Re: OT- Why I love Ann Coulter
Cliff
wrote:
>You can bullshit all you want, but Gore is still a sore looser that
>never invented the internet and goes around like Chicken Little with
>some cock and bull about global warming.
You don't seem to know anything about it.
What don't you grasp?
Sixth grade?
Ask & probably someone will at least try to provide you a minimal education
hint.
BTW, The US Pentagon said it was a worse threat then any "terrorists"
IIRC and the major insurance firms are already ......
Do you even know what it's about?
--
Cliff
Prosecute SCAIFE for Global Warming FLOOD Damages
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Accuracy in Media, Inc. = $4,075,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Acton Institute For The Study of Religion
and Liberty = $565,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding American Council on Science and Health =
$205,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research = $6,251,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding American Legislative Exchange Council =
$1,545,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Americans for Tax Reform Foundation =
$700,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation = $1,530,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Atlas Economic Research Foundation =
$2,325,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Capital Legal Foundation = $425,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Cato Institute = $2,057,500
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for Market Processes, Inc =
$100,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for Media and Public Affairs =
$1,272,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for Security Policy = $4,001,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for Strategic and International
Studies = $8,443,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change = $100,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation =
$2,335,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow =
$1,020,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Competitive Enterprise Institute =
$1,800,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Defenders of Property Rights = $1,265,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Federalist Society for Law and Public
Policy Studies = $,980,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Foundation for Research on Economics and
the Environment (FREE) = $1,405,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Fraser Institute = $275,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George C. Marshall Institute = $2,827,500
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University = $1,731,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University Foundation, Inc.
= $3,665,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University Institute for
Humane Studies = $1,050,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University Law and Economics
Center = $860,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Heartland Institute = $335,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Heritage Foundation = $22,296,640
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and
Peace = $9,768,900
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Hudson Institute, Inc. = $3,329,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Landmark Legal Foundation = $6,260,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Mackinac Center for Public Policy =
$100,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Manhattan Institute for Policy Research =
$3,813,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Media Institute = $645,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Media Research Center = $1,652,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Mountain States Legal Foundation =
$280,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding National Center for Policy Analysis =
$2,010,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding National Center for Public Policy
Research = $925,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding National Legal Center for The Public
Interest = $125,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding New England Legal Foundation = $855,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Pacific Legal Foundation = $3,280,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Pacific Research Institute for Public
Policy = $2,472,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Property and Environment Research Center
(PERC) = $2,292,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Reason Foundation = $2,043,500
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Southeastern Legal Foundation =
$1,750,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Washington Legal Foundation = $3,870,000
Gunner
FLOOD Damages" <RayLo...@evilfucker.com> wrote:
>Ann Coulter Slut, protege of Richard Drunkard Scaife
Troll O Meter
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
___________________________________________________
| | | | | | | | | | |
---------------------------------------------------
^
|
Clark Magnuson
I was the tough kid in the 6th grade that, on the playground, sat on
your chest and punched you in the face.
Global warming is pure fiction, for liberal believers.
Gore is a sore looser.
He contested the election, changing Presidential politics in the US forever.
He has dishonored the process and opens the door for a violent coup in
the future.
There is always a danger that liberals will destroy society, usually by
destroying the family with entitlements.
Gore went another step toward destroying democracy.
He may not have invented the internet, but he may have invented liberal
fascism.
He may yet get his face in the history books.
--
For choosing to fight, one gets the horrors or war, stress, and possibly
death.
For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation, humiliation, and
possibly death.
Choose your fights carefully.
Cliff
wrote:
>
>
>Cliff wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:02:05 -0700, Clark Magnuson <c.mag...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You can bullshit all you want, but Gore is still a sore looser that
>>>never invented the internet and goes around like Chicken Little with
>>>some cock and bull about global warming.
>>
>>
>> You don't seem to know anything about it.
>> What don't you grasp?
>> Sixth grade?
>>
>> Ask & probably someone will at least try to provide you a minimal education
>> hint.
>>
>> BTW, The US Pentagon said it was a worse threat then any "terrorists"
>> IIRC and the major insurance firms are already ......
>> Do you even know what it's about?
>
>
>I was the tough kid in the 6th grade that, on the playground, sat on
>your chest and punched you in the face.
Nope. But you sound just like one of those brain-dead wingers.
>Global warming is pure fiction, for liberal believers.
Nope.
You don't know what you are talking about.
>Gore is a sore looser.
>He contested the election,
He actually won it.
>changing Presidential politics in the US forever.
>He has dishonored the process and opens the door for a violent coup in
>the future.
The neocon putsch?
>There is always a danger that liberals will destroy society, usually by
>destroying the family with entitlements.
>Gore went another step toward destroying democracy.
By working at making government public?
Unlike the secretive cabal now ... ?
>He may not have invented the internet, but he may have invented liberal
>fascism.
>He may yet get his face in the history books.
History already has the neocons & brain-dead wingers down pat.
Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff
Prosecute SCAIFE for Global Warming FLOOD Damages
Gunner wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2006 14:42:11 -0700, "Prosecute SCAIFE for Global Warming
> FLOOD Damages" <RayLo...@evilfucker.com> wrote:
>
> >Ann Coulter Slut, protege of Richard Drunkard Scaife
>
Slut O Meter
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
___________________________________________________
| | | | | | | | | | |
---------------------------------------------------
^
|
Gunner
FLOOD Damages" <RayLo...@evilfucker.com> wrote:
>Ann Coulter is Still a Slut, protege of Richard Drunkard Scaife
I thought you wankers were claiming Coulter was a guy?
Make up your mind. Well...the three neurons that pass for one...
Gunner
"The importance of morality is that people behave themselves even if
nobody's watching. There are not enough cops and laws to replace
personal morality as a means to produce a civilized society. Indeed,
the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of
defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see
police, laws and the criminal justice system as society's first line
of defense." --Walter Williams
z
> I was the tough kid in the 6th grade that, on the playground, sat on
> your chest and punched you in the face.
Of course, you were 18 at the time.
W. D. Allen
As someone who has worked in the Pentagon I can reliably report that such a
"reference to authority" regarding "global warming" is totally, and I mean
totally, without merit!
"I don't care if you are only a janitor, what I want you to say is ...."
WDA
end
"Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:39opa29qnhddpevgh...@4ax.com...
Lloyd Parker
Clark Magnuson <c.mag...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>Cliff wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:02:05 -0700, Clark Magnuson <c.mag...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You can bullshit all you want, but Gore is still a sore looser that
>>>never invented the internet and goes around like Chicken Little with
>>>some cock and bull about global warming.
>>
>>
>> You don't seem to know anything about it.
>> What don't you grasp?
>> Sixth grade?
>>
>> Ask & probably someone will at least try to provide you a minimal
education
>> hint.
>>
>> BTW, The US Pentagon said it was a worse threat then any "terrorists"
>> IIRC and the major insurance firms are already ......
>> Do you even know what it's about?
>
>
>I was the tough kid in the 6th grade that, on the playground, sat on
>your chest and punched you in the face.
>
>Global warming is pure fiction, for liberal believers.
>
And evolution! And the earth is flat too!
>Gore is a sore looser.
I'd hope you learned the difference between loose and lose, or were you
suspended from that school all the time?
>He contested the election, changing Presidential politics in the US forever.
>He has dishonored the process and opens the door for a violent coup in
>the future.
>
>There is always a danger that liberals will destroy society, usually by
>destroying the family with entitlements.
Yes, heaven knows, letting poor children have food and medicine just tears
families apart.
>Gore went another step toward destroying democracy.
>He may not have invented the internet, but he may have invented liberal
>fascism.
Well, I bet you're the expert on fascism.
Cameron L. Spitzer
> Ann Coulter is Still a Slut, protege of Richard Drunkard Scaife
No, Ann Coulter is an *employee*, a performer. Chosen
because her personal opinions match the elite agenda.
Same as Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Michael Savage, et al.
If it weren't her it would be someone else just like her.
You don't get hours and hours of time on the biggest hate
radio network in the US if your opinions differ from what
the wealthy want the proles to believe. Silly proles,
listening to that stuff and imagining they've found some
kind of underground media. And imagining they're not proles!
Cameron
Cliff
>"...The US Pentagon said...."
>
>As someone who has worked in the Pentagon I can reliably report that such a
>"reference to authority" regarding "global warming" is totally, and I mean
>totally, without merit!
You were a Private in Vietnam?
>"I don't care if you are only a janitor, what I want you to say is ...."
>
>WDA
>
>end
"Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us"
"Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war"
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
"World Bank, Pentagon: global warming red alert
Weather of mass destruction bigger threat than terrorism"
[
A world thrown into turmoil by drought, floods, typhoons. Whole countries
rendered uninhabitable. The political capital of the Netherlands submerged. The
borders of the US and Australia patrolled by armies firing into waves of
starving boat people desperate to find a new home. Fishing boats armed with
cannon to drive off competitors. Demands for access to water and farmland backed
up with nuclear weapons. Sound like the ravings of doom-saying environmental
extremists? It's actually from a report commissioned by the Pentagon on how to
ready America for the coming climate Armageddon.
]
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/world-bank-pentagon-warn-cli
>"Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:39opa29qnhddpevgh...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:02:05 -0700, Clark Magnuson
>> <c.mag...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>You can bullshit all you want, but Gore is still a sore looser that
>>>never invented the internet and goes around like Chicken Little with
>>>some cock and bull about global warming.
>>
>> You don't seem to know anything about it.
>> What don't you grasp?
>> Sixth grade?
>>
>> Ask & probably someone will at least try to provide you a minimal
>> education
>> hint.
>>
>> BTW, The US Pentagon said it was a worse threat then any "terrorists"
>> IIRC and the major insurance firms are already ......
>> Do you even know what it's about?
Do learn not to top-post.
Also to trim & snip prior sigs.
--
Cliff
James
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate
of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
Cliff
>> Found those "WMDs" yet?
James
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 22:57:05 -0400, "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
> >> Found those "WMDs" yet?
>
Only those other liars knew where they were and they aren't talking any
more.
John
Gunner
John yet again shows what a leftwing fringe kook he is
Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others,
Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless
using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam
is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological
and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"If thy pride is sorely vexed when others disparage your offering, be
as lamb's wool is to cold rain and the Gore-tex of Odin's raiment
is to gullshit in the gale, for thy angst shall vex them not at
all. Yea, they shall scorn thee all the more. Rejoice in
sharing what you have to share without expectation of adoration,
knowing that sharing your treasure does not diminish your treasure
but enriches it."
- Onni 1:33
Hawke
"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:h5uva2do58gv49f0d...@4ax.com...
Okay, so now you have posted the quotes a dozen times from Democrats who
were wrong about the WMDs. How about you post the ones from all the right
wing politicians like Bush, Cheney, and the gang saying the same things but
even worse?
Hawke
John R. Carroll
> "Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
> news:h5uva2do58gv49f0d...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 09:50:06 -0700, John <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> James wrote:
>>>> "Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:cftua2d2r7catitk8...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 22:57:05 -0400, "James" <king...@iglou.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Found those "WMDs" yet?
>>>>
>>>> Only those other liars knew where they were and they aren't
>>>> talking any more.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> James yet again shows what a right wing delusional freak he is.
>>
>> John yet again shows what a leftwing fringe kook he is
>>
>> Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
>>
>>
>
> who were wrong about the WMDs. How about you post the ones from all
> the right wing politicians like Bush, Cheney, and the gang saying the
> same things but even worse?
