Mormons Guilty on 13 Counts of Astroturfing

Two years after the Mormon Church poured millions into Prop 8, California Ethics Commission finds them guilty of 13 counts of campaign fraud: fines them a whopping $5538. That'll show 'em.

In an unprecedented ruling against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, found the Salt Lake City based Church guilty on 13 counts of late campaign reporting. The Mormon Church was fined $5538 in an agreement worked out ending the 19 month long investigation. The Church was the primary backer of California’s Proposition 8, which ended gay marriage in California two years ago.

The Mormon Church initially admitted to spending only $2078 to pass Prop 8. When Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, filed his sworn complaint on November 13, 2008, he said they instantly attacked him.

The Mormon owned Salt Lake City Deseret News reported on November 14, 2008 that Church spokesman Scott Trotter said the allegations are “false” and the complaint — filed by Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate — has “many errors and misstatements.” Trotter said The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints “has fully complied with the reporting requirements of the California Political Reform Act. Claims that the Church has violated the act and failed to report political expenditures made by the church are false. The church has, in fact, filed four reports with California authorities; these reports are a matter of public record. A further report will be filed on or before its due date, Jan. 30, 2009,” Trotter said.


Don Eaton a spokesman for the Mormon Church said in an interview with KGO-TV (ABC San Francisco) "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints put zero money in this.” Three months later the Mormon Church filed an amended return in which they admitted to spending $190,000. Unfortunately, this was 3 months after the election, so 17 million California voters never were able to know the full extent of the Mormon involvement until well after the election.

The Mormon Church ran phone banks, sent out direct mail, had well designed web sites, produced 27 slick commercials, bussed people in from Utah and had lots of travel expenses by high ranking Church officials. They also raised approximately $30 million from Mormon families to pass Proposition 8.

The Mormon Church also was behind the creation of the infamous National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in 2007, and was the biggest contributor to pass Prop 8.

They've been accused of and fined for what David Axlerod calls "Astroturfing." And seeing how STIFF that penalty is... they're going to be doing it again.

Copenhagen Ends Early: Due to Blizzard

The Copenhagen what-have-you was nothing more than window dressing for the ClimateFaithers™ back home. The intention was to come home and tell everyone "we participated" or "we're pledging to do something." Superfantastic. Nothing substantial, and no way to enforce whatever they did agree on. And what they did agree on was that using ClimateFaith™ to restructure capital and to shore up state power is a hellofagood idea.

There were back room deals, lots of trees cut down for half assed ideas and proposals. But at the center of it. India and China said go F*yourselves. And the other emerging markets and countries (such as Hugo Chavez) raised their collective fingers and waved them at the West. "We ain't to blame, and we ain't payin'," to paraphrase their position.

The whole thing turned into a giant bargaining table where extreme things were proposed to drive everyone to a minimal compromise. Two rival proposals came out: one billing the first world and one billing the third world for the cost. Neither we meant to be signed. Both were decoys for the screaming mob (home and outside the conference). Meanwhile the heads of state, working in private, settled on a pact which promised everything, enforces nothing and pays a pittance to the loudest of the third world and the low islands.See. Maybe we can all chip in and get them a nice canoe?

No one was scapegoated in public but when Phelim McAleer when through the conference in a polar bear suit calling for Phil Jones, people all knew who that meant. Phil is the climate guy who until a couple weeks ago was the Director of the Climatic Research Unit. They swore at him, threw things at him and tried to interfere with the camera and sound man. Phil at the heart f the UEA CRU scandal. Polar bear suits were banned soon after.

Behind closed doors I suspect Phil got mentioned more than once. Could any government have mentioned climategate in public? The conference was teaming with ClimateFaithful™ that were so fanatical that even the body guards of a dozen countries combined could not have held them back.

So what's the midnight deal.

The key features of note are that the targets a set in terms of temperature not CO2. This means that the 2 degrees target will be met by all because there is no real warming. Governments can later report on the current cooling trend as if its a new discovery and back away from CO2 reduction and commitments. That is, as long as the sun cooperates.

Expect a lot on negative feed back soon.

Also the non binding CO2 commitments and non binding financial commitments. None of there will be enforceable or enforced. Solar energy technology depends on the cost of that technology, those costs are falling but with the dollar falling faster this means few renewables than the free-market, free from both Keynesian policies and government subsidies, would have delivered. Or the cost of oil has to go skyrocketing again.

