By Emily Vaughan

Coming soon to a rooftop near you. Image Braemac Corp.

Four states this year implemented feed-in tariffs, incentives that pay customers for the renewable energy they produce and “feed” back into electricity grids. Three did it for the first time, joining Washington state and California, which beefed up its law.

The key to feed-in tariffs is a combination of long-term contracts and guaranteed rates of return that gives business leaders enough certainty to invest in constructing systems to feed the grid. Each state’s policy differs slightly, but significantly, providing a multitude of blueprints that advocates hope will lead to growth in renewable industries.

Other states, including New York, Minnesota and Maine, recently considered proposals but have not yet passed laws. And the idea is making strides at the national level. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., introduced feed-in tariff legislation last June. It died in committee, but Inslee and co-sponsor Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., say they will reintroduce a bill before the end of the year.

Hawaii

One of the states most dependent on fossil fuels — it gets 90 percent of its energy from imported petroleum — Hawaii set big goals for renewable energy production, requiring 20 percent of the state’s energy to come from renewables by 2020. Gov. Linda Lingle (R) last year set a nonbinding goal that the state produce 70 percent of its energy from renewables by 2030.

Unlike other states, Hawaii’s feed-in tariff, established in October, was created through the state’s Public Utilities Commission and not passed by the legislature. “A lot of this involved technical issues and detail issues that need to be decided,” said Carl Caliboso, chairman of the commission. “Sometimes that type of thing is more appropriate for administrative agencies.”

California

Finding the right price can mean the difference between stagnation and stimulus. California passed its original feed-in tariff in 2006 but found that the price it paid customers for their renewable energy was too low to encourage a lot of investment. In October, the state passed a stronger feed-in tariff, tying the rate to the market price for electricity produced by a natural gas plant, plus a multiplier intended to reflect the environmental benefit of renewables.

The Golden State’s unique pricing scheme may or may not work. Some renewable energy advocates worry that comparing renewables to low-cost natural gas won’t set the rate high enough to spark investment. But Vince Marchand, consultant to the state senator who sponsored the bill, said he expected the rate to be set above 20 cents per kilowatt hour, nearly double what customers pay for utility-generated power.

Oregon

Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) has made renewable energy a central part of his agenda. In 2007 he set a renewable portfolio standard mandating that Oregon get 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Kulongoski outlined a broad energy agenda for the 2009 legislative session, including the establishment in July of a feed-in tariff pilot program exclusively for solar power.

Like the other states that have instituted feed-in tariffs, Oregon’s program will be funded by small increases in costs to ratepayers, not from the already strapped state budget. “There’ve been concerns here in the state about the cost of state tax credits associated with various energy projects,” said Lee Sparling, director of the Utility Program at the Oregon Public Utility Commission. If the cost passed on to ratepayers gets too high, Sparling’s agency is authorized to modify or suspend the program.

Vermont

Unlike the California and Oregon laws, which had the backing of green-minded governors, Vermont’s program passed in spite of Gov. Jim Douglas (R). “In Vermont we’ve been taking baby steps forward for the building of a renewable energy system,” said state Rep. Tony Klein, a Democrat and chairman of the Natural Resources and Energy Committee, which sponsored the bill. “The reason that we’ve been taking baby steps is because we’ve had a governor for the past eight years that really couldn’t see the forest for the trees.”

Douglas said he supports renewable energy but that the bill “will needlessly increase costs to Vermont consumers so as to subsidize this one favored business sector.” But after the legislature twice overrode his veto this year, the governor was forced to allow this bill to become law without his signature.

Washington

Washington enacted a feed-in tariff in 2005 for solar photovoltaic systems, but with an added incentive: Consumers who generate power using components manufactured in-state get paid more. “The legislation is smart enough to say, ‘Why should we jumpstart this industry on our expense, when we can be free riders if we let the Germans and everybody develop the technology?’” said Mike Nelson, director of the Northwest Solar Center at Washington State University, who helped legislators draft the law. Tying the rates to supporting local manufacturers was key to leading the bill toward passage.

Because Washington’s 63 utility companies together wield a lot of power in the state legislature, the support of the Washington Public Utility District Association was essential to moving the bill forward. The group may have been encouraged to get on board, Nelson said, because buying customer-generated renewables is the cheapest way for utilities to reach the state’s renewable energy requirements.

Read more timely articles at Congress Daily and the National Journal

I gotta be honest, I expected Mark Sanford’s troubles would end once the details of his affair were no longer the juiciest piece of political news. But it seems that’s not the case. According to the Hotline OnCall:

In total, 18 of the charges have to do with instances in which Sanford flew business or first class without being authorized to do so. Those trips were largely trade missions to China, Austria, England, Germany, France and other destinations — including a June ‘08 trip to Brazil and Argentina, during which he has acknowledged spending time with the woman with whom he had the affair.
Other charges include use of a state-owned plane to transport Sanford to a political event, a book-signing and a birthday party, as well as a family vacation and a trip to see one of his sons’ sporting events. Sanford even allegedly used a state plan to travel to North Myrtle Beach for a haircut.

I love that last one at the end. Mike Tomasky had been saying that Sanford’s true violation was dereliction of duty. I just didn’t think that was really the issue that the GOP was angry about and that Sanford would be punished for. Well, this just goes to show you to leave the prophesying to the pros.

Just for fun, here’s the South Carolina Ethics Commission Complaint via Talking Points Memo (linked to above) after the jump:

By Ronald Brownstein

As the clock ticks down toward the United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen next month, a senior administration official said Monday morning that the Obama administration will issue its long-awaited target for U.S. carbon emissions reductions “in the next several days.”

In recent weeks, there has been uncertainty about whether the administration would commit to a specific reduction target before Congress passes climate change legislation, which Senate officials have now acknowledged will not occur until next year at the earliest. But the official said that President Obama’s “view is that as part of a comprehensive accord all the major countries will need to put forward their commitment on emissions.” The U.S. proposal, the official said, “will take cognizance of where we are in the legislative process.”

In June, the House narrowly passed legislation mandating a 17 percent reduction in domestic carbon emissions by 2020. The Senate bill from Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry would impose a 20 percent reduction over that period, but some leading Democrats have already urged that the goal be scaled back. The Obama administration’s failure to identify a goal for U.S. emission reductions has drawn criticism from some other participants in the international talks.

The official also said Obama will make a decision on whether to attend the Copenhagen summit “in the coming days.” Echoing recent comments from other administration aides, the official said that Obama’s decision will turn on whether his participation could help seal an agreement. “If it looks as though the negotiations have proceeded sufficiently that going to Copenhagen would give a final impetus or push to the process, he would be willing to go,” the official said.

The U.S. and other major nations recently abandoned the goal of negotiating a full-scale international climate change treaty at Copenhagen. Instead, they are now seeking to complete a comprehensive but informal agreement that would nonetheless commit the participating nations to pursue emission reductions over the next year while talks on a final agreement continue. Any agreement approved in Copenhagen, the official said, would have “immediate operational impact.”

Read more timely articles at Congress Daily and the National Journal

By Anna Edney and Dan Friedman

The Senate voted 60-39 along party lines Saturday night to take up sweeping healthcare overhaul legislation, a victory that belies the tough haul ahead to assuage lingering Democratic concerns that threaten final passage.

Four moderate Democrats – Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut – have made clear they will help Republicans thwart final passage if Majority Leader Reid does not change the opt-out public plan in his $848 billion bill. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, did not vote.

“I’ve already alerted the leader, and I’m promising my colleagues, that I’m prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a government-run public option is included,” Lincoln said Saturday afternoon.

Lincoln, preceded by Landrieu by about two hours, was the last Democratic holdout to reveal she would vote for cloture on the motion to proceed, giving Reid the 60th vote he needed to move forward on the bill.

Senators will now scatter to their home states for Thanksgiving break and return Monday, Nov. 30, to begin debate on amendments. President Obama wants the Senate to pass the bill before Christmas. Saturday night’s cloture vote, which doubled as a motion to proceed to the bill, allowed Reid to bring up his proposal as a substitute amendment.

Immediately after the vote, Reid suggested the version of a public option in his bill could be altered.

Asked in a post-vote press conference how he can line up 60 votes for his bill in the face of the moderates’ opposition to its proposed national public option with a state opt-out, Reid appeared to open the door to a less-robust alternative being developed by Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., Landrieu and others.

Reid said the group, which also includes Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., hopes “to find a public option that is acceptable to all the Democrats.” Asked if he had requested the alternative, Reid said, “No, it is my understanding that Senator Landrieu said today that she is working with Senator Schumer and Carper.”

Carper’s alternative would require a public option be established the same day exchanges created in the plan take effect, but only in states that do not meet a yet-to-be determined affordability standard for coverage. It would begin under HHS direction but eventually have a nonprofit, presidentially appointed board, Carper has said.

But such an option would face opposition from liberals who could defect, public option backers said. “Four members of the Senate aren’t gonna tell the other 55 what to do on these issues,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. “I expect this bill to pass with a public option.” Brown said he would not draw “lines in the sand” but said other liberals might. “We’ve compromised four times already,” he said.

Sen. John (Jay) Rockefeller, D-W.Va., another backer of a public option, downplayed Reid’s statement, saying, “Harry has always said that. And he has always meant it.”

Landrieu insisted that any public option resemble a trigger approach championed by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. Landrieu wants the version to be a “free-standing, premium-support, competitive community option,” rather than the national, government-run plan in the bill.

Lincoln said private insurers can be held accountable without the public option.

“We can still force private insurance plans that participate in the exchanges to provide standard benefit packages that are easy to compare and more fairly priced,” she said. “We will be bringing millions of new customers to the exchanges so insurers would be motivated to lower their prices and be competitive.”

