About | Join | Sign in

Who Called Us

The phone is ringing, and I don't recognize the number,
All Caller ID says is, "NAME UNAVAILABLE".
Please help me figure out who is calling and what they want

circulation

circulation

Circulation | circulation 3 | Circulation Inc |

circulation calls from 17 phone numbers:

213-289-5514 214-580-1098 214-956-0872 215-383-5682 229-435-2170 305-587-2153 402-982-0438 402-982-0458 407-251-6572 616-597-4074 617-405-5034 619-668-5617 619-668-5671 619-688-5671 626-273-8235 707-217-1089 865-622-4950

200 Comments

(305) 587-2153

November 11th, 2013 Phil PA

Circulation

November 1st, 2013 jcross1231 KS

Answered and nobody was there.

(865) 622-4950

June 27th, 2013 Ernie NC

This caller calls 3-4 times a day and leaves no messages.

March 17th, 2013 Jim AL

These scam artist call 2 to 3 times a day, 7 days a week. Funny how everyone knows where these idiots are but the police want do anything about it. Maybe I should contact the Tn. District of Attorney

(215) 383-5682

November 10th, 2012 KMR VA

I got calls from 215-383-3390. It leads back to a company called Peerless Network of Pennsylvania LLC-PA. Their bussiness phone number is 412-430-5507. I sugest everyone call them repeatedly and let them see how it feels. Try not to talk in understandable English, as thier calls sound as if they are made from India.

(865) 622-4950

September 25th, 2012 Brenda IL

This caller is calling every day, several times a day. I just had two calls from this number within 3 minutes.My phone number is on the do Not Call registry, for all the good that does.

I just want this caller to LEAVE ME ALONE!!!

September 15th, 2012 Ray KY

I canceled the Louisville paper.

February 19th, 2012 Tracy

I answered because they called twice. A very nice man asked for me and said he was calling on behalf of my local newspaper, and I could reach his office at some 800 number, and thank you very much. That was the end of the call. No questions asked, nothing. The first time they called I didn't answer, and they didn't leave a message, so I know he didn't think I was voice mail. I cancelled my local paper a while back, too. I noticed people are saying the number is from Kentucky; I live in IL.

(617) 405-5034

November 16th, 2011 BiSh MA

Cussed 'em out. The male jerk was stunned. He tried to tell me I didn't have to cuss, and I had to remind him that he called me, hiding his identity, and if he doesn't like it, STOP CALLING ME! Screw them as I am tired of harassing and unsolicited calls. Added to block caller list.

Cussing 1. Telejerk 0.

May 19th, 2011 harry MA

Called, left message about lowering credit card rates.

(402) 982-0458

January 8th, 2011 AJ-K TN

Called me again. Said she was someone from Publisher Service. I wasn't sure I heard right so I asked her to repeat it and she did. She said something about me signing up online with one of their affiliates. I did not. This girl even knew my name somehow. Anyway, I hung up.
I am wondering now if these are the same people who have called me multiple times before and claimed to be from a magazine company. They claimed I had signed up for some plan, which I had not. And they claimed I had not paid for my magazine subscription, which I had.

January 5th, 2011 AJ-K TN

Called and said something unintelligible. Heard my voice echoing, which was annoying. I asked them who they were and they hung up.

(214) 956-0872

December 30th, 2010 LOLOLO TX

NEVER PICK UP YOUR TELEPHONE ON THESE PEOPLE..These people are con-artists...

(402) 982-0458

December 10th, 2010 Dave FL

Caller sated I had won or purchased 1,000 something. Line was not clear. They hung up, I called back and the voice on the other end asked me if I wished to be removed from their calling list. I said I did. VERY STRANGE!

(229) 435-2170

October 18th, 2010 Lynn KY

How do I stop this number from calling me & hanging up several times a day....EVERY DAY!!!!!!
This is really annoying.... 229-435-2170.....is there someone I can report this too?
They should really have their Phone service shut off if they are going to bug the CRAP out of so many people.
HOW STUPID are these A_ _ Holes any how???
I too am on the do not call list but they are still calling me.

(402) 982-0458

October 16th, 2010 TomS PA

Calling in regards to my discover magazine subscription. I don't receive Discover Magazine. They have now sunk to a new low, with false or errant information in which obviously someone is making money off of.

(402) 982-0438

September 23rd, 2010 Steve TX

Vacation Scam

(229) 435-2170

September 10th, 2010 Johnston County NC

The caller said that she is calling from the Rocky Mount Telegram, and asked if I wanted to subscribe to the paper. When I asked how she got my out-of county phone number, I heard about 15 seconds of background noise, then a hang up. Excuse me, Rocky Mount Telegram, it is obvious that you hired crooks to call people on the Do Not Call List. You are as accountable as they are, and I am reporting both of you.

September 8th, 2010 Walker DC

I just called the number below and told them that I keep getting calls from them, the lady was very polite and asked my city and state, then a few seconds later she said they were calling to see if we recieved our local paper. I told her we did not because we never read it when we got it. She took my name and the number they called and said she would take care of it. So hopefully the calls will stop.

(865) 622-4950

August 30th, 2010 Hannah TN

IT is the Knoxville News Sentinel circulation and delivery department trying to sell papers.

(229) 435-2170

August 27th, 2010 Jack VA

If you call 229-883-0474 and ask nicely to have your number removed from thier list they have no problems doing and are very nice and polite. Dont call and be a jerk though even if it has been frustrating in the past. This will only lead to more frustration. They do take your name off the list and they will stop calling if you request it.

(402) 982-0458

August 24th, 2010 Jimmy CA

Today, August 24, 2010 at 10:29 AM PST I received a call (Duration 08:25) from a telemarketing company saying that I was chosen as a recipient for a $1000 online shopping spree. I spoke to a lady named Karen(if that was her real name) and she asked me for my age (19) and occupation (student with no lines of credit). She basically told me that in order to qualify for the shopping spree I had to purchase a *free* 5 magazine subscription. According to her, the magazines were free but I had to assist with the shipping which was 3.83/wk (I'm not sure if it was per magazine or the bundle of 5 but I wouldn't be surprised if it were the former, amounting to $19.15/wk) which they would charge me monthly for. She then told me that I would be transfered to her supervisor to collect my debit card information.

After being on hold for a minute or two, the supervisor picked up and asked me if Karen had explained everything to me in a polite manner and I told her yes. She then asked me if I had any more questions before she collected my card info and I asked her how long the subscription would last before I was allowed to cancel. She dodged a direct answer by saying that I couldn't cancel the subscription but rather reassign my subscription to their "vast collection of over 300 magazines." I then reiterated my question to which she reluctantly slurred "the subscription is 5 years." At this point I told her that I was a student and that money was hard to come by. She told me have a good day and proceeded to swiftly hang up the phone before I could tell her to remove me from their calling list.

*Note: At no time during this transaction did the company disclose their name which is a federal crime.

August 21st, 2010 JS DC

They have called every day for 3 days - including Saturday afternoon while I was lying down for a nap. I assume it is some sort of solicitation for a magazine subscription although I (a) have not had any subscriptions for about ten years and (b) am on the do not call list.

I just let the phone ring, but, if it does not stop by the end of next week, will log a complaint with the Do-Not-Call List.

(229) 435-2170

August 19th, 2010 g.west

Circulations Inc
1624 South Philema Road
Albany GA 31701
229-883-0474
fax 229-883-0788
info@circulationsinc.com
circulationsinc.com

keep getting calls from these idiots....they wont leave a message and wont talk when I answer the phone.....whats the point of calling

August 16th, 2010 AK VA

Unbelievable! They will call you 10 times a day and hang up on you. In my family's case I answer most of the time so I wouldn't be surprised they keep calling-and hanging up on me-until they get a male voice. The nerve!

(214) 956-0872

August 7th, 2010 rich CA

CAUTION: network of thieves and very slick

i started getting calls like this after i went to the police about my mail-thief hacker housemate. police are useless (or worse). i then went to the landlord and got the landlord involved and my "roomie" had to shut down his server, couldn't pay the rent, and had to move. he had been leasing a new luxury car each month, went on carribean cruises, never worked, and never had any money; only stolen credit. if i wasn't broke from

I have good information about this operation, but the police aren't any good for anything except busting black kids (try coaching on the other side of the tracks in the city and you'll quickly find out what i mean, and i'm not even black).

good luck

(402) 982-0438

August 5th, 2010 unhappy CA

I am finding alot of these calls do come from Citistream www.citistream.com They claim they are not a telemarketing firm. Yet they do allow telemarketers to use thier system. I have now spoken with David at citistream. he did state that they make over 2.5 million calls per day and the equipment is based out of Argentina. here is their direct number 402-982-0200 I told David that the calls are to stop now or I will persue the calls with the FTC. He claims that he will have it taken care of within 48 hours. It is illegal to use an autodialer as they are, and of course call a cell phone if they are not a charity etc.. So there is plenty of things that can get them into big trouble here. Of course he claims that they are coming from other companys that use Citistreams connectivity. HUMMMM.. Well see.

(229) 435-2170

August 2nd, 2010 GWD NC

These folks were calling for the Wilson Daily Times in Wilson, NC They called on my personal cell. Informed them that we already take that paper. They have called me several times since. Each time, they hang up when I answer. I am on the Do Not Call List and they continue. I have reported this to our local paper who they claim to be calling for.

July 26th, 2010 NC NC

dudes really next time you call i feel real sorry for the lonely loser on the other end, im 17 but your driving me nuts i have bigger things to do than run to the phone every 5 seconds hoping its not a family emergency so yeah next time you call actually SPEAK or im gonna for real give you a whole lot to listen to. I dont deal with phony bull s**t if you wanna be fake about something then ill give you a whole lot of fake caring what the h**l you think...SUCK IT

July 21st, 2010 Glenda OK

These folks have called every day for a week, but when I answer the phone I just hear background noise and then they hang up. What's the point of them interrupting my day to not even talk to me? Very irritating. And I AM on the Do Not Call list.

(214) 956-0872

July 19th, 2010 Debbie CA

They phone several times a day. Have since blocked the number.

(402) 982-0458

July 19th, 2010 D MA

They call every day, sometimes twice a day. This is another of those numbers that calls in cycles. I've kept a caller id list for several years, and now have software that tracks them. I answered earlier this year, and got questioned about our subscription to TV Guide. We don't have one. Once I've determined that a number is a garbage call, I don't bother with them. It's their dime, let 'em waste it.

July 15th, 2010 Tina

This number calls 7 or 8 times daily, never leave a message & no one is ever on the line when I answer. Today I answered & said nothing.....had a sound that appeared to be them hanging up but then I heard talking after just waiting a few seconds but no one seemed to hear me. I was treated to a room full of people discussing margaritas and parties. One women (who I assume was the one who called me)starts talking about her daughter's party being held 8/6 & how fun her husband Dan is. Then I hear a bunch of beeping & this same woman grumbles "what the hell does she want?" a few seconds later "what call is on hold?" and then apparently she realized she had me on speaker & hung up.
I still have no clue what they want & I have called back only to be told to press 1 to be removed & here we are a week later, a week filled with me pressing 1 & still getting calls

(214) 956-0872

July 14th, 2010 Keith

San Jose Mercury new soliciting news paper subscribtions

(865) 622-4950

July 13th, 2010 ok PA

4 rings, hung up as soon as we answered

(214) 956-0872

June 29th, 2010 Dimmerswitch WA

Call went to voicemail, no message left

(617) 405-5034

June 25th, 2010 NORTON MA MA

CALLED AND LEFT NO MESSAGE. TRIED TO CALL BACK BUT "YOUR CALL CAN NOT BE COMPLETED AS DIALED."

(865) 622-4950

June 23rd, 2010 moc

Call at least twice a day....never leave a message

June 17th, 2010 David GA

I received a call from 865-622-4950 on my cellphone today but did not know anyone from the (865) area code so I did not call it back. My wife looked the number up on the computer and found that other people had received calls from this number. My cellphone number is listed with the no call list so I should not be getting any calls like this.

(229) 435-2170

June 12th, 2010 Leslie VA

I already receive the local newspaper! So why are they calling me? Oh, the number they have on record for me is my work number... well, at least I know who is calling me now! I can answer and tell them don't call anymore...I already get the paper and end the calls!

(402) 982-0438

June 8th, 2010 tic -tock MN

they just called me today and I don't suppose to get any calls like that my phone is suppose to be a privite line. If it keeps up I will sue and file a complaint.

(229) 435-2170

May 26th, 2010 Mark NC

Called me on my work cell phone (registered on the do not call list) several times each week for three weeks now. Creeps.

(617) 405-5034

May 23rd, 2010 joan MA

Hve no idea

(229) 435-2170

May 4th, 2010 Nan NC

This number calls my home phone, which is on the do not call list several times a day. This has been going on for weeks now. I have not been able to catch the phone to tell them to not call me anymore.

(865) 622-4950

May 3rd, 2010 Heidi NY

Have been seeing this number on my caller ID for weeks. They never leave a message. I have a call blocking system on my phone and that will stop the call ringing into the house and they will no longer show up on my caller id. Case closed.

(229) 435-2170

April 27th, 2010 Ray

Called the office in GA at the phone number provided below, they had the nerve to tell me they had never heard of of the Do Not Call Federal Law. Use the links below to report these guys to the Better Business Bureau.

(402) 982-0458

April 27th, 2010 A KY

Called to ask me about my subcription to Soap Opera Digest. Told him I haven't subscribed to that for a few years. He then just hung up without saying another word.

April 26th, 2010 Bobbie NY

The caller asked me if I was receiving my Soap Opera Digest magazine regularly and if there were any problems with it. I told her that I haven't subscribed to that magazine for years (which I haven't). I told her that I no longer subscribe to magazines because I don't have the time to read them. She seemed satisfied with that ended the call.

(215) 383-5682

April 23rd, 2010 SSS VA

They call our office every day and hang up as soon as someone picks up the phone

April 23rd, 2010 Twostep NC

Good luck cancelling, Mrs.Klotz. I've been trying to get them to stop sending me their junk for over a year.

(213) 289-5514

April 20th, 2010 Nepolean NY

iam receiving calls from 213-289-5514 very frquently.So disturbing.Please stop calling.

April 20th, 2010 Jack CA

They call me at least once a week from this (213) 289-5514 number. They just called today. They're never on the other end when I answer. If I call back I get recording sayin that "All circuits are busy." They're ought to be a law against this.

(229) 435-2170

April 19th, 2010 Charles IA

Phone rang, I picked up on second ring, No answer, I tried to call them back either busy, or would not answer.

(215) 383-5682

April 19th, 2010 twessels NY

This number has shown up regularly in my cell phone. I never answered and there is never a message. I am in the computer field, so if it is from Government Computer News it might make sense they they called me.

(402) 982-0458

April 18th, 2010 Kitty

No one is on the line. Calls at least three times a week. Getting very annoying. I am on the no call list.

(215) 383-5682

April 16th, 2010 FA FL

They've called a couple of times and hung up when I answered.

(213) 289-5514

April 16th, 2010 rob OH

telemarketers calling once a week to "update our information"

- nothing has changed since last week so stop calling me you morons.

(229) 435-2170

April 15th, 2010 TENNESSEE TN

I AM ON DO NOT CALL REGISTRY. DO NOT CALL ME. I DO NOT WANT MY NEWSPAPER REINSTATED. YOU SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO MY REQUESTS FOR THE PAST 2 YEARS TO GET ME A NEW MAILBOX AND POST AFTER IT BEING TOTALED BY AUTOS 3 TIMES. NOW ITS TOO LATE....

(215) 383-5682

April 14th, 2010 Mrs.Klotz FL

This is the second time I received this call and each time they hangup. If this is GNC I will cancel my free subscription with them.

(402) 982-0438

April 13th, 2010 sammi PA

to funny.. I have a 2000 neon.. no warrenty.. just annoying getting the calls

(626) 273-8235

April 2nd, 2010 Debbie CA

They keep calling. They don't leave a message. They are now trying to call at different times during the day. They need to STOP CALLING or leave a message.

(213) 289-5514

March 31st, 2010 Dunrite

hung up on me...

March 30th, 2010 Engineer CA

They keep calling me everyday, usually I miss their call because it comes in before I do. But when I try to call them to tell them I'm not interested, and to take me off their list, all I get is this pre-recorded message, "all circuits are busy, try your call again later." No matter when I call, I get that, so they're not interested in callbacks, because no one has busy circuits 24 hours a day, they just want to bug people about their stupid magazine subscriptions.

(402) 982-0458

March 18th, 2010 Lexa

Keeps bombarding me with calls - I will not answer this crap anymore. Go to hell!

(229) 435-2170

February 24th, 2010 annoyed GA

PLEASE STOP CALLING ME.

(214) 956-0872

February 23rd, 2010 ED

Called a number I do not share just after 0830. No messege left.

(626) 273-8235

February 22nd, 2010 Georgia GA

Person did ask for my husband by name but when I said he was not available and could i take a message he said it was a courtesy call and hung up on me.

(402) 982-0458

February 19th, 2010 Chris Canada

G, Why do you think that would call you more often if you're a difficult customer? At the end of the day, I'm assuming that there mission is to make money, not to annoy as many people as possible.

(865) 622-4950

February 17th, 2010 Leslie TN

Did not pick up - left no message

(402) 982-0458

February 16th, 2010 JS TX

I had the same thing happen today. I answered it and they wanted my husband. I asked them who it was and they wouldn't say. I asked them what they were calling in reference to and they replied with asking again if my husband was available. I informed them that anything they had to say to him they could say to me as I am the one who handles all the business in the family. I finally said, listen, we don't have any bills that are past due nor apparently do you have any legitimate business with us because I am on all of our bills so if it was a legitimate call they would have no reason to NOT talk to me. So I informed him that if he couldn't tell me what it was in reference to then he need not call back. He asked when was a good time to get ahold of my husband and I told him never because he'd always go through me. It's true because my husband NEVER answers the home phone.

He called back a second time in which we had words again, then I hung up on him after he deliberately attempted to piss me off with his cocky attitude. He called back a 3rd time back to back to the other calls and I just hung up the phone and didn't even say anything. I did try to block the number but it says AT&T can't block the number which means they are using an internet based calling service like a VOIP (like Majic Jack) which can't be blocked. I did call the number back hoping to get somebody else but it just gives a recording and it does give you the option to opt out however I AM ALREADY ON THE DO NOT CALL LIST! It is so annoying! I opted out so we'll see if they still call after the 72 hour window that it says to take you off their list!

I'd really like to find out who this company is and fry them personally!

February 15th, 2010 B AZ

Daily calls, but never is a message left.

(865) 622-4950

February 13th, 2010 Karen PA

Have been calling almost every day. "CIRCULATION DEV" on caller ID. Sometimes, if I don't recognize the caller ID info., I pick up, and when I say "Hello" and don't IMMEDIATELY get a response, I figure it's a recording/telemarketer and just quickly hang-up. Been working for the most part.:~)

(402) 982-0438

February 10th, 2010 Bob Farrell

How can these constant calls (3 or 4 per day, with no one on the other end of the line) be stopped? This is absurd! If possible, I will join in a class action suit!

(229) 435-2170

February 9th, 2010 criminals NC

Because these criminals will only obey the law if forced to do so, PLEASE Copy and Paste the following information in all your complaints so that it is easily available to all victims.
Circulations Inc
1624 South Philema Road
Albany GA 31701
229-883-0474
fax 229-883-0788
info@circulationsinc.com
www.circulationsinc.com

complain at columbus-ga.bbb.org donotcall.gov

(402) 982-0438

February 4th, 2010 Booth CA

Any number of different IDs appear with this number, the latest is "SERVICE ANNOUNC". Never leave voicemail, usually don't say anything when I answer. They did tell me they were "Mission Settlements" the other day. Told them not to call again, but they continue to do so. I have returned calls to this number on three occasions, get message that, if I don't wish to receive further notifications of their offers, press 1. I press 1, get "thank you" and they disconnect. the calls continue.

(214) 956-0872

January 29th, 2010 Ready Red VA

This person called my phone said he was from the Bergen Record and asked if this was my home or place of business.

January 29th, 2010 CR NJ

The reports are that this is AC Press solicitation, but they never talk, just hang up. It you call it back, it rings long, then goes to Verizon Wireless Caller is not available.

(626) 273-8235

January 24th, 2010 A NJ

calls often, doesn't leave message. the first time I answered and it was a recording telling me to wait on the line for an important message, I hung up.

(865) 622-4950

January 9th, 2010 Don MA

I also let a local newspaper subscription expire some time ago, so the two calls I got seem to fit the pattern other people have reported.

(229) 435-2170

January 5th, 2010 Dianne TN

Calling everyday more than once. Even called at 4:50AM instead of PM.

(626) 273-8235

December 30th, 2009 Dudley WI

Several calls, no messages. Will file complaint to the natl do not call list.

(865) 622-4950

December 25th, 2009 Frank CA

I have been getting calls from the for about two weeks now. I called back and asked to be placed on their do-not-call list. I still recieved calls from them, so I asked to speak to the manager, and he said I'll put you on the list right away. Now I get two calls a day from them. I don't subscribe to any newspaper, and never had. What do they wan't from me.

(626) 273-8235

December 23rd, 2009 Steve WI

They (Lawrence) were calling from the credit department about renewing my magazine subscription that was going to end prematurely. I asked what magazine it was for and he hung up. Caller ID said Circulation Dept.

December 22nd, 2009 P VA

They were trying to renew my Cruise Travel magazine.

December 18th, 2009 Tonya WA

They called lastnite 12/17/2009 and 12/18/2009 when I answer I don't get an answer back. I just hung up. I am about ready to block the numbet from my phone after hearing other peoples problems with this place.

(619) 668-5671

December 18th, 2009 SITE ADMIN CA

WE HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING FORMATTING PROBLEMS, DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. THESE SHOULD BE RESOLVED SHORTLY. WE WILL POST AN UPDATE WHEN THE MATTER IS RESOLVED.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.













































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































C

























































































C








































































































































C













































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































C































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































C







































































































































































































































































































































































































































































C






















































































































































































































































































































C







































































































































































































































































































































C















































































































































































































































































































































C




















































































































































































































































C






































































































































































































































C



















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































C

(619) 688-5671

December 15th, 2009 Deb

My 90 year old aunt received a call from this number at 6:45 AM. Are you kidding here. Who are these people and what do they want?

