END TIME
PROPHECY REPORTBible Prophecy in Today's News Headlines!
Covering “End Times Bible Prophecy and News, End Times Deception, Societal Collapse, Apostasy, False Teachers, Mass Hysteria, Demonic Attacks, War, Rumors of War, Famine, Pestilence, Salvation through Jesus Christ, Earthquakes, UFOs, Earth Changes, False Christs, All Roads Lead to Rome, New World Order, Conspiracies, and GMO Frankenfood.”
END TIME
PROPHECY REPORT
BRITTANY MURPHY POISONED: Why? The Conspiracy behind Brittany Murphy's DeathLAST DAYS: What does the Bible Say? Click to find out!
UFOs, DECEPTION and DISCLOSURE: When it comes to UFOs, the government is all about deception--just not the way you've been led to believe.
[ABOVE: Ian O'Neill, Astroengine.com, did an analysis of the Shenzhou VII spacewalk video that bloggers have questioned. He wrote,"If you have a look at the image above, I decided to trace the paths taken by our 'bubbles' in an attempt to see where they originated."]
Controversy about a Chinese space mission video has gone out of this world. Epoch Times presents arguments that support that it's fake, whereas, Astroengine.com. has declared it legit. Both sites have done an impressive, detailed analysis .
Shu Yu reported, "The Epoch Times contacted Chinese expert Dr. Qu Zheng, who worked at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, to scientifically analyze the video discrepancies" of the CCP Shenzhou VII Spacecraft "spacewalk" broadcast.
Dr. Zheng said, "In addition to the air bubble problem pointed out by bloggers, they also includes technical pre-launch concerns, a lack of atmosphere around the Earth, abrupt large scale changes in the clouds, and no background noise heard in the space-talk."
In contrast, Ian O'Neill, Astroengine.com, concludes, after doing a careful review of the blogger challenges, that the space video is fine. He wrote, "So, we are presented with two options. Either, China went into space and performed a flawless 15-minute EVA, or the mother of all space hoaxes has just been carried out.
* This is John McCain's last chance to turn this race around and somehow convince the American people that his erratic response to this economic crisis doesn't disqualify him from being President.
* Just this weekend the weekend, John McCain vowed to "whip Obama's you-know-what" at the debate, and he's indicated that he'll be bringing up Bill Ayers to try to distract voters.
* So we know that Senator McCain will come ready to attack Barack Obama and bring his dishonorable campaign tactics to the debate stage.
Obama continues to lead on the economic crisis with a rescue plan for Main Street.
* Over the course of the campaign, Barack Obama has laid out a set of policies that will grow our middle class and strengthen our economy.
* But he knows we face an immediate economic emergency that requires urgent action - on top of the plans he's already laid out - to help workers and families and communities struggling right now.
* That's why Barack Obama is introducing a comprehensive four-part Rescue Plan for the Middle Class - to immediately to stabilize our financial system, provide relief to families and communities, and help struggling homeowners.
* This is a plan that can and should be implemented immediately.
* Obama has shown steady leadership during this crisis and offered concrete solutions to move the country forward - and his Rescue Plan for the Middle Class builds on the plans to strengthen the economy and rebuild the middle class that he's laid out over the course of this campaign.
* Already in this campaign, he's unveiled plans to give 95 percent of workers and their families a tax cut, eliminate income taxes for seniors making under $50,000, bring down the cost of health care for families and businesses; and create millions of new jobs by investing in the renewable energy sources.
* John McCain has been erratic and unsteady since this crisis began - staggering from position to position and trying to change the subject away from the economy by launching false character attacks.
One of the singular accomplishments of Barack Obama's campign has been to be able to set the terms of all debate and talk about Obama.
Anything outside of what the Obama campaign approves is "dishonorable" or "racist".
Which is immediately echoed in the compliant Mainstream Media.
by Mondo hat tip: Crippy, Crippy's World images: allposters
Obama and His Bill Ayers Connection McCain Interview: Doesn’t Give a Damn About Bill Ayers Bob McCarty Writes
Mark Reardon, host of The Mark Reardon Show on St. Louis radio station KMOX-AM 1120, interviewed John McCain yesterday and got quite a statement out of the Republican Party presidential nominee regarding Barack Obama and his relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.
Asked whether he would make the relationship an issue during the third and final presidential debate at Hofstra University Wednesday evening, McCain virtually assured Reardon he would before explaining his reasoning:
"It's not that I give a damn about some old washed-up terrorist and his terrorist wife who in 2001 said they wished they had bombed more. What I care about — and what the American people care about — is whether he is being truthful with the American people."
It's a great interview. To listen to the entire interview, click here and then select "Mark Reardon (10/13/08) John McCain" from the podcast lineup on the right side of The Mark Reardon Show web site.
WANT More Bob McCarty, "The Ultimate Blogging Machine"? Try these recent posts:
Joe Biden's Tough on America's Enemies: Biden One of Only Five Senators To Vote AGAINST the Alaskan Pipeline in 1973 A $200 Million 'No Strings Attached' Check for Iran Tomorrow's Headlines Today: Biden Big Winner in VP Debate
"If I can save just ONE caribou, it will be worth it."
Three Weeks After September 11, Biden Wants to Cut the Iranians a check for $200 Million, "no strings attached"
If a few gas lines in the South--due to the double whammy of Ike and Gustav--make readers nervous, think back to 1973 when the entire nation was one big gas line.
