below the poverty line, but no such institution has had much success, says Michael Tanner, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.

This trend is particularly surprising because of the rapid increase in spending and the number of programs that has occurred over the time period in question.  Since Johnson's time, dollars allocated to fighting poverty at both the federal and state level have increased rapidly, but to no avail.
  • Total welfare spending in constant 2011 dollars (including state and local funds) has risen from $256 billion in 1965 to $908 billion today.
  • Measured as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), total welfare spending nearly tripled from 2.19 percent of GDP to 6 percent.
  • In 2011, there were 126 antipoverty programs administered by seven different cabinet agencies and six independent agencies.

Measured in per capita terms, the dollar figures make it clear that in terms of fighting poverty, the government is clearly doing something wrong.
  • Combined with state and local spending, government spends $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three.
  • Given that the poverty line for that family is just $18,530, poverty should theoretically have been wiped out many times over.
  • According to Obama administration projections, over the next 10 years, federal and state governments will spend $250,000 for every American currently living in poverty.

The answer to this gross inefficiency is that programs should not focus on making poverty more comfortable.  Instead, they should focus on helping the poor to climb their way out of poverty.  To this end, they should emphasize:
  • Education -- high school dropouts make significantly less money and are much more likely to live in poverty.
  • Not having children out of wedlock -- roughly 63 percent of all poor children reside in single-parent families.
  • Sticking to a job -- only 2.6 percent of full-time workers and 15 percent of part-time workers are poor.

Source: Michael Tanner, "The American Welfare State: How We Spend Nearly $1 Trillion a Year Fighting Poverty -- and Fail," Cato Institute, April 11, 2012.

For text:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf

For more on Tax and Spending Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=25

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=21816&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
 




This is like seeing… like seeing… it's not like anything you've seen.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
0


New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Political plastic surgeries

by Dr. Eowyn

From The Daily Caller 11/21/2011.

In each case, the photo on the left is "before," the photo on the right is "after":

As Nancy Pelosi's politics go further and further to the left, her eyebrows drift higher and higher.

VP Joe Biden

These pics of Hillary Clinton are dated. The "after" photo on the right was taken during the 2008 primary elections when she magically appeared very fresh-faced in those debates with Obama. Since then, her Secretary-of-State globe-trotting must be keeping her from getting botox refills.

Senator John Kerry

Michele Bachmann

Mitt Romney: All those forehead frown lines have magically disappeared!

~Eowyn

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/political-plastic-surgeries/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
0



New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Senior flash mob

by Dr. Eowyn

Last Friday, April 13, a very different kind of flash mob surprised the Dulles Town Center mall in Ashburn, VA.

25 residents of Ashby Ponds retirement community ages 66 to 80, surprised crowds at noon with choreographed moves to the hit dance song "Tonight is the Night" by Outasight. The group had spent the last two months rehearsing at least once a week.

One of the performers, Carl Hemmer, had never participated in a flash mob -- much less heard of what they were. He's the oldest of the group, having just turned 80.

"The best part?" he says with a smile. "The end."

Hemmer is only one of four men in the group.

One woman performer said, "It's really exciting when you turn around and you see you're going the wrong way."

"I know exactly how you feel," another joined in. "And we thought the men were going to be a problem."

The women all laughed.

Way to go, seniors!

~Eowyn

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/senior-flash-mob/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
0



From: MJ michaelj@america.net


 


How Regulators Wrecked Our Mowers
Jeffrey Tucker · April 16, 2012

When I was a kid, lawn mowers worked. You pushed them and they cut grass. The grass went into the bag. Then you emptied the bag. The results were great. There was no grass to rake. It all went into the bag, because that's what lawn mowers did.

Then the feds got involved. Or so I now gather. I didn't know this for a long time. Every time I would buy a mower, I would be disappointed in the results. I kept buying mowers with ever-larger engines. Then I would buy them with different bag designs, and then a different brands, and then different features. Nothing worked.

The problem was always the same. I would mow and most of the grass would go in the catcher. But some didn't. Some landed on the lawn in a line. When the grass was wet, it left an even bigger trail. Or when I would go from the grass to the sidewalk, a big clump would fall out from underneath the mower onto the sidewalk, requiring that I get a broom and sweep it up. Then I would have to empty the bag long before it was full.

It took me many years of thinking to figure out the problem. After all, I never had this problem when I was a kid. Have companies started making lawn mowers that don't work? Are manufacturers worse than they used to be? It all seems crazy. I would mow with a smartphone in my pocket that could check my blood pressure, make the sound of a flute or surf the Web. Why can't private enterprise seem to make a mower that works?

I would try to forget about the problem, adjust to the downgraded reality and finish up the growing season. But the next year, it would all come back to me. Grass trails. Clumps on the sidewalk. Emptying too often. Buying a new mower and finding the same problem all over again.

What is the source of the problem? The spinning blade cuts the grass and creates a flow of air that lifts the grass and throws it into the catcher. A flow requires circulation, and where does the circulation come from? It can't be a vacuum seal. You can't create a small wind tunnel without a source of air. Where is this coming from? Nowhere. The base of the lawn mower is flush against the grass. The blades spin but create no suction effect.

Why is the base so low to the ground? I tend to mow my grass pretty low just because of the variety of grass and the topsoil level. But doing this causes a perfect seal between the mower and the ground, cutting off all airflow and denying the blade the air it needs to create the wind tunnel to empty the grass.

It is pretty obvious, right? So why have manufacturers not responded by raising the steel casing on the lawn mower? Why would they keep selling mowers that don't work well? I'm hardly the only person who has the problem. Lawn mower forums all over the Internet are filled with people asking exactly the same questions and having the same symptoms. The manufacturers are shy to mention the real reason. They talk about changing blades, removing obstructions and things like that. Users know better. There is another factor.

I was just looking at the detailed regulations for lawn mowers. In particular, the relevant passage is 16 CFR PART 1205 ­ the Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers. Here we find that the height of the lawn mower case must be low enough to pass a "foot probe" test. No matter how high or low the wheels are adjusted, it cannot be possible to stick your foot under the case.

