Washington Report

Mexico's Immigration Hypocrisy

2010-04-29T08:22:00.000-07:00

I heard Mexico has issued a statement warning their citizens about going to Arizona. Mexican President Calderone believes Arizonans are 'racist' for passing a law that says it is illegal to be an illegal.

I thought Arizona was trying to do something that both Bush & Obama have failed to do. Enforce our immigration laws.

Mexico sounds like Arizona is the only place with enforceable immigration laws. That is where the hypocrisy becomes blatant.

Mexico has some of the most punitive immigration laws on the books that far surpass Arizonas. Our media in the US are in favor of granting citizenship to the illegal aliens here, so they do not tell their readers or viewers that fact.

Instead they try to play on peoples fears of being labeled with the overplayed term 'racist'. Yes in the US if you oppose the radical lefts agenda, you are a racist. If you ask our elected officials to enforce our laws, you are a racist.

I believe the elected officials who take an oath of office to uphold our constitution & laws are guilty of a derelection of duty when they refuse to do so.

Here is a brief summary of Mexico's immigration laws as they relate to foreigners in Mexico. i did call the Mexican Embassy in DC, and gasp, they would not comment on their own laws. They are happy to comment on US law, but would prefer not to discuss their own.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has accused Arizona of opening the door “to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement.” But Arizona has nothing on Mexico when it comes to cracking down on illegal aliens. While open-borders activists decry new enforcement measures signed into law in “Nazi-zona” last week, they remain deaf, dumb or willfully blind to the unapologetically restrictionist policies of our neighbors to the south.

– The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” How’s that for racial and ethnic profiling?

– If outsiders do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” they are not welcome. Neither are those who show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.” They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

– Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama’s illegal alien aunt — a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).

– Law enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens’ arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

– Ready to show your papers? Mexico’s National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens’ identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

http://michellemalkin.com/

More Dirty Tricks from the Dirty Democrats

2010-04-12T09:22:00.000-07:00

The left wing of American politics have a history of trying to portray the conservatives as racists in an attempt to discredit them. This goes way back.

In the 70's Bush 41 was speaking as our UN Ambassador and the left sent folks to the venue dressed as Klansmen, and carrying signs supporting Bush. Unfortunately for them, they were caught and exposed.

Fast forward to current events.

For a year the mainstream media, and Democrats have tried to diminish the Tea Party and portray them as racists, unAmerican, and Nazis. The Tea Party formed because regular Americans were sick & tired of having their voices ignored by the politicians in Washington.

The mainstream media & Demcrats have tried in vain to convince voters that the Tea Party participants were representing big business, despite the denials from them.

We witnessed the protest in March on Capitol Hill. The mainstream media & Democratic leaders claimed they were spit upon & called the n-word. If true, it would be shameful.
The Tea Party members denounced the use of such language and any use of violence.

When interviewed, nobody seemed to have actually heard such words being used, and no video surfaced. There was plenty of video with audio, but not one 'n-word' nor any spit.

A $100,000 reward was offerred for anyone who could provide evidence of such language or actions. Despite the money, nobody could produce anything.

Now on April 15th, more rallies are being planned to protest our high teaxes, out of control spending, and record deficits.

The far left Democrats & their supporters are also planning to participate in the Tea Parties. These groups are planning more nefarious forms of participation in an effort to discredit the Tea Party movement.

Among the many Tea Party protesters, however, will be individuals plotting to undermine the peaceful grassroots movement.

Blogger Glenn Reynolds spotted CrashTheTeaParty.org today, a website that claims to represent "a nationwide network of Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are all sick and tired of that loose affiliation of racists, homophobes and morons; who constitute the fake grassroots movement, which calls itself 'the Tea Party.'"

Their plan is to "infiltrate" Tea Party protests to create the false impression that protesters are racists by … being racists. That's right, they will bring with them offensive signs and give wildly offensive interviews to reporters, all with the intention of smearing a movement that wouldn't bring those signs or give those interviews themselves. It remains to be seen whether the mainstream media will take the bait.

The Tea Party movement has been notably non-violent by the standards of any protest movement, but especially when compared with leftist anti-war and anti-capitalist groups (a lot of overlap there). It is not beyond the pale to expect that some crazies might try to shatter the near-perfect record of non-violent protest proudly worn on the Tea Party's collective sleeve by inciting or committing an act of violence.

"Some on the Left in American politics," Tapscott wrote today at the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog, "are running a KGB-like 'false flag' operation to discredit the Tea Party. The Left couldn't sell the idea that Tea Partiers are just a bunch of racists, homophobes and morons, so the Left is infiltrating the Tea Party in order to pose as a bunch of racists, homophobes and morons."

The question, as Tapscott notes, is how will the mainstream media address allegations of racism or -- God forbid -- violence. Will it parrot the claims of liberals without extensive investigation, as it did with the 'Spittlegate' incident after the passage of the ObamaCare bill? Or will it make a concerted effort to sort out fact from fiction -- and where it is unclear, report it as such?

Suppose, for example, someone who may or may not be an actual Tea Party member shows up to a protest with an offensive sign. The mainstream media cannot responsibly report that that person is undoubtedly an authentic member of the movement. The lingering doubt that the person is a member of radical leftist counter-protests groups will remain until that possibility is disproved.

But given the mainstream media's reliably hostile attitude towards the Tea Party movement, such investigation in all likelihood will not take place. It may fall to citizen journalists to expose the leftists seeking to slander wide swaths of the American people.

Tea Party groups will be working to marginalize any undercover lefties that show up with malicious designs. If you get the chance, grab a video camera (or a smartphone) and head to your nearest Tea Party.

Who knows, your footage could dispel some false accusations; citizen-journalists are turning in the most reliable kinds.

The person behind this leftist call to arms is Jason Levin.

Domain name: ZANE-LEVIN.COMAdministrative Contact:Levin, Jason 6300 crown avenueOakland, CA 94611 US 510-595-1634 Fax: 000-000-0000

Our Presidents Missing Spine

2010-02-24T15:06:00.000-08:00

In December China issued an ultimatum to the remaining American manufacturing base. At that time China issued new rules to American companies that sell to the Chinese government.

The new rule will require these companies to transfer all of their research, development and patents to China as a condition of selling goods and services there.

Many of the impacted American trade groups joined together and sent a letter to several US government officials in protest.

Here are some excerpts from these letters:

"Of most immediate concern are new rules issued by the Chinese government in November to establish a national catalogue of products to receive significant preferences for government procurement. Among the criteria for eligibility for the catalogue is that the products contain intellectual property that is developed and owned in China and that any associated trademarks are originally registered in China. This represents an unprecedented use of domestic intellectual property as a market-access condition and makes it nearly impossible for the products of American companies to qualify unless they are prepared to establish Chinese brands and transfer their research and development of new products to China.

We respectfully request that your agencies make this issue in particular a strategic priority in your bilateral economic engagement with China; develop, in consultation with the business community and like-minded foreign governments, a strong, fully coordinated response to the Chinese government; and raise this issue with your Chinese counterparts in all appropriate unilateral and bilateral settings and forums." - US Trade groups

In response the White House has taken the following action as reported in the Wall Street Journal.

"In an unusually broad response, U.S. officials from several government agencies have approached the Chinese to relay concern over the proposed rules, according to people familiar with the situation. "We are expressing our serious concerns with all appropriate counterparts in the Chinese government," said Carol Guthrie, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office."

It never occurred to the Obama administration to respond in kind. With the current trade imbalance favoring the Chinese, that would have gotten their attention.

Instead Obama is expressing his "concern".

Last September Obama got the G-20 members to agree to a Paper Tiger communique protesting Chinese business practices.

All talk with no bite.

It could be that Obama is afraid of getting China angry since they are financing his dangerous deficits. They already dumped some U.S. Treasury Bonds a couple months ago just to let Obama know who is in control.

When they do this, it raises the interest rates the US pays to them for financing our deficits.

With China maintaining a false currency they can keep the exchange rate where it is, and not impact the trade imbalance. It has not wanted to diminish the value of the dollar relative to the yuan because that would raise the prices of Chinese goods to Americans and reduce the prices of U.S. goods to the Chinese.

"There is little chance that China will dump the dollar while America still has lots of industry and research and development left that China wants to steal. If it were to crash the dollar, it would cause investment in the U.S. manufacturing sector to come roaring back, which would wreck its plans. The U.S. should, however, fear the Chinese government's threats to bring about a dollar collapse in the future." - Howard Richman

We are currently losing our blue collar manufacturing base to China. With Obama refusing to impose a trade balance between the two countries as is allowed through the World Trade Organization, we will soon lose our good paying white collar research and development jobs as well.

"We could impose a tariff on Chinese products in proportion to the trade deficit. When the U.S. trade deficit with China goes up, the tariff rate goes up; when the trade deficit goes down, the tariff rate goes down. When trade reaches approximate balance, the tariff disappears. If the Chinese government continues to exclude American products from its markets, it would be excluding Chinese products from American markets." - a/t

China is fighting a trade war with the US, and just like the War on Terror, Obama's lack of a spine does not bode well for us winning.

The Bumbling American Government

2010-02-15T04:16:00.000-08:00

For over a year many Americans have watched their vote for 'hope' & 'change' turn into a remake of the bumbling Keystone Cops.

We have watched as the Obama administration bumbles its way from one debacle to another. When they came into office the US had 7.7% unemployment. Obama told Americans that if we would give him a nearly $800 billion stimulus he could hold unemployment to 8%. The Democrats had identified a plethora of 'shovel-ready' jobs that were just waiting for funding. Obama pledged to voters that they would be able to track this spending on a special government website.

Obama and the Democrats told us this was emergency legislation that had to be passed immediately to keep the world from devolving into an economic abyss.

Congress passed the emergency bill without even being given time to read the bill. Was there a parade down Pennsylvania Avenue, delivering this emergency legislation to an awaiting signature from our President?

No.

He had taken his family and returned to Chicago for the weekend. So much for the emergency.

The tracking website took months to set up, and then was discovered to be full of 'inaccurate' information. It stated that stimulus funds were going to nonexistent zip codes and Congressional Districts.

When you use false information to justify spending, you invite skepticism, distrust and resentment.

This brings us to Obama's next bumbling of a questionable issue.

Our House of Representatives took up the White House's next major agenda item, Cap & Trade.

Here's a fine example of watching fools rush in. The House devised yet another monstrosity of a bill that was written so nobody could be sure what all was in it. Then they passed this on a near party line vote without members being allowed to read the bill. Over 300 pages had been added in the middle of the night.

The political European left has already passed & implemented a similar law. They have also watched as their energy costs have soared. In Munich, I had the pleasure of experiencing their version, as our hot water was metered to shut off at 10pm and come back on at 6am. They are all doing their part to uphold this new religion.

After our House passed this, the Senate has taken a more measured approach to this bill. They have not acted.

The House bill will result in far higher across the board prices, as anything relying on transportation or production will incur higher operating costs. These increases will be passed onto consumers through higher prices.

Obama told us this will result in many new green jobs. Some funding for green jobs were included in the stimulus bill.

It has produced some green jobs. Remember those green jobs revolve around wind, solar, hydro, et al. Well it was announced that Obama's wind farm in Texas that has consumed hundreds of millions of taxpayer borrowed money. It will deliver around 300 new jobs there during the construction phase.

The company building the Wind Turbines will get 2,000 new jobs. Unfortunately, the company is located in China. Taxpayers borrowed this money from China to create jobs in China. Did I mention Americans will have to pay this money back to China with interest?

"Most of the jobs are going overseas," said Russ Choma at the Investigative Reporting Workshop. He analyzed which foreign firms had accepted the most stimulus money. "According to our estimates, about 6,000 jobs have been created overseas, and maybe a couple hundred have been created in the US. -ABC News

Iberdrola, one of the largest operators of renewable energy worldwide, is based in Spain and has received the most U.S. stimulus dollars -- $577 million. It buys some of its turbines from another Spanish manufacturer, Gamesa, which has a U.S. connection. Gamesa has two facilities to manufacture turbine blades in Pennsylvania, but the company said the market forced it to temporarily lay off nearly 100 workers.

A Chinese company called A-power is helping to build a massive $1.5 billion wind farm in West Texas. The consortium behind the project expects to get $450 million in stimulus money.
Walt Hornaday, an American partner on the project, said it would create some American jobs. "Our estimation," he said, "is that we are going to have on the order of 300 construction jobs just within the fence of the project."

Since the House passed Cap & Trade more information has came out regarding the integrity of warming alarmists.

The exposure of several emails between climatologists who are at the forefront of this movement have shown the finely orchestrated effort to manipulate data, hide a decline in global temperatures, and manipulating the climate model used to produce the desired outcomes.

The main climatologist behind the man driven climate change theory, Professor Phil Jones, has lost or misplaced his research with the data to back up his claims. The left is still willing to trap the taxpayers in this mess regardless of whether the original data supporting it can be found or not.

"Every government on Earth has changed its policy, hundreds of academic institutions, entire school curricula and the priorities of broadcasters and newspapers all over the world have been altered – all to serve the new doctrine that man is overheating the planet and must undertake heroic and costly changes to save the world from drowning as the icecaps melt." -UK Daily Mail

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) won the Nobel Peace Prize based on its report on the melting of the Himalayan Mountains ice caps. It claimed they would be completely melted by 2035.

A couple weeks ago it was revealed that this Nobel Peace Prize winning report was based on casual observation versus sound science.

It was from a mountaineering magazine and the thesis of a student.

The Nobel Peace Prize is not what they used to be.

The far left in American politics seems all too willing to put taxpayers on the financial hook for their climate fantasy.

Folks, real science does not need to rely on manipulated data, avoidance of the Freedom of Information Act, and falsehoods.

Our bumbling President and his cohorts in Congress are gambling with our country's ability to compete on the global marketplace with this boondoggle. The emerging countries of India and China have both rejected this, and refuse to abide by the carbon limits it would impose.

This is an attempt by the left to fulfill their ultimate goal of redistributing the wealth of the west to developing nations through environmental or social justice, and perhaps padding their own pockets along the way. Remove the money from this equation and watch the lefts interest wane.

After failing to get action on Cap & Trade in the Senate, Obama jumped right to health care. With 85% of Americans reporting they are happy with their health care, Obama and the Democrats told us there is a crisis in health care

With a super-majority in Congress, Americans watched as the Democratic Party began infighting amongst the left wing and the centrist 'Blue Dogs'.

The bill in the House was very liberal, and cuts $500 billion from Medicare. It still covers the same amount of people. It just has $500 billion less to do it with.

The Democrats claim that they can provide the same treatment to seniors with $5oo billion less in funding.

The White House and Congressional Democrats said it was fear mongering to point out that this cannot be done. It was actually just common sense.