Lieberman previously said he would not support final passage of the bill if it includes a public option, and Nelson has expressed similar concerns.

Nelson also has said he has concerns the legislation permits federal funding of abortions. The Senate overhaul proposal does not allow federal funds to be used for abortion except in extreme cases and tasks HHS with deciding if and how the public option might cover abortions.

Senate Republicans presented a unified front in what aides described as a coordinated attack on Reid’s bill in the past two days of floor debate and in media appearances, blasting the bill’s size, cost and outcomes. In an effort directed by Senate Minority Leader McConnell and assisted by Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, leadership aides arranged for about 15 GOP senators to appear on their local television and radio stations, while all but seven GOP senators spoke on the floor Friday and today, GOP aides said.

“There has really been a team effort on making that happen,” said a Republican leadership aide. “That doesn’t always happen.”

McConnell said a vote in favor of this bill “is a vote in favor of tax burden of the American people in the middle of double-digit unemployment” raising “health insurance premiums on people who were told they should expect their health insurance costs to go down” and of continuing “the out-of-control spending binge Congress has been on all year.”

Reid said the vote was only a vote to debate the overhaul, not in support of anything.

“Let us negotiate. Let us deliberate. Let us debate,” Reid said. “Our country needs this debate.”

Republicans also lamented the party-line vote. The vote represents “the first time in half a century that a historic piece of legislation … was enacted on party lines,” said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, whose vote Democrats still hope to win. “That would be a sad commentary on the political process.”

Snowe said it is one thing to debate these public option alternatives and “another thing whether or not they’re prepared to incorporate bipartisan proposals.”

The vote came before a packed gallery, with senators sitting quietly in their seats, even though the outcome was effectively determined. Breaking the somber mood during the vote, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., laughing, in a voice audible in the press gallery, joked “What’s going to happen?”

TonyfromOz adds …..

Watch as the Pork starts to get loaded onto this to win key votes. This is going to be the biggest bacon bonanza in history.

Read more timely articles at Congress Daily and the National Journal

By Amy Harder

TonyfromOz prefaces …..

This post deals with the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound. I have used this project in numerous earlier posts, detailing the futility of a reliance on this form of power to actually take the place of the conventional power plants currently supply a constant supply of electrical power. Those posts have also detailed costings as well. Just three posts of the many are at this link, and also this link and also this link.

Depending on what side you’re on, Rep. Edward Markey’s recent endorsement of a controversial offshore wind farm off the Massachusetts coast is either a boon or a bane. But what’s certain is that it’s a sign the political winds are shifting more than two months after the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy.

The beloved — and influential — Democrat had staunchly opposed the Cape Wind project, which would erect 130 wind turbines a few miles off Nantucket Sound, the backdrop of the Kennedy family vacation compound. The wind farm has also faced opposition from Rep. Bill Delahunt (D), whose district includes the sound. Sen. John Kerry (D) still hasn’t taken a stand, nor has Sen. Paul Kirk (D), who is filling Kennedy’s seat until a January special election. Kirk’s office said in a statement that he believes the administration should implement a national ocean policy with zoning requirements before “green-lighting major developments in such sensitive areas.”

Markey (D) had been silent himself until last week, when he wrote a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar urging him to approve the project before the U.N. climate change negotiations next month in Copenhagen. “Approving the Cape Wind project as the nation’s first commercial offshore wind project before the start of the U.N. conference would send a strong message to international negotiators about the United States’ commitment to developing sources of clean energy and reducing global warming pollution,” Markey wrote.

Markey’s endorsement comes after the state’s top historic preservation officer ruled that Nantucket Sound is eligible for a listing on the National Register of Historic Places, a ruling that Gov. Deval Patrick (D) criticized. It’s one more episode in the confluence of events that have put Cape Wind back on the political radar.

But activists on both sides of the debate agreed that the man who isn’t there still casts a long shadow.

“Certainly, Senator Kennedy — as powerful and effective as he was — people were deferring to him. This was his backyard, literally and figuratively,” said Barbara Hill, executive director of Clean Power Now, the group spearheading the advocacy efforts for the project. “Out of respect for him, Markey and Kerry have deferred to his opinion on this. And now that he’s no longer with us, maybe they feel that they can relook at this.”

Audra Parker, chief operating officer of the Alliance To Protect Nantucket Sound, which opposes the wind farm, conceded that Kennedy was “clearly our most significant champion.” She fell short of saying, though, that the project would move forward because other key lawmakers are no longer influenced by the late senator’s opposition: “If the project decision is made on its merits and not on politics, it won’t go through.”

Hill said it would only be natural for Markey’s endorsement to influence Kerry. “They are leading the charge on climate change legislation in the House and Senate. They are consulting with each other on where we need to go on climate legislation,” Hill said. “I can’t imagine they haven’t been discussing this. It’s in their own back yard.”

Parker maintained that the ruling by the historical preservation officer should affect Kerry’s position more than Markey’s endorsement.

Read more timely articles at Congress Daily and the National Journal

By Amy Harder

Wind Farm in Spanish Fork Utah.

Natural gas to wind: I’m just not that into you.

Experts see the two energy sources as a natural pair, with gas serving as a relatively clean backup to wind power’s intermittent production. The natural gas industry, though, is looking for a relationship with real commitment if it is to throw its lot in with renewables.

Wind power typically requires a backup energy source, especially now during its infancy. Natural gas plants, which can be ramped up or down more quickly than other traditional energy sources, are the most obvious option. Gas isn’t “the only technology that can or will be able to serve that market, but they’re pretty well positioned right now,” said Rob Gramlich, senior vice president for public policy at the American Wind Energy Association.

Oilman T. Boone Pickens and AWEA head Denise Bode are two of the biggest matchmakers bringing the sectors together. Pickens’ plan calls for increases in wind energy alongside a transition in the transportation sector from oil to natural gas. Bode, meanwhile, is one of many wind industry leaders to have come from the oil and gas sector, having served as head of the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the American Clean Skies Foundation before taking the helm at AWEA.

But the match may not be made in heaven. Bryan Hannegan, a vice president at the Electric Power Research Institute, said some gas companies balk at the idea. “Privately, they tell us, ‘We’re not sure if this low-carbon world is going to be a boon or a bane for us,’” he said. Companies don’t know “if gas is going to be needed as much in a decade from now,” making gas companies and financial backers hesitant to invest.

Experts agree that while natural gas may be the most attractive backup source in today’s energy mix, things could change. “There are lots of things you can do to balance the supply and demand” of wind energy, said Steve Clemmer, director of energy research for the Union of Concerned Scientists. He listed several other ways wind could be backed up, including storing wind power, curtailing energy output at low-demand times and turning to other alternatives, such as hydro power.

“As renewables penetrate the market, to the extent that they penetrate the market and force out conventional generation, the first conventional generation that gets forced out is natural gas,” said Don Santa, president of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. Members of Santa’s group are responsible for transporting 95 percent of the country’s natural gas.

Statistics provided by AWEA illustrate the natural gas sector’s decreasing share of new energy production. Almost 90 percent of new generating capacity added since 2005 has been a combination of wind and gas, but that ratio has been moving in wind’s direction. In 2007, 28 percent of new energy generation came from wind and 60 percent from gas; the next year that shifted to 42 percent wind and 45 percent gas.

Gas has traditionally had higher operating costs than other energy sources, which is why lawmakers from both parties as well as the Obama administration have touted natural gas as an important transition fuel. The gas sector’s inclusion for the long term, though, goes unmentioned. “No one wants to be a transition,” Hannegan quipped.

To ensure a place for themselves in upcoming energy legislation, some in the gas industry are trying to move lawmakers away from schemes designed to encourage renewables and toward a low-carbon standard that would benefit power sources that emit very low levels of pollutants — like gas. “If the purpose of legislation is to decarbonize the electric generating sector, why are you giving those benefits to only renewables?” Santa asked.

Not surprisingly, AWEA opposes expanding energy requirements to encompass non-renewables. “If you include every energy business that thinks they’re clean, then basically you’d have to have a clean energy standard at 80 or 90 percent” of all power generated, said Bode. Many environmentalists agree. “Rather than do the smart thing politically and substantively, which is to create incentives to shift from coal to gas, some in the natural gas industry want to beat up on the renewables,” said Dan Weiss, who directs the Center for American Progress’ climate strategy.

For his part, Santa contends that the future partnership between gas and renewables doesn’t look to him like an equal give-and-take: “You’re going to win a little by backing them, but it’s not a one-to-one tradeoff.”

Read more timely articles at Congress Daily and the National Journal

By Emily Vaughan

Last year’s presidential election was the first in which both major-party candidates acknowledged carbon’s role in global warming. In June, the House passed far-reaching climate change legislation. Since then, climate legislation has been introduced in the Senate, and Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Joe Lieberman, I/D-Conn., and John Kerry, D-Mass., are currently hashing out a possible bipartisan alternative.

But for all the movement toward some kind of action on global climate change, efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions aren’t universally beloved in Congress. These five lawmakers are among the most outspoken opponents of legislation to combat climate change.

More: Climate Consensus? Not In Washington

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.

Easily the most outspoken global warming skeptic, Inhofe earned the ire of environmentalists with his 2003 speech on the Senate floor in which he declared that “global warming is a hoax” and “much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science.” As the ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, he is a central figure in the Senate’s talks on climate change legislation.

