Payday For The Bush Crime Family

Well folks, and especially you Republicans out there, the entire meaning of the Iraq invasion and occupation has finally come full circle, and strangely, coincides with our pullout of combat troops this week.

The Iraq oil ministry has announced that for the first time in thirty years, Iraq will begin selling oil leases!

Not since Saddam Hussein nationalized the oil fields of Iraq has any foreign entity been entitled to the riches beneath the sands of Iraq.....until now.

Anyone hazard to guess who's getting some of those oil leases? I'll leave that to your fertile imaginations.

Anyone hazard to guess if this will result in lower oil/gas prices for the United States. I think not.

I have just one thing to say to the Bush Crime Family:

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! :eek:

What happened to the promise that Rummy and Cheney made about Iraq's oil revenue paying the U.S. for "liberating" them? I guess it was about as true as when Bush said our troops would be welcomed and showered with flowers when we arrive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

What happened to the promise that Rummy and Cheney made about Iraq's oil revenue paying the U.S. for "liberating" them? I guess it was about as true as when Bush said our troops would be welcomed and showered with flowers when we arrive.

---

You'd think the least we could get would be 35 cents a gallon gas like they have in Iraq, for the trillion bucks we spent and the 4000+ lives.

But apparently that's asking too much.

We didn't go there for oil. The oil leases were probably part of the deal to get us to start pulling troops out. If we had went there for oil we would be getting more than we are. We don't get that much oil from the middle east anyway. Canada, Mexico and Venezuela are the three main sources.

The "Oil ruse" is just a big smokescreen.

Look for yourself:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

The oil leases were probably part of the deal to get us to start pulling troops out.

---

Thanks for validating my previous post.

Also, Big Oil will now be getting ALOT more out of Iraq, which was my point exactly- trouble is, we won't benefit from it for our trillion spent and 4000+ lives spent, not to mention the 1,000,000 Iraqui's murdered in the process.

Funny how the oil fields, pipelines etc, in Iraq seemed to weather the invasion & occupation so well. We can secure the oil interests of the Bush Crime Family, but can't seem to secure Baghdad. Interesting.

That oil will be sold to the highest bidder on the open market, no restitution for us, sadly. Same would be true for those nose- pickers who stood around chanting "drill, baby, drill" during the campaign. Any oil or natural gas recovered on US soil or off shore would also be sold on the open market, as current law allows.

Need to change the laws, and stop giving corporate welfare to Big Oil in the form of subsidies.

Constantly being screwed by the Rethugnican run corporations.:eek:

Rethugnicans have earned their moniker.

Quote:

---

Also, Big Oil will now be getting ALOT more out of Iraq, which was my point exactly- trouble is, we won't benefit from it for our trillion spent and 4000+ lives spent, not to mention the 1,000,000 Iraqui's murdered in the process.

---

BBC had a twist on this today. "Chinese oil refiner Sinopec has made a $7.2bn [[£4.4bn) bid for oil exploration and producing firm Addax, which focuses on Africa and the Middle East.
"We trust that this acquisition suits Sinopec's strategic goals, that it will strengthen Sinopec's presence in west Africa and Iraq and is a major step in its globalization," said Sinopec in a statement. "
-http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8118951.stm

Iraq? Maybe Hillary cleared that on her last visit to Beijing along with GM marketing Chinese cars. Big oil is coming to mean Sinopec. Actually, about 84% of the world's oil is controlled by government owned companies that wickedly try to control oil prices.

Yes, let's look at the Republican-run major bidders for Iraqi oil leases:

Royal Dutch Shell [[Dutch)
Eni [[Italy)
Lukoil [[Russia)
Sinopec [[China)
BP [[Britain)
Exxon-Mobil [[US)

We can also add to that list Unocal, and a handful of connected smaller players, such as Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.

It's not just the oil companies that will benefit, but their Republican-donor supply chain as well.

As to your subtle suggestion
"Anyone hazard to guess who's getting some of those oil leases? I'll leave that to your fertile imaginations."
So do you know or are you throwing out BS.
Are you a communist who hates America? What is wrong with helping out US companies overseas?
Clinton , Carter, Kissinger, many other ex politicians get big money from the Chi Coms and dictators all over the world all the time.
Obama will get millions out of office after he BANKRUPTS this country, and we will be left paying for his unconstitutional acts.