(619) 668-5671

December 15th, 2009 Glad 2 Help CA

Here's some more important FTC "Do Not Call" information everyone visiting this site should read and know. I'll keep looking and disseminating as much on this subject as I can.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy B. Shelton, Manager, Airspace
Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal
Aviation Administration, P.O. Box
20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320;
telephone (404) 305–5586.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to
participate in this proposed rulemaking
by submitting such written data, views
or arguments as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis
supporting the views and suggestions
presented are particularly helpful in
developing reasonsed regulatory
decisions on the proposal. Comments
are specifically invited on the overall
regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related
aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the
airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address
listed above. Commenters wishing the
FAA to acknowledge receipt of their
comments on this action must submit
with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made:
‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 99–
ASO–17.’’ The postcard will be date/
time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications
received before the specified closing
date for comments will be considered
before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this
action may be changed in light of the
comments received. All comments
submitted will be available for
examination in the Office of the
Regional Counsel for Southern Region,
Room 550, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337, both before
and after the closing date for comments.
A report summarizing each substantive
public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be
filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
by submitting a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Manager,
Airspace Branch, ASO–520, Air Traffic
Division, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta,
Georgia 30320. Communications must
identify the docket number of this
NPRM. Persons interested in being
placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should also request a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11–2A which
describes the application procedure.The Proposal
The FAA is considering an
amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) to
amend Class E airspace at Puerto Rico,
PR. This proposal would increase the
size of the Puerto Rico, PR, Class E
airspace areas to include the airspace
within Warning Areas W–370A, W–
373A and W–373C, in order to facilitate
the handling, reduce the coordination
and increase the safety of United States
military aircraft returning to Roosevelt
Roads Naval Station below 5,500 MSL,
which is the floor of the overlying San
Juan Low Class E airspace area, in IMC
from the Warning Areas. Class E
airspace designations for airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more
above the surface are published in
Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9G
dated September 1, 1999, and effective
September 16, 1999, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
71.1. The Class E airspace designation
listed in this document would be
published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. It,
therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant
rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February
26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will
only affect air traffic procedures and air
navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as
follows:
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;
AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING
POINTS
1. The authority citation for part 71
continues to read as follows:Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113,
40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–
1963 Comp. p. 389.
§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9G, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points,
dated September 1, 1999, and effective
September 16, 1999, is amended as
follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more
above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASO PR E5 Puerto Rico, PR [Revised]
San Juan Fernando Luis Ribas Dominicci
Airport, PR
(Lat. 18°27¢41¢¢ N., long. 66°05¢89¢¢ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 1200
feet or more above the surface of the earth
beginning at lat. 18°50¢ ¢¢ N., long. 68°00¢ ¢¢ W.;
to lat. 18°45¢23¢¢ N., long. 66°54¢58¢¢ W.; to lat.
18°33¢ N., long. 64°22¢ W.; to lat. 17°20¢ N.,
long. 64°22¢ W.; to lat. 17°29¢ N., long. 64°54¢
W.; to lat. 17°29¢53¢¢ N., long. 64°55¢39¢¢ W.;
to lat. 17°29¢53¢¢ N., long. 66°18¢20¢¢ W.; to lat.
17°44¢53¢¢ N., long. 66°16¢49¢¢ W.; to lat.
17°47¢16¢¢ N., long. 66°16¢56¢¢ W.; to lat.
17°42¢ N., long. 68°00¢ W.; to the point of
beginning; excluding that airspace within
Warning Area W–371; and that airspace
extending upward from 2,700 feet above the
surface of the earth beginning at lat. 18°33¢ ¢¢
N., long. 64°22¢ W.; to lat. 18°25¢23¢¢ N., long.
62°52¢ W.; to lat. 17°47¢ N., long. 62°23¢ W.;
to lat. 17°22¢ N., long. 62°59¢ W.; to lat. 16°58¢
N., long. 63°00¢ W.; to lat. 17°20¢ N., long.
64°22¢ W.; to the point of beginning; and that
airspace extending upward from 2,700 feet
above the surface of the earth beginning at
lat. 18°45¢23¢¢ N., long. 66°54¢58¢¢ W.; to lat.
19°00¢ N., long. 66°10¢ W.; to lat. 19°00¢ N.,
long. 5°45¢ W.; to lat. 18°45¢ N., long. 64°22¢
W.; to lat. 18°33¢ N., long. 64°22¢ W.; to the
point of beginning.
* * * * *

December 15th, 2009 VIP for ASS CA

I'M WITH JASON & CHARLIE,. EVERY TIME MY LOCAL NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION HAS LAPSED FOR A WEEK OR 2 THE RESTART ROOM CALLS ME WITH A BETTER RATE THAN IF I START WITH THE PAPER. IT'S SUPPLY & DEMAND. IF THE PAPER WANTS MORE BUSINESS THEY LOWER THE PRICE FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO PAY AS MUCH.

December 15th, 2009 Charlie CA

I just received a call from The Restart Room, and was I ever glad to get that call! I had my local paper on a vacation hold, and they wanted to know if I was ready to start my service up again. Not only were they very polite, but they gave me such a great deal, I jumped at it. I wish every telemarketing company were more like the Restart Room..

December 15th, 2009 Jason CA

They are the kindest people and work very hard. They need to call you guys in order for you guys to get your beloved papers. If you don't like the calls either get the paper again or give the person on the phone some respect and tell them the you are simply not interested and don't call me any more!

Be nice they are people just like you; with families to support...

December 15th, 2009 Panoche CA

I like the chanel with the girl to be prety. And man smartt. But I like the story the pepole talk about to the televeshion. the story good in evening.

December 15th, 2009 Newsman CA

This is a good reason for having a newspaper around. I couldn’t find this story anywhere except in my local newspaper that still trusts AP enough to run their stories. Amazing! I copied and pasted the story just to show you guys who have come to hate the newspapers how valuable they really are. This was written by Pete Yost. And with more reporters out there like him, well get to the bottom of the Bush corruption once and for all. It was a newspaper that first reported this folks.

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – Computer technicians have found 22 million missing White House e-mails from the administration of President George W. Bush and the Obama administration is searching for dozens more days' worth of potentially lost e-mail from the Bush years, according to two groups that filed suit over the failure by the Bush White House to install an electronic record keeping system.
The two private groups — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the National Security Archive — said Monday they were settling the lawsuits they filed against the Executive Office of the President in 2007.
It will be years before the public sees any of the recovered e-mails because they will now go through the National Archives' process for releasing presidential and agency records. Presidential records of the Bush administration won't be available until 2014 at the earliest.
Former Bush White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said the 22 million e-mails already had been recovered while Bush was still in office and that misleading statements about the former administration's work demonstrate "a continued anti-Bush agenda, nearly a year after a new president was sworn in."
"The liberal groups CREW and National Security Archive litigate for sport, distort the facts and have consistently tried to create a spooky conspiracy out of standard IT issues," Stanzel said in a statement.
The 22 million e-mails "would never have been found but for our lawsuits and pressure from Capitol Hill," said Anne Weismann, chief counsel for CREW. "It was only then that they did this reanalysis and found as a result that there were 22 million e-mails that they were unable to account for before."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the Bush administration had been dismissive of congressional requests that the administration recover the e-mails. Leahy said it was "another example of the Bush administration's reflexive resistance to congressional oversight and the public's right to know."
The tally of missing e-mails, the additional searches and the settlement are the latest development in a political controversy that stemmed from the Bush White House's failure to install a properly working electronic record keeping system. Two federal laws require the White House to preserve its records.
The two private organizations say there is not yet a final count on the extent of missing White House e-mail and there may never be a complete tally.
Meredith Fuchs, general counsel to the National Security Archive, said "many poor choices were made during the Bush administration and there was little concern about the availability of e-mail records despite the fact that they were contending with regular subpoenas for records and had a legal obligation to preserve their records."
"We may never discover the full story of what happened here," said Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director. "It seems like they just didn't want the e-mails preserved."
Sloan said the latest count of misplaced e-mails "gives us confirmation that the Bush administration lied when they said no e-mails were missing."
The two groups say the 22 million White House e-mails were previously mislabeled and effectively lost.
The government now can find and search 22 million more e-mails than it could in late 2005 and the settlement means that the Obama administration will restore 94 calendar days of e-mail from backup tape, said Kristen Lejnieks, an attorney representing the National Security Archive.
Stanzel, the former White House spokesman, said that the 94 days of e-mails to be recovered from back-up tapes consist of 61 calendar days already planned in the Bush era and an additional 33 days of recovery that the Obama White House have agreed to recover as part of the settlement of the court case.
Sheila Shadmand, another lawyer representing the National Security Archive, said the Obama administration is making a strong effort to clean up "the electronic data mess left behind by the prior administration."
Records released as a result of the lawsuits reveal that the Bush White House was aware during the president's first term in office that the e-mail system had serious archiving problems, which didn't become publicly known until 2006, when federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald disclosed them during his criminal investigation of the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
A Microsoft Corp. document on the Bush White House's e-mail problems states that Microsoft was called in to help find electronic messages in October 2003, more than two years before the problem surfaced publicly. October 2003 was the month that the Justice Department began gearing up its criminal investigation into who in the Bush administration leaked the identity of Plame, the wife of Bush administration war critic Joseph Wilson. The man...

December 15th, 2009 Liam CA

Don’t get mad at these guys. They fill a need for a dying industry: newspapers, the last vestige of independent thought, opinion and news, everything else has gone to the corporate dogs and Cats.

December 15th, 2009 Donny CA

Well, even though we are on the national DNC list, the call we got from Restart came in the nick of time. We were thinking of reordering the paper, but after calling them, we found their subscription price really too expensive. Then Restart called and the deal was too good to pass up.

December 15th, 2009 Rachel CA

OMG! I just got the greatest deal on my newspaper subscription…ever…i mean ever from these people. Unbelievable!

December 15th, 2009 Jimmy CA

I really have to agree with Jamon. I would have never thought that I could get my subscription back on for such low rate. I’m glad I was home to take their call.

December 15th, 2009 Jamon Silva CA

Well, I normally I don’t like being bothered with such calls but when Restart called me I was in the shower. So I called the number on my caller I D and some nice gal answered and before you knew it, I was subscribing to the paper again. And, what a deal I got. Thanks, Restart.

December 15th, 2009 Josh CA

Receiving several calls a week from this number. Never anyone there. I recently canceI lled our newspaper subscription also.

December 15th, 2009 Glad To Help CA

FTC'S TSR PART 6


One directed consumers to their family
doctors for information regarding the
‘‘health effects of wine consumption.’’
The second referred consumers to the
Federal Government’s ‘‘Dietary
Guidelines for Americans’’ for such
information. Based on the evidence
before us, including a consumer survey
conducted by the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Service Administration’s
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
(CSAP), we concluded that we had an
insufficient record to disapprove the
labels. The CSAP survey concluded that
the drinking patterns of most of those
who participated in the study would not
be influenced by these messages.
The approval of these labels generated
considerable interest from Federal
health officials, members of Congress,
and public advocacy groups, who
expressed concern about consumer
perception of the label statements.
Surgeon General David Satcher, in
particular, stated that people might
draw an incorrect message from these
labels. Moreover, we have become
aware of a number of press accounts
interpreting the directional statements
as actual health claims about the
benefits of alcohol consumption and the
government’s approval of the labels as
an endorsement of drinking.
On October 25, 1999, we invited
comments on our current policy on
health claims and health-related
statements by publishing the policy as
a proposed regulation in the Federal
Register (Notice No. 884; 64 FR 57413).
The regulation would specifically
prohibit the use of any health claim in
the labeling or advertising of alcohol
beverages unless it is balanced, properly
qualified, sufficiently detailed and
specific, and outlines the categories of
persons for whom any positive effects
would be outweighed by the numerous
negative health effects.
We also sought comments on whether
even such balanced and qualifiednot more than three pages 81⁄2x11in
size. We will treat e-mail as originals
and we will not acknowledge receipt of
e-mail. See the Participation section of
this notice for alternative means of
providing letter notifications and
written comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Kern or Jim Ficaretta,
Regulations Division, Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650
Massachusetts Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20226 (202–927–8210).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In February 1999, ATF approved two
directional statements on wine labels.
One directed consumers to their family
doctors for information regarding the
‘‘health effects of wine consumption.’’
The second referred consumers to the
Federal Government’s ‘‘Dietary
Guidelines for Americans’’ for such
information. Based on the evidence
before us, including a consumer survey
conducted by the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Service Administration’s
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
(CSAP), we concluded that we had an
insufficient record to disapprove the
labels. The CSAP survey concluded that
the drinking patterns of most of those
who participated in the study would not
be influenced by these messages.
The approval of these labels generated
considerable interest from Federal
health officials, members of Congress,
and public advocacy groups, who
expressed concern about consumer
perception of the label statements.
Surgeon General David Satcher, in
particular, stated that people might
draw an incorrect message from these
labels. Moreover, we have become
aware of a number of press accounts
interpreting the directional statements
as actual health claims about the
benefits of alcohol consumption and the
government’s approval of the labels as
an endorsement of drinking.
On October 25, 1999, we invited
comments on our current policy on
health claims and health-related
statements by publishing the policy as
a proposed regulation in the Federal
Register (Notice No. 884; 64 FR 57413).
The regulation would specifically
prohibit the use of any health claim in
the labeling or advertising of alcohol
beverages unless it is balanced, properly
qualified, sufficiently detailed and
specific, and outlines the categories of
persons for whom any positive effects
would be outweighed by the numerous
negative health effects.
We also sought comments on whether
even such balanced and qualifiednot more than three pages 81⁄2x11in
size. We will treat e-mail as originals
and we will not acknowledge receipt of
e-mail. See the Participation section of
this notice for alternative means of
providing letter notifications and
written comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Kern or Jim Ficaretta,
Regulations Division, Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650
Massachusetts Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20226 (202–927–8210).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In February 1999, ATF approved two
directional statements on wine labels.
One directed consumers to their family
doctors for information regarding the
‘‘health effects of wine consumption.’’
The second referred consumers to the
Federal Government’s ‘‘Dietary
Guidelines for Americans’’ for such
information. Based on the evidence
before us, including a consumer survey
conducted by the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Service Administration’s
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
(CSAP), we concluded that we had an
insufficient record to disapprove the
labels. The CSAP survey concluded that
the drinking patterns of most of those
who participated in the study would not
be influenced by these messages.
The approval of these labels generated
considerable interest from Federal
health officials, members of Congress,
and public advocacy groups, who
expressed concern about consumer
perception of the label statements.
Surgeon General David Satcher, in
particular, stated that people might
draw an incorrect message from these
labels. Moreover, we have become
aware of a number of press accounts
interpreting the directional statements
as actual health claims about the
benefits of alcohol consumption and the
government’s approval of the labels as
an endorsement of drinking.
On October 25, 1999, we invited
comments on our current policy on
health claims and health-related
statements by publishing the policy as
a proposed regulation in the Federal
Register (Notice No. 884; 64 FR 57413).
The regulation would specifically
prohibit the use of any health claim in
the labeling or advertising of alcohol
beverages unless it is balanced, properly
qualified, sufficiently detailed and
specific, and outlines the categories of
persons for whom any positive effects
would be outweighed by the numerous
negative health effects.
We also sought comments on whether
even such balanced and qualified,

December 15th, 2009 Glad To Help CA

FTC'S TSR PART 5


Section G. Questions and Comments
Regarding the Past and Future of the
Telemarketing Industry
The Commission also is seeking
comment on the telemarketing industry
generally to develop an understanding
of the history of telemarketing over the
past twenty years and, in particular, over the past five years, as well as
factors currently shaping and likely to
continue to shape the industry. Without
limiting the scope of issues it is seeking
comment on, the Commission is
particularly interested in receiving
comments on the questions that follow.
The questions set forth below are
intended only as examples of the issues
relevant to the Commission’s
examination. The public is invited to
comment on any relevant issue,
regardless of whether it is identified
below.
I. Industry Background
1. What is the dollar volume of goods
and services that are sold through
telemarketing today?
2. How has that volume changed over
the last twenty years? Over the past five
years?
3. How many U.S. firms sell their
products domestically, either in whole
or in part, through telemarketing? How
has that number changed over the past
twenty years? Over the past five years?
4. How many of these firms engage in
telemarketing on their own behalf? How
many employ others to engage in
telemarketing for them? How have these
numbers changed over time?
5. How many U.S. entities sell their
products, either in whole or in part,
internationally through telemarketing?
6. How many foreign entities sell their
products, either in whole or in part,
internationally through telemarketing?
7. How has the market for selling
goods or services internationally by
telemarketing changed, if at all, over the
past twenty years? Over the past five
years?
8. How many outbound calls are made
each year? How many inbound calls are
received each year? How have these
numbers changed over the past twenty
years? Over the past five years?
9. In addition to sellers and
telemarketers, as defined by the TSR,
what other third-parties currently serve
the industry? How have these parties
changed over the past twenty years?
Over the past five years?
10. How do the costs of selling
through telemarketing compare to those
of other methods of marketing, e.g.,
selling online or in a ‘‘brick-and-mortar’’
face-to-face setting?
II. Technology
11. What technological innovations
have been implemented by
telemarketers over the past twenty
years, and what impact have these
innovations had on:
(a) The growth of the telemarketing
industry? (b) The number of consumers a
telemarketer can contact in a given time
period?
(c) The manner in which call lists are
developed by list brokers and others?
(d) The costs of selling through
telemarketing?
(e) The response/general attitude of
consumers toward the industry?
What technological changes have
occurred over the past five years?
12. What impact have these
technological innovations had on
consumers? How have consumers
benefitted? How have they been
harmed? Explain.
13. How have the following
technological developments impacted
telemarketing? How have they impacted
consumers?
(a) The use of computer databases of
consumer information?
(b) Predictive dialers?
(c) The integration of telephone and
computer technology?
14. What technology is available to
consumers to screen or deflect
unwanted calls from telemarketers (e.g.,
answering machines, caller i.d.,
anonymous call rejection, privacy
managers). Are interception
technologies available and affordable?
What impact are such innovations
having on telemarketing/ers? How will
these technologies that intercept calls
shape the future of telemarketing? What
consumer habits or concerns (such as
the concern about security if an
unanswered call may make it appear
that the house is empty) may reduce the
willingness of consumers to rely on this
technology?
15. How has the growth of the Internet
as a marketing medium affected
traditional telemarketing? What trends
are likely over the next five to ten years?
III. Self-Regulatory Efforts
16. What steps, if any, have industry
associations taken to self-regulate? What
perceived problems have these steps
sought to address? How effective have
industry efforts at self-regulation been?
Explain.
17. Are industry-sponsored ethical
codes effective? How many companies
engaged in telemarketing belong to
industry associations sponsoring selfregulatory
efforts, as compared to the
total number of companies engaged in
telemarketing? Is compliance with these
codes measurable? If so, what do these
measurements show?
18. Have industry-sponsored do-notcall
lists benefitted consumers? How
many consumers have requested to be
placed on such lists? Have these lists
been effective in stopping unwantedcalls to consumers? Have they
benefitted industry?
19. Has the industry undertaken
efforts to educate members and/or the
public about telemarketing fraud?
Describe any such efforts and discuss
how effective they have been.
IV. Government Regulation
20. Excluding the TSR, what steps, if
any, have federal, state, and local
governments taken to regulate
telemarketing? What perceived
problems have these steps sought to
address? How effective have these
regulatory efforts been? Explain.
21. Have state-sponsored do-not-call
lists benefitted consumers? How many
consumers have requested to be placed
on such lists? Have these lists been
effective in stopping unwanted calls to
consumers? What have been the costs
and benefits to regulators? What have
been the costs or benefits to industry?
22. What efforts have federal, state,
and local governments taken to educate
industry and/or the public about
telemarketing fraud? Describe any such
efforts and discuss how effective have
they have been. What problems have
been encountered?
V. Consumer Issues
23. What are consumer perceptions of
telemarketing today? How have they
changed over the past twenty years?
24. How much money do consumers
lose as a result of telemarketing fraud
each year? Has the amount of
telemarketing fraud increased or
decreased in the last five years? In the
past two decades? How much has it
changed?
25. Are consumers more aware of
telemarketing fraud than in the past?
Are consumers less susceptible to
telemarketing fraud now than in times
past? What are the most effective ways
to educate the public about fraudulent
telemarketing practices?
26. Are there particular groups of
consumers that are especially
susceptible to telemarketing and has
this changed over the past two decades?
27. How can consumers be given
greater control over contacts by
telemarketers? How are they exercising
control now and how has that evolved?
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00–4430 Filed 2–25–00; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms
27 CFR Parts 4, 5, and 7
[Notice No. 892; Re: Notice No. 884]
RIN 1512–AB97
Health Claims and Other Health-
Related Statements in the Labeling and
Advertising of Alcohol Beverages
(99R–199P); Public Hearing
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms (ATF), Department of the
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of public hearings on a
proposed rule.
SUMMARY: ATF is announcing the dates
and locations of five public hearings
that it will hold concerning health
claims and other health-related
statements in the labeling and
advertising of alcohol beverages. In an
earlier notice published in the Federal
Register, we detailed a proposal to,
among other things, prohibit the
appearance on labels or in
advertisements of any statement that
makes a substantive claim regarding
health benefits associated with the
consumption of alcohol beverages
unless such claim is properly qualified,
balanced, sufficiently detailed and
specific, and outlines the categories of
individuals for whom any positive
health effects would be outweighed by
numerous negative health effects. In
consideration of the comments received,
ATF has determined that the public
interest would be best served by the
holding of public hearings on this
matter. One purpose of the hearings is
to gather additional information to
determine whether the negative
consequences of alcohol consumption
or abuse disqualify, as misleading, these
products entirely from entitlement to
any health-related statements.
DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for hearings dates.
ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for hearings
addresses.
Letter notifications and written
comments are to be submitted to: Chief,
Regulations Division; Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; P.O.
Box 50221; Washington, DC 20091–
0221; ATTN: Notice No. 892. Submit email
comments to:
nprm@atfhq.atf.treas.gov. E-mail
comments must contain your name,
mailing address, and e-mail address.
They must also reference this notice
number and be legible when printed onnot more than three pages 81⁄2x11in
size. We will treat e-mail as originals
and we will not acknowledge receipt of
e-mail. See the Participation section of
this notice for alternative means of
providing letter notifications and
written comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Kern or Jim Ficaretta,
Regulations Division, Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650
Massachusetts Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20226 (202–927–8210).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In February 1999, ATF approved two
directional statements on wine labels.

