Oops. The headline should have read: "Oil from Plastic and Dead Cats." Newsbusters provides a link to a New Scientist article that demonstrates some of the finer aspects of capitalism. A U.S. company is selling a microwave-based device that can convert plastic back into oil. But don't bother searching the mainstream media for news of this discovery. They're too -er- busy.
A US company is taking plastics recycling to another level – turning them back into the oil they were made from, and gas... All that is needed, claims Global Resource Corporation (GRC), is a finely tuned microwave and – hey presto! – a mix of materials that were made from oil can be reduced back to oil and combustible gas (and a few leftovers).
Key to GRC’s process is a machine that uses 1200 different frequencies within the microwave range, which act on specific hydrocarbon materials. As the material is zapped at the appropriate wavelength, part of the hydrocarbons that make up the plastic and rubber in the material are broken down into diesel oil and combustible gas... GRC's machine is called the Hawk-10...
"Anything that has a hydrocarbon base will be affected by our process," says Jerry Meddick, director of business development at GRC, based in New Jersey... "Take a piece of copper wiring... It is encased in plastic – a kind of hydrocarbon material. We release all the hydrocarbons, which strips the casing off the wire." Not only does the process produce fuel in the form of oil and gas, it also makes it easier to extract the copper wire for recycling.
Similarly, running 9.1 kilograms of ground-up tyres through the Hawk-10 produces 4.54 litres of diesel oil, 1.42 cubic metres of combustible gas, 1 kg of steel and 3.40 kg of carbon black...
In related news, recycling may have hit paydirt, if you will, as a German inventor has discovered a way to turn dead cats into diesel fuel:
A German inventor says he's found a way to make cheap diesel fuel out of dead cats... Dr Christian Koch... said his method uses old tyres, weeds and animal cadavers... They are heated up to 300 Celsius to filter out hydrocarbon which is then turned into diesel by a catalytic converter.
He said the resulting "high quality bio-diesel" costs just 15 pence per litre... Koch said the cadaver of a fully grown cat can produce 2.5 litres of fuel - meaning around 20 cats are needed for a full tank.
He said: "I tank my car with my own diesel mixture and have driven it for 105,000 miles without any problems."
Hey, no one get any ideas! Our cat ain't dead yet!
(1) Make the process open, transparent, and timely, with hearings, drafts on the Internet, and no last-minute bills that no one has read;
(2) Earn people's trust, don't demand it, and treat enforcement like it matters;
(3) Respect people who follow the law, and make legal immigration easier, cheaper, and simpler, rather than the Kafkaesque nightmare it is now;
(4) Don't feel you have to be "comprehensive" -- address the problems you can deal with first. The trust needed to deal with other problems will come later, after you've shown some success and some good faith.
Crafting the legislative equivalent of Tolstoy's War and Peace in hidden back-rooms doesn't build trust, especially when only about 12 miles of the promised 700-mile fence have been built.
When he was in office and responsible for protecting us, Al Gore was absent from the war on terror. As Vice President, he was part of an administration that failed to respond to the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993; that cut and ran when al-Qaeda ambushed US Army Rangers in Mogadishu; that called for regime change in Iraq when Saddam expelled the UN weapons inspectors but then failed to remove Saddam or to get him to allow the UN inspectors back in; that failed to respond to the murder of US troops in Saudi Arabia or the attack on an American warship in Yemen; that reacted to the blowing up two US embassies in Africa by firing missiles at an aspirin factory in the Sudan and empty tents in Afghanistan; that refused to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden when it had a dozen chances to do so; and that did not put in place simple airport security measures, its own task force recommended, that would have prevented 9/11.
In short, to every act of war against the United States during the 1990s, the Clinton-Gore response was limp-wristed and supine. And worse. By refusing to concede a lost presidential election, thereby breaking a hundred-year tradition, Gore delayed the transition to the new administration that would have to deal with the terrorist threat. As a result of the two-month delay, the comprehensive anti-terror plan that Bush ordered on taking office (the Clinton-Gore team had none) did not arrive on his desk until the day before the 9/11 attack...
This country needs leadership. And nothing says leadership more than having your wife run interference for your campaign in order to butch it up a bit.
Sen. Clinton is a cosponsor of S. 2075, the DREAM Act of 2005: Need a reward for sneaking into the country and then evading the police for five years? Well, how does amnesty and in-state tuition sound? If my kids sneak out of the country and then back in, can they get the in-state tuition deal?
S. 2075 would grant in-state tuition and amnesty to illegal aliens under the age of 21 who had been physically present in the country for five years and are in 7th grade or above. Such a reward for illegal immigration serves as an incentive for more illegal immigration.