In late summer details of the plan began to emerge and leak out. It had to leak out, because the pledge of televising the debate on C-Span turned out to be another lie.

As Americans learned more of the contents of the bill, they began to challenge Congress at Town Hall meetings.

This exercise in free speech was met with charges of racism, hate speech, and people speaking out were also told they were being unAmerican.

I recall the previous eight years when protests were met with a warm embrace by those on the left, and described as patriotic.

That was before their own agenda was held up to the light of day.

Now the Senate has passed its version of health care. After telling voters that the GOP was beholden to the insurance lobby, the Democrat's senate bill hands the insurance lobby and big pharma 30 million new customers.

If any of the 30 million cannot afford this new insurance, the rest of the taxpayers will be forced to subsidize them.

Meanwhile the administration continues to ignore the voters vocal opposition to this agenda. Voters in purple Virginia and deep blue New Jersey sent a message in November when they dumped the Democrats in the elections.

The Democrats misread this outcome and continued to push this agenda.

Voters did notice that after nearly a year of rising unemployment, Obama did get around to holding a 'jobs summit' in December and eventually came up with a weak bipartisan jobs bill that was going to produce precious few jobs for the cost. The Congress decided to scrap the plan this past week.

Obama reminded voters of the money given to the banks during the bailouts, and vowed to get our money back. This flew in the face of Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, stating before Congress that the banks were paying back their borrowed money.

Obama said he would impose a fee on the banks. He ignores the fact that the banks will merely pass this fee onto taxpayers.

Not only did taxpayers have to borrow the money from China to give to the banks, we are now expected to pay additional bank fees, so we can recover the monies which are already being paid back.

Typical of the critical thinking skills demonstrated by the Obama administration.

This bumbling administration and Congress continue to push their failed policies, and now threaten to govern by fiat if the public continues to reject the direction they are taking us.

How Obama & Congress bungled so much, in such a short period of time, is cause for concern amongst the governed.

In January the voters of deep blue Massachusetts turned Ted Kennedy's senate seat over to the GOPs Scott Brown who ran as the 41st vote against Ted Kennedy's life's work.

Poll after poll indicates voters are disenchanted with the high unemployment and high deficits this administration has to offer.

Voters are equally concerned with the radical lefts approach to national security and overall foreign policy.

We watched during Obama's first year as he made his worldwide, America is bad, apology tour. He has bowed his way through Asia and the Middle East apologising for American exceptionalism at every turn.

At home, Obama's poll numbers indicate a growing dissatisfaction with his agenda and horrible results.

During the primaries, Hillary Clinton warned of Obama's naive plan for dealing with Iran. He had proposed high level meeting with Iran without any preconditions. Clinton warned that this would give the Iranian regime undue legitimacy. She suggested we agree to meet on the condition that Iran suspend their nuclear aspirations.

Obama has ignored this advice. This week, Iran announced that it was now enriching uranium at 20%. This is much higher than is needed for energy use alone.

Americans have been told that the US is not in a War on Terror. We are only fighting al Qaeda. What we previously witnessed were not acts of terror, they were "manmade disasters".

The administration ignores that Hamas, and other terrorist organizations have launched a jihad against the US that goes beyond al Qaeda. The Obama White House was loathe to acknowledge the terror implications of the attack at the Little Rock, AR recruiting station or Fort Hood in Texas.

In both cases early warning signs were ignored, and the seriousness of the situation has been lost on a naive administration.

On Christmas day when a radical Islamist tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet over Detroit, the administration felt compelled to mirandize the suspect, provide an attorney and shut down any further intelligence gathering from him.

Now this White House wants to hold the terror trials in federal court to show the world our justice system works. Right after 9/11 the US did try Richard Reid the convicted 'shoe bomber' in federal court as we did the 20th high jacker, Moussoui.

What those trials yielded was to provide these nutcases with a public forum to spew their hatred for western culture.

We now have experience with these cases and most people favor trying the terrorists in military courts where the public is not put in danger. The costs of prosecuting them in civilian courts are estimated to be around $200 million because of the disruption to New York commerce and safety.

The military bases are already more secure, and located in less populated areas. The military already has capable lawyers and prosecutors to try these cases for a lot less money.

They are bumbling their way through their insistence on closing the prison at GITMO as well. This proposal has been met with public outcries yet the administration insists on moving forward.

This past weekend, Americans heard the administration state that the GITMO released prisoner recidivism rate has increased to 20%. They feel this is an acceptable level.

One out of five that are released are returning to fight us, and they feel that number is acceptable!

Every indication from this administration is that they do not understand the reality of what the west faces with regards to radical Islam. This calls for heavy lifting, and the White House is clearly not up to the task.

This past week has also heard Obama state that he will get this agenda. He stated that he will impose large swaths of this agenda using executive orders and bypassing Congress. He also has stated that the EPA is poised to act in the interest of Cap & Trade if the Senate fails to pass it.

"In the aftermath of a special election in Massachusetts that cost Democrats unilateral control of the Senate, the White House is getting ready to act on its own in the face of partisan gridlock heading into the midterm campaign".- New York Times“We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.

The EPA has already begun its push when they declared regulatory domain over any waters in the US. This includes every river, stream, farmers pond, or state owned lake. Even the mud puddle in your driveway. All water in the US means just that.The results of this administration have been dismal thus far. Voters have watched as dangerous policies are imposed that they have repeatedly rejected.

This bumbling administration and Congress continue to push their failed policies, and now threaten to govern by fiat if the public continues to reject the direction they are taking us.

How Obama & Congress bungled so much, in such a short period of time, is cause for concern amongst the governed.

The Fort Hood terrorism attack report

2010-01-20T12:02:00.000-08:00

Since taking office one year ago today, Obama and America's liberal establishment have bent over backwards in their attempts to maintain their political correctness.

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton echoed the administrations new refrain that this is not a War on Terror, but rather a war against al Qaeda. Terrorist attacks are no longer called such, now they are "man-made disasters".

Man-made disasters? That's akin to calling the sun an alternative heat source.

The Obama team refuses to acknowledge the fact that these extremists have declared Jihad against the western countries. It is not limited to al Qaeda. They no longer mention Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, or Hezbollah as enemies of the west.

They ignore the fact that these organizations have been involved in this struggle against the west.

They are not fighting the west because we are in the Middle East. They are waging war against our lifestyle, religions, and democratic institutions. Their stated goal is the Islamization of the west. In Europe this transformation is much further along and received a boost recently with the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty.

This treaty opens the European borders to northern African countries. Movement between countries will be free and easy. Work permits will be extended to all who qualify under these provisions.

The treaty also makes it impossible for an individual European country to pass a law for self-preservation. All laws must fully comply with the E.U. laws and mandates.

The overwhelming majority of Muslim people do not support the extremists and are no more a threat than you or I.

Under the direction of the Commander-in-chief, the Pentagon has issued a report that studied the terrorist attack on Fort Hood, Texas.

Nowhere in the report is any mention of Nidal Hasan's belief in radical Islam. Nowhere does it mention "man-made disasters", terrorism or terrorists.

Now Congress opens two days of hearings today into the Pentagon probe of the Nov. 5 attack that left 13 dead, lawmakers want explanations for that omission.

The Pentagon report's silence on Islamic extremism "shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become," he told TIME on Tuesday. "It's definitely getting worse, and is now so ingrained that people no longer smirk when it happens."

Yet the leaders of the two-month Pentagon review, former Army Secretary Togo West and the Navy's onetime top admiral, Vernon Clark, told reporters last week that they didn't drill down into Hasan's motives. "Our concern is with actions and effects, not necessarily with motivations," West said. Added Clark: "We certainly do not cite a particular group."

"The report demonstrates that we are unwilling to identify and confront the real enemy of political Islam," says a former military colleague of Hasan, speaking privately because he was ordered not to talk about the case. "Political correctness has brainwashed us to the point that we no longer understand our heritage and cannot admit who, or what, the enemy stands for."

The Congressman whose district includes Fort Hood agrees. "The report ignores the elephant in the room — radical Islamic terrorism is the enemy," says Republican Representative John Carter. "We should be able to speak honestly about good and bad without feeling like you've done something offensive to society."

The report lumps in radical Islam with other fundamentalist religious beliefs, saying that "religious fundamentalism alone is not a risk factor" and that "religious-based violence is not confined to members of fundamentalist groups." But to some, that sounds as if the lessons of 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, where jihadist extremism has driven deadly violence against Americans, are being not merely overlooked but studiously ignored.

Voters in the Massachusetts special election cited national security as a concern, as well as jobs and the overall economy.

It is a shame our President and Congressional leaders do not see the errors in their assessment of what we are facing as a nation.

For them to place "political correctness" ahead of national security is alarming and dangerous.

It's the Agenda, stupid

2010-01-18T15:48:00.000-08:00

In 2008, voters ushered in a new chapter of the American story. The nation elected our President of 'hope' and 'change'. We were free of Bush and happy days were here again.

Upon taking the reigns, Obama and the Democrats running Congress kicked off their term by forcing a stimulus spending bill filled with "shovel-ready" jobs.

Congress could not have time to read the bill as it was deemed an emergency that could not wait a couple more days. So members tossed caution to the wind and voted blind.

Was the passed bill rushed up Pennsylvania Avenue for signing by an awaiting Obama?

No.

Obama had flown to Chicago with Michele and the girls for the weekend. So why didn't they want members to read it again? Emergency?

After that we saw the House take up Cap & Trade.

To be the most punitive tax levied against Americans, the Dems in the House appeared to have a ready-written plan. American business is to be put at a competitive disadvantage, facing CO2 emission caps while they barter for others allotments.

These related fees will hit companies hard in direct increase production costs. Don't feel bad for them. They are going to pass those cost increases onto us through price increases.

This will hit Americans hard financially. We will see increases in gas, fuel oil, groceries, clothing, etc.

The bill goes further. It contains some costly changes to building codes. Initial construction costs in Alexandria, VA is around 30% higher. California just took this same route, statewide.

The senate has yet to take up their version of this bill.

Voters now know that the claims of global warming being caused by man and at the rate they indicated are dubious.

They claim they lost the raw data, but were clear in their attempts to manipulate data and change raw numbers. NASA is also unable to provide their data.

More & more people are expressing skepticism about this.

Hard to really grasp when you see those touting this wasting mass amounts of tax dollars to attend a Copenhagen Conference that accomplished nothing.

As I recall, John Kerry could not 'ride share' with Nancy Pelosi , other members, family & friends. Selfish John had to have a government plane all to himself. Don't pity Nancy either. She wasn't too cramped. Her entourage used three aircraft.

When people voiced concern for what they saw coming out of congress and the White House, they were met with scorn, derided as racists, tea baggers, and Nazis.

Of course the people grew angry and yelled at them when they refused to listen.

They were really mad when the SEIU thugs were deployed to the Town Hall meetings to 'keep order'.

Americans responded by keeping two Governorships from the left in states carried by Obama.

A sense of frustration continued to rise as Obama & the Democrats placed Cap & Trade ahead of much needed jobs.

Obama waited until December to notice his high unemployment and call a "jobs" summit.

The whole of this agenda is based on liberals fantasy and not one ounce based in reality.

Americans believe their president is completely disconnected from them, and following an agenda that seems foreign to them. Voters are going to slap Obama & the Democrats upside the head at the ballot box in Massachusetts, one more time to try to get their attention.

Watch Wednesday morning.

The White House and the left will blame Coakley just like they blamed Corzine & Deeds for their respective losses.

They never take blame.

They want us to believe its the messenger and not the message.

Folks, if the voters in the liberals deep-blue Massachusetts reject this agenda, then there is a problem with the agenda.

To play off James Carville:

It's the agenda, stupid!!

Liberals Judgement & Priorites Out Of Sync

2010-01-13T06:05:00.000-08:00

The world is aware that we are all facing economic uncertainty. Some nations are faring better than others.

Many were left scratching their heads when the worlds leaders chose to attend the 'global warming' conference in Copenhagen, Denmark last month.

Many questioned the priorities & judgement of those choosing to attend.

It had only been a few weeks since we had all learned how the scientists touting global warming, had been lying in their analysis and manipulating their climate models and outcomes to support their agenda.

Would the world have been better served if these leaders had come together to discuss the global economy and job creation?

They certainly accomplished nothing meaningful in Copenhagen.

I am not arguing the merits for or against global warming. I believe the world may indeed be getting warmer, but question the validity of mankind being the culprit.

The earth has warmed & cooled several times over millions of years with and without mankind being here to influence this phenomenon.

With that said, I want to discuss the judgement & priorities of our elected leaders.

This conference was held to discuss global warming, and more specifically, CO2 emissions.

The US. Congressional Leadership felt the urge to attend this conference despite having nothing to add to the dialogue.

Nancy Pelosi's judgement & priorities allowed her to arrive at the decision, that despite the US economy shedding jobs, and the US being broke; she would attend the conference.

She did not go alone.

Pelosi took over 100 people with her on the taxpayers dime. Only 20 of these people were actual members of Congress. The rest were the delegations family, friends, and servants/staff.

In Copenhagen, the American taxpayers were given the honor of paying for these people to stay at the 5-star Marriott Hotel. We also provided them with handsome per diems to cover the cost of meals & alcohol for the 21 Congress persons, their families & friends.

Being a conference focused on CO2 emissions, did Pelosi set an example by "ride-sharing"?

No. These folks needed three aircraft at $10,000 per hour just for fuel...........each. That doesn't include the military & security personnel needed for such a trip.

Judgement & priorities come into question.

It gets better.

Former Democratic presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry, the preeminent DC prima dona, could not share a plane with Nancy & company.

Taxpayers are footing the bill for John Kerry to fly on a large government-owned executive jet.............................alone!!

Again, judgement & priorities come into question.

CNNs, Jack Cafferty reported on this story and took great lengths to expose this scam against American taxpayers.

Cafferty went on to opine:

"Pelosi refused to answer any questions about costs for this or where they all stayed, even though she was the one who decided who went. Her office says only that it will -- quote -- "comply with disclosure requirements" -- unquote. CBS puts the cost of military jet flying time at about $170,000, plus the cost of dozens of commercial flights, hundreds of hotel stays, many of them at the five-star Marriott, and tens of thousands in meals and other entertainment expense.

It's a disgrace.

The national unemployment rate is 10 percent. Employers cut more jobs than expected just last month. We got the numbers on Friday. People are suffering in this country.

California, Pelosi's home state, is faced with a $20 billion budget deficit. Governor Schwarzenegger's budget plan will force 200,000 children off low-cost medical insurance, will end home care for more than 300,000 sick and elderly citizens, and will cut income assistance to hundreds of thousands more.

This nation is hurting, but Nancy Pelosi can use three military jets for a December trip to Copenhagen, and then refuse to answer any questions about it." - Jack Cafferty, CNN (Jan 12)

I do not believe it is too much to ask that our leaders be able to walk the walk, as well as, talk the talk.