The Arabs, in effect, declared war on the USA for its role in helping Israel defend itself during the Yom Kippur War in October 1973. The Arab oil embargo made gas lines the only way motorists could obtain gasoline--when any was available.
What did Joe Biden do?
He voted against the original Alaskan pipeline.
Shockingly, Sen. Joe Biden was one of only five senators to vote against the first Alaskan pipeline bill in 1973. This is like having been a Nazi sympathizer during World War II. If Sarah Palin does nothing else, she has got to tie that idiotic pipeline vote around Biden's neck.
The Senate passed the 1973 Alaskan pipeline bill by an overwhelming 80-5 vote. Only five senators voted against the pipeline on final passage. Sen. Biden is the only one who is still in the Senate -- the other four having been confined to mental institutions long ago.
The stakes were clear: This was in the midst of the first Arab oil embargo. Liberal Democrats, such as senators Robert Byrd, Mike Mansfield, Frank Church and Hubert Humphrey, all voted for the pipeline.
But Biden cast one of only five votes against the pipeline that has produced more than 15 billion barrels of oil, supplied nearly 20 percent of this nation's oil, created tens of thousands of jobs, added hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy and reduced money transfers to the nation's enemies by about the same amount.
The only argument against the pipeline was that it would harm the caribou, an argument that was both trivial and wrong. The caribou population near the pipeline increased from 5,000 in the 1970s to 32,000 by 2002.
It would have been bad enough to vote against the pipeline bill even if it had hurt the caribou. A sane person would still say: Our enemies have us in a vice grip. Sorry, caribou, you've got to take one for the team. But when the pipeline goes through and the caribou population sextuples in the next 20 years, you really look like a moron. Ann Coulter Biden Secret Service Code Name: 'Assassination Insurance'
Joe Biden is the man that the Mainstream Media will declare the winner in tonight's debate with Sarah Palin. The headline are already written at the New York Times: "Biden Wins Big, Palin Doesn't Know the Square Root of 266443".
Joe Klein wrote his piece for Time sometime shortly after August 30: "Biden Steady; Palin Too Dangerous to Declare Winner".
Kathleen Parker will write a column about wanting nationalized health care because Sarah Palin aggravated Parker's near-terminal "cringe reflex"--oh, and by the way, Kathleen has a pain right here that feels like two billy goats butting their heads together.
Barack Obama picked Joe Biden because of his "experience".
That experience includes his vote against the original Alaskan pipeline. Joe Biden's a stand-up guy: when the Arabs put their foot on America's throat, Joe Biden stood up for the caribou.
Biden's experience also includes wanting to send the Iranians a $200 million "no-strings attached" check shortly after September 11.
“Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran,” Biden declares. He surveys the table with raised eyebrows, a How do ya like that? look on his face.
The staffers sit in silence. Finally somebody ventures a response: “I think they’d send it back.” Then another aide speaks up delicately: “The thing I would worry about is that it would almost look like a publicity stunt.” Still another reminds Biden that an Iranian delegation is in Moscow that very day to discuss a $300 million arms deal with Vladimir Putin that the United States has strongly condemned. --Michael Crowley, New Republic October 11, 2008 Rhetorical Question
Obama's has taken heat for wanting to negotiate with Iran without pre-conditions. Many think that is not only wrong, but counter-productive. So, maybe Barack Obama made the smart VP pick after all: at least Biden wanted to send the Iranians $200 million first.
The $200 million check to the Iranians shortly after September 11 and the vote against the Alaskan pipeline are all part of Joe Biden's record of achievement in the Senate.
Say what you will: it's a much larger record than that of his running mate, Barack Obama.
Obama and Meeting Ahmadinejad Debate: Not for a Meeting without Pre-Conditions Obama's Website: For a Meeting without Pre-Conditions
Is Barack Obama for or against meeting Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without pre-conditions?
Depends on when Obama's asked the question.
During the first presidential debate, Obama certainly sounded like it was preposterous for John McCain to even suggest that Obama would meet the man who's vowed to "wipe Israel off the map" without pre-conditions.
From Marc Ambinder: In July of 2007, Barack Obama was asked by a video questioner: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?....."
"I would," he answered.
When Senator Hillary Clinton attacked Obama over that stance, Obama operative, David Axelrod started the backing and filling.
"What he meant was, as a government, he’d be willing and eager to initiate those kinds of talks, just as during the Cold War there were low-level discussions and mid-level discussions between us and the Soviet Union and so on. So he was not promising summits with all of those leaders."
A visit to barrackobama.com says the exact opposite, however.
"Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."
In friday's debate, Obama continuously denied that he supported direct talks with president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions. According to Obama's own website:
Diplomacy: Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama and Biden would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
It's no wonder that Obama runs from positions he took when he was trying to win the Democrat nomination--he had to appeal to the DailyKOS/Code Pink wing of the party. During the national election, he has to appeal to a much broader electorate.
But according to his own website, Obama would meet with Ahmadinejad without pre-conditions.
Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that he will "wipe Israel off the map" the moment Iran possesses the nuclear capability to do so. Some on the Left has said that Ahmadinejad did not really say that--that he was merely quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini. Google "myth of wiping Israel off the map" and over 57,000 results are returned.
"Now in the West insulting the prophet is allowed, but questioning the Holocaust is considered a crime," he said, accusing Europaeans of not allowing "neutral scholars" to investigate "the truth about the fairy tale of Holocaust."
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today echoed his earlier threats to "wipe Israel off the map" by telling a mass demonstration in Tehran, commemorating the 27th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, that Palestinians and "other nations" will remove Israel from the region...