Sen. Clinton is a cosponsor of S. 2109, the National Innovation Act of 2005: Need to import cheap high-tech workers? Then have I get a law for you! Unfortunately for American workers, it's a raw deal. Furthermore, it's easy to prove that this program (H-1B) is being abused. Law firms like Cohen and Grigsby are openly counseling employers how to game the legal system to avoid hiring "qualified and interested U.S. worker[s]."
S. 2109 would continue the H-1B program that every year imports additional high-tech workers as part of "comprehensive immigration reform." The H-1B program has been shown to harm American workers by depressing wages and displacing workers. As well, S. 2109 suggests that comprehensive reform must include provisions to "eliminate delays in processing immigration proceedings, including employment-based visa applications." This provision would do nothing but encourage the rubberstamping of applications, which is already happening because of the existing "backlog elimination" program and would promote and encourage fraud and corruption.
Sen. Clinton is a of S. 340, the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007: Running a farm and need, cheap -- but legal -- unskilled labor? Well, Hillary's got your back!
S. 340 is an amnesty for agricultural workers. Of the 1.2 million illegal aliens currently working in agriculture, an estimated 860,000 plus their spouses and children could qualify for this amnesty, so the total could reach three million or more. The potential recipients of the amnesty will be required to prove at least 863 hours or 150 work days of agricultural employment in two preceeding years. S. 340 would, subsequently, allow these “blue card” illegal aliens to apply for legal residency (i.e., amnesty), provided they demonstrate that they have worked in agriculture here: (1) 100 work days per year each of the first five years following enactment; (2) 150 work days per year each of the first three years following enactment; or (3) over the course of the first four years after enactment, 150 work days per year for three of those years and 100 work days for the other. The AgJOBS amnesty has also been introduced as S. 237. Read an analysis of the AgJOBS amnesty.
Sen. Clinton is a cosponsor of S. 237, the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007: Need cheap, legal indentured servants? Hillary can do!
S. 237 is an amnesty for agricultural workers. Of the 1.2 million illegal aliens currently working in agriculture, an estimated 860,000 plus their spouses and children could qualify for this amnesty, so the total could reach three million or more. The potential recipients of the amnesty will be required to prove at least 863 hours or 150 work days of agricultural employment in two preceeding years.S. 237 would, subsequently, allow these “blue card” illegal aliens to apply for legal residency (i.e., amnesty), provided they demonstrate that they have worked in agriculture here: (1) 100 work days per year each of the first five years following enactment; (2) 150 work days per year each of the first three years following enactment; or (3) over the course of the first four years after enactment, 150 work days per year for three of those years and 100 work days for the other. Read an analysis of the AgJOBS amnesty.
Sen. Clinton was a cosponsor of S. 2381, the Safe, Orderly, Legal Visas and Enforcement Act of 2004: or, more properly, the Unsafe, Disorderly, Illegal Unenforcement Act of 2004.
Introduced by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), S. 2381 included an amnesty that would have granted Legal Permanent Resident status to certain illegal aliens (and their spouses and minor children) who have lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years and worked for an aggregate of 2 years. Virtually all of the 10.3 million illegal aliens estimated to have been living in the U.S. in March 2004 could have qualified for this amnesty, along with their spouses and children. As well, S. 2381 would have significantly increased overall immigration numbers by increasing the number of family visas and exempting from the family-based visa ceiling all immediate relatives. See analysis of S. 2381 provisions.
Sen. Clinton cosponsored S. 2444, the Kennedy INS restructuring bill: if you're looking for a way to add hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in short order, S. 2444 hits the mark!
This legislation contained both structural and policy problems that would encourage illegal immigration and potentially increase legal immigration. The most far reaching provision proposed in S. 2444 was the change in the definition of immigration law. S. 2444 would have redefined immigration law to include not only the Immigration and Nationality Act but also Executive Orders and international agreements. In so doing, the bill would have opened up massive possibilities for increased legal and illegal immigration. For example, the President could have agreed to amnesty all illegal aliens in a trade agreement or in an Executive Order. The President also could have created new categories of legal immigrants, increase refugee numbers, triple H-1B visas, etc. In addition, S. 2444 would have facilitated asylum fraud and add thousands of illegal aliens to the population each year by greatly reducing the detention of asylum applicants while their cases are pending, allowing them to disappear into the public. While the numeric impact of the Kennedy restructuring bill is almost impossible to determine, the policy changes outlined in S. 2444 would certainly have increased illegal immigration and very likely increased legal immigration, thus adding to the 8-9 million illegal migrants already residing in the U.S. as well as increasing legal immigration levels.