The League of Conservation Voters last election cycle ranked Inhofe No. 1 on its “Dirty Dozen” list of lawmakers who opposed environmental legislation. “Sen. Inhofe not only continues to vote against policies to set America on a cleaner, more sustainable energy path, but he has vowed to filibuster any climate change-related legislation that comes to the Senate floor,” the organization said on its Web site.

Inhofe has vowed to take a “truth squad” to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen next month to inform international leaders about “what is really happening in the United States Senate.” It wouldn’t be for the first time: He attended UN climate talks in Milan in 2003 to voice his skepticism.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.

In May, The Economist dubbed Barton the James Inhofe of the House. Both are outspoken skeptics and ranking members on their chamber’s environment committees. Barton, like Inhofe, is also one of the few Republican lawmakers to devote a policy page on his Web site specifically to why climate change is not man-made. While he acknowledges that the planet is warming, it “appears well within the range of natural variation,” he writes.

During a March hearing on adapting to climate change, Barton said: “Nature doesn’t seem to adjust to people, as much as people seem to adjust to nature.” In 2005, Barton sent letters to three scientists at the University of Virginia, the University of Massachusetts and the University of Arizona, accusing them of “methodological flaws and data errors” in their global warming studies. Bestowed with the nickname of “Smokey Joe” for his support of big industry, Barton has received more than $1.4 million from the oil and gas sectors.

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.

The freshman senator from a major coal-producing state has committed to joining his colleague in Copenhagen as part of the “truth squad.” Barrasso, who also sits on the EPW committee as well as the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, is on his way to becoming Inhofe’s protégé, the two of them being a veritable one-two punch against the climate bill. While Barrasso has focused primarily on the potential cost of carbon controls, he hasn’t exactly been a booster of the science either. The New York Times reported in July that Barrasso would only say that “humans are contributing to additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere” — hardly a disputed fact.

In October, he gained attention in the climate debate when he offered an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2010 that would bar funding of the CIA Center on Climate Change and National Security, calling it a misguided priority for the intelligence agency. He also was instrumental in delaying the confirmations of President Obama’s top environment officials because of his concerns about the administration’s climate policies.

Barrasso has called for drilling in Alaska’s coastal plain and the Outer Continental Shelf. In May, he introduced an amendment to the Endangered Species Act that would prohibit the secretary of the Interior from considering climate change or global warming when designating endangered species.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah

Climate change is the featured issue on Hatch’s congressional Web site, with the entire homepage of his issues section devoted to “Climate Change 101.” Offering a lengthy science lesson, Hatch explains why carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and cites evidence challenging the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s global warming models. “Good science dictates that only observational evidence can support a hypothesis,” he notes.

In September, Hatch released his edited version of Inhofe’s U.S. Senate Minority Report arguing that there is a lack of consensus among U.N. and IPCC scientists on global warming. He opposed the Kyoto Protocol and has consistently voted in favor of oil production, including measures to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He also supported a bill in 2002 that would have ended CAFE standards.

Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga.

During the House debate over the climate bill, Broun echoed one of Inhofe’s best-known pronouncements on global warming. “Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human-induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community,” he said. “It is a hoax. There’s no scientific consensus.” Broun expressed his disapproval by offering an amendment to the legislation that would have cut funding for environmental staff in the White House. In October he proposed an amendment limiting federal funding of solar energy research.

The League of Conservation Voters recorded Broun as voting against the organization’s interest in every measure in the House this year, from the Recovery Act to the Waxman-Markey climate change bill. He also voted against providing tax incentives and credits for renewable energy in the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act in 2008.

Read more timely articles at Congress Daily and the National Journal

The National Journal is not everyone’s cup of tea, but this article nonetheless makes compelling reading. Remember the uproar a few years ago, when Harvard’s then-president found himself in hot water over remarks about whether men and women were equally able in the STEM fields? The debate is back. Here, columnist Stuart Taylor reviews a new book by Christina Hoff Sommers (also not everyone’s cup of tea, from the American Enterprise Institute). It’s called The Science on Women in Science, and in it she’s collected essays on the topic. Here’s an interesting outtake from the review:

Other authors cite evidence that the tiny pool of people capable of genius-level work in math, engineering, or physics is disproportionately male. Various studies show boys consistently claiming an overwhelming share of the very highest SAT math scores. And Harvard’s toughest math course has been almost all male since 1990.

Sommer’s own perspective is clear, at least to Taylor:

These [pieces claiming that the playing field is now more-or-less level - my summary] include an essay by Sommers warning that federal intervention may do more harm than good by pushing girls and women where they don’t want to go, holding boys and men back, and thus degrading the quality of American science. “The evidence of gender bias in math and science is weak at best, and the evidence that women are relatively disinclined to pursue those fields at the highest levels is serious,” she writes.

Taylor’s take on all this is relatively measured, compared to Men’s News Daily blogger Robert Franklin:

Where’s the proof that colleges and universities across the country are violating state and federal statutes forbidding discrimination based on sex?  And where is the evidence that this pervasive discrimination occurs in S.T.E.M. departments but somehow in no others?  Someone show me a single shred. Of course there’s not one.  And that’s not just my opinion, it’s the clear finding of not one but two separate studies that have come out within the last six months, both of which I’ve blogged about here and here.

The first was a study by a group of researchers at Cornell led by Dr. Stephen Ceci; the second was done for a congressional committee.  Both were studies into hiring and promotion in S.T.E.M. academic employment.  Both found an entire lack of discrimination against women.  Both found that men and women were hired equally, paid equally and promoted equally.  Both found that the only difference between the sexes came when women dropped out to attend to the requirements of childcare while men stayed on the job.  That resulted in greater advancement, hirer earnings and greater seniority in the long run for men.

If you’d like to read the studies he cites, they’re here and here. I’m not sure these studies back up Franklin’s viewpoint quite as compellingly as he claims, though – in the article in the first link, the researchers looked at 400 previous studies. Some of them do find that there is a “problem” with gender equity in STEM outside of women’s personal choices – the point of the work was to try to bring together the studies in some kind of coherent framework, and they conclude somewhat cautiously that women’s decisions about how they pursue family responsibilities are the most significant cause of the differences in representation in STEM fields.  In the second, which is a National Academies of Science study still to be published later this year, the authors do discount some of the more alarmist claims of gender bias, but also take care to say in their conclusion that

“the data should not be mistakenly interpreted as indicating that that men and women faculty in math, science, and engineering have reached full equality and representation, and we caution against premature complacency.”

In any case, it looks like we’re entering a new season of battling research studies on gender in STEM. Let the games begin!

[Updated: Education Week's having an online chat on this topic next week; the panel includes Stephen Ceci who's called out above. More here.]

[photo courtesy Wikimedia Commons]

In a new blog post at The Enterprise Blog, economist Mark J. Perry quotes Stuart Taylor’s recent National Journal article “Selective Concern On Sex Imbalances”:

It is an article of faith in the Obama administration, Congress, and much of the academic establishment that there are no innate differences between females and males in interests or cognitive capacities. From this dubious premise, they conclude that only pervasive, ongoing sexism and stereotypes can explain the huge gender disparities in academic fields—hard sciences, engineering, and mathematics—that are still male-dominated.

But advocates of this disparity-proves-discrimination dogma apply it quite selectively. They have shown virtually no concern about the small and shrinking percentages of males in colleges generally and in most academic fields.

The graph and chart below, produced by Professor Perry, “provide new evidence of the shrinking percentage of men graduating from college in general, and the female dominance in almost all academic fields at the graduate level.”

Perry writes:

The graph documents the complete gender reversal between 1970 and 2007 in the percentage of college degrees granted to men and women, from men earning 59 percent of all college degrees in 1970, followed by a gradual and consistent shift towards women, so that by 2007 slightly more than 59 percent of all college degrees were awarded to women (Department of Education data here). For the class of 2007, 144 women graduated with a college degree (at all levels) for every 100 men. The shrinkage of males in higher education that Taylor discusses is real and will continue to worsen each year—within eight years the Department of Education estimates that 167 women will earn associate’s degrees for every 100 men, and 148 women will earn master’s degrees for every 100 men.

The table above displays graduate school enrollment by gender in 2008 using data recently released by the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS). Women represented 58.9 percent of all graduate students in 2008, meaning that there were more than 143 women enrolled in graduate school for every 100 men. Further, women outnumbered men in 7 out of the 10 fields of graduate study tracked by the CGS, and were underrepresented in only three fields (business, engineering, and physical sciences). In the field of health science, women now outnumber men in graduate school by almost 4 to 1, and in both education and public administration graduate programs, there are about three females enrolled for every male.

Some surprising numbers from The Hotline on 3rd Quarter FEC reports. I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised that State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias has $2,428,549 on hand since he’s the Democratic frontrunner for senate. It’s also pretty cool that Martha Coakley has almost $2 million cash on hand. But money isn’t everything. Richard Burr’s seat, for instance, isn’t perfectly safe and he’s got $3, 461, 445. Same goes for Harry Reid who’s got almost $9 million on hand but is far from assured a clean reelection.

And things are indeed closing up between Specter and Sestak with about $8 million and over $4 million, respectively, far ahead of Pat Toomey who’s almost at $2 million. I’m starting to think the seat has no chance of falling into Republican hands.

The Associated Press is reporting the jury has reached a verdict in one count in the Jack Abramoff related trial of former Abramoff lobbying associate Kevin Ring. Ring “served” as Chief of Staff for former Rep. John Doolittle and as a Senate Judiciary subcommittee aide to Sen. John Ashcroft. Both Doolittle and Ashcroft are GOPers, as in GreedOverPrinciples types.

Here, in a short segment, Bill Moyers explains in general terms what the Abramoff Scandal is all about; and why – IMNSHO – GOP today stands for GreedOverPrinciples. Let’s look!!!

