Israel Again Embarrasses Obama as Netanyahu Drops Out of Obama's Nuclear Summit Next Week

.



Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has changed his plans and will not attend President Barack Obama’s nuclear summit beginning Monday in Washington. Israeli media reports that Netanyahu backed out after reports that Middle Eastern nations would use the 47-nation summit to criticize Israel’s failure to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.



This does raise an interesting concern with Obama's foreign policy and our treatment of allies. You see, the five major sponsors of nuclear weapons in the world, the so called NWC (Nuclear Weapons Club) are signers of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They are the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France and China. These are the nations currently in negotiations with Iran.



The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was approved in 1968 and closed in 1970. Today 189 countries have signed or acceded to approving the Treaty. North Korea originally signed the Treaty but withdrew in 2003. Three nations have never signed the Treaty, Israel, India and Pakistan. India, Pakistan and North Korea have admitted to testing nuclear weapons.

The only three countries refusing to sign the treaty are US allies. Of these it is widely known that Israel does have a nuclear capability even though they refuse to acknowledge it. Both India and Pakistan also have much smaller arsenals but they do have nuclear weapons. Why is the United States leading a worldwide effort to eliminate nuclear weapons yet we give billions of dollars in foreign aid to the only three countries who refuse to sign the agreement and are not bound by anything we propose? Is it time to reconsider our foreign policy?



If we can't influence these nations with nuclear weapons of mass destruction why are we so concerned with Iran who has no nuclear operating facility nor nuclear weapons? We are prepared to let Israel go to war with Iran simply because Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons. but the Administration and media never mention the three countries who do have nuclear weapons and gained them by ignoring the United Nations and the Treaty.



Of the nations refusing to recognize the Treaty it is estimated India and Pakistan have under 100 nuclear weapons while North Korea has under 25. Israel has never offered information nor inspection of their nuclear generating and weapons producing facilities but best estimates are Israel has about 200 nuclear weapons along with nuclear and enhancement facilities to make additional warheads.



The center of Israel's weapons program is the Negev Nuclear Research Center near the desert town of Dimona (the center is usually identified simply as "Dimona"). A nuclear reactor and plutonium production facility was secretly built by France at this facility in the late 1950s and early 60s. All of the production and fabrication of special nuclear materials (plutonium, lithium-6 deuteride, and enriched and unenriched uranium) occurs at Dimona.

The NWC nations, the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France and China, are the same nations who were responsible for providing the nations refusing to sign the Treaty with the materials, equipment and fuel to build their own nuclear plants and nuclear weapons capability outside the Treaty.



France provided Israel with the nuclear weapons support. The United States and Canada were the source for the India nuclear program. North Korea's nuclear weapons programs was helped by the Soviet Union and then Russia. China was behind the Pakistan nuclear weapons program.

Is there something wrong with this picture? Our billions in foreign aid go to three of the four renegade nations with nuclear weapons while we do not require them to be part of the worldwide nuclear treaty that we support.

.

Obama's Achilles Heel - Exploding National Debt

.


Now that the hoop ala over the health care reform has subsided and learned people have had the time to analyze exactly what the White House and Congress slammed down our throats it is fast becoming obvious that the spiraling national debt is far greater than Obama and the Democrats want us to believe. In fact, new estimates by the very same Congressional Budget Office that said health care would reduce the debt now say we are in serious trouble.

Doug Elmendorf, best known for arbitrating the costs of various health care proposals, added his voice to a growing chorus of economic experts who predict dire consequences if political leaders don’t scale back spending, increase taxes or both, and soon.



Elmendorf noted a recent CBO report that pegged an increase in the public debt from $7.5 trillion at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion at the end of 2020 if President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget were to be implemented as written. As a percentage of gross domestic product, the debt would rise from 53 percent to 90 percent, CBO forecasted. The last time the percentage was that high was right after World War II.

What that means is if Congress passes the president's budget, which includes health care, our national debt will nearly triple in the next decade. To put that in perspective, when Presidents Roosevelt and Truman managed the massive debt needed to carry out World War II while also overcoming the long term consequences from the Great Depression, the ratio of debt to Gross National Product reached the highest level in history, about 120%. The Obama budget will cause it to rise from the current 53% of GNP to 90%, nearly doubling the debt. That does not include normal adjustments to be made.



