Saturday, December 14, 2013

America's Water Wars...aka Obama's Wet Dream

The following from The Western Center For Journalism
With Obama’s Blessing, Nation’s Water Supply Disappearing

Shocking statistics surfacing about record busting, low water levels in America’s Great Lakes make no mention of the sale of fresh water supplies by private companies to China, or of President Obama’s executive order and the legal loophole allowing these sales. “Two of the Great Lakes have hit their lowest water levels EVER RECORDED,” the US Army Corps of Engineers reported early this year. Corps measurements taken in January of 2013 “show Lake Huron and Lake Michigan have reached their lowest ebb since record keeping began in 1918.” The chief watershed hydrology expert warns Americans that “We’re in an extreme situation.” Keith Kompoltowicz heads up the corps district office in Detroit as hand wringing, citizen angst, and shippers’ economic losses pile up.
“Plunging water levels are beyond anyone’s control,” says another expert, James Weakley. But in one of our most popular posts, last year we warned, “Lake Michigan water is being shipped by boat loads over to China! By using a little known loophole in the 2006 Great Lakes Compact, Obama minions are allowing Nestle Company to export precious fresh water out of Lake Michigan to the tune of an estimated $500,000 to $1.8 million per day profit.” Recent heavy rains and snowfall may mitigate low Lake Michigan water levels somewhat, but this trend must be stopped NOW.
President George W. Bush signed into law safeguards for maintaining Great Lakes water, but clever corporate profiteers enabled by Obama Regime bureaucrats discovered this unnoticed loophole. By terming Great Lakes water a COMMODITY, they are selling it off to companies like Nestle for very low prices. These water profiteers quickly realized a staggering “240 times markup, well over current production costs,” we reported. And so our American Great Lakes, which hold 20% of the world’s fresh water, is flowing into Asia.
This week, we received a blast Email from a citizens’ group up in arms about the privatization of US water supplies. “Water isn’t a human right,” according to one water profiteer who seeks to privatize and commodify our public resources. The bulletin continues, “From Pakistan to Canada, Nestle is busy draining millions of liters of our fresh water. . .in order to sell back to the public at record prices.” Interestingly, Canada won an ambitious lawsuit stopping Nestle from draining our Lakes during a drought. However, American plaintiffs are nowhere to be found. This citizens’ letter asks us to remember President Obama’s Executive Order 13547, which is part of his Ocean Policy Initiative and the UN’s Law of the Sea treaty (L.O.S.T.) Unless we ordinary voters and water drinkers step up to the proverbial plate on this crisis, water will be under the control of globalists and their private profiteers.
America’s Water Wars are an under-reported crime against us. Four dams slated for permanent destruction, a red question mark over Hoover Dam’s future, the San Joaquin Valley, the sin of what was done to America’s breadbasket (namely California’s Central Valley), and now our revered Great Lakes and their massive watershed are under the crosshairs of government gone wild. Citizens dedicated to keeping America’s water within our shores desperately need your attention and support. Go to to find out more. Will you be saving your quarters in a piggy bank shaped like a fish to give to your grandchildren so they can put money into the coin slot by their kitchen faucets just to get a drink of water per day?

In an unrelated story we have this: ↓

Its that time of year again.

Dateline Okinawa 1968 -  Not a bad place to be when you're far away from home; the weather is fine, the food is good, and they're not shooting at you...but your still far from home!  I remember watching his show on television back in the states...the Christmas show for the troops overseas, I think I saw most of them.  Now its for real, I'm here in the audience and there's that legendary Bob Hope up on the stage.  Did you ever have that feeling like 'I-can't-believe-I'm-here' feeling?  I kind of felt that way, but it was a good feeling none the less.  And when the girls came on stage I guess we all had that vicarious thrill run through our veins.  There was Ann Margaret...not only a talented actress but one I could have easily ran off with if the situation warranted itself...and so would 5,000 other guys!
I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I can remember all the girls names that accompanied Bob because I can't...but they were all beautiful none the less.  The show was more than just beauty.  It was beautiful comedy...and funny, beautiful music...and singing, beautiful entertainment...and Bob!
Without a doubt the Bob Hope Christmas show was the very best live entertainment I have ever one else can come close.  When the show ends you wish it hadn't but you have a good feeling all about you...and it runs throughout the entire audience.  I didn't know it at the time, but I would repeat this experience once again in 1970...dateline Vietnam.  ~  Norman E. Hooben, USAF, MSgt Retired

Friday, December 13, 2013

My right is more important than your dead...I earned it in blood. ~ Aaron Weiss

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Bonus video...