Now, when I was young, you could stick your foot under the mower. We didn't do that, of course, but we could. Therefore, there was suction. The air sucked from underneath and swirled up and out in the grass catcher. It was like running a vacuum cleaner over a floor. It shaved the grass, and not one grass blade was left anywhere in sight. It all went into the catcher.

The new regulations, which apply only to walking mowers that you use at home, went into effect sometime after 1982. I still used my old mower for years after that date. I fact, I didn't have a reason to buy a new one until about 15 years ago. That's when my troubles began.

Now I know the cause. The bottom line is that federal regulations have degraded the lawn mower. In the name of safety, the government has forced all manufacturers to sacrifice functionality. They are forced to sell equipment that doesn't do what it is supposed to do. All the while, I've been blaming private enterprise. It turns out to be the fault of government.

The government's central plan for walk-behind mowers is mind boggling. That bar you have to squeeze and hold on the handle to make the wheel move? Mandated by government. That annoying plastic piece that covers the blow hole for the grass that you have to push out of the way? Mandated by government. The government has mandated the blueprint for the whole machine and thereby frozen its structure in place with an inferior and unalterable design.

It is not enough that regulations have invaded the bathroom, ruined our showers and toilets, degraded our detergent, made it ever harder to unclog drains and made essential medicines hard to get. Now I find that regulations have even made it difficult for me to do something completely American like mow my own lawn!

This also explains why so many of my neighbors are using lawn mowing services that have giant riding lawn mowers. It turns out that these particular regulations do not apply to them. It wouldn't surprise me to find that lawn services were actually instrumental in lobbying for these safety regulations. This is how commerce works these days: Compete for a while, but when that doesn't work, turn to the government to wreck the competition.

Government hates lawns -- except at the White House, of course. They consider private lawns to be wasteful and vain, a symbol of conspicuous consumption. If they had their way, we would all have rocks in our front yards. Or maybe we wouldn't have front yards. We would have little window boxes, and surely that would be enough for us.

It's all in the interest of your safety. And security. What about your freedom? It's been mowed under, and it landed like clumps of grass on the sidewalk.

http://lfb.org/today/how-regulators-wrecked-our-mowers/

__._,_.___
 
.

__,_._,___


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

April16th
Says the Left: We Were Rich and Awesome When Taxes Were Higher
Tom Woods

John Kenneth Galbraith said in 1965 that there was no problem in New York that couldn't be solved by doubling the city's budget. By the 1970s the budget had been tripled, and the city's budget crisis was worse than ever.

That embarrassing moment came to mind when I read this bit of nonsense circulating on the Internet: "In the 1950s and 1960s when the top tax rate was 70-92%, we laid the interstate system, built the Internet, put a man on the moon, defeated Communism, our education system was the envy of the world, our middle class thriving, our economy unparalleled. You want that back? Raise taxes on the rich."

It is precisely this kind of inanity that Liberty Classroom was created to help people to answer -- and not just answer, but smack down mercilessly.

We'll pursue this topic further on our Forums, but a few preliminary thoughts here.

(1) Via loopholes or outright tax evasion, these tax rates were not paid.

(2) Big spending programs are not evidence of prosperity; the U.S. government could duplicate any of these programs today.

(3) Left out is that when our education system was supposedly "the envy of the world," it was spending far less per capita, adjusting for inflation, than it does today. From the early 1970s to 2003 alone, spending per capita doubled. So the Left has actually gotten its wish, though it pretends it hasn't. Meanwhile, Japan, spending one-third as much per capita, and with much larger class sizes, vastly outperforms the U.S.

There is no connection between higher education spending and higher SAT scores. In fact, some of the highest scores are earned in states that spend the least on education. Washington, D.C., which spends the most, is dead last. ( Statistics here.)

(4) The prosperity of the 1960s was fueled in good measure by the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve. In John F. Kennedy's three years as president, M2 growth averaged about 8 percent per year, far higher than in the 1950s. This produces resource misallocation that can look like prosperity. This false prosperity is self-reversing. By 1970 -- just as Arthur Okun, influential White House economist throughout the 1960s, was boasting that the business cycle had been tamed forever -- the recession began.

Americans paid for that false prosperity with a decade of inflation and stagnation. As economist Mark Thornton points out, "From the beginning of 1946 to the beginning of 1965 the consumer price index increased by 71.4%, but then increased 20% by the end of the decade. From 1965 -- when the experiment began in earnest -- to the end of 1980 the CPI increased by 176.6%. The experiment had tripled the rate of inflation experienced by consumers."

It's not just price inflation and unemployment we should look to for the full story, though.

Again Thornton:

A better indication is to be found in the fact that in May 1970, a portfolio consisting of one share of every stock listed on the Big Board was worth just about half of what it would have been worth at the start of 1969. The high flyers that had led the market of 1967 and 1968­conglomerates, computer leasers, far-out electronics companies, franchisers­were precipitously down from their peaks. Nor were they down 25 percent, like the Dow, but 80, 90, or 95 percent. This was vintage 1929 stuff, and the prospect of another great depression, this one induced as much by despair as by economic factors as such, was a very real one.

The stock market as measured by the Dow did decrease 25% between 1969 and 1971 and then…lost another 20% by mid-1975. However, the real losses in the stock market were larger and longer lasting than an ordinary chart of the Dow might suggest. In the graph below, the Dow index shows that stocks tended to trade in a wide channel for much of the period between 1965 and 1984. However, if you adjust the value of stocks by price inflation as measure by the Consumer Price Index, a clearer and more disturbing picture emerges. The inflation-adjusted or real purchasing power measure of the Dow indicates that it lost nearly 80% of its peak value.

No wonder the tax-raisers want to talk about the 1960s, but then pretend that the equally high-tax 1970s never occurred.

I discuss all this in more detail in my lecture on JFK and in my lecture on the 1970s malaise in our course on U.S. History Since 1877.

(5) Kennedy used the economy of the 1950s against Vice President Richard Nixon in the election of 1960. Economic growth averaged 2.4% per year under Dwight Eisenhower (see The Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower) -- not a bad record, to be sure, but hardly the earth-shattering, historically unique figure one might expect in light of the constant references to the 1950s.

