Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyway. Obama is firmly in the pocket of the elite that run America. Forget the "hopey changy" stuff, it ain't going to happen. His job now is to smother the angry and dismayed progressives who elected him by controlling the internet.

To hire someone with experience in copyright law makes sense if Obama is going to try and control the online content of the Internet via Intellectual property arguments. What else is there that is concentrating the minds of the mainstream media these days? What is the obvious "quid pro quo" that the mainstream media can give Obama? Don't you understand that Murdoch is perfectly capable of arraying his media empire behind Obamas re-election campaign if it suits him? To put it another way, if he was going after the banksters, he would have hired someone with deep experience in financial fraud. ..And of course after this gig, Verrill goes right back to working for his law firm and representing the RIAA at a much higher rate.

Wait for the next edition of Alexander Franklin's book as he tries to topple the big bang theory, "dark matter" (faerie dust) and "Dark energy". http://www.jaypritzker.org/index.html

My understanding is that vaccines are around 70% effective.

You have already found gravitational waves, you just don't know it. The Big Bang Theory is wrong and Einstein made a subtle mistake in labelling Minkowskis Four dimensional space time continuum as "superfluous erudition" and calling it merely "purely formal", and in his 1924 revised edition of "Relativity" he wrote of Minkowskis work: " It must be clear even to the non-mathematician that, as a consequence of this purely formal addition to our knowledge, the theory perforce gained clearness in no mean measure." Well it isn't "purely formal", but Einstein never understood that and Minkowskis died prematurely before he could explain the implications to his former pupil, one of which is that the radial recessionary velocity of distant galaxies is an artifact of curved spacetime and not evidence of an expanding universe. Alexander Franklin Mayer wised up and his written a book about it.: http://www.jaypritzker.org/pages/GetBook.html

The only evidence for expansion is that the further away a galaxy is from us, the more red shifted it is. Mayer/Minkowskis equations show that the red shift may be an artifact of curved space time and not a radial recessionary velocity at all. His equations appear to fit the observed data much better and explain such things as the Pioneer anomaly much better. If Mayer is correct, the Hubble constant measurements are merely measuring the change of timelines due to the curvature of spacetime. Needless to say, Mayer is not a popular man.

I've been following Alexander F Mayers work on Minkowski's (Einsteins Maths Teacher) space time mathematics which Einstein, who didn't understand them, called "superfluous erudition'. Mayer derives a model for the universe that does not require the universe to be expanding, let alone accelerating expansion, does not require "Dark matter" nor "Dark energy", that makes a damn sight more cosmological sense than the "Big Bang" and fits the current observations, much, much better, with no free variables like "quintessence". He makes a prediction for the LRO mission as well. http://www.jaypritzker.org/index.html

Alexander Franklin Mayer (jaypritzker.org) posited that Einstein made a very small error in the Theory of Relativity that results in what he calls "gravitational transverse redshift". The implications being that the Universe is not expanding and that time is a local verticle (ie time is a local variable within the universe.) It explains a stack of anomalies (including the Pioneer anomaly) I have a sneaking suspicion that that these experiments, if their results are shown to be correct, will prove Mayer is correct. From memory Mayers calculation of the effect of Einstein's error is about 1 part in 45 million.