Meanwhile, the crowd chanted, "Death to America," "Death of Israel," "Death to Denmark."
Ahmadinejad doesn't want to annihilate Israel; John McCain "mischaracterized" Obama's position.
Ahmadinejad did say he would "remove" Israel from the region--as many maps in the Arab world have already done.
It little wonder the Mainstream Media doesn't fact-check Barack Obama: first, he's their chosen candidate; second, pinning down a lawyer on exactly what he stands for or against is no easy task--even when you're trying.
Obama has said--more than once-- he would meet Ahmadinejad "without pre-conditions". Regardless of what Obama said in the first presidential debate--on national TV, trying to appeal to a national audience--he's still insisting on his own website, that a no pre-conditions meeting is his position.
Debate Winners Decided By Mainstream Media But Only 19% Trust the MSM A short history of the past several debates "winners"
Big Media Declare Victory for Its Candidate
Who won the debate between John McCain and Barack Obama?
Depends on who you ask.
Debate winners are in the eye of the beholder. If the beholder is a member of the Mainstream Media, you already knew the answer to the question before the debate was held.
Eight years ago, who won the first debate between Al Gore and George Bush?
The Daily Howler: "Gore won every instant poll that night, polls taken right after viewers watched his disgraceful conduct."
So, who won the first debate?
Readers can see that one of the favorite vehicles for MSM stories about debate "winners" is the poll. Another favorite: ask another MSM member who won.
Thirty-nine percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. Twenty-four percent thought John McCain won. Thirty-seven percent saw it as a draw.
Who won last night's debate?
Depends on who you ask.
FAST FACTS:
Today is Barack Obama's 1342nd day in the U.S. Senate. He's spent 45%, or 602 of those days, campaigning for president. Obama has authored no major legislation. He's been in one presidential debate, that on the 601st day of his perpetual campaign.
Obama's voted "present" 129 times during his three years, eight months and 3 days in the Senate. Not "yes"; not "no": "present".
2007 Poll: 19.6% - trust the American Mainstream Media news organizations to deliver "news". 23.9% - believe little or nothing that comes out of the MSM; 55.3% - believe some of what Big Media spews.
A website which sells custom kippahs (aka yarmulkes) for Jews to wear at worship reports that sales of McCain kippahs outdistance Obama ones substantially. John Cook's Venture Blog reports
VanityKippah.com founder Shmuel Tennenhaus-- who recently left a Bellevue Internet company to start selling political versions of the traditional Jewish skull caps -- reports that sales of the"McCippah" are outpacing sales of the "Obamica."
At last count, McCain held a lead with 57 percent of kippah sales.
Political skull caps? Who knew?
Maybe Obamica sales would pick up if they featured a small bus with the members of the Obama entourage no longer in favor...
"Don't be too optimistic. My observation: Jewish men are going McCain. Jewish women are sticking w/ their dear beloved Democrats -- in this case Obama. Only men wear yarmulkes."
A gentle debate began in the comments section to the above AmerThinker piece. A sample:
AJ: "Jewish-American voters should vote for America's interests at heart, not Israel's. If they care about Israel more than America, then they should move to Israel and live there and then vote in those elections.
Matthew Dickinson then pointed out: "I[n] practically every way, Israel's interests are America's interests. It isn't like the Saudi's are our friends. Allah doesn't build space ships, or anything else for that matter."
The debate will continue, likely in homes across America.
That a debate is even being held among one of the most dependable of the Democrat constituency groups may indicate trouble for Obama.
If searching for information on the John Edwards scandal, Scratch Wikipedia from the list of places to look.
A free-for-all has been raging at Wikipedia over whether to include information of the latest John Edwards Love Child news in the on-line reference source. The battle is between those who want a mention of the scandal on the "John Edwards" entry and those, who for various reasons, don't. It involves such topics as "National Enqurier reliability", "left wing bias" and whether to include information that "Hundreds of media outlets have reported on".
The back-and-forth can be seen at Talk: John Edwards and is, in some places, a fascinating look at the human prejudicial baggage--on both sides--that each editor brings to the debate.
I don't want to spill the beans on which way the debate is going, but, as of the time of this post, Wikipedia's "John Edwards" entry has no mention of the scandal which has been bubbling on the Internet for the past 10 months.
Wikipedia, which allowed verb tenses for their Tim Russert entry to be changed from present to past tense about a half hour before the official announcement of his death, is suddenly going ultra legal in its refusal to allow their John Edwards entry to be updated with mention of the alleged scandal which was reported in the National Enquirer with many of the details confirmed by Fox News. Suddenly Wikipedia has become a stickler for confirmation detail before the Edwards entry can be updated. To get an idea of how much Wikipedia is twisting itself into a pretzel to justify their refusal to update their John Edwards entry, one needs only to look at their pained, but comedically entertaining, discussions of this matter in their “Tabloid scandal accusations” section:
At the top of the John Edwards page is this notice:
This page is currently protected from editing until July 30, 2008 or until disputes have been resolved.
We had made an earlier assumption that when Mainstream Media organizations were forced--by events beyond their control--to report on the John Edwards affair, that Wikipedia would be dragged along.
Kicking and screaming all the way, no doubt.
But, that hasn't happened.
To keep any information of the scandal from their users, the Stonewall-side of the Wiki debate depend on a circuitous defense of both hairs-splitting and angel-counting.
The Enquirer is not a reliable source. It's corroborated.
