CLOUDSIFTER'S Blog

Magnitude 3.0 NORTHERN TEXAS Friday, October 31, 2008 at 05:01:54 UTC

 

Preliminary Earthquake Report

Magnitude 3.0 Date-Time

Friday, October 31, 2008 at 05:01:54 (UTC) - Coordinated Universal Time

Friday, October 31, 2008 at 12:01:54 AM local time at epicenter

Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones Location 32.81N 97.01W Depth 5.0 kilometers Region NORTHERN TEXAS Distances 20 km (10 miles) W of Dallas, Texas
25 km (15 miles) ESE of Watauga, Texas
30 km (20 miles) ENE of Fort Worth, Texas
290 km (180 miles) NNE of AUSTIN, Texas
Location Uncertainty Error estimate: horizontal +/- 16.6 km; depth fixed by location program Parameters Nst=5, Nph=5, Dmin=268.9 km, Rmss=0.38 sec, Erho=16.6 km, Erzz=0 km, Gp=164.5 degrees Source USGS NEIC (WDCS-D) Event ID usyvas

Why do we always hear about the "budget" in any given city/state not being met and countless starving children will go without services if X millions of dollars isn't raised and raised fast?

Why does there seem to be a blackout apparently for the past 60 or so years on the syndicated news, print media, and YOUR CONGRESS PERSONS (except Ron Paul) and other places regarding CAFR's?

Go to Google news and search for CAFR , you'll find about 15 links, some not even
related, coming back. Why so few for something that has been around since the 1940's?

If you google CAFR by itself you'll get back about 1.5 million results.

If you'll google CAFR + (your city or state) and get to the most recent Comprehensive Annual Financial Report posted online- and you check "net assets" you'll discover that cities and states have from the low tens of billions on up to over a trillion dollars in a slush fund that is not counted in the budget each year. When you start adding it all up, the U.S. has several TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN RESERVE that is not counted when it's time to do the budget. Yet we are told if this or that isn't passed, "the children will suffer" or "the elderly people will be kicked out on the street with no medical care" or some other tug at the heart strings program will have to close.

In the last ten years or so, since this has started leaking out little by little, states have started not publishing as much of the surplus assets in their CAFR's each year. So, most of the time what you see as surplus in there is actually a fraction of what is in reserve. This is how it adds up to billions and trillions.

Governments by and large do not draw from surpluses when the budget is going to "run short".

Usually what will happen is either they will raise taxes, or cut services.

Here's an example of the type of situations that I believe typically happens.

We'll use a ficticious (I Hope) city by the name of "ABC City".

ABC City comes out and says "we are going to need six million dollars in new taxes or the city run home for the elderly is going to be shut down. Of course, no one wants THAT to happen. What if it were YOUR Grandma?

So, ABC City creates six million dollars in new taxes and all is well and Grandma isn't put out on the street for another year. She's safe and sound in the Elderly People's home of ABC City.

Well, what you DIDN'T KNOW, AND WEREN'T TOLD is that ABC City just took six million dollars out of it's several tens of millions of dollars in surplus. ABC City 'created' a six million dollar shortfall by investing six million dollars in some big company like IBM or Microsoft or whatever. You the taxpayer are forced to fill the supposed six million dollar shortfall that wasn't really a shortfall at all. AND you don't reap the benefits of the profits from the investment of the six million dollars that ABC City made.

Most folks in city government will not be aware of how this works. But the folks in the business of handling and making the budget up, likely are aware of it.

Most states have enough in this 'slush' fund that they could continue to reap the benefits of their investments, and give out a dividend check each year, and abolish taxes as well, and NEVER have to run out of money or cut any services whatsoever.

Some of you will be familiar with the state of Alaska which gives out Oil money checks to people as long as they meet the residency requirements. EVEN Alaska likely has way more in surplus than you think and these oil money checks are only a fraction of the true return that the state gets on it's investments.

IF what I have posted is true, why are the people not told of this? The government is made up of the people, therefore the people are , well, should be, the ones who benefit from the return on these investments.