(6) It was not unthinkable in the 1950s that a family might not have a telephone, a refrigerator (some still had iceboxes), or a television. (Bearing in mind that Ralph was a cheapskate, the Kramdens in The Honeymooners lacked all these things, and the program was not laughed out of court as silly or implausible.) Anyone wanting to live at that standard of living today can do so with precious little effort.  Today, by contrast, 85% of Americans own cellphones, a technology that would have seemed out of science fiction in the 1950s.

(7) Government and its predation on the economy have grown far greater in the meantime; the top marginal tax rate is hardly the only relevant change that has occurred over the past 50 years. The overall tax burden for ordinary families has grown dramatically. These things are not good for the economy.

(8) Going for the jugular, economist George Reisman has a good piece called "Why Everyone Should Be in Favor of Reducing Taxes on the 'Rich.'"

(9) Even if we were to accept that the 1950s were the summit of human happiness, correlation does not prove causation. How do we know there wouldn't have been even greater prosperity had taxes been lower? Supporters of this view would have to provide us with a causal mechanism explaining why the violent seizure of property and its expenditure on economically arbitrary projects would make a country more prosperous than employing those funds in capital investment to increase the productivity of labor.

I can point to plenty of relatively limited-government places around the world that are doing very well economically. My critics would refuse to accept that this proves anything. They are partly right. Without a theoretical understanding of what produces prosperity, we can't know if country A is prosperous because of or in spite of policy B.

(10) The U.S. "defeated communism" in the 1950s and 1960s? Isn't the timing a bit off? And when the system did collapse, it collapsed because it defeated itself, as free-market economists had predicted it would.

Inoculate yourself against nonsense like this. Learn more about Liberty Classroom, and join us!


http://www.libertyclassroom.com/says-the-left-we-were-rich-and-awesome-when-taxes-were-higher/
That means that about 17 percent of the American labor pool ­ one in every six workers ­ owes its living to the taxpayer.

Tax Burden: 40 Million Government Workers
Written by Gary North on April 6, 2012

How many people work for governments in the United States. Let's look at the numbers.

The usual estimate of the number of employees of the U.S. government is 2.8 million. The estimate is fake. This does not count military personnel. But most important, it does not count contract workers paid by the federal government.

The Office of Personnel Management does not keep track of these workers. That would give the game away.

One man has estimated the total: Prof. Paul Light of New York University.

[The federal government] uses contracts, grants, and mandates to state and local governments to hide its true size, thereby creating the illusion that it is smaller than it actually is, and give its departments and agencies much greater flexibility in hiring labor, thereby creating the illusion that the civil-service system is somehow working effectively. . . .
Contractors and grantees do not keep count of their employees, in part because doing so would allow the federal government . . . to estimate actual labor costs.

Here is his estimate: 11 million, broken down as follows: 1.8 million civil servants, 870,000 postal workers, 1.4 million military personnel, 4.4 million contractors, and 2.5 million grantees. These figures are from 2006.

Yet the federal government isn't all. Despite its huge budgets, state and local governments dwarf Washington in direct employment. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 3.8 million full-time and 1.5 million part-time employees on state payrolls. Local governments add a further 11 million full-time and 3.2 million part-time personnel. This means that state and local governments combined employ 19.5 million Americans.
When we add up the true size of the federal workforce ­ civil servants, postal workers, military personnel, contractors, grantees, and bailed-out businesses ­ and add in state- and local-government employees ­ civil servants, teachers, firefighters, and police officers ­ we reach the astonishing figure of nearly 40 million Americans employed in some way by government. That means that about 17 percent of the American labor pool ­ one in every six workers ­ owes its living to the taxpayer.

There is going to be a government default at some point. Tens of millions of these people will lose their jobs. The private sector will have to absorb them.

Think of the Great Depression, when government was a small percentage of the labor market. There was 25% unemployment in 1933.

Think of what will happen in the Great Default. There will be a spurt in unemployment, but then these people will at long last be forced to become productive. There will be an increase in national productivity. These people will suffer sharp declines in their income. But taxes will fall for the rest of us.

It will be the turning point for America's comparative decline. This nation will rebound. No nation is better positioned for economic growth as a result of bankrupt governments. But the pain will be excruciating for the people who are on government payrolls today. As for government pensions, forget about it. Gone. As for government labor unions: also gone.

Continue Reading on www.nationalreview.com

http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/04/06/tax-burden-40-million-government-workers/

88 Million (That's One in Three Americans) Are Invisible to Government Employment Statistics
by Mac Slavo

With recovery in full swing and unemployment dropping to an Obama administration near record low of 8.2%, the US economy seems to be bouncing back stronger than ever. Unless, of course, you look at the numbers no one in mainstream media, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, or the administration is talking about. As many of our readers already know, the official unemployment rates released monthly by the BLS (U-3, U-6) fail to account for one very key figure – those individuals who are no longer in the labor force.

The number of those folks – the ones that don't matter anymore because counting them would hinder the President's reelection bid – is absolutely staggering for what is supposed to be the engine of the global economy and the world's only super power:

Were it not for people dropping out of the labor force, the unemployment rate would be well over 11%.
Over the past several years people have dropped out of the labor force at an astounding, almost unbelievable rate, holding the unemployment rate artificially low. Some of this was due to major revisions last month on account of the 2010 census finally factored in. However, most of it is simply economic weakness.

In the last year, the civilian population rose by 3,604,000. Yet the labor force only rose by 1,315,000. Those not in the labor force rose by 2,289,000.
The Civilian Labor Force fell by 164,000.
Those "Not in Labor Force" increased by 310,000. If you are not in the labor force, you are not counted as unemployed.
Those "Not in Labor Force" is at a new record high of 87,897,000.
Source: Townhall Finance

With some 248 million people over the age of 15, nearly one in three Americans in this country are not working.