>
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is
they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may
come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their
life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News
"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military
might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit
strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will
cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long
they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound
foreign policy."
-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put,
the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign
policy."
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they
have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I
didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it
is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just
learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with
very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later,
these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of
engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of
victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There
is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our
over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital
national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war
when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan
today"
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President
to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
- Goober bush (R-TX)
HTH
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
Cliff
Which liars?
Saddam said he had none. Iraq said that had none. Even Israel
said thay had none. None of the neighbors of Iraq were a bit worried
either (except about the crazed neocons).
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 09:50:06 -0700, John <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>James wrote:
>>> "Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cftua2d2r7catitk8...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 22:57:05 -0400, "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Found those "WMDs" yet?
>>>
>>> Only those other liars knew where they were and they aren't talking any
>>> more.
>>>
>>>
>>James yet again shows what a right wing delusional freak he is.
>
>John yet again shows what a leftwing fringe kook he is
Found those "WMDs" yet?
Put up or shut up <BSEG> !!
--
Cliff
Cliff
<jcar...@machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery.
How so?
Rice told bin Laden that the US was tapping his cell phones .... or
about to ...
--
Cliff
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Because you little twisted fucktard, everyone thought that Saddam had
the shit. The King of Jordan, the Demonrats, the Republicans, the
Libertarians, the British, the Germans, the French, the Russians, the
Israelies..everyone.
You can play Monday morning quarterback all you want, fuckhead..but it
dont make the commonly accepted thinking was a lie.
You want it to be..desperately..you and your mindnumbed Useful Idiot
ilk and you want to be able to use it as some weapon against the
Right, whom you hate like the worst Islamofascist hates the Western
world.
Sorry jizbreath..it dont work that way. So no matter how many times
you stamp your widdle feet..it aint gonna play your tune.
So try something else, ok? You and yours simply look like a bunch of
used up old fags bitching about the new pretty boys on the block.
Gunner
Prosecute SCAIFE for Global Warming FLOOD Damages
Beaver Shots.
Gunner Asch wrote:
> ... a bunch of
> used up old fags bitching about the new pretty boys on the block.
Ann Couter, Richard Drunkard Scaife's squeeze.
Gunner Asch
FLOOD Damages" <RayLo...@evilfucker.com> wrote:
Who the fuck is Scaife Oil and why should we care? And what the fuck
does it all mean in the grand scheme of things?
Can Air America make payroll yet? Inquiring minds want to know.
Btw...I wonder if Bill Clinton will be going to the funeral of his
croney Ken Lay? And did Hillary murder him like she did Vince Foster?
Gunner
Cliff
wrote:
>You can play Monday morning quarterback all you want, fuckhead..but it
>dont make the commonly accepted thinking was a lie.
Don't be so common from Rush & Faux & your goose-stepping
thought managers.
On top of that you lied yet again ... the UN's inspectors said otherwise
but had to be evicted by the neocns.
Almost nobody at the UN bought the endless winger & neocon lies either
so a great many knew better.
Just a few ignorant brainwashed wingers (mostly in the US with
it's rather controlled press/media, Rush, Faux & the like) were lied
to & fell for it like clueless winger idiots ...
Cliff
wrote:
>You want it to be..desperately..you and your mindnumbed Useful Idiot
>ilk and you want to be able to use it as some weapon against the
>Right, whom you hate like the worst Islamofascist hates the Western
>world.
Is this about "WMDs" again?
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>Btw...I wonder if Bill Clinton will be going to the funeral of his
>croney Ken Lay?
You think he's actually dead?
He & herr shrubbie bank at the same place it seems .....
>And did Hillary murder him like she did Vince Foster?
<snicker>
Monica envy never ends ...
--
Cliff
James
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 11:11:49 -0400, "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:cftua2d2r7catitk8...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 22:57:05 -0400, "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Found those "WMDs" yet?
> >>
> >
> >Only those other liars knew where they were and they aren't talking any
> >more.
>
> Which liars?
I think Gunner's list was longer than mine. How many times do they have to
be listed until you get it.
Robert Sturgeon
Warming FLOOD Damages" <RayLo...@evilfucker.com> wrote:
I'm glad to see Scaife is spending his charity Dollars
wisely.
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Cliff
>
>"Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:dq91b29k02mf9mqmt...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 11:11:49 -0400, "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >news:cftua2d2r7catitk8...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 22:57:05 -0400, "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Found those "WMDs" yet?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Only those other liars knew where they were and they aren't talking any
>> >more.
>>
>> Which liars?
>
>I think Gunner's list was longer than mine. How many times do they have to
>be listed until you get it.
>
>
>> Saddam said he had none. Iraq said that had none. Even Israel
>> said thay had none. None of the neighbors of Iraq were a bit worried
>> either (except about the crazed neocons).
Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff
James
"Cameron L. Spitzer" <spam...@merde.greens.org> wrote in message
news:slrneath48....@truffula.sj.ca.us...
Prosecute SCAIFE for Global Warming FLOOD Damages
Gunner Asch wrote:
> Who the fuck is Scaife Oil and why should we care? And what the fuck
> does it all mean in the grand scheme of things?
It must be terrible, being you with a phobia against search engines and
finding out things you never knew before.
Let me help you out. Richard Drunkard Scaife is son of Sarah Drunkard
Scaife and the heir to her money, which came down the line from the
banker Mellon Fortune, which was greatly enriched with the Spindletop
stike in Texas that created Gulf Oil. In 1984 Gulf Oil was swallowed by
Chevron, son of Satandard Oil. The Gulf stocks miraculously changed the
ink on the paper to now read Chevron stocks. This corporate marriage
made Scaife a family member, an in-law, to the Rockefeller Klan who
owned Satandard Oil and the 28 oil companies it became when the
Satandard Oil Trust was broken up by Teddy Roosevelt's anti-trust law.
Chevron-Exxon-Mobil-Conoco-Arco-Amoco-Esso etc have all been controlled
behind the scenes by the stock owners -- only looks like competition
when four gas stations on a busy street intersection are all selling
gas at the same price.
Scaife raised up Microskirted Ann Coulter as a widdle-bitty John
Bircher law school waif, and taught her everything she knows about
being a loud-mouthed aggressive bald-faced lying prick just like
himself.
As an EXXON-in-Law, fortune derived from (now) Chevron Stocks, and 4%
ownership of Bank of America among other bank stocks passed down
through banker Mellon's heirs, Scaife is part of the Exxon-Jihadist
Masterminds who fund 200 propaganda mills to subvert America to suit
the mostest richest bastards who ever walked the Earth.
Funny that you know the peon-figurehead's name (George Bush) but not
the puppet-master's names. How can you NOT know who controls America?
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research has
received $1,625,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
Research = $50,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research = $6,251,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research = $448,800
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding American Enterprise Institute
for Public Policy Research = $7,022,124
American Legislative Exchange Council (TASSC Patrick J. Michaels
associated)
American Legislative Exchange Council has received $1,189,700 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding American Legislative Exchange Council = $393,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding American Legislative Exchange Council =
$1,545,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding American Legislative Exchange
Council = $215,000
Atlantic Legal Foundation (TASSC Michael Fumento, TASSC Frederick
Seitz, TASSC A. Alan Moghissi)
Atlantic Legal Foundation has received $20,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation = $20,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation = $1,530,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation =
$210,000
Atlas Economic Research Foundation : TASSC Fred Singer (shared offices
with SEPP for nearly ten years)
Atlas Economic Research Foundation has received $680,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Atlas Economic Research Foundation = $68,500
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Atlas Economic Research Foundation =
$2,325,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Atlas Economic Research
Foundation = $5,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Atlas Economic
Research Foundation = $1,524,742
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch (founded under the umbrella of
the National Legal Center for the Public Interest)
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch has received $190,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Legal Center for the Public Interest has received $215,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding National Legal Center for The Public
Interest = $125,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Legal Center for The
Public Interest = $63,000
Cato Institute : TASSC Fred Singer, TASSC Patrick J. Michaels, TASSC
Steve Milloy
Cato Institute has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Cato Institute = $12,999,240
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Cato Institute = $2,057,500
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Cato Institute
= $217,600
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Cato Institute = $832,500
Citizens for A Sound Economy and CSE Educational Foundation
Citizens for A Sound Economy and CSE Educational Foundation has
received $380,250 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation =
$12,906,712
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation =
$2,335,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Citizens for a
Sound Economy Foundation = $35,000
Competitive Enterprise Institute : TASSC Michael Fumento, TASSC Steven
Milloy
Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2,005,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Competitive Enterprise Institute = $666,420
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Competitive Enterprise Institute =
$1,800,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Competitive
Enterprise Institute = $90,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Competitive Enterprise
Institute = $230,300
Consumer Alert : (a sub-group of Competitive Enterprise Institute) :
TASSC Hugh Ellsaesser, TASSC Patrick J. Michaels, TASSC Michael Fumento
Consumer Alert has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Consumer Alert = $10,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Consumer Alert = $28,000
Cooler Heads Coalition (a sub-group of the National Consumer Coalition
which is a sub-group of Consumer Alert which is a sub-group of
Competitive Enterprise Institute) : TASSC Patrick J. Michaels
Defenders of Property Rights : Tobacco Frauds
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Defenders_of_Property_Rights
KOCH OIL Funding Defenders of Property Rights = $55,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Defenders of Property Rights = $1,265,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Defenders of
Property Rights = $7,500
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies : TASSC Fred
Singer,
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies has received
$75,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy
Studies = $1,262,200
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Federalist Society for Law and Public
Policy Studies = $,980,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Federalist
Society for Law and Public Policy Studies = $380,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Federalist Society for Law and
Public Policy Studies = $4,008,000
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment has
received $210,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Foundation for Research on Economics and the
Environment (FREE) = $1,205,500
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Foundation for Research on Economics and
the Environment (FREE) = $1,405,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Foundation for Research on
Economics and the Environment (FREE) = $484,250
George C. Marshall Institute : TASSC Hugh Ellsaesser, TASSC Fred Seitz,
TASSC Bruce Ames, (member of the Cooler Heads Coalition, associate of
Competitive Enterprise Inst. Front Group for BIG OIL)
George C. Marshall Institute has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding George C. Marshall Institute = $30,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George C. Marshall Institute = $2,827,500
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding George C.
Marshall Institute = $100,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding George C. Marshall Institute =
$350,000
George Mason University, Law and Economics Center : TASSC Fred Singer
(IHS),
George Mason University, Law and Economics Center has received
$185,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Mercatus Center, George Mason University has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding George Mason University Foundation, Inc. =
$19,194,643
KOCH OIL Funding George Mason University = $4,753,754
KOCH OIL Funding George Mason University Institute for Humane
Studies = $3,111,457
KOCH OIL Funding Mercatus Center, George Mason University = $427,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University Law and Economics
Center = $860,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University Foundation, Inc.
= $3,665,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University = $1,731,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University Institute for
Humane Studies = $1,050,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for Market Processes, Inc =
$100,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding George Mason
Universit = $980,155
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding George Mason
University (Arlington) = $59,500
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding George Mason University =
$6,665,824
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding George Mason University
Institute for Humane Studies = $797,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Mercatus Center, George Mason
University = $80,000
Heartland Institute
Heartland Institute has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Heartland Institute = $77,578
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Heartland Institute = $335,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Heartland Institute = $40,000
Heritage Foundation : TASSC Patrick J. Michaels, TASSC Fred Singer
Heritage Foundation has received $555,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Heritage Foundation = $1,952,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Heritage Foundation = $22,296,640
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Heritage Foundation =
$8,320,835
on... and on... and on...