To make this clearer, when the debt hit the peak in 1947 it was equivalent to $10 trillion today. That pulled the economy out of the great depression and into high gear to win World War II. The Obama debt will hit twice that much, $20.3 trillion by 2020.

As for the normal adjustments, they have already begun. CBO warned the Democrats in Congress that changing the student loan program that was approved in the health care bill will actually increase the deficit by an additional $52 billion by 2020, not reduce the deficit by $68 billion like the Democrats said.



In the study, the CBO explains how the accounting mandated through the Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA) is the standard procedure used to record the budgetary costs of the government’s direct and guaranteed loan programs.

However, the CBO notes that FCRA cost estimates exclude the value of “market risks” and the loan programs’ “administrative expenses” while the CBO’s “fair value” estimates takes them into account.

This discrepancy between the two estimates results in the FCRA figure being a less “comprehensive” appraisal of the true cost to taxpayers of the federal government’s direct student loan program, according to the CBO report.

“Fair-value subsidy estimates, which include the cost of risk and administrative costs, provide a more comprehensive measure that allows the costs of the two programs to be compared on a level playing field,” states the study.



That little change in what the CBO reported to Congress to help justify the bill makes the debt increase by $120 billion, from the projected reduction of $68 billion to the actual deficit of $52 billion.

The same health care bill allowed them to claim a $450 billion savings in Medicare costs by reducing the payment to doctors by 21%. Yet Congress promised to fix this problem by restoring the reduction. That bill is to be debated this month and Pelosi has promised it will be passed. If they don't pass it thousands of more doctors will refuse to treat Medicare patients meaning there will not be enough doctors to treat all the new patients Obama is flooding into the health care system. But if Congress delivers on their promise, it will raise the debt by another $450 billion.

Such adjustments can be found throughout the flawed health care legislation and either these accounting tricks were known to the White House advisors or they are just plain stupid. The rush to get Obama his historic bill will come back to haunt us for the next decade.

Three things are clear to anyone who digs through the reality of the Obama health care plan. Taxes have to go up, insurance premiums have to go up, and the only thing historic about the massive bill is our national debt will hit a historic high.



As Doug Elmendorf, head of the CBO warned yesterday, the nation’s fiscal path is “unsustainable,” and the problem “cannot be solved through minor tinkering.”

The calculations by Congress of every new entitlement program have been multiples off the mark. The 1965 Medicare program was supposed to cost only $9 billion by 1990. Instead it cost $67 billion in 1990 and it now costs $521 billion.

People must be told the truth or the next two generations will face a bankrupt national government. The Obama promise is also the Obama Achilles Heel and that says very little for the future security of our nation.

.

Campaign Financing in America, the Most Special of Special Interests

.


Lobbying has been part of the government process ever since the fight for freedom and adoption of the US Constitution in America. No doubt as a result of the pressure put on colonists by special interests during the formation of America, great care was made to protect the fledgling Republic from these marauding manipulators of governments, wars and people.

During debate over the new treasury department there was an argument over the need to form a US National Bank, sought by the international bankers who were bankrolling the revolution and arms bought by the colonists. The fear of international bankers controlling the economy and printing the nation's money was debated extensively. Opposition was led by Thomas Jefferson.



In time the First National Bank was approved and chartered to a group representing the House of Rothschild. When Andrew Jackson was elected our 7th president and served from 1829-1837 he blocked the renewal of the First National Bank charter by vetoing the Congressional bill. It was a bitter battle with the banking interests and before it was through there was an assassination attempt on the president.

So we know special interests have a long and dubious stranglehold on our nation's capitol.

Today it is more prevalent than ever as witnessed by the accommodation of big banks in the TARP program, big labor in the stimulus and health care reforms, Wall Street and Goldman Sachs in the watered down version of Financial reform being considered, Goldman Sachs again in the cap and trade bill proposed, the unions again in the card check bill, and all sources of big bucks in the total lack of campaign reform not being considered by Congress nor advocated by the administration.



Campaign reform, the only hope for America if it goes far enough to break the stranglehold of special interests on our government, remains the elusive dream of justice and the only effective tool to wipe out corruption.