While the participation rate includes people like those in retirement and stay-at-home moms (because they definitely haven't worked a day in their lives, as was recently noted by democrat strategist Hilary Rosen) who have no intention of joining the traditional labor force, the last four years have seen an unprecedented drop in the rate of labor force participation as well as unemployment overall. Charlie McGrath of Wide Awake News explains:

The government… pretending everything is getting better because we spent trillions of dollars bailing out firms we now call too-big-to-fail. But the fact of the matter is, in order to get this kind of 8.3% fictitious fantasy number they had to lower the participation rate.
In the last four years we've lost 10 million people out of the participation rate. Just to give you an idea of how many people that is, it would take the city of Dallas, Salt Lake, San Diego, Spokane, Roanoke and Cincinnati… the people living in those city limits. If you double that number that gives you the number of people that have left the participation rate that are no longer in the working pool.
Yet, that isn't stopping the mainstream media from reporting that things are getting better. We've spent this nation into absolute financial servitude.


Understand that when you turn on the mainstream media you are being fed propaganda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80E0P7g-CFw&feature=player_embedded


The Obama administration is pulling out all the stops. If the real story came out – that the true unemployment rate in this country (those out of work plus those who the government deems as no longer participating) is almost triple that of the official BLS U-3 rate of 8.2% – confidence in the financial markets and the government's ability to mitigate the crisis would be lost almost immediately. So, too, would Obama's hope for another four years of fundamentally changing America.

But just because the President and his media conglomerates are preaching of recovery doesn't mean that everyone believes it. A large portion of Americans, especially those millions of people without jobs, are not going to be swayed by the mainstream propaganda. They are living in a modern day depression right here and now, and they, too, will be headed to the polls in November. And, as Jim Clifton, CEO of Gallup, recently pointed out to RT, they don't care about anything else except for their personal economic and financial circumstances:

RT: What are the dynamics in terms of opinion polls as far as the economy goes, among the American people, the way it was four years ago and the way it is now?

JC: We were going just fine in 2007, first part of 2008, then we crashed down. Now it's coming back a little bit.

RT: Enough to win President Obama the next election?

JC: I don't think quite yet… According to the Gallup poll, if we vote tonight, Romney will beat him… They are not voting for Romney – they just vote against the president.

RT: What are the main reasons not to vote for the president?

JC: Strictly unemployment. Just one reason. Foreign policy plays no role at all right now. If something really big happens… that will only make a little bit of a difference. Americans don't want to hear about foreign policy. They should, but they don't. Gallup shows real unemployment is close to 20 per cent in America. Not 8.5 but 20 per cent. 30 million people are out of work. 60 per cent of them told Gallup they have no hope of getting a job. That is 18 million.

RT: Do Americans blame the president for that?

JC: There are two questions here. Do I think they should? No. Do they? Yes.

President Obama most certainly inherited this crisis from his predecessor(s), but he's taken no steps to change anything for the better. The hope many had that life would improve under policies designed to redistribute wealth to the masses by taking from those with the ability and giving to those with the need is rapidly diminishing. The trillions of dollars backed by human collateral that has been thrown at the crisis has done nothing to fix the underlying issues that caused it in the first place. All of the problems we faced in 2007/2008 are still here, and they are only going to get worse.

If you think 88 million not participating and 20%+ unemployment is bad, give it another four years.

Right now the safety nets are in place to help most of those who can't find work – at least for 99 weeks until they are no longer counted as unemployed. But those safety nets, including medical care and food assistance, can only take so much before they snap. That moment is rapidly approaching.

http://www.shtfplan.com/
0

The Faustian Bargain
Bionic Mosquito

The Faustian Bargain: an arrangement in which an ambitious person surrenders moral integrity in order to achieve power and success.

Wikipedia

The actions of Churchill, but far more significantly Roosevelt, in the lead-up to western involvement in this Second World War post the turn of Hitler against Stalin are difficult to explain or comprehend in conventional means. There was little or no reason for the United States to be involved in this war, as a few have commented before. We can add Hoover to the list of revisionist historians on this topic:

With his conquest of most of western Europe completed by the surrender of France in June 1940, Hitler was free to revive one of his foremost ambitions: the destruction of the Communist government of Russia and the annexation of "living space," Lebensraum, from Russia and the Balkans…. Signs that Hitler was about to violate his alliance with Stalin and attack Russia began to reach the American Government immediately after his conquest of France.

It appears that Hitler's alliance with Stalin was one of convenience. For an interim period, Hitler did not want a major conflict on Germany's eastern front, preferring initially to consolidate and secure his western flank. That flank extended only to the channel – as previously outlined, Hitler did not have the capability to invade England, and primarily seemed interested in getting the British to return home, even to the point of allowing a relatively easy evacuation at Dunkirk.

With the western flank secure, Hitler was now free to pursue what seemed to be his primary interest – that of securing living space to the east. But why the east? Why not living space to the west? Perhaps because east is where the Germans were – other than a sliver of France, the Germans held no historic claim to land in the west, and certainly these lands could not be considered "Germanic." However, to the east this was quite different. An obvious example was Danzig, but there were others in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Additionally, to the east was fertile land, and, of course, oil.

The east was Hitler's objective, and Russia was the primary obstacle in his path. The United States government was aware of this, and so notified the Russians:

In the latter half of January, 1941, Under Secretary of State Summer Welles informed the Russian Ambassador in Washington, Constantine Oumansky, that Germany was preparing as attack on Russia late that spring.

Much of the knowledge that the U.S. government had regarding the coming attack by Hitler on Stalin was kept from the American people. Had this been widely known, and the implications understood, much of the debate regarding further U.S. involvement (for instance, for Lend-Lease) would have taken a different tone as the idea that Britain and the United States were under immediate danger would have been demonstrably false.

On June 22, 1941, Hitler and his armies of over 2,000,000 men attacked along the Russian border over a front of 2,500 miles.

And thus was born the opportunity to let these two tyrants knock each other out. As we know, instead of taking advantage of such an opportunity, both Britain and the United States wanted to be further involved. In fact, this event seems to have been the trigger for Roosevelt to step up his campaign of baiting the Japanese into attacking the U.S., as I have previously discussed here.