Again, with their judgement & priorities frighteningly out of sync with voters, are they really the right people for the job?

Democrats & Racial Hypocrisy

2010-01-11T06:48:00.000-08:00

There are some Republicans who hold racist viewpoints.

There are some Democrats who hold these very same racist views.

I am free of such a burden. I am fortunate to be young enough to have been raised more in an era where a man is judged by his actions & deeds.

My only reason for bringing up racial feelings is what I believe to be a glaring double-standard on the subject.

Several years ago, then-GOP Senate-Majority Leader, Trent Lott was forced to give up his leadership post after commenting at Strom Thurmond's birthday celebration that things might have been different if the old segregationist had won the presidency in '48.

Some may disagree with me on this, but his observation was correct, things would have been different.

The difference would not have been for the better, but for the worse.

How would a majority-Christian nation condone such disdain for his fellow man?

There may be some behaviors in some people we may not like, and we may chose to avoid them for that reason. We are certainly smart enough not to be sucked into avoiding someone based on the color of their skin.

Yet to hear the liberals speak; all Republicans hold such views.

The liberals will tell you that, yes some racists were Democrats, but after the Civil Rights passage, they left the Democratic fold and joined forces with the GOP.

The Democrats are quick to jump and shout if a member of the GOP makes a racially insensitive remark.

In typical knee-jerk reaction they call for the offenders resignation. Many times this reaction is justified as there is no more room in the US for a person holding such feelings to participate in the public discourse.

It is quite telling when a party points to insensitive remarks of the other party's leader making such remarks, and your own party has made a former member of the KKK the leader of your own party. I am speaking of Robert Byrd, D-WV.

The Democrats elected Byrd to lead their senate efforts after it was known he was a former Grand Wizard of the KKK.

Can you imagine the outcry if the GOP had done this?

With that said, I would like to get to the crux of my point.

I find it totally hypocritical for the Democrats to point to the GOP as a party of racists (when we know that is not true), when their own leaders get caught espousing the very same racist feelings.

There is a new book out called 'Game Changer'.

This book is bound to set Washington on its head.

The book quotes contemporary politicians making racially insensitive remarks.

Were it not for the blatant hypocrisy coming from the left on this issue, I would not bring it up.

In the book, Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid is quoted as buttressing his support of the Obama candidacy by claiming that Obama is a "light skinned" and does not have a "negro-dialect" unless he wants to.

What are we to make of such a statement?

In 2008, did Harry Reid still feel the need to justify his support for an African-American? Did he need to point out that Obama was "light skinned" and had no "negro-dialect"?

What message was Reid trying to convey?

Would Reid not have supported Obama if he was dark skinned or spoke in stereotype slang?

All weekend the liberals have taken to the television airwaves defending Reid for comments that they would have ran a member of the GOP out of town for making.

What they are ignoring in their rush to circle the wagons, is that Reid made these comments in private believing they would not go beyond their intended audience.

What is alarming about this is that they show the mindset of the Democrats chosen leader in the US Senate.

Reid really thinks this way................and the Democrats are attempting to defend him.

The book serves to reinforce a perception whose groundwork was laid during the campaign by who many believed and touted as the first African-American President, Bill Clinton.

During the campaign, Bill Clinton raised the ire of the black community for his comments about how the Obama campaign was merely a "fantasy", and dismissively pointed out that Jesse Jackson had also won the South Carolina primary when Jackson ran for the nomination.

Now the book brings up a conversation that Bill Clinton had with then-Senator, Ted Kennedy when trying to get Kennedy's endorsement for Hillary's campaign.

Bill Clinton was attempting to belittle the Obama candidacy as nonsensical.

Clinton told Kennedy, "a few years ago, this guy would have been serving us coffee", meaning that Obama was only a few short years beyond being able to merely serve coffee to the Democratic stalwarts, much less actually being worthy of serving as President.

Again in this exchange, Bill Clinton tipped his hand to his inner way of thinking.

Similar to people who have been drinking, many are less inhibited in their speech when they believe they are in a private conversation.

Kennedy was angry with this comment from Clinton.

The Massachusetts Lion of the Senate came out and endorsed Obama over Clinton's private objections.

While Harry Reid has apologized for getting caught airing his true beliefs, Clinton has not as of yet.

Before applauding Reid for his apology, put into context. It took the publishing of a book and passage of two years beofre that apology was forthcoming.

Sunlight truly is the best disinfectant.

Had either of these two men been members of the GOP, we would have experienced a weekend of GOP-bashing more intense than that given the Democrats.

Racism comes in all shapes, colors, sizes, and political parties.

While I believe racism is a dying belief, there are obviously still remnants of bygone days.

The hypocrisy on this issue from the Democrats is so transparent and obvious, it will be a long time before the left dares to rear its ugly head on this.

Each time they do, we will have these quotes and the pictures of Bob Byrd in his KKK robes ready to trot out for all to see.

85,000 MORE JOBS LOST; Obama's priorities & Judgement called into question

2010-01-08T07:57:00.000-08:00

Leading up to the release of the December unemployment numbers the administration said they expected to lose 8,000 jobs, despite retailers adding Christmas help.

The US usually experiences an uptick in employment during the busy holiday season.

Obama actually lost 10 X their estimate for a loss of 85,000 jobs.

Unemployment did remain at 10%, a full 2% higher than Obama promised after receiving his “stimulus”.

The reason the unemployment percent did not go up was because more people lost their benefits during December and are no longer included in the unemployment figures. Those no longer being counted are still just as unemployed, but now have no income.

How can this White House be so wrong on so many issues affecting American voters such as jobs and national security?

Why did Obama sit back & watch unemployment rise for nearly a year before holding a “jobs summit” in December?

Instead of focusing on jobs & national security, Obama chose to address health care & global warming.

Folks, we had a terrorist shoot our military recruiters in Little Rock, Arkansas, another terrorist went on a shooting spree at Fort Hood, Texas, and yet another attempted to blow up a planeload of people flying into Detroit on Christmas Day.

The liberals claim Obama is a “certified intellectual”. I am not sure of their criteria for such a dubious claim, but they may want to revise their standards. For those who have no job or rely on the administration to protect them as they fly; they may have a different evaluation of his intellectual prowess.

Many are justified in questioning Obama’s judgement & priorities.

How does a president come to the conclusion that the country needs him to address health care & global warming, while he sits back and ignores unemployment & national security?

I heard the liberals state that Obama was following Bush’s national security policies and therefore it was Bush’s fault.

Excuse me, but if this guy is so smart, and Bush was believed to be so dumb, why didn’t he review the Bush policies and update them when he came into office?

If you think you are a “certified intellectual”, why would you follow the same policies of someone you think is not as smart as you?

Obama is simply not as smart as advertised.

Folks, to put it another way: ‘the Emperor has no clothes’!!

The High Cost of Political Correctness & Naivety

2009-12-28T06:30:00.000-08:00

It has been a short period of time since a homegrown terrorist made repeated threats against the US and was ignored by our government.

He killed 13 unarmed Americans waiting to ship out to Afghanistan and wounded 30+ others.

He sent up enough red flags before going on his jihadi rampage to alert those interested in fulfilling their constitutional responsibilities of protecting our homeland and citizens from harm.

How did Nadal's plan go uninterrupted.

He spoke of his convictions and thoughts on the subject. He made no secret of his feelings.

Regardless of the 800# Gorilla in the room, the liberals still refuse to call Ft. Hood massacre a terrorist act.

Why?

Political correctness.

Our current President & administration is so naively concerned with not hurting the radical Muslims feelings that they allow these things as result of their naive commitment to political correctness.

Early in the administration the White House adopted the policy of not referring to terrorists as terrorists. Such a term was deemed 'mean spirited'.

No longer would there be mention of a War on Terror.

The Obama administration has taken the position that these terrorists just need a hug.

They are too politically correct to acknowledge that the radicals plans call for the murder or conversion of all who fail to embrace Islam. These radicals believe they are acting on divine inspiration from Allah.

The administration naively believes they can negotiate a "peace for our time" with these nut cases. Similar to Chamberlain's naive assessment of Nazi Germany.

In doing so, they ignore the inconvenient fact these radicals are not interested in 'negotiating'. Nobody is going to negotiate with them when they believe they are acting on the commands of Allah. How do we negotiate with that?

How do we negotiate with someone willing to be a suicide bomber against innocent peoples?

These folks openly call for Islam to dominate the world. They do not intend to stop short of their stated goal.

They are poised to become the majority population of Europe by 2050. Why? Because Europeans have capitulated to these extremists views and taken the approach of political correctness.

They ignore the radicalization of their youth that is taking place on their own soil. This is similar to the ignoring of training camps these radicals are operating here in the US and elsewhere around the world.

Radical Muslims have even won the "right" to have a Sharia Law court system that operates parallel to the English courts.

One set of laws for the Muslims in England and another for all other religious & nonreligious groups there.

That my friends is cowardice.

Three days ago a young Nigerian man attempted to celebrate Christmas by blowing himself and 200+ people out of the sky while his flight approached Detroit Airport.

Britain had this young man on their "no-fly" list and revoked his passport.

His own father warned US officials about him two months ago. Explained Clarke, "The kind of person, who's being radicalized increasingly in the U.S. and in Europe, are people who are sons of the middle class, the upper middle class, sons of well educated families, people who have radicalized at long distance over the Internet."

Did the administration put him on a 'no-fly' list?

No.

DHS Secretary, Janet Napolitano said he acted alone.

This is contrary to what we are learning about him.

According to this young wannabe terrorist, there will be more bombers coming behind him.

Britain is reporting that as many as 25 more young radical men are in Yemen training to bring down airliners. They all have the same al Qaeda ties as him, same Imams as him, same sentiments as him, but alas..............he acted alone.

Folks did you hear the prime time speech that our President gave in addressing this act of terror? The one where he gave as much effort as he did during his myriad of health care speeches?

Of course not. It is difficult to keep the teleprompter upright when placed in the warm sands of Hawaii's beaches.

Friends, I for one choose life, and the embrace of freedom over foolish state sponsored political correctness.

Things to consider in the elections of 2010 & 2012.

Terrorism by any other name...a follow up

2009-11-19T12:16:00.000-08:00

I wish I were amazed by Obama & Holder deciding to bring the terrorists into our civilian courts as if they robbed a 7-11. Obama naively believes terrorist should receive the same constitutional rights as any real American citizen.

Keep in mind that during our Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea & Viet Nam, we did ot allow enemy combatants into our civilian courts where they would be given a platform to spew their anti-American rhetoric, or risk them getting off on a technicality.

Unfortunately, I am not amazed. This incompetence has been evidenced for the past 11 months.

The administration has asked Congress to not launch an investigation at this time of the Fort Hood terrorist attack.

Some in this administration are loathe to go after terrorists or even acknowledge what the rest of the world already knows. Radicals will never be "negotiated" with.

The only thing they want from the west is to see the west destroyed.

Why? We are nonMuslim infidels. No amount of talking will change that fact or their hearts & minds.

Yet the administration treats these wackos as if all they need is a hug!!

We all have read about the numerous "red flags" the Fort Hood terrorist sent up that went ignored.

I am attaching a link that shows the sideshow this extremist gave in lieu of the expected presentation on medicine & treatment.

After watching the sideshow, I ask:

1. If you were in the audience anticipating a medical presentation and instead were shown this garbage, what would your reaction have been?

2. I am curious if you believe this is the sideshow of a terrorist, or of a medical doctor about medicine & treatment?

3. Do you believe this act was terrorism?

4. Do you support bringing terrorists into civilian court?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/gallery/2009/11/10/GA2009111000920.html

Terrorism by any other name

2009-11-17T17:12:00.000-08:00

I have been quiet since the attack last week at Fort Hood, TX. While I find our President to be naive and glaringly inexperienced on matters of Foreign Policy, I fully anticipated his denouncing this tragedy as the terrorist attack that it clearly was.

Our brave men and women in the armed services explained through the media why there is a reluctance on their part to report troubling and suspicious behavior. If they report this type of behavior it may lead to the reporting service member being labeled a racist. They may also find themselves on the wrong end of an EEOC violation.

After a presentation where medical team members were presenting on new medicines and treatments, the members reported Hasan for his presentation. He did not present on medicine & treatment. He reported how it was acceptable for Muslims to kill the infidels. Cut off their heads and pour hot oil down their necks.

Hasan also expressed concern for the US foreign policy, and felt Muslims were the target of two wars.Superiors at Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, DC also expressed concern for Hasans bizarre behavior. All to no avail.

The authorities knew of his contacts with members of al Qaeda well in advance. Prior to shipping out, Hasan stood up in the Fort Hood Processing Center, yells at the top of his lungs "God is great", and opens fire upon his unarmed fellow soldiers.

This was not the act of a crazy person. This was the act of a Jihadist carrying out a terrorist attack on American soil.

America's liberal media and supporters have gone to great pains to downplay the act of terrorism, and tried to play it off as someone mentally ill. Terrorism by any other name is still terrorism. I believe the terrorist mindset is very limited within the Muslim community and does not represent the the beliefs of that community. It is a fringe element.

There are radicals within all religions, but not many fly planes into buildings or target innocents.

America's political left and their blind pursuit of political correctness led to this attack. This same liberal mindset clouds their ability to see what is staring them straight in their face.

The Muslim organization CAIR was an unnamed co-conspirator by the FBI in a case last year regarding raising funds for the Hamas terrorist organization. No charges filed.

An undercover investigation over the past year alleges this organizations intent to take over the US and impose Sharia Law in the US. They have already succeeded in getting Sharia Law implemented in Britain to be used in cases involving Muslims.

Can you imagine the US having dual court systems? One for Muslims and one for the rest of us.

This morning the liberals mindset became more obvious, and shown for the naive nature that it is. They announced that the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheik Muhammad, will be tried in US criminal court.

They have equated an organization that declared war on the US, with a group of thugs that robbed a convenience store! Liberals appear more concerned with the "feelings" of those who subscribe to this ideology than they are to the safety of American citizens.

I will repeat that these extremists represent a minuscule fraction of Islam. With that said, I believe we need to take off the leftish rose-tinted glasses and react when faced with overwhelming evidence and leave the political correctness behind.

Folks, if you see something that does not sound or look right report it! In the meantime, we can hope this administration wakes up to reality before anyone else gets hurt.

2009-11-13T09:39:00.000-08:00

Climate Change profiteers

2009-11-03T07:23:00.000-08:00

In the below post, I stated it was Climate Change supporters & proponents who were attempting to sell us snake oil in the form of Cap & Trade.

They ignore the millions of years that the earth has gone through natural cooling & warming cycles.

They will not speak to the rise in temperatures ending in 98-99. Since that time the temps have plateaued.