December 15th, 2009 Glad to help CA

FTC'S TSR PART 4

practices? If so, why? If not, why not,
and how should the section be changed?
(b) Are there additional specific
misrepresentations that should be
prohibited?
(c) What changes, if any, should be
made to the prohibitions to increase
consumer protections or to minimize
industry costs? Explain.
12. Section 310.3(a)(3) requires sellers
and telemarketers to obtain the
consumer’s express verifiable
authorization before submitting a check,
draft, or other form of negotiable paper
drawn on a person’s checking, savings,
share, or similar account. (a) Has this section been effective in
curbing unauthorized draft debits? If so,
why? If not, why not, and how should
the section be changed? Explain.
(b) Is there any potential conflict
between the TSR and the Electronic
Funds Transfer Act (‘‘EFTA’’)? Are there
any gaps in these two laws that affect
the protections afforded by the TSR?
(c) What burdens, if any, have
authorization requirements placed on
sellers and telemarketers? If they exist,
do these burdens outweigh the benefits
to consumers? Explain.
(d) Have there been changes in
consumer awareness about the practice
of using unsigned drafts drawn on a
consumer’s checking account since the
Rule was enacted? If so, are changes in
the Rule warranted by any such changes
in consumer awareness? Explain.
(e) Since the TSR was enacted in
1995, have industry or regulatory
authorities developed new alternative
methods of ensuring that consumers
understand and approve of any debits
being made to their checking accounts?
If so, what are these procedures? If such
new procedures exist, do they
necessitate changes in the Rule?
Explain.
13. Section 310.3(a)(4) prohibits any
false or misleading statement to induce
a person to pay for goods or services
regardless of the type of payment system
used.
(a) Has this section been effective in
curbing deceptive telemarketing
practices? If so, why? If not, why not,
and how should the section be changed?
Explain.
(b) Have payment systems evolved
significantly enough since the Rule was
promulgated to warrant changes in the
Rule? If so, how should it be changed?
Explain.
14. Section 310.3(b) specifies that it is
a deceptive telemarketing act or practice
for any person to provide substantial
assistance or support to any seller or
telemarketer when that person knows or
consciously avoids knowing that the
seller or telemarketer is engaging in
deceptive or abusive acts or practices in
violation of the Rule.
(a) Has this section been effective in
curbing deceptive telemarketing
practices? If so, why? If not, how has the
section been inadequate?
(b) What changes, if any, should be
made to this section? Explain.
(c) How has Section 310.3(b),
prohibiting assisting or facilitating
conduct that violates the Rule, worked
from a law enforcement standpoint?
Against whom have cases been brought?
(d) Has the potential liability faced by
industry as a result of this section of the
Rule caused firms to make changes inthe way they do business? If so, how?
Have these changes, if they have
occurred, increased the cost of doing
business? Are there ways in which this
Rule provision could be changed to
reduce the burden placed on business
without negatively impacting
consumers?
(e) How has the ‘‘conscious
avoidance’’ standard worked from a law
enforcement standpoint? Is this
standard too difficult for law
enforcement authorities to meet in
proving their cases? If so, how should
the standard be changed? How has the
standard worked from an industry
standpoint? Have industry practices
changed in response to this potential
liability?
15. Section 310.3(c) prohibits
merchants from laundering credit card
charges.
(a) Have the provisions in Section
310.3(c) been effective in curbing the
incidence of credit card laundering in
fraudulent telemarketing transactions? If
so, why? If not, how has the section
been inadequate?
(b) What changes, if any, should be
made to this section? Explain.
(c) Have the provisions of this section
significantly increased the cost of doing
business? If so, how? What changes
could be to the Rule to reduce the cost
of these provisions without negatively
impacting consumers.
IV. Abusive Acts or Practice
16. Section 310.4(a) specifies that four
listed activities (i.e., threats,
intimidation or profane or obscene
language, and requesting or receiving
payment for credit repair, advance fee
loan, or recovery room services before
the consumer has received the services)
are abusive telemarketing acts or
practices, in violation of the Rule.
(a) Have these Rule provisions been
effective weapons in combating credit
repair, advance fee loan, and recovery
room scams? If so, why? If not, why not,
and how should they be changed?
Explain.
(b) Should this section be extended to
cover other specific types of practices?
If so, which ones?
(c) Have these provisions increased
the cost of doing business in areas other
than credit repair, the granting of
advance fee loans, or the operation of
recovery rooms? Explain. What changes
in the Rule provisions would eliminate
or reduce these effects?
(d) Has the prohibition on threats,
intimidation, and use of profane and
obscene language been effective in
curbing abusive telemarketing practices?
If so, why? If not, why not, and how
should the provision be changed? 17. Section 310.4(b)(1)(i) prohibits
telemarketers or sellers from causing the
telephone to ring, or engaging a person
in telephone conversation, repeatedly
with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass.
(a) Has this provision been effective?
If so, why? If not, why not, and how
should it be changed?
(b) Does the use of technology create
new means for abuse under this
provision?
18. Section 310.4(b)(1)(ii) prohibits
calls to a person who has stated that he
or she does not wish to receive calls
made by or on behalf of the seller.
(a) Has this provision been effective in
limiting the number of unwanted
telemarketing calls that consumers
receive? If so, why? If not, why not, and
how should it be changed?
(b) Have law enforcement authorities
used this provision to take action
against telemarketers that place
unwanted telemarketing calls? If not,
why not, and how should the provision
be changed to make it more useful as an
enforcement tool? Explain.
(c) What effect, if any, has the use of
computerized telemarketing messages,
or other technology, had on consumers’
ability to invoke their rights under the
TSR’s ‘‘do-not-call’’ provisions?
19. Section 310.4(b)(2) limits the
liability of the seller or telemarketer for
violating the ‘‘do-not-call’’ provision in
the Rule as long as the seller or
telemarketer has instituted certain
procedures designed to prevent calls to
consumers who have asked not to be
called.
(a) What have been the advantages
and disadvantages of this provision to
industry? to law enforcement?
(b) What changes, if any should be
made to this provision? Explain.
(c) Has this limitation of liability been
too lenient? If so, what changes should
be made to strengthen the provision?
How would those proposed changes
affect industry costs?
20. Section 310.4(c) prohibits
telemarketers from calling consumers at
any time except between 8 a.m. and 9
p.m. Has this provision been effective in
preventing telemarketing calls outside
the permitted time frame? If not, why
not, and how should it be changed.
21. Section 310.4(d) requires
telemarketers to make certain oral
disclosures—i.e., identity of the seller,
that the purpose of the call is to sell
goods or services, the nature of the
goods and services, and, in the case of
a prize promotion, that no purchase or
payment is necessary.
(a) Has this section been effective in
curbing abusive telemarketing practices?
If not, why not, and how should it be
changed? (b) Are the required disclosures being
made ‘‘promptly’’ and in ‘‘a clear and
conspicuous manner?’’
(c) Are there additional oral
disclosures that should be required?
V. Recordkeeping
22. Have the recordkeeping provisions
for telemarketers been burdensome to
sellers and telemarketers? On the ability
of law enforcement authorities to take
action against telemarketers and sellers
that violate substantive provisions of the
Rule? What changes, if any should be
made to the recordkeeping provisions?
Explain.
23. What have been the costs and
benefits to industry of the recordkeeping
provisions?
VI. Exemptions
24. Section 310.6 lists acts or
practices that are exempt from the Rule,
including pay-per-call-services and the
sale of franchises already subject to
Commission Rules.
(a) Have the exemptions been
effective at minimizing the burden to
industry while affording consumers
sufficient protections under the Rule? If
so, why? If not, why not, and how
should this section be changed?
(b) How should sales to home-based
businesses be treated under the Rule?
Should sales to home-based businesses
be considered business-to-business
sales? If so, how are telemarketers able
to differentiate between a residential
telephone number and a home-based
business telephone number? If not, why
not?
(c) Is the exemption for ‘‘face-to-face’’
transactions still appropriate? If not,
why not, and how should this
exemption be changed?
(d) Is the exemption for ‘‘general
media’’ advertising still appropriate? If
not, why not? If the exemption
continues to be appropriate, how should
the Rule treat solicitations such as
classified advertisement, ‘‘spam’’ faxes,
and email ‘‘spam’’?
(e) Are there additional business-tobusiness
products or services that
should not be exempted from the TSR
(e.g., Internet-related services,
professional directories, advertising
specialties)? Explain.
(f) Are there additional exemptions
that would be appropriate? Explain.

December 15th, 2009 Glad to help CA

FTC's TSR: PART 3

series dedicated to evaluation of the
TSR, was held on January 11, 2000. This
forum focused on the efficacy of the donot-
call provision of the Rule and other
similar initiatives, such as the do-notcall
provision of the TCPA,
telemarketer-implemented do-not-call
plans, and state legislation creating
centralized do-not-call lists. Information
on that forum was published in a
separate Federal Register notice on
November 24, 1999.22 A public forum to
discuss other provisions of the TSR will
be held on July 27–28, 2000, in
Washington, DC. The exact dates,
location, and information about
participation in future FTC forums will
be announced later by Federal Register
notice.
Section D. Request to Participate
The FTC invites members of the
public, industry, and other interested
parties to participate in the public
forum scheduled for July 27–28, 2000.
To be eligible to participate, you must
file a request to participate on or before
June 16, 2000. If the number of parties
who request to participate in the forum
is so large that including all requesters
would inhibit effective discussion
among participants, FTC staff will selectas participants a limited number of
parties to represent the relevant
interests. Selection will be based on the
following criteria:
1. The party submitted a request to
participate by June 16, 2000.
2. The party’s participation would
promote the representation of a balance
of interests at the forum.
3. The party’s participation would
promote the consideration and
discussion of the issues to be presented
in the forum.
4. The party has expertise in issues to
be raised in the forum.
5. The party adequately reflects the
views of the affected interest(s) which it
purports to represent.
If it is necessary to limit the number of
participants, those who requested to
participate but were not selected will be
afforded an opportunity, if at all
possible, to present statements during a
limited time period at the end of the
session. The time allotted for these
statements will be based on the amount
of time necessary for discussion of the
issues by the selected parties, and on
the number of persons who wish to
make statements.
Requesters will be notified as soon as
possible after June 16, 2000, whether
they have been selected to participate.
Section E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(‘‘RFA’’) 23 provides for an initial and
final regulatory analysis of the potential
impact on small businesses of rules
proposed by federal agencies.24 The
Commission conducted such an analysis
when the TSR was promulgated in 1995.
In publishing the proposed regulations,
the Commission certified, subject to
public comment, that the proposed
regulations would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities and, therefore,
that the provisions of the RFA requiring
the initial regulatory analysis did not
apply.25 The Commission noted that any
economic costs imposed on small
business entities were, in many
instances, specifically imposed by
statute. Where they were not, efforts had
been made to minimize any unforeseen
burdens on small business entities by
making the Rule’s requirements flexible
and by limiting the scope of the
regulations through a number of
exemptions. In publishing the final
Rule, the Commission noted in the
Rule’s Statement of Basis and Purpose
that public comments and information
that had been received during therulemaking did not alter that
conclusion.26
No analysis is required in connection
with this notice because no new rule or
amendment is being proposed.
Nonetheless, the Commission wishes to
ensure that no substantial economic
impact is being overlooked that would
warrant an initial and final regulatory
flexibility analysis. Therefore, this
notice also requests public comment
regarding the effect of the Rule on the
profitability and competitiveness of, and
employment in, small entities. The
Commission will revisit this issue in
connection with any Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking that may result from this
notice.
Section F. Questions and Issues for
Comment Pursuant to Regulatory
Review of the Rule
The Commission is seeking comment
on various aspects of the TSR in
conjunction with its review of the Rule.
Without limiting the scope of issues on
which it is seeking comment, the
Commission is particularly interested in
receiving comments on the questions
that follow. These questions are
intended only as examples of the issues
relevant to the Commission’s
examination. Interested parties are
invited to comment on any relevant
issue, regardless of whether it is
identified below.
Where comments advocate changes to
the Rule, please be specific in
describing suggested changes. With
respect to suggested changes to the Rule,
please describe any potential costs and/
or benefits such changes might have on
industry and consumers.
I. General Questions for Comment
1. Is there a continuing need for the
TSR?
(a) Since the Rule was issued, have
changes in technology, industry
structure, or economic conditions
affected the need for or effectiveness of
the Rule?
(b) Does the Rule include provisions
that are unnecessary? If so, which ones?
(c) What are the aggregate costs and
benefits of the Rule?
(d) Have the costs or benefits of the
Rule dissipated over time?
(e) Does the Rule contain provisions
that have imposed costs not outweighed
by benefits?
2. What effect, if any, has the Rule
had on consumers?
(a) What economic or other costs has
the Rule imposed on consumers?
(b) How has the Rule benefitted
consumers? (c) What changes, if any, should be
made to the Rule to increase the benefits
to consumers? How would these
changes affect the compliance costs the
Rule imposes on industry?
(d) Is the incidence of telemarketing
fraud greater today than five years ago?
Less than five years ago? Has consumer
awareness of telemarketing fraud
increased since the adoption of the
Rule? If so, what are the sources of
information on this issue for
consumers? What effect, if any, has
increased consumer awareness had on
law enforcement? On telemarketers?
3. What impact, if any, has the Rule
had on entities that must comply with
it?
(a) What economic or other costs has
the Rule imposed on industry or
individual firms?
(b) How has the Rule benefitted
industry or individual firms?
(c) What changes, if any, should be
made to the Rule to minimize any
burden or cost imposed on industry or
individual firms? How would these
changes affect the benefits provided by
the Rule to consumers or industry?
(d) Are there regulatory alternatives to
the Rule that might reduce any adverse
economic effect of the Rule, yet comply
with the mandate of the Telemarketing
Act to provide consumers with
necessary protection from telemarketing
deception and abuse?
4. How has this Rule affected sellers
or telemarketers that are small
businesses with respect to costs,
profitability, and competitiveness? Have
the costs or benefits of the Rule
dissipated over time with respect to
small business sellers or telemarketers?
5. Does the Rule overlap or conflict
with other federal, state, or local
government laws or regulations?
(a) What is the impact on the industry
of state-by-state regulation of
telemarketing?
(b) Are there any conflicting laws or
regulations governing telemarketers, and
if so, what are they? If conflicts exist,
how do telemarketers address them?
(c) To what extent have private parties
and state attorneys general brought
actions under the TSR? Under other
statutes/regulations?
(d) Are there any unnecessary
regulatory burdens created by
overlapping jurisdiction? What can be
done to ease these burdens?
(e) Are there any gaps where no
federal, state, or local government law
or regulation has addressed a particular
abuse?
6. Has the mingling of Internet and
telemarketing technology had an impact
on the effectiveness of the TSR? If so, how? Should the TSR be amended to
address this issue, and if so, how?
II. Definitions
7. Are the definitions set forth in
Section 310.2 of the Rule effective to
accomplish the goal of curbing
deceptive and abusive telemarketing
practices?
8. Are they clear, meaningful,
comprehensive, and appropriate? If not,
how have the definitions been
inadequate? How can they be improved?
9. Are there additional definitions
that should be added to the Rule?
Explain.
III. Deceptive Telemarketing Acts or
Practices
10. Section 310.3(a)(1) requires sellers
and telemarketers to disclose certain
information before the customer pays
for goods or services offered.
(a) Has this section been effective in
curbing deceptive telemarketing
practices? If so, why? If not, what
changes, if any, should be made to the
required disclosures? Explain.
(b) Are there additional disclosures
that should be required? Explain.
(c) What changes, if any, should be
made to the disclosure requirements to
increase consumer protections or to
minimize industry costs? Explain.
(d) Has the disclosure requirement of
Section 310.3(a)(1)(iii) regarding refund/
cancellation policies been effective from
the perspective of consumers and law
enforcement authorities?
(e) Are disclosures being made in a
timely fashion? Is there sufficient
understanding of what is meant by
‘‘before the consumer pays’’?
(f) What burdens, if any, have
disclosure requirements placed on
sellers and telemarketers? If they exist,
do these burdens outweigh the benefits
to consumers? Explain.
11. Section 310.3(a)(2) prohibits
misrepresentations of material
information.
(a) Has this section been effective in
accomplishing the goal of curbing
deceptive and abusive telemarketing

December 15th, 2009 Glad to help CA

FTC's TSR: PART 2

Commission to define and prohibit
deceptive telemarketing acts or
practices, but it also authorized the FTC
to define and prohibit acts or practices
that ‘‘assist or facilitate’’ deceptive
telemarketing.7 The Act further required
the Commission to consider and include
recordkeeping requirements in the rule.8
Finally, the Act authorizes state
attorneys general, other appropriate
state officials, and private persons to
bring civil actions in federal district
court to enforce compliance with the
FTC’s rule.9
2. Telemarketing Sales Rule
Pursuant to the Telemarketing Act,
the FTC adopted the TSR, 16 CFR Part
310, on August 16, 1995.10 The Rule,
which became effective on December
31, 1995, contains the following key
requirements and prohibitions. Under
the Rule, telemarketers must promptly
tell each consumer they call several key
pieces of information: (1) The fact thatthe purpose of the call is to sell goods
or services, (2) The nature of the goods
or services being offered, and (3) In the
case of prize promotions, that no
purchase is necessary to win.11
Telemarketers must also disclose cost
and other material information before
consumers pay. In addition,
telemarketers must have consumers’
express, verifiable authorization before
debiting their checking accounts.12 The
Rule prohibits telemarketers from
calling before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (in
the time zone where the consumer is
located), and from calling consumers
who have said they do not want to be
called.13 The Rule also prohibits
misrepresentations about the cost,
quantity, and other material aspects of
the offered goods or services.14 Finally,
the Rule bans telemarketers who offer to
arrange loans, provide credit repair
services, or recover money consumers
lost in a prior telemarketing scam from
seeking payment before rendering the
promised services,15 and prohibits
credit card laundering and other forms
of knowing assistance to deceptive
telemarketers.16
The Rule provides a number of
exemptions, including calls where the
transaction is completed after a face-toface
sales presentation, calls subject to
extensive requirements under other FTC
rules (e.g., the 900-Number Rule, or the
Franchise Rule),17 and calls initiated in
response to advertisements in general
media such as newspapers or
television.18 Lastly, catalog sales are
exempt, as are most business-tobusiness
calls, except those involving
the sale of office or cleaning supplies.19
3. Telemarketing and Changes in the
Marketplace.
In the years since the Rule was
promulgated, the marketplace for
telemarketing has changed in significant
ways. Technologies which were new or
non-existent at the time the Rule was
adopted now have become standard
equipment for many telemarketing
firms. Similarly, refinements in market
research allow sellers to pinpoint with
greater precision which consumers are
most likely to be potential customers. The increased use of ‘‘frequent customer
cards,’’ which enable sellers to collect
purchasing data electronically when
consumers buy goods such as groceries
and gasoline, allows more extensive and
more accurate customer targeting.
‘‘Cookie’’ technology 20 enables
marketers to learn the specific habits
and preferences of online consumers,
including information about consumers
and their computers, the kinds of Web
sites they visit, and the frequency with
which they purchase online. These
enhancements in data collection have
obvious uses to make telemarketing
more sophisticated.
Finally, another significant change in
the marketplace is that telemarketing is
facing competition from new marketing
and sales methodologies, especially the
Internet. More and more sellers are
turning to the Internet as a means not
only to market their products and
services to consumers, but to finalize
sales.21 Additionally, some companies
link their call centers to the Internet.
Thus, consumers not only can receive
email replies to questions, but can place
a call to a customer service
representative either through the
Internet or on a separate phone line
without leaving the company’s Web site.
Technology now is available that allows
a consumer to view the same Web page
as the customer service representative
with whom they are talking, and have
the representative ‘‘push’’ Web pages
with other information to the consumer.
The potential impact of increased use of
interactive sales media on telemarketing
is unknown, but the question merits
examination in light of the projected
growth of such interactive electronic
media.
Another change that has occurred
since the Rule was promulgated is the
increase in cross-border telemarketing.
The incidence of telemarketers
operating outside the U.S., but selling to
U.S. citizens, is rising. Some of this
cross-border activity is fraudulent. The
experience of the FTC and other law
enforcement agencies over the past fiveyears confirms that telemarketing fraud
is becoming increasingly global in
scope. Fraudulent telemarketers
operating from other countries often do
so to seek the advantages of less
stringent telemarketing laws; they also
benefit from the complex jurisdictional
issues implicated in cross-border sales.
Because of these and other significant,
rapid changes in the marketplace, the
Commission has determined to combine
its review of the TSR with a study of
telemarketing generally: what the nature
of telemarketing has been historically,
what it is now, and how it is changing
to meet the future. The goal of this study
is to document the historical trends that
have shaped the practice of
telemarketing, and to better understand
and document factors likely to shape its
future, including technological
innovations, shifting markets, consumer
attitudes about choice, regulatory and
law enforcement efforts at the state and
federal levels, and telemarketers’ selfregulatory
efforts. To facilitate its rule
review and the completion of the study,
the Commission will invite the
comments of all interested parties and
will hold a series of public forums to
discuss relevant issues.
Section B. Request for Comment
Interested parties, including, but not
limited to, academics, telemarketers,
consumer advocates, and government
representatives, are requested to submit
academic papers or written comments
on any issue of fact, law, or policy that
may inform the Commission’s
examination of the TSR and/or the
practice of telemarketing generally, its
history as well as current practice and
emerging trends. Sections F and G,
infra, set forth questions about which
the Commission particularly desires
input. Because telemarketing often
occurs across international boundaries,
comments need not be limited to
examinations of domestic laws or
policies. Please provide copies of any
studies, surveys, research, or other
empirical data referenced in
submissions.
Form of Comments: To encourage
prompt and efficient review and
dissemination of the comments to the
public, all papers and comments should
also be submitted, if possible, on either
a 51⁄4 or a 31⁄2 inch computer disk, with
a label on the disk stating the name of
the commenting party and the name and
version of the word processing program
used to create the document, as well as
the identification ‘‘Telemarketing
Review—Comment. FTC File No.
P994414.’’ (Programs based on DOS are
preferred. Files from other operating
systems must be submitted in ASCII textformat to be accepted.) Individual
members of the public filing comments
need not submit multiple copies or
comments in electronic form.
Section C. Public Forums
The FTC staff will conduct public
forums to discuss issues raised by the
questions in this Federal Register
notice. One series of forums will focus
on issues relating to the implementation
and effectiveness of the TSR. These
forums are not intended to achieve
consensus among participants or
between participants and FTC staff with
respect to any issue raised. Commission
staff will consider the views and
suggestions made during the forums, in
conjunction with the papers and written
comments, in formulating its final
recommendation to the Commission
concerning amendments to the current
structure and content of the TSR and in
preparing its report on telemarketing. A
second series of forums will involve
members of the telemarketing industry,
consumer groups, and law enforcement
agencies in a discussion of the evolution
of telemarketing over the past two
decades and its impact on consumers.
The FTC invites members of the public,
telemarketers, and other interested
parties to participate in both sets of
forums.
The initial forum, part of the first

December 15th, 2009 Glad To Help CA

I thought it would be most informative to those visiting this site to have availible the Federal Trade Commission's entire Telemarketing Sales Rule right here to peruse. So I've painstakingly assembled the Telemarketing Sales Rule, also know by the acronym (TSR) and pasted it for all of our edification. There are a lot of intesting points and rules that everyone here filing a compliment or complaint should know about. Well, it took awhile and because I can only paste so much text per comment, it may take a few to get all of this valuble information posted. But, as the mighty soldier once said, victory only comes with hard work and determination.