Obama directly spent nearly three quarters of a billion dollars getting elected. Hundreds of millions of additional dollars were spent on his behalf by other political and special interest groups. The same groups are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of our elected officials yet the media gives no attention to this massive buy out of our politicians.



Paid political advertising must be stopped or our government will always be for sale to the highest bidder. There is no paid advertising in Great Britain yet their government seems to function. Most European nations control the licensing of media companies to a degree that prohibits massive television campaigns yet they seem to function.

Political advertising, which dominates the airways during primary and general election campaigns with often obnoxious and misleading ads should be banned and those media corporations getting federal licenses to use the airways must be required to make available limited time for all legitimate candidates through debates or other forums.



Estimates are that over $5.3 billion dollars were spent during 2008 alone for political television ads for congress and the presidency. That includes spending by candidates, campaign committees, political parties, political action groups, and special interest groups. A few million more was spent on the internet.

Over $5.5 billion was spent to elect 469 politicians. Hundreds of million more dollars have been spent since then by special interests on behalf of legislation they want approved.



No longer can our federal elected officials spend weekends in Washington working on the nation's business because they are running for re-election the day they take office. Of course billions of more dollars are being spent by the same groups to raise the money needed to bombard us with those political ads.



Unfortunately, many media outlet owners are now addicted to the political revenue to stay in business and that raises the most obvious conflict of interest possible for the news media. How could they possibly be advocates or even report fairly on the need for campaign finance reform when their jobs are dependent on that campaign revenue?



It is time Americans realize the campaign money is the root of all evil in Washington and in our media. It is time we realize that meaningful reform, missing from the agenda of our president and both political parties, is the only way to end corruption and special influence peddling in our nation's capitol. It is time we recognize that without such reform, our politicians are on a fast track to permanent slavery to special interests.



Yes, it is time the people demand their elected representatives stop the policy of selling out our government to the highest bidder and ban political advertising in America. European countries have proven that it can be done Constitutionally.



Just as important, if it was done there would be no need for never ending campaigns, for politicians to start raising money for the next campaign the minute they are elected, for them to be spending all their free time raising money rather than taking care of our nation's business, and most of all, for them to be owned by special interests.



Demand campaign finance reform from your politicians. Demand more than just empty promises or watered down actions to achieve these reforms. Do this and there is a chance the Republic may survive. Fail to do this and you will live forever with the corrupt system we now have in place.

.

Time to Listen to Mother Earth - We are Running Out of Time

.



Those of you who follow the CPT are well aware of the political division, partisanship, and downright nastiness that has become a part of the current American culture. Not since the Civil War has there been such a radical divide among Americans and there are no signs things will cool off soon.

It is times like these that we should pay particular attention to the prophecies of the Native Americans and to the scientific data being reported by the government. When I say the "data being reported by the government" I mean just that. There is a lot of data not being reported by the government and that is my major cause of concern.

Science has made a determined effort to control the weather as there are often gray lines between the scientific community and the military industrial complex in most major countries. This has been going on for many decades and there is nothing to indicate it has slowed.

As science unlocks the secrets of nature the military sees that as an opportunity to control nature and use it as a weapon. More important, only the defense and intelligence communities have the unlimited budgets needed to further the work of science in highly technical areas.



Try as it might, however, the control of weather has never been achieved by the military on a large scale but have the experiments to date altered the weather patterns we face? It seems as if the more we know about the weather the less we are able to predict the patterns. That is not consistent with the advances we have achieved.

Could it be that weather is controlled by a higher force, as the Native Americans believe, and that the more we tamper with it the more it will be used against us? If one only studied the astonishing increase in weather records that have been set the past few years, and especially the past year, it may seem that Mother Nature has been quite upset with the human condition.

Record temperatures, rain, snow, floods and damage seems to occur almost daily. That is just the small stuff. When you throw in the most devastating acts of nature, earthquakes, volcanoes and hurricanes, then a pattern does start to emerge.



Major earthquakes striking the Earth have greatly increased the past couple of years. In fact the largest of earthquakes have seemed to be following a pattern of rapid increase while also following a progression of fault lines. For example, in the past few months there have been a series of major quakes from the tip of South America up the coast along the fault line all the way to the California border.