Who is getting the leases? Maybe an Oil Company? Since the Bush's have many friends in the oil business, I'm sure someone known by them will get a lease for thier company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

We didn't go there for oil. The oil leases were probably part of the deal to get us to start pulling troops out. If we had went there for oil we would be getting more than we are. We don't get that much oil from the middle east anyway. Canada, Mexico and Venezuela are the three main sources.

---

Actually, depending on which year's statistics you use, Saudi Arabia would be #3, not Venezuela.

And just because we don't get a large percentage of oil from the Middle East doesn't mean that the Middle Eastern oil isn't important. When it comes to oil, what's important is the GLOBAL supply since it's a globally-traded commodity. More than half of the proven oil reserves in the entire world are in the Middle East. Our domestic oil consumption continues to grow, so does China. Obviously, unless we can curb our domestic oil use, we're going to need to import increasingly higher amounts of oil for years to come. And so will China. Obviously whoever has access to the second largest proven oil reserve in the world is going to have a leg-up in the future, wouldn't you say?

They will sell them to buyers who have the most to offer...good for them, and good for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4real

As to your subtle suggestion
"Anyone hazard to guess who's getting some of those oil leases? I'll leave that to your fertile imaginations."
So do you know or are you throwing out BS.
Are you a communist who hates America? What is wrong with helping out US companies overseas?
Clinton , Carter, Kissinger, many other ex politicians get big money from the Chi Coms and dictators all over the world all the time.
Obama will get millions out of office after he BANKRUPTS this country, and we will be left paying for his unconstitutional acts.


Who is getting the leases? Maybe an Oil Company? Since the Bush's have many friends in the oil business, I'm sure someone known by them will get a lease for thier company.

---

Me, a communist who hates America? Shirley you jest!:eek:

Well, at least I'm not a fascist who would sell his countrymen down the river simply because I feel the urge to brown-nose the Bush Tush.

Since you need things spelled out for you, read the later posts, and the list of oil companies were compiled by another poster.

Your buddy, George Goebbels Bush is the one who bankrupted this country. Raping the national treasury of 700 billion bucks to bail out Paulson's Wall Street buddies on the way out the door. Never forget who got us to this point, not Obama, it was the fascist rightwing. Period.

Affordable energy is not only "a" vital interest for any developed [[or undeveloped) nation, it is perhaps "the" vital interest...second only to defense against attack and destruction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Affordable energy is not only "a" vital interest for any developed [[or undeveloped) nation, it is perhaps "the" vital interest...second only to defense against attack and destruction.

---

I couldn't agree more. That's why I'm looking forward to the 1.50 a gallon gas coming our way, now that the Republicans have fulfilled their obligation to get some return on our investment in Iraq. I'm so glad to see it coming, I might even buy a Hummer. :cool:

We almost made it...until Obama rescinded the lifting of the ban on off shore drilling, and other domestic energy source development like coal, nuclear, natural gas, shale oil, etc. That, and the 50-80 cents per gallon taxes [[meaning your 1.50 price is really a 70 cent to one dollar price) shot the price back up...Thanks libs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccbatson

We almost made it...until Obama rescinded the lifting of the ban on off shore drilling, and other domestic energy source development like coal, nuclear, natural gas, shale oil, etc. That, and the 50-80 cents per gallon taxes [[meaning your 1.50 price is really a 70 cent to one dollar price) shot the price back up...Thanks libs.

---

LOL!!

Offshore drilling?

We have 2% of the world's oil

We use 25% of it.

Unless there is some magical Tush/Cheney oil field out there the size of the middle east, it aint' happening.

Any oil found on US soil or offshore would be sold on the open market, per the current, repugnican created laws. We would not benefit from it at all.

The Rethugnicans had their Pavlovian base frothing at the "drill baby, drill" mantra being chanted, I couldn't help but laugh heartily at the fools doing it- in front of cameras nonetheless!