Think about THIS-

At birth a SS# is tattooed on your butt. With that number the govt of your particular state can use you as collateral on the amount of money that you will produce for them based on your life expectancy at birth. The State uses your potential lifetime income to them for taxes as a guarantee on future revenue. They then use that for loans for money that they invest in companies in the stock market. Approx 70% of the stock market is owned by city and state governments.. They can swing it any direction they want at anytime they want to produce any result that they want.

Could the above be part of the reason that some have pushed for amnesty for illegal immigrants and have pushed against the borders being enforced effectively?



You as a taxpayer have a right to the CAFR upon request, though some cities/states may play dumb if you ask for it. Some may not. But most of them you can access online.

It's been said that if just ten percent of the population were to realize and see what is going on, that this could be changed. It's also been said that all it would take is just ONE working example of the plan mentioned at the site with one city and then it would show a proven example of an alternative method... and then things would change.

I urge you to checkout the sources I'll list below, and seek out any others that you can find.
Don't form your opinion on what I've said. Do your own research and branch out from the starting points below.

Resources:

http://cafr1.com/SilenceisGolden.html

http://cafr1.com/
http://cafr1.com/TheGameDefinition.html
http://cafr1.com/PA.html

-------------------------------------------------------
----------------
More resources:

America: Destroyed By Design
the video will show on google and you can make the screen bigger by clicking the link
called 'collapse frame'.

Endgame
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=10703290536005
62261

http://www.590klbj.com/Bios/Alex_Jones.aspx
http://www.infowars.com
http://prisonplanet.tv/

Some of the things I've been made aware of, and backed up by evidence much of which I am able to go on the internet and verify myself- are things that a dozen years ago were laughed off as conspiracy theories. Well you can 'laugh' all you want. I did at first as well, when I started watching some of Alex Jones stuff. But that didn't last for very long. Yah, he's loud sometimes, he gets mad, he occasionally has a problem shutting up and not talking over callers....but I think I'd be a little edgy too if I was living and breathing this stuff and backing it up with evidence and connecting the dots and putting it all together and up on my website for everyone to see.

I'll tolerate comments that disagree. But, I won't tolerate cutesy name calling or comments which disagree but you don't back it up with something of substance of why you disagree.
Watch one of his documentaries and base your comments on that or something. There's websites and youtube videos which claim to debunk some things that Alex says, but the ones that I've been aware of have taken things out of context, and their attempt at so called debunking is laughable.

Given that the topic of CAFR is given the silent treatment, I don't know how long this blog post will stay up. So, for those of you who see it, you might want to screencap it and then if it disappears later inquire to admin of the blogs. I don't think I've posted anything derogatory.

Hollywood helps 'uncensored' anti-Hillary film
New documentary uses home video to expose Democratic candidate's 'crimes'
Posted: October 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

 

 

By Art Moore
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

 

Hollywood filmmakers normally inclined to support candidates such as Sen. Hillary Clinton are working quietly behind the scenes to put the finishing touches on a documentary alleging the New York Democrat committed felonies to get elected and assisted her husband in defrauding a major donor

 

In a scene from a new documentary, Hillary Clinton thanks Peter Paul for hosting an Aug. 12, 2000, Hollywood gala and fundraiser for her Senate campaign

 "The producers are essentially liberal Hollywood Democrats who fear exposure and retribution," said Jim Nesfield, director of the Equal Justice Foundation of America, which is sponsoring the hour-long film, "Hillary Uncensored."

Over the past two weeks, the trailer for the documentary became the No. 1-most viewed piece on Google's video site, even though it was unlisted. The 13-minute video was posted July 18 but only recently became exposed through blog references, and it now has more than 860,000 views.

The full film – debuting Friday at Harvard University – tells the star-studded story of business mogul Peter Franklin Paul's civil fraud suit against former President Clinton.

Paul claims President Clinton destroyed his entertainment company – Stan Lee Media – to get out of a $17 million deal in which he promised to promote the firm in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to foot the bill for a lavish Hollywood gala and fundraiser prior to the 2000 election that eventually cost him nearly $2 million.

The documentary opens with scenes from the Aug. 12, 2000, gala, with Cher singing to an audience of the Democratic Party's top leaders and A-list entertainers such as Brad Pitt and John Travolta, who were there to salute President Clinton and contribute to Hillary Clinton's first Senate campaign.