AgJOBS: Legalizing Indentured Servitude: What Kind of America Will You Choose?
Indentured Servant: An indentured servant is an unfree laborer under contract to work for a specified amount of time for another person – often for low or no wages – in exchange for accommodation, food, other essentials and/or free passage in a new country.
Indentured Servitude Banned with Slavery: Indentured servitude was abolished along with slavery when the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1865.
AgJOBS indentures illegal alien agricultural workers: • Section 101(a) of AgJOBS grants amnesty in the form of “temporary residence” (via a “blue card”) to illegal aliens who worked in agriculture between December 31, 2004, and December 31, 2006. • Section 103(a) permits these formerly illegal “temporary residents” to apply for adjustment to lawful permanent residence only if they perform at least: 2,587 hours of agricultural work during the first three years after enactment; 2,875 hours of agricultural work during the first five years after enactment; or during the first four years after enactment, 862.5 hours of agricultural work per year for three of those years and 575 hours of work for the other. • Section 103(c) says that, if temporary residents do not perform the requisite work and apply for permanent status within seven years of enactment, they are deportable. • AgJOBS permits employers of formerly illegal temporary residents to pay these workers as little as minimum wage. It also freezes the “adverse effect wage rate” for H‐2A workers at its January 1, 2003, level for three years, after which the wage rate may be increased by no more than the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index from two years prior.
Required Labor + Specified Duration of Labor + Substandard Wages + Free Passage in a New Country = Indentured Servitude
About 400,000 Mexican police officers are under investigation by the Attorney General's Office for corruption and suspected links to organized crime, La Jornada reported June 26, citing government sources. Most of the officers are from Nuevo Leon, Sonora, Baja California, Guerrero, Michoacan, Mexico and the federal district.
Yes, you read that right. Four hundred thousand Mexican police officers are under investigation "by the Attorney General's Office."
To put this into context, there are a bit more than 670,000 total sworn police officers -- corrupt and otherwise -- in the United States, a substantially larger country.
Naturally, I have a couple of questions: ...How many people does the Attorney General's Office have at its disposal to investigate these 400,000 allegedly corrupt officers? ...How many Mexican police officers are not under investigation?
The head of a Mexican forgery ring was convinced he could make phony documents that illegal aliens could use to indicate fraudulently that they were eligible for a new amnesty, says a government affidavit recounting wiretapped phone calls the man made.
Julio Leija-Sanchez, who ran a $3 million-a-year forgery operation before he was arrested in April, was expecting Congress to pass a legalization program, which he called "amnesty," and said he could forge documents to fool the U.S. government into believing illegal aliens were in the country in time to qualify for amnesty, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent said in the affidavit.
In recounting a wiretapped telephone conversation, ICE agent Jason E. Medica said he heard Mr. Leija-Sanchez tell an associate the forgery ring could "fix his papers" to meet the requirements of a legalization program such as the bill the Senate is debating today.
Ace's reaction: "Why, it's almost as if those already breaking the law actually wouldn't mind breaking a couple of other laws to gain legal status."
Predicted headline for next week: MEXICAN POLICE RUNNING ENORMOUS FORGERY RING!
Senate Democrats vote today to eliminate workers' rights to a secret ballot and give big labor bosses exactly what they demanded as payback -- a vote on the Card Check bill. Watch the Democrats giving their thanks to union rally goers for their current majority.
Ted Kennedy - $1,044,700 from Big Labor Dick Durbin - $882,225 from Big Labor Joe Biden - $479,677 from Big Labor Harry Reid - $1,389,489 from Big Labor Sherrod Brown - $1,468,985 from Big Labor Hillary Clinton - $854,685 from Big Labor
Big Labor hates secret ballots because they prevent identification of workers who don't wish to join unions. And, for millions of dollars, Democrats are perfectly willing to dispense with secret ballots, a cornerstone of Democracy. It figures.
Newt Gingrich offers Ten Simple, Direct Steps to a Legal American Immigration System (hat tip: Conservative Crawfish):
1. Keep the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli commitment and control the border. In The Reagan Diaries (HarperCollins, May 22, 2007), President Ronald Reagan wrote that he was going to sign the Simpson-Mazzoli bill because “it’s high time we regained control of our borders and [this] bill will do this.” For national security reasons, it is vital we regain control of our border. Congress should pass a narrowly written emergency border bill to finish the necessary fence in less than a year and to have complete border control within two years.