They will not speak to the fact that the US will be at a competitive disadvantage with India & China who will not be bound to this bill’s emission limits or the associated cost. Both countries refuse to participate.

Some Democrats, such as Commerce Secretary, Locke have said that Americans should be willing to pay for China’s emissions. What a stupid concept!

Not only would we send them more of our jobs, we would also subsidize their emissions? It is all about the money.

Like so many things that occur in our country that doesn’t seem to make sense, a person usually only has to follow the money to find the rationale behind otherwise indefensible self-defeating policies.

I found an article that gives an example of this, in of all places, the bird cage liner of choice, the NY Times.

The article tells how a big time climate change prophet, Al Gore, has positioned himself to make several million dollars off of the one deal highlighted in the article.

I will give the highlights, and those wanting to read the full article can read the provided link.

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Al Gore thought he had spotted a winner last year when a small California firm sought financing for an energy-saving technology from the venture capital firm where Mr. Gore is a partner.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. It came to Mr. Gore’s firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capital providers, looking for $75 million to expand its partnerships with utilities seeking to install millions of so-called smart meters in homes and businesses.

Mr. Gore and his partners decided to back the company, and in gratitude Silver Spring retained him and John Doerr, another Kleiner Perkins partner, as unpaid corporate advisers.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

Silver Spring Networks is a foot soldier in the global green energy revolution Mr. Gore hopes to lead. Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

This is but one glaring example of how people claiming to be for the little guy are preparing to stick it to the little guy that they purport to support.

They are quick to dismiss anyone voicing doubts about their claims.

They do so, not out of concern for mankind, but for their personal concern for their own wallet.

Cap & Trade's impact on American families

2009-10-16T07:55:00.000-07:00

As soon as the health care debate ends, which yesterday Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid estimated to be $2 Trillion, instead of the $829 Billion advertised just this past Monday, we will turn our focus to the draconian Cap & Trade debate.

I wanted to take the time and read over the Congressional Budget Offices' summary of the Cap & Trade legislation to see what the impact will be on my family and friends.

I believe it will put the US at a severe competetive disadvantage on the world stage.

Many argue that the claims of "global warming" are dubious at best, considering that the claim ignores the earth's natural cooling and heating cycles that span millions of years.

Long before the first smoke stack belched or the first car took to the road, the earth warmed & cooled.

China & India have both flatly rejected calls for them to participate which means implementing such a law in the US will have a detrimental affect on US households expenses and jobs.

While these two countries refuse to take part in this scam, Obama's Commerce Secretary, Gary Locke recently called for US consumers to pay for our own emissions, and theirs.

That caveat is not included in the CBO report, but wiould only add to our rise in costs and unemployment beyond that which is currently included in their summary.

Here is a summary from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), that addresses both of these issues.

Estimated Costs per Household

The GHG cap-and-trade program established under H.R. 2454 would impose
costs on U.S. households and provide some financial benefits, as well as the
benefits associated with any changes in the climate that would be avoided as a
result of the legislation. (This analysis addresses only those financial benefits.)

The costs would be incurred through higher prices for the goods and services that
households consumed, and the incidence of those costs would be determined
primarily by households’ consumption patterns. In the aggregate, most of those
costs would be offset by income or other benefits provided to households as a
result of the distribution of the value of the emission allowances.

The legislation would influence how much of that value was conveyed to various households by specifying how to allocate the allowances. For example, H.R. 2454 would direct some of that value to low-income households by specifying that 15 percent of the allowance value be used to provide energy rebates and tax credits for such households.

Gross Compliance Costs

Gross compliance costs would consist of the cost of emission allowances, the cost
of both domestic and international offset credits, and the resource costs incurred
in order to reduce the use of fossil fuels:

The cost of the allowances. The cost of acquiring allowances would become a
cost of doing business. In most cases, the firms required to hold the
allowances would not bear that cost; rather, they would pass it onto their
customers in the form of higher prices.

■ The cost of both domestic and international offset credits. Like the cost for
allowances, the cost of acquiring offset credits would be passed on by firms to
their customers in the form of higher prices.

■ The resource costs associated with reducing emissions. The resource costs
would include the value of the additional resources (including nonmonetized
resources, such as time) required to reduce emissions—for example, by
generating electricity from natural gas rather than from coal, by making
improvements in energy efficiency, or by changing behavior to save energy
(by carpooling, for example).

According to CBO’s estimates, the gross cost of complying with the GHG capand-
trade program delineated in H.R. 2454 would be about $110 billion in 2020
(measured in terms of 2010 levels of consumption and income), or about $890
per household (see Table 1). Of that gross cost, 96 percent would be the cost of
acquiring allowances or offset credits. The reminder would be the resource costs
associated with reducing emissions.

As noted, firms would generally pass the cost of reducing their emissions—or of
acquiring offset credits or emission allowances—on to their customers, and their
customers’ customers. (Indeed, assuming that higher costs are passed into prices
is customary in distributional analyses.) Households and governments would bear
those costs through their consumption of goods and services. Because households
account for the bulk of spending, they would bear most of the costs.

Transitional Costs
The measure of costs described above reflects the costs that would occur once the
economy had adjusted to the change in the relative prices of goods and services. It
does not include the costs that some current investors and workers in sectors of
the economy that produce energy and energy-intensive goods and services would
incur as the economy moved away from the use of fossil fuels.

To be sure, increased production of energy from non-fossil-fuel sources (such as wind or solar) and a shift to more energy-efficient production processes would create jobs and profit opportunities as well.

However, those jobs might be in different regions of the country or require different skills than the jobs being lost, and the profit opportunities might arise from different types of capital; their availability would
mute but not eliminate the costs of the transition.

Thus, investors would see the value of some stocks decline, and workers would face higher risk of unemployment as jobs in some sectors were eliminated. Stock losses would tend to be widely dispersed among investors because shareholders typically diversify their portfolios.

In contrast, the costs of unemployment would probably be
concentrated among relatively few households and, by extension, their
communities. The magnitude of those transitional costs would depend on the pace
of emission reductions, with more rapid reductions leading to larger costs.

Although large segments of the U.S. economy either do not face
significant foreign competition (for example, the electricity and transportation
sectors) or involve trade with countries that have a cap-and-trade program (the
European Union, for example), some important manufacturing industries, such as
steel, face competition from countries that do not face the costs of such a system.

Some regions and industries would experience substantially higher rates of unemployment and job turnover as the program became increasingly stringent. That transition could be particularly difficult for
individuals employed in those industries (such as the coal industry) or living in
those regions (such as Appalachia). However, any aggregate change in
unemployment would be small compared with the normal rate of job turnover in
the economy.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090620/cbowaxmanmarkey.pdf

Are Americans willing to send more of our dwindling job market overseas while facing such an permanent increase in across-the-board prices here at home?

I do support the US developing alternative energy sources, but we do not have to throw the baby out with the bath water to achieve that result.

America's dangerously naive Foreign Policy

2009-10-14T18:14:00.000-07:00

Our troops continue to be killed in Afghanistan as Obama dithers on whether to send his generals their requested 40,000 troops or come up with any sort of policy. To show our military that he knows their needs better than they do, he is quietly sending 13,000 more troops. He can not decide on what the final number should be.

The president continues to insist on meeting with Iran without preconditions. Despite the IAEA's warnings that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons. During the campaign last year Hillary Clinton cautioned against such a stupid move. During the campaign, Obama, himself said a nuclear Iran was not acceptable.

This weekend, N. Korea continued to thumb their nose at Obama as they launched a volley of missiles in a show of defiance.

Chavez has announced a deal to buy Russian missiles to be staioned to our south. When the Soviets tried to put missiles in Cuba, JFK stood them down.

Not Obama. He smiles and apologises.

Hillary is returning from Russia empty-handed, having achieved nothing on her foray to Russia. Obama sent her to meet with Russia's president, and was met with a "nyet" when she brought up sanctions against Iran.

This despite Obama's gesture of abandoning our European allies missile defense shield.

How does our naive president respond to this slap down?

He grants the Russians access to our nuclear sites, knowing that Russia is looking to develop their next generation of nuclear weapons.

Tentative Inspection Program Would Allow Russia to Visit U.S. Nuclear Sites
The plan, which Fox News has learned was agreed to in principle during negotiations, would constitute the most intrusive weapons inspection program the U.S. has ever accepted.
Russia and the United States have tentatively agreed to a weapons inspection program that would allow Russians to visit nuclear sites in America to count missiles and warheads.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=asbOYPkD.ZH0

What did Obama get in return for compromising our security? Nothing!

Obama not satisfied whith the speed to which he can let our former & current adversaries access to our miltary, has also invited the Chinese into the Pentagon. He forgot how many military secrets the Chinese stole when Clinton allowed them acccess to Los Alamos, NM, nuclear facilities. So he is doomed to repeat the same naive history.

What is he getting from the Chinese for compromising our national defense? Nothing.

China's second-ranking military officer will travel to Washington later this month on a week-long visit designed to promote trust and avoid "misunderstandings," the Pentagon said Wednesday.
General Xu Caihou, vice chairman of the People's Liberation Army central military commission, will hold high-level meetings from October 24-31 and visit military commands and bases across the United States, press secretary Geoff Morrell told a news conference.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.b2e1961b55d6773018513c4bd51816bb.581&show_article=1

I hope the US can survive a reckless presidency until he gets booted to the curb in 2012.

The great "Climate Change" heist

2009-10-12T00:31:00.000-07:00

I was interested when I first heard the potential impending global destruction that would result from our failing to make drastic cuts to our carbon imprint. We were told that if we do not cut our use of fossil fuels the earths temps would melt the ice caps and raise the sea level.

Twenty years ago the UN warned that we had 10 years to act in order to save the planet.

We all saw the charts showing an increase in global temps.

I can’t help but notice that the alarmists have managed to position themselves to personally benefit if the world will embrace their claims.

Al Gore comes to mind. When he was questioned at an event last week in Wisconsin about the inaccuracies of his film “An Inconvenient Truth”, the questioners microphone was cut off. Gore did not take more questions.

If Gore believed his own prophesy, would he continue to fly by private jet that leaves such a huge “carbon footprint”? Would his home use 20x the energy of the average home?

These alarmists stopped using their charts a few years ago when it became apparent that the increase in temps ceased in 1998.

These same alarmists who go around yelling “the sky is falling” ignore a basic fact.

Our earth has gone through heating & cooling cycles for millions of years. Long before there were any cars.

They do not want to discuss the earths natural cycles, because that would undermine their attempts to steal more of our money with a phony Cap & Trade ruse.

Bring up the fact of the cooler temps we have experienced the past several years and the alarmists eyes glaze over.

They go so far as to bury reports that do not support their claims.

Cap & Trade is a naked attempt to create a new scheme to get other peoples money. A lot of the money will go to poorer nations.

I do favor becoming less dependent on foreign fuel sources.

We could develop alternative fuels to get off foreign supplies. Solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear are available. So is using our own coal, natural gas, and oil deposits.

Cap & Trade will be the largest confiscatory “tax” ever imposed on Americans.

They want to start a new industry, for their profit, and they want us to fund it for them.

Climate change has many scientists that support the theory. There are also many scientists who claim it is wrong.

If we all stopped driving tomorrow would the earths natural heating & cooling cycles stop? No.

On Sunday the left-leaning BBC had this to say:

Despite a massive campaign involving the United Nations and most of the world’s industrialized nations and establishment media, the globe is not warming but in fact may actually be cooling, according to new research detailed by the BBC.

In a story published Sunday, the premiere British journalism organization said that scientists have not observed any increase in global temperatures. In fact, the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

“And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise,” the article points out. http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/bbc_global_cooling/2009/10/11/270997.html

China & India have said they will not agree to these cuts. If we go forward with them, we will put the US at a competetive disadvantage. Our industries will be burdened with additional costs that these other countries will not be. Companies will simply move their production off-shore.

Commerce Secretary, Locke has publicly said that the US should pay for China’s carbon emissions. That is one of the stupidist comments uttered in this debate.

Soon the Democrats are going to attempt to impose the Cap & Trade bill on us. They want our money.

Voters will have to take a stand & speak out against this blatant heist of our remaining wealth. To allow it to get passed will cause an across the board increase in prices. Similar to the VAT that several Dems have suggested.

Americans do need to be smart on energy, but we can not afford the democrats Cap & Tax scam.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/
http://hubpages.com/hub/Earths-Temperature-Brief-History-of-Recent-Change
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/article_dacf39c7-c2f8-5718-a5a0-d0cfb39f80bc.html
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=618074
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm
http://newsbusters.org/node/11345
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Anyone see the amount of snow out west this weekend. Denver Rockies had their baseball game cancelled due to bad weather. Not rain, but snow.

Obama and the cheapened Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-09T07:11:00.000-07:00

There was a time when winning the Nobel Peace Prize was a badge of honor that the recipient and their country could point to with pride.

That is no longer the case with the announcement Obama has won, based not on accomplishment, but on "promise".

The committee cited his promise and goals, and accepted his nomination after only 12 days in office. Submission of nominations deadline was February.

The world gasped this morning with the announcement, few believe the prize had merit.

As for the educated, it was quite a different story as disbelief circled the globe faster than the drop in the presidents poll numbers. Even the Muslim community which was mentioned by the committee believe the award undeserved and premature.

The Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and opposes a peace treaty with Israel, said the award was premature at best.

"Obama has a long way to go still and lots of work to do before he can deserve a reward," said Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri. "Obama only made promises and did not contribute any substance to world peace. And he has not done anything to ensure justice for the sake of Arab and Muslim causes."

"EMBARRASSING JOKE"

Issam al-Khazraji, a day laborer in Baghdad, said: "He doesn't deserve this prize. All these problems -- Iraq, Afghanistan -- have not been solved...The man of 'change' hasn't changed anything yet."

Liaqat Baluch, a senior leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a conservative religious party in Pakistan, called the award an embarrassing "joke."

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5981JK20091009?sp=true

Comment: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize
Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.

East-West relations are little better than they were six months ago, and any change is probably due largely to the global economic downturn; and America’s vaunted determination to re-engage with the Muslim world has failed to make any concrete progress towards ending the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war in Afghanistan.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece

Analysis: He won, but for what?

For one of America's youngest presidents, in office less than nine months — and only for 12 days before the Nobel nomination deadline last February — it was an enormous honor.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_nobel_analysis_1

He was nominated 12 days into his presidency!! Since then he has destroyed the morale of the troops fighting two wars, who have no clear guidance of what they are trying to accomplish nor how they are to do it.

American troops in Afghanistan losing heart, say army chaplains

“The many soldiers who come to see us have a sense of futility and anger about being here. They are really in a state of depression and despair and just want to get back to their families,” said Captain Jeff Masengale, of the 10th Mountain Division’s 2-87 Infantry Battalion.