Well, not enough. Now the Times is reporting on it.
We're not a newspaper. We have to be sure. We have a lot of time on this.
There's no pictures. Well, we're going to wait.
As was noted, all fascinating stuff, if the reader is into behind-the-scenes looks at how policy is formed.
When the pictures emerge--both on-line and in the print editions of the Enquirer later this week--people searching for information on the affair will learn that Wikipedia, the reference source that made conventional encyclopedias outdated from the moment they were printed, is out-of-date itself. Wiki will then sadly join the MSM, where a small group who long to be gatekeepers of information for the rest of mankind, reside.
Wikipedia is at the top of the Internet reference mountain today. But, that position is not a given. A host of competing wikis have sprouted on the Internet recently. If Wikipedia thinks that they will always be Number One, regardless of policies which deny users information--controversial or not--they will learn a hard lesson.
They can ask about the lesson time they're at K-Mart, drink a Carling's Black Label beer or read the New York Times. All organizations which were, at one time, Number One in their respective fields.
Democrat Barack Obama's campaign said Thursday that Michelle Obama never used the word "whitey" in a speech from the church pulpit as he launched a Web site to debunk rumors about his campaign." --NEDRA PICKLER, AP
The Obama campaign is now going to be spending more time addressing rumors?
"Yesterday I wrote about the new team that the Barack Obama campaign was building to counter internet rumor as well as deal with inconvenient truths, by way of offering the "party line" on how to counter the rumors or the damaging truths." --Susan Duclos, Wake Up America
The Politician's Playbook says "to confront rumors, do not confront them." That's a smart move. The Mainstream liberal press has it's own "Don't ask Democrats, don't tell" policy. If the candidate doesn't talk about a rumor, the MSM will pretend it doesn't exist. No potentially-embarrassing questions that way--provided it's a Democrat candidate.
Addressing the rumors breaks the policy and the candidate is fair game.
As long as there have been rumors in politics, there has been one widely accepted way for a candidate to deal with them. Basically, it's not to. Otherwise, according to prevailing wisdom, all a candidate achieves is to elevate the rumors to a legitimate story for the media to feast on. That don't-go-there approach was Barack Obama's plan for months until, on the candidate's first full day of campaigning as his party's presumed presidential nominee, a reporter from McClatchy Newspapers who was traveling aboard his plane asked him about a particularly toxic bit of hearsay that was zooming around the Internet about his wife Michelle. Obama lost his cool. "We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mails, and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it," Obama said, bristling. "That gives legs to the story. If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it." --Time: Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan
So is this a smart move by the man who gets the Mainstream Media all gooey inside? Here's one vote for "yes".
Spend time refuting straw man rumors--and that's less time spent talking about the issues: issues are not a strong point for the Senate's most liberal member.
Really, they aren't. When does Obama address the issues--other than the standard liberal boilerplate about health care and substituting "Change" for "Amen" at Obama revivals? Obama has a LONG list of "change"--and a FAR SHORTER list on how he's going to bring it about.
Much better to chat with the MSM about "rumors". The campaign surely will be careful to separate "rumors" and "unpleasant topics".
Won't they?
What rumors has the campaign tackled on its new website, http://www.fightthesmears.com.? Let's take a look. The website has a "Powered by Truth" blurb.
RUMOR: The "Whitey" tape purportedly showing Michelle Obama railing against "Whitey". [Fightthesmears.com uses the words "THE SMEAR" and "LIE" instead of RUMOR.]
RUMOR: Jeremiah Wright video of Wright damning America.
ANSWER: None, the video exists and the Obamas left Trinity Church after 20 years after Wright's "Goddamn America" threatened to damage the campaign. It's been rumored that this was a politically-expedient move on Obama's part. fightthesmears.com doesn't address this last rumor, either.
RUMOR: Senator Obama was sworn into the US Senate using the Koran.
ANSWER: "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian." The website also offers a pic of Obama sworn in with a Bible used. This rumor is the equivalent of being asked, "What's your favorite color?"
RUMOR: Barack Obama Won't Say The Pledge of Allegiance/Won't Put His Hand Over His Heart. [Actual wording: "LIE: Barack Obama won't put his hand over this heart during the pledge of allegiance"]
ANSWER: "View video of Barack leading The Pledge of Allegiance in the United States Senate"
This particular Smear-Answer was, no doubt, in response to the video below.
When we (and other bloggers) first ran the video and picture, Obama's response was much different: he called it a "dirty trick". "DBKP Proud to be "Dirty Trickster"
There's other "smears"--such as "Obama's Books Contain Racially Incendiary Remarks"--and other "The Truth" answers; the quotes from Obama's books were--ready?--"Truncated and Out of Context".
"Change" apparently doesn't include changing that tried-and-true answer to a candidates getting nailed--especially when it's on paper, written by Obama himself.
The question remains: Is this a good move?
Again, we say "YES!" It gives the MSM something to chatter about. It also allows Obama to set the terms of the discussion. Write about the evil conservatives who insist that "Obama is a Muslim" and you don't have to write about his plans for socializing health care. Why get into a real discussion, where the facts are not as charismatic as repeating the mantra of "Change!"?
Make no mistake: Fightthesmears.com is just another attempt by Barack Obama to limit the discussion to topics with which he's comfortable.
DBKP was going to publish a timeline later today on the Ron Paul situation at the New Hampshire forum/debate/brunch/luncheon/get-together on January 6th.