2. Announce an immediate shift of Internal Revenue Service resources to audit companies that are deliberately hiring people illegally. We do not have to focus on deporting those who want to work. We need to focus on the Americans who are getting richer by deliberately breaking our laws, hiring people illegally and failing to pay taxes. These people are cheating their own country. We should focus on fining and making it economically impractical for Americans to deliberately encourage law breaking. Economic penalties for knowingly hiring someone who is illegal should rise dramatically with each employer (including subcontractors) conviction, making it simply too expensive to cheat. This will eliminate the magnet of illegal jobs, will begin to diminish the flow of new illegal workers and will lead some illegal workers to return home voluntarily.
3. Outsource to American Express, Visa or MasterCard the job of building a real-time verification system so that honest companies can confirm the legal status of all workers and identify people with forged papers before they hire them as fast as your automatic teller machine identifies you and gives you money in a matter of seconds. We must distinguish between companies that deliberately hire illegal workers and companies that hire people who they believe are legal. It is the government’s duty to help this second group of companies by providing a real-time verification system for identifying the legal status of all workers so that it is possible to screen out those with illegal documents. The government should outsource the creation of this system so that it is easy, fast and accurate.
4. Focus deportation efforts on criminals. Those who claim that opponents of the Bush-Kennedy-McCain bill support mass deportations are simply wrong. We want a system in which honest work is available for law-abiding workers and in which the natural attrition of declining job availability will reduce illegal behavior. However, there is one group that should be deported immediately, and the law should be modified to make it easy to do so. Criminals have no future in America. In every major city and increasingly in small cities and even small towns, gangs have become a problem and people feel a rising sense of insecurity. There are at least 30,000 illegal gang members now in the United States. The system should focus on deporting criminals so that people who are here illegally understand that breaking the law will get them deported immediately.
5. Cut off all federal aid to any city, county or state that refuses to investigate if a criminal is here illegally. These so-called “sanctuary cities” are in effect abetting the violation of American law and increasing the risk to honest, law-abiding Americans. They should be cut off from all federal aid if they refuse to help enforce federal law.
6. Offer intensive education in English to anyone who wants to learn English, and make English the official language of government. This will begin to reassert the commitment to assimilation and Americanization that has historically been part of legal immigration to America.
7. Ensure that becoming an American citizen requires passing a test on American history in English and giving up the right to vote in any other country.
8. Within the context of these proven changes, establish an economically driven temporary worker program like the Krieble Foundation proposals. Any temporary worker would have to pass a background check to ensure they are not a criminal, would have to give biometric information (retinal scan and thumbprint) for a special card that would be outsourced to American Express, MasterCard or Visa so it would be harder to defraud and counterfeit, and would have to sign a contract committing them to pay taxes and obey the law or be removed from the United States within two weeks without recourse to long court processes.
9. Create a special open-ended worker visa for high value workers who bring specialized education, entrepreneurial talent or capital that will grow the American economy and make America a more prosperous country.
10. Workers who came here illegally but have a good work relationship and community ties (including family), should have first opportunity to get the new temporary worker visas, but instead of paying penalties, they should be required to go home and get the visa at home. This way they are beginning their new career in America by obeying the law. It is amazing that those who advocate a large fine and the new Z visa, which would be administered in a hopelessly expedited manner, suggest that going home to get a new legal admission to the U.S. is somehow too complicated. If people can break the law by entering the county illegally, they should be able to obey the law and enter America legally.
Hmmm. A pragmatic, rational and systematic approach for dealing with illegal immigration. I wonder why not a single one of our thousands of Congressional representatives and staff members could come up with something this practical?
Naija (hat tip: Larwyn) alerts us to HonestReporting's article citing an attorney who believes the flagships of the mainstream media may be "legally complicit in terror."
In November 2005, Al Qaida spokesman Ayman al-Zawahiri said "We are in a battle and more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media." Like Al Qaida, Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization by the US State Department. Even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas recently described Hamas as "murderous terrorists"...
American newspapers would not give Osama bin Laden op-ed space. So why would they give the oxygen of publicity to a Hamas terrorist whose organization is responsible for the murder of US citizens in Israel and whose charter calls for Israel's destruction and is filled with unadulterated anti-Semitism? This is the question being asked following the appearance of op-eds by Ahmed Yousef, advisor to former Hamas PM Ismail Haniyeh, on the same day in both the New York Times and Washington Post...
[Asked for their assessment, the] Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center... Director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner said:
It is bewildering and shameful that these newspapers would bestow any measure of legitimacy on an Islamic terrorist organization like Hamas by providing them a public forum.
The liberal doctrine of freedom of expression should never be extended to organizations which are openly dedicated to carrying out acts of murder against... civilians and who draw encouragement from their new found respectability...