The lies being perpetrated by the Reich is truly breathtaking.

Personally, I would prefer to have clean shorelines, since any additional drilling would only make the current bad situation worse, since Rethugnicans advocated for bringing rigs only 40 miles offshore, when they are currently 150 miles offshore.

We don't need more oil, there's plenty of it in the world, we need cleaner energy sources, like the great Republican Boone Pickens advocates for.

We have far more than 2%. The government allows us to access 2%. Conservative estimates that include shale oil and offshore/land based reserves not allowed to be tapped are in the neighbourhood of 3-5 trillion barrels, and that is by today's standards and technology available for exploring and accessing it [[which will surely improve in time under a free market system).

It also excludes nuclear, coal and natural gas.

Regardless, these are energies of the past that pollute, and contribute to climate change. Wind and solar are the best bets going forward. Natural gas, ok, I'll go there too. Nuclear is too dangerous, and there is nowhere to store the spent uranium safely.

Pollute? CO2? Better stop exhaling then Lorax.

Lorax...Today, your ignorance evident in these posts is beyond words. You really should do yourself a favor and read about the science behind all of these fables that you have been brainwashed into believing. If nothing else, you will save face and not appear to be a fool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Pollute? CO2? Better stop exhaling then Lorax.

Lorax...Today, your ignorance evident in these posts is beyond words. You really should do yourself a favor and read about the science behind all of these fables that you have been brainwashed into believing. If nothing else, you will save face and not appear to be a fool.

---

Sorry, I don't read Rethugnican fascist drivel. That may be your stock in trade, not mine.

I can see with my own eyes the retreating glaciers over the last 30 years, the death of ocean species, the harsher winters in some places, and unending droughts in others.

You're the one who is blinded by corporate generated, fascist gas bag tripe, not me.

It's wild isn't it..and it was Wolfowitz who claimed the roses...same thing that Sharon said when he invaded Lebanon, in the 1980's and gee all he got was Hizzbolah...

Thanks Lorax...for confirming the suspicion that liberals will hide from facts and knowledge at all costs.

BTW, When did you "see" those glaciers? Do you realize that it is a fact that, on balance, the ebb and tide of glacier size is static, and even if it weren't, that would not lead to a conclusion that man made CO2 emissions have anything to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccbatson

We almost made it...until Obama rescinded the lifting of the ban on off shore drilling, and other domestic energy source development like coal, nuclear, natural gas, shale oil, etc. That, and the 50-80 cents per gallon taxes [[meaning your 1.50 price is really a 70 cent to one dollar price) shot the price back up...Thanks libs.

---

You do realize that if w were to drill in ANWR that any oil recovered would have to go onto the open market and possibly be bought by say, China, don't you?

Thanks free market folks...

Yeah, I know, the Rethugnicans will believe any load of crap tossed in their laps by blowhards like Limbaugh and the Manatee.

Glacier National Park will have no glacier a year from now.

And no, Batts, they don't "come and go" those glaciers have been there for millenia, and aren't suppose to disappear in 30 years. Check out the Alps, and the Andes as well.

Science has opened our eyes while those who cling to religious claptrap and fascist ideology are really the "Lost Boys."

Quote: "we need cleaner energy sources, like the great Republican Boone Pickens advocates for."

You mean like the Great T Boone has already given up on, because he finally realized nobody want's a charge all night-drive 50 mile and repeat vehicle.

Who said he's given up?

Why, you're throwing him under the bus, too? Must be diesel. :eek:

Quote: "Science has opened our eyes"

It has? How do you explain the drought of the 30's that turned the west into a dustbowl? How does that fit in with Global Warming? It's called weather patterns, the earth is an ever-changing environment, as anybody that has lived in it for over 20 years can tell you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "Science has opened our eyes"

It has? How do you explain the drought of the 30's that turned the west into a dustbowl? How does that fit in with Global Warming? It's called weather patterns, the earth is an ever-changing environment, as anybody that has lived in it for over 20 years can tell you.

---

"How do you explain the drought of the 30's that turned the west into a dustbowl?"

Here's how: It's called global warming and climate change.