So here it is: the FTC's TSR: PART 1


FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 310
Telemarketing Sales Rule
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Rule review, request for public
comments, and announcement of public
forums.
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade
Commission (‘‘the Commission’’ or
‘‘FTC’’) is requesting public comment
on the Commission’s Telemarketing
Sales Rule (‘‘TSR’’ or ‘‘the Rule’’). The
Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and
Abuse Prevention Act (‘‘the
Telemarketing Act’’ or ‘‘the Act’’)
directed the Commission to promulgate
rules to protect consumers from
deceptive telemarketing practices and
other abusive telemarketing activities. In
response to this directive, the
Commission adopted the TSR, which
requires telemarketers to make specific
disclosures of material information;
prohibits misrepresentations; sets limits
on the times telemarketers may call
consumers; prohibits calls to a
consumer who has asked not to be
called again; and sets payment
restrictions for the sale of certain goods
and services.
The Act requires that no later than
five years after its effective date of
December 31, 1995, the Commission
initiate a rule review to evaluate the
Rule’s operation and report the results
of that review to Congress. Pursuant to
this mandatory rule review requirement,
the Commission now hereby seeks
comment about the overall costs and
benefits of the TSR, and its overall
regulatory and economic impact since
its adoption in 1995.
In addition to reviewing the Rule and
its effect on deceptive and abusive
telemarketing practices, the Commission
intends to use this rule review to
examine telemarketing generally over
the past two decades, and to determine
its impact on consumers. This broader
review will result in a report addressing
issues such as changes in technologycomposition of the industry,
telemarketers’ efforts at self-regulation,
the effectiveness of law enforcement
and legislation, trends in telemarketing,
and current consumer issues related to
telemarketing. In order to initiate
discussion of these and other issues, the
Request for Comment invites written
responses to the series of questions in
Sections F and G, infra, which set forth
with more specificity the type of
information the Commission
particularly desires related to the Rule
and about telemarketing generally.
In addition, this document contains
an invitation to participate in a series of
public forums to be held in the future
to afford the Commission staff and
interested parties an opportunity to
explore and discuss the issues
underlying the list of questions and any
other topics that emerge from the
comments we receive in response to this
notice.
DATES: Papers and written comments
responding to the Request for Comment
will be accepted until April 27, 2000. A
public forum to discuss provisions of
the TSR, other than the ‘‘do-not-call’’
provision, will be held on July 27–28,
2000, in Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m.
until 5:30 p.m.1 Notification of interest
in participating in this forum must be
submitted in writing on or before June
16, 2000. The exact dates, location, and
information about participation in
future FTC forums held in connection
with the TSR review will be announced
later by Federal Register notice.
ADDRESSES: Six paper copies of each
paper and/or written comment should
be submitted to the Office of the
Secretary, Federal Trade Commission,
Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC 20580.
Alternatively, the Commission will
accept papers and comments submitted
to the following email address:
tsr@ftc.gov, provided the content of any
papers or comments submitted by email
is organized in sequentially numbered
paragraphs. All submissions should be
identified as ‘‘Telemarketing Review—
Comment. FTC File No. P994414.’’
Notification of interest in participating
in the public forum should be submittedin writing to Carole I. Danielson,
Division of Marketing Practices, Federal
Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Room 238, Washington,
DC 20580. The public forum will be
held at the Federal Trade Commission,
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room
432, Washington, DC 20580.
Papers and written comments will be
available for public inspection in
accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and
Commission regulations, 16 CFR Part
4.9, on normal business days between
the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in
Room 130, Federal Trade Commission,
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20580. The
Commission will make this notice and,
to the extent possible, all papers or
comments received in response to this
notice available to the public through
the Internet at the following address:
www.ftc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Catherine Harrington-McBride (202)
326–2452, email cmcbride@ftc.gov;
Karen Leonard (202) 326–3597, email
kleonard@ftc.gov; or Carole Danielson
(202) 326–3115, email
cdanielson@ftc.gov, Division of
Marketing Practices, Bureau of
Consumer Protection, Federal Trade
Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC 20580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Section A. Background
1. Telemarketing Consumer Fraud and
Abuse Act
On August 16, 1994, President
Clinton signed into law the
Telemarketing Consumer Fraud and
Abuse Prevention Act (‘‘Telemarketing
Act’’ or ‘‘the Act’’).2 The Telemarketing
Act was the culmination of
Congressional efforts during the early
1990’s to protect consumers against
telemarketing fraud.3 The purpose of the
Act was to combat telemarketing fraudby providing law enforcement agencies
with powerful new tools, and to give
consumers new protections. The Act
directed the Commission, within 365
days of enactment of the Act, to issue
a rule prohibiting deceptive and abusive
telemarketing acts or practices.4
Among other things, the
Telemarketing Act specifies certain acts
or practices the FTC’s rule must
address.5 The Act also required the
Commission to include provisions
relating to three specific ‘‘abusive
telemarketing acts or practices:’’ (1) A
requirement that telemarketers may not
undertake a pattern of unsolicited
telephone calls which a reasonable
consumer would consider coercive or
abusive of such consumer’s right to
privacy; (2) A restriction on the time of
day and night telemarketers may make
unsolicited calls to consumers; and (3)
A requirement that telemarketers
promptly and clearly disclose in all
sales calls to consumers that the
purpose of the call is to sell goods or
services, and to make other disclosures
the Commission deems appropriate,
including the nature and price of the
goods or services sold.6 Section 6102(a)
of the Act not only required the

December 15th, 2009 A Confederate CA

Opps, wrong story. Sorry, here it is:

GLENN: Putting the radio back into Radio City, this is the third most listened to show in all of America. So glad that you have tuned in today. Dan, do we have the global warming song? It's been a while since we've done the global warming song and there's an awful lot of news on global warming, lot of news on global warming that is just too tremendous to pass up the opportunity to play the global warming song because I think this song really says it all. It's the song that I think when you hear the lyrics, you are like, wait a minute, I thought global warming might be a scam but no, no, no, now that I've heard this....

(Global warming song playing.)

GLENN: Stop the music! Because there's some very important news now. Over the weekend Sir Richard Branson took Virgin Atlantic Airlines and he flew it on biofuels. It was a few months ago I sat down for an hour with Richard Branson and he said, "I'm going to tell you I'm going to change the world. What I'm going to do, I'm going to change the world. I'm going to fly a jet plane on biofuel." I said, really? How are you making that? "All out of natural stuff, you know." I said, wow. Like, how are you making that? "Off natural stuff. Can't tell you now. You'll know about it soon. Watch for your local news, love." I said, all right. So I watch. It's fantastic. They flew a 747 -- well, actually it was to the a 747. It was an Airbus but a big Airbus. God forbid we use an American plane. They used a big Airbus and they put this synthetic fuel in it. Now, it was 80/20. It was 80% jet fuel and 20% -- and they flew it. They said it flew fine. In fact, they discovered that they could fly now a commercial jetliner with this particular mixture 60/40, 40% synthetic fuel. It's cleaner, you don't have to worry about oil. It's great. It's fantastic... or is it. The problem is he's making -- he got the fuel. The biofuel is made from some sort of a nut only found in the rainforest. Sir Richard Branson, I've never been knighted by the queen, but I am a thinker. You don't think that's going to piss off the environmentalists? I don't care how much CO2 you're not putting in the air. You're making it from a nut you get in the rainforest? What, are you crazy? I can't believe you even got away with this far. Can you imagine if some conservative said, "You know what, I bet there's a nut we could find on a tree in the rainforest. All we need to do is build a road and go start gathering up all them nuts in the rainforest." They would kill you! Well, not only was it made out of a nut in the rainforest, environmentalists already have protested because, they say, that doesn't go far enough. And he said, "But wait a minute. I can cut emissions down by 40%." Yeah, yeah. Even if you could -- and this is a quote from the environmental whackos out in England. Even if you could cut the emissions all the way down, use all biofuels, it's still not enough. Wait, I could use all biofuels and it's still not enough? Nope. We have to reduce air travel. This is -- I mean, Stu, do a Google search. I know I've read some place Bill Clinton saying something like the only really way to solve it is to stop or arrest the global economy, or something like that? Do you remember that?

STU: Not specifically but I'll look it -- yeah, he said slow down the economy.

GLENN: Slow down the economy.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: That's what it was, I've got to slow down the economy. No thank you. No thank you, uh-uh, no. "Well, we can slow down the economy but then we can bail everybody out that doesn't have a job anymore." Bill, let me ask you a question. Did you grow up behind a tree in the Brazilian rainforest, you nut! It won't work.

STU: Yeah, that's exactly what he said, Glenn. He said, "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions because we have to save the planet for our grandchildren because..." and I'm adding this part, because the sun will kill us all. That's me.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: I'm adding that part, I want to be clear because I heard it in a song. But the first part of that is 100% accurate.

GLENN: Stu, talk me down from this tree. How do you not think that these people are intentionally bringing down our economy? How can you possibly think otherwise? Here's the former President saying we have to slow down our economy.

STU: I mean, you're honestly asking me how -- you're telling me that I'm the crazy person; how can I possibly not believe that everyone is trying to slow down and equalize our economy so we have one-world government?

GLENN: No, no, no. I know that sounds crazy.

STU: Do you?

GLENN: Oh, yeah, I absolutely do. Honestly.

STU: I just --

GLENN: Do you really think, do you really think I want to be this guy? Really?

STU: Because as you said, you said you had a theory you weren't ready to disclose. Let me think about that. Let me noodle that for just a second. Do I think that you're the guy who once --

GLENN: (Whistling). Do you know, Stu, do you think I think that makes me mainstream or popular for the long run in America? Do you think that makes me popular? Do you think I --

STU: Well, I think you think if you're right it would make you popular.

GLENN: And if I'm wrong?

STU: Well, I don't think you think you're wrong.

GLENN: Oh, come on.

STU: You committed to crazy stuff. You commit to crazy stuff all the time.

GLENN: What do I say all the time? "I hope I'm wrong."

STU: I'm sure you hope you're wrong but I don't think you think you're wrong.

GLENN: Yeah, I don't.

STU: See?

GLENN: No, but I mean, look. I didn't stumble onto this and go, oh, there's what I want. I am the opposite of most global warming activists. They don't care if they're right or wrong. It doesn't matter if they're wrong, oh, well, we've done good anyway.

STU: Yeah, the hard core activists certainly.

GLENN: They don't care. They don't care. And it makes them popular to be for it. This makes somebody a pariah and they certainly don't want to believe that people are intentionally orchestrating our economy. But I cannot -- you know, you listen to David Walker, the GAO guy. Here's the chief comptroller. "Explain it to me, David." You can explain how we are not going to be able to pay for anything by 2040.

Now, I saw another stat that came out this weekend that says 2028 it's over because everything's accelerating so rapidly. So tell me, are these people just so incredibly stupid, do they know exactly what they're doing? What's the answer? Or do they just, against all evidence, believe that they can just spend us into -- I mean, that doesn't make any sense. Think of that. In anybody's economy, spending more money when you have no more money, it doesn't -- it's not like a circle where, you know, genius and insanity are part of the same circle. It's not that circle. The economy doesn't work that way. It's a hole that just keeps going down. So tell me how these people think that we can do all of these things and survive in the economy. I don't believe they believe it. I believe they are moving us towards a social, socialist government. They are moving us into the exact position of Vladimir Putin. They are moving us into the exact position of China. They believe a benevolent dictator, a nationalized industry, a socialized country is the way of the future. They've believed it since Lincoln Steffens when he came back and said, "I have seen the future and it works; it's the Soviet Union." They believe it!

STU: I mean, I think maybe this is a different question than earlier, but I mean, if you are asking me do I think Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton look at this economy, "No, we don't have any money," are spending us into oblivion because they believe in a different society than what we currently have which is one that is based on some sort of higher --

GLENN: Socialism.

STU: Yeah, socialism but based on, they think it's better morally and it's okay if it slows our economy.

GLENN: Yes, yes.

STU: All that's stuff I agree with.

GLENN: That's all I'm saying.

STU: Then I'm with you on that. That's not a conspiracy. That's --

GLENN: No, that's -- well, it was a conspiracy. I mean, when it was Fabian socialism, it was a conspiracy. But they've got a website out. The Fabian socialists have a website where they talk about it!

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, it was a conspiracy at one point but it's not anymore. It's right out in the open. They believe that global government, the UN, et cetera, et cetera is the way it should be. And so they are taking us there.

STU: Yeah. I think, you know, there's different levels of it. Some of the people basically want us to move to a semi-socialist sort of, you know, where your taxes are just 70% and, you know, when they take most of your money but there's still some people that make -- you know, have nicer houses than other people and then there's that group and then there's the hard core group which I mean, again you look at the activists. There's no question what camp they're in.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. And that's why there's no -- that's why the left wins in this election. John McCain will sign these giant global warming treaties. He'll sign them.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: He will give our sovereignty away under the guise of global warming.

STU: He's bragging about it at campaign events in the Republican primary.

GLENN: Yes. Hillary Clinton will do the same thing. Barack Obama will do not only that, he'll also, it was his bill. It passed. He'll sign it. The Global Poverty Act. This guy will take us to one-world government in the blink of an eye. But what they need to happen is they need people to be hungry. They need the New Deal. They've got to be able to have that hunger. If they have that hunger, they can scare people and they can move them and say, "Government, help me, help me, help me, I'm afraid." That's exactly what they're doing.

December 15th, 2009 A Confederate CA

It's all bullshit. Global Warming my ass. Read this for your edification please:

If you live in America and you have been wanting to work from home, you might be in luck. Yahoo has now released a new "Work From Home Program" that will allow Americans to work for the titan from the comfort of their own homes.

To thousands of Americans this means that they will soon have a safe and bright future working for one of the fastest growing companies in the world.

In the middle of this recession this country and the world is going through, Yahoo has been thriving and reporting profits consistently every quarter.

Completely innovating the Search Engine industry in the late 1990's, Yahoo has had a history of development and innovation, and another one is about to come.

Yahoo has now opened it's doors and will be hiring everyday people to work from the comfort of their own homes posting links. The way this works is Yahoo will allow people to signup and receive a package which will contain all the step by step instructions to get setup from home.

This will allow Yahoo to hire talent that would otherwise be unreachable and compensate them based on results on a long term basis.

What you need: A Computer, an Internet Connection and the desire to make a living working from home. No special skills are required other than knowing how to use a computer and navigate the internet.

Mary, a mother from San Jose, CA who worked with Yahoo in the experimental parts of this program, is thriving, in the middle of an economic recession, working in the comfort of her own home with Yahoo.

From her website: "I get paid about $25 for every link I post on Yahoo and I get paid every week... I make around $5500 a month right now"

Yahoo has now officially released their new "work from home" system out to the public. There will be thousand of spots available that are expected to go very soon in the next few days.

The way this works is very simple, Yahoo says.

First you will need to apply for their work from home kits. Yahoo has release a limited amount of kits, all distributed through local websites in your area, which will cost $2 of shipping and handling to the public.

Yahoo says this charge is made to cover shipping costs but also to separate the people that are serious about working with them through this program.

Once you have ordered your kit (if you are one of the lucky few to get availability in your area) then you will receive a package that will contain all the instructions you need to start working from home for the online titan.

This kit will show you all you need to know, Yahoo says. You will be performing simple and straightforward tasks such as posting links. "Anybody with basic computer skills will be able to perform these tasks" adding to that they say that "We understand the psychology of working from home and we want to give our employees tasks that are simple and easy, and reward them generously in order to keep them motivated."

Is this worth quitting your job? If you're lucky enough to receive a kit, you might not even have to.

"We start off our work from home program only requiring 1-2 hours a day of work, earning a great income from the start. This way our work from home employees will see the benefit and start devoting more and more time each day and their salaries will increase accordingly" Yahoo reports.

Although they are going very fast since their release earlier today, thousands of positions are still available at the time of this writing.

To apply for a job working from home for Yahoo here are the three steps:

Step 1: Get the Yahoo Work From Home Kit, only pay the $2.95 for shipping. (The shipping cost allows Yahoo to screen for serious people).

Step 2: Follow the directions on your package and set up a Yahoo account. Then they will give you the website links to post. Start posting those links. Yahoo tracks everything.

Step 3: Yahoo will send out your checks weekly. Or you can start to have them wire directly into your checking account. (Your first checks will be about $750 to $1,500 a week. Then it goes up from there. Depends on how many links you posted online.)

December 15th, 2009 Crawdaddy CA

Hey Liam, maybe you missed this bit of news. Obviously you're not reading your newspapers enough.

Emails expose the global warming conspiracy
Opinion The sky is not falling
By Stewart Meagher
Wednesday, 25 November 2009, 18:18 NEWS THAT more than 1,000 emails and hundreds of other documents created by scientists at the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) were leaked onto the Internet, allegedly after one of the organisation's email servers was hacked, sent the world into a spin last week.

CRU spinners and tree huggers shrugged their shoulders and claimed that some of the documents, which date back as far as 1996 and as recently as a couple of weeks ago, could have been tampered with, trying to suggest that the emails and other files had been carefully selected and perhaps even edited.

The fact that the vast majority of the emails, many of which were sent by leading climatologist Phil Jones, are dull almost beyond comprehension suggests otherwise. Surely if the hack attack or leak was a concerted effort by climate change nay-sayers to discredit the whole concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW - the theory that the Earth is rapidly warming and it's all our fault) then they would have spent more time cherry picking the several emails that have really set tongues to wagging.

As it is, sorting through the 176MB of data to find damning items of evidence has been left to newspaper journalists, or more likely an army of minimum wage junior research monkeys. However, all of that hard work has unearthed a number of worrying gaffes by several of the climate research boffins involved.

One document refers to a paper presented to science magazine Nature which plotted temperature changes using data collected from tree rings. The author states, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." An innocent bit of book cooking to make the numbers look neater, or a leftist conspiracy designed to make the government confiscate our cars? It could be either, depending upon whom one believes.

Defenders of the AGW faith at Real Climate have maintained that it was all above-board and just a case of unfortunate terminology. "Scientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to a good way to deal with a problem, rather than something that is secret," one poster has insisted without an apparent hint of irony.

Other emails that are causing concern suggest that some of the world's leading climate scientists were harbouring personal doubts about whether the planet is really heating up. "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't," one correspondence reads. It continues, "Data shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Another suggests that the organisation has suppressed evidence by asking a number of individuals to delete inconvenient emails, and yet another offers a novel approach to convincing respected scientists with opposing views to come around to the CRU's way of thinking. It says, "Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."

And it's not just the threat of physical attacks that becomes apparent when scouring the mass of emails. Verbal insults are also commonplace: "After the meeting in Norway, where I presented the Esper stuff as described in the extended abstract I sent you, and hearing [redacted]'s follow-up talk on how everybody but him has f****d up in reconstructing past NH temperatures over the past 1000 years (this is a bit of an overstatement on my part I must admit, but his air of papal infallibility is really quite nauseating at times), I have come up with an idea that I want you to be involved in."

Perhaps most concerning are the organisation's apparent attempts to pervert the peer review process by excluding anyone with an opposing opinion, regardless of their credibility or authority. One such is an email that says, "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

Of course it is possible that the hacker - or disgruntled insider as some have suggested - was smart enough to bury a couple of smoking guns within the massive pile of innocent witterings. It doesn't take a criminal genius to fake a few convincing looking email headers, if armed, as they apparently were, with hundreds of genuine ones. Nobody at the UEA has come forward to confirm or deny the authenticity of the data, which is totally unsurprising. If the emails do turn out to be genuine, the very least the red-faced writers can expect is to be subjected to a series of increasingly embarrassing inquisitions at the hands of the world's press, the government institutions that fund their research activities and the British taxpayers who ultimately pick up the tab.

At worst, they should be sacked or even prosecuted for misleading the world about what most concerned people see as the single most important international issue facing the planet today. Having said that, we really wouldn't want to be the person responsible for Internet security at the UEA.

In most industries a bit of light jiggery-pokery of the figures is commonplace. A favourable audit here, a wayward stock market valuation there, some creative accounting just about everywhere. But we're not talking about crooked MPs fiddling their expenses to pay for their castles to be renovated here. When the folks at the CRU speak, the world listens. It's true that more than 50 per cent of the world then sticks its fingers in its ears and goes "la la laaa laaa", but many trillions of dollars worth of finance, commerce and industry teeters on the issue of the whole global warming and climate change science construction.

These people are rewarded well from the public purse to supply the population and the politicians who serve us with accurate data and well-founded scientific explanations. Their conclusions will necessarily inform momentous decisions that will have immense consequences for billions of people throughout the entire world for decades to come, and will impact the quality of life - or even matters of life or death - of millions. Therefore, there should be no hidden agendas, no manipulation of numbers and no pandering to political lobbyists, global warming scam artists or fat cat industrialists keen to maintain the status quo.

The CRU has been accused of cherry-picking and withholding its raw data before, but accusations from individuals or organisations with opposing opinions without solid evidence have been quickly dismissed.

The bottom line is that these are all smart people. It's true that, when we write emails at work most of us behave as though we were operating in an impenetrable bubble. We have firewalls and security experts and virus-killing software and systems administrators to protect us and our badly spelled ramblings from the public gaze. We insult colleagues with apparent impunity, commit our casual banter and deepest secrets to the digital domain, and bandy about commercially sensitive information safe in the knowledge that our emails are private and will never fall into the hands of anyone other than the intended recipient.

But the real world isn't like that. If you work in an industry where what you say and do potentially affects the lives of every living being on the planet, you should be very, very careful about what you say and do.

Be assured that this story will run and run. If the emails do turn out to be genuine, which is so far nigh on impossible to definitively prove either way, the CRU has some very searching questions to answer.

With the Copenhagen Treaty looming on the horizon, and the credibility of one of the world's leading climate think tanks in tatters, this lapse in mail server security, or whistleblower's leak, could turn out to be this generation's Watergate.

Climategate, anyone? µ

December 15th, 2009 Liam CA

heres a story about the global warming situation we're in that's even more pertinent. Read on:

As Time Runs Short for Global Climate Treaty, Nations May Settle for Interim Steps
comments
(107)
Sign In to E-Mail
Print

Reprints

Share
Close
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy JOHN M. BRODER
Published: October 20, 2009
WASHINGTON — With the clock running out and deep differences unresolved, it now appears that there is little chance that international climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in December will produce a comprehensive and binding new treaty on global warming.

Skip to next paragraph
Related
Dot Earth: On CO2, Small Steps for Big Emitters?
Times Topics: Global WarmingReaders' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (107) »
The United States and many other major pollutant-emitting countries have concluded that it is more useful to take incremental but important steps toward a global agreement rather than to try to jam through a treaty that is either too weak to address the problem or too onerous to be ratified and enforced.

Instead, representatives at the Copenhagen meeting are likely to announce a number of interim steps and agree to keep talking next year.

“There isn’t sufficient time to get the whole thing done,” Yvo De Boer, the Dutch diplomat who leads the United Nations climate secretariat and oversees the negotiations, said late last week. “But I hope it will go well beyond simply a declaration of principles. The form I would like it to take is the groundwork for a ratifiable agreement next year.”

Negotiators have accepted as all but inevitable that representatives of the 192 nations in the talks will not resolve the outstanding issues in the time remaining before the Copenhagen conference opens in December. The gulf between rich and poor nations, and even among the wealthiest nations, is just too wide.

Representatives of the 16 largest emitting countries and the European Union, who concluded a meeting in London on Monday, said that they had made progress on the level of aid needed to help poor countries adapt to climate change and adopt less-polluting energy technology.

They also said they had settled some questions on the “architecture” of any agreement reached in Copenhagen, while acknowledging that it would fall short of a binding treaty.

Yet expectations remain high for a meeting that carries important weight not just for the environment but for a broad range of international issues, including trade, security, economic development, energy production, technology sharing and the survival of some vulnerable island nations.

So officials are now narrowing expectations and defining the areas where there is agreement, such as the need to halt and then reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, although how and by which nations remain the subjects of intense dispute. Negotiators are also discussing what form any declaration that emerges from Copenhagen might take and how to ensure that any promises made there are kept.

Among the chief barriers to a comprehensive deal in Copenhagen is Congress’s inability to enact climate and energy legislation that sets binding targets on greenhouse gases in the United States. Without such a commitment, other nations are loath to make their own pledges.

The chief American climate negotiator, Todd Stern, has said that he will not go beyond what Congress is willing to endorse. His deputy, Jonathan Pershing, affirmed this last week at a negotiators’ meeting in Bangkok. “We are not going to be part of an agreement we cannot meet,” Mr. Pershing said.

Administration officials and Congressional leaders have said that final legislative action on a climate bill would not occur before the first half of next year.

European officials have been pressing hardest for some form of binding treaty modeled on the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which the United States refused to ratify because, American officials said, it imposed emissions limits on developed nations while demanding nothing of rapidly growing economies like China and India.