...Legally speaking, it would seem that there is not much difference between outlaw regimes like Iran and Syria, which illegally provide material support and resources to terrorist organizations, and liberal media outlets which provide millions of dollars in free advertising and access to groups like Hamas when they publish their leaders' dangerous messages...
...The NY Times and Washington Post are every bit the supporters of the terrorist organizations that Tehran and Damascus are when they facilitate the publication of Hamas' messages.
...Could the New York Times and Washington Post be guilty of providing material support for a terrorist organization? After all, many legitimate charities and political groups would pay tens of thousands of dollars for a prominent ad in these newspapers.
I've got a solution: since the Times is so interested in providing a voice for Hamas, I'd encourage their reporters and columnists to visit the Gaza Strip for firsthand reporting.
Government Security News reports that a new technology may help in the war on terror. While interrogators frequently use lie detectors to verify the truthfulness of suspected terrorists, a new technology called SSRM Tek may help probe unconscious thoughts.
I'm not sure why Harry Reid was chosen as an element of the collage, but I've got some suspicions.
Upon hearing the news, investors sold stock, sending the price down a modest 30 cents per share, or 1.8% in value.
Yawn! Serious investors—and the Company—know that Mr. McMahon “will survive the fiery explosion.” And the only ones guilty of committing such a heinous act are the writers who came up with this melodramatic and predictable storyline...
Who could have "murdered" the irrepressible entrepeneur? Well, to be fair, I could come up with maybe a thousand names.
After all, there's no shortage of real deaths in McMahon's industry. Most fatalities, however, aren't due to exploding limos but rather more mundane causes: abuse of steroids, HGH, and pain-killers:
Every other week, it seems that another pro wrestler has dropped dead at a young age. Mike Lockwood, known professionally as Mad Mikey and Crash Holly, is the latest casualty, but there's a long list of premature deaths which include Road Warrior Hawk, Ravishing Rick Rude, "Mr. Perfect" Curt Hennig, Davey Boy Smith, Brian Pillman (pictured), Yokozuna, Terry Gordy, Rocco Rock, Louie Spicoli, Miss Elizabeth, Eddie Gilbert, Art Barr, and Kerry Von Erich. Sadly, this list is far from complete," a somber KJames199 writes...
"While Owen Hart died in the ring when a stunt went wrong and the Junkyard Dog perished in an auto accident, quite a few of the deaths can be tied to drug use. Many wrestlers use steroids and/or Human Growth Hormone (HGH) to look like they do, then follow it up with painkillers to let them handle a life where bumps, bruises, and broken bones are a part of the job, and where you often don't get paid if you don't (or can't) work. The cost of this drug use is now being seen with young wrestlers dying at an alarming rate. If NFL football players were passing away at the same rate, it would be an enormous scandal. However, the media (with a few exceptions) seems to turn a blind eye to these deaths, possibly not willing or able to cover fake wrestling in a serious manner...
I'd like to think McMahon got his just desserts, but no one is that naive.
Democracies, it is now well established, do not go to war with each other. But they often get into wars with non-democracies. Overwhelmingly the non-democracy starts the war; nonetheless, in the vast majority of cases, it is the democratic side that wins. In other words, dictators consistently underestimate the strength of democracies, and democracies provoke war through their love of peace, which the dictators mistake for weakness.
Today, this same dynamic is creating a moment of great danger. The radicals are becoming reckless, asserting themselves for little reason beyond the conviction that they can. They are very likely to overreach. It is not hard to imagine scenarios in which a single match--say a terrible terror attack from Gaza--could ignite a chain reaction. Israel could handle Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria, albeit with painful losses all around, but if Iran intervened rather than see its regional assets eliminated, could the U.S. stay out?
With the Bush administration's policies having failed to pacify Iraq, it is natural that the public has lost patience and that the opposition party is hurling brickbats. But the demands of congressional Democrats that we throw in the towel in Iraq, their attempts to constrain the president's freedom to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program, the proposal of the Baker-Hamilton commission that we appeal to Iran to help extricate us from Iraq--all of these may be read by the radicals as signs of our imminent collapse. In the name of peace, they are hastening the advent of the next war.
Today's crop of Neville Chamberlains -- the regressive Left -- insists that Ahmadinejad is someone who can be reasoned with. But if the regressives simply stop and look at Iran's fascist leaders through the prism of history, they will see the inevitable result of appeasement. The endgame brought about by coddling fascist dictators is simple to divine. Regressives are lighting the fuse that will set the entire Middle East afire.
Hillary Clinton's campaign appears to be in possible legal jeopardy with the introduction of a "smoking gun" video in a court case that has somehow escaped the attention of the mainstream media.