What makes you think it's just some new fad that everyone's jumped on the wagon for?

It's been happening ever since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

Then again, that would involve reading, and a modicum of historical knowledge for you to retain, so, it probably wasn't on your radar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorax

Glacier National Park will have no glacier a year from now.

---

1 Year? No Glaciers? Please provide your source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorax

And no, Batts, they don't "come and go" those glaciers have been there for millenia, and aren't suppose to disappear in 30 years. Check out the Alps, and the Andes as well.

Science has opened our eyes while those who cling to religious claptrap and fascist ideology are really the "Lost Boys."

---

Don't give up. If I were you, I'd still show my credentials and scientific research to the religious zealots and fascists at the National Park Service and explain to them why they are wrong. I mean Gore only has degrees in Government and Journalism and he invented the internet and knew more about climate change than the scientists, geologists, and meteorologists.

Glaciers Past and Present

The glaciers in Glacier National Park today are all geologically new having formed in the last few thousand years. Presently, all the glaciers in the park are shrinking. More snow melts each summer than accumulates each winter. As the climate changed over the last two million years, glaciers formed and melted away several times. What will happen to today's glaciers if the climate becomes colder, wetter, or warmer?

Geologists theorize that about 20,000 years ago the climate became cooler and/or wetter. This allowed for the formation of huge glaciers that filled the valleys with thousands of feet of ice. Imagine the valleys of Glacier National Park filled with ice, and just the tops of the highest peaks sticking out. These giant rivers of ice sculpted the mountains and valleys into their present appearance. Today's glaciers are carving at the mountains as well. Although smaller, they work in the same way as the larger glaciers of the past, and teach us about Glacier National Park's geologic history.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/glac/resources/geology.htm

Major in law and politics and spend you days building cars or working at Walmart and I bet you could prove all five mass extinctions of the planet were really caused by fascists who traveled back in time with the religious zealots that were trying to destroy pre-history so archeologists couldn't disprove Genesis.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ar_000907.html

How convenient to pull up sites and figures that dovetail with the leanings of the fascist right.

If you believe even one statistic put out by the Bush white house, then your years of "education" were a waste.

Read this and you'll understand the truth.


http://digg.com/politics/George_Bush...7317#c21567317

Or perhaps this:
http://digg.com/politics/George_Bush...7317#c21567317

Or perhaps even this:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=george+...st=1&FORM=PERE

Your denial of what years of research has proven as fact is breathtaking.

You can hide behind any statistics generated by fascists, right wing apologists and the like, it doesn't prove anything other than your inability to see what is standing before you.

That is a problem indemic with the Rethugnican Reich, and you apparently are no different.

Just admit it, your president Tush believed the earth was only 6000 years old [[per the bible), and that the fossil record was placed on earth by the devil to confuse man.:eek:

This is the idiocy of a science denying, socially retarded president, who, through his policies sought to, and in many cases successfully destroyed our possiblity at reversing these changes over time.

His moment in office was critical, he dropped the ball, and now there is every evidence that many species will be lost, glaciers gone forever, simply due to a fundamental lack of interest in recoginzing what is happening to our planet.

Global warming/climate change is real, it's here, and due to the Rethugnican's love of big polluters, we find ourselves behind the rest of the world in addressing this.

mjs, how dare you cite facts from the National Park Service and scientific web sites. Don't you know that the truth is in Rolling Stone and on blogs?

Lorax, there was an election and the Democrats won! I thought you would be excited to learn that the National Park Service has been under the direction of President Obama for some time now. Did the Park Service say something different under the last Democratic administration when Al Gore was VP?

I'd ask you to cite it, but I see your still busy looking for the source that proves they'll be no glaciers next year. Hey, what do you say we put a clause in the cap and trade that it goes away if there's still a glacier in glacier national park one year from today?

Lorax...you are a profound victim of liberal brainwashing, but here is a suggestion that will allow you to deprogram yourself...eliminate the "education" you have been programmed with temporarily, evaluate the basic principles of reality as you observe them around you [[ie, the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening), for items that end up in controversy, stick to the basics and analyse reality to develop a case for one side or the other in said debate...the conclusion that you arrive at will be the correct one.