We have sifted through a ton of reports, blog postings, sources, phone calls, emails and comments. We'd first like to say "THANK YOU" to everyone who has attempted to help bring order to a confused state of affairs.
That being said, there are some inaccurate reports and postings out there. When trying to trace the source of these, it either is 1) the same sources repeating wrong or inaccurate information and linking back and forth to each other, or 2) reading information into what has actually been stated.
A third possible source of inaccuracy is the "friend told it a friend who heard it from a friend" syndrome. We have several emails which directly contradict each other, each claiming the same source as proof.
While checking to see if anything new and known has popped up--not recycled reports from somewhere else already checked--we came across this posting by William Westmiller on Nolan Chart.
We do not know William. But his report below is as accurate as we have been able to verify at this point in time. It may prove to contain errors, but we couldn't find any, based on what DBKP knows at this moment.
Let it be repeated: it is the best we have seen, based on WHAT WE CAN VERIFY at the moment.
We also noticed that Westmiller has taken some grief over this account. That's too bad. One thing that the story of Ron Paul and the New Hampshire event on January 6th seems to have revealed, at least to us: there are people who profess to be working for the good of the Ron Paul campaign effort who are more interested in bashing someone.
Today it happens to be Fox News.
It may be that Fox News needs to be bashed. But they cannot know that now. Whether or not it helps Ron Paul's cause seems secondary to these flamers. That's too bad.
That being said, the vast majority of people appear to be trying to find out what really happened before throwing any stones. That was encouraging to see. Over the long haul, any campaign is better served by optimism and hard work, rather than rage.
Okay, enough of the lecture: back to William's account. Here it is.
What?
There is NO NH DEBATE on January 6th. Ron Paul was NOT EXCLUDED. That event was canceled three weeks ago.
Ron WILL participate in the January 5th ABC/WMUR GOP debate in New Hampshire.
So, what happened?
Months ago, NH GOP chairman Fergus Cullen had been in touch with FoxNews about a possible forum on January 6th. He had even contacted all the GOP candidates to see whether they were available. However, plans for the ABC debate were finalized with all candidates early in December and Cullen "threw in the towel." See "OUTFOXED" in the NH Union Leader of December 16th.
At that time, Cullen had not received a response from Ron Paul, who had committed to a conflicting luncheon at the NH Liberty Forum at the same time.
Skip ahead to December 27th, when the Union Leader reported that all candidates had agreed to the ABC/WMUR debate and reporter Garry Rayno added a confusing paragraph about Giuliani finally agreeing to the (canceled) January 6th forum, which had already been converted into a simple state GOP brunch.
Huh?
Due to the timing of this article, there was no way to confirm who will or won't attend the brunch, but it is not a broadcast debate and has nothing to do with FoxNews. Nevertheless, a blog in Washington picked up the story, scrambled it and their "BHDC Staff" reported a list of the candidates who would be attending, which did not include Ron Paul (he hadn't officially confirmed, due to the conflict).
That story was picked up by the AP Newswire, which added some information that it had from a month earlier about the format being discussed.
Finally, the AP article was picked up by Lew Rockwell and passed along to DailyPaul.com, with all the errors intact. Of course, a firestorm ensued on all the Ron Paul nets before the information could be verified. Immediately, thousands of messages went to FoxNews and the NH GOP protesting the exclusion.
Unfortunately, the Ron Paul campaign didn't sort out the facts before sending out a news release blasting Fox for their "outrageous" conduct, even if they did note that the information had not been confirmed. From there, the report spread into dozens of blogs and news commentaries.
An unfortunate false alarm. Lesson: Fast news is sometimes "bad" news. Faux News is worthy of criticism for what they have done, not for what they haven't done. Look before you leap.
Update2: The New Hampshire GOP website makes no mention of any events on January 6th, but it does promote the NH Liberty Forum scheduled for January 5th, where Ron Paul will be speaking. I'm informed that the campaign was working with Forum sponsors and Cullen to accomodate any possible NHGOP event. Fox News does mention the January 5th ABC debate on their schedule, but nothing in New Hampshire on January 6th. There does appear to be some residual confusion about the GOPNH brunch on the 6th, which may occur, where some candidates may attend, and which Fox may cover as a news item, but it certainly isn't a live, broadcast debate or forum. Those questions probably won't be answered until after the New Year. Best wishes to all, particularly Ron Paul.
Update 3: If you believe there is an error in my report, please provide a link.
There is sure to be hard news and information on several aspects of this today. Until those come out and can be confirmed, I think the above account will serve as our timeline.
And remember tomorrow night to have a Happy New Year!
USA Human Fatalities Caused by Tigers in Capitivity During the Last Five Years
Tiger appears to be over 12 feet off the ground
Little Baby Ginn did a story about the San Francisco Zoo tiger attack a few days ago.
In the story, which was breaking at the time she wrote, the media was speculating about how the tigers at the San Francisco Zoo might have escaped.
There were reports of boards being tossed in to help the tigers, guesses about how the tigers may have been taunted, even that someone may have opened the door for the tigers.
Jack Hanna, noted animal "expert" said it was "virtually impossible" for the tigers to have leaped from the tiger enclosure. Like any expert, just when your words get their widest media exposure, that's when you'll most likely to be mistaken.
About the only theory that we didn't read in the media was that someone had slipped the tigers the key--and that one was floating around DBKP.
LBG quickly checked the references on tigers to discover that they could leap 30 feet. At that time, she could only find materials that stated the walls of the Tiger Enclosure at the SF Zoo were at most 20 feet.