“They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” said Captain Sam Rico, of the Division’s 4-25 Field Artillery Battalion. “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The chaplains said that they were speaking out because the men could not.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6865359.ece

Our disheartened troops that are dying every day while Obama dithers on an Afghan policy will certainly be uplifted that, despite no peace, their Commander-in Chief has won the Peace Prize!!

The award will never be viewed the same again. It has been cheapened beyond recognition and will never regain the status and esteem it once enjoyed.

So while the White House and American liberals on the fringe applaud the announcement, the rest of the world is aghast.

As an aside, Ghandi was nominated 5 times for his life's work......he never won.

http://washingtonroundup.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-and-cheapened-nobel-peace-prize.html

Mr. President, while you were in Copenhagen.......

2009-10-06T06:22:00.000-07:00

While our president was in Copenhagen last week, tending to the high priority matter of securing the Olympics for Chicago, another issue was playing out in other parts of the world. The other event did not even register as a blip on the administrations radar screen.

OPEC and other nations are in discussions on use of the dollar for oil trade, I see a key player missing from the talks regarding the US’ economic fate.

In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.

Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars.

The plans, confirmed to The Independent by both Gulf Arab and Chinese banking sources in Hong Kong, may help to explain the sudden rise in gold prices, but it also augurs an extraordinary transition from dollar markets within nine years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html

Our president & administration are not taking part in these talks that will have a huge impact on our future.

Certainly this is something Obama should be involved in. This is some of the heavy lifting we expect our president to involve himself in.

It may not be as exciting as jet-setting off to Copenhagen in a failed Olympic bid, but it will have more relevance & impact on the voters.

Obama is missing in action on this important issue.

Where is the leadership, Mr. President?

The United Nations called on Tuesday for a new global reserve currency to end dollar supremacy which has allowed the United States the “privilege” of building a huge trade deficit.

“Important progress in managing imbalances can be made by reducing the reserve currency country?s ‘privilege’ to run external deficits in order to provide international liquidity,“ UN undersecretary-general for economic and social affairs, Sha Zukang, said.

Speaking at the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Istanbul, he said: “It is timely to emphasise that such a system also creates a more equitable method of sharing the seigniorage derived from providing global liquidity.“

He said: “Greater use of a truly global reserve currency, such as the IMF?s special drawing rights (SDRs), enables the seigniorage gained to be deployed for development purposes,“ he said.

The SDRs are the asset used in IMF transactions and are based on a basket of four currencies—the dollar, euro, yen and pound—which is calculated daily.

China had called in March for a new dominant world reserve currency instead of the dollar, in a system within the framework of the Washington-based IMF.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e272eaa74dccc30f21c6ff7638b0f37b.461&show_article=1

I work with organizational development, identifying opportunities for performance improvement and showing my employer how to strategically align OD with the organizational mission & strategy. I am also involved with designing training programs to support these efforts.

One of the things I find is that my organization loses focus on what is important if not actively kept on track. We sometimes get confused in prioritizing.

This is what I see with this administration.

Who sets this agenda and prioritizes the initiatives?

It appears they are more interested in only the "low hanging fruit", getting the photo-ops and hoping the more arduous topics disappear.

Flying off to Copenhagen while Rome burns is a character trait of Obama that I do not find very endearing.

In fact it is dangerous.

Obama & the Wimp Factor

2009-10-05T07:56:00.000-07:00

The emerging picture of Obama and his foreign policy should come as no surprise to Americans familiar with a Democratic presidency.

In the past it has been termed the "Wimp Factor".

I was reading a more contemporary version of this phenomenon called the 'Beta Male'.

The analogy was used in comparing dogs behavior. It discussed how Alpha dogs are dominant and Beta dogs are submissive.

Obama is assigned the role of 'Beta dog' on the world stage.

In the analogy, the beta dog greets alpha dogs by bowing and exposing his neck to the worlds alpha dogs. This lets the alpha dog know that the beta dog has no intention of challenging him. In this case Obama is exposing Americas collective neck.

Obama gave a beta response to the disclosure of Iran's nuclear ambitions recently. After stating in the campaign that a nuclear Iran would be unacceptable, how did he respond?

His response was to go against conventional wisdom, and agree to our State Dept.to meet with Iran face-to-face without preconditions. We can all remember Hillary Clinton advising against such a move.

Saturday Night Live did a skit on this last year in which Obama was shown calling Hillary late at night seeking advice. He was in a predictament and did not know what to do. Hillary calmly talked him through the crisis.

Beta's are at a loss when the call comes for firm resolve.

Obama lacks the ability to confront those that need confronting. Beta's back down in the face of adversity.

He has repeatedly shown his inability to work with our allies Sarkozy & Merkel. He can not cooperate with them for fear he might be called upon to exercise alpha behaviors that are foreign to him.

The beta male is concerned with avoiding aggression of the alphas'. Around the world we have a lineup of alpha males, although in the case of Merkel, she is an aplha female.

The despots such as Chavez, Ortega, Jong Il, Ahmadinejad et al., are all salivating at the prospects of spanking Obama on the world stage.

Chavez is now buying missiles and weaponry from Russia. What was Obama's response to this announcement? Nothing, nada!!

In Afghanistan, Obama promised to rely on the recommendations of his Generals. These Generals prepared a report that calls for an additional 40,000 troops.

Obama has chastised General McChrystal for putting him in a bind. During a speech in London, McChrystal did not support Obama's plan for Afghanistan.

Insiders say that the Obama plan offers no winnable solution and leaves allied forces short changed.

While Obama dithers on such a commitment, more & more of our kids are being slaughtered by his indecisiveness.

Putin already has stared down Obama. He demanded the abandonment of our allies in Poland & Czech Republic, and Obama submissively complied to the Putin demands.

As reward for suppressing American & NATO interests, Putin is now working closely with Hugo Chavez, which I will address shortly.

When Obama approached Merkel & Sarkozy and invited them to join the US in deficit producing stimulus spending, both leaders gave a resounding "no".

Both countries are now enjoying their respective countries economic recovery while America's economy continues to shed jobs.

On the question of Climate Change, Obama is willing to commit the US to a competetive disadvantage by cutting our greenhouse gases, while China & India go unabated.

In short, US companies will have to comply with these punitive greenhouse measures, thus cutting our ability to compete with countries who do not abide with them.

At the UN, Obama put the world on notice that he is willing to give up our nuclear arsenal adavntage. Obama proposed slashing our arsenal without securing a firm commitment from Russia.

Putin did agree to talks on the subject without making such declarations.

So folks, as long as we have a Beta Male in the White House, we will have to pray that Hillary keeps her ringer volume set on 'high' when she goes to bed at night.

The world does not question her testosterone levels.

Obama on the other hand..............

As for closing the alpha/beta analogy.

The worlds alpha's will continue to look for ways to exploit Obama and make him their female dog.

Obama dangerously believes the world revolves around him

2009-09-29T12:02:00.000-07:00

Obama who continues to be more interested in his own cult of personality than actually performing the job of president is making many nervous and frustrated.

The guy is distracted by building his own image and brand than he is in finding real solutions to our nations problems.

The way he performs his job is quite telling and dangerous.

He wants to stand up & take a bow for other peoples work, and self-congratulate himself at our countries peril.

Domestically, Obama claimed a great need for a stimulus. With it he would hold unemployment to 8%. He got the stimulus rhammed through Congress and our representatives were not given time to read it. What choice did they have? They were told the sky would fall if they didn't act that afternoon. They passed it.

Instead of running the emergency legislation to the White House for Obama's signature, he bowed ans self-congratulated himself for its passage. As soon as the photographers left, so did he. He went to Chicago for four days of rest, without signing this emergency bill.

Same with Cap & Trade. Rhammed it through without members reading the bill. It is only the largest tax increase to be levied against the American public in the country's history. Why read it. Once again, Obama took a bow.

In both instances he implored Congress to act. He failed to give leadership or guidance on either piece of legislation.

Now we have our economy still floundering as his policies have failed to give any relief, and he insists that health care is yet another emergency. He gave Congress until the August recess to act. They didn't get it done on time. Why? Because the American voters decided to do the job of congress and actually read the bill.

What they found was disturbing. They stood up & spoke out.

The biased media called them Nazi's, unAmerican, and racists for daring to question such a plan.

Obama did what he always does when given the opportunity. He went on TV. He had been on more TV at this point than any previous president. He doesn't really say anything new, but at least he is kind enough to allow the little people to see & hear him.

He attempted to use the children to reach their parents. He even sent out topics for the teachers to discuss. When the voters got word of this impending indoctrination, they protested.

So Obama changed his speech to try to dissuade his critics. Never mind that the speech he gave did not match the instructions given to the teachers. Upon finishing the speech, he took a bow and asked what all the criticism was about.

I would be remiss not to mention the "Czars" appointed under Obama.

Van Jones finally resigned. He was the self avowed communist & black nationalist, who had been appointed as our 'Green Czar'.

There is Cass Sunstein, our 'Regulatory Czar'. He has written and spoke that he believes it is highly "desirable" for American wealth to be redistributed to poor countries. He also believes that we should have a new constitution by 2020 that grants a new 'Bill of Rights' embracing every liberal cause you can think of.

Have to include John Holdren, the 'Science Czar'. He is for forced abortion, and population control. Removing children from unmarried mothers. He cowrote 'Ecoscience' that can be googled. He is about the most bizarre of the bunch.

Kevin Jennings is our 'Safe School Czar'. He is charged with keeping our kids safe in school.

He is a former teacher who had a 15 yo. boy confide to him that the boy was being sexually abused by an adult male. The law states clearly that such a staement is to be reported to authorities. He chose not to and advised the boy to use a condom.

Another incident was the "fistgate" scandal in which he led discussions at a seminar where "young teens were guided on how to perform dangerous homosexual perversions including 'fisting,'" the website said.

Yet another was Jennings' address in a New York City church on March 20, 2000. He said:

"Twenty percent of people are hard-core fair-minded [pro-homosexual] people. Twenty percent are hard-core [anti-homosexual] bigots. We need to ignore the hard-core bigots, get more of the hard-core fair-minded people to speak up, and we’ll pull that 60 percent [of people in the middle] over to our side. That's really what I think our strategy has to be. We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit — I’m trying to find a way to say this. I’m trying not to say, '[F—] 'em!' which is what I want to say, because I don’t care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead!"

Jennings was appointed the assistant deputy secretary in the Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools in the U.S. Department of Education. He founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, which "makes schools safe for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity."

On domestic & foreign policy issues Obama fluctuates between eglomaniac and narcassist.

On foreign policy he puts his own personal interests ahead of Americas or the worlds interests. Its all about him.

He treats allies as enemies and naively treats enemies as allies.

He caved into Russian pressure to abandon a missile shield based in Poland & the Czech Republic. I agree with the decision, but would not have promised it in the first place. They can buy their own.

In April he claimed it was needed and said so during a public speech in Prague. The crowd roared with approval, and he took a bow.

In announcing his decision to scrap the program, he said it was because Iran did not have the means to produce a nuclear weapon or a missile to reach Europe, and wouldn't for some time.

That was another of his oft told lies.

He was told before coming into office what the real situation was with Iran. They are on the cusp of being capable of producing nuclear weapons and delivering them much further than he said in his speech.

Iran proved it the next day when they began war games & test firing a series of medium and short-range missiles.

Last week at the UN, while flanked by the UK's Brown & France's Sarkozy, he claimed to believe the world would be free of nuclear weapons. Even while he was making this proclamation he knew the truth about Iran.

The foreign leaders had the same info on Iran, but were frustrated with Obama not wanting to confront Iran.

Both countries wanted to confront Iran a day earlier at the United Nations. Mr. Obama was, after all, chairing a Security Council session devoted to nonproliferation. The latest evidence of Iran's illegal moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapon was in hand. With the world's leaders gathered in New York, the timing and venue would be a dramatic way to rally international opinion.

President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been "frustrated" for months about Mr. Obama's reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn't want to "spoil the image of success" for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde. So the Iran bombshell was pushed back a day to Pittsburgh, where the G-20 were meeting to discuss economic policy.

"We are right to talk about the future," Mr. Sarkozy said, referring to the U.S. resolution on strengthening arms control treaties. "But the present comes before the future, and the present includes two major nuclear crises," i.e., Iran and North Korea. "We live in the real world, not in a virtual one." No prize for guessing into which world the Frenchman puts Mr. Obama.

"We say that we must reduce," he went on. "President Obama himself has said that he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons. Before our very eyes, two countries are doing exactly the opposite at this very moment. Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council Resolutions . . .

"I support America's 'extended hand.' But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges. And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping off the map a Member of the United Nations. What are we to do? What conclusions are we to draw? At a certain moment hard facts will force us to make decisions."

We thought we'd never see the day when the President of France shows more resolve than America's Commander in Chief for confronting one of the gravest challenges to global security. But here we are.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574441402775482322.html

I won't go into the Obama mistakes regarding capitulation to the UN. on several matters.

State & Federal governments Draconian preparations for H1N1 Pandemic

2009-09-02T06:35:00.000-07:00

Many citizens are concerned with the stepped up efforts of the state & federal governments dire warnings about a pending pandemic of the H1N1 flu. While I suspect it is largely a contrived pandemic, the preparations and related legislation arising the last two weeks is alarming.

My friends on the radical left will say I am fear mongering for discussing it. They will defend the measures being taken as "responsible". I believe the preparation that would be reasonable would be to keep reminding folks to wash their hands and cover their mouth when coughing.

We watched last week as the Iowa state government put Draconian measures in place to deal with the situation.

This week has seen the Massachusetts Senate pass similar legislation and I am providing a link to the actual bill, and some excerpts that highlight the reason I believe it to be Draconian. I shared with everyone a couple of weeks ago that I received a fax from Homeland Security that was a federal version of the state laws described here.

When reading the Massachusetts bill, you will realize this is not just about H1N1, but also, any other emergencies.

It allows confinement of individuals to private or public premises

It allows seizure and destruction of both private and public property

Provides for fines up to $1,000 per day for noncompliance

Allows for the arrest and detainment of those not complying

Permits the government to force vaccination, treatment of both disease & injury

Provides for the healthcare providers to be deputized as it relates to the declared emergency

We have entered a new era in American life. Voters can not support such measures.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02/st02028.htm

Obama & the radical left prepare their counter attack

2009-08-27T13:11:00.000-07:00

Obama is preparing to put average Americans back in their place. After watching helplessly as average folks stood up in protest to a government takeover of our healthcare system, Obama and his thugs are prepping to hit back.

Obama was caught off-guard when the electorate decided it was time to speak out against his radical experiment. He wondered how the country that he so carefully lulled into voting for him suddenly think for themselves? They had been so compliant when he rammed the stimulus and Cap & Tax through. Why take notice of socialism now, he must have thought.