Example; manmade global warming. Are temperatures steadily or unusually rising? Look back at historical data and patterns compared to today, are there previous peaks and troughs of similar magnitude and duration...if the answers are that, a) recent trends are towards cooling, not warming, and b) fluctuations far in access of what we have seen in the last 100 years are common. From this alone, there is no need to go further in the debate. However, if you would like, the next case to evaluate is can a cause and effect relationship be established between any manmade behavior and temperature be confirmed [[not correlation/coincidence, but causality). The answer is no, it can't be established. So, once again, debate is over....but you can go on, and on, and on to debunk Al Gore's myth.

BTW, just heard that Polar Bear populations are at a 50 year high....oops, Al Gore loses another argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb336

We request DATA we request actual published, preferably peer-reviewed DATA.

---

Thank you Lorax for clearing up my understanding. When I think peer review, I think of experts who have spent years being educated in the field and spent decades analyzing data. What you mean by peer review is that your peers like pzea and slimsam have thoroughly dicussed it. Its all makes sense now.

Lorax....I have a reading list that you should seriously consider going through to get on top of these issues, you are very very confused.

Stop with the pile-on, guys, your "source" though a government site, was from 2005, and as I recall, it was the Bushies in charge then. You're free to believe the statistics of a discredited administration, and stoolies put into cabinet positions if you like, that is your choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjs

Thank you Lorax for clearing up my understanding. When I think peer review, I think of experts who have spent years being educated in the field and spent decades analyzing data. What you mean by peer review is that your peers like pzea and slimsam have thoroughly dicussed it. Its all makes sense now.

---

Problem with your metric is that your idea of "peer review" has to do with right wing cronies speaking from cabinet positions, department heads from the Bush Regime, and "scientists" who have been bought off by the Reich to do the political bidding of the Bushies.

ANY statement, statistic, or assertion by ANY official from the Bush Administration should be suspect at best.

Perhaps you should take a line from your idol, Ronald Reagan, and learn to "trust, but verify."

And any verification of so-called "facts" by the Bushies won't hold water, they may carry water, but certainly won't hold it!:eek:

[quote=ccbatson;39456] if you would like, the next case to evaluate is can a cause and effect relationship be established between any manmade behavior and temperature be confirmed [[not correlation/coincidence, but causality). The answer is no, it can't be established. So, once again, debate is over....but you can go on, and on, and on to debunk Al Gore's myth.[quote]

Evidently, when it suits you, it is OK to equate correlation with coincidence. Causality is inferred in the vast majority of science. It is inferred other causes are either ruled out or are deemed less likely/significantand the strength of a correlation is high. that is exactly the case as presented in the literally hundreds of articles in the bibliographt I posted in the old board. That, Bats, is how science works. It is also probably the same reason you have no peer-reviewed publications



[quote]BTW, just heard that Polar Bear populations are at a 50 year high....oops, Al Gore loses another argument. [quote]


Guess what? there is ZERO data about the polar bear populations from the 50s and 60s. Zero, Nada, Zip, Zilch. It was also an era with no limits on polar bear hunting, trapping, etc, an era which ended with the 1970s International Agreement on Polar Bears. What happens when people stop mass cullings of animals? their populations rebound

Are you OK Rb? You read that 180 degrees wrong.

I will have to get the source for the polar bear data to prove you wrong on that one [[again, and as usual), stay tuned.

Not that this is payday for the BCF, but there is just so much great stuff out there, I felt reviving this thread was appropriate:

http://www.communitycurrency.org/BushCrimeFamily.html

While the history is great, it's the last few paragraphs on GW that are particularly illuminating.

Check the premise as you will find it very much in error. There is profit rightfully to be made in the unfortunate but necessary event of war, it doesn't work the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Check the premise as you will find it very much in error. There is profit rightfully to be made in the unfortunate but necessary event of war, it doesn't work the other way around.

---

War will never again be "necessary" since the Atomic bomb.

Profit on war is illegal by statute in the US, and Prescott Bush was on the receiving end of that profit, and of the consequences under Harry Truman.