Since that story, the zoo director has stated that the walls were only 12.5 feet high.
At any rate, a furious debate on tigers and their leaping abilities and whether a leap is different from a jump was set off in comments and emails.
One email pointed out: "Leaping is across...jumping is up".
Narniaman weighed in with the following.
Uh, don't they mean that the cats can do a 30 foot long jump, and not a 30 foot high jump?
Consider man. The world record for the long jump is nearly 30 feet, but the world record for the high jump is only about 8 feet.
Of course, if the moat is only 20 feet wide, it sounds like a Tiger could jump across that without difficulty.
Pat also had thoughts: not only on the tigers' leaping abilities, but on the loss of the tigers.
It has to be a long jump. Not a 30' high jump. But now we hear the wall is some 7.5' less high than originally claimed. And these idiots baited the tiger. Hard to anger a Tiger. She thought it was a game IMHO. Tigers play by batting. You move, it bats. It's bat is only matched by a bear. Mammalian man eaters= Tiger and a couple of bears. Other mammalian killers of man out of hand= the Hippo and Rhino (irritable bunch)
I have it on very good authority that leg dangling will attract sharks also.
I am pissed we lost a tiger because of a moonbat. this was a breeder too.
Dencio agreed and asked another question.
I agree, what a waste of a magnificent animal. They are an endagered species with only a few thousand left while the illegal immigrant population keeps growing by the millions. We should breed these Tigers to guard the border with mehico. And what about the Tiger's (Tatiana - yes she has a name) family? Has anyone cared whether she had cubs?
Pat had ideas on killing the tiger.
The idea you kill tigers for what tigers do is simply wrong. This is a human error. The tiger was flawless. Tigers are not dogs.
This prompted the following from "Anonymous", a sometimes-frequent poster in tiger debates.
Are you suggesting they watch while a tiger eats a man alive? Perhaps they should have brought chairs and some popcorn.
And then dencio leaped to pat's defense, mentioning something not found in other media accounts: were the SF Zoo visitors impaired on their outing?
Those cholos had it coming. It's the process of selection - nature weeding out the stupid and the weak. I checked the kid's myspace website and I'm willing to bet they were high. His last post from Christmas day said his mood was "high".
And so it went. There was much more, but you'll have to read the comments on the individual stories to get the full flavor.
The tiger attack set off a debate that covered many subjects and ideas and lead to the above picture being sent to us by someone who is still "anonymous" at this point.
Was it right to shoot the tigers? Were the zoo visitors impaired? Were the walls too short?
One suspects this is not the last we'll hear of tigers in America.
Human Fatalities Caused by Tigers in Captivity in the USA the Last Five Years
YEAR/State - Relationship to tiger - Comments
December 2007 - California - Visitor killed by a tiger who was out of her cage, while still on the SF Zoo property - Still under investigation as of 12/28/2007
April 2006 - Minnesota - USDA federally licensed private professional owner/trainer herself killed by her tiger - Occupational hazard. MN already has tough regulations on exotic animals-no risk to uninvolved public.
August 2005 - Kansas - 17 year old visitor voluntarily on the property visiting federally licensed private professional USDA facility to have her picture taken with adult tiger which is against USDA rules. - Parents should also be held responsible. Parents sued Exhibitor lost his USDA license and KS enacted tough regulations compared by many to a ban. No risk to uninvolved public.
December 2003 - North Carolina - 10 year boy old killed by his uncle’s pet tiger Parents should be also held responsible. Being killed by a tiger shouldn’t be treated any differently than death by accidents involving other activities. No risk to uninvolved public.
April 2003 - Oklahoma - Tiger killed a handler at professional federally licensed USDA facility Occupational hazard–no risk to uninvolved public.
March 2003 - Illinois - Man killed by his own tigers at his own federally licensed USDA facility Occupational hazard-no public risk. Illinois already heavily regulates private possession of ‘dangerous animals’.
The Great DBKP Ron Paul Debate Map * Christmas Day 2007
Where is Ron Paul the strongest in the USA? The weakest?
Which area of the country is MOST anti-Paul?
Since today is Christmas and we just ate--and we're feeling kinda sleepy--we wanted to liven up things a little.
And what better way to wake the place up,then yell, "Hey! Everybody, Ron's Paul's in the House!"?
1. Place the pin on where you're from. 2. Type in a name and a short message about how you feel about Ron Paul. 3. Step back and enjoy the fun!
Some people think Dr. Paul is the Second Coming of Christ, others think he's the Second Coming of Hitler. Some think the Ron Paul R3volution will lead the country back to the Constitution. Still others think it'll lead America to Kooksville.
Whatever.
Ron Paul excites passion like no other candidate I've seen for awhile--on both sides.
In fact, DBKP is one of the few places that is squarely in the Middle. We disagree with a few things the the Libertarian candidate has to say. BUT, we agree solidly on just as many things, including the good doctor's stance on the War on Drugs.
So, how do you feel about Ron Paul?
The map just takes short comments, so you'll have to boil down what you think into short burst. If you want a longer comment, tag it onto the end of this story.
More sobering evidence of the warming of the earth.
This time from our neighbors to the north.
Ottawa will continue to crawl out from a record-breaking snowfall Tuesday as crews tackle one of the biggest snow removal operations in the city's history.
"It's no Academy Award, but it was the snowiest December day ever in the capital," said Environment Canada meteorologist David Phillips.