Speaking of the devil...

Devil by Norman E. Hooben

While perusing the Internet for a research project I came across the following description of the Devil: (Here if you’re interested Philosophical Disquisitions)
·        (a)  Although not omnipotent, the Devil is usually assumed to have supernatural powers that allow him to work remarkable wonders that might appear to a finite intellect to have a divine origin.
·        (b) The Devil is assumed to be vastly more intelligent than ordinary human beings and so could have designs and methods that are inscrutable to us
·        (c) The tradition maintains that the Devil uses his powers for the purposes of deception and imposture, occasionally even going so far as to disguise himself as a benign.
The corollary to that was the feeling of, “Where have I read that before?”  Well let’s take them one item at a time.
The first deals with supernatural powers:
Why is Obama so overtly, easily, effortlessly able to deflect, escape, avoid any issue that will compromise him – and why do people just seem to pay lip service to him without even being asked to? Why is he protected and what makes people do this criminal work of covering up for this unknown person, Obama?
Birthers, official Sheriffs like Arpaio, and/or number one talkshow hosts like Rush Limbaugh can't answer that question. No one can even say who Obama is, to begin with.
So the answer must be hidden away about what and who this man is and where he comes from. It's our duty to find out, to investigate and bust this case. If we don't, we're lost – because this man evidently has such an edge on us that he'll take us over, body speech and mind. And it's not due to his qualities; but due to the awesome and scary and weird power which he wields over people.   
The answer, my friends, isn't blowing in the wind, its right here, clear and obvious. But we're not seeing it.  Obama is not of this world: he's a supernatural being.
Obama's identity explains the awesome supernatural power which Obama exerts effortlessly, upon everyone; and which mutes all criticism and attacks upon him. Indeed, there's nothing we or anyone can do against him except for simply reveal who he is…(full story continues here).

The second deals with intelligence: (these are excerpts from Obama's Undeniable Intelligence Makes Him More Dangerous - and More Vulnerable)
For Barack Obama, his brain power makes him dangerous but also creates a special vulnerability that his critics should exploit.  
On the most obvious level, it makes no sense to insist that a guy with degrees from Columbia and Harvard Law (magna cum laude), and with a successful twelve-year stint as a professor of Constitutional law at the University of Chicago, amounts to some sort of dunce who didn't deserve his academic success.
Moreover, with President Obama three other factors argue powerfully that he's a genuinely intelligent individual no matter how misguided his political priorities and outlook.
First, there's the evidence of his two bestselling books, Dreams of My Father (1995) and The Audacity of Hope (2006). Regardless of their uneven and tendentious content, both volumes display considerable literary school and even poetic flair, as well as a sharp, powerful and occasionally original mind at work.  Obama's books sound very much like the Obama of the big speeches: grandiose, self-important, verbose, melodramatic and impressive. Yes, the president seems incapable of delivering these addresses without the aid of his omnipresent teleprompter but he surely played some prominent role in their composition. In his interviews (like the most recent sit-down with Katie Couric) or rare off-the cuff remarks Obama does deliver more than his share of ummms and you knows, along with occasionally clumsy constructions. More importantly, the president often offers answers that count as misleading, demagogic, vacuous and even downright dishonest. But no one who listens to an entire interview, or a full press conference, can reasonably conclude that the man is a fool or an inarticulate lug. Obama at his worst is still glib, slick and quick, even deft, in responding to the admiring press corps as well as to indignant critics. 
The third reason to assume Obama's intelligence is parentage: since IQ counts as a highly hereditable human attribute it's important to note that both his birth parents, despite their emotional troubles, displayed indications of real brilliance. His Kenyan father qualified for Phi Beta Kappa as an undergraduate, then earned a graduate economics degree at Harvard. His mother went on to a PhD, and even his banker grandmother studied at two elite universities (Berkeley and the University of Washington) at a time when few women competed successfully in academia. Obama's dishonest tendency to portray himself as arising from an impoverished, disadvantaged background may make his cleverness seem anomalous, but given his high-achieving ancestry on both sides it would be more far-fetched to assume that Obama didn't inherit at least some of the mental acuity of his forebears.When we acknowledge that President Obama displays high intelligence and considerable sophistication we concede nothing of political value. The American people never vote on the basis of intelligence and often count preening intellectuality of the Obama sort as a potent liability, not an advantage. (full narrative here)