Hoover felt this was the greatest opportunity presented to Roosevelt:

The two dictators of the world's two great aggressor nations were locked in a death struggle. If left alone, these evil spirits were destined, sooner or later, to exhaust each other.

Alas, it was not to be:

At a press conference on June 24, two days after Hitler's attack, the President stated that "the United States would give all possible aid to Soviet Russia."

Hoover secured radio time for an address to the nation. He felt another side of this story must be told, that the United States government could take a course other than siding with Stalin. Following are some of the key statements in his address:

… The constant question is what we should do now… there are certain eternal principles to which we must adhere. There are certain consequences to America and civilization which we must keep ever before our eyes.

…now we find ourselves promising aid to Stalin and his militant Communist conspiracy against the whole democratic ideals of the world.

…it makes the whole argument of our joining the war to bring the four freedoms to mankind a gargantuan jest.

Hoover then goes on to recount that four previous American Presidents refused diplomatic recognition of the Soviets, until Roosevelt did early in his first term. He reminds the audience that just two years ago, Stalin and Hitler signed a pact to divide up the lands between their two nations. He asks the listener to imagine the future if the United States was to join Russia and help win the war:

…then we [would] have won for Stalin the grip of communism on Russia, the enslavement of nations, and more opportunity for it to extend in the world. We should at least cease to tell our sons that they would be giving up their lives to restore democracy and freedom to the world.
To align American ideals alongside Stalin will be as great a violation of everything American as to align ourselves with Hitler.

Hoover was not alone in speaking out against Roosevelt's desire to align with the Soviets. On June 23, 1941, Senator Robert M. La Follete, Jr. of Wisconsin said:

In the next few weeks the American people will witness the greatest whitewash act in all history. They will be told to forget the purges in Russia by the OGPU, the persecution of religion, the confiscation of property, the invasion of Finland, and the vulture role Stalin played in seizing half of prostrate Poland, all of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.

However, beside Roosevelt, others were cheerleading and propagandizing for war. On June 28, Senator Claude Pepper of Florida envisioned the results of a Hitler victory over Russia:

If Russia falls you and I know there would not be anybody else between Hitler and Alaska, and with Alaska taken only Canada, a nation the size that Belgium was, will stand between Hitler and us here in the continental United States.

This statement is so uncompromisingly nonsensical that it requires little comment to lay bare the either naïve ignorance or willfully despicable intent behind it. Hitler would march all the way to the Pacific through Siberia? Really? Was there a single western military leader that felt this was plausible? What of the logistics? What of the guerilla warfare? What of the intolerable cold, mud, ice, and snow?

And then, through a tiny passageway, Hitler would send an army through to Alaska? Has an army large enough to conquer an entire continent the size of North America ever march through such a frozen passageway?

Finally, I cannot make heads or tails about his comparison of Canada to Belgium. The only possibility I can imagine is that he is comparing population size. In both geography and size, to imply Canada can be overrun as easily as Belgium is nonsensical – let alone the consideration of differences in logistical distance of the two from Germany.

Finally, as a (weak) demonstration that members of the press were something other than the propaganda mouthpiece of the state, Hanson Baldwin of the New York Times wrote in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War":

The great opportunity of the democracies for establishing a stable peace came on June 22, 1941, when Germany invaded Russia, but we muffed the chance….

I will only suggest, "we" didn't "muff" anything. Roosevelt made decisions. These decisions were seen by many, even at the time, as the exact opposite of what would be in the best interest of the United States and its people. Roosevelt was not a stupid man. He had to be as aware as Hoover was that there was every possibility that Hitler and Stalin would do permanent damage to each other. Roosevelt could have stayed out of it all, with this silver-platter opportunity. But he chose not to stay out of it.

Or, Roosevelt could have taken sides with Germany instead of Russia. What made Stalin more worthy than Hitler, or communism more supportable than fascism? Both leaders murdered many, but at the start of the war Stalin outdid Hitler on this count by a ratio of 10,000 to 1.

Further, it was clear that Hitler intended to go east, not west. Hitler had no navy to speak of, no long range bombing capability. Hitler built a tremendous land army, one consistent with his military objective: to conquer adjacent land. That Hitler went east posed no risk to the United States.

No, "we" didn't "muff" this. Roosevelt consciously desired to place U.S. lives in jeopardy, for a purpose other than to defend United States interests – no matter how broadly one might reasonably define those interests. As was demonstrated in the book The Pearl Harbor Myth, Roosevelt went further and did everything possible to get Japan to fire first (after failing to get the Germans to take the bait) – significantly increasing his efforts against Japan when Hitler invaded Russia.

This didn't happen by accident. Roosevelt didn't muff it, or make a mistake. There was purpose in these actions. The purpose was not in service to the American people. As to whose bidding Roosevelt was doing, I must leave it the way I left it in the last installment in this string: your guess is as good as mine.

Perhaps he made a Faustian bargain….

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/04/faustian-bargain.html

Ron Paul Winning Delegates With Santorum Support Coalition

With the suspension of Rick Santorum's presidential campaign, mainline Republicans immediately began reporting that the race was over, and that Mitt Romney was the GOP nominee for the presidency. But Romney supporters may have started celebrating prematurely. If recent events are any indication, Ron Paul is a dangerous competitor.

First, Rick Santorum's supporters have begun uniting with Paulistas on an anti-Romney slate at state conventions. Bolstered by this arrangement, Ron Paul is gathering large numbers of delegates even in states where he performed poorly in the initial voting. In Colorado, a state where Paul came in last place, a Paul/Santorum "Conservative Unity Slate" has captured the plurality of delegates, with Ron Paul leading the coalition. In addition, the Paul/Santorum alliance removed Romney supporter Ryan Call, Colorado State Party Chairman, from his seat as Delegation Chairman, as well as placed two of its own members on the state's Rules Committee.

Similarly, in Minnesota, three district conventions were held, with Ron Paul winning every delegate. Much is also suspected in Missouri. And in states where Paul performed well, the effects are predicted to be even more dramatic.