Sue
FLOOD Damages" <RayLo...@evilfucker.com> wrote:
Everybody knows it's Da Jooz!!!
Sue
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Looks like George Soros has some competition.
john
Institute for Public
>>Policy = $2,472,000
>> SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Property and Environment Research Center
>>(PERC) = $2,292,000
>> SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Reason Foundation = $2,043,500
>> SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Southeastern Legal Foundation =
>>$1,750,000
>> SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Washington Legal Foundation = $3,870,000
>
>
> Looks like George Soros has some competition.
>
And all that money from both sides is being used against the working
person to make him work harder and keep less of what he earns.
John
Gunner
Damages" <RayLo...@evilfucker.com> wrote:
Because Im not an obsessive manic depressive psychoneurotic with a hard
on for the above groups and individuals?
I curious though...since Bush has only been in office for about 6 yrs or
so..does this mean his group just took over the US, or have they owned
it for a number of decades? Did they control America in the 90s?
How about the 70s?
Say...1963?
Be specific and let us know when they assumed control over the US. Id
like to know if the Democrats have been their pawns for all these years.
Nancy Pelosi..on the payroll of Big Oil, along with Teddy Kennedy and
Babs Strissand, and Alex Baldwin.
Fascinating..simply fascinating. Please fill us all in. Where do the
Freemasons fit in? The Tri-lateralists? The black helicopters one
assumes are simply corporate aircraft belonging to the Oil Overlords.
Ill be waiting to hear the rest of this absoutly fascinating story.
And I take it of course that you are posting from a deep dark bunker
located outside the US, so the 100mpg Carburator Assassins dont do their
dasterdly deed to you.
Please..fill us in.
Gunner
"If thy pride is sorely vexed when others disparage your offering, be
Hawke
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:qlb1b251hvob9iqjl...@4ax.com...
You know if you had half a brain you'd be dangerous. Fortunately, you don't
even have that much of a functioning brain. You're an ignorant, uneducated,
blabbermouth who thinks he knows what is going on. Sorry, numbnuts but you
don't know shit, you only think you do, and there is a big difference
between the two. If you actually read a book once and a while you might know
something but that would be beyond you.
If you actually knew something about what went on in the intelligence
community before the war started you would know that there was lots of data
that contradicted what the Bush people were saying. The only reason that
educated people say Bush lied is because there is ample evidence, of course
it's in book form and therefore off limits for you, that he did. Many people
including Scott Ritter, the weapons inspector, who said this was a rush to
war without evidence. The Germans, Russians, Israelis, and the CIA all had
intelligence that said Saddam was not a threat to anyone but it was all
ignored. You are such a stupid, gullible, hick that suckering you was like
taking candy from a baby. Bush and his cronies gave you a line of bullshit
and you just ate it up and asked for more. Even now after everything has
gone wrong you still are a fool who believes everything the White House
says. What a moron.
We're winning the war aren't we? That is what Bush says. But then we get 40
unarmed Sunnis executed by Shiites today in Baghdad, plus a couple of
bombings. We have five 101st Airborne troopers charged with rape and murder,
we have the massacre in Haditha, we are still receiving beaucoup attacks and
losing one or two troops every day, and last month the morgue in Baghdad had
sixteen hundred corpses brought in for processing. Any thinking person can
see that this is a disaster. That, of course, doesn't include you, you
stupid birdbrain. You should stick to playing pool and welding. Those you
are capable of; anything intellectual, you are automatically disqualified
from because of having less than half a brain.
Hawke
John
Studies have shown right wing Bush supporters have lower than average IQs.
Prosecute SCAIFE for Global Warming FLOOD Damages
Gunner wrote:
> Fascinating..simply fascinating. Please fill us all in.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=167 ExxonWeb
<<<<<<<<<<<
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=150 Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=159 Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=161 Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=162 Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=173 Liars Lineup
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=140 C. Boyden Gray
Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=141 David Koch
Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=142 Dick Armey
Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=93 Kochtopus George
Mason
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=112 Walter Williams
Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=114 Walter Williams
Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=115 Walter Williams
Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=360 Tech Central
All People
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=126 Dirty Ten
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=147 Dirty Seven
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=174 Singer Michaels
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=175 Singer McKitrick
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=176 Singer Circle
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=177 Dirty Ten
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=183 CEI
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=556 CEI Cooler Heads
Consumer Alert FoF
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=557 CEI Cooler Heads
Consumer Alert FoF+
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=356 CEI Key People
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=357 CEI All People
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=561 Christy CEI TASSC
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=579 Christy & Spencer
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=551 Independent Institute
Legates
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=358 American Petroleum
Inst.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=359 AEI All People
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=361 Cato All
People
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=362 CSE Kochtopus
All People
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=84 Singer Thomas
Gale Moore
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=85 George Mason
University
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=88 Politicians
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=90 C. Boyden Gray
Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=92 Baliunas Michaels
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=95 Singer Seitz
Ames
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=96 George C.
Marshall Inst.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=97 George C.
Marshall Inst.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=98 Becky Dunlop
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=104 World Climate
Report
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=117 Richard C.
Lindzen
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=118 Richard C.
Lindzen
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=119 Richard C.
Lindzen
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=120 Richard C.
Lindzen
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=123 Biggest Receiver$
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=135 National Center
PPR
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=143 Committee for
Const Tommorow
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=144 Committee for
Const Tommoro
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=229 Tech Central
Station
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=252 ASCH
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=267 Legates
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=550 National Center for
Policy Analysis, NCPA
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=580 NCPA
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=581 National Center for
Public Policy Research
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=363 George C
Marshall Inst All
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=364 George Mason
All People
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=365 Fred Singer
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=366 Sallie Baliunas
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=367 Fred Seitz
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=368 Steve Milloy
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=369 Sen James
Inhofe
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=370 Sen James
Inhofe & People
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=371 Roger Bate
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=378 Robert Balling
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=379 Ronald Bailey
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=381 Baliunas Soon
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=382 Balinunas Soon
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=383 Ross McKitrick
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=388 Ross McKitrick
overlap Singer
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=389 Balinunas O'Keefe
Soon
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=390 Balinunas O'Keefe
Soon+
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=391 TASSC
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=392 TASSC plus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=392 TASSC plus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=439 Hugh Ellsaesser 1st
pass
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=440 Hugh Ellsaesser 2nd
pass
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=582 McKitrick McIntyre
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=584 Tim Patterson, TCS
plus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=585 Patterson, Ball, APCO
bunch
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=586 APCO Canada Crime Ring
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=587 APCO Canada Crime Ring
-- SINGER
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=588 APCO Canada Crime Ring
-- BALIUNAS
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=589 APCO Canada Crime
Ring -- SOON
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=590 APCO Canada Crime
Ring -- Michaels
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=591 APCO Canada Crime
Ring -- Idso
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=592 BALLING
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=598 APCO Canada Crime
Ring Best View
Gunner
49% of the Population have a less than average IQ.
Odd that about 49% of the population voted Democrat.
Intersting..no?
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
John R. Carroll
I'm pretty sure that the ENTIRE vote wasn't 49 percent of the population
Gunner.
I guess you've sorted the issue prety definitely haven't you. Sometimes a
tard is just a tard.
LMAO
>
> Intersting..no?
Revealing, not interesting.
Prosecute SCAIFE for Global Warming FLOOD Damages
You don't know the half of it -- they are rewriting your laws while you
sleep and whisking judges around in corporate jets to "seminars" at
luxury resorts to explain their plutocratic point of views.
Atlantic Legal Foundation (TASSC Michael Fumento, TASSC Frederick
Seitz, TASSC A. Alan Moghissi)
Atlantic Legal Foundation has received $20,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation = $20,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation = $1,530,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation =
$210,000
Capital Legal Foundation
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Capital Legal Foundation = $425,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Capital Legal Foundation =
$150,000
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch (founded under the umbrella of
the National Legal Center for the Public Interest)
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch has received $190,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Legal Center for the Public Interest has received $215,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding National Legal Center for The Public
Interest = $125,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Legal Center for The
Public Interest = $63,000
Landmark Legal Foundation
Landmark Legal Foundation has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Landmark Legal Foundation = $5,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Landmark Legal Foundation = $6,260,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Landmark Legal Foundation =
$320,000
Mountain States Legal Foundation
Mountain States Legal Foundation has received $2,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Mountain States Legal Foundation =
$280,000
Initially headed by James Watt and now run by William Perry Pendley.
Pendley has referred to environmentalists as communists in disguise, or
"watermelons"- "green on the outside and red on the inside." MSLF files
cases and amicus curiae briefs attacking environmental protections and
designations on behalf of oil, mineral, development and timber
interests. Ron Arnold, anti-environmental leader and executive director
of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, called MSLF "the
litigating arm of the Wise Use Movement."
National Legal Center for the Public Interest
National Legal Center for the Public Interest has received $215,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding National Legal Center for The Public
Interest = $125,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding National Legal
Center for The Public Interest = $63,000
NLCPI was founded in 1975 after the The Pacific Legal Foundation
commissioned a study to determine the best way to increase the impact
of conservative legal foundations in the country. The study determined
that the most effective method was to found a non-litigating umbrella
organization that would in turn fund eight new regional public interest
legal foundations and act as a unifying agent for the PLF and the new
regional foundations. NLCPI filled this role until the 1980s when all
the regional legal foundaitons were established. Since then, it has
became a research organization, publishing scholarly legal writings,
convening conferences, and fundraising. Initial funding for NLCPI came
from J. Simon Fluor whose mineral, nuclear, oil and industrial fortunes
had also bankrolled the Pacific Legal Foundation. General Motors, Ford,
Texaco, Exxon, Gulf and Mobile also contributed seed money to help fund
the new regional legal foundations. In addition, the philanthropic
foundations controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife kicked in $1.8 million
between 1973 and 1980 . In 1976, the NLCPI put up $50,000 and the Coors
foundation $20,000 to found the Mountain States Legal Foundation, the
first of the new regional legal foundations. (CLEAR report, NCLPI)
NLCPI ultimately helped establish the Mountain States Legal Foundation,
Mid-America Legal Foundation, Gulf Coast and Great Plains Legal
Foundation (now Landmark), Mid-Atlantic Legal Foundation, Southeastern
Legal Foundation, New England Legal Foundation, Washington Legal
Foundation, and the Capital Legal Foundation
New England Legal Foundation
New England Legal Foundation has received $7,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding New England Legal Foundation = $855,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding New England Legal Foundation =
$75,200
Pacific Legal Foundation
Pacific Legal Foundation has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Pacific Legal Foundation = $10,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Pacific Legal Foundation = $3,280,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Pacific Legal
Foundation = $10,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Pacific Legal Foundation =
$665,000
Southeastern Legal Foundation
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Southeastern Legal Foundation =
$1,750,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Southeastern Legal Foundation
= $145,000
Washington Legal Foundation
Washington Legal Foundation has received $185,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Washington Legal Foundation = $602,500
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Washington Legal Foundation = $3,870,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Washington Legal Foundation =
$2,460,000
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy has
received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Weidenbaum Center = $94,650
Gunner
Damages" <RayLo...@evilfucker.com> wrote:
I see your notes, but they appear to be opinons. Now here is the post
you snipped out..Please follow along and answer the questions.