American officials have said that no agreement in Copenhagen is better than a bad deal that cannot be ratified or enforced. And they note that it took four years after the initial negotiation of the Kyoto accord to complete it.

There is general agreement among international negotiators and knowledgeable observers that the parties to the Copenhagen talks, held under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, will agree to continue discussions next year, and perhaps set a deadline for reaching a final agreement by midyear or December 2010 at the latest.

The rest of the outcome, even the form it may take, remains uncertain. The world’s biggest economies agreed at a meeting last summer in L’Aquila, Italy, on a goal of limiting global temperature increases to about 2 degrees Fahrenheit above current levels, though they did not agree on the means to get there or on how to enforce it. Such a goal is expected to be part of any declaration from Copenhagen.

Also likely to be included is a statement that wealthy nations should cut their emissions below certain benchmarks and that emerging economies should reduce their rate of emissions growth below a business-as-usual curve. No numbers were attached to either of these pledges, and that remains the stickiest of issues.

Another unresolved issue is the financial structure of any international climate accord. The wealthy nations have agreed in principle to support low-carbon growth in the developing world and to help those countries hardest hit by climate change to adapt. But the amounts of money, the programs and the countries that would qualify for that support and for cost-sharing among donor nations are highly contentious issues unlikely to be settled in Copenhagen.

There will probably also be a promise to create an international system to monitor, report and verify emissions reductions, although there is no consensus yet on who would perform these tasks and what penalties would be assessed for failure to comply.

There is also likely to be a commitment by most nations to produce and publish economic growth plans based on lower carbon emissions and an agreement by advanced nations to share clean new energy technology with developing countries.

“The most likely form any agreement will take will be a political declaration,” said Nigel Purvis, a former State Department climate negotiator in the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

“It could be a statement by senior leaders, or it could be adopted by the parties as a formal decision,” he said. “That does not make it legally binding, but it sends a signal to the world of the direction the negotiations are going and give guidance to negotiators as they continue their work.”

December 15th, 2009 Liam CA

Obama hater, how could you be so wrapped up in such bullshit. And don't threten me you gun toting moron with you're not on my side, you're on the wrong side and I'll have to shoot you. The time will come when we see which side is righ and which is wrong. Arnie wrote a very beautiful piece on what challenges our country, and our president face. Instead of getting so wrapped up in this birther shit why don't you look around you moron. THE EARTH IS MELTING!!!! Here's a story that you should "read and feed" on by Andrew Redkin; a very intellegent writer for the New York Times. Again a NEWSPAPER! HELLO!

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Overview
Global warming has become perhaps the most complicated issue facing world leaders. On the one hand, warnings from the scientific community are becoming louder, as an increasing body of science points to rising dangers from the ongoing buildup of human-related greenhouse gases — produced mainly by the burning of fossil fuels and forests. On the other, the technological, economic and political issues that have to be resolved before a concerted worldwide effort to reduce emissions can begin have gotten no simpler, particularly in the face of a global economic slowdown.
After years of preparation for climate talks taking place in Copenhagen through Dec. 18, 2009, President Obama and other leaders announced on Nov. 15 what had already become evident — that no formal treaty could be produced anytime soon. Instead, the leaders pledged to reach a placeholder accord that would call for reductions in emissions and increased aid to help developing nations adapt to a changing climate and get access to non-polluting energy options.
This would in theory give the nations more time to work out the all-important details. Negotiators would then seek a binding global agreement in 2010, complete with firm emission targets, enforcement mechanisms and specific dollar amounts to aid poorer nations.
At the heart of the debate is a momentous tussle between rich and poor countries over who steps up first and who pays most for changed energy menus.
Within the United States, Congress is similarly fighting over legislation on climate change. The House in the summer of 2009 passed a bill outlining a cap-and-trade system that could, over the next few decades, lead to an early end to conventional use of coal and oil, fuels that have underpinned prosperity and growth for more than a century. But between stiff opposition from energy interests and the overwhelming distractions of health care reform and the economy, the legislation has stalled in the Senate.
In international discussions over climate, Mr. Obama has urged other countries not to be discouraged by the stasis on Capitol Hill, pointing to big investments in energy efficiency, solar and wind power and his move to restrict greenhouse gases using environmental regulations.
In the meantime, recent fluctuations in temperature, seized on by opponents of emissions restrictions, have intensified the public debate over how urgently to respond. The long-term warming trend over the last century has been well-established, and scientists immersed in studying the climate are projecting substantial disruption in water supplies, agriculture, ecosystems and coastal communities. Passionate activists at both ends of the discourse are pushing ever harder for or against rapid action, while polls show the public locked durably in three camps — with roughly a fifth of American voters eager for action, a similar proportion aggressively rejecting projections of catastrophe and most people tuned out or confused.
Background
Scientists learned long ago that the earth's climate has powerfully shaped the history of the human species — biologically, culturally and geographically. But only in the last few decades has research revealed that humans can be a powerful influence on the climate as well.
A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that since 1950, the world's climate has been warming, primarily as a result of emissions from unfettered burning of fossil fuels and the razing of tropical forests. Such activity adds to the atmosphere's invisible blanket of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases. Recent research has shown that methane, which flows from landfills, livestock and oil and gas facilities, is a close second to carbon dioxide in impact on the atmosphere.
That conclusion has emerged through a broad body of analysis in fields as disparate as glaciology, the study of glacial formations, and palynology, the study of the distribution of pollen grains in lake mud. It is based on a host of assessments by the world's leading organizations of climate and earth scientists.
In the last several years, the scientific case that the rising human influence on climate could become disruptive has become particularly robust.
Some fluctuations in the Earth's temperature are inevitable regardless of human activity — because of decades-long ocean cycles, for example. But centuries of rising temperatures and seas lie ahead if the release of emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation continues unabated, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore for alerting the world to warming's risks.
Despite the scientific consensus on these basic conclusions, enormously important details remain murky. That reality has been seized upon by some groups and scientists disputing the overall consensus and opposing changes in energy policies.
For example, estimates of the amount of warming that would result from a doubling of greenhouse gas concentrations (compared to the level just before the Industrial Revolution got under way in the early 19th century) range from 3.6 degrees to 8 degrees Fahrenheit. The intergovernmental climate panel said it could not rule out even higher temperatures). While the low end could probably be tolerated, the high end would almost certainly result in calamitous, long-lasting disruptions of ecosystems and economies, a host of studies have concluded. A wide range of economists and earth scientists say that level of risk justifies an aggressive response.
Other questions have persisted despite a century-long accumulation of studies pointing to human-driven warming. The rate and extent at which sea levels will rise in this century as ice sheets erode remains highly uncertain, even as the long-term forecast of centuries of retreating shorelines remains intact. Scientists are struggling more than ever to disentangle how the heat building in the seas and atmosphere will affect the strength and number of tropical cyclones. The latest science suggests there will be more hurricanes and typhoons that reach the most dangerous categories of intensity, but fewer storms over all.
Steps Toward a Response
The debate over such climate questions pales next to the fight over what to do, or not do, in a world where fossil fuels still underpin both rich and emerging economies. With the completion of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit in 1992, the world's nations pledged to avoid dangerously disrupting the climate through the buildup of greenhouse gases, but they never defined how much warming was too much.
Nonetheless, recognizing that the original climate treaty was proving ineffective, all of the world's industrialized countries except for the United States accepted binding restrictions on their greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated in Japan in 1997. That accord took effect in 2005 and its gas restrictions expire in 2012. (The United States signed the treaty, but it was never submitted for ratification, in the face of overwhelming opposition in the Senate because the pact required no steps by China or other fast-growing developing countries.
It took until 2009 for the leaders of the world's largest economic powers to agree on a dangerous climate threshold: an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from the average global temperature recorded just before the Industrial Revolution kicked into gear. (This translates into an increase of 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above the Earth's current average temperature, about 59 degrees).
The Group of 8 industrial powers also agreed this year to a goal of reducing global emissions 50 percent by 2050, with the richest countries leading the way by cutting their emissions 80 percent. But they did not set a baseline from which to measure that reduction, and so far firm interim targets — which many climate scientists say would be more meaningful — have not been defined.
At the same time, fast-growing emerging economic powerhouses, led by China and India, still oppose taking on mandatory obligations to curb their emissions. They say they will do what they can to rein in growth in emissions — as long as their economies do not suffer. The world's poorest countries, in the meantime, are seeking payments to help make them less vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, given that the buildup in climate-warming gases so far has come mainly from richer nations. Such aid has been promised since the 1992 treaty and a fund was set up under the Kyoto Protocol. But while tens of billions of dollars are said to be needed, only millions have flowed so far.
In many ways, the debate over global climate policy is a result of a global "climate divide.'' Emissions of carbon dioxide per person range from less than 2 tons per year in India, where 400 million people lack access to electricity, to more than 20 in the United States. The richest countries are also best able to use wealth and technology to insulate themselves from climate hazards, while the poorest, which have done the least to cause the problem, are the most exposed.
In Copenhagen in December 2009, negotiators had planned to try to settle on the basic terms of two new global climate agreements. One would renew the commitments of countries bound by the Kyoto emissions limits; the other would rein in emissions of all countries to varying extents, depending on their wealth and emissions history. Given the many competing interests, and the reality that any big emissions shifts would have substantial economic impacts, the negotiations have been called one of the most complex diplomatic challenges ever.
Democratic leaders in the United States Senate continue to try to follow the lead of the House of Representatives by securing passage of a bill aiming to sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The chief mechanism would be a "cap and trade" system that sets a gradually declining ceiling for over all emissions. Companies and institutions could buy and sell credits from one another as a way to curb emissions at the lowest cost. Companies that made deeper cuts than required could sell credits to companies that fell short of their targets.
But a national preoccupation with the slow economy and competing issues, led by health care, threaten to delay or weaken such legislation. Another impediment is the shortage of money flowing to basic energy research and large-scale demonstrations of non-polluting energy technology. While the Obama administration and Congress directed some stimulus money toward such efforts, such spending comes only after decades of declining investment in these areas.
President Obama came into office vowing to take swift action on climate change, and under him, the Environmental Protection Agency has declared that it will regulate carbon dioxide emissions. But with the cap-and-trade bill facing an uncertain future in the Senate, his ability to take big steps on the issue has been severely constrained, and without significant actions by the United States, China and India had made it clear they would remain on the sidelines. Just weeks before the planned Copenhagen session, he and other leaders gathered for an Asian summit announced that no treaty would be reached in 2009. Instead, leaders will try to reach a political agreement that could be the basis for new treaty talks in 2010.
In the meantime, a recent dip in emissions caused by the global economic slowdown is almost certain to be followed by a rise, scientists warn, and with population and appetites for energy projected to rise through mid-century, they say the entwined challenges of climate and energy will only intensify.

December 15th, 2009 Obamahater CA

You liberal pukes make me want to throw up. Wise up now or you'll be wishing you had when the revelution comes. And if you don't know what that is, it's the day that we, the American people rise up and take arms against our oppressors and make what's wrong, right again. Join us. Or else....
Now I found this article to be spot on as the gay ol' English say. Read and feed:

Obama Birth Announcement False (UPDATED!) (Updated Again!!)
Posted on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 in Birth Location
…says Mississippi PI in a signed, but not notarized “affidavit.”
Mississippi investigator Jorge L. Baro says that he swore (although the notary’s signature is blank) that some unnamed people he hired told him that they had talked to Beatrice Arakaki in Hawaii and that she told them that 47 years ago in 1961 there was no black baby living next door to her at the address in the Sunday Advertiser announcement of Obama’s birth.
According to the Honolulu Advertiser, it was practice to get birth announcements from the Health Department via a news service, not from private submissions, as evidenced by that fact that two independent newspapers had the same announcement with the same announcements for other infants before and after. The announcement had to come from the Health Department, via the birth registration. So what gives? Did they live there or not? It all becomes clear with careful reading and examination of the evidence.
Option A
Let’s assume for a moment that everything that Baro says about the interview is true (but not perhaps complete).
Look carefully at the signed statement from the Mississippi PI, Baro from which the information related to Obama residences comes.
[Baro writes:] Investigators contacted Beatrice Arakaki, who lived at 6075 Kalanianaole Highway in Honolulu, Hawaii. Ms. Arakaki’s residence is next door [sic] to the alleged residence of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack H. Obama Sr. at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway at the time the Senator was born in 1961. Ms. Arakaki said she has lived at her current residence on Kalanianaole since before 1961 to the present day. Ms. Arakaki said she had knowledge of the family living in Waikiki and not on Kalanianaole Highway.
Now exactly who is “the family” in that sentence? It clearly says “Stanley Ann Dunham [sic] and Barack H. Obama Sr.” lived elsewhere. It does not say that Stanley Ann’s parents, Stan and Madelyn Dunham, didn’t live there. Indeed, we know that Stan and Madelyn Dunham did live on Kalanianaole Highway from 1960 to 1963 as evidenced by an article from the Honolulu Advertiser:
[Stanley Ann] and her parents, Kansas couple Stan Dunham, a furniture store operator, and Madelyn Dunham (”Toot,” to Obama), a bank cashier, had come to Hawai’i in 1960 and moved into the Kalaniana’ole location. … By 1963 the Dunhams had moved into Apartment 110 of a six-year-old building at 1427 Alexander Street, records show.
Since the Dunham’s did live next door, it makes perfect sense that Ms. Arakaki would know where the Obama family, her neighbor’s kids, lived as she claimed. If the Dunham family did NOT live next door, how in the world would Ms. Arakaki know where some obscure college kids who had only been in the city a year lived?
Since the Dunhams lived at the birth registration address, it would not have been criminal or fraudulent for Stanley Ann to have put down her mother’s address as her “usual residence”, especially if she were in transition from one place to another, or was unsure where they were going to live, or if (as the newspaper suggested) they intended to or actually did live in the “cottage out back”. There are half a dozen perfectly legal, harmless and plausible reasons why Stanley Ann Obama would have listed her parents’ address on her hospital form.
Because we have no transcript of the Arakaki interview, only a biased summary, we do not know how much other information was provided that could totally change the meaning of the interview.
There is simply nothing in this record that credibly challenges the birth announcement.
Option B
Is the Arakaki interview essentially true? The comments to this article suggest that it is not, and that public records show that Arakaki did not live at the house in question in 1961. (See comments.) In that case, we would assume that the “usual address” of Stanley Ann Obama was indeed 6085 Kalanianaole Highway (perhaps in the cottage out back). The birth registration would have made no assertion that she lived there with Barack Obama Sr. We know they were soon separated and eventually divorced. We don’t know that they were still living together on August 4, 1961. Indeed there is a lot we don’t know about the early details of the Obama marriage, and no one is left alive that can tell us. We do, however, have a newspaper birth announcement which is about all we can rely on at this point.

December 15th, 2009 Liam CA

Here, Here. You are a wise man, Arnie.

December 15th, 2009 Arnie CA

IT IS said that carrying a crown is too tough because it becomes heavier everyday. For Barack Obama, the President-elect in US, the proverb seems to be apt as he faces mighty challenges at this juncture.


Most important of these is the critical economic crisis in USA that has never been experienced since 1930. Unemployment is touching the sky and there are 7,840 presidential appointee jobs to be filled, including 1,177 requiring Senate confirmation.


Pessimism shrouds the US consumers, who foresee a bleak future and are not ready for spending and borrowing. Industrial recession is looming large and the money market has reached the bottom . The mortgage market situation which is regarded as the lifeline of US finances is in severe trouble.


Nearly 3000 home losers are awaiting the announcements of the new president. In US, around 45 million Americans do not have health insurance causing tremendous pressure on health care system of the country.


The expenses of delivering promised benefits under Medicare, the giant health care program for older Americans, is expected to rise much more quickly than tax revenue.


And Medicaid’s growing strain on federal and state budgets is unlikely to abate over the coming decade, as the cost of providing health care to the poor is expected to increase by 7.9 per cent annually. The President will have to pay serious attention to the issue.


One of the vulnerable issue is of providing social securities to the retirees and their dependents. Presently, America has 6 million survivors of deceased workers and 9 million disabled workers with the dependents.


The total expenses on these accounts will be a huge burden in at this economic juncture. The question of outsourcing from the third world country has already got a momentum which was one of the major issues before the Presidential electoral campaign.


Now, Barack Obama will need to focus on the issue more seriously considering its impacts, positive or negative on US and the countries providing services as outsourcing service providers.


Energy problems is another area which needs serious consideration of the new President considering the US dependence on Persian Gulf oil. Increasing dependence on nuclear power needs a look back to deal with the nuclear wastes vis-à-vis the issue of the global warming.


The foreign policy, as has been assumed, will face a sea-change during new president’s regime, particularly on the issue of Iraq and Afaganistan, helping out Pakistan which has shielded Osama Bin Laden and other international terrorists, relations with Russia under the changed political situation, intervention in Arab-Israel disputes, outlining a framework for a settlement with Palestine and so on.


The threat of terrorism is an ongoing reality and the president-elect must be prepared for an early test as the coordination effort between America’s police officers and fire fighters has not been resolved since 9/11 in 2001.

US is now fighting two wars. In Iraq 152,000 and in Afghanistan 32,000 US troops have been deployed. Violence has been escalating and American casualties are running higher in Afghanistan. The larger question before the new president is when and how to withdraw US troops from Iraq and how many more troops to send to Afghanistan.


Challenges are multiple and choices are limited. And Barack Obama has no option but to be pro-active because the white Americans want to experience a sea-change – from Bush to Obama – not simply from white to black.

December 15th, 2009 Arnie CA

I came on this site to see if there was any updates for the contact numbers for Restart Solutions. I did take the time to read a few of the articles. Very interesting how people can be so fooled by such rhetorical nonsense as what as been posted. I've done some research on these matters and have come up with some definitive answers. I've decided it's best to post them instead of try to interprete them for then I would be accused of being rhetorical. So here they are. I'll keep looking for some others just to keep the "Brain Food" coming. I think in spite our beliefs we can all use it. The article below is one that I found extremly interesting. It talks about bipartisanship and how that in and of itself will be this countries saving grace. Read on:

Bipartisan HOPE
By David Keene - 12/14/09 06:40 PM ET
Bipartisanship seems a quaint concept in today’s Washington, where Democrats and Republicans routinely question each other’s motives and integrity. Still, as 2009 winds down, we should be thankful that a few here occasionally manage to put partisanship aside in an honest quest for solutions to real problems.


You won’t find many of them standing up during the healthcare debate, but there are other issues of incredible importance that don’t receive daily front-page treatment in The Washington Post or even the passing attention of the White House or the president’s water-carriers in the House and Senate. On some such issues, thoughtful members are working across party lines in a bipartisan search for meaningful solutions to real problems.



In the Senate, for example, Virginia’s Jim Webb (D), whom most think of as mainly interested in defense issues — and who is currently in hot water for daring to question the wisdom of his “leaders” on some aspects of the healthcare bill — actually spends more time pondering the shortcomings of our dysfunctional criminal justice system.


About 5 percent of the world’s people call the U.S. home, but we account for almost 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. An American is roughly five times more likely to end up behind bars at some point than others, and one in three black men can expect to spend some part of their adult lives in prison. Building and maintaining a prison system that doesn’t really work (two-thirds of those we lock up will be rearrested after release) is breaking the budget of many states.


We are today releasing hundreds of thousands of prisoners a year from seriously overcrowded, dehumanizing institutions — who are then barred from most legitimate work after their release. In decades past, released felons were rationally barred from jobs as, say, bank tellers, but could work in many jobs with a future. That is no longer the case. Today they are relegated to jobs as janitors, car washers or day laborers with little chance of putting their lives back together.


Webb and congressmen as diverse as Ted Poe (R-Texas), a former judge, and Democrat Adam Schiff (Calif.) think we can and must do better. Webb wants a national commission to look at the problem, while Poe and Schiff want to encourage other states to try a program that has worked wonders in Hawaii. Both of these efforts deserve support.


The Hawaii program, begun by a former Clinton U.S. attorney-turned-criminal court judge, is both innovative and promising. Judge Steven Alm was, as U.S. attorney, one tough prosecutor. As a judge, he discovered that something like half of the men and women appearing before him were there for probation violations, and he began asking why.


It turned out that in Hawaii, as in most states, probation officers labor under such heavy case loads that neither they nor the courts on whose behalf they work can deal with “clients” who violate the terms of their release. The result is that minor violations pile up, and since there seems to be no penalty, violators begin simply to ignore the rules. When action is finally taken, the violator is sent off to prison to serve his or her full sentence.


Alm believed, correctly, as it turned out, that if a violator knew for a virtual certainty that a rules violation would lead to immediate incarceration, even for a few days, the system might actually work and alter the behavior that led folks back to prison. If he was right, such a program might reduce crime, give those arrested a second chance and save the state money at the same time.


Alm began with drug offenders who appeared before him, and with the cooperation of prosecutors and police began a program that included random but mandatory drug tests and a requirement that rules violators be picked up and locked up within 48 hours. The program was built on the long-known fact that to be effective, punishment must be certain and quick, and that that certainty and quickness are more important than its severity.


It worked. Alm called the program Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement, or HOPE. Probation violations dropped by 80 percent, the program spread to other courts and Hawaii’s prison population and the costs actually began to decrease.


Reps. Poe and Schiff have introduced a bill that would, they hope, replicate Alm’s success elsewhere by encouraging other states to emulate the program. They likewise call it HOPE, for Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement.


It’s a serious bipartisan bill that deserves a serious bipartisan look.

Keene is chairman of the American Conservative Union and a managing associate with the Carmen Group, a Washington-based governmental
consulting firm.

December 15th, 2009 Janet CA

I just wanted to say I got to talk to someone at Restart Solutions. They called me back the next day (I asked them to on the recording) and the woman took all my phone numbers and information. Very nice woman.

December 15th, 2009 A confederate CA

And part 2. Oh, and make sure you read the last paragraph you liberal asshole. You're part of the reason this country's going down in flames.

Larry Johnson of No Quarter used to be a liberal until the Democrats decided to nominate an unqualified African-American for President. In a last-ditch attempt to get Democrats to come to their senses, he revealed the existence of a secret videotape featuring Michelle Obama speaking to a group that included the wife of Louis Farrakhan and maybe even Farrakhan himself in which she confirms the most feverish nightmares of some white Americans by ranting about “whitey.” Johnson claimed that Republicans had a copy of this tape, which they were holding onto until October, when it would do the most damage. Although he didn’t actually see the tape himself, he had many friends and friends of friends who did see it. Stop the ACLU wrote, "This is all a rumor, but if you read Michelle’s college thesis on race you will find it is most likely true." Macranger reported, "Too many insiders are talking about it to outright dismiss it." Jim Geraghty of National Review's The Corner initially believed the tape existed but later grew skeptical, writing, "I note that despite my readers' hopes, this fits the pattern for rumors like this — they're always simultaneously vague but hyped to be huge, and they're always coming just around the corner." Killjoy. If Johnson is right, and there is no reason to doubt him, we should be seeing that tape any day now. But you might want to send him a note and remind him that there are only two more weeks left in October so they better release that tape quick.

Obama was not born in the United States and his birth certificate has been forged.