Investor's Business Daily explains that the "scandal involves allegations by movie producer Peter Paul that a 2000 senatorial fundraiser for Clinton in Hollywood violated campaign laws. Paul claims he spent $2 million to produce the fundraising event — a de facto campaign expenditure. Under campaign law then in effect, campaign gifts were limited to $2,000."
After [Paul] began to blow the whistle in March, 2001, to four US prosecutors on Hillary’s role in the false FEC reports filed by her campaign that hid more than $1.2 million in his expenditures, the Attorney General['s office...] launched a four year investigation leading to the indictment and trial of Hillary’s finance director, David Rosen, in May 2005, for election law fraud.
...Rosen was solely indicted for providing information that only he knew was false, to Hillary’s treasurer for reporting to the FEC...
The Federal Judge, Howard Matz, (appointed by the Clintons in 1998) who officiated over the subsequent trial of Rosen in Los Angeles, made ethically questionable statements to the jury, prior to the commencement of the trial, stating unequivocally that Hillary Clinton was not involved in any direct way whatsoever in the illegal fundraiser...
On Fox News in 2005, Doug Schoen, a former Clinton adviser, said that, "The prosecutors and defense attorneys said she is not involved... Prosecutors made the decision that Mr. Rosen should be tried, it's a fact-based case. It has nothing to do with Senator Clinton."
The video appears to directly counter these assertions and instead links Hillary and her aide to the planning of the fundraiser.
"Hillary Clinton is not a part of this case"
A background video from the "United States Justice Foundation" explains that "...In a series of events to benefit Hillary Clinton's campaign... Peter Paul spent approximately $1.6 million... That money has never been declared by the Hillary for Senate campaign."
Gateway Pundit explains that "in this video, David Schippers, Chief [Counsel,] Clinton Impeachment, explains what Hillary's lawyers said (6:20 mark)":
...The prosecutor if you recall made the statement that Hillary Clinton is not a part of this case, she has no connection with it in any manner whatsoever, you will hear no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved in any manner whatsoever [with the fundraiser]... that just wasn't true...
Indeed, the video appears to confirm that Hillary was intimately aware of all aspects of Paul's fundraising activities.
The Fundraiser
The "smoking gun" video was submitted June 21st, 2007 as evidence to a California appeals court in a civil fraud suit against Hillary and Bill Clinton. The USJF relates that "the tape indicates Clinton – despite denials throughout six years of investigation – was directly involved with business mogul Peter Franklin Paul in producing a lavish Hollywood fundraiser in August 2000 that eventually cost Paul nearly $2 million."
The Federal Elections Commission already ruled that Clinton's 2000 campaign committee underreported cash it received at the fundraising event Paul sponsored. The FEC slapped the campaign committee with a $35,000 fine.
The fallout from Paul's Hollywood fundraising event also led to the federal indictment of David Rosen, the senator's campaign finance director, who was acquitted on charges of lying to the FEC... Paul alleges this tape proves Clinton and her campaign were not truthful to either the FEC or the grand jury investigation that led to Rosen's indictment.
...would make Paul's substantial contributions a direct donation to her Senate campaign rather than her joint fundraising committee, violating federal statutes that limit "hard money" contributions to a candidate to $2,000 per person. Knowingly accepting or soliciting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years...
In the tape, Clinton is heard via speakerphone thanking Paul, business partner Stan Lee and other colleagues for their efforts in putting together the fundraiser... She also describes the role of longtime aide Kelly Craighead as assisting in day-to-day involvement in preparation for the event as her liaison with Paul and his producers... Craighead, Clinton says, "talks all the time" with Paul, "so she'll be the person to convey whatever I need."
The aide's hands-on role is significant, because the law also implicates a candidate if any of his or her agents are involved in coordinating expenditures with a donor... In another portion of the tape, Clinton is heard discussing her direct solicitation of a large contribution from the entertainer Cher. Paul's legal team, the U.S. Justice Foundation, argues the value of Cher's performance alone vastly exceeded the FEC limits...
The "Hillary Clinton Felony Video"
The video itself is fascinating. The preface to the tape states that it "shows Hillary Clinton in the process of committing at least four or five felonies under federal election law":
On YouTube, the video is captioned: "The first ever video of a Presidential candidate caught in the act of committing two felony violations of the Federal Election Law, (www.hillcap.org) and proving her felony obstruction of three federal investigations and a criminal trial of her finance director, was filed in Paul [vs.] Clinton [et. al.] for judicial review in a California Appellate Brief on June 21, 2007, by US Justice Foundation lawyers."
In the video Hillary (or someone who sounds exactly like her) is heard exclaiming:
"...What ever it is you're doing, is it okay that I thank you?"