How about the 70s?
Say...1963?
Please..fill us in.
Gunner
Gunner
Damages" <RayLo...@evilfucker.com> wrote:
I see your cites..for whatever they are worth, now please answer the
questions from an earlier posting where you claimed Bush & Co. has taken
control of the US completely:
Gunner
yes indeed. The Dems claim that 49% of the entire population are
Democrats, voting or not...so it is indeed as you say..revealing.
>
>
>>
>> Intersting..no?
>
>Revealing, not interesting.
Cliff
Damages" <RayLo...@evilfucker.com> wrote:
>
>Funny that you know the peon-figurehead's name (George Bush) but not
>the puppet-master's names. How can you NOT know who controls America?
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
[
July 7/8, 2006 -- SPECIAL REPORT. Those who claim the Bush administration is a
Nazi regime are not far from the truth. This story is a special investigation of
Bush family slush funds, smuggling, and secret money conduits from and to
various right-wing causes, including some that are extremely violent. The New
York Times is running a story today about the U.S. military recruiting Aryan
Nation, neo-Nazi, and other white supremacists into its ranks. The Times' report
states that Neo-Nazi graffiti has sprung up in Baghdad, in quoting from a report
by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The involvement of white supremacy
and neo-Nazi groups with the Pentagon began in earnest during the
administrations of Reagan and Bush I. According to informed sources who have
tracked the neo-Nazis since the Reagan era, the surge in extreme right-wing
elements in the Federal government was spurred on by the network of Nicaraguan
Contra support activities created to facilitate going around the prohibitions
enacted by the Congress. A key member of that strategy was Cheney's Chief of
Staff David Addington, who was with the CIA, the Iran-Contra Committee in
Congress, and then signed on as senior Vice President for the American Trucking
Associations (ATA). WMR reported yesterday on the involvement of a foundation
set up by McLean Trucking Co., a member of the ATA, with covert Contra support.
]
[
After the collapse of BCCI and the S&Ls, the Bush family required a new slush
fund. It would not be a bank but something with which the Bushes were very
familiar -- an energy company specializing in oil and natural gas. Enron, headed
up by Bush friend and contributor Ken "Kenny Boy" Lay would fill the vacuum left
by BCCI and the S&Ls. Enron, operating with dubious funds from Saudi Arabia,
Russia, and other sources, would become the launching pad for George W. Bush's
run for the governorship of Texas and the presidency of the United States.
Enron's corporate jet was used by Bush in the 2000 campaign. Kenny Boy and
George H. W. and W. Bush were close friends. But after Enron served its purpose,
it, too, was allowed to collapse. Just as with BCCI and the S&Ls, Enron's
employees and shareholders took a bath, while its corporate dons cashed out
before the financial doomsday arrived.
However, another Bush "phoenix" would arise from the ashes of Enron. Northern
Trust, a Chicago-based multinational financial firm, would assume control of
Enron's pension plans, employee savings accounts, 401Ks, and Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) funds. After Enron's bankruptcy in 2002, Northern
Trust and Enron's principals (including Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Andy Fastow,
Lou Pai, and Cliff Baxter (who supposedly committed suicide before his
appearance before a grand jury as a star witness for the government) were sued
in the Houston U.S. District Court by ex-Enron employees.
]
[
On April 18, 2005, The Chicago Tribune ran a story on George W. Bush's 2004
Federal Income Tax Return. Bush listed his address as: Post Office Box 803968,
Chicago, Illinois, 60680. The post office box is the downtown post office box of
-- Northern Trust -- the financial group that held Enron's pension and other
financial assets. It is also the holding company that maintains George W. Bush's
blind trust. Bush money, Enron money, GOP right-wing PAC money, and God only
knows what covert action funds, all handled by the same company. It does sound
all so familiar. Enron is dead and so is Ken Lay. Long live the new Bush slush
fund -- Northern Trust. The question remains. What did Ken Lay know about
Northern Trust? One can assume plenty. For the Bushes, its better that one dead
man is now in a position to keep their secrets.
]
Cliff
>I see your cites
Oh?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>The black helicopters one
>assumes are simply corporate aircraft belonging to the Oil Overlords.
Enron Air?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Because Im not an obsessive manic depressive psychoneurotic with a hard
>on for the above groups and individuals?
Just http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-26-05/discussion.cgi.46.html ?
--
Cliff
John R. Carroll
Cite?
I think what you will find are statements about the VOTING public or
posssibly registered voters and not the population.
In any event, it's clear where you fall. You are in the yop 2 percent of the
stubborn and/or willfully ignorant :>)
infor...@kenlayisalive.org
tracking the movements of the "late" Kenneth L. Lay, convicted felon
and former CEO of Enron Corporation.
You may send all of your reports to sigh...@kenlayisalive.org
Americans for Equal Justice is providing this site as a public service
for all of those who demand that Ken Lay and other white-collar
criminals be brought to justice. We welcome and will publish any and
all relevant information on the whereabouts of Kenneth L. Lay.
Americans for Equal Justice strongly suggests that you not only report
your findings to us, but most importantly, to your local news outlets.
Please send any links to news outlets reporting your sightings to our
organization as well.
You may send all of your reports to sigh...@kenlayisalive.org
We here at Americans for Equal Justice feel strongly that the
possibility exists that Mr. Lay, like Hitler, Elvis, and Tupac before
him, has faked his own death in order to avoid any more unwanted public
scrutiny. If this is true, then it is our responsibility as good
Americans to bring this criminal to justice by reporting his
whereabouts to the proper authorities.
Thank you for your support,
Americans for Equal Justice
http://blogs.dfw.com/startle_grams/2006/07/who_knew_that_k.html
Prosecute SCAIFE for Global Warming FLOOD Damages wrote:
Gunner
>
>We here at Americans for Equal Justice feel strongly that the
>possibility exists that Mr. Lay, like Hitler, Elvis, and Tupac before
>him, has faked his own death in order to avoid any more unwanted public
>scrutiny. If this is true, then it is our responsibility as good
>Americans to bring this criminal to justice by reporting his
>whereabouts to the proper authorities.
I saw Elvis in Boise Idaho last month. He and Jim Morrison are running a
chain of fast food and bait shops. DB Cooper put up the front money.
I know for sure that Janis Joplin is working as a hair stylist in Fresno
and Vince Foster is on Grand Cayman Island working as an executive in an
Off Shore Bank where the Democrats keep their slush fund money.
But if I see Ken Lay..Ill be sure to send a flying saucer over to pick
you up so you can see for yourself and nab the dirty basard.
You can pay my retainer ($200 per diem) via Paypal or in clean, unmarked
bills. Which do you prefer?
Lloyd Parker
Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 09:50:06 -0700, John <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>James wrote:
>>> "Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cftua2d2r7catitk8...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 22:57:05 -0400, "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only those other liars knew where they were and they aren't talking any
>>> more.
>>>
>>>
>>James yet again shows what a right wing delusional freak he is.
>
>John yet again shows what a leftwing fringe kook he is
>
>Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
>
>
>"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
>develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
>That is our bottom line."
>--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
Which doesn't say Iraq had them in 2003.
>
>"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
>We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
>destruction program."
>--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Which doesn't say Iraq had them in 2003.
>
>"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
>deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
>nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
>greatest security threat we face."
>--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
Which doesn't say Iraq had them in 2003.
>
>"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
>times since 1983."
>--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
Which doesn't say Iraq had them in 2003.
>
>"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
>U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
>appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
>effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
>mass destruction programs."
>Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
>-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others,
>Oct. 9, 1998
>
Which doesn't say Iraq had them in 2003.
>"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
>destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
>he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
>-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
Which doesn't say Iraq had them in 2003.
>
>"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
>destruction and palaces for his cronies."
>-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
Which doesn't say Iraq had them in 2003.
Yada, yada, yada. Are quotes 5 years prior to when we went to war your best
case?
Lloyd Parker
Gunner Asch <gun...@nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote:
>Because you little twisted fucktard, everyone thought that Saddam had
>the shit. The King of Jordan, the Demonrats, the Republicans, the
>Libertarians, the British, the Germans, the French, the Russians, the
>Israelies..everyone.
There have been several books written by ex-CIA analysts who say that wasn't
the case, that the CIA wasn't sure at all and indicated lots of caveats, but
the Bushies picked just the items that supported their aim.
cncfixxer
> On 10 Jul 2006 10:02:22 -0700, infor...@kenlayisalive.org wrote:
>
>
> I saw Elvis in Boise Idaho last month. He and Jim Morrison are running a
> chain of fast food and bait shops. DB Cooper put up the front money.
>
for sure
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
She's been doing pilates with Gunter and you wouldn't recognize her now
anyway. Keeps a low profile as a perfume girl at a fine NYC shopping
establishment.
Cliff
>We here at Americans for Equal Justice feel strongly that the
>possibility exists that Mr. Lay, like Hitler, Elvis, and Tupac before
>him, has faked his own death in order to avoid any more unwanted public
>scrutiny.
And he & his friends would get to keep the money it looks like.
And it saves the neocons a pardon.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>I saw Elvis in Boise Idaho last month.
Did you tell the shrubbie?
He must have been looking in the wrong place (Graceland)
but nobody ever claimed he was very bright. Did he ever
find those "WMDs" either?
--
Cliff
Cliff
Far, far worse than that.
They set up departments to spin & fabricate lies.
Example: The Office of Special Plans (or Projects).
"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August"
-- Andrew Card
z
I saw here! She's dating Tupac now.
z
<http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Adam-Carolla-Coulter-7-6-06.mp3>
z
(To be fair, we realize that you wouldn't have the intellectual
sophistication to seek out quotes and cut them up yourself, much less
to actually question something that you've been told which reinforces
the prejudices that you desperately need to be true. We understand that
you're just a rather simple dupe, obediently regurgitating what you've
been fed).
> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
> clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons
> of mass destruction program."
> -- Former President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
>From the same speech:
"Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is
against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made
clear our preference for a diplomatic solution."
> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
>times since 1983."
> Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
>From the news article where this quote was pulled:
"Berger won strong applause when he insisted Washington is still hoping
for a peaceful way to persuade Saddam to give United Nations inspectors
free access to suspected weapons sites."
"Town Meeting Turbulent."
The Columbus Dispatch.
19 February 1998
> "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
>the U.S.
> Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
>appropriate,
> air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
>effectively to
> the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
>destruction
> programs."
> Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
>Daschle,
> John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
>From the same letter:
"Without intrusive inspections, we will not be able to ensure that
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are destroyed in accordance
with U.N. Security Council resolutions. Without those inspections, the
Iraqi people will continue to suffer as a result of international
economic sanctions."
> "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
> destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
> he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
> -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Dec. 16, 1998
from the same speech
"While I support the President [Clinton], I hope and pray that this
conflict [Operation Desert Fox] can be resolved quickly and that the
international community can find a lasting solution through diplomatic
means."
> "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
> destruction and palaces for his cronies."
> -- Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
continuing in the same speech:
"We carried out, with the help of an alliance, a war in which we put
Saddam Hussein back into his box. The United Nations voted on a set of
resolutions which demanded Saddam Hussein live up to his obligations
and get rid of weapons of mass destruction. "
"The United Nations Security Council imposed a set of sanctions on
Saddam Hussein until he did that. It also established an organization
that is set up to monitor whether Hussein had gotten rid of his weapons
of mass destruction."