 The third deals with deception:
Sometimes we do not have to spell it all out when everything we want to know is said in the title…so we have this one (from Global Research): Presidential Rule by Deception: Obama, the Master Con-man.
…or this quote from the Boston Globe: “ Obama let deception stand until his uncle told the truth in court — just like he let deception stand about the Affordable Care Act until he was outed by the unavoidable truth. He stuck with “If you like your plan, you can keep it,” until hundreds of thousands of notices about canceled insurance policies became impossible to ignore. He said Obamacare would lower costs, when the truth is it won’t for everyone, as rising premiums make clear. Whether the deception involves family relationships or health care policy, there’s a pattern here. Taken together, it explains Obama’s credibility gap. He lets what he believes are the higher political needs of the moment get in the way of truth-telling.

Taken in a nutshell we can summarize this by answering the question, "Can Obama deceive?" ...Yes, he can!

But getting back to my corollary, I did read that before. 

So there you have it folks, the devil may be in the details but as his friend Bill Ayres said about Obama's climb to power (actual quote regarding revolutions), "...most of the time, most of the people are not doing anything."  And with that said, people will continue doing nothing until the fire of hell burns their rear-ends!

Not sure if the alleged author is in fact the originator or the following but regardless of its origins it should go down as the quote of the century...
"Nelson Mandela is a leader who Barack Obama should try to emulate. He could start by spending 27 years in prison." ~ Don Imus

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Congress Woman Ann Kuster Stuns The Crowd At Town Hall Meeting

Storm'n Norm'n
Absolutely amazing video is posted below narrative:
Absolutely clueless congresswoman stuns with Benghazi answer at town hall
Source: BizPac Review

It’s truly difficult to know who is more clueless: Democratic congresswoman Ann Kuster or the New Hampshire voters who elected her to represent them in Washington.
In what has to be the stupidest answer ever given to a question – including those horrible, painful to watch, so-stupid-they’ve-gone-viral answers given by pageant contestants – Kuster proved she is utterly useless as a member of the House of Representatives.
Some media outlets were kinder and gentler in their coverage of Kuster’s ignorance: “Ann Kuster clumsily refused to answer a question on the Benghazi attacks during a recent town hall, frantically looking to the moderator for assistance needed,” The Daily Caller reported.
But, no. She didn’t refuse. She doesn’t understand Benghazi, so she couldn’t answer.
“I don’t have…It’s a Senate thing…uh, I don’t think we have anything about that in the House, um…”
That’s what she said, and wouldn’t even finish reading the question she was handed asking about House Resolution 36, the bill to establish a “select committee to investigate and report on the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya.”
Thank God for the stunned constituents in the audience who pressed her to answer, though she stood there absolutely silent with a blank look on her face.
And with an arrogance reserved for liberals who knows not whereof they speak, she delivered what one can only pray will come back to haunt her when she is up for reelection:
“Well, I’m certainly not here to talk about it. We’re here to talk about the Middle East.”
And the crowd went wild.
You must watch and please share, if only to help New Hampshire’s GOP find a challenger to run against her:

Bonus video...just had to share this one!