It seems that when a major quake occurs there is a shifting in the tectonic plates of the earth and a change in the pressure in one place can trigger other such reactions along the length and breadth of the fault line. Of course scientists do not agree.



Continuing what has been an incredible and incredibly horrifying string of large earthquakes around the world starting with the 7.0 Haiti Earthquake, then earthquakes in Guatemala, Argentina, Venezuela, Chile, just last week the 7.2 Southern California Earthquake and now the Sumatra Indonesia Earthquake at 7.7 on Richter Scale, and it's just the first week of April.

This is the second time in 2010 Indonesia has suffered from a "significant earthquake."



In all there have been 53 significant earthquakes of above 6.0 on the Richter Scale in 2010 thus far, according to the US Geological Survey. And of those, 18 have been over 7.0 on the scale. There were 159 significant earthquakes in all of 2009, 180 in 2008, and 196 in 2007.

In an average year there is 1 quake over 8.0, 17 from 7 to 7.9, and 134 from 6 to 6.9. At the current rate for 2010 there will be 92 "significant earthquakes" for 2010, 20 more than in 2009 and 44 more than for all of 2008, and 46 more than in all of 2007. We are on course to surpass the averages.



Note that the earthquakes hitting the Americas have moved from Chile to Northern California along the fault line on the Pacific Coast. If this is the result of a readjustment of the tectonic plates then it will continue up the coast and the next point to be hit will be close to the Seattle area where the population density will be significant.



More ominously for the USA is the threat of a major quake in the Seattle area and two other points, Southern California and New Madrid, Missouri. Each of these areas has been hit by quakes over 8.0 in the past couple of centuries.

The New Madrid Seismic zone lies within the central Mississippi Valley, centered just below St. Louis, extending from northeast Arkansas, through southeast Missouri, western Tennessee, western Kentucky to southern Illinois. Historically, this area has been the site of some of the largest earthquakes in North America. Between 1811 and 1812, 4 catastrophic earthquakes, at least two with magnitude estimates greater than 8.0, occurred during a 3-month period. Hundreds of aftershocks followed over a period of several years.

The power of the earthquakes was so great the mighty Mississippi River began flowing backwards and there was a 50 foot waterfall in the river after the quakes. At that time, St. Louis and other major cities in the central U.S. were sparsely settled. At least 3 of the series of earthquakes were felt throughout much of the U.S. and as far away as Quebec.

Instruments were installed in and around this area in 1974 to closely monitor seismic activity. Since then, more than 4000 earthquakes have been located. The potential for the recurrence of such earthquakes and their impact today on densely populated cities in and around the seismic zone, has generated much research devoted to understanding earthquakes. A quake with a magnitude equal to that of the 1811- 1812 quakes could result in great loss of life and property damage in the billions of dollars. Scientists believe we are overdue for such a large earthquake.

The power of an earthquake is measured by the Richter scale and is a combination of ground motion and energy released by the quake. Each 1.0 on the scale is an increase in ground motion 10 times and an increase in energy released of 32 times. The energy released represents the destructive force of the earthquake. Thus an 8.0 quake is 32 times more destructive than a 7.0 quake.



However earthquakes are just part of the arsenal of weather catastrophes that are past due here in America. We are also part of the Pacific Rim volcano field and one of the most dangerous volcano sites is Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. This is home to one of the few super volcanoes in the world, a site where an eruption 65,000 years ago might have wiped out civilization. Recent developments in the Park include the eruption of a long dormant geyser, the deaths of a herd of bison from poison gas from the earth, and detection of a growing magma build up about 15 kilometers below the surface of the earth that some estimate is nearly 60 miles wide.



But don't take my word for it, take the time to watch the following National Geographic special on the Yellowstone super volcano to understand the potential catastrophic disaster that could result. If Yellowstone erupts, and the series of earthquakes moving up the west coast could be the trigger, then much of America could be buried in volcanic ash.



I think the government knows the threat to the USA from a physical disaster is far greater than any other threat we face and to avoid panic they are not telling us the truth about the potential. I also believe the ancient Native American prophecies which predict the eruption and natural disaster that follows have been so accurate for so long that we are fools to not consider the probability.