(In this next case, it's the sentence previous which was left out,
which significantly changes the misquote you pulled out of context)
"The purpose of these hearings is to give the Administration an
opportunity to present its position on Iraq, and to allow this
Committee to examine the Administration's proposal with Administration
witnesses and experts outside of the government."
[The Administration's position is:]
> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
> threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated
> of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
> means of delivering them."
> - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
> "We know that [Saddam Hussein] has stored secret supplies of biological
> and chemical weapons throughout his country."
> -- 2000 Democrat presidential candidate and former Vice-President Al
> Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
continuing in the same speech
"We have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons
with terrorist groups."
"Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and
depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that
nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly
defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily
pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face
from Saddam."
> "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
>to
> deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
>Saddam is in
> power."
> Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
continuing in the same speech:
"Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from
taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly
clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I
believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of
Iraq."
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
>developing weapons of mass destruction."
> Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
continuing in the same speech
"But information from the intelligence community over the past six
months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United
States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction."
> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are
>confident
> that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
>biological
> weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up
>his
> chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports
>indicate
> that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
> Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
continuing in the same speech:
"It is now October of 2002. Four years have gone by in which neither
this administration nor the previous one felt compelled to invade Iraq
to protect against the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction.
Until today. Until 33 days until election day. Now we are being told
that we must act immediately, before adjournment and before the
elections. Why the rush?"
The next one starts with a misquote, to begin with. It's not
> "I will be voting
It's "When I vote".
"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority
> to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
> that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
> and grave threat to our security."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
continuing in the same speech
"Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one
reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass
destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough
weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies. "
"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the
commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work
with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution
setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act
with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by
force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out. "
"If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do
so with others in the international community, unless there is a
showing of a grave, imminent - and I emphasize "imminent" - threat to
this country which requires the President to respond in a way that
protects our immediate national security needs...."
"Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I
will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever
exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will
not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is
imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any
circumstances...."
"The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I
emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam
Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these
weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in
the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent.
None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an
attack."
> "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
> significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
> chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
> refused to do" Rep.
> - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
from the same speech where this quote was pulled out of context, Rep.
Waxman reveals where he got his misinformation:
"What Saddam has done in the interim is not known for certain -- but
there is every evidence, ***from the dossier prepared by the Prime
Minister of Britain, to President Bush's speech at the United
Nations***"...[emphasis mine]
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
> show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
> biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
> nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
> terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that
> if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
> capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying
> to develop nuclear weapons."
> - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
from the same speech where this quote was pulled out of context:
"If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set
a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia
has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India
has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And
what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan? "
"So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it
cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."
> "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
> murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
> particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
> miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
> continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
> ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
> ..."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
from the same speech where this quote was pulled out of context:
"but it is not new. Regrettably the current Administration failed to
take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two
years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity
of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty
war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament...."
"As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States
should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go
to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted
the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the
American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent
action."
z
Well, since you bring up the subject of prewar fibbing, I suppose we're
supposed to not remember that Tenet got smacked by Bush for not getting
with the program regarding the Iraqi threat....
"Iraq is probably not a nuclear threat at the present time." Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 12, 2001 Fox News Channel
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent --
that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I
would not be so certain." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Sept.
18, 2002, House Armed Services Committee
"We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq. We have been
able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might
support weapons of mass destruction development have had some controls
on them... it's been quite a success for ten years." Colin Powell, Feb
11, 2001, Face the Nation
"[The U.N., the U.S. and its allies] have succeeded in containing
Saddam Hussein and his ambitions. [Saddam's] forces are about
one-third their original size. They don't really possess the capability
to attack their neighbors the way they did ten years ago. Containment
has been a successful policy, and I think we should make sure that we
continue it until such time as Saddam Hussein comes into compliance
with the agreements he made at the end of the (Gulf) war. [Iraq is] not
threatening America". Colin Powell, Feb 2001, meeting with Joschka
Fischer, the German Foreign Minister
"[it is] up to the international community [to pick] any alternative
[to Saddam]". George Bush, Sept. 2002
"Not a single Arab state is making the slightest move against our
policy on this issue. And at least a dozen are actively cooperating
with us in whatever field we require. What interests me is that almost
all Arab states are showing a sense of realism and an understanding of
their own interests on this issue." Richard Perle, Feb. 2003
BOB GARFIELD: From WNYC in New York, this is NPR's On the Media. I'm
Bob Garfield.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: And I'm Brooke Gladstone. This week, the bi-partisan
commission reviewing the attacks of 9/11 concluded its exhaustive
investigations. Over the last few months, it has combed through
thousands of documents and interviewed many civilians, military
personnel, and administration officials. On Wednesday, it weighed in on
one of the most hotly contested issues surrounding the war in Iraq,
namely, the alleged relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin
Laden. This is what they said:
MAN: Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied any ties
existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq. So far we have no credible evidence
that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: So that's it then. Finally, an end to months of
dispute over this issue.
BOB GARFIELD: Well, not quite. The next day, in a press conference, the
president gave this response when asked why he kept insisting there was
a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
PRESIDENT BUSH: The reason I keep insisting that there was a
relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a
relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
BOB GARFIELD: Apparently you can drive a stake into the heart of this
story, but you just can't kill it. Again and again, the mis-perception
that there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda has been struck down,
and again and again, it keeps coming back. Standard journalistic
practice dictates that when a statement comes from the administration,
it will be in the lead of the story and at the top of every broadcast
as this latest statement was, and with that a dead assertion is once
again resurrected. Christy Harvey compiles the progress report for the
Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington-based think tank.
She's been following the course of this mis-perception. Christy,
welcome to the show.
CHRISTY HARVEY: Hi. Thank you.
BOB GARFIELD: First of all, let's do - as your column was titled on
Wednesday, An Anatomy of This Myth. Take us through some of the
statements by people telling us over the last year or so that there was
no tie between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
CHRISTY HARVEY: The administration's own weapons inspector, David Kay,
said they'd been on the ground for months, and he said they simply did
not find any real links at all. The CIA director, George Tenet, stated
earlier this year in front of the Senate, that he did not suggest there
was any operational direction or control by Iraq with Al Qaeda. The
Carnegie Endowment for Peace said that there was no proof that there
was any solid evidence. The UN group that was looking into it also came
up blank. So over and over, all of these different intelligence groups
have shot down the claim and said that there just is no proof. But the
problem is: the perception gets into the public minds that it is true,
and proof positive of this is a majority of Americans honestly believe
that there is a link between Saddam and 9/11. Forty-five percent, in a
poll that was taken last April thought that there was definitive proof
-- thought that there was actually evidence that had been found. The
study had been done by the Program on International Policy and
Attitudes, and they said it was the most striking misperception that
they had found about the war in Iraq.
BOB GARFIELD: What did you think on Thursday when the president seemed
to be both acknowledging that there was no direct evidence and yet
re-iterating that there was a connection?
CHRISTY HARVEY: Well, President Bush and the rest of the administration
right now is trying to deflect attention away from the finding of the
9/11 Commission that there is no evidence of a connection by making
this a battle of words. They have gone from saying that there was a
relationship to saying that there was contact. Monday Vice President
Cheney claimed that Hussein, quote, "had long-established ties with Al
Qaeda." And President Bush backed him up the very next day. President
Bush said, quote, "There is no question that Saddam and Al Qaeda had
ties." Even said you can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam. But
just because you say something over and over, it doesn't make it true.
"We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since
(Operation) Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs. ... Usama bin
Ladin and his global network of lieutenants and associates remain the
most immediate and serious threat. Since 1998, Bin Ladin has declared
all U.S. citizens legitimate targets of attack. As shown by the bombing
of our embassies in Africa in 1998 and his Millennium plots last year,
he is capable of planning multiple attacks with little or no warning."
CIA director George Tenet, Feb 7, 2001 agency report to Congress
"With an invasion of Iraq, the world can expect to be inundated with
swamps breeding terrorists. In human terms, your daughters are unlikely
to be able to travel abroad in future years without a large phalanx of
security personnel", Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity,
February 8, 2003
Why the CIA Thinks Bush is Wrong
by Neil Mackay
The Sunday Herald (Scotland)
October 13, 2002
GEORGE Bush was about to be hoist by his own petard. It was Monday last
week, and the president was glad-handing with the great and the good at
the Cincinnati Museum Center in Ohio as he waited to give one of his
most bellicose speeches yet.
In the audience were Ohio state governor Bob Taft and a host of
business and political luminaries. As the deadline approached for the
Senate and House of Representatives vote on whether or not to give Bush
the backing he wanted to attack Iraq, this speech was to be the
president's final flourish in the propaganda war to get the US marching
in line behind him.
Calling Saddam Hussein a 'murderous tyrant', he made it clear why
America had to finish off the Iraqi dictator. 'Facing clear evidence of
peril,' he told the audience, 'we cannot wait for the final proof --
the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.' He
went on: 'We have every reason to assume the worst and we have an
urgent duty to prevent the worst from happening.'
What Bush could not have guessed was that his claims that Iraq was
intent on attacking the USA had already began to unravel. The
denouement started a few days before, on Thursday, October 3, when
Senator Bob Graham, chair of the Senate intelligence committee,
metaphorically donned his hob-nailed boots and began delivering some
well-aimed kicks to the head of George Tenet, the director of the CIA.
The CIA, Graham said, were monkeying with democracy. The agency was not
telling his committee what they needed to know about the Iraqi regime.
Tenet was damaging the ability of Congress to assess the need for
military action.
With one week until Congress voted on authorizing Bush to use force,
Graham was impatient. These are serious times, he said , and he needed
serious answers. Graham and the committee had received an anodyne
intelligence report from the CIA on the threat posed by Iraq the day
before -- Wednesday, October 2. This, however, answered none of the
questions the Senate committee wanted answered: would Saddam use
weapons of mass destruction (WMD); how would his regime react if
attacked; and what would be the consequences of war?
On October 9, almost a week after Tenet received his whipping at the
hands of Graham, the senator's hardman approach paid off when the
director of the CIA admitted that the only reason Saddam would use WMDs
against the United States was if he was backed into a corner -- due to
a strike by the American military -- and realized he was about to fall.
Saddam, Tenet was saying, would only become the nightmare that Bush
envisaged, if Bush attacked him first. Within two days, then, of Bush's
flag-waving call to arms, his most senior intelligence officer had
pulled the rug from under the biggest project of his presidency.
Tenet's admission left Bush in disarray with revelations making it
appear as if the president was exaggerating the threat from Iraq, to
say the least. Tenet, a loyal subject of the Bush administration, had
no option but to come clean -- no matter how difficult a position it
put the president in.
The CIA director's hands were tied on October 3 by Senator Graham, a
democrat who represents Florida, when he told the CIA it was acting
'unacceptably', and added: 'We're trying to carry out a very important
responsibility, and given the nature of this classified information, we
are the only means by which the intelligence community can communicate
to the legislative branch of government.'
There was no way that Tenet could play fast and loose with the Senate.
Both the FBI and CIA have been attacked repeatedly in Congressional
hearings since September 11 for a series of intelligence cock-ups.