Second, Ron Paul has the best chance to win over Evangelicals and even more Santorum supporters, as seen in events past and present. Remember that it was Ron Paul who won the Evangelical Values Voters Summit straw poll back in October of 2011. And recently, Paul declared his willingness to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, symbolizing the city's status as de facto capitol of the Jewish state. Moves like these help Ron Paul grab the support of Evangelicals reluctant to vote for Romney, a "Massachusetts moderate" and Mormon.

Finally, a recent poll by Rasmussen shows Ron Paul as the only candidate capable of beating Barack Obama. Republicans focused on removing Obama from office would be wise to support the candidate who stands out as truly different from the president. Unlike Romney, Ron Paul is not a "moderate" but rather a refreshingly sincere figure whose third-party style rhetoric is something so many Americans have been waiting for.

Onwards to Tampa!


http://www.policymic.com/articles/7019/ron-paul-winning-delegates-with-santorum-support-coalition



New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Sinclair: I performed oral sex and smoked coke with Obama

by Dr. Eowyn

Remember this iconic photo of Obama flaunting his 6-pack on a Honolulu beach in December 2008, mere days before his inauguration?

Now look at this photo of Obama taken on April 10, 2012, three years and three months after his inauguration:

Being President of the United States is a high-stress job and, after a few years in the White House, every President visibly aged. In Obama's case, however, not only has his hair gone grey, he's lost a lot of weight (some say 30 lbs.) and looks like he's aged 20 years.

Some attribute the weight loss to his basketball and golf, or Michelle's healthy-foods regimen.

Others whisper it's cocaine.

Most shocking of all is Rev. James David Manning's speculation that Obama may have AIDS.

In its Dec. 20, 2011-Jan.5, 2012 issue, the New Hampshire Herald published an exclusive interview with Larry Sinclair, the gay man who claims he had oral sex and cocaine with Barack Obama, who was then an Illinois state legislator. Sinclair first made those claims during the presidential election year in 2008, but he was ignored by the establishment media. Sinclair has nothing to gain by his story, only mockery, grief, and a $30 million defamation lawsuit. In view of Obama's rapid and significant weight loss, Sinclair's testimony deserves to be revisited.

What follows is the bulk of Sinclair's interview with New Hampshire Herald's Chris Anu. (To read the entire interview for yourself, go here.) Warning: Sinclair's narrative is graphic and contains four-letter words. That aside, his account carries the unvarnished air of authenticity.

~Eowyn

Larry Sinclair: recent photo (l); in 1999 (r)

From "Obama's Nemesis?: A Tell-It-All Interview," New Hampshire Herald, vol. 3, #19 (Dec. 20-Jan. 5, 2012):

Herald: If we may go back to the genesis of the story. When was it you first met then (state) senator Barack Obama?
Larry: It was Nov. 6, 1999.

Herald: How many other times did you meet him after your initial meeting of Nov. 6?

Larry: I had engaged with him on the 6th and Nov.7. I flew out of Chicago, going back to my house in Colorado on Nov. 8, 1999.

Herald: How did your meeting with him come about? Did you know him prior to that or what?
Larry: No. I didn't know him. In fact I was introduced to him by a limo driver that worked for 5 Star Limousine services in the Chicago area by the name of Jagir Multani.

Herald: So this limo guy introduced you to Obama?
Larry: Yes. I had a 5 Star Limo service. I was in the Chicago area as of Nov. 3. I went for the basic training graduation of my godson at the Great Lake Navy training facility. I had already arranged to use 5 Star Limo service for several days while I was there. On the fifth, I had told Mr. Multani that if my godson could not leave the base; because once they graduated basic training, they were allowed to leave with family and friends up until they get their orders. And their orders could come through at any minute of the day or night. So if they received their orders they could no longer leave the base. I had made it a point to let Mr. Multani know that if Lee could not leave the base on Saturday, I would still be using his limo services. And I had specifically asked him if that turned out to be the case, if he knew anyone in the area that knew Chicago that may want to go out and just socialize and show me around. He assured me that he has a friend that he could introduce me to who will enjoy doing that.

Herald: That's the Limo driver correct?
Larry: Yes. At the time, I was given no names, no conditions on the meetings. I did not say that this was about a sex thing or anything like that. It was just simply that I just enjoyed going around Chicago.

Herald: I understand you are openly Gay. Right?
Larry: Yes. I have always been gay.

Herald: Were you expecting that the limo driver will bring another gay friend or you were just expecting any body?
Larry: No. And that's what I'm saying. I never specified. I just simply said that if he knew any one that will enjoy going out and showing me around Chicago. When he picked me up on Saturday Nov. 6, he had assured me that he has a friend we were going to pick up. We get into the Chicago area, because I was actually staying out in Gurnee which was close to the Navy base. When we got there, he pulled up to the left side of the street and by the time he gets out and opened the back door of the limo for me, there was a gentleman standing there with him who was introduced to me as Barack Obama. I had never met the guy before, never knew anything about him.

Herald: You mean Obama was already outside waiting for your limo to arrive or what?
Larry: Yeah. Actually, I think he had walked outside of the bar area that we went to just as we had pulled up. Because I did not see him standing there as we were driving up. But once the driver opened my back door he was standing right next to the driver.

Herald: This bar, was it a gay bar or regular bar?
Larry: Actually it was a regular bar.

Herald: So Obama was there waiting as you came out of the limo?
Larry: Yah! We went in, sat down and started having a drink and just started casually talking. Eh! As I had made clear from the very beginning, I made a comment to him that I could use a line to wake up. Because, I said, I had just finished traveling from Colorado to South Carolina and back to driving to Chicago, I had not have much rest that week.

Herald: What did you mean by you needed a line to wake up?
Larry: I said that I could use a line to wake up, figuring if he had any idea what I was talking about, he will respond. If he didn't he will say so. And he asked me whether I'm referring to coke and I said yes. He said he actually knew someone, he could arrange it. So we left, drove around for about 45 minutes. I had given him $250 in the limo, then we stopped, he said he'll be right back. He comes back about 5 or 10 minutes later with eightballs of coke.