For more information you should research the Hopi Indians of Arizona, the Hopi prophecy, and the teaching of the Hopi elders about the condition of earth. We may not have to wait until 2012 to see the truth in the ancient teachings based on the finding of science as related in the National Geographic special and there is no better source for truth than National Geographic. I was a creative consultant to Nat Geo as we call it and helped create and produce a series called Really Wild Animals.

In my research for other Nat Geo TV specials I learned a lot about the organization and their commitment to understanding earth and our civilizations since they were founded in 1888 and through the 5,500 expeditions they have undertaken. You should not take these warnings lightly.

There are times in the human experience when higher forces do indeed interfere to save us from ourselves. That time may be now.

Double click on the video to enlarge. We are not responsible for the Google ad at the beginning.



.

President Obama Popular but Policy Suffers in Polls. Why?

.


What is this dichotomy in the most recent polls? The popularity of Congress sinks to the lowest levels ever recorded while Obama remains in fairly safe territory. The top politician in America has separated himself from the Washington politicians, he's not one of them. A Democrat as president and Congress under the control of Democrats, yet Obama is not considered one of the politicians in the eyes of the public.

Politics being what it is, there is a never ending fascination with the polls and the meaning of polls which I have been just as guilty of as the next person. There may be a difference however. For several decades I have worked with polls, refining polls, adapting them between politics and use by the business community, and figuring out ways the public tricks the pollsters.



All the way back to the days I was involved with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and developed new ways to scientifically measure pockets of poverty in metropolitan areas. Then there was time with the Census Bureau and the development of the computerized census and address coding guide. Even to the initial testing of the technique of measured perception analysis for polling of focus groups or onsite campaign groups. I never tired of trying to reduce the range of probability in polls to the lowest common denominator.

If a poll is done right it can tell an incredible story. Most aren't. If the questions in a poll are truly unbiased and nothing is done to influence answers, meaningful results can be generated. But most don't do that either. Most polls serve a master, the one paying for the poll, and can easily be slanted to get the results desired. This is not to say there are no valid polls. Some pollsters have real, scientific methods they use to accurately collect data. Most don't.



Be that as it may, when many different polls serving many different interests give similar results, like the favorable rating of Congress hitting rock bottom while the favorable rating of the president from the same party (Democrat) as most members of Congress tracks at 43-50% favorable consistently, then there is likely some truth in the obvious conclusion. Simply stated, people like Obama as a person and think Congress stinks.



Now I didn't say just the Democrats in Congress stink, although I suspect Majority Speaker Pelosi may lead the pack in negative ratings, because most people don't distinguish between political parties when they think of the Congress, they just think all the politicians in Washington stink. So bad news for Republicans, if you don't do something to help fix this country now and prove you are not just more of the same old politicians in Washington, then you are going to sink right down to the bottom of the cesspool with your Democrat colleagues in Congress.



I think the recent poll on MSNBC by Gallup, I believe, most recently demonstrated that the Democrat liberals were looking for a way to prove their outrageous claim that the Republicans were to blame for the hatred and threats against members of Congress. They believed a quick poll showing the public did blame those nasty Republicans for the violence and threats would help the Democrats in the fall elections.

But the set up backfired when the public, in the liberal's own poll, showed the public indeed blamed the Democrats (49%) more than the Republicans (43%). In the eyes of the public clearly the Democrats suffered more because the public did not buy the liberal line.



Obama, on the other hand, has enjoyed a rather good favorable rating in spite of the turmoil and the bitter controversy around him. More important, it is in spite of the fact the majority of people don't like his policies. America, all of America and that includes the places outside the Washington beltway, is not liberal. If anything this country is moderate to conservative as a whole.

Right now the public links Obama policy with the left leaning liberal causes. But I'm not quite so sure. We know he is a Harvard guy, and we know that Harvard from the Ivy League has produced 8 US presidents. In all 13 presidents have come from the Ivy League with Yale in second place with 5 presidents. It was time for a change. Yale presidents have been in charge the last 20 years straight, it is time to give someone else a chance.



Harvard will not count against Obama (meaning the arrogant or silver spoon perception of the Ivy League in the public eye), though people are more than a little suspicious of the motives and means of Ivy Leaguers. This just means the Ivy League schools do not like their alumni to look bad and they have quite the extended support system to protect their reputation. We can usually count on a Harvard, Yale or Princeton to straighten out one of their own if the president doesn't get it.