“Bill Moyers: In Washington, Revolving Doors are Bad for Your Health”

(crossposted and comments welcome at MnProgressiveProject)

These days there’s a lot of mouth-frothing where politics is concerned, and not just in the healthcare debate. Here’s a Q&A at  Hotline On Call with Emily Marie Zanotti, a Chicago conservative who was against the Olympics and announced to a room full of conservative that the city had lost the Olympics. I don’t know much about Zanotti but in the interview she sounds very level-headed. This part stuck out to me:

Q: Why were you pleased to see Chicago lose the bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics?

I initially supported the bid. As time went one, I sort of started to sour on it a bit; we started to spend too much tax payer money. I was not a member of Chicagoans for Rio or anything like that. It would be so great for the city but it was just tough to see it sent through the Daley machine. Watch me get my water turned off for that.

Q: What did you think about people calling you unpatriotic or un-American?

I really hate that term. I really hated it when I guess my side, so to speak, applied it to people who were against the Iraq war. It doesn’t make a lot of sense.

This is a good example of something that is forgotten far too often in politics. Just because you’re a conservative or a liberal, Democrat or Republican doesn’t mean you’re lock step in with every current mainstream conservative or liberal stance. Hell, Zanotti is a Chicagoan so I doubt she’s as conservative as someone from, say, rural Texas. And if she is, well that just happens to be the case, it wasn’t a sure thing that Zanotti would be a conservative and therefore be against healthcare reform and for the war in Iraq and for McCain-Palin.

I find it especially hard to feel the same fiery passion with someone who’s against the Chicago Olympics compared to someone who’s against healthcare reform. One is a rather legitimate concern, the other is not. It’s not totally clear if a city like Chicago would really benefit from hosting the Olympics in the long run. It’s very clear that healthcare reform would benefit a lot of people.

So let’s calm down, fellow libruls, when we encounter a Carpetbagger conservative who’s against the Olympics. There were plenty of liberals (and really, Chicagoans in general) out there who weren’t gung-ho about it either. That doesn’t make them any less patriotic or American.

Prominenter amerikanischer Journalist bestätigt NPD: Multikultur bedeutet Todesurteil für die Deutschen

Kann Deutschland das Land der Deutschen bleiben, obwohl andere Leute darin leben? Nein, lautet die offizielle Antwort des renommierten Journalisten Christopher Caldwell.

Jetzt, wo es vielleicht zu spät ist, wo die Feinde des Volkes den Ethno-Tod unseres Volkes wahrscheinlich unumkehrbar gemacht haben, kommt die Wahrheit an den Tag. Und die Wahrheit ist, dass die Freiheitspartei NPD recht hat – und das Gute für die Deutschen will. Tatsächlich ist es jetzt offiziell geworden: Die Lobbyschergen haben den Volksuntergang mit ihrer tödlichen Multikulturpolitik arrangiert.

In der WELT vom 10. September 2009 (Seite 3 sowie auf Welt.de) wurde das Buch des berühmten amerikanischen Journalisten Christopher Caldwell besprochen – und das ausgerechnet von der Jüdin Miriam Lau. Caldwell ist leitender Redakteur des US-Magazins “Weekly Standard” und schreibt regelmäßig Kolumnen in der “Financial Times” sowie in vielen anderen namhaften Publikationen. Sein eben erschienenes Buch “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe” (Gedanken zur Revolution in Europa) ist Gegenstand der Abhandlung in der WELT. Sämtliche Zitate in diesem Beitrag sind der Buchbesprechung von Miriam Lau entnommen, es sei denn, es ist explizit eine andere Quelle angegeben.

Alleine der Titel des Beitrags spricht Bände. “Zuwanderung: Abrechnung mit einem Mythos”, also Abrechnung mit der Multikultur-Lüge. Dieser Artikel zeigt, dass wirklich fast alles gelogen ist, was uns die “Volkszertreter” (die Offizialpolitiker von Lobbys Gnaden) als “Fortschritt” und “segensreich” andrehen. Mit diesem Artikel ist bewiesen: Wir leben im System der Lüge, somit im System des Untergangs.

Einer Jahrhundertsensation gleichkommend stellt Miriam Lau eingangs die Frage “Bereicherung oder Bedrohung?” Eine Frage, die von den Opferdeutschen, den Nationalen, seit mehr als 40 Jahren gestellt und eindeutig beantwortet wird. Einwanderung, Multikultur ist die tödlichste Bedrohung, der das deutsche Volk in seiner langen Geschichte je ausgesetzt war. So lautet der eindeutige Standpunkt der NPD, weshalb die Systempolitiker so hartnäckig das Verbot der einzigen Freiheitspartei Deutschlands verlangen.

Aber wie beantwortet Frau Lau heute diese Frage, wo doch die Judenführung über Jahrzehnte hinweg rigoros die Auslöschung des deutschen Volkes durch Multikultur verlangte? Hier die auf Caldwell gestützte Antwort von Frau Lau, die quasi Deckungsgleich mit dem Programm der NPD ist: “Ein US-Journalist hat die Geschichte der Immigration analysiert – und sieht für Deutschland und Europa dramatische Konsequenzen.”

Geht es nach dem amerikanischen Journalisten Christopher Caldwell, gibt es an der Multikultur-Politik nichts zu feiern. Über zehn Jahre lang hat Caldwell die Geschichte der Zuwanderung nach Europa recherchiert, von Malmö bis Rom, von Dublin bis Duisburg, und sein Ergebnis ist finster. Es gibt keine multikulturelle bzw. Zuwanderungsbereicherung. Caldwell: “Der wirtschaftliche Nutzen, den die Zuwanderung gebracht hat, war minimal und temporär. Er ist längst Vergangenheit.”

Multikultur bedeutet völkische und finanzielle Vernichtung der Deutschen

Caldwell: “Die sozialen und kulturellen Umwälzungen infolge der Massenimmigration sind massiv und dauerhaft. … Es ist eine massive Veränderung, eine Revolution. Der Wohlfahrtsstaat ist praktisch nicht mehr zu halten; das Zusammenwachsen der EU erschwert.”

Volkstod, wie die NPD behauptet? Ja, sagt Caldwell!

“Kann Europa bleiben, was es ist, obwohl andere Leute darin leben?”, fragt Caldwell. “Die Antwort ist NEIN.” Caldwell fragte europäisch, aber wir Deutsche fragen deutsch: Kann Deutschland bleiben, was es ist oder war, obwohl andere Leute darin leben? Caldwells Europaantwort passt auch hier: Die Antwort ist NEIN.

Der Titel von Caldwells beunruhigendem, provokanten und exzellent recherchierten Buchs ist angelehnt an einen Klassiker des europäischen Konservatismus: Edmund Burkes “Reflections on the Revolution in France”. Wie Burke darin 1790 seinen tiefen Zweifeln an der Französischen Revolution Luft macht, deren abstrakte Prinzipien in seinen Augen der menschlichen Natur zuwiderlaufen, will auch Caldwell die vorgebliche Rationalität hinter der Massenimmigration nach Europa als Schimäre enthüllen.

Sind unsere Politiker Verbrecher, oder nur nicht ganz bei Trost mit ihrer Politik?

Dazu Miriam Lau in ihrer Rezension: “Seine [Caldwells] Geschichte geht so: Europa war nicht ganz bei sich, als es beschloss, massiv um Zuwanderer zu werben. Es lag in Trümmern, materiell und ideell. Die Eliten der Nachkriegszeit hätten entweder gar nicht groß über die Folgen ihres Tuns nachgedacht – oder sich vollkommen verschätzt.”

Caldwell bleibt politisch korrekt, er nennt die Politiker nur Idioten, nicht Verbrecher. Tatsächlich wussten diese Leute aber von Anfang an, was sie taten. Nach dem Anwerbestopp für Gastarbeiter, um die tödliche Einfuhr fremder Menschen nicht abreißen zu lassen, organisierten sie den sogenannten Familienzusammenzug sowie die angebliche “politische Verfolgungswelle” in aller Welt. Um also die “Weltbevölkerung” nach Deutschland zu bringen mit allen Folgen existentiellen Folgen für die Deutschen.

Immerhin war die “Abschaffung der völkischen Exklusivität der Deutschen” das Kriegsziel Nummer eins der Alliierten gewesen. Gemäß Dr. O. Mueller, FAZ vom 14.2.1992 auf Seite 8, handelt es sich bei der Durchsetzung der Multikultur darum: “Kriegsziel Nummer eins der Alliierten: Abschaffung völkischer Exklusivität … Noch deutlicher hat es der amerikanische Anthropologie-Professor der Harvard-Universität, Earnest A. Hooton, ausgesprochen, als er am 4. Januar 1943 in der New Yorker Zeitung PM unter dem Titel ‘Sollen wir die Deutschen töten?’ folgendes vorschlug: ‘Während der Besatzungszeit soll die Einwanderung und Ansiedlung von Nicht-Deutschen, insbesondere von Männern, in den deutschen Staaten gefördert werden’.”

Dazu Caldwell: “Der Anwerbestopp, den die meisten westeuropäischen Länder dann verhängten, änderte wegen des Familiennachzugs nichts daran, dass es da mit der Zuwanderung überhaupt erst richtig losging.”

Der böse Mann im Rollstuhl, ein Feind des Volkes, ein Feind der Demokratie

Bundesinnenminister Wolfgang Schäuble verweist mit Stolz darauf, dass die BRD alle kommenswilligen Menschen der Welt aufgenommen hat und aufnehmen wird. Dass niemals ein Kriterium nach den auf die Deutschen zukommenden Kosten zugrunde gelegt wurde, stört Schäuble nicht: “Wir waren nie ein Land, das aussucht.”