A few tens of billions have been promised to the third world and low islands. So that aid is wrapped in a different package - used to be just a handout, now it's a climate change handout.

Annnnddd... the best part, there's a huge blizzard descending on Copenhagen! Everyone may be stuck for a few days. Some noted that huge numbers of people flew in private Jets. These have been parked at smaller airports across the region. They are stuck. Al Gore may have to hitch a ride home on the Rainbow Warrior. We'll get to see what happens when a few thousand Bureaucrats, a quarter of a million bored but angry ClimateFaith™ followers, communists and anarchists all get stranded in a snow storm together! Doubt there will be many snow angels. The cops have had it with cold riot gear and frozen batons, and they'll want to try to stay warm.

ClimateGate vs ClimateFaith™

The story broke last week.

I've been hesitating a discussion of the story, since it seems that the source material was taken by a hacker breaking in, so to me it isn't entirely credible. But after some deliberation, and remembering that the New York Times had no problem showing e-mails hacked from a Sarah Palin campaign staffer last year... and, since the BBC has been trying to squash the story for two weeks, I'm looking for my 'I told you so hat' right now.

What's interesting to me about this e-mail story... oh, sorry you haven't heard about that? The emails that were hacked and then spread on the internet, by a group called wikileaks supposedly reveal top officials at a leading British anthropogenic global-warming advocacy center intentionally suppressing and manipulating scientific data to suit their political agenda. It's fairly damning stuff, if you've read it. It seems they've been caught red-handed grousing—in writing— that available empirical evidence doesn't accommodate their warming alarmist agenda.

Example from the e-mail: "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."

Refusing to allow facts to get in the way of their pseudo-religious fervor!? The researchers collude to tweak their own data and falsify results!? ClimateFaith™ is more terrifying than the church!

Example: "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) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

And if you want to read those potentially incriminating emails in full, go to: An Elegant Chaos org where they have all been posted in searchable form.

Ah, but let's just pass over the fact that they were shaking down governments and corporations for their funding. Let's forget they accuse those who question their conclusions are the ones who are taking handouts from Big Oil? Let's also not mention that the main stream media doesn't want to discuss this story. The media has dismissed the "off the cuff remarks" in the email, you should totally ignore all that 'insider language'. But some how that same language found their way into "off the cuff" computer code. FORTRAN (shudder) code labled 'fudge factor'or. Oops. Here's a pile of other examples compiled by Bishop Hill. But the media won't print the emails since they weren't intended "for the public eye." Funny how the high code of journalistic ethics can be flipped off for, say, the Pentagon Papers, and flipped back on for their friends involved in ClimateFaith™.

For links to all the latest updates on this, I recommend Marc Morano’s invaluable Climate Depot site.

But the story that's being missed, I mean other than the fraud, is that this should be the Ahha moment in ClimateFaith™ akin to Martin Luther nailing a note on the church door.

It's the proverbial moment, a tipping point where questions are finally asked. How the hell can those jokers at Blasphemes be right? Look gang, I never questioned ClimateFaith™ to win friends. I questioned things because that's what I do. I was never satisfied with the data and the lack of real peer review that was presented by Al Gore and his famous Academy Award winning Power Point presentation. (And anyone who gives an award to Michael Moore for "documentary" obviously doesn't take the award seriously.) I have contended, as with dissenting NASA Scientists that the SUN has been the main component in the climate of the earth.

I have seen precisely zero evidence that global warning is an artifice of Man, and man alone. In fact, I have seen little evidence, much of which is specious (and this all before Climategate), that warming is occurring at all. That CO2 levels are rising, and indeed they can be shown to be, and coincidentally the human population is growing, is a false correlation. "Proof" of that relationship has come in the form of a great deal of data, in which huge assumptions about relationships are made (e.g. tree ring size to temperature, and we're talking trees - so what 100 or 200 years, tops? Isn't that the entire span of the Industrial Age?) Also, another false correlation (one that becomes weaker in the last decade) is that between rising temperatures and rising levels of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is hardly an issue compared to water... water vapor is a lot more reflective, but there's nothing sexy about that I guess? And, again, zero data on solar cycles - and even less about the heat sync capabilities of our oceans. That pesky water.