In total, 37 centimetres fell in Sunday's storm, setting a record for the most snow in a single December day since Environment Canada started keeping records in 1938. The previous record was 30.4 centimetres, which fell Dec. 21, 1977.
We understand that anecdotal evidence is not a very strong argument for global warming.
That's why we offered it.
Meanwhile, just scant days after the drama of the United Nations conference at Bali, the debate continues.
30 quotes from the people involved in the Megan Meier MySpace Suicide story and the media.
Megan, the 13-year-old daughter of Ron and Tina Meier, was the victim of harassment by "Josh", a boy she'd met at popular social site, MySpace. Upset at his messages, she hung herself.
"Josh" was later found to be a hoax, the fictional creation of Curt and Lori Drew, neighbors who lived down the street from the Meier's. "Josh" was created to by Lori Drew and her employee to monitor what Megan might be saying about the Drew's daughter after the two girls had a fight.
"Megan Meier is a slut. Megan Meier is fat." --bulletin posted at MySpace by "Josh"
"Everybody in O'Fallon knows how you are. You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you." --Josh's last message to Megan, according to Ron Meier's best recollection
"They are all being so mean to me." --Megan Meier, to her mom, on the day of her death
"I grabbed her as she tried to go by," Ron says. "She told me that some kids were saying horrible stuff about her and she didn't understand why." --Ron Meier right about what happened right before Megan took her life.
"She did sit here in my living room and confess everything to me. She told me that they had pulled an image of a boy off the Internet and that they had created an account using the name of Josh Evans, and she said she knew the last message that left her house that Monday when Megan attempted her life was that, 'The world would be a better place without you". --an unnamed neighbor about how she learned Lori Drew was behind the hoax
"That is what makes it even more disgusting, that she knew the circumstances around our daughter and still played on it," --Ron Meier, Megan's father
“These people were supposed to be our friends.” --Tina Meier, about their neighbors, the Drews
"Give it a rest. Give it a rest." --Curt and Lori Drew, reportedly to the Meiers, when confronted by the Meier parents
"You cannot as an adult sit there and do that and hide behind a computer. It is a criminal act. We want to see her go to jail," ---Tina Meier, Megan's mother, about Lori Drew
"It's time that we do something against this. On all levels, the state and federal level," --Dardenne Prairie Mayor Pam Fogarty, on the need for stricter laws for Internet harassment
"Coincidentally, two months after Megan's suicide, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that antidepressants double the risk of suicidal behavior in young adults. (Psychiatrists have disputed the FDA report.)" --Jeff , from a post at "Megan's Vigilantes"
"We were concerned about the daughter [of the Drews] and to what extent she was involved and dragged along with this." --Dave Bundy, editorial director of Lee Enterprises, the newspaper group that includes several papers who broke the Megan Meier story; on why his papers decided not to name the Drews.
"She [Lori Drew] is not being accused in a court of law, she is not being sued and our take is that we don’t run suspects unless charges are filed." --Steve Pokin, reporter who wrote the original Megan Meier story.
"I posted that — where Curt works. I'm not ashamed to admit that. Why? Because there's never been any sense of remorse or public apology from the Drews, no 'maybe we made a mistake.' " --Trevor Buckles, 40, a neighbor whose two teenage boys grew up with Meier.
"We're all in shock. If I have anything to say about it, we'll never have our hands tied legally like this again." --Mayor Fogerty
"There are enough details for people to find out who it is on their own. They are free to do so. It was a judgment call. I think there were a lot of other issues at stake." --Pokin, on his critics for his not revealing the Drew's name in his stories.
"We believe that all the publicity about this situation has led to an air of vigilantism. We're concerned people will take things into their own hands." --Lt. Craig McGuire of the St. Charles County Sheriff's Department
“Give me a break; that’s nothing. But it’s the most we could do. People are saying to me, ‘Let’s go burn down their house.’” --Mayor Pam Fogarty said of the penalties imposed by the town of Dardenne Prairie, MO on cyber harassment. It's now punishable by up to a $500 fine and 90 days in jail.
"Ms. Drew used the same same exact mode of operation as a child predator enacts in the seduction of a child. Drew posed as a member of the opposite sex and spent weeks and weeks luring this girl into a relationship. But yet it went further. The adult Drew formed a heated relationship with the 13 year old girl. She worked hard to gain the girl's confidence. She exploited the girl intimately by posing as a boyfriend. Do you really thing there was no intimate grooming going on?" --online comment by DanCnKC
"Oh and I don't think Lori Drew is so evil as everyone says. Megan was a total bitch to everyone around her especially Laura so if I was her mom I would be mad at Megan too and I would check up on her to see what shit she was spreading about my daughter." --"Kristen", author of "Megan Had it Coming" blog.
"Lori Drew is a psychopath. That part is clear. But more disturbing than that are the actions of authorities: If it had been an adult MALE that "carried on" in a sexually explicit way with a 13 year old girl, even if it WERE for the purposes of revenge for his teen daughter, he'd be locked up as a pedophile." --online comment by Danny Vice
"Every story has two sides and if you don't think so - then I hope you are never tried and convicted in your own court." --JennaD, from a comment posted on "Megan Had it Coming" blog
"All we feel is frustration, anger. For months, we've been asking ourselves, 'What mother in her right mind would do this? And why won't the cops do anything to punish them? We just want them gone." --neighbor Kristie Kriss, of the Drews
"The woman emotionally raped this child. She took her supposed love and sexual stimulation and crushed the girl emotionally with them. This girl was mentally raped [by] a mother and her employee. This adult and her friends played this girl into an emotional high... and then pulled the plug when it would inflict the highest possible damage. It took 4 months of planning." --online comment by DanCnKC
"So nobody in the news talks about what Megan the bitch was like so now you know. Oh and don't bother trying to figure out who I am. Unlike Megan, I DO have a boyfriend and he knows computers and he totally covered my tracks." --"Kristen", author of "Megan Had it Coming" blog
"Lori Drew groomed her victim like many child predators do, enticing her with flirtation, mild sexual conversation and playing on Megan's weakness. Lori knew that Megan had a low self esteem and was treated for depression.