The spontaneity of the protests at the Town Hall meetings came out of nowhere. The crazies on the left were sent back on their heels. Many meetings were cancelled for fear the villagers would actually demand answers or worse.......accountability to the voters.

How dare they?

Over the next two weeks we will see several Town Halls full of Obamacare supporters. Despite the poor polling, it is going to appear that everyone suddenly supports this travesty.

What Obama has planned is to stage these pep rallies to mislead the public into believing America has had a change of heart. He is calling out his brigade of the Obama Youth Corp aka, Organizing for America. This is the same group of little thug-wannabes he used in last years campaign. Obama will couple this group with his union thugs and bus them from event to event.

This going to be 'astroturfing' on steroids.

Fortunately the voters are already onto this scam and are ready to tune out this kabuke theater.

Americans are much smarter than the left gives them credit for. It is insulting to voters to have their intelligence questioned by the fringe on the left. Does the left think they will pull this off? Voters have made up their minds. They do not want a government takeover.

Obama may decide to forgo any chance for a second term, but he should not make that decision for the rest of his party. It appears he is willing to risk his political career on this bill, and take his whole party down with him.

The left is going to try to win support for a trillion dollar program that will continue the financial crippling of our country's future long after these politicians are gone. They have abandoned any guise of actually addressing the problem of rising healthcare costs. Costs will continue to rise. Just all taxpayers will be taking up the slack for the less productive members of our society.

Government will have control of an additional 16% of our economy, and our health.

So hang onto your hats and watch what the radicals on the left have in store for the next few weeks. They are preparing to sell America a glass of p*ss & try to convince you its lemonade.

2009-08-24T05:42:00.000-07:00

'R' is for Recall

2009-08-13T07:10:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Obama's economic illiteracy, the US saw a massive increase in foreclosures in July. A 7% increase in July over June.

The Congressional Democrats nor the Obama administration are doing anything to stem the tide as their citizens sink. There are no life preservers being thrown in their direction.

Folks, many of Obama's supporters are coming down with an upset stomach. It has been diagnosed as "buyers remorse".

They see his policies continue to fail and it is the voters who suffer as a result.

I say it is time to begin talk of another "R". No, not recession.

The word is RECALL. If we wait until 2012 to get rid of this guy it may be too late.

Obama and his thugs in the White House are bringing the wrong kind of 'change' to America. We no longer recognize the late great USA. What we have now resembles a totalitarian regime of government takeovers and massive irresponsible spending.

Same goes with the out-of-touch leadership on Capital Hill. This group is too lazy to read the legislation that their staff & lobbyists are writing. They complained about the deficits that took Bush & Republicans 8 years to run up. So what did they do? Did they bring it down when they had the chance?

No !! They increased it 4x.........in just 6 months.

If you mention cutting spending, their eyes glaze over, and their mouths go agape as if you are speaking a foreign language.

Just earlier this week, 'Nancy in Wonderland' tried to buy her royal self 8 luxury jets for more than $550 million taxpayer dollars. Her constituents must be sending her too many 'poppers'. She is delusional!

Speaker Pelosi and her sock puppet, Steny Hoyer have taken to calling American voters Nazis and unAmerican. Really Nancy, put that bottle of poppers down long enough for your brain to clear.

Next fall we need to vote Nancy-in-Wonderland out of office in the midterm election.

Obama needs to be recalled, and sent back to academia.

The America that God so generously blessed for over 200 years; Obama and the radical left has cursed in just 6 months.

Obamacare supporters advertise to hire a "grassroots supporters"

2009-08-11T19:06:00.000-07:00

After spending the past few weeks accusing people of faking their protest against Obama's dangerous Socialized Medicine experiment, the truth is coming out of the radical lefts closet.

The radicals are used to getting their way. We have all been witness to their employment of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", where Alinsky instructs the left on how to force their radical agenda on an unsuspecting American public.

It is the part of the game plan they used to get Obama into the White House.

We have all heard the feigned screams from these radicals decrying real Americans taking a stand in opposition to the radical lefts attempts to turn the US into a socialist state.

They stole the banking sector, auto industry (which they kicked back to the unions with partial ownership), and forced through a stimulus bill that stimulated nothing.

They even got Cap & Tax passed in the House with nary a whimper.

I would be remiss if I did not remind readers that our elected officials continue to vote for these sham bills without reading them.

With the healthcare debate, voters are taking a stand.

The radical left is so used to getting their way that they were blindsided by the public reaction.

So they took to calling these protesters unAmerican. They claimed the protesters were being bused into these Town Hall meetings. Like I said before their false claims are being exposed.

Obama and his 'band-o-thugs' dispatched the SEIU (union goons)some of whom have been arrested for their violence at these meetings. The left has also been advertising to hire "grassroot supporters". Can anyone imagine if MLK had hired marchers?

Billionaire, George Soros funneled $ 5 million dollars this week to this every effort. They are advertising across the country, even on the infamous 'Craigslist'. You can go to Craigslist and type in 'Obama', then 'all jobs'.

If you check out craigslist, take note of the dates of the ads. You will realize the radicals were doing the very thing they are accusing average Americans of doing, before these Town Halls even began.

So when you hear these cries coming from healthcare supporters, falsely complaining, keep these tidbits in mind.

On a side note. I received a threat from a reader after my last blog entry. I saved it, and had some fun with the ole' girl.

DonsAdam (ponder that name), threatened to share with readers all the radical lefts talking points. I say good for him/her/it?!? Tallahassee must be proud of you!

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=4020467769775644162

Defeat Socialized Medicine, and then Cap & Trade

2009-08-10T12:11:00.000-07:00

Folks we do have the radical left reeling by standing up to their shamelessly radical Socialized Medicine agenda. I do hope our citizens keep the moderate Blue Dog Democrats & all Republicans in their cross-hairs.

The radical left needs Blue Dog Democrats & Republican support to provide them cover. They do not need those votes to pass this, but without that support it will be easy to pick them off during the midterm election next fall. It will leave their backsides exposed.

Someone wanting to save our healthcare system would be wise to focus on these two groups.

The radical left does not care about us. This is merely another piece of their puzzle to remake America into a weak socialist state. They hate us being a country of individuals, because they can not control the citizenry.

Same with Cap & Tax. We are experiencing a cooler summer again this year. One of the coolest on record.

Yet the radical left wants to impose the Cap & Trade (tax). They want us financially enslaved to the government. All costs associated with or using energy will be hit with higher costs under this sham legislation.

They are trying to use scare tactics to get voters to accept this anti-American bill, because they know we will not support a bill that so obviously goes against our country's best interest.

Why? Because they want to profit on a currently non-existent industry.

Don't get me wrong. I support investing in solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas & clean coal, etc. We do not need to pass draconian Cap & Trade to achieve that goal. We can not afford this type of "fix".

Cap & Trade has passed the House of Representatives without our members bothering to read the bill !! We are right to expect our elected reps to read the bills they are voting on.

After we defeat this healthcare scam, we need to immediately focus on the Blue Dogs & Republicans in the senate to kill Cap & Trade.

Commerce Secretary, Gary Locke-D, has even suggested that American taxpayers should pay for China's CO2 emissions!!

China and India have both rejected calls for them to support the radical lefts emissions standards. Our companies will be at a competitive disadvantage. It will hurt our economy.

The reckless spending must stop.

In my humble opinion, Socialized Medicine and Cap & Trade represent 'bad medicine' for our citizens.

If in a Town Hall meeting I plea that we all conduct ourselves in a civil manner. However, if someone puts their hands on you, defend yourself with whatever it takes. We have the right to be there and voice our concerns.

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=4020467769775644162&postID=666195326235443682

Fake outrage from the political left

2009-08-08T11:08:00.000-07:00

This week we have seen average Americans voicing their legitimate concerns over the healthcare debate. During consecutive Town Hall meetings voters are stepping up their protest to a government takeover of an industry that comprises 16% of our economy.

The idea that there is really anything to debate is a misnomer. The radicals on the left have already decided the direction they want to go and have no intention of considering the concerns of average Americans. The intention has been to throttle this legislation through Congress without meaningful debate.

Much the same as they did with the stimulus bill and Cap & Trade.

Much to the lefts chagrin, voters took time to begin reading & dissecting the healthcare bill before they could get it to the floor for a vote.

Just about all members had not and have not bothered to read the bill themselves. A great disservice to voters who elected them.

The radicals on the left of the political spectrum have been knocked back on their heels at the public reaction.

They have told the citizens that what the citizens read in the bill is not there. The left cries out "scare tactics" and "racism" as if the terms are somehow interchangeable, and applicable. The left has used the terms so dubiously in the past that they no longer hold sway.

The radical left has implied that citizens who read the bills should not "believe their lying eyes".

The left has complained that the citizens have burned members of Congress in effigy. I say they should be happy it was only in effigy.

I heard no complaints from the left when Bush was burned in effigy.

The left complains that the angry constituents shout the speakers down when the speaker only wants to provide information about the bill. Truth be told, they are only providing a censored version of the bill. They are not covering it with a point-by-point explanation.

The left knows if they did tell constituents what was really in there, they would be facing tar & feathers.

The left says insurance companies & rich conservatives are emailing their followers to show up & protest. I never received such an email or request.

Obama and his Chicago style cronies are preparing to strike back at the average citizens very hard.

Thursday & Friday saw the White House dispatch union thugs to these Town Hall meetings to rough up anyone opposing the bill. Obama wants any dissenters silenced. Anyone watching the numerous videos these past couple of days can see the SEIU (union thugs) labels emblazoned on their shirts.

Now the White House website has employed the Orwellian tactic of requesting our citizens to "report" anyone, saying or emailing, anything they find 'fishy' with regards to healthcare. In violation of our Privacy Laws. Nixon compiled lists of opponents too.

That is disturbing.

Question - How many readers have been asked to take a bus to a Town Hall meeting simply to disrupt it? Me neither.

Spying on our neighbors

2009-08-07T05:33:00.000-07:00

Americns have been voicing their concerns about having government run healthcare foisted upon them.

Polls show we would rather end the reckless spending by Obama and his comrades. Instead those polls show we could use additional tax cuts to allow us to stimulate the economy. The feigned attempt by the radical left has not stimulated anything.

We have seen the Democrats offer up failed ideas that reflect the inexperienced leadership of the White House. Look at 'cash for clunkers'. The administration plays it up as a success. A success? They are to busy self-congratulating themselves to notice the profits generated by the generosity of voters are not going to US car manufacturers. Those profits & our tax dollars are being sent to the Japanese & Germans.

Americans are showing up at Town Hall meetings held by members of Congress to voice their disapproval. Citizens are resoundingly rejecting the idea of rationed healthcare. The administration wants to silence this dissent.

Most Americans are satisfied with their coverage.

Obama and the Democrats insist the system is broken. They claim the government is going to "fix it". Rarely do we hear or believe the government is going to "fix it".

Not happy nationalizing, and taking over the auto industry & banking sector, now they are going to take over healthcare.

The radical left is not happy with average voters showing up and openly opposing their radical agenda. This regime in Washington is rapidly changing the face of America. Not for the better.

Now they are asking us to spy on our neighbors. They want us to report our neighbors, family, and friends to a White House email address. The Obama administration wants to know who dares question their wisdom.

The governments of the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy, N. Korea, Cuba, Yugoslavia, and the People's Republic of China employed the same citizen informer techniques. Citizens of those societies were reduced to either silence or whispered discussion only among those they trusted the most. Of course none of those things would ever occur here in the land of the free. But wait...

Now on the White House website posted by Macon Phillips comes an eerily similar request for citizens to inform on their neighbors. It states,

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to the end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

This is a dangerous precedent for America and a sad day for her people.

Obama: don't hurt the terrorist's feelings

2009-08-06T11:14:00.000-07:00

President Obama has ended the war on terror. The administration has announced they do not want us to use the words 'terror' or 'Jihadists'. The terms are no longer acceptable in politically correct society of the radical left.

John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.

The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda."

Hillary Clinton had announced in early spring that Obama did not want the phrase used.

I have pointed out that Obama and the Dem party are weak on defense & security. Obama makes no mention of Hamas, or Hezbollah. He seems to want to diminish the true nature of the war on terror.

It would appear the radical left is putting the sensitivities of those who wish us ill will ahead of American's legitimate concerns.

Diva Pelosi and the 'little people's money'

2009-08-05T09:57:00.000-07:00

Democratic Speaker, Nancy Pelosi has morphed herself into a caricature. She is now little more than a cross between Marie Antoinette and Leona Helmsley.

We all read of her diva demands with regards to travel. She is known to have her staff order the military to provide her with free commuter service between Washington and San Francisco on weekends. She likes to take her family and friends on these jaunts as well. All on the taxpayers dime.

Former Speaker, Dennis Hastert used to go to his district as well. He used a small jet.

For Nancy, that would never do. She demands the military provide her with a Boeing 757 with an executive layout. Her staff will call and force the military to have the plane on standby. She may or may not actually show up to use it. As with most members of the Democratic caucus, the mindset is that is not their money. So cost in financial or human capital is of no consequence. Recession be damned!! Such concerns are reserved for the "little people".

The cost for her roundtrip is in excess of $100,000. That is not her problem, so do not bother her with trivial matters.

Meanwhile, our service members are left in a lurch with their own plans on hold. Will she show or won't she? Will she be in a good mood or her typical Leona Helmsley persona arrive?

Apparently the luxurious 757 is not able to keep pace with her expanding ego.

Congress has now ordered three new Gulfstream 550 Executive Series aircraft. These are to be configured for, well, royalty. Fit for a queen. These cost $65 million a piece.

They will allow her to travel nonstop from Washington to Dubai, UAE. Not sure how often it is necessary for her to go that far.

Coming from a woman, who together with the President Obama is on track to spend nearly 4 trillion in one year, this should be no surprise. Did I mention they have to borrow the bulk of what they are irresponsibly spending?

Our nation has never seen the kind of reckless spending. Every so often we put the Democrats back in office. Then we remember why we vote them back out. This group in power are sorely out of touch with us actual Americans.

This a prime example of 'Diva's Gone Wild'.

Democratic corruption continues

2009-07-24T07:43:00.000-07:00

We all had the chance to see a level of corruption exposed Thursday, as law enforcement officials in New York & New Jersey swept up 44 corrupt people in an international money laundering scheme.

Many were either politicians or rabbis. The media reported that there were Democrats & Republicans involved. We already knew neither party is exempt from dirt.

What the media left out was there were 43 Democrats & 1 Republican. The difference is that whether or not he is convicted, the Republican party will force their man from office.

The Democrats wil allow their people to continue to serve ,convicted or not. We need look no further than our nations capital to remember Democrat former Mayor Marion Barry smoking crack on TV. serving time in prison,and reelected by the DC Democrats. That would have ended a Republican career.