Herald: Where did you think he brought it from? From his house or some friend's house?
Larry: No. I don't think it was his house. We drove around, it was dark. I really have no idea where we went at that time to pick it up. I just know that we drove around for 30-45 minutes before we came to a stop and he gets out and within 5-10 minutes he's back in the car. I started doing a line of coke on a CD case rested on his knee cap and that's how things moved from there.

Herald: What do you mean by you doing a line of coke on his knee cap?
Larry: I had set up a couple of lines on a CD case that I had resting on his knee. Herald: So you both left the spot where he brought out the coke. Where did you go from there?
Larry: We were just driving around actually. Like I said, I had begun doing a couple of lines on CDs I had  resting on his knee. And I had started to rub up his lap and realized he wasn't giving any resistance. So one thing led to another. In fact, he himself had ended up opening his pants.

Herald: That was right inside the limo?
Larry: Yes. It was a progressive stage. I eventually moved up to start performing oral sex on him and it was right shortly after the beginning of that that he reaches into his right hand pocket and pulled out a cylinder pipe and a baggie of crack cocaine.

Herald: You said you started performing oral sex on him. For how long did this go on?
Larry: You mean before he pulled the pipe out or from beginning to end?

Herald: From beginning to end.
Larry: The oral sex started, and then stopped for a minute, long enough for me to actually retrieve a lighter from the cup holder behind me for him to light the pipe. And then I returned performing the oral sex on him after he had started kidding the crack pipe saying it actually made him harder during sex. I didn't believe that. But you know some people have different fantasies. I would say the oral sex from beginning to end probably was 10-15 minutes at the most.

Herald: And what was his reaction as you performed the oral sex on him?
Larry: His reaction was it wasn't something he was not used to. You could tell that it was something that had definitely been done before. During the performance of the sex, he had no problem with the kissing at the back of the neck. So this was not something that was foreign to him. OK! It wasn't his first time.

Herald: Did he turn around and kiss you too?
Larry: No no. He was actually the one kissing on the side of my neck.
Herald: For how long did he do this?
Larry: The entire incident, from getting the drugs to the oral sex and completion, I will say about 30, 35, 45 minutes at the most.
Herald: All this took place in the limo?
Larry: Yes, inside the limo.

Herald: So how long did you both stay inside the limo?
Larry: I will say two and three hours before I had started to get a little tired and told the driver I was ready to call it a night. I had already explained to Obama that I was ready to call it a night. When I told the driver I was calling it a night, he had suggested taking me to the hotel and then dropping Obama back to his car or wherever. In other words, it was made clear I wasn't going to see where they were going to drop him off at. So we drove back to my hotel in Gurnee.

Herald: For how long did you stay in Chicago after this particular night?
Larry: Actually I was in Chicago from Nov. 3 until the morning of Nov. 8.
Herald: And you first met Obama on Nov. 6?
Larry: Yes, on the 6th. We met again on the 7th.

Herald: What went on on the 7th?
Larry: He showed up at my hotel room.
Herald: How did he get to know your hotel room?
Larry: Well he knew the hotel because he was actually in the limo when the driver had driven me back to the hotel that Saturday. That was the only way he could have known. The only way he would have known the room number was to get it from the driver himself.
Herald: Did he know your name?
Larry: Obama? Obama definitely know my names. I didn't have anything to hide.

Herald: He showed up at your hotel room. About what time was this?
Larry: It was early evening. He showed up, I heard a knock on the door. I went to the door and was somewhat surprised because I just never in a million years anticipated this guy was going to show up at my hotel room. I opened the door, and he's standing there, I invite him in, he brings out yet another bag of coke and I made clear to him I still had some from the night before.

Herald: How was he dressed when he showed up?
Larry: Very casually. There was nothing he was shy about as for his intentions. When I opened the door he shared one intention that he had shown up for one reason and one reason only. He was looking for another blow job. He said as much, he got as much within the hour he got there till the time he was gone. And it was nothing other than he shows up, he is looking for another blow job, he is laying back on a hotel room bed, he's smoking crack yet again, I perform oral sex on him a second time.

Herald: This second time you perform oral sex, did he pull down his pants?
Larry: Yes. In the hotel room his pants were actually down. His pants were completely down in the hotel room.

Herald: So if his pants were down and you were in a hotel room, what stopped you from having sex?
Larry: First of all, it wasn't about sleeping with each other. In all honesty, I wasn't going into this evening planning to do oral sex on him. It was the fact that
we were in the car. There is something that I explain to people and people ask, how do you know that a guy is into it? And I'm like look; I have been gay all my entire life. I can pretty much tell you after being around someone for five minutes whether or not you are with someone who will fight if you make advances or someone who is actually hoping that you do make the first move. I had told a radio host out of Minneapolis, because he said to me, if you start robbing at my knees I will punch you out. I said look, I grew up fighting every kid and I know you touch a man and he doesn't want to be touched , he's not gonna sit there and just giggle don't do that. He's either gonna sling at you, or walk up and leave the area and walk away and never come back. Barack Obama didn't do either one. When I started rubbing on his legs, he didn't even as much as push my hands away, much less tried to move away. When he showed up in the hotel room, it wasn't about having anal sex; there wasn't any intent, at least on my part.

Herald: You never asked for it?
Larry: No, I never did. And he didn't either. I never even knew that he was into anal sex until I had contacted the campaign in 2007 just trying to get him to get honest with his drug use in 1999. This was never about the sex at all.

Herald: So he comes into the hotel room, he sells you the cocaine, you have oral sex, he leaves and what happens after?
Larry: He's gone. I'm all packed up and flying out of Chicago the next morning. I go back to Colorado. I go back to doing what I was doing. I didn't think about it because at the time I was very busy commuting in between Colorado to the East Coast on regular basis transporting something that made me a whole lot of money. He will not be the first and I guaranty you that he will not be the last individual that I have met on a spur of the moment and ended up having a quick fling with and going my merry way and never thinking about it after.