What would happen if we elected a President who was not born in this country and is not eligible to be President? Some of the best minds in the conservative blogosphere are doing everything they can to stop this horrifying scenario from happening before it is too late. “This is serious: Barack Obama's campaign has endorsed the accuracy of what is almost certainly a forged birth certificate for Obama,” writes Right Wing News. According to Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, Doug Ross of Director Blue and Israel Insider, the birth certificate the Obama campaign released is without a doubt a forgery, which they have proven using all kinds of scientific analysis that involves anti-aliasing and kerning, which makes my head spin but looks really convincing. Tiger Hawk was really concerned about this: “I do not think that it would be good for anybody, including Republicans, if it turned out that Barack Obama was not 'natural born' under the law. What a mess that would be for the whole country.” And Andrew McCarthy of the National Review’s The Corner also wanted answers, adding, in case anyone had any doubt, “I am not a conspiracy theorist.” (Update: What is the real reason for Obama's trip to Hawaii?)

So if Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, where was he born? Prestigious conservative news organization World Net Daily reports, “Pennsylvania Democrat Philip J. Berg, who filed a lawsuit demanding Sen. Barack Obama present proof of his American citizenship, now says that by failing to respond Obama has legally ‘admitted’ to the lawsuit's accusations, including the charge that the Democratic candidate was born in Mombosa [sic], Kenya.” Berg claims he spoke to Obama’s grandmother and she said she was in the delivery room when he was born in a hospital in Mombassa. Although Philip Berg once filed a RICO lawsuit against Bush and others blaming them for the events of 9/11, that doesn’t mean he’s wrong now. (Update: Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs has determined that not only was Obama not born in Hawaii, his father is actually Malcolm X!)

As if being Kenyan weren’t bad enough, John Ray at Stop the ACLU reports that Obama is also Indonesian according to another birth certificate and that he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 on an Indonesian passport where he no doubt met with members of Al Qaeda. “I suspect that Obama may have dumped his Indonesian citizenship at some point along the way, to advance his political career,” writes Ray of the wily, ambitious politician. “But I would not be shocked if he still holds it. This question, however, should not overshadow the serious problem of hiding his Indonesian identity from the electorate….. What else is he hiding?” Despite so much evidence that Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, some conservative bloggers have been as dismissive of this story as the mainstream media. “Let’s stop chasing absurd conspiracy theories that make it more difficult to win the real arguments in this election,” Ed Morrissey of Hot Air wrote, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, who is the Father of Konservative Kerning Analysis has banned mention of the birth certificate story on his site and AJ Strata of Strata-Sphere did his own scientific analysis to disprove it. Who got to them, I wonder?

Barack Obama had an underage, gay “affair” with a pedophile.

When the National Enquirer reported that one of Obama’s childhood mentors wrote a semi-autobiographical book that includes passages about sex with an underage girl, the conservative blogosphere collectively made the next logical leap that even the Enquirer was too skittish to make: Obama must have had sex with this man when he was nine years old. “The National Enquirer now suggests Barack Obama had an underage, gay affair with a pedophile,” wrote Erick Erickson of Red State. “Yup. That Frank Marshall Davis guy Barry says was his good friend? Turns out he was a perv of the first order and liked young boys." In case anyone should make unfair accusations against him, Erickson added, "This post is not intended to spread that rumor.” Indeed, that post was only intended as a public service to pass on information that was right there between the lines of the Enquirer story for all to see. “That may be worse than his having been counseled by Jeremiah Wright,” wrote Dan Riehl. “No wonder he says "Pakit-stan" in that funny way of his! heh!” Confederate Yankee wondered why this very important story was being buried by the mainstream media, explaining, “Barack Obama's list of known mentors now includes child rapists ('Uncle Frank' Marshall), racists (Rev. Jeremiah Wright) and terrorists (Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn). When is someone going to question how these associations must have warped Obama's views and render him unstable, and unsuitable for the Presidency?” Jules Crittenden, who called the story an “October Surprise,” dismissed Obama’s being “mentored by a suspected commie pervert in underage late-night drinking/dirty limerick slams” as a “youthful indiscretion,” but added, “with the subsequent adult pattern … 20 years in the pews of a frothing America-bashing bigot and the professional palling around with an unrepentant ex-terrorist … you begin to see what they mean when with that ‘doesn’t look like us’ line. Turns out it’s not a racial cue at all.” Dan Collins of Protein Wisdom also reported on the story, but as usual, I have no idea what he was trying to say. “No doubt Obama will claim this as a desperate smear by the forces of evil who are afraid of change,” said Jammie Wearing Fool, with that delightful sarcasm he uses when not smearing people.

You might think that the fact that Obama was palling around with pedophiles when he was nine years old, which is the exact same time that William Ayers was blowing up the Pentagon, would be an important story, but once again the mainstream media ignored it. Conservative blogger Don Surber also demurred, writing, “Some bloggers are calling this an October surprise. I call it stupidity” and predictably liberal bloggers proceeded to shoot the messengers. “When people discuss (possible) sexual contact between ten-year-old boys who are not their political enemies and grown men, they usually refer to the 'underage gay affairs' as sexual abuse,” wrote Jim Henley of Unqualified Offerings. “They also recognize that adults who have been abused may or may not wish to tell the whole world the details, and they respect it. Admittedly, most people are not members of the NAMBLA wing of the Republican Party, or, failing that, curdled into pure meanness. Maybe Erickson just holds with the more sweeping theories about the cultural construction of the age of consent. Whatever the reason, he’s sure that that little vixen, ten-year-old Barry Obama, was asking for it man.”

Obama had cocaine-fueled gay sex in the back of a limousine with a not-very-attractive disabled man with a criminal background

While the mainstream media requires their sources practically to be saints before they will even think of publishing sensational allegations, the prestigious World Net Daily is under no such constraints. It reported on Larry Sinclair’s allegations that he did cocaine and had sex with Barack Obama in the back of a limousine without making him jump through all the hoops a mainstream media organization or even the National Enquirer would have required. Although some people didn't find Larry Sinclair's story credible considering his criminal record and the fact that he failed a lie detector test, WND decided to publish the allegations and let the people decide. Although many in the conservative blogoshpere also doubted Sinclair’s veracity, some, like Rusty Shackleford at Jawa Report, decided the gloves were off after the National Enquirer ran a salacious report on Sarah Palin, and reluctantly decided to link to the story anyway, because, as he explains, “this kind of slime is now in play.” Mick Stockinger at Uncorrelated agreed that “it’s only fair” to bring it up and Rude News called it “tit for tat.” That oughta teach the National Enquirer.

Obama was getting answers in the first debate through a clear plastic hearing aid in his ear

Ann Althouse has a unique ability to see things that no one else sees, not unlike my Aunt Agatha, until she was sent away to a rest home and forced to take medication that took away her abilities. During the primaries, Althouse discovered that a Hillary Clinton ad included the subliminal message “Nig” written on a child's pajamas. Then during the debates, Althouse noticed on her high definition television that Obama was wearing a clear plastic hearing aid in his ear and noted that he spoke haltingly as if someone was giving him the answers in the debate. “It's clearly there, a crescent of clear plastic,” she said in response to some skeptical comments (note her use of the word "crescent," a clever reference to Obama's secret Muslim heritage). Although Althouse later backed away from the story, which Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit linked to, she didn’t repudiate it entirely, concluding in the comments, "You know, just because the thing I saw wasn't there doesn't mean there wasn't something there that I didn't see." I don’t know if this is an acceptable standard of evidence in courts of law since I am not a law professor like Ms. Althouse, but it has come to be the standard of evidence in the conservative blogosphere, and I don’t see why the fuddy-duddy mainstream media can’t adopt this way of thinking, too.

Ace of Spades’ Super-Secret Unified Field Story That Connects All the Dots

For weeks Ace of Spades has been working on a super-secret story about Obama, which "called Obama a straight-up liar on his supposed 'flimsy' relationship with The Terrorist William Ayers" and finally connected all the dots, linking Obama and Bill Ayers, Acorn, Tony Reszko, Charles Manson, the Chicago mob, the Illuminati, Freemasons, the Trilateral Commission, Jewish bankers, Nazis living in South America, Fidel Castro, the KGB, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Bigfoot, Area 51, the Harlem Globetrotters, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the Bermuda Triangle, Mrs. Calabash and Mr. Gorsky. Apparently, Ben Smith at Politico, had the story, too, according to Ace and Hill Buzz, and he was just sitting on it (though Smith denied it). Then just as Ace was on the verge of breaking the story, he made this heart-breaking announcement: “The source was considering dropping his demand for anonymity. Thus likely moving the story forward. (He wasn't considering going forward with the Politico, by the way: but with the other, more important organization.) And now, today? After witnessing Politico, among others, savage Joe Wurtzelbacher? Cold feet.” Curse you, mainstream media and your accursed fact-checking! Will your cover-up of the truth about Barack Obama never end!

December 15th, 2009 A confederate CA

Hey, Alston B. Maybe you didn't read the first story that I pasted by Jonathan Swift!!! I'll post it again, because anyother stories I can find that tell the truth of what's really going on in Washington are insignificant in contrast to what Swift says.

Here it is again in 2 parts:

Jon Swift
I am a reasonable conservative who likes to write about politics and culture. Since the media is biased I get all my news from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Jay Leno monologues.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Great Moments in Election-Year Blogging
No matter what happens in this year’s election, the conservative blogosphere deserves to win a collective Pulitzer Prize for its election-year coverage. While the mainstream media has given Americans a very distorted picture of Barack Obama, portraying him as a thoughtful, intelligent, unflappable, decent family man who has the temperament and judgment to be President, the conservative blogosphere has been the only place where you can get the real story. Hampered by quaint, old-fashioned rules of journalism that require citing evidence and reputable sources, the mainstream media has failed to report a number of important stories about Obama and the conservative blogosphere has had to step up and do the media’s job for them. As a public service I have collected some of the most important of these stories in one place. Pulitzer Prize judges, take note!

Some of the stories below are shocking and even hard to believe, but they weren’t published on crazy, fringe websites. They appeared on some of the most distinguished and well-respected sites on the Internet. The bloggers and online journalists who published them have staked their reputations and their sacred honor on the veracity of these reports. To doubt the truth of their findings, you would have to believe that an entire segment of the blogosphere has suddenly been gripped by hysteria and gone collectively insane, which is a pretty unlikely scenario.

During Obama’s dark, mysterious years at Columbia, he was involved in domestic terrorist bombings

Although some mainstream media sources have alluded to Obama’s mysterious years at Columbia, only one intrepid reporter, Tom Maguire of Just One Minute has made the cognitive leap required to connect all of the dots. Noting that Obama admitted in his book Dreams of My Father that he was “interested in South Africa divestment,” Maguire does some digging and discovers that some protests against the 1981 tour by the South African Springboks rugby team resulted in violence and even some bombings. Guess who “was involved in some fashion” in these bombings? The Weather Underground! “These are just dots and it may be impossible to connect them,” says Maguire, modestly, “but we have Barack Obama at Columbia working on South African divestment (as were many peaceful protestors) while other radical elements with a Weather Underground flavor are setting bombs, killing cops, and working on South African divestment. As a bonus, Bill Ayers is studying at Bank Street College a quarter mile from Columbia.” Wow! How can the mainstream media possibly ignore the fact that Obama must have been “involved in some fashion” in domestic terrorism because he was “interested in South African divestment.” “Tom Maguire steps pretty far out on a limb with this bit of speculation,” says CPAC Blogger of the Year Ace of Spades, who links to the story. “But it would explain why Barack Obama's ‘lost years’ at Columbia have remained so very very secret.” It makes me wonder how my friend Tom Watson, who was at Columbia at the same time as Obama and was also “interested in South African divestment,” was connected to the Weather Underground, not to mention hundreds of other former Columbia students who today freely walk the streets despite their terrorist connections. I wonder if Tom has mentioned his radical connections in his upcoming book CauseWired: Plugging In, Getting Involved, Changing the World , or if like Obama, he mysteriously left it out.

Obama didn’t actually write Dreams of My Father. In fact, it was ghost-written by none other than Bill Ayers!

Jack Cashill at the aptly named American Thinker found it difficult to believe that Barack Obama, who is not one of the most articulate politicians around, could possibly have written a whole book all by himself. He must have had help. Probably from someone evil. So on a hunch Cashill decided to compare Obama’s book with a book written by Bill Ayers and lo and behold, he discovered some shocking similarities, including the use of nautical imagery and the fact that a very scientific test to determine the grade level of the prose was a match. This wasn’t the first story Cashill broke. Cashill also proved that Arab terrorists and not Eric Rudolph were responsible for the 1996 Olympics bombing in Atlanta and that the Clintons covered up the real cause of the death of Ron Brown and the downing of TWA Flight 800. Unfortunately, Cashill’s overwhelming evidence wasn’t enough to convince the mainstream media to report on his theories, but Ann Althouse, who is a tenured professor at the 36th most prestigious law school in the country according to U.S. News & World Report, took them very seriously. “Mere confirmation bias? Or is Cashill onto something?” wrote the respected professor ominously after presenting her exhaustive analysis. Former U.S. prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, who now writes for the National Review’s The Corner, wrote that while he didn’t “want to feed into what sounds, at first blush, like Vince Fosteresque paranoia,” after reading Cashill’s analysis he found it “thorough, thoughtful, and alarming.” Scott Johnson at Powerline called Cashill's work "interesting" and said that while "Cashill could also make the case that John Hinderaker and I qualify for recognition as Obama's secret collaborator" they didn't live in Obama's neighborhood, as Ayers did, which is in itself pretty damning. “Nautical metaphors may sink Obama,” Ace of Spades wrote hopefully. Flopping Aces saw Ayers’ ghost-writing of Obama’s book as just one part of a vast conspiracy to get a socialist elected President. “Eventually, if successful, their dreams of a Communist nation can be realized,” wrote Flopping Aces. “Sounds crazy….I know.” By the way, before Cashill hit on his theory, I noted some eerie similarities between Dreams of My Father and the Horatio Hornblower novels of C.S. Forester, which also contain nautical references and are written on a high school level, but I gave up my investigation when I realized that Forester died in 1966 and probably could not have written Obama’s book. Why didn't I think of comparing Obama’s book to Ayers’ book instead? I guess that's why I'm not one of the A-list bloggers.

Michelle Obama attacks “American white racists” in an interview with obscure online news site

I bet you probably didn’t know that Michelle Obama gave an exclusive interview to the obscure online journalism site African Press International in which she said that “American white racists” are trying to derail her husband's candidacy by claiming that Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, which would make him ineligible to be President under one of the secret, little-known provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Mrs. Obama was apparently so disturbed by these charges that she decided to call this press agency, which most people have never heard of, and vent Martha Mitchell-like, even though her words might scuttle her husband’s chances of becoming President. Although the mainstream media hasn’t yet picked up the story, and the Obama campaign denies the interview took place, Gateway Pundit, Protein Wisdom, Right Pundits, Stop the ACLU, Maggies Notebook, Death by 1000 Paperecuts, Strata-Sphere, Gina Cobb, Macsmind, News Busters, World Net Daily, Jim Treacher, Townhall and a number of other conservative blogs and news sites ran with it. Although some cynical bloggers were skeptical of the story for some reason and demanded more proof, API assured them that it had tapes of the conversations and was just waiting for the right moment to release them. Although API still hasn’t managed to work out the logistics yet, and several deadlines have already come and gone, conservative bloggers are very patient and understanding and just hope that API can work everything out before the election. “We will know soon enough,” writes Gateway Pundit. “It is amazing how the media will believe a hoax that some Republican yelled ‘kill him’ at a Palin rally with no evidence but will disregard a harsh story on Michelle Obama from the start. It's interesting how that works.” It is funny how that works, Gateway Pundit.

Obama had a girlfriend that his wife found out about and forced her to move to the Caribbean.

What would an election be without a sex scandal? If you only read the American mainstream media, you might not know that the U.K.’s Daily Mail reported that Obama was “the target of a shadowy smear campaign designed to derail his bid for the US Presidency by falsely claiming he had a close friendship with an attractive African-American female employee…. The woman, now 33, vigorously denies the vicious and unsubstantiated gossip.” Unfortunately, the American mainstream media apparently has some kind of silly rules about publishing stories about unsubstantiated rumors as a way of writing about those rumors, but conservative bloggers have been all over the story like white bloggers on rice. Once again the conservative blogosphere’s most respected blogger Ace of Spades led the way. “Having now spoken to someone tracking the story, I can say: 1) It's not just a silly little rumor. 2) It will break in some form shortly,” he wrote. Ace even noticed that Obama had vacationed in the Caribbean, noting his source “hadn't even made that connection.” That’s just how Ace’s mind works, making connections that don’t even occur to peddlers of sleazy gossip.

Unfortunately, the story hasn’t broken yet in some form, except on a number of prominent conservative blogs. Jammie Wearing Fool presented a very credible case for why the story might be true, writing, “If you're Obama and you're married to the modern-day incarnation of Aunt Esther, you've got to figure the temptation to get your thang on must be pretty strong.” Say Anything advised Obama to “disclose this woman’s pay records, her travel records and her job history as it relates to working for his Senate staff and/or campaign.” Stop the ACLU cautioned, “Just remember…this is only a rumor until the media get off their behinds and actually investigate this,” but that didn’t stop Right Voices, Protein Wisdom, Hill Buzz, Confederate Yankee, Jammie Wearing Fool, Silent Running or Black Five from discussing it. Unfortunately, these bloggers have been unable to offer any evidence that the story is true, but just because there is no evidence that something is true, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

There is a tape of Michelle Obama with Louis Farrakhan talking about “whitey”

December 15th, 2009 Janet CA

Who do I call if I want to get my name off the list of this telemarketing company. I left a recording this afternoon. I just wanted to follow it up with a personal call.

December 15th, 2009 Alston B. CA

This is part 2. The last paragraph spells it all out.

Fourth, it is true that talented Clintonites who have experience from 1993–2000 will hit the ground running. That said, the world may also remember that during those eight years the United States either could not or would not reply to serial provocations — the World Trade Center Bombing of 1993, the murdering of American soldiers in their Khobar quarters, the attacks on our East African embassies and diplomats, or the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole — ensuring that 9/11 was the logical rather than aberrant denouement.

Risks now seen by terrorists and rogue states as unwise during the cowboyish Bush administration may once again seem worth reconsideration in a manner reminiscent of the Clinton years. Talking of soft power, multilateralism, the U.N., dialogue, and restoring our image abroad are all salutary and resonate well in Europe; but to others more nefarious, such calming assurances may send the opposite message that the U.S. is now predictable — and predictably not going to hit hard back when provoked. Deterrence is earned with difficulty and over many years, but it is easily lost in seconds
What should we then expect? As some point, perhaps in his first few months in office, President Obama, as Joe Biden predicted, will be tested by the rogue oil-producing states. Most — like Iran, Russia, and Venezuela — will soon be facing bankruptcy if oil prices stay flat, as their only source of foreign exchange largely vanishes. Expect all in multifarious ways to test America, in part to humiliate the United States, but more likely simply to cause enough tension to create panic among speculators and restore their windfall profits. Anyone can dream up scenarios — a move on Georgia, a cutoff of natural gas entirely to Europe, a brazen announcement of an Iranian bomb with a dare to Israel to stop it, a suicide attack on a tanker or warship in the Straits of Hormuz, flagrant violation of the Monroe Doctrine by home porting Russian vessels in Venezuela, simultaneous rocket barrages from Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria, etc. For such countries, any disruption is good in the sense that it creates panic, and panic in turn spikes oil prices.

Expect Pakistani-based terrorists to renew terrorist assaults on India, on the premise that Pakistan enjoys both nuclear exemption and deniability of culpability. In the multilateral world to come, European NATO countries may praise Obama to the skies as they quietly begin to leave Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda remnants in Iraq may think even a tenth of its former suicide attacks could now pay real dividends, on the assumption that once U.S. troops leave Iraq, under no circumstances will they ever come back.
All Americans in bipartisan fashion should hope that Obama will get though successfully the perilous first six months at a time when the U.S. economy is shaky, the Commander-in-chief unproven, and our enemies eager to test our president’s mettle. Yet I suspect that conservatives will more likely than liberals forgive the fact that Obama’s governance at times will come to resemble just what he used to caricature in George W. Bush.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution

December 15th, 2009 Alston B CA

WTF!!!!!! I came on this site to find out how to get my name off some telemarketing company’s list and…. What kind of forum is this????? Articles like that about our sitting President make my blood boil more that being harassed on my phone. Here’s an article that I found that counters all those claims. I post it below. Yes, do feed your brain,,, but with the right information. I put the story in two parts to fit it in, it's so informative.

Obama: The Great American Hope?
Optimism over our president’s foreign policy derives from four rosy, unquestioned assumptions.

By Victor Davis Hanson

There is great hope that President-elect Obama will change the course of U.S. foreign policy, create far greater goodwill toward America, and thereby ease world tensions. Such optimism is not based on former Sen. Obama’s foreign-policy experience. In essence, he has none.

Nor does improvement hinge on Obama’s past career in Chicago politics or his U.S. Senate tenure — the former was problematic at best, the latter cursory.

Instead, our great expectations derive from four rosy, but heretofore unquestioned assumptions:

1) Most of the current Bush policies are not merely wrong, but inflammatory: ipsis factis being against them is wise and will bring dividends overseas;

2) Obama’s singular eloquence, youth, charisma, and “presence” will win over the world in the manner it swept the American electorate, providing a welcome change from the “smoke ’em out” Texas global turn-off of the past;

3) Obama’s exotic name, his multiracial background, the Muslim faith of his father, and his dalliance with hard-left politics as a student and community-organizer will all coalesce to sort of “flip” the image (if not the reality) of the U.S., as the world’s superpower transmogrifies from an oppressive to a sympathetic international player;

4) The reemergence of Clintonites such as Hillary, Emanuel, Panetta, Podesta, Susan Rice, and others will bring back successful advocates of “soft power,” “multilateralism,” and “engagement,” who reflect Obama’s worldview, but bring a gritty realism to the implementation of an often heretofore utopian rhetoric.

Let us for the sake of the country hope that such expectations prove absolutely true. But until they do, I worry that there are problems with all four assumptions. First, as we have seen, Bush’s policy during 2004–8 was very different from the now ossified acrimony over the removal of Saddam Hussein of autumn 2002–spring 2003 — when Villepin, Chirac, Schröder, Arafat, etc. took turns on the world media stage delivering boilerplate invective of “hyperpower” and “The German Way.”

But since then, governments in France, Germany, Italy, and much of Eastern Europe have proven as pro-American as they could be given the realities of EU culture. It is hard to see many Obama alternatives to the EU3/multilateral Bush approaches to preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran. Few have any new ideas about improving existing relatively good relations with China and India, given the liberal trade and outsourcing policies of the Bush administration. Russia is, well, Russia — an authoritarian petrol state that demands visible signs of American goodwill even as it interprets them when given as weakness.

Senate Democrats seem to be aping Bush’s Middle East policies; their only difference on Iraq now is a weird sort of revisionism in which a Harry Reid’s once serial declamations about the war being lost and a surge as lunatic are now reformulated as invaluable criticism that alone forced Bush to adopt the necessary Democratic changes that saved Iraq.

Obama himself on matters as diverse as the Patriot Act, FISA, NAFTA, Iran, Iraq, missile defense, and the surge seems to have gravitated away from his early Moveon.org/ANSWR campaign rhetoric to positions almost indistinguishable from those of the present Bush administration — as the appointments of centrists like Bush veteran Robert Gates at Defense and Gen. Jones as National Security Advisor attest.