"...I'm very appreciative... it sounds fabulous, I got a full report from Kelly... uh... today, when she got back, and told me everything that... uh... you're doing and it just sounds like it's gonna be a great event..."
As described in detail in the accompanying declarations of Peter Paul and D. Colette Wilson, the five-minute videoclip contained on the July 17 DVD just came into Paul’s hands two months ago. Although Paul participated in and personally filmed the telephone conversation captured by this videoclip, Paul has not had possession of the original or any copy of the VHS tape containing it since December 2000. That VHS tape, along with 81 other original videotapes Paul filmed during and prior to 2000, has been in the possession of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York pursuant to a search warrant served on Stan Lee Media, Inc. After years of trying to obtain copies of these videotapes, Paul was finally able to get the necessary authorization on April 11, 2007. This motion is therefore the earliest Paul could have presented this evidence to any court...
And just why was the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York sitting on evidence that could corroborate Hillary's involvement in Paul's fundraising? That's another interesting question. As the motion suggests:
[The video] evinces seven key facts, all showing conclusively that [Hillary Rodham Clinton or] HRC was directly and personally involved in soliciting Paul’s contributions and coordinating his expenditures for the concert portion of the Tribute, which was that portion of the event designed to generate federal (“hard”-money) contributions for her campaign.
* First, the July 17 DVD records a candidate (HRC) talking directly with a donor (Paul) on the subject of preparations being made for a large campaign fundraiser. * Second, HRC includes herself as among those who are working on organizing the Tribute. * Third, HRC admits to having intimate knowledge about what Paul and Tonken are doing for her, based on reports being made to her by Kelly Craighead, HRC’s senior staff official (4CT790:9). * Fourth, HRC implies that because Kelly, her highest staff member, has been and will continue to be involved with the organization of this event, she herself will continuously be keeping tabs on the preparations. * Fifth, HRC promises to make herself available to assist them. * Sixth, HRC admits that she “closed the sale” in calling and convincing Cher to perform at the event, after Tonken had apparently paved the way. Obtaining a commitment from a big name like Cher had a direct bearing on potential guests’ willingness to pay $1,000 to attend HRC’s private concert, especially given the short notice for such a major event. * Seventh, HRC effusively thanks all three -- Paul, Stan Lee and Tonken -- and encourages them to keep up their efforts. This constituted both an acceptance of Paul’s contributions thus far and a solicitation for Paul’s future expenditures.
On August 18, 2000, the same day that Hillary sends a special thank you to Paul, Bill sends a handwritten letter thanking Paul for the "boost" the "wonderful event gave Hillary's campaign". This note was intended to induce Paul not to dispute the false statements made by Hillary's campaign to the Washington Post on August 14 and August 16 regarding Paul's role with Hillary's Senate campaign.
This new evidence is summarized concisely by Gateway Pundit:
"Hillary Clinton has denied that she worked on this fundraiser with Paul. She has acted like she barely knows Peter Paul. The video released yesterday clearly shows the truth. It does not look good for Hillary."
Cohen and Grigsby, one of the largest law firms in Pittsburgh, posted a recent immigration seminar online. In the seminar, the firm advises clients how to ensure foreigners are hired even though laws require that Americans are given top priority in recruitment.
In the video, the firm's VP of marketing tells the audience, "...the goal here of course is to meet the requirements... but also do so as inexpensively as possible, keeping in mind our goal. And our goal is clearly not to find a qualified and interested U.S. worker."
The Programmer's Guild posted a synopsis of the seminar online (hat tip: Larwyn):
CNN's Lou Dobbs happened upon the video and delivered a stunning assessment: "This is a bunch of cute little lawyers... playing little corporate games and screwing the American worker."
A U.S. senator wants an investigation into the ethics of a law firm whose YouTube video highlights how to circumvent the law to obtain visas for foreign employees... Attorneys say it's not illegal — but Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has asked Labor Secretary Elaine Chao to examine the firm's tactics.
...Grassley, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, sent a letter to Cohen and Grigsby, demanding to know how many visa petitions have been filed by the firm in the past five years. He denounced the firm's tactics as discrimination.
...The video clip appears to confirm the suspicions of many who accuse companies of placing want-ads in newspapers to show the Department of Labor it is recruiting Americans, knowing all along that they won't attract qualified applicants...
Palma Yanni, a Washington, D.C.-based immigration lawyer, said the department requires companies to make a good-faith effort to hire an American before applying for a work visa for a foreigner... "By encouraging employers not to make a good-faith effort, they are violating the rules, period," Yanni said of Cohen and Grigsby's tactics.