Outing Child Predators has been public policy in most states and is usually upheld under the premise that the public has a right to reasonably protect itself from criminal behavior where it exists. Families with children have a right to know when those who might prey upon their child, live nearby. Public policy dictates that if a child is exposed to potential harm from predatory activity, then parents should at least have the opportunity to be aware such harm may exist." --online comment by Danny Vice
"It's not to say if only Megan (spoke out/did this/did that/reached out), it's to say there has to be more positive and supportive role models out there for our youth. The parents can only do so much. My solution: it's time to stop the "code of silence." It's time to not be afraid to speak up when something is wrong." --online comment by Jo
"Megan's story really won't matter; some writers will bend it to fit their preconceived point of view. It'll not be about Megan to them: it'll be about using her as a tool to advance their cause. Laws for regulating the Internet; for stricter controls on what can be said online; to raise money; that any negative reactions are 'vigilantism'; for more money for suicide prevention: take your pick.
They'll all invoke the name and story of Megan Meier. To most of those, she'll cease to be a 13-year-old schoolgirl: she'll be a slogan." --RE Bierce, commenting the first week of the story on future likely reactions.
“There are no words to explain my rage.” --Tina Meier
Three older men are sitting in the park 1st Man: It sure is windy. 2nd Man: No, no, it's Thursday. 3rd Man: Me too! Let's go get a beer!
Mark Steyn addresses last week's "debate" about the SCHIP veto vote. From the OC Register:
A couple of weeks ago, the Democrats put up a 12-year-old SCHIP beneficiary from Baltimore, Graeme Frost, to deliver their official response to the President's Saturday-morning radio address. And immediately afterwards Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin and I jumped the sick kid in a dark alley and beat him to a pulp. Or so you'd have thought from the press coverage: The Washington Post called us "meanies." Well, no doubt it's true we hard-hearted conservatives can't muster the civilized level of discourse of Pete Stark. But we were trying to make a point – not about the kid, but about the family, and their relevance as a poster child for expanded government health care. Mr. and Mrs. Frost say their income's about $45,000 a year – she works "part-time" as a medical receptionist, and he works "intermittently" as a self-employed woodworker. They have a 3,000-square-foot home plus a second commercial property with a combined value of over $400,000, and three vehicles – a new Chevy Suburban, a Volvo SUV, and a Ford F-250 pickup.
That was the SCHIP "debate" in the nutshell: it was like the conversation of those three older men in the park. Republicans wanted to talk about the costs and consequences of the massive expansion of government health services. The Democrats were having an altogether different conversation.
Like a magician, they tried to misdirect the focus somewhere else completely different. First, Dems droned on, mantra-like, about the "the children". Lately, Democrats believe they could bring up a bill requiring all house pets in America to be spray-painted orange and, if they tagged "it's for the children" onto it, it would sail through Congress.
The Democrats have at last found a war they want to fight. Iraq and terrorism is all an Evil Dick Cheney plot, but the "war on children" is a cause sublime.
When the debate shifted to the number of adults covered by this "children's" bill, Democrats and various ankle-biters turned the debate to the "meanies" and the non-story of Mitch McConnell's aide asking reporters to look into questions raised about the Frost's resources.
Again, the "debate" was about two sides talking about two completely different subjects. Steyn continues:
So what is the best thing America could do "for the children"? Well, it could try not to make the same mistake as most of the rest of the Western world and avoid bequeathing the next generation a system of unsustainable entitlements that turns the entire nation into a giant Ponzi scheme. Most of us understand, for example, that Social Security needs to be "fixed" – or we'll have to raise taxes, or the retirement age, or cut benefits, etc. But, just to get the entitlements debate in perspective, projected public pensions liabilities in the United States are expected to rise by 2040 to about 6.8 percent of our gross domestic product. In Greece, the equivalent figure is 25 percent – that's not a matter of raising taxes or tweaking retirement age; that's total societal collapse.
Don't expect any response that includes anything so mundane as facts, figures or math. They'll be focused on how the mere act of asking these questions turns one into a "slimer", "smear artist" or constitutes a "jihad" against the kids. Steyn winds up on the point that will never be addressed by any current Democratic leader.
And so, in a democratic system today's electors vote to keep the government gravy coming and leave it to tomorrow for "the children" to worry about. That's the real "war on children" – and every time you add a new entitlement to the budget you make it less and less likely they'll win it.
Just like the Social Security "debate", every time someone raises the unconvenient question of running out of money, the shouting down of the "meanie" will begin by the New York Times and the running pack of liberal lackeys. Like those old men in the park, no debate can exist if both sides aren't on the same subject.
Mark Steyn and others raised questions this week; questions the Democrats deigned not to answer. Those questions will still need answered tomorrow. No matter how many times the subject is changed.
No matter how many times the inquisitive get branded as "meanies".