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Black and White Instructional Video...hope everybody learns from this

Miracle off 34th st...over 4,000 miles off

The plight of the chamois herd in Champagny la Vanoise, a commune in the Rhone Alpes region of France known for skiing, was filmed and narrated in French by spectators.
There was a tense moment when several chamois, a goat-antelope species, took off, trying to beat the avalanche, followed by relief when they managed to get out of the way. But several goats that didn’t move were covered with snow.  ...from YouTube

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Driving down the road minding your own business and this happens...

There's still a lot of helpful people in this world but none better than a hockey player... 

Sunday, December 8, 2013

Obama-Kerry...They're promising to share with Islamic terrorists nuclear bombs so that they can set off nuclear bombs in American cities

If you've read this blog long enough you already know that I warned you about this sort of stuff.  The only problem with this is, you know and I know, but the lame brain voters don't have a clue...  Kerry never should have made it to the United States Senate but most voters in Massachusetts fit the aforesaid adjectives.  If the first Iranian nuclear bomb hits anywhere near the senator's home state*, it would teach them a lesson I've been warning them about for many a year and they can give praise to Obama for fulfilling his mission in life...destroy America! ~ Norman E. Hooben
*I pray that I won't be here when it happens.

Obama-Kerry deal with Iran will lead to a nuclear nightmare
Source: 1389 Blog

You've seen this picture before...has it sunk in yet?

Also this...

"Afghanistan agrees to pact with Iran, while resisting US accord"
by Pamela Geller

More of the poison fruit of Obama's craven capitulation to America's enemies. Our power and influence has been greatly diminished as I predicted in my book on Obama's post American presidency, and the enemies of freedom have grown stronger because of the vacuum created by Obaam's abandonment of Americanism across the world. No longer the light unto nations, we have become an erratic, irrational player on the world stage, as much to be feared for doing the wrong thing than doing nothing. Obama has given Iraq to Iran. Now he is giving Afghanistan to them as well. All the blood, treasure and t... more »

Which Is Riskier, a Public Bank or a Wall Street Bank?