Later on October 3, after Graham met with Tenet, his mood had changed
-- Graham seemed to be cooler, calmer. He said the meeting had been
frank and candid. What Graham wanted was a flavor of the classified
National Intelligence Estimates, prepared by the National Intelligence
Council, whose analysts report directly to Tenet. On Monday, October 7,
around the time Bush was in Ohio cheerleading for war , Graham received
just what he had been looking for -- it came in the shape of a letter
from the CIA director. It made astonishing reading. Two days later, on
Wednesday, October 9, the Senate intelligence committee voted to make
the full text of Tenet's letter public.
Tenet's letter said he was declassifying selected material to help the
Senate's deliberations on whether or not to support the president over
attacking Iraq. 'Baghdad, for now, appears to be drawing a line short
of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW (chemical and
biological weapons) against the United States,' the declassified
material read.
'Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be
deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting
terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve conventional means ...
or CBW.
'Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist
terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the US would be his last
chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with
him.'
Tenet went on to declassify formerly secret evidence given at a closed
hearing of the Senate's intelligence committee in which democrat Carl
Levin, was told by a 'senior intelligence witness' that the
'probability ... would be low' of Saddam initiating a WMD attack. The
agent also said the chances were 'pretty high' that Saddam would launch
a WMD attack 'if we initiate an attack and he thought he was in
extremis'. Tenet's revelations left the entire basis of Bush's call to
arms in ruins, and the CIA director swiftly became an embarrassment to
the president as the propaganda war backfired . Tenet was not
deliberately trying to undermine Bush -- he was simply forced into a
corner by the Senate and compelled to reveal his true understanding of
the Iraqi crisis.
Kenneth M Pollack, who worked as a military analyst at the CIA before
serving as a top aide on Persian Gulf affairs on President Clinton's
National Security Council, said: 'The agency line is that it is
basically unlikely that Iraq would give WMDs to terrorists under most
circumstances. The Bush administration is trying to make the case that
Iraq might try to give WMDs to al-Qaeda under certain circumstances.
But what the agency is saying is that Saddam is likely to give such
weapons to terrorists only under extreme circumstances when he believes
he is likely to be toppled.'
The White House tried to put a different spin on the Tenet letter. Sean
McCormack, the White House National Security Council spokesman, said
the portions of the letter released by Graham gave a misleading
impression of the CIA's overall conclusion. 'There were parts of the
Tenet letter that weren't read in,' he said. Other parts were 'taken
out of context', he said. However, Graham's spokesman, Paul Anderson,
denied there had been any misquoting, and the full document, which the
Senate committee has released, supports Anderson's line.
Lee Hamilton, the former chairman of the House of Representatives
Intelligence Committee, added pointedly: 'It's an overwhelming
temptation to manipulate intelligence to serve policy and, to some
extent, I think that's what's happening here with Iraq.'
Tenet did, however, leave the Bush conspiracists something to cling to.
In his letter to Graham, he played up the alleged links between
al-Qaeda and Iraq, saying: 'We have solid reporting of senior level
contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade.
Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qaeda have discussed
safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression ... we have solid evidence of
the presence in Iraq of al-Qaeda members ... we have credible reporting
that al-Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq, who could help them
acquire WMD capabilities ... Iraq has provided training to al-Qaeda
members in areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.'
This was not a smoking gun, but it kept suspicions alive that Iraq
might just pass terrorists WMDs any day now. Tenet's tentative
connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda is a far cry from the findings of
his counterparts in Europe. Try as it might, the UK has been unable to
produce any evidence clearly linking Saddam to bin Laden, and the
French have positively ruled out any connection. Jean-Louis Bruguiere,
France's leading terrorist investigator, says years of investigation
into radical Islamic terror groups have not produced a trace of
evidence linking them to Iraq.
Bruguiere is an investigative magistrate empowered to view French
domestic and foreign intelligence material. Much of the material he
sees is passed on to the CIA and FBI by French intelligence. He says:
'We have not found any link between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Not a trace.
There is no foundation to our investigations for the information given
by the Americans.'
The French believe the secular nature of Saddam's regime deters him
from getting into bed with the likes of bin Laden. It also makes
cozying up to Saddam an anathema to the fundamentalists of al-Qaeda.
Despite the admissions in the Tenet letter, the Senate voted 77-23 in
the early hours of last Friday morning to authorize Bush to use force
against Iraq. Earlier, the House of Representatives had voted the same
way by a margin of 296-133.
It seems that most of the Senate listened to the US Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld's reply to claims that the White House was exaggerating
the Iraqi threat.
'Each of us has a solemn responsibility,' he said, 'to do everything in
our power to ensure that, when the history of this period is written,
the books won't ask why we slept.'
The doubts of the intelligence community were washed away against such
patriotic phrase-making. It should be noted, however, that a few
senators listened to Tenet's admissions and voted 'no'. Among them was
Senator Bob Graham.
©2002 smg sunday newspapers ltd
More likely, say Western military analysts, a slow, stealthy
infiltration of extremist groups could wreak havoc on US, British, and
allied armies during and after a coalition invasion of Iraq.
Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of jihadis - holy warriors - will
view US and British forces in Iraq as prime targets, say these
analysts. They say coalition forces could wind up fighting two
campaigns: one to disarm Saddam Hussein and the other to maintain
security afterward - putting down skirmishes between tribal factions
while defending against possible terrorist attacks.
In a new audiocassette released on Tuesday, a voice believed by US
officials to be that of Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden calls on Muslims
around the Arab world to take up just such stealthy, guerrilla tactics
against "infidels" on Arabian sands.
"True Muslims should act, incite, and mobilize...." the tape said. "We
advise about the importance of drawing the enemy into long, close, and
exhausting fighting, taking advantage of camouflaged positions in
plains, farms, mountains, and cities."
Western military analysts warn that while Iraq is today a mostly
"secular" Islamic regime run by Mr. Hussein's ruling Baath Party,
Western armies are likely to act as magnet that would draw Al Qaeda
across porous borders into Iraq.
"There is a real possibility that an occupation of this nature will
suck in all sorts of jihadis from all over," says Charles Heyman,
editor of Jane's World Armies in London. "A Western occupation almost
certainly invites them in from Saudi Arabia and other countries where
they are currently ensconced."
...
In the "new Iraq," say analysts, Shiite Muslims in the east and south
of the country, and Kurds in the north, are likely to seek quick
revenge against the Baath Party, thus precipitating the need for
coalition troops to stop the ethnic strife even as the tortuous heat of
an Arabian summer closes in.
At the same time, however, the US-led stabilization efforts are likely
to be frustrated by the need to fight a parallel, but not necessarily
related, war on terror. US forces will face major challenges and limits
to their mobility as peacekeepers because of the Pentagon's heightened
"force protection" requirements, add the British analysts.
"As more terrorist groups emerge around Baghdad, it will become
considerably harder to keep the peace," says Alexandra Ashborne,
director of Ashborne-Beaver Associates, a defense-analysis institute in
London. "There will be so much instability on the borders. I think Iran
could pose the most danger. There will be a threat both from Al Qaeda
and other groups that have yet to emerge. There could be kidnapping,
hostage taking, and bomb threats."
The Christian Science Monitor February 13, 2003
James
"z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
news:1152640117.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Hawke
> >the shit. The King of Jordan, the Demonrats, the Republicans, the
> >Libertarians, the British, the Germans, the French, the Russians, the
> >Israelies..everyone.
>
> There have been several books written by ex-CIA analysts who say that
wasn't
> the case, that the CIA wasn't sure at all and indicated lots of caveats,
but
> the Bushies picked just the items that supported their aim.
I've read some of them myself and you're right, there were plenty of signs
that Saddam had nothing for us to worry about. Bush and company simply blew
off any evidence that contradicted the view that Saddam had WMDs. But that
is understandable when you consider that they made the decision to start the
war in Iraq long before the actual war began. According to former Treasury
secretary Paul O'Neil they started talking about Saddam in the very first
meeting they had in 2001. The truth is there was plenty of evidence that
Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Bush ignored it is all. Well, he
got his war, which is what he wanted. I'm not so sure he's happy with what
he got though.
Hawke
Cliff
>But that
>is understandable when you consider that they made the decision to start the
>war in Iraq long before the actual war began. According to former Treasury
>secretary Paul O'Neil they started talking about Saddam in the very first
>meeting they had in 2001.
They had decided to fake up wars by their second week in office.
Saddam had called someone a nasty name it seems.
And all knew that the US does not toss out THE WAR president ....
they already knew how bad they were as without wars they had
no chance at all.
It's sort of in the neocon party platform too. Endless wars ..
--
Cliff
z
James wrote:
> Hmmm, making shit up. None of those quotes were mine Putz.
Uh, no, they were quotes of the people who said them, to whom I
attributed them. Shmendrick the Shmagician.
rsra...@gmail.com
>
> Pacific Legal Foundation
> Pacific Legal Foundation has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since
> 1998.
LOL!
Let's see, that would amount to about $12,000 annually . . . or roughly
40 hours of attorney time per year . . . or 00.2% of the foundation's
total charitable revenues. Yep, there's no doubt that ExxonMobil has
Pacific Legal Foundation right in its pocket! :^D
Just in case you get tired of endlessly cross-posting this silly
propaganda and decide to do some real research, you might also find it
interesting to learn that ExxonMobil contributes vastly larger sums
every year to a variety of environmental organizations. So if you want
to be consistent, I guess you'd have to say that pretty much the whole
environmental movement in America is nothing but a shill for Big Oil,
right?
r.
Cliff
>Just in case you get tired of endlessly cross-posting this silly
>propaganda and decide to do some real research, you might also find it
>interesting to learn that ExxonMobil contributes vastly larger sums
>every year to a variety of environmental organizations.
These are the ones that say there is no global warming and that
Mercury, Lead & Sulfuric Acid are vitamins for the poor, right?
And now run the EPA?
--
Cliff
rsra...@gmail.com
Have you checked?
-r.
Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Damages
rsra...@gmail.com wrote:
> Prosecute SCAIFE for Global Warming FLOOD Damages wrote:
> >
> > Pacific Legal Foundation
> > Pacific Legal Foundation has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since
> > 1998.
>
> LOL!
>
> Let's see, that would amount to about $12,000 annually . . . or roughly
> 40 hours of attorney time per year . . . or 00.2% of the foundation's
> total charitable revenues. Yep, there's no doubt that ExxonMobil has
> Pacific Legal Foundation right in its pocket! :^D
It might also be $110,000, which happens to be equal to $110,000, which
in ordinary layman's terms is $110,000. No big money to you. You gave
Pacific Legal Foundation $110,000, right, and never missed the chump
change. Add up the amounts and pretty soon you have real money. This is
only the tip of the iceberg. Koch owns an entire law school:
professors, classrooms, students
Atlantic Legal Foundation (TASSC Michael Fumento, TASSC Frederick
Seitz, TASSC A. Alan Moghissi)
Atlantic Legal Foundation has received $20,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation = $20,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation = $1,530,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation =
$210,000
Landmark Legal Foundation
Landmark Legal Foundation has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Landmark Legal Foundation = $5,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Landmark Legal Foundation = $6,260,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Landmark Legal Foundation =
$320,000
Mountain States Legal Foundation
Mountain States Legal Foundation has received $2,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Mountain States Legal Foundation =
$280,000
Initially headed by James Watt and now run by William Perry Pendley.