Full Story at WND 

 

---

As posted on Drudge-

"Thu Oct 18 2007 14:11:42 ET

According to notes from CNN's Monday news meeting network president Jon Klein tells employees to use the California fire tragedy to "push" their "Planet in Peril" special, but warns reporters not to "irresponsibly link" the fires to "Global Warming."

Full post and graphic of the memo- at Drudge

 

How do you "responsibly" link the fires to Global Warming?

Just as it's rumored in the news that Federal and local officials in California are preparing to announce "arson" as the official cause of the fires.

[Update]

As posted on CBS website

Arson Behind Santiago Fire...

Nope, I didn't misplace the puntuation on that title line.  That's how it's spelled on the new billboards. Is that some kind of 'fashion statement' to spell it wrong- or did someone screw up? 

On the evening news tonight during the interview the mistake was mentioned and the interviewee said something like "well, you know I'm sayin' that's not really the message ,you know.  Yah, the puntuation is in the wrong place but that's not really the message."

But on the 10'oclock news, that part was cut out.  Did someone make a phone call and urge them not to highlight that point, or?  No, I don't think it's a conspiracy theory, just something I noticed.

In the end though, I do think it's a good campaign and I hope it goes nationwide.

The only reason I'm mentioning it is that I've noticed often lately that something that will jump out at me as "odd' in the evening news on Fox4, is quite often cut out by the time it makes it to the 10 o'clock news.  Like when the SWAT officer's (thank god he's going to be ok) story was highlighted and the video voiceover was talking about all of the officers showing up at the hospital to show their "concern" for him. The tape originally showed about .5 of a second of two officers one male, one female (not that it matters) hugging and then "laughing".  Maybe it was just at their 'relief' that the officer was ok.

Nothing really to comment on here, I guess, but  comments are on.

For purposes of this discussion- I'm referring to those illegal aliens who are Native Mexicans and who enter the U.S. from Mexico without going thru the legal process to get here - before coming here.

Alright,  we all rant (and rightfully so) about the illegal aliens and their drain on society and how can our politicians be blind and not do anything about it.  We talk about how we wouldn't have anyone to pick our crops, landscape our yards etc.

I would like to hear from those who support ILLEGAL immigration. 

Tell me how hospitals closing all the time because they can't handle the drain on resources is "good" for us tax paying, law abiding citizens when our costs are going up to pay for the drain that illegals place on society.  Not about how we should change things to make them all of a sudden 'legal'.

Tell me how it's "Wrong" to check the immigration status of folks who end up in the jail- and subsequently deport those who are found to be here illegally. If you are here illegally, that is- in a constant state of breaking the law by simply being here, then it matters not how we catch you.  Do we cry foul when in the commission of a traffic stop we find someone who had a warrant out on them for murder and we take them in?  "Illegal" is illegal no matter how you look at it.  They didn't stop being illegal after being here for 5 minutes or 5 years.  They are still in the process of the commission of the crime. 

Wanting the Fed. Govt to enforce the law of our country and not the cities is only being used as an excuse because you know the Fed. Govt. isn't doing enough. Why should a city/county/state continue to bear the burden of illegal aliens when the Fed. Govt. cannot or will not enforce the borders to the extent necessary?

It's painfully obvious that no matter who is sitting in the Whitehouse that what needs to be done to stop illegal immigration is not going to be done.

I don't want to hear about increased costs- we would SOMEHOW manage to get our crops picked, yards landscaped and any other things that you say Americans wouldn't do. Trust me- we'd find a way.

How is cutting my lawn for cheap, not paying taxes, draining resources from the hospitals, sending the money by Western Union back to Mexico- helping the U.S. to an extent that outweighs the burden that it places on the country?

Whose fault is it that an illegal alien's "family" that is legally here by birth or whatever will miss them? Had they not managed to come across the border in the midst of a pregnancy or couldn't keep it in their pants or couldn't keep their legs closed- it wouldn't be an issue. Crimes of 'rape' and anchor babies are excluded from this discussion.