Dazu die jüdische Autorin des Beitrags verachtend: “Als ginge es um den Verlauf der deutschen Küsten oder andere Naturgegebenheiten. Warum eigentlich nicht?”

Jetzt, wo die Machtjuden feststellen, dass sie selbst in die für die Deutschen und die Europäer aufgestellte Multikulturfalle getappt sind, greifen sie ihre willigen Vasallen wie den schrecklichen Schäuble offensiv an. Denn sie haben sich mit der Durchsetzung der Multikultur-Politik mit dem Islam nicht nur in der BRD einen Todfeind gezüchtet. Diese Tatsache kommt parallel zu der Caldwell-Buchbesprechung aus Leon de Winters neuem Buch über den Untergang Israels zutage: “Über dem Buckingham Palace in London weht die grüne Fahne des Propheten.” (Welt, Lit.Welt, 19.9.2009, LW 34)

Die Worte der NPD benutzend wiederholt Miriam Lau die kürzlich an Schäuble gerichtete Frage: “Wie konnte es sein, dass eine Demokratie diesen Prozess jahrzehntelang gegen den erklärten Willen der Bevölkerungsmehrheit durchgedrückt hat?” Dann zitiert sie die Antwort des bösen Mannes im Rollstuhl, der beim Herunterleiern seiner Bereicherungslüge und über sein ebenso volksschädliches wie demokratiefeindliches Handeln geradezu vor Freude im Rollstuhl bebt: “Den Menschen muss man sagen: Verschiedenheit ist keine Bedrohung, sondern eine Bereicherung.”

Lau entlarvt dann den Lügner und Deutschenhasser Schäuble mit zynischer Befriedigung: “Da hat Christopher Caldwell seine Zweifel. Als die Gastarbeiter kamen, war die Schwerindustrie, für die sie angeheuert wurden, schon auf dem absteigenden Ast. Die Türken, die noch in den Sechzigerjahren eine höhere Beschäftigungsquote hatten als die Deutschen, stellen heute in manchen Städten bis zu 40 Prozent der Arbeitslosen.”

Multikultur drückt die Produktivität, zerstört unsere wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen

Caldwell schreibt den Multikulti-Lügnern folgendes ins Stammbuch: “Gastarbeiter, da seien sich alle Experten einig, sagt Caldwell, drückten die Produktivität.” Das ist nicht neu. Amerika war die Wirtschaftsmacht Nummer eins auf der Welt. Was geschah mit Amerika, seit es auf die Multikultur setzte. Darauf gab der ehemalige US-Botschafter in Deutschland, Richard Burt, eine eindeutige Antwort: “Die Multikulturalität Amerikas wird zu einer wirtschaftlichen Last. Homogene Gesellschaften wie Japan und Deutschland sind auf dem Weltmarkt wettbewerbsfähiger.” (FAZ, 14.12.1991)

Steigerung der Multikultur-Lüge ist Rentenrettungslüge durch Multikulturelle

Dazu Lau auf Grundlage der Caldwell Analysen: “In Deutschland hört man häufiger ein anderes Argument für die Zuwanderung, eines, das Caldwell ’sozialistisch’ nennt: Immigranten sollten den Wohlfahrtsstaat retten, indem sie die ungünstige demografische Talfahrt umkehren, auf der wir uns befinden: zu viele Alte, zu wenig Kinder. Aber die Bevölkerungsabteilung der Vereinten Nationen behauptet, dass dafür 701 Millionen Zuwanderer nötig wären, also deutlich mehr Menschen, als derzeit in Europa leben. … Obendrein werden auch Zuwanderer alt und haben dann Anspruch auf Rentenzahlungen.”

Caldwell teilt Ohrfeigen an die Lügner Schäuble, Merkel, Westerwelle, Steinmeier, Seehofer und Konsorten aus: “Immigranten beanspruchen die Sozialsysteme mehr, als sie dazu beitragen.”

Caldwell rechnet mit dem bösen Mann im Rollstuhl, dem Hasser des deutschen Volkes brutal ab. Dieser Mann und Seinesgleichen wollen von weitem, sie müssen nicht inmitten der “Bereicherung” leben, beobachten, wie die Deutschen hilflos zappelnd im reißenden Strom der hereinbrechenden Massenflut völkisch absaufen: “Caldwall hält Islam-Konferenz für naiv. Eine fatale Mischung aus deutschem und europäischem Selbsthass und islamischer ‘Hyper-Identität’ führt nach Caldwells Auffassung dazu, dass Europäer vor allem dem Massenzustrom muslimischer Migranten hilflos gegenüberstehen.”

Caldwells Maulschelle für die Integrationslügner

Caldwell: “Warum in Gottes Namen”, zitiert Caldwell den Verfassungsrichter Udo Di Fabio, “sollte eine vitale Weltkultur sich in eine westliche Kultur integrieren wollen, wenn diese – die nicht genügend Nachwuchs produziert und nicht mehr länger über eine transzendente Idee verfügt – sich ihrem historischen Ende nähert?”

“Eine multikulturelle Gesellschaft führt zu gesellschaftlichen Disharmonien, Egoismus bis hin zum Gruppenhaß … Diese Phänomene sind überall dort zu beobachten, wo es multikultu-relle Gesellschaften gibt. Ich bin gegen eine solche Entwicklung, egal ob sie mit dem Argument multikulturelle Gesellschaft, Aufrechterhaltung unserer Wirtschaft und der Sozial-systeme oder mit humanitären Aspekten begründet wird. Jede Zuwanderung bedeutet noch mehr Energieverbrauch, mehr Wohnungsbedarf, mehr Autos, mehr Abfall. Das kann vernünftigerweise niemand wollen.”

(Dr. Friedhelm Farthmann, Ex-Fraktionsvorsitzender der SPD im Düsseldorfer Landtag, Frankfurter Rundschau, 16.4.1992, S. 2)

Quelle:

National Journal

I once listened to a somewhat famous politician call the Rocky Mountain West an Empire. He cited, among other things, fierce independence and an outright distrust of Government.

“Leave us well alone!” was the title of a fellow student that was in a Political Science course that I took, and yes, her thesis was on western politics as opposed to far western, as in West Coast, and Eastern, as in the eastern states that make up New England. Is it just regional pride? Possibly, but, I have another hypothesis.

Before the United States was founded a group of men came west. Those men are generally referred to as “The Mountain Men.” Most were, shall we say “social outcasts?” They came from places like Georgia, and Alabama, and notably Tennessee and Kentucky. They too were a fiercely independent group of men. They fought with, and often joined Native American tribes taking wives, and eking out a living in a very unforgiving place, and time in history. They were rebels simple, and pure. Some time later there was “The War of Northern Aggression.” Which was followed by a great migration of people to Oregon, Washington, and California. Most of those people came from places such as New England. Others came, and stayed, and tamed the harsh environment. Those people,for the most part, were from the Confederation, and they brought with them the same streak of courage and independence that the Mountain Men had brought. Texan’s settled Montana. The Mormon’s sought freedom in Utah, and so on. The underlying theme being a quest for freedom and liberty. In that most free of earthy nations.

Today while surfing the net I came across an essay worthy of classical journalism. The kind that is just not seen these days. It is indeed a long read. As tomes should be! Read it at…

Dems lose footing in the Rocky Mountain West

PDF DOWNLOAD

It was repulsive to watch the democrats and the “fringe media” throwing out race cards last week like a blackjack dealer at a full table. The redundant rebukes from both the democrats and the media became more distinct shortly after the most recent Tea Party rally in Washington D.C. and the brief disruption from Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) when he barked “you lied” during Obama’s address to the joint session of Congress.

The shout out from Rep. Wilson was the breaking point as the liberals from the House, as well as some from the media, began crowing to the world that the majority of Americans who opposed any of Obama’s agendas were nothing more than racists. Such brainless criticisms are further from the truth. The grim reality is the very people who cried out such absurd overtones are, in a sense, racists themselves. As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. And I have the proof. But first, let’s look at some foolish remarks made by some very foolish people:

“I guess we’ll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside, intimidating people.”

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)

“Some Americans have not gotten over the fact that Obama is president of the United States. They go to sleep wondering, ‘How did this happen?’”

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)

“The balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance. … I have some concerns about some of the language being used, because I saw this myself in the late 70s in San Francisco; this kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it created a climate where violence took place. I wish that we could all curb our enthusiasm in the statements that we make and understand that some of the ears that it’s falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

“I think people who are guilty of that kind of personal attack against Obama have been influenced to a major degree by a belief that he should not be president because he happens to be African American.”

…

“I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American.”

Former President Jimmy Carter

“Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it. Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t. But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy! “

Maureen Dowd, New York Times Columnist

“Now we have a black president, which means, on its most basic level, that a black man has more power than any single white citizen in this country. Whether people want to admit it or not, I suspect the Tea Party crowd believes that the currency of whiteness has been devalued.”

Spelman College history professor William Jelani Cobb

“To heckle a President, to shout in the middle of a speech, would he have done that if it was a white President? I don’t think so. I think this is a southern guy who thinks ‘I can do whatever I want when it’s a black guy speaking.’”

Talk show host and comedian Bill Maher

“. . . racism is playing a role in recent outbursts against President Obama.”

Comedian Bill Cosby

All of these people have missed the point. As most Americans attended these rallies, the president’s skin color was the farthest thing on their minds. All nationalities of all races came to these tea parties with a battle cry that was heard around the world – STOP SPENDING OUR MONEY! No mock lynching of a black man took place; no one held signs saying “Whites Only.” And believe it or not, saying “you lied” like Rep. Wilson did is not a racial slur. If it was, then we are all a reflection of racism since we have said those exact words at one time or another.