 Green Light for City-owned San Francisco Bank
by Ellen Brown
When the Occupiers took an interest in moving San Francisco's money into a city-owned bank in 2011, it was chiefly on principle, in sympathy with the nationwide Move Your Money campaign. But recent scandals have transformed the move from a political statement into a matter of protecting the city's deposits and reducing its debt burden. The chief roadblock to forming a municipal bank has been the concern that it was not allowed under state law, but a legal opinion issued by Deputy City Attorney Thomas J. Owen has now overcome that obstacle. 
Establishing a city-owned San Francisco Bank is not a new idea. According to City Supervisor John Avalos, speaking at the Public Banking Institute conference in San Rafael in June, it has been on the table for over a decade. Recent interest was spurred by the Occupy movement, which adopted the proposal after Avalos presented it to an enthusiastic group of over 1000 protesters outside the Bank of America building in late 2011. David Weidner, writing in the Wall Street Journal in December of that year, called it "the boldest institutional stroke yet against banks targeted by the Occupy movement." But Weidner conceded that:
"Creating a municipal bank won't be easy. California law forbids using taxpayer money to make private loans. That would have to be changed. Critics also argue that San Francisco could be putting taxpayer money at risk."
The law in question was California Government Code Section 23007, which prohibits a county from "giv[ing] or loan[ing] its credit to or in aid of any person or corporation." The section has been interpreted as barring cities and counties from establishing municipal banks. But Deputy City Attorney Thomas J. Owen has now put that issue to rest in a written memorandum dated June 21, 2013, in which he states:
"1. A court would likely conclude that Section 23007 does not cover San Francisco because the City is a chartered city and county . Similarly, a court would likely conclude that Article XVI, section 6 of the State Constitution, which limits the power of the State Legislature to give or lend the credit of cities or counties, does not apply to the City. . . . [A] court would likely then determine that neither those laws nor the general limitations on expending City funds for a municipal purpose bar the City from establishing a municipal bank.
"2. A court would likely conclude that the City may own stock in a municipal bank and spend City money to support the bank's operation, if the City appropriated funds for that purpose and the operation of the bank served a legitimate municipal purpose."
A number of other California cities that have explored forming their own banks are also affected by this opinion. As of June 2008, 112 of California's 478 cities are charter cities, including not only San Francisco but Los Angeles, Richmond, Oakland and Berkeley. A charter city is one governed by its own charter document rather than by local, state or national laws.
Which Is Riskier, a Public Bank or a Wall Street Bank?
That leaves the question whether a publicly-owned bank would put taxpayer money at risk. The Bank of North Dakota, the nation's only state-owned bank, has posed no risk to depositors or the state's taxpayers in nearly a century of successful operation. Further, in this latest recession it has helped the state achieve a nationwide low in unemployment (3.2%) and the only budget surplus in the country.
Meanwhile, the recent wave of bank scandals has shifted the focus to whether local governments can afford to risk keeping their funds in Wall Street banks.
In making investment decisions, cities are required by state law to prioritize security, liquidity and yield, in that order. The city of San Francisco moves between $10 billion and $12 billion through 133 bank accounts in roughly 5 million transactions every year; and its deposits are held chiefly at three banks, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Union Bank. The city pays $2.7 million for banking services, nearly two-thirds of which consist of transaction fees that smaller banks and credit unions would not impose. But the city cannot use those smaller banks as depositories because the banks cannot afford the collateral necessary to protect deposits above $250,000, the FDIC insurance limit.
San Francisco and other cities and counties are losing more than just transaction fees to Wall Street. Weidner pointed to the $100 billion that the California pension funds lost as a result of Wall Street malfeasance in 2008; the foreclosures that have wrought havoc on communities and tax revenues; and the liar loans that have negatively impacted not only real estate values but the economy, employment and local and state budgets. Added to that, we now have the LIBOR and municipal debt auction riggings and the Cyprus bail-in threat.
On July 23, 2013, Sacramento County filed a major lawsuit against Bank of America , JP Morgan Chase and other mega-banks for manipulating LIBOR rates, a fraud that has imposed huge losses on local governments in ill-advised interest-rate swaps. Sacramento is the 15 th government agency in California to sue on the LIBOR rigging, which Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi calls " the biggest price-fixing scandal ever ." Other counties in the Bay Area that are suing on the LIBOR fraud are Sonoma and San Mateo, and the city of Richmond sued in January. Last year, Bank of America and other major banks were also caught rigging municipal debt service auctions, for which they had to pay $673 million in restitution.
The question is, do taxpayers want to have their public monies in a bank that has been proven to be defrauding them?
Compounding the risk is the reason Cyprus "bail in" shocker, in which depositor funds were confiscated to recapitalize two bankrupt Cypriot banks. Dodd-Frank now replaces taxpayer-funded bank bailouts with consumer-funded bail-ins, which can force shareholders, bondholders and depositors to contribute to the cost of bank failure. Europe is negotiating rules imposing bail-ins for failed banks, and the FDIC has a U.S. advisory to that effect. Bank of America now commingles its $1 trillion in deposits with over $70 trillion in risky derivatives, and has been pegged as one of the next banks likely to fail in a major gambling mishap.
San Francisco and other local governments have far more than $250,000 on deposit, so they are only marginally protected by the FDIC insurance fund. Their protection is as secured creditors with a claim on bank collateral. The problem is that in a bank bankruptcy, state and local governments will fall in line behind the derivative claimants, which are also secured creditors and now have "super-priority" in bankruptcy. In a major derivatives calamity of the sort requiring a $700 billion bailout in September 2008, there is liable to be little collateral left for either the other secured depositors or the FDIC, which has a meager $25 billion in its insurance fund. Normally, the FDIC would be backstopped by the Treasury -- meaning the taxpayers -- but Dodd-Frank now bars taxpayer bailouts of bank bankruptcies caused by the majority of speculative derivative losses. The question today is whether cities and counties can afford not to set up their own municipal banks, both to protect their money from confiscation and to take advantage of the very low interest rates and other perks available exclusively to the banking club. A government that owns its own bank can keep the interest and reinvest it locally, resulting in government savings of an estimated 35% to 40% just in interest . Costs can be reduced, and taxes can be cut or services can be increased. Banking and credit can become public utilities, sustaining the local economy rather than mining it for private gain; and banks can again become safe places to store our money.