The first priority for the Labor Secretary? Let's hope it's outsourcing immigration-law advice to offshore legal firms. In fact, here's a seminar I'm thinking of holding.
Don Surber: "Nobody knows what a petard is anymore. Everyone knows what You Tube is. Cohen and Grigsby just YouTubed itself."
MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans.
The New Yorker magazine appears to be one of the most partisan publications.
"Probably there should be a rule against it," said New Yorker writer Mark Singer, who wrote the magazine's profile of Howard Dean during the 2004 campaign, then gave $250 to America Coming Together and its get-out-the-vote campaign to defeat President Bush. "But there's a rule against murder. If someone had murdered Hitler — a journalist interviewing him had murdered him — the world would be a better place. I only feel good, as a citizen, about getting rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive president in my lifetime. I certainly don't regret it."
That certainly sounds unbiased to me.
Meanwhile, progressives appear to be moving to eradicate one of the major outlets for conservative thought: talk radio. With moves reminiscent of Hugo Chavez, "progressives" are setting the stage for silencing talk radio pundits via legislative dictate.
Senator James Inhofe says he overheard Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) saying they want a "legislative fix" for talk radio.
– In the spring of 2007, of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9 percent was progressive.
– Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk — 10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.
– 76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative, while 24 percent is progressive.
Recommendations? More government regulation to ensure "ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming."
What isn't addressed in the study is simple supply and demand. Radio owners would broadcast Pro Tiddlywinks coverage 24/7 if it attracted listeners and ad revenue.
...the success of conservative talk-radio shows comes from its market attractiveness. This is, of course, something that drives people like Boxer and Clinton up the wall. They know that audiences flock to conservative talk shows, but with a few exceptions, liberal talk shows don't get those kinds of numbers. Air America has gone bankrupt trying to lease air time for their hosts in the major markets, and no one's listening to them.
If Hillary gets elected President and the Democrats gain a few more seats in Congress, the Fairness Doctrine will return -- and that will end political talk radio. Broadcasters will not risk their licenses in the hoop-jumping that will be required to demonstrate "balance" and "fairness" in political rhetoric, where every interest group will file complaint after complaint in an attempt to harass hosts with whom they disagree off the air. The AM band will revert to self-help shows and promotional broadcasts, or perhaps sports radio will expand even further, but political talk will disappear.
And that, of course, is what the Left wants to accomplish. MSNBC's report highlights the fact that mainstream media outlets are dominated by "journalists" who lean Left, often in direct violation of their employer's rules.
The single channel -- and the most competitive one in terms of consumer choice -- is talk radio. It is dominated by conservative thought and opinion... and therefore it must be censored, Chavez-style, by the likes of Clinton and Boxer.
In a marketplace of ideas, the progressives appear utterly unable to compete. Their attempts to censor conservative opinion are both intellectually and morally bankrupt. But I suppose it's not out of character from a group that worships Michael "Leni Reifenstahl" Moore and the 9/11 Truthers.
It's a shame that we don't have a real opposition party that can come up with compelling, marketable ideas for the electorate and must instead promote its agenda through censorship.
Update: Mark Levin, writing at the National Review, provides a stunning insight into the Center for American Progress report that hammers conservative talk radio:
Well, well ... the author of the [report] — Paul "Woody" Woodhull — just happens to be financially and professionally involved with two liberal talk radio programs — Ed Schultz and Bill Press. See here and here.
Nothing in this report discloses Woodhull's conflict of interest. You're led to believe that the findings were unbiased and untainted. It now turns out that the author has a direct financial interest in using the government to dismantle conservative talk radio.
At the Incredible Shrinking New York Times, everything is shrinking except the arrogance of the publisher and liberal editorial staff. Unfortunately, that is the one area of the company where less truly would be more.
For the first time ever -- and only available through this television commercial -- Ronbo is proud to present Harry Reid!! This offer is not available in any stores, so act now! You'll get all of the pasty-faced crooner's biggest hits, including:
The classic This War is Lost!...
The all-time favorite Dick Cheney ain't nothin' but the administration's attack dog...
Abu Graib Rock...
You'll also receive slow-rock mega-hit No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than Democrats...
...controversial ballad Clarence Thomas is an embarrassment to the Supreme Court...
...and acoustic medley Alan Greenspan is one of the biggest hacks in Washington...
...cult classic George W. Bush is a loser...
...plus platinum blockbuster We're not going to do anything to limit funding for the war
And if you call now, we'll throw in Nancy (Pelosi) and Dianne (Feinstein) singing "Culture of Corruption"! Remember, this offer is not available in any store, so act today!