Obama’s approval rating has tanked at an all-time low. His rating began in January at 70 percent. Now it is at 45 percent. I am sure the Democratic Party and the fringe media will tell you that the 55 percent of the American people who disapprove of Obama’s performance are racists. Or better yet, the 25 percent that was satisfied with Obama’s job performance in January were kidnapped and brainwashed by the 30 percent of the racists who were dissatisfied.

No, the real racists here are the very one’s spewing false notions that anyone disagreeing with Obama’s principles must be against him because he is black. Strange how the left extremists and the fringe media doesn’t realize that they are the ONLY ones who cannot look beyond his skin color. This must give the president a grave picture of the people who side with him.

If these so call experts on racism have already forgotten, the majority of white Americans voted for Obama. They voted for him because he promised change for an already war and economic stricken populace.

They also forgotten the heckling our former president received during his time in office:

In 2004, Democrats delivered a “Chorus of Boos” during Bush’s State of the Union when he called for renewal of the Patriot Act.

Written in the Washington Times

In 2005, Dems howled, hissed and shouted “No!” when Bush pushed for Social Security reform in the SOU:  “Foreshadowing the contentiousness of the coming debate, Democrats broke decorum and booed twice.”

According to the National Journal

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid called President Bush “a loser” during a civics discussion with a group of teenagers at a high school on Friday.

News report on CBS News

“The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader.”

Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters at the capitol

Not once did the Republican Party howl for apologies on the floor, unlike the democrats’ action last week when they passed a resolution to put Rep. Wilson’s action on his permanent record. However, the remarks about Bush must be justifiable to the democrats and the media since he is white. I have one word for all of this – hypocrisy.

As one rally protestor said, “Fifty-six million people didn’t vote for Obama. It doesn’t mean we’re racist.”

In a recent interview, Obama was asked if the tea parties were associated with racism. I cringed when I heard the question. Then, Obama responded with a firm “No” and for a split second, I saw a glimmer of our America. Although we are opposed to his issues, Obama fully understands our opposition. To that I have to say, thank you.

No matter how insensitive these elitists, no matter how callous the fringe media tries to maliciously pervert the image of most Americans, more and more people who once teetered on the fence of uncertainty are now opening their eyes, wanting no part of these naive insults from the far left. The more pompous the far left becomes, the more these people defect to the side of the majority.

And the high-and-mighty attitudes from the left only makes the “awakened giant” more resilient. Their use of the race card is their last line of defense. Although we must stay vigilant, the light to victory is near regardless how our elected officials will vote on the very issues we rejected and struggled against. Soon the humility of defeat will set in for these liberal elitists. They will have only two options – stop spending our hard earned dollars or get “the boot,” right out of office. And in 2010, I predict a major shift will happen in both the House and the Senate.

There is an easy way and a hard way to all of this. And right now it seems like the liberals and fringe media wants to learn it the hard way. So be it.

Jahrzehntelang durfte niemand nachweisen, dass Adolf Hitler den Zweiten Weltkrieg nicht wollte und mit allen Mitteln zu vermeiden versuchte. Es war verboten zu beweisen, dass dem Deutschen Reich der Weltkrieg aufgezwungen wurde. Die “Kriegsschuldlüge” wurde genauso verfolgt wie heute immer noch die sogenannte “Auschwitzlüge”.

Teilweise hat sich die Lage aber dramatisch verändert. Heute passt sich sogar die Systempresse den revisionistischen Forschungsergebnissen in Sachen Kriegsschuldlüge an. Der beste Beweis dafür ist die israelhörige Springerpresse. In Bezug auf die Lüge, dass Adolf Hitler den Weltkrieg wollte, schreibt die WamS am 30.8.2009 auf Seite 13: “Doch so war es nicht. Das wuchtige Unternehmen war längst nicht so eindeutig geplant, wie es oft dargestellt wurde. Hitler hatte im August 1939 keineswegs einen großen Plan zur Welteroberung – wie überhaupt nicht klar ist, welche Art von Konflikt und Krieg er ansteuerte. Er wollte den Krieg mit Polen, aber nicht den großen Konflikt mit London oder gar Washington.”

Natürlich wollte Adolf Hitler auch nicht den Krieg mit Polen. Dieser Teil ist zwar immer noch gelogen, aber wenigstens wird jetzt eingestanden, dass er keinen Weltkrieg wollte. Mehr noch, es wird zugegeben, dass es überhaupt keine Kriegsplanungen gab.

Im Lager der westlichen Regierungschefs bleibt eigentlich nur noch die BRD-Kanzlerin der alten Propaganda treu. Sie ist die einzige, die an den Lügenfeiern “zur Erinnerung an den Kriegsbeginn” am 1. September 2009 im geraubten Danzig teilnahm: “Mit Ausnahme von Angela Merkel nehmen keine Staats- und Regierungschefs der westlichen Staaten teil.” (WamS, 30.8.2009, S. 13) Obwohl russische Historiker, wie auf dieser Netzseite publiziert, eindeutig Polen und den Westmächten die Schuld am Ausbruch des Zweiten Weltkriegs geben (auch wenn Putin das Blaue vom Himmel in Danzig herunterlog, um von Merkel den Opel-Segen zu erhalten), und was durch sämtliche Dokumente ausreichend belegt ist, bekennt sich Bundeskanzlerin Merkel in widerwärtiger Weise zur Kriegsschuldlüge: “Merkel bekennt sich zur deutschen Kriegsschuld.” (Welt, 31.8.2009, S. 4)

Auch Teile des Holocaust-Systems stürzen ein. Der Völkermord der Sowjets an den gefangenen Polen im Wald von Katyn (Polen) wurde offiziell Hitler angelastet (Sieger-Tribunal-Nürnberg, Dokument 054USSR). Lange gingen Deutsche ins Gefängnis, wenn sie darauf hinwiesen, dass der jüdische Massenmörder L. Berija im Dienste Stalins für die Ausrottung der Polen verantwortlich war. Noch im Jahr 2008 wurde der österreichische Freiheitsdichter Gerd Honsik wegen dieser historisch richtigen Feststellung erneut mit Kerkerhaft bestraft. Jetzt wird offen gesagt, dass das System, auch das BRD-System, diese Lüge verlangte. Der polnische Filmregisseur Andrezej Wajda bestätigt: “Als die Sowjets die Schuld an Katyn den Deutschen in die Schuhe schoben, haben wir das trotzdem nicht geglaubt. Doch galt die Version vom deutschen Massaker in Polen offiziell von 1945 bis 1989.” (Welt, 31.8.2009, S. 23) Und dass die Deutschen die Polen ausgerottet hätten, wie Ratzinger so gerne fabuliert, widerlegt Wajda ebenso glänzend. Die in deutsche Kriegsgefangenschaft geratenen Polen wurden nicht ermordet, sondern bekamen gutes Geld für ihre Arbeit bei den Deutschen, wie Wajda bestätigt: “Die Deutschen brauchten Hände, die arbeiteten. Einer dieser Soldaten brachte uns Geld von meinem Vater, und dadurch konnten wir überleben.” (Welt, 31.8.2009, S. 23) Denkt man in diesem Zusammenhang an Ratzinger, kann es einem schlecht werden.

Auschwitz bleibt einer solchen Geschichtsrevision allerdings immer noch durch das Instrument Gefängnisandrohung verschlossen. Wenn man sich vorstellt, dass der Schlüsselprozess zur Erforschung des “Judenmordes” (Auschwitz-Prozeß, Frankfurt, 4 Ks 2/63) feststellte, dass es für die “Ausrottung der Juden” keine forensischen Beweise und keine überprüfbaren Zeugenaussagen gebe, dann kann man nur den Kopf schütteln.

Es gibt seitens der freien revisionistischen Forschung zwar die “Gaskammergutachten” von dem Ingenieur für Hinrichtungsgaskammern Fred Leuchter und dem Diplom Chemiker Germar Rudolf, die bleiben aber verboten, obwohl sie offiziell niemals nachvollzogen bzw. widerlegt wurden.

Das System sieht und hört es nicht gerne, wenn die Menschen gegen diese Forschungsunterdrückung aufbegehren und den Vorwurf erheben, Auschwitz sei zu einer Religion gemacht worden. Nur Religionslehrsätze braucht man nicht zu beweisen bzw. sind nicht zu beweisen.

Der jüdische Holocaust-Lehrer Franklin H. Littell erklärt die Holocaust-Erzählung als “theologische Entscheidung” und als “Mysterium des Genozids” (veröffentlicht vom US-Verteidigungsministerium): “Schweigen ist kein religiöses Problem, vorausgesetzt es ist ein Schweigen des Respektes und kein Schweigen im Sinne von bestreiten. Der Holocaust ist ein epochemachendes Ereignis in der Geschichte der Menschheit. Ein Ereignis von dem die Mehrheit der Menschen einmal von ‘vor’ (dem Ereignis) … und ‘danach’ … sprechen wird. An den Holocaust als ein Ereignis in der Geschichte, einer heiligen Geschichte und einer generellen Menschheitsgeschichte zu denken, bedeutet bereits, dass Vergleiche angestellt und Entscheidungen getroffen wurden. Warum sollte man dem Holocaust vor Napoleons Niederlage vor Moskau, oder Hitlers Niederlage von Stalingrad gedenken? Warum sollte der geplante und systematisch durchgeführte Mord an 6.000.000 Juden als der Schlüssel zur Öffnung der tragischen Mysterien im Zeitalter des Genozids angesehen werden. Warum nicht das schreckliche Opfer diktatorischer Regime von 5.000.000 Kulaken (Bauern) in Sowjet-Rußland, oder 20.000.000 Chinesen im Zuge der ‘Kulturrevolution’ unter Mao, oder 300.000 Ugander unter Idi Amin? Die Einzigartigkeit des Holocaust zu bestätigen ist eine moralische und theologische Entscheidung. Die Relevanz zu anderen Tragödien zu bestätigen, erlitten von anderen Völkern, ist eine Entscheidung der Moral und der Wissenschaft.” (The Rev. Franklin H. Littell, Anne Frank Institut, “Days of Remembrance”, published by the Office of the secretary of Defense, Washington, February 1989, p. 107)

Littell vergaß natürlich die 15 Millionen (während und nach dem Krieg) ermordeten Deutschen zu erwähnen. Ermordet von den “Befreiern”, denen die BRD-Eliten ständig rituell huldigen und danken.