What was interesting is in 2004, I'm sitting in my living room in Mexico watching the Democratic national convention and I see this guy up on the stage giving a speech. I just started cracking up laughter. And I was telling a friend of mind at the time that you not gonna believe this; I actually sucked that sucker up twice. I mean I never went home bothering to know who he was. It wasn't till 2004 that I even knew who he was for sure. And people said why did you wait until 2008 to say anything? And I'm like look, I'm living in Mexico, I'm living in California, I'm living in Arizona, I could show you, I could show you a list, at least 15 pages long of prominent politicians and business men who will go out and do certain things with certain people and you will never in a million years think that person will do it. But they do.

Herald: Between 1999 and 2004 it was five years. You met Obama only very briefly. So five years after you could still recognize his face?
Larry: Let me explain something to you. My grandmother is 96 years old. She will tell you when I visit her I can tell her things that happened in her house when I was a kid, when my grandfather was still alive all the way down to the type of clothes that either one of us was wearing at the time. My memory is excellent.

Herald: So you are sitting there in Mexico and Obama is addressing the convention?
Larry: I see him at the convention on TV. And again, I am in Mexico. It doesn't bother me at all. I don't care. I'm just looking at another politician, winding his mouth, and I'm thinking ok, he's definitely in the right line of business! And again, it didn't make any difference to me. I'm not from Chicago. I'm not represented by the guy. It doesn't bother me. What bothers me was in 2007, I happened to be watching TV. I saw some female young people talking about how excited they were about Barack Obama. Saying that he was this new kind of politician who was very transparent. That everybody knew everything about him. And I'm like you don't know everything about him. And they kept talking about the fact that he has been so open and honest about his drug use and I'm like no, he hasn't. Because his official stand was that he hasn't used drugs since high school. Then a couple of months later, it changed to well, when I was in college I used this and now every now and then a little coke when we could afford it. Then the campaign changed again to yeah, he hasn't used drugs since high school. So when I saw that, it just kind of appealed to me the wrong way. And that's when I contacted his campaign and told them he needs to come clean about the extent of his drug use.

Herald: You called the campaign headquarters. Who did you speak to and what did they say?
Larry: Well they said someone will get back with me. I had left my cell phone number with them.

Herald: Do you remember who you spoke to?
Larry: No. It was someone in the Chicago office. They won't give a name. I had just simply told them I have never mentioned the sexual contact at all to anyone. They told me someone is going to get back with me. So I get this phone call about early or mid-September from a guy who told me his name was Mr. Young. He said he was with the Obama campaign. He asked me why I didn't ask the campaign to come clean about the sexual encounters between me and Obama and that's when I knew this guy could not be working for the campaign. Because I never mentioned the sexual encounter to the campaign.

Herald: Was he the same guy who first answered your call when you called the campaign office?
Larry: But even when I first called the campaign office, I never once said anything about having sex with Obama. I just simply said I knew he was using cocaine and crack cocaine as recently as Nov. 1999. I never once said anything to the campaign about any sexual contact between me and Barack Obama.

Herald: So who was this Young guy? What did you learn about him after? Was he calling you from the campaign office of Obama?
Larry: He claimed he called from the campaign. But I couldn't tell if in fact the phone he called from was the campaign phone. I wasn't paying much attention to the caller ID. But it turned out he was the former choir director of Obama's Church. A gentleman by the name of Donald Young who was killed in Nov. of 2007.

Herald: What month did you say you had a conversation with him?
Larry: He originally contacted me in September but we had multiple communications via text and phone calls after that.

Herald: And do you have any of those text message records?

Larry: No. Actually it was the Chicago Police department that got all the phone records from Sprint/Nextel. I didn't get any of them at the time. I had absolutely no idea who the guy was. It didn't dawn on me who the guy was until I believe March or April, 2008.

Herald: If he wasn't with the campaign, how could he have gotten your phone number?
Larry: I found out from him he was given the number I had left with the campaign by Barack Obama himself.

Herald: You said you found out later that he too had had sexual encounters with Obama.
Larry: According to him, he was actually involved in an intimate sexual relationship with Obama for several years.

Herald: Did he give you some of the details of this relationship like when, where and stuff like that?

Larry: No. He just simply said he was sexually involved for several years. Actually Donald Young's mother came out in July of 2010 and said she knows her son and Obama were very close and that she knows the son was killed to protect Obama. [...] [Read more about the murder of Donald Young here. ~Eowyn]

Herald: So what did Young tell you about the relationship between him and Obama? How long did he say it went on?
Larry: What I had been told by Young eventually was he himself, like I said, had been involved in an intimate sexual relationship with Obama for years. He had made it clear to me that he was personally given the cell phone number I had left with the campaign by Barack Obama himself and he had been asked to call me and try to find out exactly who I had been talking to, exactly who I had contacted to tell the story to and exactly what I had told to any one I had been speaking with.

Herald: That was in 2008, correct?
Larry: No. It was in the fall of 2007. I went public in 2008. January 17 of 2008. Almost immediately after I went public, because I had been talking to several different journalists out of different newspapers in New York. And what they kept telling me was that one reporter had been told to get the story written only to have the political editor tell him I'm not running this. Everybody was scared. They were scared they were going to be attacked by the Obama campaign. They said anybody who was going to break a story on Obama was going to be labeled racist or oh, you can't stand it when a black man is running for office. So after dealing with the New York Post for a little more than a month, I had decided, you know what? To hell with it. I will just make the video, put it on YouTube and let the chips fall where they may. Almost as soon as I put the video out on YouTube, Bill Burton who was the spokesperson for the Obama 08 campaign, started putting out statements in the Internet claiming that someone had contacted the Obama campaign in November, 2007, claiming they represented me. That the person had said if the campaign paid me $100,000, they could make the story go away. This is something the Obama campaign started circulating in the Internet with all of their allies in the Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Obama for America and Mybarackobama.com. I never have had anyone contact the Obama campaign representing me. The contact made to the campaign specifically in 2007 was made directly by me. I have never once asked the campaign to pay me anything. I have never once told the campaign that the story will go away if they did this or if they did that.

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/sinclair-i-performed-oral-sex-and-smoked-coke-with-obama/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.