Second, Obama’s rhetorical skills will help, especially with world opinion. We’ve already seen the American media re-characterize issues such as preventative detentions, renditions, the treatment of enemy combatants, and Guantánamo from “Bush shredding the Constitution,” to “problematic and complex inherited dilemmas that defy easy solutions, as Obama will tragically learn.”

There is reason to believe that the world likewise — especially the international media, at least for a while — will simply about-face and assume that Obama’s brand on Bush’s policies makes them less objectionable. All that said, it is not clear that the likes of Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Kim Jong Il, Putin, and the rest of the world’s cabal of thugs who are the likely suspects in future crises either care much for what their own people think or care whether Obama’s is young, glib, and vigorous or senile, inarticulate, and decrepit. Instead, they simply have agendas that are not our own: liberal or conservative America is still America, and therefore something to challenge and test rather than cooperate with.

Third, Obama himself has suggested his nontraditional pedigree offers America advantages abroad. And he’s right. In almost Orwellian fashion, we have seen — in the feigned outrage to past references to the tripartite Barrack Hussein Obama — that here at home to emphasize Obama’s Arab/Islamic resonance is taboo, but to emphasize it abroad to win multicultural fides is indeed welcome.

The problem once again, however, is that many of those who may give Obama wide latitude for his apparent more sympathetic American profile will do so for less than welcome reasons. A confounded Iran may find it harder to manufacture mass rallies with Barack Hussein Obama burning in effigy, but won’t cease proliferation on that account. A Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, or Syria that instinctively might seek closer relations with an Obama will do so under the assumption that their, rather than our, agenda, might better prevail — and that poses all sorts of both foreign and domestic problems ahead. If creepy thugs abroad express hope for better relations with Obama or, contrarily, if they feel “betrayed” by his surprising continuance of Bush policies, neither reaction is necessarily welcome.

December 15th, 2009 Obamahater CA

Here’s a report that I really like by Karl Rove. Talk about words of wisdom…. Read on.
By KARL ROVE
On the campaign trail last year, Barack Obama promised to end the “politics of fear and cynicism.” Yet he is now trying to sell his health-care proposals on fear.
At his news conference last week, he said “Reform is about every American who has ever feared that they may lose their coverage, or lose their job. . . . If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket. If we do not act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day. These are the consequences of inaction.”
A Fox News Poll from last week shows that 84% of Americans who have health insurance are happy with their coverage. And because 91% of all Americans have insurance, that means that 76% of all Americans will be concerned about anything that threatens their current coverage. By a 2-1 margin, according to the Fox Poll, Americans want coverage from a private provider rather than the government.
Facing numbers like these, Mr. Obama is dropping his high-minded rhetoric and instead trying to scare voters. During last week’s news conference, for example, he said that doctors routinely perform unnecessary tonsillectomies on children simply to fatten their wallets. All that was missing was the suggestion that the operations were conducted without anesthesia.
This is not a healthy way to wage a policy debate. It also risks making the president look desperate at a time when his proposals are looking increasingly too expensive for Americans to accept.
Last weekend, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) demolished Mr. Obama’s claims that his plan cuts the growth of future health spending and won’t add to the deficit. Responding to a White House proposal to create an independent panel to recommend Medicare cuts, the CBO said on Saturday that “The probability is high that no savings would be realized” in the next decade, while entitlement spending would rise $1.042 trillion. The CBO did say there might be $2 billion in savings in the second decade of the program—a pittance.
White House Budget Director Peter Orszag shot back at the CBO with a blog posting on the White House’s Web site arguing, “the point of the proposal . . . was never to generate savings over the next decade.” Really? The White House rolled out the proposal hoping to give cover to Blue Dog Democrats in Congress barking about the cost of overhauling health care.
The House version of ObamaCare adds to the deficit even though the new taxes to pay for part of it begin two years before the program itself kicks in. That head start puts ObamaCare in the black through 2013. But net new spending after that overwhelms future revenue to add to the deficit each year.
Keith Hennessey, who was a National Economic Council director for George W. Bush, estimates the annual deficits in Mr. Obama’s plan will grow to $64 billion a year by 2019. And this assumes that Mr. Obama gets all the tax increases and Medicare cuts he wants.
On Sunday, the CBO released another torpedo at the burning hull of USS ObamaCare. Responding to an inquiry by Rep. David Camp (R., Mich.) about whether the House bill would run a deficit in its second decade, the CBO reported it would “probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year budget window.” The CBO does not believe that Mr. Obama’s proposal “bends” health-care spending down, as the president has repeatedly claimed it would. The CBO says it escalates above today’s rate.
By 2029, Mr. Hennessey estimates that new taxes will bring in $143 billion a year, while net new health spending will have increased by $348 billion a year.
Damaging reports from the CBO had earlier provoked some Chicago-style intimidation, with the president summoning CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf to the Oval Office. It’s safe to assume that they didn’t talk about the Chicago White Sox. Imagine if Mr. Bush had done that after the CBO released numbers that undercut the centerpiece of his domestic agenda. “White House thuggery” and “intimidation” would have been the theme of nearly every editorial writer in the country.
Team Obama’s pressure, however, might have caused the CBO to release its latest missives on a weekend, when fewer people are paying attention to the news.
Mr. Obama’s problem is that nine out of 10 Americans would likely get worse health care if ObamaCare goes through. Of those who do not have insurance—and who therefore might be better off—approximately one-fifth are illegal aliens, nearly three-fifths make $50,000 or more a year and can afford insurance, and just under a third are probably eligible for Medicaid or other government programs already.
For the slice of the uninsured that is left—perhaps about 2% of all American citizens—Team Obama would dismantle the world’s greatest health-care system. That’s a losing proposition, which is why Mr. Obama is increasingly resorting to fear and misleading claims. It’s all the candidate of hope has left.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

December 15th, 2009 A Confederate CA

And here's part two. Feed your Brain.

Larry Johnson of No Quarter used to be a liberal until the Democrats decided to nominate an unqualified African-American for President. In a last-ditch attempt to get Democrats to come to their senses, he revealed the existence of a secret videotape featuring Michelle Obama speaking to a group that included the wife of Louis Farrakhan and maybe even Farrakhan himself in which she confirms the most feverish nightmares of some white Americans by ranting about “whitey.” Johnson claimed that Republicans had a copy of this tape, which they were holding onto until October, when it would do the most damage. Although he didn’t actually see the tape himself, he had many friends and friends of friends who did see it. Stop the ACLU wrote, "This is all a rumor, but if you read Michelle’s college thesis on race you will find it is most likely true." Macranger reported, "Too many insiders are talking about it to outright dismiss it." Jim Geraghty of National Review's The Corner initially believed the tape existed but later grew skeptical, writing, "I note that despite my readers' hopes, this fits the pattern for rumors like this — they're always simultaneously vague but hyped to be huge, and they're always coming just around the corner." Killjoy. If Johnson is right, and there is no reason to doubt him, we should be seeing that tape any day now. But you might want to send him a note and remind him that there are only two more weeks left in October so they better release that tape quick.

Obama was not born in the United States and his birth certificate has been forged.

What would happen if we elected a President who was not born in this country and is not eligible to be President? Some of the best minds in the conservative blogosphere are doing everything they can to stop this horrifying scenario from happening before it is too late. “This is serious: Barack Obama's campaign has endorsed the accuracy of what is almost certainly a forged birth certificate for Obama,” writes Right Wing News. According to Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, Doug Ross of Director Blue and Israel Insider, the birth certificate the Obama campaign released is without a doubt a forgery, which they have proven using all kinds of scientific analysis that involves anti-aliasing and kerning, which makes my head spin but looks really convincing. Tiger Hawk was really concerned about this: “I do not think that it would be good for anybody, including Republicans, if it turned out that Barack Obama was not 'natural born' under the law. What a mess that would be for the whole country.” And Andrew McCarthy of the National Review’s The Corner also wanted answers, adding, in case anyone had any doubt, “I am not a conspiracy theorist.” (Update: What is the real reason for Obama's trip to Hawaii?)

So if Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, where was he born? Prestigious conservative news organization World Net Daily reports, “Pennsylvania Democrat Philip J. Berg, who filed a lawsuit demanding Sen. Barack Obama present proof of his American citizenship, now says that by failing to respond Obama has legally ‘admitted’ to the lawsuit's accusations, including the charge that the Democratic candidate was born in Mombosa [sic], Kenya.” Berg claims he spoke to Obama’s grandmother and she said she was in the delivery room when he was born in a hospital in Mombassa. Although Philip Berg once filed a RICO lawsuit against Bush and others blaming them for the events of 9/11, that doesn’t mean he’s wrong now. (Update: Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs has determined that not only was Obama not born in Hawaii, his father is actually Malcolm X!)

As if being Kenyan weren’t bad enough, John Ray at Stop the ACLU reports that Obama is also Indonesian according to another birth certificate and that he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 on an Indonesian passport where he no doubt met with members of Al Qaeda. “I suspect that Obama may have dumped his Indonesian citizenship at some point along the way, to advance his political career,” writes Ray of the wily, ambitious politician. “But I would not be shocked if he still holds it. This question, however, should not overshadow the serious problem of hiding his Indonesian identity from the electorate….. What else is he hiding?” Despite so much evidence that Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, some conservative bloggers have been as dismissive of this story as the mainstream media. “Let’s stop chasing absurd conspiracy theories that make it more difficult to win the real arguments in this election,” Ed Morrissey of Hot Air wrote, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, who is the Father of Konservative Kerning Analysis has banned mention of the birth certificate story on his site and AJ Strata of Strata-Sphere did his own scientific analysis to disprove it. Who got to them, I wonder?

Barack Obama had an underage, gay “affair” with a pedophile.

When the National Enquirer reported that one of Obama’s childhood mentors wrote a semi-autobiographical book that includes passages about sex with an underage girl, the conservative blogosphere collectively made the next logical leap that even the Enquirer was too skittish to make: Obama must have had sex with this man when he was nine years old. “The National Enquirer now suggests Barack Obama had an underage, gay affair with a pedophile,” wrote Erick Erickson of Red State. “Yup. That Frank Marshall Davis guy Barry says was his good friend? Turns out he was a perv of the first order and liked young boys." In case anyone should make unfair accusations against him, Erickson added, "This post is not intended to spread that rumor.” Indeed, that post was only intended as a public service to pass on information that was right there between the lines of the Enquirer story for all to see. “That may be worse than his having been counseled by Jeremiah Wright,” wrote Dan Riehl. “No wonder he says "Pakit-stan" in that funny way of his! heh!” Confederate Yankee wondered why this very important story was being buried by the mainstream media, explaining, “Barack Obama's list of known mentors now includes child rapists ('Uncle Frank' Marshall), racists (Rev. Jeremiah Wright) and terrorists (Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn). When is someone going to question how these associations must have warped Obama's views and render him unstable, and unsuitable for the Presidency?” Jules Crittenden, who called the story an “October Surprise,” dismissed Obama’s being “mentored by a suspected commie pervert in underage late-night drinking/dirty limerick slams” as a “youthful indiscretion,” but added, “with the subsequent adult pattern … 20 years in the pews of a frothing America-bashing bigot and the professional palling around with an unrepentant ex-terrorist … you begin to see what they mean when with that ‘doesn’t look like us’ line. Turns out it’s not a racial cue at all.” Dan Collins of Protein Wisdom also reported on the story, but as usual, I have no idea what he was trying to say. “No doubt Obama will claim this as a desperate smear by the forces of evil who are afraid of change,” said Jammie Wearing Fool, with that delightful sarcasm he uses when not smearing people.

You might think that the fact that Obama was palling around with pedophiles when he was nine years old, which is the exact same time that William Ayers was blowing up the Pentagon, would be an important story, but once again the mainstream media ignored it. Conservative blogger Don Surber also demurred, writing, “Some bloggers are calling this an October surprise. I call it stupidity” and predictably liberal bloggers proceeded to shoot the messengers. “When people discuss (possible) sexual contact between ten-year-old boys who are not their political enemies and grown men, they usually refer to the 'underage gay affairs' as sexual abuse,” wrote Jim Henley of Unqualified Offerings. “They also recognize that adults who have been abused may or may not wish to tell the whole world the details, and they respect it. Admittedly, most people are not members of the NAMBLA wing of the Republican Party, or, failing that, curdled into pure meanness. Maybe Erickson just holds with the more sweeping theories about the cultural construction of the age of consent. Whatever the reason, he’s sure that that little vixen, ten-year-old Barry Obama, was asking for it man.”

Obama had cocaine-fueled gay sex in the back of a limousine with a not-very-attractive disabled man with a criminal background

While the mainstream media requires their sources practically to be saints before they will even think of publishing sensational allegations, the prestigious World Net Daily is under no such constraints. It reported on Larry Sinclair’s allegations that he did cocaine and had sex with Barack Obama in the back of a limousine without making him jump through all the hoops a mainstream media organization or even the National Enquirer would have required. Although some people didn't find Larry Sinclair's story credible considering his criminal record and the fact that he failed a lie detector test, WND decided to publish the allegations and let the people decide. Although many in the conservative blogoshpere also doubted Sinclair’s veracity, some, like Rusty Shackleford at Jawa Report, decided the gloves were off after the National Enquirer ran a salacious report on Sarah Palin, and reluctantly decided to link to the story anyway, because, as he explains, “this kind of slime is now in play.” Mick Stockinger at Uncorrelated agreed that “it’s only fair” to bring it up and Rude News called it “tit for tat.” That oughta teach the National Enquirer.

Obama was getting answers in the first debate through a clear plastic hearing aid in his ear

Ann Althouse has a unique ability to see things that no one else sees, not unlike my Aunt Agatha, until she was sent away to a rest home and forced to take medication that took away her abilities. During the primaries, Althouse discovered that a Hillary Clinton ad included the subliminal message “Nig” written on a child's pajamas. Then during the debates, Althouse noticed on her high definition television that Obama was wearing a clear plastic hearing aid in his ear and noted that he spoke haltingly as if someone was giving him the answers in the debate. “It's clearly there, a crescent of clear plastic,” she said in response to some skeptical comments (note her use of the word "crescent," a clever reference to Obama's secret Muslim heritage). Although Althouse later backed away from the story, which Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit linked to, she didn’t repudiate it entirely, concluding in the comments, "You know, just because the thing I saw wasn't there doesn't mean there wasn't something there that I didn't see." I don’t know if this is an acceptable standard of evidence in courts of law since I am not a law professor like Ms. Althouse, but it has come to be the standard of evidence in the conservative blogosphere, and I don’t see why the fuddy-duddy mainstream media can’t adopt this way of thinking, too.

Ace of Spades’ Super-Secret Unified Field Story That Connects All the Dots

For weeks Ace of Spades has been working on a super-secret story about Obama, which "called Obama a straight-up liar on his supposed 'flimsy' relationship with The Terrorist William Ayers" and finally connected all the dots, linking Obama and Bill Ayers, Acorn, Tony Reszko, Charles Manson, the Chicago mob, the Illuminati, Freemasons, the Trilateral Commission, Jewish bankers, Nazis living in South America, Fidel Castro, the KGB, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Bigfoot, Area 51, the Harlem Globetrotters, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the Bermuda Triangle, Mrs. Calabash and Mr. Gorsky. Apparently, Ben Smith at Politico, had the story, too, according to Ace and Hill Buzz, and he was just sitting on it (though Smith denied it). Then just as Ace was on the verge of breaking the story, he made this heart-breaking announcement: “The source was considering dropping his demand for anonymity. Thus likely moving the story forward. (He wasn't considering going forward with the Politico, by the way: but with the other, more important organization.) And now, today? After witnessing Politico, among others, savage Joe Wurtzelbacher? Cold feet.” Curse you, mainstream media and your accursed fact-checking! Will your cover-up of the truth about Barack Obama never end!

December 15th, 2009 A Confederate CA

Beat you to it Obamahater. I've been reading this guys blogs for years,,, Jonathan Swift, and he is not published in any newspapers!!!! None!!! Zero!!!! Only because he writes and speaks the truth. Read on folks; the golden words of wisdom. I had to cut it into two parts to fit it in. Here's part one.

Jon Swift
I am a reasonable conservative who likes to write about politics and culture. Since the media is biased I get all my news from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Jay Leno monologues.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Great Moments in Election-Year Blogging
No matter what happens in this year’s election, the conservative blogosphere deserves to win a collective Pulitzer Prize for its election-year coverage. While the mainstream media has given Americans a very distorted picture of Barack Obama, portraying him as a thoughtful, intelligent, unflappable, decent family man who has the temperament and judgment to be President, the conservative blogosphere has been the only place where you can get the real story. Hampered by quaint, old-fashioned rules of journalism that require citing evidence and reputable sources, the mainstream media has failed to report a number of important stories about Obama and the conservative blogosphere has had to step up and do the media’s job for them. As a public service I have collected some of the most important of these stories in one place. Pulitzer Prize judges, take note!

Some of the stories below are shocking and even hard to believe, but they weren’t published on crazy, fringe websites. They appeared on some of the most distinguished and well-respected sites on the Internet. The bloggers and online journalists who published them have staked their reputations and their sacred honor on the veracity of these reports. To doubt the truth of their findings, you would have to believe that an entire segment of the blogosphere has suddenly been gripped by hysteria and gone collectively insane, which is a pretty unlikely scenario.

During Obama’s dark, mysterious years at Columbia, he was involved in domestic terrorist bombings

Although some mainstream media sources have alluded to Obama’s mysterious years at Columbia, only one intrepid reporter, Tom Maguire of Just One Minute has made the cognitive leap required to connect all of the dots. Noting that Obama admitted in his book Dreams of My Father that he was “interested in South Africa divestment,” Maguire does some digging and discovers that some protests against the 1981 tour by the South African Springboks rugby team resulted in violence and even some bombings. Guess who “was involved in some fashion” in these bombings? The Weather Underground! “These are just dots and it may be impossible to connect them,” says Maguire, modestly, “but we have Barack Obama at Columbia working on South African divestment (as were many peaceful protestors) while other radical elements with a Weather Underground flavor are setting bombs, killing cops, and working on South African divestment. As a bonus, Bill Ayers is studying at Bank Street College a quarter mile from Columbia.” Wow! How can the mainstream media possibly ignore the fact that Obama must have been “involved in some fashion” in domestic terrorism because he was “interested in South African divestment.” “Tom Maguire steps pretty far out on a limb with this bit of speculation,” says CPAC Blogger of the Year Ace of Spades, who links to the story. “But it would explain why Barack Obama's ‘lost years’ at Columbia have remained so very very secret.” It makes me wonder how my friend Tom Watson, who was at Columbia at the same time as Obama and was also “interested in South African divestment,” was connected to the Weather Underground, not to mention hundreds of other former Columbia students who today freely walk the streets despite their terrorist connections. I wonder if Tom has mentioned his radical connections in his upcoming book CauseWired: Plugging In, Getting Involved, Changing the World , or if like Obama, he mysteriously left it out.

Obama didn’t actually write Dreams of My Father. In fact, it was ghost-written by none other than Bill Ayers!

Jack Cashill at the aptly named American Thinker found it difficult to believe that Barack Obama, who is not one of the most articulate politicians around, could possibly have written a whole book all by himself. He must have had help. Probably from someone evil. So on a hunch Cashill decided to compare Obama’s book with a book written by Bill Ayers and lo and behold, he discovered some shocking similarities, including the use of nautical imagery and the fact that a very scientific test to determine the grade level of the prose was a match. This wasn’t the first story Cashill broke. Cashill also proved that Arab terrorists and not Eric Rudolph were responsible for the 1996 Olympics bombing in Atlanta and that the Clintons covered up the real cause of the death of Ron Brown and the downing of TWA Flight 800. Unfortunately, Cashill’s overwhelming evidence wasn’t enough to convince the mainstream media to report on his theories, but Ann Althouse, who is a tenured professor at the 36th most prestigious law school in the country according to U.S. News & World Report, took them very seriously. “Mere confirmation bias? Or is Cashill onto something?” wrote the respected professor ominously after presenting her exhaustive analysis. Former U.S. prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, who now writes for the National Review’s The Corner, wrote that while he didn’t “want to feed into what sounds, at first blush, like Vince Fosteresque paranoia,” after reading Cashill’s analysis he found it “thorough, thoughtful, and alarming.” Scott Johnson at Powerline called Cashill's work "interesting" and said that while "Cashill could also make the case that John Hinderaker and I qualify for recognition as Obama's secret collaborator" they didn't live in Obama's neighborhood, as Ayers did, which is in itself pretty damning. “Nautical metaphors may sink Obama,” Ace of Spades wrote hopefully. Flopping Aces saw Ayers’ ghost-writing of Obama’s book as just one part of a vast conspiracy to get a socialist elected President. “Eventually, if successful, their dreams of a Communist nation can be realized,” wrote Flopping Aces. “Sounds crazy….I know.” By the way, before Cashill hit on his theory, I noted some eerie similarities between Dreams of My Father and the Horatio Hornblower novels of C.S. Forester, which also contain nautical references and are written on a high school level, but I gave up my investigation when I realized that Forester died in 1966 and probably could not have written Obama’s book. Why didn't I think of comparing Obama’s book to Ayers’ book instead? I guess that's why I'm not one of the A-list bloggers.

Michelle Obama attacks “American white racists” in an interview with obscure online news site

I bet you probably didn’t know that Michelle Obama gave an exclusive interview to the obscure online journalism site African Press International in which she said that “American white racists” are trying to derail her husband's candidacy by claiming that Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, which would make him ineligible to be President under one of the secret, little-known provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Mrs. Obama was apparently so disturbed by these charges that she decided to call this press agency, which most people have never heard of, and vent Martha Mitchell-like, even though her words might scuttle her husband’s chances of becoming President. Although the mainstream media hasn’t yet picked up the story, and the Obama campaign denies the interview took place, Gateway Pundit, Protein Wisdom, Right Pundits, Stop the ACLU, Maggies Notebook, Death by 1000 Paperecuts, Strata-Sphere, Gina Cobb, Macsmind, News Busters, World Net Daily, Jim Treacher, Townhall and a number of other conservative blogs and news sites ran with it. Although some cynical bloggers were skeptical of the story for some reason and demanded more proof, API assured them that it had tapes of the conversations and was just waiting for the right moment to release them. Although API still hasn’t managed to work out the logistics yet, and several deadlines have already come and gone, conservative bloggers are very patient and understanding and just hope that API can work everything out before the election. “We will know soon enough,” writes Gateway Pundit. “It is amazing how the media will believe a hoax that some Republican yelled ‘kill him’ at a Palin rally with no evidence but will disregard a harsh story on Michelle Obama from the start. It's interesting how that works.” It is funny how that works, Gateway Pundit.

Obama had a girlfriend that his wife found out about and forced her to move to the Caribbean.

What would an election be without a sex scandal? If you only read the American mainstream media, you might not know that the U.K.’s Daily Mail reported that Obama was “the target of a shadowy smear campaign designed to derail his bid for the US Presidency by falsely claiming he had a close friendship with an attractive African-American female employee…. The woman, now 33, vigorously denies the vicious and unsubstantiated gossip.” Unfortunately, the American mainstream media apparently has some kind of silly rules about publishing stories about unsubstantiated rumors as a way of writing about those rumors, but conservative bloggers have been all over the story like white bloggers on rice. Once again the conservative blogosphere’s most respected blogger Ace of Spades led the way. “Having now spoken to someone tracking the story, I can say: 1) It's not just a silly little rumor. 2) It will break in some form shortly,” he wrote. Ace even noticed that Obama had vacationed in the Caribbean, noting his source “hadn't even made that connection.” That’s just how Ace’s mind works, making connections that don’t even occur to peddlers of sleazy gossip.