Dennoch, die Kriegsschuldlüge ist aufgebrochen, das System zeigt erste Risse.

Quelle:

National Journal

National Journal Online — Under The Influence — AMA And Lilly …

Providing a private, limited-access only platform for lawmakers and lobbyists to mingle didn&t work out well for The Washington Post, but that hasn&t dissuaded officials with National Journal from taking what appears to be a similar …

Providing a private, limited-access only platform for lawmakers and lobbyists to mingle didn&t work out well for The Washington Post, but that hasn&t dissuaded officials with National Journal from taking what appears to be a similar …

Providing a private, limited-access only platform for lawmakers and lobbyists to mingle didn&t work out well for The Washington Post, but that hasn&t dissuaded officials with National Journal from taking what appears to be a similar …

Providing a private, limited-access only platform for lawmakers and lobbyists to mingle didn&t work out well for The Washington Post, but that hasn&t dissuaded officials with National Journal from taking what appears to be a similar …

Copyright 2009 by National Journal Group Inc. The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW Washington, DC 20037 202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069 · NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.

Last week the internets saw the launch of yet another new social networking site, but this one with a twist: it’s just for Congress. Great, you think, so now members of Congress have their own private place to write on walls and poke each other and write passive-aggressive status updates!

But 3121, named for the phone extension of the Capitol switchboard, focuses on creating a dynamic directory of the tens of thousands of staffers that work on Capitol Hill — and at home in District offices.

I should probably disclose that 3121 is a project of the company I work for, in conjunction with the National Journal group. But this is exactly the kind of innovation going on at the intersection of politics and new media that will change the way our government operates.

Some highlights from the NMS blog:

• 3121 is a dynamic directory: this means that in addition to having the information that we can provide you at National Journal, community members are able to update their own profiles. This makes users constantly accessible, so you’ll know who moved from HELP to Foreign Relations right when it happens.
• 3121 is also a tool for collaboration: through our recommendation engine and with flexible, easy to navigate group pages, 3121 acts as a tool to help people better connect with relevant staffers to get their job done.
• 3121 puts you in control and allows for a customizable dashboard and customized news. The more you get to know the system and the more we get to know you, the more 3121 will rearrange and deliver you what you need, when and where you need it. From news on your issue and Member, to positioning your own profile and collaboration tools front and center, we give you what you need to make it your own.

By combining a social network + Hill directory + news aggregator, 3121 can solve two problems that Hill staffers and Washington insiders are constantly dealing with: too much email and too much news. Can 3121 reduce this information overload and…perhaps…make Congress more efficient? We’ll have to see. 3121 is in private beta right now, but will fully launch in September, and I’m excited to see it grow.

Q: On balance, would Sarah Palin be more of an asset or a liability in campaigning for Republicans in competitive 2010 races?

Democrats (90 votes)

More of an asset 38%
More of a liability 59%
Depends 3%

Asset

“Thanks in part to the obsessive coverage, Palin remains as relevant as ever and a big draw.”

“She still has the allure of a star that attracts the faithful and their dollars. Democrats and independents don’t attend Republican fundraisers.”

“With Democrats holding so many traditionally conservative seats in a midterm election, Palin will have plenty of invitations to campaign for Republican candidates. She can help the GOP as a fundraiser and motivator if she picks her spots wisely.”

“She will help them raise dollars and fill arenas, put people in seats. Her strongest negative is that she is inexperienced, but that only comes into play when the election is about her.”

Liability

“She’s great with the GOP base, but like [Rush] Limbaugh and [Newt] Gingrich, she’s poison with independent voters.”

“She would have done a decent job at helping out the Republicans in ‘10 if she hadn’t thrown a fit and run off the court in the middle of the game.”

“Simple: She is not the right face for a revitalized Republican Party.”

“In a general election, as of July 2009, it is a negative. I am hedging my statement because there have been more unlikely rebrandings in American political history. Richard Nixon, failed California gubernatorial candidate, anyone?”

“As Republicans become a smaller part of the electorate, independents become critical to the Republicans’ ability to be competitive. Independents don’t like Sarah Palin.”

“She’s a lightning rod for controversy and becomes more annoying and less convincing the more Americans hear from her. She attracts crowds but not for the right reasons.”

“As a fundraiser, she is fine; in a general election, a disaster.”

Q: On balance, would Sarah Palin be more of an asset or a liability in campaigning for Republicans in competitive 2010 races?

Republicans (93 votes)

More of an asset 53%
More of a liability 42%
Depends 5%

Asset

“Red-district Democrats should fear her. She is a punch line in major cities but touches a nerve in rural America.”

“She’ll only campaign in areas it’ll help. She’ll be strong everywhere [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi isn’t, and weak everywhere Pelosi is strong.”

“Her liabilities extend only to her, whereas the enthusiasm she generates fills up phone banks and gets precincts walked.”

“You’ll get lots of press and look-see interest; great for fundraisers, everyone will want a picture with her. Controlling the message is the only challenge, but she’s a smooth speaker.”

“She is one of the few stars left in the party and the only female one.”

“She is wildly popular among Republicans. And even unaffiliated voters seem to think she got a raw deal from the national news media.”

“Just like that movie with Cameron Diaz, there’s just something about Sarah. Don’t ask me to explain it, though.”

Liability

“She brings too much additional unwanted attention: would be like having the circus come to town.”

“She’s not stable!”

“Is Sarah Palin really the face we want to project to the American people? Jeez, where do we find these people?”

“Independent voters don’t like controversy surrounding public figures.”

“Anyone that needs Palin to mobilize the base next year should not be running.”

“Sarah Palin visiting would be like Dan Quayle visiting: nice photos but bad press.”

“Key word is ‘competitive’ races, meaning swing voters. And Palin is poison among swing voters.”

[Get the rest of the Story]

Sponsored by Sewell Consultancy — “Do more with less.”

SCHotline.com Home

Check out today’s Consultant Candid from The Hotline:

Storm Surge

Before recently founding The Surge Strategies, James Davis served as dep. dir. of media affairs at the RNC, leading the execution of booking nat’l and regional media for each WH debate. Prior to the RNC, he served as the assoc. comm. dir. at the ‘08 GOP Convo in St. Paul, MN. From ‘06 to ‘08, Davis served in the Office of the Asst. Defense Sec. Public Affairs. But today, he is our Consultant Candid.

What was your first job?

At age 13, I worked on a Vidalia onion farm. I secured my first political job while waiting tables to pay my way through college in GA. A serendipitous run in with then-Assistant Defense Sec. Powell Moore led to a job as Congressional Researcher for the Secretary of Defense.

What is your proudest moment professionally?

Helping General Petraeus and the many men and women of our Armed Forces inform the media, Members of Congress, and public on the success of the surge.

If you could be in any other line of work, what would it be?

I would own a Zaxby’s franchise. Their “kickin’ chicken sandwiches” are delicious, not to mention addictive.

Of what campaign (past, present or future) would you most like to be a part?

If Al Franken can win a Senate seat, I’d like to launch a campaign with comedian Dennis Miller.

What individual who does your kind of work for the other party do you respect the most, and why?

I like Rahm Emanuel because he’s a get it done type of guy. Although mailing a dead fish was a little over-the-top.

Negative campaigning — good or bad?

Don’t you think the Apple commercials targeting PC were effective?

What one event in a candidate’s past would pose the biggest problem in a campaign?

A lot of trips to Argentina.

What is your favorite restaurant to meet clients?

Mixtec, a low-key authentic Mexican spot in Adams Morgan. My fiancée’s Dad owns the place so I’m probably good for a few more meals. I prefer to chat business at Off the Record where John always saves me a seat or two.

What is the first section of the newspaper you read?

I usually start with Carolyn Hax for a good laugh — then I dive into the editorials.

If you could only watch one TV news show, what would it be?

Meet the Press.

A question from last week’s Candid participant, Achim Bergmann of The Baughman Co.: What feature film do you believe has influenced American culture more so than any other, and why?

The 1942 film “Now, Voyager” where in a “grand romantic gesture” Paul Henreid lights a cigarette for Bette Davis. It was one of Hollywood’s strongest endorsements of the tobacco industry.

Please pose a question for the next interviewee.

What’s the worst hotel/place you’ve had to stay while on the campaign trail or with a client?

The question for the panel this month is, “What’s the best use of stimulus money?”

National Journal has assembled a panel of educational insiders to answer the question. Although heavily weighted toward the conservative political Right, they have included some like Linda Darling-Hammond, Dennis Van Roekel, Randi Weingarten and Monty Neill to counter balance Rod Paige, Joe Williams, Andy Rotherham, Fred Hess and the gobs of CEOs and corporate funded policy institute wonks.