Also, had you ever heard of a Climate Scientist before 1996? Climate scientists are self-proclaimed in their field. I have no direct experience in meteorology (the true Earth science relevant here) nor do I have understanding of reaction chemistry, molecular spectroscopy and photochemistry, and reaction kinetics, or any experience in thermodynamics and physics to speak on any level of authority, but apparently, neither do any of these other folks. It should also be understood that if I can't comprehend an explanation in excruciating detail about how a self-proclaimed climate scientists knows something is true, then you can hardly expect me to jump on board. And you shouldn't either without at least questioning the results. Even your local weatherman can't figure out if it's going to rain three days out, but we're convinced that the earth is going to become Venus in 50 years if we don't give money. If that's not religion, I'm not doing my job right.

But what I'm excited about is that as we discover that the current ClimateFaith™ models are simply made up may raise an eyebrow or two that haven't been raised.

Cracks are forming and new revelations are seeping out. In fact, just today scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. Oh, sorry, was that important or something?

Former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation , rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks.

Before you get all excited, it'll be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our generation, and possibly of the age.

Meanwhile, the world leaders are gathering to place cap-n-trade restrictions on the entire world based on their friend's compromised data.

You UnAmerican Nazi!

Now it is Un-American to disagree with the Government

Wait, just six months ago opposing the President was Patriotic? I'm confused - Oh wait, that's because George Bush was our President.

"I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration."
— Hillary Clinton

Hillary said ANY Administration, right?

But if you disagree with Nancy Pelosi you are UN-AMERICAN!

Man, the shifting at the hog trough didn't take long, did it?

But wait, there's more! Mrs. Pelosi just couldn't leave it alone. Since her mouth was already open more fell out.

“I think they’re AstroTurf. You be the judge. They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care.”

Who carries swastikas? Nazis do. Pelosi did not complain that the protesters were comparing Obama's Health Care Plan to Nazism; she insinuated that the protesters are the Nazis.

Can we get something straight here, please - all together - for once? Let's all agree that if you use Hitler or Nazi in a sentence in a debate - you're automatically disqualified from all further discussion.

First, for the Speaker of the House of Representatives is comparing the people of her country to Nazis - and not bothering to understand what that implication means - is deplorable.

It is one thing for a citizen to say vile things about an elected official, they're our employees after all. It's something else for an elected official to say vile things about a citizen. It seems like a double standard - but guess what, it isn't.

But there's something else that's troubling me. I wish we could all come to terms with what the National Socialist German Workers’ Party was. It was a combination or consortium of different political views - left and right - and created a form of government that was neither capitalist nor communist. This was the 'Third Way'.

Both fascism and Nazism rejected ideologies like democracy, liberalism and Marxism, but also conservatism and also corporatism when it suited them. But Italian and Spanish fascists were different than the Germans. So it's just easier to say Nationalists. The State was what mattered most.

The Nazi Party was sculpted by Hitler's main views formulated while he was in prison. He wrote these ideas in his book, Mein Kampf. The three main points were the conception of history as a race struggle influenced by Social Darwinism; antisemitism; and the idea that Germany needed to acquire land from Russia. All terrible ideas, but since the original party was all over the place, Hitler was able to mold it to his views- he was an artist after all. Once in power, he purged a whole bunch of folks in his own party who didn't agree with him.

I'm not going to compare the Democrats to the Nazis - but there are a lot more similarities to the current power mad Democrats to the brown shirts right now than those 'fascist Conservatives.'

Look at their record: intolerant of the opposition - not just the other party, but the people who are attempting to exercise their first amendment rights in public town halls. Calls from the White House for citizens to report any decenters. Their rhetoric... Speaker of the House calling citizens Nazis, O Symbols and redesigned government seals, and idol worship... Do you see a pattern emerging? What I'm getting at is that the Democrats better check that casual throwing of the word 'Nazi' around, okay?

I don't know - maybe it's the opposite? Maybe there are real people finally standing up to this Rahming of Change down people's throats? Or maybe the Speaker is right - there are AstroTurfed (manufactured 'grass roots' - get it?) actors being brought in by the insurance companies to make headlines at these 'Town-Halls' for Congressmen back home?

Or, let's go full retard and say that the folks in these meetings are actually all Obama supporters pretending to be against the Healthcare plan - and they're trying to make the people who are against this thing look really, really bad to everyone else... well that's crazy, isn't it? Sounds like something the Nazis would try... (Reichstag fire anyone?) Kind of like how I think the 'birther' movement isn't from the right side fringe at all.... ah, but that's full retard.

All I know is that Mrs. Pelosi should be purged by Obama after she gives a very heartfelt apology to my un-American ass.

New Propaganda

More to find, by Brian Lane Winfield Moore

1976 Swine Flu Propaganda