Pendley has referred to environmentalists as communists in disguise, or
"watermelons"- "green on the outside and red on the inside." MSLF files
cases and amicus curiae briefs attacking environmental protections and
designations on behalf of oil, mineral, development and timber
interests. Ron Arnold, anti-environmental leader and executive director
of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, called MSLF "the
litigating arm of the Wise Use Movement."
New England Legal Foundation
New England Legal Foundation has received $7,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding New England Legal Foundation = $855,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding New England Legal Foundation =
$75,200
Pacific Legal Foundation
Pacific Legal Foundation has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Pacific Legal Foundation = $10,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Pacific Legal Foundation = $3,280,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Pacific Legal
Foundation = $10,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Pacific Legal Foundation =
$665,000
Southeastern Legal Foundation
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Southeastern Legal Foundation =
$1,750,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Southeastern Legal Foundation
= $145,000
Capital Legal Foundation
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Capital Legal Foundation = $425,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Capital Legal Foundation =
$150,000
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch (founded under the umbrella of
the National Legal Center for the Public Interest)
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch has received $190,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Legal Center for the Public Interest has received $215,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding National Legal Center for The Public
Interest = $125,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Legal Center for The
Public Interest = $63,000
Washington Legal Foundation
Washington Legal Foundation has received $185,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Washington Legal Foundation = $602,500
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Washington Legal Foundation = $3,870,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Washington Legal Foundation =
$2,460,000
> Just in case you get tired of endlessly cross-posting this silly
> propaganda and decide to do some real research, you might also find it
> interesting to learn that ExxonMobil contributes vastly larger sums
> every year to a variety of environmental organizations. So if you want
> to be consistent, I guess you'd have to say that pretty much the whole
> environmental movement in America is nothing but a shill for Big Oil,
> right?
Actually 0.5% of the Plutocrats own 40% of everything. They let you
keep your trailerhome and that car up on blocks out front that you are
going to restore someday. They let you own your TV, but they own the
mortgage company that sold you that trailer and the rent-to-own store
where you got that TV. You can have your clothes, dog, guns. They own
most of the rest. That's what makes capitalism so great, there's a few
superwinners on the top of the pyramid and a whole lot of losers like
you on the bottom getting trickledown from the top. Don't ask why that
trickle is yellow.
rsra...@gmail.com
> rsra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Prosecute SCAIFE for Global Warming FLOOD Damages wrote:
> > >
> > > Pacific Legal Foundation
> > > Pacific Legal Foundation has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since
> > > 1998.
> >
> > LOL!
> >
> > Let's see, that would amount to about $12,000 annually . . . or roughly
> > 40 hours of attorney time per year . . . or 00.2% of the foundation's
> > total charitable revenues. Yep, there's no doubt that ExxonMobil has
> > Pacific Legal Foundation right in its pocket! :^D
>
> It might also be $110,000, which happens to be equal to $110,000, which
> in ordinary layman's terms is $110,000. No big money to you. You gave
> Pacific Legal Foundation $110,000, right, and never missed the chump
> change. Add up the amounts and pretty soon you have real money.
Add up the amounts and you are still claiming that a minor donor who
contributes two-tenths of one percent of a charitable foundation's
revenues in some sense controls or influences the actions of that
foundation. Does this seem like a plausible assertion to you?
> > Just in case you get tired of endlessly cross-posting this silly
> > propaganda and decide to do some real research, you might also find it
> > interesting to learn that ExxonMobil contributes vastly larger sums
> > every year to a variety of environmental organizations. So if you want
> > to be consistent, I guess you'd have to say that pretty much the whole
> > environmental movement in America is nothing but a shill for Big Oil,
> > right?
>
> Actually 0.5% of the Plutocrats own 40% of everything. . . .
Let me put it differently: Just in case you get tired of endlessly
cross-posting this silly propaganda and decide to do some real
research, you might also find it interesting to learn that ExxonMobil
contributes vastly larger sums every year to a variety of environmental
organizations. So if you want to be consistent, I guess you'd have to
say that pretty much the whole environmental movement in America is
nothing but a shill for Big Oil, right?
r.
Cliff
>Have you checked?
Dig. Might not all be Exxon.
One small hit:
http://www.gatago.com/alt/energy/19532820.html
[
A third of Bush's appointments to federal courts have worked as lobbyists
for polluting industries, such as oil, gas, timber and mining. By May
2004, Bush had appointed over 100 former lobbyists and company lawyers to
head agencies that regulate industry and the environment. These former
lobbyists redefine policies to shift regulations in favor of their former
clients, most often polluting industries.
Bush undid changes in Clinton policies to enforce environmental laws by
rolling back over 300 regulations. Reversed policies include Clean Air and
Clean Water regulations, mining regulations, the roadless forest
initiative, the Northwest Forest Plan, Sierra Nevada logging policies, the
ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park, fisheries management, hazardous
waste regulations and coastal zone planning. The administration encourages
loggers, developers, snowmobilers and property-rights advocates to sue the
government to overturn environmental regulations, and the Department of
Justice, formerly entrusted with enforcing laws, defends environmental
laws in language clearly intended to weaken them.
Civil penalties imposed by the EPA against polluters have set a record
15-year low, and cases against refineries and coal-fired power plants have
declined 90 percent. There are dozens of lowered standards. Civil
penalties imposed by the EPA against polluters have set a record 15-year
low, and cases against refineries and coal-fired power plants have
declined 90 percent. In August 2003, Bush's EPA allowed thousands of power
plants, oil refineries, and industrial plants to upgrade their operations
without reducing pollution. In April 2006, Bush suspended environmental
rules for gasoline manufacturing and he continues to push for drilling in
the protected Alaskan wilderness and other environmentally fragile areas.
Bush's Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempted oil and gas drilling on public
lands from abiding by the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts and
other environmental laws. Bush's Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempted oil
and gas drilling on public lands from abiding by the Clean Water and Safe
Drinking Water Acts and other environmental laws, and encouraged the BLM
to issue a record 7,000 drilling permits on public lands. Bush oversaw the
largest timber sale in modern history—372 million board feet or 30 square
miles—in southwest Oregon, despite over 20,000 citizens' opposition, and
his 2007 budget proposes to sell off $1 billion worth of public land.
]
--
Cliff
Lloyd Parker
rsra...@gmail.com wrote:
>Prosecute SCAIFE for Global Warming FLOOD Damages wrote:
>>
>> Pacific Legal Foundation
>> Pacific Legal Foundation has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since
>> 1998.
>
>LOL!
>
>Let's see, that would amount to about $12,000 annually . . . or roughly
>40 hours of attorney time per year . . . or 00.2% of the foundation's
>total charitable revenues. Yep, there's no doubt that ExxonMobil has
>Pacific Legal Foundation right in its pocket! :^D
>
And Exxon is just ONE energy company!
>Just in case you get tired of endlessly cross-posting this silly
>propaganda and decide to do some real research, you might also find it
>interesting to learn that ExxonMobil contributes vastly larger sums
>every year to a variety of environmental organizations.
Guilty conscience? Kind of like the mob contributing to Catholic Charities?
Lloyd Parker
rsra...@gmail.com wrote:
>Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Damages wrote:
>> rsra...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Prosecute SCAIFE for Global Warming FLOOD Damages wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Pacific Legal Foundation
>> > > Pacific Legal Foundation has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since
>> > > 1998.
>> >
>> > LOL!
>> >
>> > Let's see, that would amount to about $12,000 annually . . . or roughly
>> > 40 hours of attorney time per year . . . or 00.2% of the foundation's
>> > total charitable revenues. Yep, there's no doubt that ExxonMobil has
>> > Pacific Legal Foundation right in its pocket! :^D
>>
>> It might also be $110,000, which happens to be equal to $110,000, which
>> in ordinary layman's terms is $110,000. No big money to you. You gave
>> Pacific Legal Foundation $110,000, right, and never missed the chump
>> change. Add up the amounts and pretty soon you have real money.
>
>Add up the amounts and you are still claiming that a minor donor who
>contributes two-tenths of one percent of a charitable foundation's
>revenues in some sense controls or influences the actions of that
>foundation. Does this seem like a plausible assertion to you?
Sure, and you've reversed the cause and effect. Because the "institute" is a
right-wing shill, Exxon and other corporations contribute to it.
>
>> > Just in case you get tired of endlessly cross-posting this silly
>> > propaganda and decide to do some real research, you might also find it
>> > interesting to learn that ExxonMobil contributes vastly larger sums
>> > every year to a variety of environmental organizations. So if you want
>> > to be consistent, I guess you'd have to say that pretty much the whole
>> > environmental movement in America is nothing but a shill for Big Oil,
>> > right?
>>
>> Actually 0.5% of the Plutocrats own 40% of everything. . . .
>
>Let me put it differently: Just in case you get tired of endlessly
>cross-posting this silly propaganda and decide to do some real
>research, you might also find it interesting to learn that ExxonMobil
>contributes vastly larger sums every year to a variety of environmental
>organizations. So if you want to be consistent, I guess you'd have to
>say that pretty much the whole environmental movement in America is
>nothing but a shill for Big Oil, right?
If so, they aren't getting their money's worth!
>
>r.
>
rsra...@gmail.com
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <1153054335....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> rsra...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Damages wrote:
> >> rsra...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > Prosecute SCAIFE for Global Warming FLOOD Damages wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Pacific Legal Foundation
> >> > > Pacific Legal Foundation has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since
> >> > > 1998.
> >> >
> >> > LOL!
> >> >
> >> > Let's see, that would amount to about $12,000 annually . . . or roughly
> >> > 40 hours of attorney time per year . . . or 00.2% of the foundation's
> >> > total charitable revenues. Yep, there's no doubt that ExxonMobil has
> >> > Pacific Legal Foundation right in its pocket! :^D
> >>
> >> It might also be $110,000, which happens to be equal to $110,000, which
> >> in ordinary layman's terms is $110,000. No big money to you. You gave
> >> Pacific Legal Foundation $110,000, right, and never missed the chump
> >> change. Add up the amounts and pretty soon you have real money.
> >
> >Add up the amounts and you are still claiming that a minor donor who
> >contributes two-tenths of one percent of a charitable foundation's
> >revenues in some sense controls or influences the actions of that
> >foundation. Does this seem like a plausible assertion to you?
>
> Sure, and you've reversed the cause and effect. Because the "institute" is a
> right-wing shill, Exxon and other corporations contribute to it.
The original poster would have us believe that a small charitable
contribution from ExxonMobil automatically makes a group a right-wing
shill. I'm just saying consistency requires the same conclusion
regarding the environmental orgs that receive far larger contributions
from the same donor.
You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that any non-profit that
supports policies you oppose is automatically a right-wing shill,
regardless of where its funding comes from. Which basically is
nothing more than name-calling, right?
r.
Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Wildfires Damages
rsra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> It might also be $110,000, which happens to be equal to $110,000, which
> > >> in ordinary layman's terms is $110,000. No big money to you. You gave
> > >> Pacific Legal Foundation $110,000, right, and never missed the chump
> > >> change. Add up the amounts and pretty soon you have real money.
> The original poster would have us believe that a small charitable
> contribution from ExxonMobil automatically makes a group a right-wing
> shill.