George Tush allowed war profiteering under his regime, and a Rethuglican majority congress allowed it for 8 years. The politically compromosed Justice Department was also complicit, that's why Alberto Gonzales is so well liked today.

OMG Lorax...that is the most ignorant thing I have ever read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccbatson

OMG Lorax...that is the most ignorant thing I have ever read.

---

I can top that, actually- just re-read every post you've entered since you started posting here, Sparky. :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorax

I can top that, actually- just re-read every post you've entered since you started posting here, Sparky. :eek:

---

Wow, does this guy always post like this here? I have read some of his posts and I think it is extremely funny [[and hypocritical) that he bashes every single conservative person and idea and speaks like his word is absolute truth and is THE only way to do things.

Every post he makes involves "funny" [[notice the quotes they mean it is sarcastic) name calling and outright attacks towards anyone who has any type of conservative view. The hypocritical part comes in because he is very obviously an extreme left winger who is bashing others without prejudice for anything they say even starting to lean right wing. [[see his wonderful "astroturfing" thread where he attacks someone who outright says they are not against him for some of that extremely funny yet sad at the same time fun)

Does this guy do any type of stand up comedy shows? There is no way this guy would ever be taken seriously in any type of real political arena.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thatguy123

Wow, does this guy always post like this here? I have read some of his posts and I think it is extremely funny [[and hypocritical) that he bashes every single conservative person and idea and speaks like his word is absolute truth and is THE only way to do things.

Every post he makes involves "funny" [[notice the quotes they mean it is sarcastic) name calling and outright attacks towards anyone who has any type of conservative view. The hypocritical part comes in because he is very obviously an extreme left winger who is bashing others without prejudice for anything they say even starting to lean right wing. [[see his wonderful "astroturfing" thread where he attacks someone who outright says they are not against him for some of that extremely funny yet sad at the same time fun)

Does this guy do any type of stand up comedy shows? There is no way this guy would ever be taken seriously in any type of real political arena.

---

Well, Lorax the Clown has decided you're worthy of a response.

Once you've read all the posts, Newbie, and my responses, I'd reserve judgement if I were you.

My experience in dealing with Rethuglicans has never gone well, since anything they've proposed has been so completely partisan, and the lies put forth constant, you can only respond in kind, since they don't understand any other way.

The Astroturfing, the Teagaggers, etc, are so hilariously retarded in their obvious pander to the interests of their corporate masters, that only ridicule puts it in it's proper perspective.

As an example, 12% of North Carolina Rethuglicans when asked if Hawaii was part of the United States responded "No", or "don't know". This was in response to the "Birther" freaks who really believe Obama wasn't born in the US. Sidesplitting good fun, really!

It may horrify you to know I often advise Democratic fundraisers and party types here in Florida, who were successful in getting Ron Klein and Debbie Wasserman Schultz elected last time around. So don't assume my rhetoric falls on deaf ears.

Glad I can be entertaining as well as informative. Cheers!

Yet another drip, drip, from the Rethuglican Street Gangs, read this and hope for indictments:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/6569287.html

For what? An advisor advising a President on a matter that is completely within his rights as the chief executive?

Who right was it to politicize the Justice Department? Does Karl Rove have a duty to his president to provide advice that is constitutional?

Using the office to witch hunt Republican judges who weren't towing the party line of ginning up lies about Democrats is illegal. Especially after stating otherwise before Congress- it's called perjury, and obstructing a congressional investigation. 10 years max in the federal pen. No big deal, he'll just need to bring his soap on a rope. :eek:

Drip, drip, drip. More of the frauds and felonies of the Bush Crime Family put on display for all the world to see.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32396077...new_york_times

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorax

I have just one thing to say to the Bush Crime Family:

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! :eek:

---

Chock that one in there with

Kennedy's and their alcohol

Carter's and their tripling of the price of peanut butter

the list goes on,
they are all corrupt.
People just point the finger while wearing blinders so they can't see the mess in their own backyards.....

Read Michelle Malkin's book on Corruption if you want to get an earful about the thugs in office now.