Now Obama may be their best work to date. Not because he broke the historic racial barrier. Not because he came out of nowhere with some mighty powerful help. Not even because it seems the longer he governs the less he seems to espouse a distinct philosophical leaning and the more he seems to be willing to compromise in order to do what he thinks the country needs to do.



His attitude of avoiding controversy and refusing to champion liberal causes may have cost him the support of his active and extensive liberal base but could open the door to achieving success as president. It was a lesson that Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Sr. and Clinton all mastered with great success. The old adage that a great compromiser is the one who, when he can't get what he wants, will take what he can get, is starting to fit Obama and a pleasant change that may be.



Today Obama announced he agreed with Sarah Palin's campaign battle cry, "drill baby drill," and said he would free up much of the waters on the East Coast, and tracts in Alaska and the Gulf for offshore oil drilling. It was a dagger to the heart of liberal environmentalists but music to the ears of moderate Americans who know we can achieve energy independence with our own oil and natural gas among other things.

Of course the policy reversal by Obama left both the liberal Democrats and Republicans sort of dumbfounded. Then the GOP fed us the standard, knee jerk reaction saying it was not good enough. On the other side of the aisle the liberal Democrats must have fumed at the news of their Chosen One agreeing with Sarah Palin but, at least they fumed quietly.



What Obama proposed did not address natural gas and should, but he never said it could not be changed to address what was missing, like natural gas. I mean he does have to keep a few bargaining chips on the table to demonstrate leadership and have a better negotiating position for getting the new energy policy into law. Still, what he proposed was a heck of a lot better than what we have today.



I figure Obama has offered two olive branches to the Republicans, with nuclear expansion and offshore oil drilling, to make up for kicking their butts on health care. Now if the Republicans just realized that Obama is willing to play the game of compromise and worked with the president instead of opposing the president, then Congress might actually accomplish more than health care the first two years and with a lot less whining by Congress.



Unfortunately, that might be asking for a lot. How entrenched is the GOP in the mantra "No" to anything the president may propose? It could be a golden opportunity for the GOP or a huge, lost chance to reverse their fortunes in the fall elections.



Is Obama sincere in wanting to work with the GOP and really willing to compromise, as it looks on the surface? If he reverts to being a partisan mouthpiece again like he has acted on occasion as president, there is little chance of success.

The need for action and reform is here and now. The scope of problems in need of action and reform is mind bending. Darn near everything our government does needs reform, often extensive. Some of our programs, including social programs, are beyond reform and need to be closed down. Long ago they outlived their usefulness.



Only a Democrat president like Obama will ever have the chance to take the needed actions and make the many reforms in the social and liberal areas. The strength of the special interests on the left far surpasses their low level of public support or success as a social experiment. Yet somehow they have stopped the Republicans, even when the GOP controlled Congress, from changing many liberal laws.

I suspect they will go along with Obama's radical move to the middle because they would rather have a friend in the White House than an enemy. If they were to have a flight of conscious and keep supporting their president even if he did not agree with them on everything, Obama could have good success.



Many momentous decisions are just ahead for the politicians in Washington. The public is watching with more than a little curiosity. Quite a few political careers could be on the line. It all depends on who makes the effort to listen to the public, living safely outside the beltway, and knowing that in the end, it is their vote that will determine our future, not the votes of Congress.

And that is the lesson in the polls. People are willing to give Obama a chance. For Pete's sake it is not in the nature of the American public to want their president to fail. It is only in the nature of the politicians and news media, yes those special interests, who need controversy to sell news. [I use that term loosely, "news", for it is about the strangest institution there is to define.]

Helping Obama get new laws and reforms passed that the Republicans agree with is not going to help the Democrats in the fall elections. The public does not see the president in the same dull light as Democrats in Congress. What such new laws do mean, on the other hand, is that this president does not think as a liberal, left-leaning ideologue but will put the good of the country above his own personal views.



It is an interesting new paradigm in politics. When a president can risk or even sacrifice the support of their own base to do what is best for America, it is a rare occasion in politics.

.