NO, the original poster would have people believe that Satandard Oil
was split into 28 companies by the Supreme Court
(Exxon-Mobil-Conoco-Chevron-Arco-Amoco etc came from these) and the
same owners still owned the stocks, so the HEIRS of Exxon stocks and
Conoco stocks and Chevron stocks and their allies and partners each
make contributions to hide the total amounts coming from one small
group of plutocrats. Just showing the EXXON contributions alone
consumes vast quantities of space. SCAIFE owned Gulf Oil stocks, but
that got traded in for Chevron stocks in 1984 when Chevron swallowed
Gulf, so SCAIFE became a Rockefeller-in-law by corporate marriage. When
you see EXXON and SCAIFE both contributing, that is one single
money-trust acting on behalf of its major stockholders, and it is
acting to a plan conducted over time to accomplish a long-term purpose.
They are not stupid, random, aimless players that you make them out to
be.
Exxon's donation is small to CATO IN$TITUTE:
Cato Institute : TASSC Fred Singer, TASSC Patrick J. Michaels, TASSC
Steve Milloy
Cato Institute has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Cato Institute = $12,999,240
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Cato Institute = $2,057,500
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Cato Institute
= $217,600
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Cato Institute = $832,500
Koch OIL contributed $12,000,000, SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE $2,000,000, even
wittle-bitty White Star OIL Fortune gave more than twice as much as
EXXON, but the whole of CATO is employed for the whole of the interests
of those who fund it. Just making people aware of the EXXON portion is
only part of the story.
EXXON funds zero environmental groups who could injure it's political
takeover. The Rockefeller-founder of EXXON (Satandard Oil) never gave
$1 in charity without getting back $5 somehow in the deal. Closer
examinations of those "enviro" groups wil show that Exxon stockholders
are making profits in there, unless the genepool has deteriorated in
the past 100 years of in-breeding of plutocrats.
> I'm just saying consistency requires the same conclusion
> regarding the environmental orgs that receive far larger contributions
> from the same donor.
No, you are trying to deceive by using the well-known camoflage that
EXXON bosses perfected to whitewash the Ludlow Massacre. They brought
in the "Father of Public Relations", Ivy Lee, to wash the blood off of
the Rockefeller name. Ivy Lee went on to be hired by Germany's Nazi
Government, importing may tons of propaganda made by nazis in Germany.
Under congressional committee examination Lee confessed "tons, world
without end", indicating the uncuntable nature of the brainwash
materials Lee spread around America.
Lee's program for Rockefeller's then is the same you are arguing now:
they are mainly "philanthopists" who happen to have the money to give
away from some industry stocks they own. The lack of political
interests is surely proven by Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, West
Virginia Governor Rockefeller and Arkansas Governor Rockefeller to
prove they don't have a political bone in the family. Nope, no politics
there, no politics in the Council of Foreign Relations, as a matter of
fact, no politics in the WTC towers they built and named for David and
Nelson. Nope, never a speck of politics anywhere.
rsra...@gmail.com
wrote:
> rsra...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > >> It might also be $110,000, which happens to be equal to $110,000, which
> > > >> in ordinary layman's terms is $110,000. No big money to you. You gave
> > > >> Pacific Legal Foundation $110,000, right, and never missed the chump
> > > >> change. Add up the amounts and pretty soon you have real money.
>
>
> > The original poster would have us believe that a small charitable
> > contribution from ExxonMobil automatically makes a group a right-wing
> > shill.
>
> NO, the original poster would have people believe that Satandard Oil
> was split into 28 companies by the Supreme Court
> (Exxon-Mobil-Conoco-Chevron-Arco-Amoco etc came from these) and the
> same owners still owned the stocks, so the HEIRS of Exxon stocks and
> Conoco stocks and Chevron stocks and their allies and partners each
> make contributions to hide the total amounts coming from one small
> group of plutocrats. Just showing the EXXON contributions alone
> consumes vast quantities of space. SCAIFE owned Gulf Oil stocks, but
> that got traded in for Chevron stocks in 1984 when Chevron swallowed
> Gulf, so SCAIFE became a Rockefeller-in-law by corporate marriage. When
> you see EXXON and SCAIFE both contributing, that is one single
> money-trust acting on behalf of its major stockholders, and it is
> acting to a plan conducted over time to accomplish a long-term purpose.
> They are not stupid, random, aimless players that you make them out to
> be.
LOL! The vast, right-wing conspiracy lives, eh?
:^D
> EXXON funds zero environmental groups who could injure it's political
> takeover.
You have absolutely no idea where ExxonMobile's charitable
contributions go, do you?
> The Rockefeller-founder of EXXON (Satandard Oil) never gave
> $1 in charity without getting back $5 somehow in the deal.
Um, that would be as opposed to the U.S. government's funding of
environmental groups who use the cash to lobby for government control
over essentially everything?
> Closer
> examinations of those "enviro" groups wil show that Exxon stockholders
> are making profits in there, unless the genepool has deteriorated in
> the past 100 years of in-breeding of plutocrats.
Documentation, please. Give the figures, organizations, and how the
funds flow back to Exxon. I'm sure the IRS would be able to make good
use of this information, so let's see it.
> > I'm just saying consistency requires the same conclusion
> > regarding the environmental orgs that receive far larger contributions
> > from the same donor.
>
> No, you are trying to deceive by using the well-known camoflage that
> EXXON bosses perfected to whitewash the Ludlow Massacre. They brought
> in the "Father of Public Relations", Ivy Lee, to wash the blood off of
> the Rockefeller name. Ivy Lee went on to be hired by Germany's Nazi
> Government, importing may tons of propaganda made by nazis in Germany.
> Under congressional committee examination Lee confessed "tons, world
> without end", indicating the uncuntable nature of the brainwash
> materials Lee spread around America.
In other words, you have absolutely no idea where ExxonMobile's
charitable contributions go, do you?
> > You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that any non-profit that
> > supports policies you oppose is automatically a right-wing shill,
> > regardless of where its funding comes from. Which basically is
> > nothing more than name-calling, right?
Right, apparently.
-r.
Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Wildfires Damages
Yes. You haven't provided any different data than I did. ExxonMobile's
charitable contributions go here:
Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty has received
$160,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Africa Fighting Malaria has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research
has received $1,309,523 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Council on Science and Health has received $110,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research has
received $1,625,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory
Studies has received $105,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Friends of the Institute for Economic Affairs has received
$50,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Legislative Exchange Council has received $1,189,700 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Spectator Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology has received $49,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Aspen Institute has received $61,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Atlantic Legal Foundation has received $20,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Atlas Economic Research Foundation has received $680,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch has received $190,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Cato Institute has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for American and International Law has received $177,450 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for Strategic and International Studies has received
$1,112,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise has received $230,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the New West has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has
received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Centre for the New Europe has received $170,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Chemical Education Foundation has received $80,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Citizens for A Sound Economy and CSE Educational Foundation has
received $380,250 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow has received $472,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Communications Institute has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2,005,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Congress of Racial Equality has received $250,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Consumer Alert has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies has received
$75,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment has
received $210,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Fraser Institute has received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Free Enterprise Action Institute has received $50,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Free Enterprise Education Institute has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation has received $857,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
George C. Marshall Institute has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
George Mason University, Law and Economics Center has received
$185,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has received $30,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Heartland Institute has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Heritage Foundation has received $555,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University
has received $295,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Hudson Institute has received $25,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Independent Institute has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Institute for Energy Research has received $147,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Institute for Regulatory Science, 9200 Rumsey Road, Suite 205
Columbia, MD 21045 USA
Institute for Senior Studies has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Institute for the Study of Earth and Man has received $76,500 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
International affiliate of the American Council for Capital
Formation.
International Policy Network - North America has received $295,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
International Republican Institute has received $105,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
James Madison Institute has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Landmark Legal Foundation has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Lexington Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Lindenwood University has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Mackinac Center has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research has received $175,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Institute has received $60,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Research Center has received $150,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Mercatus Center, George Mason University has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Mountain States Legal Foundation has received $2,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
National Association of Neighborhoods has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Black Chamber of Commerce has received $150,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Center for Policy Analysis has received $390,900 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Center for Public Policy Research has received $280,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Environmental Policy Institute has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Legal Center for the Public Interest has received $215,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Wilderness Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
New England Legal Foundation has received $7,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Pacific Legal Foundation has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy has received $370,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Property and Environment Research Center, Political Economy Research
Center has received $115,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Reason Foundation has received $381,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Science and Environmental Policy Project has received $20,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Stanford University GCEP has received $100,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station has received
$95,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Texas Public Policy Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc. has received $40,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy has received
$688,575 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Justice Foundation (formerly Texas Justice Foundation) has
received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Washington Legal Foundation has received $185,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy has
received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Yes. You haven't provided any different data than I did. ExxonMobile's
charitable contributions go here:
Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty has received
$160,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Africa Fighting Malaria has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research
has received $1,309,523 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Council on Science and Health has received $110,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research has
received $1,625,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory
Studies has received $105,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Friends of the Institute for Economic Affairs has received
$50,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Legislative Exchange Council has received $1,189,700 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Spectator Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology has received $49,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Aspen Institute has received $61,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Atlantic Legal Foundation has received $20,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Atlas Economic Research Foundation has received $680,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch has received $190,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Cato Institute has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for American and International Law has received $177,450 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for Strategic and International Studies has received
$1,112,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise has received $230,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the New West has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has
received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Centre for the New Europe has received $170,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Chemical Education Foundation has received $80,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Citizens for A Sound Economy and CSE Educational Foundation has
received $380,250 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow has received $472,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Communications Institute has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2,005,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Congress of Racial Equality has received $250,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Consumer Alert has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies has received
$75,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment has
received $210,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Fraser Institute has received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Free Enterprise Action Institute has received $50,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Free Enterprise Education Institute has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation has received $857,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
George C. Marshall Institute has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
George Mason University, Law and Economics Center has received
$185,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has received $30,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Heartland Institute has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Heritage Foundation has received $555,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University
has received $295,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Hudson Institute has received $25,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Independent Institute has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Institute for Energy Research has received $147,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Institute for Regulatory Science, 9200 Rumsey Road, Suite 205
Columbia, MD 21045 USA
Institute for Senior Studies has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Institute for the Study of Earth and Man has received $76,500 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
International affiliate of the American Council for Capital
Formation.
International Policy Network - North America has received $295,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
International Republican Institute has received $105,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
James Madison Institute has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Landmark Legal Foundation has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Lexington Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Lindenwood University has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Mackinac Center has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research has received $175,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Institute has received $60,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Research Center has received $150,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Mercatus Center, George Mason University has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Mountain States Legal Foundation has received $2,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
National Association of Neighborhoods has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Black Chamber of Commerce has received $150,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Center for Policy Analysis has received $390,900 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Center for Public Policy Research has received $280,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Environmental Policy Institute has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Legal Center for the Public Interest has received $215,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Wilderness Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
New England Legal Foundation has received $7,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Pacific Legal Foundation has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy has received $370,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Property and Environment Research Center, Political Economy Research
Center has received $115,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Reason Foundation has received $381,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Science and Environmental Policy Project has received $20,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Stanford University GCEP has received $100,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station has received
$95,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Texas Public Policy Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc. has received $40,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy has received
$688,575 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Justice Foundation (formerly Texas Justice Foundation) has
received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Washington Legal Foundation has received $185,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy has
received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Cliff
>In other words, you have absolutely no idea where ExxonMobile's
>charitable contributions go, do you?
Paying lobbyists & PACs is hardly charity no matter what the IRS
might say.
--
Cliff
Lloyd Parker
List all the environmental groups the US gov't funds.