Missing?

A teacher. Any teacher. One teacher. I guess we’re not considered inside enough.

Die Festungen der Weltenherrscher verzeichnen einen bislang ungekannt heftigen Ansturm von Widerständlern gegen die Welt-Holo-Politik. Selbst in den Machtzentren dieser Weltordnung wanken bereits Säulen und Wände. “Holocaust-Leugnung unter israelischen Arabern ist weitverbreitet,” berichteten die Nachrichtenagenturen. [1]

Die Aufklärung aus dem Iran und der islamischen Welt zeigen zunehmend Wirkung. Das gemordete und beraubte palästinensische Volk erkennt, dass sein Elend den Welt-Märtyrer-Story zu verdanken ist. Der Raub ihres Landes, ihre Vertreibung, die Massaker, die totale Entrechtung, die Qualen im größten Freiluft-Gefängnis der Menschheitsgeschichte verdanken sie der Holo-Erzählung. Warum das Verbrechen des Landraubs und der “Vernichtungskrieg” gegen sie Erfolg haben konnten, ist den Palästinensern jetzt klar geworden. Es ist die Holo-Story, mit der diese Menschheitsverbrechen gerechtfertigt werden: “Wenn sie [die Palästinenser mit israelischem Pass] sagen, ‘es gab keinen Holocaust’ dann protestieren sie. Sie sagen ‘ich weigere mich damit, dem Judenstaat Legitimation zu erteilen’, sagte Smooha, Soziologe an der Universität Haifa.” [2]

“Holocaust-Leugnung grassiert unter Palästinensern und in den arabischen Ländern um Israel herum.” [3]

Selbst im anderen Zentrum der Holo-Leitung, in der BRD, wird ein erstes Aufbäumen sichtbar, was einem Wunder gleichkommt. Wir hatten bereits darüber berichtet, wie sich die Wirtschaft über den Holo-Terror hinwegsetzte und mit dem Aufklärungsland Iran die Geschäftsbeziehungen weiter ausbaute. Altkanzler Gerhard Schröder fädelte den Handel mit dem Iran im Auftrag des russischen Ministerpräsidenten Wladimir Putin ein.

Gerhard Schröder ist Ehrenvorsitzender des “Nah- und Mittelost-Verein e.V.” (Numov), der den Ausbau des Handels mit dem Iran zum Ziel hat. Als dann aber die Geschäftsführerin des Numov, Helene Rang, in einem von Israel gesteuerten Radio-Interview durch HR3 sozusagen die iranische Holocaust-Aufklärungspolitik verteidigte (die Beschimpfung der iranischen Aufklärung sei eine “Beleidigung der Deutschen”), kam dies für Israel einer Kriegserklärung von deutschem Boden aus gleich: “Kritische Fragen nach der Förderung von Geschäften mit einem Regime, das den Holocaust leugnet, wies sie als ‘Beleidigung für die Deutschen’ zurück.” [4]

Heute gehören dem NUMOV-Vorstand führende Vertreter deutscher Unternehmen wie ThyssenKrupp, Deutsche Bahn (deshalb wurde Mehdorn abgeschossen), Deutsche Bank, MAN und E.ON Ruhrgas an, aber auch Bundestagsabgeordnete und leitende Medienvertreter. Doch dann blies die vereinigte Lobby-Presse zum Großangriff: “Deutscher Handel mit dem Iran bedroht Israel.” [5]

Ilan Mor, der Chargé d’Affairs der israelischen Botschaft Berlin, stellte dann auch diplomatisch klar, daß er die Frau Bundeskanzlerin anweisen würde, dem “antiisraelischen Treiben” ein Ende zu bereiten: “Wir sind weiterhin mit der deutschen Regierung in Kontakt bezüglich des deutsch-iranischen Handels.” [6] Nachdem die “israelische Regierung regelmäßig den Druck erhöhte … klagt die deutsche Wirtschaft über die massiven Einschränkungen bei Geschäften mit dem Iran.” [7]

Frau Merkel stand also wieder einmal stramm, als das jüdische Kommando erscholl, Kontakte mit dem Iran abbrechen, und trieb einige Firmen in die Pleite. Macht ja nichts, Arbeitslose für Israel gelten als eine der höchsten Opfergaben der BRD für Israel: “Im Januar 2009 ist der Export nach Iran um knapp ein Drittel eingebrochen.” [8]

Doch dann geschah etwas in der Holo-Republik, was sich Israel und das Judentum auch nicht in den schlimmsten Albträumen hätten vorstellen können. Die Richter des höchsten bayerischen Gerichts (OLG) lehnten eine Prozesseröffnung gegen den Deutsch-Iraner Saeed S. (NRW) ab, dem die Geheimdienste vorwarfen, jahrelang Unternehmen in Teheran beliefert zu haben.

Dieser Gerichtsentscheid erfolgte, obwohl die Kanzlerin persönlich an alle BRD-Dienststellen, Wirtschaftsführer und Richter appellierte, “die Wirtschaft müsse ‘als Teil der Gesellschaft ihrer Verantwortung gerecht werden’.” [9]

Das bayerische Höchstgericht kippte also ganz offiziell eine Jahrzehntealte Holo-Untertanenpolitik. “Die Richter lehnten in einem inzwischen zugestellten Grundsatzbeschluss die Eröffnung der Hauptverhandlung ab und stellten in ungewöhnlich scharfen Worten die gesamte deutsche Exportkontrolle in Frage.” [10]

Unter dem Vorwand, der Deutsch-Iraner Saeed S. aus Nordrhein-Westfalen hätte jahrelang Unternehmen in Teheran illegal beliefert, sollte eine grundsätzliche Entscheidung gegen das Holo-Aufklärungsland Iran gefällt werden. Die Empfänger, so die Mossad-Vorgabe für das Gericht, arbeiteten im Auftrag der iranischen Rüstungsindustrie. Doch ausgerechnet in der BRD blieben Höchstrichter gegenüber diesen, üblicherweise ins Holo-Gewand gekleideten, Forderungen aus Israel unbeeindruckt.

Der 109 Seiten starke Richterspruch aus Bayern gilt in der Bundesregierung als juristischer Sprengsatz. Wenn der Beschluss Bestand habe, klagt ein Spitzenbeamter, “ist das gesamte Außenwirtschaftsrecht tot.” [11] Nicht nur das, die bayerischen Höchstrichter argumentierten explizit, dass es nicht mehr länger hinnehmbar sei, mit der Holo-Keule die Interessen Israels zu schützen und gleichzeitig damit die deutsche Wirtschaft zu ruinieren. Sie schrieben ins Urteil, “der allgemeine Verweis auf die deutsche Geschichte reiche nicht,” [12] den Handel mit dem Iran einzuschränken oder zu stoppen.

Wummmmm, ein Landeshöchstgericht setzt sich über den Holo-Terror hinweg, fällt nicht mehr in Sack und Asche, wenn die Gutmenschen kreischend den iranischen Präsidenten Mahmud Ahmadinedschad zitieren, dass es sich bei der Holo-Erzählung um einen großen “Betrug” handele. “Ahmadinedschad hat den Holocaust abermals als “großen Betrug” bezeichnet.” [13] Wenn in diesem Lichte besehen das Urteil des OLG kein Aufstand im Meinungsverbotsland sein soll, was dann?

Weiter argumentierten die Richter: “Die entsprechenden Passagen im Außenwirtschaftsgesetz seien mit dem EU-Recht ‘nicht vereinbar’, die Gründe für eine ‘nationale Sonderregelung nicht hinreichend dargelegt’, rügten die Juristen. Das Gesetz ‘beeinträchtigt die Chancengleichheit deutscher Unternehmer im Außenhandelswettbewerb’ und könne in dieser Form keinen Bestand haben. Die Richter monierten auch die Angst der Bundesregierung vor inter­nationaler Kritik. Wenn Deutschland auf seinem nationalen Sonderweg beharre, müsse es nachvollziehbar darlegen, worin eine ‘erhebliche Störung der auswärtigen Beziehungen’ bestehe.” [14]

Jetzt liegt der Fall zur Entscheidung beim Bundesgerichtshof. Israel sieht den BGH als ergebenes Machtzentrum für extreme Einsätze gegen die Menschenrechte und die deutschen Interessen: “Die Bundesanwaltschaft hat Einspruch eingelegt, nun muss der Bundesgerichtshof eine höchstrichterliche Entscheidung fällen. Das Urteil wird als Grundsatzent­scheidung erwartet.” [15]

Es dürfte klar sein, dass die Eliterichter der BRD im Sinne der Holo-Story und für israelische Interessen entscheiden werden. Der Handel mit dem Iran dürfte untersagt und mit Freuden Tausende von deutschen Arbeitsplätzen auf dem Altar der Menschenfeinde geopfert werden.

Dennoch zeigt der Widerstand der bayerischen Höchstrichter und der deutschen Wirtschaft einen Trend auf, der schon bald nicht mehr zu stoppen sein wird. Das Erwachen greift überall um sich. Die Tage der politischen Menschenfeinde in den Sesseln der Macht sind gezählt. Selbst in Israel weiß man, dass die Wahrheit nicht mehr aufzuhalten ist, und in Folge der Fortbestand Israels enden wird, wie Henryk M. Broder zerknirscht schreibt: “Es ist der Ausgangspunkt einer Debatte, die immer weitere Kreise zieht: Ob die Gründung Israels nicht doch ein Fehler war, der rückgängig gemacht werden sollte, ob Israel als jüdischer Staat überhaupt ein Existenzrecht hat.” [16]

Quelle:

National Journal