In Michigan, wife of Democrat, Congressman, John Conyers was indicted for taking bribes for a project she was initially against. She changed her vote when money was offerred. Rep. Conyers himself changed his initial position after his wife was paid. He has not yet been charged with any wrong doing.

Rep. Jefferson D-LA, was found to be taking bribes and had $90,000 in his Capial Hill office refrigerator. The Democratic leadership was silent. Had it been a Republican the Dems would have been up in arms, and the Republican leadership would have forced him out.

We saw Detroits Mayor convicted for lying about a relationship with a staffer and hauled off to jail, vowing to return. Even President Clinton was charged for lying about a relationship with an intern, but the Democrats protected him, even though he had plainly commited prejury in a court of law under oath.

The Democrats continue to fend off scrutiny of the obviously corrupt ACORN, because the organization funnels votes to the party. The Democrats will deny the mountain of evidence against ACORN and feign ignorance of the corruption.

Yes, both parties have some corrupt individuals. However, there is a difference, For Republicans it is a career ending event.

For the Democrats, corruption is a badge of honor.

The Obamacare Doublecross

2009-07-17T12:57:00.000-07:00

The Democrats in the House have prepared their version of the healthcare reform bill. It reads like a tax code without the entertaining graphics.

President Obama said there would be a public option or the choice of private insurance. In essence, we could all keep our own doctors and continue on with our current coverage if we liked it.

However, the language in House bill HR 3200, does not support that premise. It all but forces everyone into the public program. If you go to the text of the bill in section/page 16, you will find it there.

We all remember the Democrats stating that it was not correct that there would be rationing, but the provision to set up the advisory panel is spelled out quite clearly. These are the people who will decide if you get treated for an ailment or if you are merely made comfortable while nature takes its course.

Talk about an Orwellian approach to population control and playing God. I guess this will cancel out the Hippocratic oath for doctors.

Below is the text about 'private insurance'. Any readers with experience in Human Resources understands that health insurance is renegotiated each year. As currently written, this will end that. It stops any changes to premiums or coverage, effectively forcing employers into the public system.

16
1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV4
ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov6
erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15
fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER18
MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be26
fore the first day of Y1.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf

Obama Healthcare Plan to withhold treatment to Elderly and Chronically Ill

2009-07-16T08:13:00.000-07:00

With the appointment of this eugenics styled "science czar" (google him "John Holdren"), it is becoming more & more evident that Obama and his nationalized healthcare proponents are easing the public to accept the practice of withholding life saving measures for the elderly, infirmed, etc.

I find this troubling. The radical left are trying to keep the concept from public exposure until it is too late. They cry 'fear mongering' if we point out the obvious direction this is going.

Don't trust them folks, they are merely trying to distract you with such diversionary claims. They plan to offer exemptions for the government employees, and get this, also for union members! Is that not the height of cynicism? Protect their own and the heck with the rest of us.

Some of this is purposely being introduced in a controlled manner. It reminds me of cooking a frog. If you throw it in a boiling pot of water, he will jump out. However, if you place him in the pot and slowly increase the heat, he will stay and cook.

This is what we are witnessing with this crazy radical left concept.

It will leave a bureaucrat or protocol to make decisions on who is worthy of care and who is to be comforted and allowed to die.

The New York Times is running a series titled "Months to Live" in order to help spread the sort of end of life issues that are helpful to Obama's healthcare agenda, one of which seems to be the idea that elderly should forgo any sort of heroic measures to keep them alive so as not to waste those resources that might be able to go to younger, more vital patients.

The second these ideas become the norm, government will by necessity of control begin to determine which citizens are "worth" saving and which aren't worth the efforts and should be denied services. And from there it won't be long before prescriptions of euthanasia for those "not worth" the costs of government largess will become de rigueur everywhere.

For the few that watched ABC's special on healthcare, the most important takeaway from it was President Barack Obama's admission that he would go outside the constraints of a nationalized system to get the "very best care" if necessary for his own family.

Obama's response should properly be seen as "a Michael Dukakis moment that exposed him as a hypocrite."

Dr. Orrin Devinsky, who took part in the televised discussion, asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.

The president would not make such a pledge, though he confessed that if "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care."

It is time the American voters wake up and recognize this for what it is. A moral disaster in the making.

Obama appoints self avowed communist as 'Green Czar'

2009-07-16T08:11:00.000-07:00

A disturbing pattern is emerging to paint the radical agenda and participants of the Obama regime. This pattern of allowing the government to be taken over by the radical left with a communist, and globalist agenda is steeling in.

Voters voted for change , but few envisioned the kind of radical agenda and players taking hold of America today. Obama keeps appointing dubious "czars" as a means of bypassing congressional advise & consent. Obama does not want these thugs to be subjected to the questions that surely would be asked in front of the cameras on Capital Hill.

Our new 'Green Czar" is rooted in a communist, black nationalist past, much like Obama's personal ideology.

Kruschev warned us almost 50 years ago that the communists would bury the US. Americans failed to recognize just how easily this could be done from within our own government when using radical leftist organizations such as ACORN, and a compliant Mainstream Media. Kruschev must be looking up at this very moment, feeling quite vindicated.

The media has chosen not to report on Van Jones 2005 interview about his radical politics, including black nationalism, anarchism, and communism.

Americans for Prosperity Policy Director Phil Kerpen, told an interviewer that Jones is “somebody who was involved in radical politics in San Francisco, “who was self-admittedly “radicalized in jail” and found “Communism and anarchism.”

Jones himself stated in that 2005 interview his environmental activism was a means to fight for racial and class “justice,” and that he was a “rowdy black nationalist,” and a “communist.”

Because the administration’s “czars” do not go through congressional confirmation, and are therefore not scrutinized or vetted, many Americans have no idea of what this cynical administration is brining to bear..

'Employee Free Choice Act' is anything but.........

2009-03-10T16:50:00.000-07:00

America went to the polls on November 4th. We voted using a secret ballot. That is a way to allow us to exercise our right to enfranchisement as citizens. We are able to vote according to our own conscience, without sharing our choice, if we so choose.

The Unions and Democrats are pushing to remove the secret ballot as an means for those deciding whether to form a union. They have come up with the 'Employee Free Choice Act'. It is a misleading name at best. At worst it is downright cynical.

Currently, once 30% of a company's workers sign union authorization cards, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administers a confidential vote, typically 39 days after it receives the cards. The union and employer campaign for votes.

Under the 'Employee Free Choice Act' being promoted by unions, when more than 50% of employees sign authorization cards, the NLRB would have to recognize the new union. No campaign. No secret ballot...........just a "friendly" union representative.

The measure passed the US House in 2007 after the Democrats took control. The Democrats now have the votes to pass it in the Senate. They now have a President who will sign it. Even former Democratic nominee George McGovern has come out against it.

The proposed change would give unions and pro-union employees more incentive to use peer pressure, or worse, to persuade reluctant workers to sign their cards. And without elections, workers who weren't contacted by union organizers would have no say in the final outcome. Who wants a union organizer standing at their work space with a card and pen in hand, asking them to sign; while their coworkers all stare?

Labor leaders, such as AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, argue's that the proposed law wouldn't prohibit private balloting. This is accurate but misleading. Union organizers would have no reason to seek an election if they had union cards signed by more than 50% of workers. And if they had less than a majority, they'd be unlikely to call for a vote they'd probably lose.

The legislation has other questionable provisions as well. For example, once a union is formed, if labor and management can't agree on a contract, a federal arbitration board would be called on to go beyond the normal role of facilitating talks and actually dictate terms.

Labor has seen its role decline since the 1950s, when about a third of all private sector employees belonged to unions, compared with about 7.5% today. So it's understandably eager to find ways to expand membership, particularly at a time when workers are feeling economically vulnerable. More members, more members dues.

The Democrats have a vested interest in ensuring passage. The unions have long been big donors to Democratic candidates. If the unions have declining membership and related dues, then there is less to give to the Democrats. If the Democrats get this passed and signed into law, the union officials and Democrats win. Unfortunately, the workers lose. This undermining of Democratic ideals is a poor deal for America's workers.

WHILE ROME BURNS

2009-03-10T16:39:00.000-07:00

Our 'Stimulus Bill' that Obama and Pelosi hoisted on the US. to create jobs is misleading. It will create some jobs, but not necessarily for Americans.

According to the USAToday, Tens of thousands of jobs created by the economic stimulus law could end up filled by illegal immigrants, particularly in big states such as California where undocumented workers are heavily represented in construction, experts on both sides of the issue say.

They fault Congress for failing to require that employers certify legal immigration status of workers before hiring by using a Department of Homeland Security program called E-Verify. The program allows employers to check the validity of Social Security numbers provided by new hires. It is available to employers on a voluntary basis. Obama and Pelosi both rebuked the inclusion of the common sense measure.

"They could have deterred this, but they chose not to," said Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies.

The version of the stimulus bill passed by the House of Representatives included a provision requiring employers to check immigration status with the E-Verify system before hiring. The Senate did not include such a provision, and it was not in the version sent to President Obama. The Obama administration has delayed until at least May 21 a Bush administration executive order requiring federal contractors to use the E-Verify system in hiring. It had been scheduled to take effect in January. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed suit seeking to block the requirement, joined by the Associated Builders and Contractors and other business organizations.

So not only will many Americans be passed over for these jobs taken by Illegal Aliens, American tax dollars will pay their salaries.

Not willing to tolerate criticism, the Democrats are dredging up the 'Fairness Doctrine' in an attempt to quelch opposition to their socialist policies. It seems they are not satisfied with merely controlling the print and television media (exception FOX News), they want to silence talk radio. They are gunning for Limbaugh and Hannity. They make no mention of fervent Obama supporters, MSNBC's Chris Mathews, Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow.

On a more personal front. While Washington and the rest of America's cities burn economically, the recession is not being felt at the White House. The Obama's have been enjoying a fun-filled succession of parties at the White House.

These parties are purely for socializing, with talk of politics discouraged. Sort of reminds me of another First Lady whose first name began with an "M". When told their fellow countrymen were suffering she is said to have replied, "let them eat cake".

Obama Begins 'Tax Cuts' For 95% Of Americans

2009-02-21T11:29:00.000-08:00

In his weekly radio address to the nation today, Obama announced that he was fulfilling his campaign promise to provide tax relief to 95% of Americans. This is rather disingenuous since 40% of Americans do not pay income taxes.

So what he is really doing is providing tax relief to 55% of Americans and another form of welfare to the other 40%. This is to begin April1, 2009.

"I'm pleased to announce that this morning the Treasury Department began directing employers to reduce the amount of taxes withheld from paychecks, meaning that by April 1st, a typical family will begin taking home at least $65 more every month," Obama said in his weekly radio address.

"Never before in our history has a tax cut taken effect faster or gone to so many hard-working Americans," he said.

The measures have received a mixed early reaction from gloomy financial markets uncertain whether they will succeed in arresting the downward economic spiral. Since Obama has been leading America's economic efforts, the market has hit lows that surpass that obtained after the attacks of 9/11.

His announcement on the tax cuts capped a week that saw him sign the stimulus package into law and announce new measures to help families facing foreclosure and those struggling to make mortgage payments. The latter is Obama's life-line to reward poor judgement.

In essence, Obama is telling me that if I exercised good judgement in acquiring a mortgage that I could afford and saved for, make my mortgage payment, and live within my means; I am now expected to pay for those who did not.

Obama will kick it up a notch next week when he holds a summit at the White House on Monday to look at how to rein in the country's ballooning deficit and bring government spending under control as the economy starts to recover. While not an economist, I might suggest that he take the approach my family follows. If you do not have it, do not spend it.

Many Americans fail to recognize that you do not spend yourself out of a recession. FDR and Japan demonstrated that years ago.

As we continue to borrow money from communist China (with their false economy), we continue to reduce the value of the dollar. In other words, that foreign made Television that costs $1500 today, will cost $1700 after you borrow more money from foreign investors. All the money in the stimulus/spending bills has to be borrowed, and the more we borrow, the lower the value of the dollar.

My friends here in DC tell me all this spending and talk of doom and glom is not so much about the economy as it is about the administrations social agenda. Granted the economy is in recession. The talk of Depression is a bit of a stretch.

During the Depression, unemployment was well into the 20+% levels. Interest rates were sky high. Even when Reagan came into office, unemployment and interest rates were double-digit. That is not the case now.

Obama is a polished speaker and persuader. However, his talk of "stimulus" is a smoke-screen. How else do you explain the fact that his "stimulus bill" was more social engineering than stimulus?

He is a masterful politican and knew that Americans would not support his social agenda were they not sold on the idea that the sky was falling and massive spending was the only way to the promised land of recovery. He does not speak of hope today. He plays on our fear and foreboding of what lies ahead.

If you take time to look closer at the Stimulus Bill that was passed, you will find a social agenda bill passed off as a much sought after economic stimulus.

The Charltan of Chicago is playing Americans like a drum!!

Global Government & Taxation advances in DAVOS.

2009-02-04T19:31:00.000-08:00

Months ago I brought up Obama's 'Global Poverty Act', (you can look through the blog to find the article), and I was met with some skepticism. It was sponsored by then Senator Obama. I pointed out that it will cede too much of America's sovereignty to the United Nations. I also demonstrated that it will result in a 'Global' tax, and 'Global' government.

Can the American public truly be so easily distracted as to miss something of this magnitude?

This past week and weekend the World Economic Forum met in Davos, Switzerland. Many of it's members are concurrent members of the Bilderberg Group. I would suggest that those who are not familiar with the 'Bilderberg Group' take a moment and "google' it.

Cliff Kincaid, of Accuracy In Media, reported on this meeting. I am including his report as an FYI.

Global Taxes and Global TV Now on the Agenda

AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | January 26, 2009

In addition to global taxes, “The Global Agenda 2009” report urges creation of a global television channel.

President Obama’s pick for Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, is being urged to lay the foundation for “global governance” by considering “international taxation” measures to loot more money from U.S. taxpayers.

The recommendation is included in the report, “The Global Agenda 2009,” which is being considered by the World Economic Forum (WEF), meeting in Davos, Switzerland, January 28 - February 1. The WEF is not an official government group but does include dozens of government, corporate and labor leaders at its annual meetings.

Media companies such as News Corporation (parent of Fox News, the Fox Business Network, and the Wall Street Journal), CNBC, and Forbes are official sponsors of the WEF meeting. News Corporation is listed as one of about 100 “strategic partners” of the World Economic Forum.

“Look for live coverage on CNBC, all day every day,” reports CNBC “Squawk Box” co-anchor Becky Quick. “We kick things off at 6 a.m. Eastern time Wednesday on Squawk, with serious interviews from the headliners.” Her report, however, fails to disclose that CNBC is an “industry partner” of the World Economic Forum this week.

CNBC is a subsidiary of General Electric, whose GE Capital is receiving a $139-billion taxpayer-financed loan guarantee as part of the Wall Street bailout. CNBC’s sister networks are NBC and MSNBC.