Unfortunately, the story hasn’t broken yet in some form, except on a number of prominent conservative blogs. Jammie Wearing Fool presented a very credible case for why the story might be true, writing, “If you're Obama and you're married to the modern-day incarnation of Aunt Esther, you've got to figure the temptation to get your thang on must be pretty strong.” Say Anything advised Obama to “disclose this woman’s pay records, her travel records and her job history as it relates to working for his Senate staff and/or campaign.” Stop the ACLU cautioned, “Just remember…this is only a rumor until the media get off their behinds and actually investigate this,” but that didn’t stop Right Voices, Protein Wisdom, Hill Buzz, Confederate Yankee, Jammie Wearing Fool, Silent Running or Black Five from discussing it. Unfortunately, these bloggers have been unable to offer any evidence that the story is true, but just because there is no evidence that something is true, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

There is a tape of Michelle Obama with Louis Farrakhan talking about “whitey”

December 15th, 2009 Obamahater CA

Yeah well, Obama is just as corrupt as Bush, maybe even more so. I’ll find a few stories on him and get back to you. Won’t take long….Stand by.

December 15th, 2009 Newsman CA

This is a good reason for having a newspaper around. I couldn’t find this story anywhere except in my local newspaper that still trusts AP enough to run their stories. Amazing! I copied and pasted the story just to show you guys who have come to hate the newspapers how valuable they really are. This was written by Pete Yost. And with more reporters out there like him, well get to the bottom of the Bush corruption once and for all. It was a newspaper that first reported this folks.

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – Computer technicians have found 22 million missing White House e-mails from the administration of President George W. Bush and the Obama administration is searching for dozens more days' worth of potentially lost e-mail from the Bush years, according to two groups that filed suit over the failure by the Bush White House to install an electronic record keeping system.
The two private groups — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the National Security Archive — said Monday they were settling the lawsuits they filed against the Executive Office of the President in 2007.
It will be years before the public sees any of the recovered e-mails because they will now go through the National Archives' process for releasing presidential and agency records. Presidential records of the Bush administration won't be available until 2014 at the earliest.
Former Bush White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said the 22 million e-mails already had been recovered while Bush was still in office and that misleading statements about the former administration's work demonstrate "a continued anti-Bush agenda, nearly a year after a new president was sworn in."
"The liberal groups CREW and National Security Archive litigate for sport, distort the facts and have consistently tried to create a spooky conspiracy out of standard IT issues," Stanzel said in a statement.
The 22 million e-mails "would never have been found but for our lawsuits and pressure from Capitol Hill," said Anne Weismann, chief counsel for CREW. "It was only then that they did this reanalysis and found as a result that there were 22 million e-mails that they were unable to account for before."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the Bush administration had been dismissive of congressional requests that the administration recover the e-mails. Leahy said it was "another example of the Bush administration's reflexive resistance to congressional oversight and the public's right to know."
The tally of missing e-mails, the additional searches and the settlement are the latest development in a political controversy that stemmed from the Bush White House's failure to install a properly working electronic record keeping system. Two federal laws require the White House to preserve its records.
The two private organizations say there is not yet a final count on the extent of missing White House e-mail and there may never be a complete tally.
Meredith Fuchs, general counsel to the National Security Archive, said "many poor choices were made during the Bush administration and there was little concern about the availability of e-mail records despite the fact that they were contending with regular subpoenas for records and had a legal obligation to preserve their records."
"We may never discover the full story of what happened here," said Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director. "It seems like they just didn't want the e-mails preserved."
Sloan said the latest count of misplaced e-mails "gives us confirmation that the Bush administration lied when they said no e-mails were missing."
The two groups say the 22 million White House e-mails were previously mislabeled and effectively lost.
The government now can find and search 22 million more e-mails than it could in late 2005 and the settlement means that the Obama administration will restore 94 calendar days of e-mail from backup tape, said Kristen Lejnieks, an attorney representing the National Security Archive.
Stanzel, the former White House spokesman, said that the 94 days of e-mails to be recovered from back-up tapes consist of 61 calendar days already planned in the Bush era and an additional 33 days of recovery that the Obama White House have agreed to recover as part of the settlement of the court case.
Sheila Shadmand, another lawyer representing the National Security Archive, said the Obama administration is making a strong effort to clean up "the electronic data mess left behind by the prior administration."
Records released as a result of the lawsuits reveal that the Bush White House was aware during the president's first term in office that the e-mail system had serious archiving problems, which didn't become publicly known until 2006, when federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald disclosed them during his criminal investigation of the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
A Microsoft Corp. document on the Bush White House's e-mail problems states that Microsoft was called in to help find electronic messages in October 2003, more than two years before the problem surfaced publicly. October 2003 was the month that the Justice Department began gearing up its criminal investigation into who in the Bush administration leaked the identity of Plame, the wife of Bush administration war critic Joseph Wilson.

December 15th, 2009 Crawdaddy CA

Who let that moron make a comment???

December 15th, 2009 Panoche CA

I like the channel with the girl to be prety. And man smartt. But I like the story the pepole talk about to the televeshion. the story good in evening.

December 15th, 2009 Natchez CA

CNN is a bunch of pussys. Game over.

December 15th, 2009 Mr. Rich CA

Hey, hey, guys, how did this become a political forum over which news channel is better Fox or MSNBC. I thought this was about who called us. Well let me chime in. I happen to like CNN. I used to work for Ted Turner as his assistant, nicest guy I know.

December 15th, 2009 Crawdaddy CA

Maddow and Oberman= Socialists. O’Rielly and Hannity = Nazis

December 15th, 2009 Liam CA

Hey Obamahater,you got the brain of a Fox if that’s where you’re getting your news,dumbfuck. MSNBC is where you’ll find the truth. Watch Rachel Maddow. Keith Oberman. They speak words of wisdom compared to O”Reilly and Hannity. Those guys are morons; like you.

December 15th, 2009 Obama Hater CA

The newspaper industry as a whole is flaming liberal rhetoric that for years they have shoved down our throats. I’m glad they are going under. I’ll watch Fox instead.

December 15th, 2009 Crawdaddy CA

Lets talk about the corporate dogs. You may not know this but most newspapers nowadays are owned by corporate entities. So, how independent can they be. If Restart really wanted to start making a dent they should start soliciting for online subscriptions.

December 15th, 2009 Liam CA

Don’t get mad at these guys. They fill a need for a dying industry: newspapers, the last vestige of independent thought, opinion and news, everything else has gone to the corporate dogs.

December 15th, 2009 Donny CA

Well, even though we are on the national DNC list, the call we got from Restart came in the nick of time. We were thinking of reordering the paper, but after calling them, we found their subscription price too expensive. Then Restart called and the deal was too good to pass up.

December 15th, 2009 Crawdaddy CA

I’m not so sold on their deals. But I do like the voice of the gal who called me. Cute.

December 15th, 2009 Jimmey CA

I have to agree with Jamon. I would have never thought that I could get my subscription back on for such low rate. I’m glad I was home to take their call.

December 15th, 2009 Stacey CA

Got a call today from this number, no message, but I'm hoping I don't get one several times a day like al the others.

December 15th, 2009 Tom CA

I found their reps to be very accommodating, yet I still asked to be taken off of their call list.

December 15th, 2009 Jamon CA

Well, normally I don’t like being bothered with such calls but when Restart called me I was in the shower. So I called the number on my caller I D and some nice gal answered and before you knew it, I was subscribing to the paper again. And, what a deal I got. Thanks, Restart.

December 15th, 2009 Geraldine CA

I picked up, sounded like someone was on the other line but no response.

December 15th, 2009 Nick CA

My ma likes to talk to them but my pa gets mad when they call because he thinks the paper is too liberal.

December 15th, 2009 Rachel CA

OMG! I just got the greatest deal on my newspaper subscription…ever…. from these people. Unbelievable!

December 15th, 2009 Abbie CA

Claimed to be from local newspaper wanting me to resubscribe.

December 15th, 2009 Mini me CA

newspaper subscription co

December 15th, 2009 Josh CA

Receiving several calls a week from this number. Never anyone there. We recently canceI lled our newspaper subscription also.

(402) 982-0458

December 14th, 2009 C

They waited a few seconds and then finally asked for Albert Rootes. I let them know that was not me and they said thanks and waited a sec. Then I hung up.

(229) 435-2170

December 11th, 2009 pOed OK

called 2 times in a 3 hr period I never answered phone. calle id says its Circulations IN

December 10th, 2009 Paula FL

Circulations IN - no on line when you answer - they have called 2 days in a row

(626) 273-8235

December 1st, 2009 CJ

They say they are from Rolling Stone Magazine and they have been calling our house at least 3 times a day. I am now tracing the calls, will be calling the publisher tomorrow, and am going to report them for harassment if it keeps up to whomever the powers that be are. I am sick of these calls.

November 30th, 2009 joemwade OK

Didn't answer. Caller left no message.

(402) 982-0458

November 25th, 2009 Heather

They called but did not leave a message.

(626) 273-8235

November 24th, 2009 FS FL

I was not home, No message was left.

November 20th, 2009 Mike DC

Week of November 15, 2009 got five or six calls from this number. ID said cell phone CA. By time I picked up phone, they had hung up.

November 19th, 2009 Rich NY

V/M of Christmas music, then a male voice came on and asked for me by name and then hung up.

(402) 982-0458

November 18th, 2009 rachel NY

a woman asked for daniel rodriguez in a way that sounded like she was reading the name, i said you have the wrong number and she immediately hung up.

November 18th, 2009 G KS

Wow. They just called back 15 minutes later. I answered the phone to dead air again. Then there was a beep after I said "Helllo??" Here is how the conversation went.

Lady: Is _____ there? (Asked for me by first name)
Me: May I ask what this call is about?
Lady: I am calling concerning your subscription to Us Weekly magazine.
Me: Ok
Lady: I'm doing a poll. Have you recieved any ripped, torn or lost issues?
Me: No (I was speaking normally)
Lady: Is there anything else that you'd like to yell at me about?
Me: Excuse me?
Lady: Is there anything else that you'd like to yell at me about?
Me: You know what, don't ever call here again.

I am assuming at this point I will be put on some sort of "difficult customer" list and be bombarded with calls now.
Awesome.

November 18th, 2009 G KS

They have called before and did not leave a message. I answered this time. 7:30pm. I answered and there was about 20 seconds of dead air and then a fast busy signal.

(626) 273-8235

November 13th, 2009 Bob

I just let Phone Tray Zap them.

(229) 435-2170

November 13th, 2009 pissed OK

I have an 'unlisted' phone number ! How do these people continue to get it? I am seriously considering doing away with my land line entirely just so I don't have to be continue the abuse of these unsolicited calls.

(626) 273-8235

November 11th, 2009 Jackson VA

Recieve two calls when anwered they hung up. Called at 1:11pm and 4:30pm

(229) 435-2170

November 10th, 2009 Derrick VA

Please stop calling me!!

(402) 982-0458

November 6th, 2009 G. Kahn CA

Asked whether I was receiving some magazine I don't receive OK.

(214) 580-1098

October 30th, 2009 Krystal

I received a call from this number, and when I answered the voice on the other end said that she was calling from the local newspaper. When she said that I just hung up, because in order to get a paper, you have to pay for it.... IT'S A RECESSION BITCH I don't have extra money to READ the new!!! What killed me was when I looked up the area code, I found out that it was a Texas area code.... I LIVE IN ALABAMA. STOP CALLING ME TRICK!!!!!!!!

(229) 435-2170

October 30th, 2009 Bill GA

Called me about renewing my Newspaper so I guess they do telemarketing for companies. I called the billing department for my newspaper and they confirmed that they do use them to get people interested in the paper and they usually email a list of names of the people that want to sign up then the local paper starts the delivery and bills them.

(865) 622-4950

October 20th, 2009 Hollie TN

10/20/09 11:15AM Did not pick up - left no message

October 15th, 2009 Kathy TN

10/15/09 12pm Out of Area 865-622-4950, I picked up, was a Christopher Noble offering a rate on the Daily Advance newspaper of Elizabeth City NC. I said I wasn't interested & remove my number. He went on & on. I hung up.

September 28th, 2009 Barbara TX

No message left.

(619) 668-5671

September 18th, 2009 Tomas CA

I think Jeff Morton is the guy you're looking for. He's the moron you hired in manila to handle the inbound and last all of two weeks. Believe it or not he's still holding a grudge, but then look at his pathetic life.

September 18th, 2009 Jeff CA

Last post made sense. I also work for Restart Solutions in the sales room. Apocalypto and Fred, if you have lost an investment on the owner's behalf and are disgurntled or think he's the scumbag you say he is, why not be man enough to call him and let him know instead of acting like the tepid mouse you are behind a virtual board. No wonder the guy fired you.

(865) 622-4950

September 18th, 2009 Dennis CA

did you have a subscription to a newspaper (large or small, daily or weekly) that you didn't renew? We have twice now had an issue where we get a renewal notice a couple of weeks to a month after a paid subscription had expired. We chose not to renew only to find out the paper turned us over to collections for the papers that were delivered after the expiration date.

(619) 668-5671

September 18th, 2009 Mike CA

Hey Apocalypto and Fred, (the poster) probably one in the same. Sounds like you got the ol' Santa Cruzy grudge going and bad; for a while now,huh? Or what's all the more unsettling is your just a wee bit too obsessive... I mean to take the time out to come here and make comments that have nothing to do with being bothered by a telemarketer, but rather about the "demon owner," Fred, who you knew in Santa Cruz 15 years ago. You think anyone with half a brain who's sincerely taking the time to post here is buying that? BTW: "YOU LIE"! I was a fronter for Fred when he was Raising that film Money a couple years back. And that film was made. It's called "What Love Is". It starred Cuba Gooding Jr. and Ann Heche. I liked it; don't think many others did or didn't get it. Rent it. And if you do, do us the favor of coming back on and giving your commentary.

September 7th, 2009 Fred WI

It's no surprise to me that the guy who owns this company (Fred) bilked investors out of their money.

(229) 435-2170

September 2nd, 2009 The Pilot VA

If you are receiving unwanted calls from this number, please email us CustomerService@pilotonline.com with the number called and we'll place you on The Virginian-Pilot's do not call list. We apologize for the inconvenience. Thanks!

(619) 668-5671

September 1st, 2009 kar WA

There should be a law passed to stop this

(229) 435-2170

August 31st, 2009 Jeani R. VA

This auto-dialer has been calling all weekend. No one is on the line. Whenever I try to call them back I automatically get a busy signal. My next step is to contact the circulations department at the Virginian Pilot and insist they remove my number from their system, including these idiots in Georgia. I'll also be letting them know that if I get another call, I'll be filing a complaint with the FCC. It's the Pilot's job to make sure the companies they are using are using legal business practices. They are just as culpable as the actual company doing the calling.

(214) 580-1098

August 27th, 2009 danielle

no answer but 5 phone calls a day

(402) 982-0438

August 24th, 2009 Marilyn MN

Called got a recording if I so much as get ONE thing from this person I am suing Citistream Comm, Inc!

(865) 622-4950

August 17th, 2009 Russ MD

Let ring, no message.

(619) 668-5671

August 7th, 2009 Kestrel NY

Harssing repeated Phone calls to my cell phone. I call back the number to find out who it is and all I get is a message that the Mail box is full. That occurs every time you call back that number any time of the day.

August 5th, 2009 Mike CA

I used to work for this company. They are good people, providing a needed service for newspapers. The Do Not Call option is available--if you ask the caller to put you on the list, they will do so.

August 4th, 2009 ROBIN

these people call me everyday but do not leave a message when i do not answer. it is getting really annoying. and yeah, then when i call back it says the voicemail is full.

(229) 435-2170

July 18th, 2009 Sara Tripp SC

This number is calling my house three times a day for the last two weeks. I actually spoke to someone and told them to stop calling me and I did not want to subscribe to their newspaper but they continue to call and now hang up on me.

June 30th, 2009 Amy C CA

Just called the company. They couldn't verify the number but admitted that it might be a number that calls to spread promotions which in this case they mentioned the local newspaper the Virginian Pilot. I explained I'd received 2 calls in 24 hours and that I had absolutely no interest and if they could please remove my number from their list. The lady was nice and supposedly is putting in a request to remove my number from the list to call. It should take 24 hours. So we'll see and hope...

June 30th, 2009 Amy C. CA

Virginia Beach, Virginia, 23452.

I have received calls from this number twice now. I answered both times and it auto-disconnects with no message or anything each time. I called it back and it rang, and rang, and rang, until it finally disconnected itself.

(402) 982-0438

June 19th, 2009 CC AR

They are calling my cell phone with number 402-982-0722. I know this is a HOAX. One thing we must understand a crook cannot be stopped. Everybody is out to make money, our world has become sick vulchers.

(619) 668-5671

June 9th, 2009 Charlene IA

Been calling since I cancelled my subscription to our local newspaper.
Don't want to here from either anymore!!

(214) 580-1098

June 9th, 2009 Missouri AL

Receiving calls from 214-580-1098 also. Apparently these people have nothing better to do than annoy others. Hopefully with all the people getting these calls, the Phone company will do something about it.

(229) 435-2170

June 9th, 2009 MB VA

Called. No message.

(619) 668-5671

June 8th, 2009 Hans Yoder

Got several calls from this number. Woman just screams and then hangs up. I heard someone in the background say: "Mary - Is Fred around"

(407) 251-6572

May 24th, 2009 Slingblade

Here is one way to fight back. Call their 800 number from a land line (not your cell unless you have unlimited minutes!). Turn on your television, preferably to a sleazy shopping network, set your phone on speaker phone in front of the TV and leave it for as long as their computer will allow you to record a message. Repeat as necessary. I have cost them several hours of long distance charges and will continue until I feel better. FYI, for Automotive Warrantee Solutions of Boca Raton FL, the number is 800-376-5644.
I have also treated them to several hours of Sunday morning religious programming.

(619) 668-5671

May 20th, 2009 Ann NM

Everyday I recieve phone calls from this #. When I answer, there is an immediate hang up. When I call the number there is a message that staTES the voice mail is full.

(865) 622-4950

May 17th, 2009 Tim WA

They've been calling for days. Since nobody reported knowing who they are, I picked up to listen to their pitch. It was a recording saying that they were a company (CDI) that was contracted by my local (unspecified) newspaper's circulation department to call me. Then they gave an 800 number. The recording went by pretty fast so I didn't catch the number. I can only assume that this is a scam. Curse all scammers and unsolicited telemarketers!

(402) 982-0438

May 15th, 2009 Mike NE

May 14 2009
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is taking action against those annoying robo-calls. The attorney general is filing a lawsuit against three companies who make those calls. Pacific Guard Warranty of Nevada and SCM Media and On Point Media, both based in California.

According to state investigators, the telemarketing companies used "spoof numbers" to falsify their identities. As a result, recipients' Caller ID devices displayed false numbers when they received calls from the defendants.


UPDATED: 9:42 pm CDT May 14, 2009
SAN ANTONIO -- Three telemarketing companies have been sued by the state of Texas over what is being called an unlawful attempt to sell vehicle warranties.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court against three firms -- S.C. Media, On-Point Media and Pacific Guard Warranty -- alleges the companies are operating a nationwide telephone solicitation scam and violating multiple state and federal telemarketing laws.
"In this lawsuit, we claim that hundreds of thousands of Texans have been bombarded with deceptive and abusive telemarketing calls to their homes, their offices and their cell phones," said state Attorney General Greg Abbott. "These calls were made despite the fact that many of these calls were made to cell phones, which would be prohibited."
The state is seeking a temporary injunction against the companies to prevent them from using spoof numbers and automatic dialing systems to call cell phones.

Missouri authorities filed a lawsuit last month against one of the largest car-warranty companies, Wentzville, Mo.-based USfidelis, charging that company officials ignored a subpoena demanding that they answer questions about their business.

May 14 2009
The FTC named Voice Touch Inc. and Transcontinental Warranty Inc. in the suits. It is seeking injunctions forcing them to return allegedly ill-gotten gains

May 15th, 2009 Nick NE

Please email dave@tmcallerid.com or call him at 503-327-8183 and complaint immediately and make sure you are on the DO-NOT-CALL LIST.

After we talked to him he registered three telephone numbers of ours with DO-NOT-Call registry. We have not received any telemarketing calls for the past 10 days.

If you have not registered your telephone with the DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY, telemarketing firms can keep calling you. No point getting hassled and calling telephone companies or carriers who own the telephone numbers. Carriers do not have have control on how their telephone service is being used as long as a customer pays the bill. Carriers cannot disconnect or shut down a customer who is paying the bill. Only regulators has authority to shutdown or disconnect a customer through an order. Don't blame the carrier who own the telephone number. Plus carrier cannot give customer information unless it is a supeona issued by regulatory authority.

Telemarketing firms obtains hundreds or thousands of telephone numbers from various carriers within US and initiate calls. Hope this understanding help all of you who are getting these calls. Currently regulators are working with the carriers trying to find the source on which telemarketing firms is making these unwanted calls. For the record they know these calls are not coming from telephone company who officially own the telephone numbers.

May 14th, 2009 tom NE

You should call or email to TMCallerID and complaint. TMcallerID # 503-327-8183
David Nelson
Email: david@tmcallerid.com

May 14th, 2009 Tom NE

Citistream Communications is a telephone service provider and does not make solicitation calls. Telephone company does not have control on who makes a call and what is said or displayed on the caller ID.

Telemarketing firm use telephone services from a number of telephone services providers within US for undertaking telemarketing campaign. Telemarketing firms or their customer make the calls. Found out Citistream is a telephone carrier and does not make any calls.

Came to know one of it's customer www.TMcallerid.com has been assigned some of these numbers. TMcallerID or their customers are telemarketing firms making these calls.

You should call TMCallerID directly and complaint. TMcallerID # 503-327-8183

(229) 435-2170

May 13th, 2009 dee

idiots keep calling, are there people out there that actually listen to this drivel? People who think they are getting some kind of deal or are so lonely they are willing to believe these thieves? Man have I got some backwoods swamp land to sell them!

(402) 982-0438

May 12th, 2009 Bobbi Brandao PA

Company Name Citistream Communications, Inc. (CANCELLED)
Co ID CSVC
Area Supported by 24 hr TN NE
24x7 Phone 402-408-6953
Type of Local Services CLEC Facility, CLEC Reseller, CLEC UNE, PBX/PS911/Shared Tenant, VoIP
Status C
OCNs 9597
Admin Contact Name Bob Lacy
Contact Title Operations Specialist
Contact Email blacy@citistream.com
Contact Phone Nbr 402-416-1755
Contact Fax Nbr 402-345-0317
Address 1 1625 Farnam Street
Address 2 Suite 860
City Omaha
State NE
***** this person just picked up my letter threating him I would call a lawyer******

May 12th, 2009 B Brandao PA

these people call my home- cell phone ect.... I have asked (after pressing the no.1 and gotten a live person)
to take me off thier list- I usually get Take me and the hang up......
I am ready to call my lawyer!