I submit that we would have alot less illegal immigration if the anchor baby loopholes were abolished.  Likewise if the requirement to prove legal citizenship was a requirement and the creation of fake documentation was not so easy. The numero uno reason for coming here is the "Easy Button".  It's "too hard" to advance your own country from a Third World country by doing what it takes to clean up your own country and become prosperous.  If you are looking for a better life for your children- consider not having any until your country is up to standards.

I don't want to hear about their PLIGHT, and how poor they are and how they are just looking for a better life.  Who isn't? Looking for a better life does not justify entering another country illegally and sponging off of the services available- which in turn brings the level of prosperity down for everyone here legally.

They could in numbers overthrow their own corrupt government and though some would die, they would prevail and they could straighten out their own country and the civilization 'could' go on and the country might even come up to such a standard that it's citizens would not be the drain on our own country- and subsequently the border could become a little more relaxed without the drain on resources.

Don't tell me about how the laws are old and the laws should be changed to open the door wide open. We have processes in place to change the laws. If the majority of people in this country  LEGALLY wanted the law changed, the doors would already be wide open- legally.

Tell me how the mentality of "let's just keep having babies until we outnumber them" when carried out to it's fruition is NOT going to end up with the illegals ending up right back in the same situation that they are in in Mexico?

*I may update this blog as I get more ideas or as a result of comments made.  "Bush sucks" is not a valid comment. Post something of substance.  I'll delete as I see fit.  But, I'm not exactly "delete happy". I want a valid discussion of ideas.

My personal feelings are that this was a much needed shakeup. It's a given that abc, nbc, cbs, cnn etc. are seen by some as very Liberal leaning. I share that opinion. The other side would say that The Fox News Channel is very conservative leaning.

Some have said that the local Fox affiliate KDFW-TV Fox4 is 'not' the FNC and are a little more liberal leaning.

Ms. Aguilar-

I don't care one iota what your race is.  I don't care what your political persuasion is on your personal time. But, I don't watch the News to have people who are not charged, who've been deemed without fault by the Dallas Police Department, and the D.A. in Dallas, treated the way it came off that you were treating Mr. Walton.

I've read the name "Becky Oliver" being mentioned. I can't yet say that I have seen any of her reporting as I've just recently returned from a 20 yr military career. So my opinions are only based on the video of the interview done by Rebecca Aguilar aired on Monday 16 Oct 2007 when she asked him "Are you a trigger happy kind of person"

So be it- but Rebecca and Fox4- if you call that crap that aired on monday night "reporting"...

I DON'T WANT ANY!

It's been pointed out that on both sides of the offending portions of your report that day, that you DID report just the facts. I agree it wasn't ALL bad.

Hopefully, some of the recognition that you've earned during your career was "not" for reporting such as I saw with Mr. Walton.

There have been some viscous names hurled at you that really to me were petty and just plain stupid.

I don't wish harm to come upon you and as far as I'm concerned, you should have a chance to redeem yourself as a reporter at KDFW-TV.

You were suspended, so it's too late to be let off with an on-air apology by yourself AND the management who either by direct approval or by "I just trusted her so I let it air without screening it".

I think you should have given that to Mr. Walton. I think you and your mgmt should have given that to the viewers second.

This could have been over and done with the next day had the "Viewer's Voice" that was promised followed by recognition by Mgmt that we 'screwed the pooch' on this one.

Like it or not, you may serve Fox4's advertisers, but Fox4's advertisers sell their goods and services to the public.

Be happy so far that there hasn't been a big call for a boycott of advertisers- yet.

On top of that-

DON'T SPEAK TO OUR SENIOR CITIZENS THAT WAY AGAIN-

EVER!

Fox4  Let's see if you "Get It".

--------------------------------------------

KDFW-TV Fox4 Contact Info

Fox News Channel Contact Info

-------------------------------------------

 

*no apparent public response by Fox4 as of the end of the 10pm news Friday 19 Oct

**Comments are on for this blog. I reserve the right to delete anything. I'm looking for folks to make your point. I'm not looking to delete opinions just because they don't agree with my own. If your point is just to call Rebecca Aguilar names or threaten her well-being- save your time. The delete button is my friend. Other than that, your opinions are welcome. I may update my take on this if anything new comes out on Fox4 News.