Other “industry partners” of the WEF include Reuters, the British-based news agency. A Reuters story about the meeting that starts on Wednesday sounds like a press release from the organization, hailing its “achievements” over time but failing to note that Reuters is a sponsor of this year’s event.

CNBC is advertising a “No Way Back – the Road to Recovery” debate hosted at the conference by CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo. One of the participants is Steve Schwarzman, Chairman, CEO and co-founder of the Chinese-funded and partly owned Blackstone Group.

Representing Chinese economic dominance in what Henry Kissinger has labeled a “New World Order,” Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is speaking to a special session of the conference on its first day.

The event’s corporate sponsors, which pay about half a million dollars each to participate, include several failing institutions that have received tens of billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers. They include Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Morgan Stanley. These entities are termed “Strategic Partners” of the World Economic Forum.

But will CNBC highlight this kind of extravagant spending when the cable business network is helping sponsor the event?

In a major embarrassment, the WEF has released a report, “The Future of the Global Financial System,” which acknowledges “intellectual stewardship and guidance” provided by a steering committee co-chaired by John Thain, the former Merrill Lynch & Co. chief executive officer who was recently ousted from Bank of America in a scandal. Thain oversaw the disastrous sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America and was criticized for lavish spending on office decorations, including a $1,405 waste basket and $87,784 rug.

The other co-chair of the committee was David Rubenstein, co-founder and managing director of The Carlyle Group, who has been quoted as saying that China holds the key to the world economy’s future. One report notes that Rubenstein says Carlyle “was an early investor in the Chinese marketplace,” that its China office “has hired many native-born Chinese, and the company is seeking to build its buyout and growth-capital businesses there.”

“The Global Agenda 2009” report says that “sovereign states do not adequately address problems reaching across borders” and that “international taxation” may be needed to generate the “additional resources” for “global governance.”

Could this become a source of new bailout money here and abroad?

“As current global governance problems come from market failures, sovereign failures and intergovernmental failures that cross boundaries, sacrificing sovereignty for greater gain may become an option,” the report says.

The report says the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, which is a top priority for Senate ratification under the Obama Administration, is a measure that has “earned the acceptance and compliance” of most nations. The treaty would turn over oil, gas, and mineral resources to the U.N. and authorize access to them through payment of a global tax to a U.N. body.

The so-called “Council on Global Governance” of the World Economic Forum includes Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of the Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs who has been picked by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to run the State Department’s Office of Policy Planning. Slaughter wrote the 2004 book, A New World Order.

In terms of media interest and backing for the controversial event, one of the co-chairs is Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corporation, the Fox News Channel parent company. Another co-chair is Kofi Annan, the disgraced former U.N. Secretary-General. As director of U.N. peacekeeping, Annan was accused of ignoring genocide in Rwanda. As Secretary-General, he was investigated for presiding over the oil-for-food corruption scandal involving Saddam Hussein’s Iraq regime.

Annan, however, claimed that he was “exonerated” by a report issued by Paul Volcker, the former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman and now one of Obama’s chief economic advisers.

In the past U.S. officials have been major participants in the World Economic Forum. But it’s not clear if any of Obama’s top officials will be going to this year’s event. However, some of his labor backers, including Andrew Stern of the Service Employees International Union, and John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, are listed as participants.

In addition to global taxes, “The Global Agenda 2009” report urges creation of a global television channel.

“Media has the capacity to connect the world, bridging cultures and peoples, and telling us who we are and what we mean to each other. The media can also ensure that no voice goes unheard,” it says. “We believe that this new moment also calls for a new media platform, across all media channels, a global non-profit ‘CNN’ providing a new form of independent journalism to inform, illuminate and deepen knowledge about issues that improve the state of the world.”

The report doesn’t explain how this new global TV channel will be financed. But global taxes cannot be ruled out.

Perhaps this new era of transparency and disclosure can start with disclosing details about media sponsorship and backing of the World Economic Forum and its plans for “global governance.”

OBAMA STYLED "CHANGE" & "STIMULUS"

2009-02-04T17:44:00.000-08:00

On November 4Th, the American electorate voted for "Change". Throughout the campaign Barack Obama convinced enough voters to not look to close, and trust his untested leadership.

Now barely two weeks into this administration that promised hope and change, we find ourselves with exactly what the electorate deserves. We have been given cabinet nominees, many of which feel above having to pay their taxes. This of course includes our new Treasury Secretary who will oversee the IRS. He did cough up the $34,000 after receiving the Treasury nomination. He had no intention of doing so prior to that time. This is 'change'?

Under the guise of a "stimulus package", the Democrats have usurped the legitimacy of such a noble cause, and instead, put forth a pork laden bill catered to the 'no accountability' left wing.

This attempt to borrow and spend our way out of a recession is not a new idea. Roosevelt tried in the 30's, and when he ran for his third term in 1940, our unemployment rate still hovered around 20%. That was after eight years of the same style stimulus programs. If not for the war clouds of Europe his reelection was in question. He went on to win because of promising to keep America out of the war, in spite of his dismal economic policies.

Japan tried the Roosevelt model during their prolonged recession of the 90's. It failed to work that time as well.

Now the Rain Man of Chicago politics appears to be attempting to imitate Bullwinkle. We all remember Bullwinkle trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Having pulled out a Rhinoceros, and then a lion by mistake, Bullwinkle exclaims "this time for sure".

According to the democratic controlled Congressional Budget Office, only one fifth of this stimulus would be felt in 2009. Most of the money is scheduled to be spent after the recession is predicted to end.

Obama claims to want this bill to pass in order to create jobs. It falls far short according to estimates. The Endowment for the Arts employs how many people? Contraception? How about $650 million for 'Digital TV.coupons'?

Less than 10% of the bill could be considered true stimulus, if one assumes tax credits and infrastructure spending will jolt the economy. The other 90% of the bill represents one of the most egregious acts of generational theft in our nation's history, with taxpayer money going to special-interest earmarks, an ill-conceived bailout to states, and permanent spending increases that expand government's reach in areas like health care and education.

The bill's selling point is that three million jobs will be created or saved by this package. What's alarming is that each job will cost $286,000 to create or save. Moreover, one in five will be a government job....I start my new government job next Tuesday!!

One of the more egregious provisions in the Senate bill is a $166 billion bailout plan for the states that rewards bad budgeting at the state level. Simply sending cash to states without asking for appropriate sacrifices is grossly irresponsible. States will no longer have the incentive to live within their means, because they'll assume the federal government will be there to bail them out.

Instead of a bailout, Congress could offer states an emergency loan that could be repaid at a low interest rate. This approach apparently wasn't considered because the members who wrote the bill aren't simply interested in saving jobs -- they want to push their agenda along the way.

A key example is health care. The Senate bill doubles the amount of the Medicaid bailout requested by governors and lays the groundwork for government-run health care, which invariably leads to rationing. This ideological overreach has led even some Democrats, like Nebraska's Ben Nelson, to express concern that various "sacred cows" in the package are hurting the bill's overall goals.

The bill is also loaded with old-fashioned pork, despite President Barack Obama's insistence that members of Congress refrain from adding earmarks. In fact, the bill contains the most expensive earmark in history: $2 billion for the FutureGen near-zero emission power plant in Matoon, Ill.

Of course Obama has no problem with a $5 billion earmark for his friends at ACORN. We all remember ACORN. This is the organization that had it's offices raided by the FBI after it became evident that the organization was blatantly involved with voter registration fraud, registering people multiple times, and registering fictitious names. Why punish them? Under this administration we will reward them. They not only drank the kool-aid, they helped pass it out!

Other non stimulative pork provisions include $88 million for a new polar icebreaker for the Coast Guard, $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees, and $850 million for Amtrak.

What is not in the bill is as troubling as what is. The package does nothing to clear the toxic assets and bad mortgages that helped trigger the credit crisis. These are some of the same scam mortgage products that Congressman Barney Frank D-MA defended when attempts were made to add more regulation to Fannie Mae. Why wouldn't Barney block re regulation? His lover, Herb Moses was the architect at Fannie Mae who was selling these mortgages and bringing home the resulting bonuses to Barney and keeping him draped in gold lame'.

It also contains very little meaningful tax relief to make small businesses and American companies more competitive. Instead, the tax provisions of the stimulus are essentially a modest cash handout that repeats the failed policy of George W. Bush's rebate-check stimulus.

The only thing that will be "stimulated" with this bill, is America's collective sphincter!

Obama Choosing Arab Peace Initiative Over Israel

2008-11-24T15:50:00.000-08:00

During his July trip to Europe and the Middle East, Obama met privately with Palestinian leadership. He quietly endorsed the Arab Peace Initiative.

It means that the land Israel took control of when it's Arab neighbors attacked it in 1967 will be returned to the Arabs. It will establish a new Palestine. Obama asked that they not publicly discuss his assurances until after the election. He had claimed to be a great supporter of Israel during the campaign and wanted the charade to continue until he no longer needed the Jewish vote.

Obama backs the Arab League's Initiative, which defenders of Israel warn would leave the Jewish state with truncated, difficult to defend borders and could threaten Israel's Jewish character by compelling it to accept millions of foreign Arabs.

Obama's team has been meeting with various Arab leaders over the past two weeks, and an official said in most cases it was the Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, that stressed the importance of the plan. He said Obama's advisers expressed a positive attitude toward the plan, but he stopped short of confirming a London Sunday Times article last week that claimed Obama would make the plan a central part of his Mideast policy.

One senior Obama adviser was quoted telling the Times that on a visit to the Middle East last July, Obama said privately to the Palestinian leadership it would be "crazy" for Israel to refuse the Initiative, which Obama purportedly said could "give them peace with the Muslim world."

Although Ross denied Obama would trumpet the Arab plan, Israeli President Shimon Peres told the British media last week that in conversations he held with the president-elect, Obama proclaimed himself "very impressed" with the Arab League's peace plan. Peres was responding to questions about whether he thought Obama would advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in general and the Arab League's plan in particular.

Initiative threatens Jewish state

The Arab Initiative, originally proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2002 and later adopted by the Arab League, states that Israel would receive "normal relations" with the Arab world in exchange for a full withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights and eastern Jerusalem, which includes the Temple Mount.

The West Bank contains important Jewish biblical sites and borders central Israeli population centers, while the Golan Heights looks down on Israeli civilian zones and was twice used by Syria to mount ground invasions into the Jewish state.

The Arab plan also demands the imposition of a non-binding U.N. resolution that calls for so-called Palestinian refugees who wish to move inside Israel to be permitted to do so at the "earliest practicable date."

Palestinians have long demanded the "right of return" for millions of "refugees," a formula Israeli officials across the political spectrum warn is code for Israel's destruction by flooding the Jewish state with millions of Arabs, thereby changing its demographics.

When Arab countries attacked the Jewish state after its creation in 1948, some 725,000 Arabs living within Israel's borders fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel. Also at that time, about 820,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries or fled following rampant persecution.

While most Jewish refugees were absorbed by Israel and other countries, the majority of Palestinian Arabs have been maintained in 59 U.N.-run camps that do not seek to settle those Arabs elsewhere.

There are currently about 4 million Arabs who claim Palestinian refugee status with the U.N., including children and grandchildren of the original fleeing Arabs; Arabs living full-time in Jordan; and Arabs who long ago emigrated throughout the Middle East and to the West.

According to Arab sources close to the Arab Initiative, Arab countries are willing to come to an agreement whereby Israel absorbs about 500,000 "refugees" and reaches a compensation deal with the PA for the remaining millions of Palestinians.

Obama advisers back Arab plan

Some top Obama current and former advisers have recently endorsed the Arab Initiative. The Times referenced a partisan group of senior foreign policy advisers who urged Obama to give the Arab plan top priority immediately after his election victory, including Lee Hamilton, the former co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democratic former national security adviser. Brent Scowcroft, a Republican former national security adviser, also joined in the appeal.

A PA official said that in recent weeks even the Bush White House and State Department has been focused on a drive to reach a series of understandings between Israel and the PA that ultimately seeks to create a Palestinian state in nearly the entire pre-1967 borders, meaning the entire Gaza, West Bank and eastern Jerusalem areas.

"We are confident from this mood of Bush that an Obama administration will be even more willing to embrace the pre-1967 borders as the starting point of further talks," the PA official said.

The Bush Betrayal And Globalization

2008-11-19T09:38:00.000-08:00

I voted for George W. Bush twice. I believed he had America's best interest at heart and viewed him more favorably than his opponents. That is not to say that I have not been very disappointed by him. Most recently is a sense of betrayal.

First disappointment was his leadership and judgement in the execution of the Iraq War. I will not go into the merits of this war. I believe he used too small a force when he initially went in. This needlessly resulted in an increase in cost, in human lives, time spent, and monetary expense. He tried to pull off a war "on the cheap". This policy has proven disastrous.

Our "allies" were not going to be happy with the war; however he conducted it. We know that Europe enjoys the naive belief that all problems can be resolved through diplomacy. We saw that in the lead up to WWII. We saw it in the Balkans. We witnessed it prior to the Iraq War. Most recently we watched their diplomacy fail to end Iran's nuclear ambitions. Europe is a conglomerate of socialist states, far to the left of Americas limited socialism. For them it is much more palpable to capitulate to demands, any demands, than to stand on principle. It is easy to understand, when you realize that for them "principle" is tenuous at best. It is similar to electricity. In their weak state, they are too willing to embrace the "path of least resistance".

In Britain this is seen with the creation of Sharia Law courts right in London itself. It allows Muslims to bypass the British courts and be tried before a Sharia Court, usurping the sovereignty of Britain. We realize those with leftist ideologies tend to be wimps when it comes to putting up a fight. They find comfort in capitulation.

We can see that right here in the U.S. within the Democrats party. They would argue and protest to save a whale before they would defend human life, unless that human life was on death row.

Had we gone into Iraq with an overwhelming force from the beginning and finished the job sooner, we could have been salving the European angst at our unilateralism much sooner.

For me, last Friday came the ultimate Bush betrayal. The G-20 leaders were in Washington, DC attempting to find common solutions to our world financial crisis. It was at this meeting that I believe that President Bush formalized the selling out of America as a economic and military superpower. He has proven himself to be a globalist amongst globalist. While those other leaders hate him, they coyly embraced him.

In a development that attracted the attention of some media, the U.S. agreed at the conference to the establishment of “supervisory colleges” by March 31, 2009, to monitor “all major cross-border financial institutions.” It is the beginning of a new global regulatory body that could eventually impose and collect a currency transactions tax known as the Tobin Tax, named after the late Yale University economist, James Tobin. Such a tax, which could affect stocks, mutual funds, and pensions, could generate hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

But ignored by most of the media was the fact that buried in the “declaration” endorsed by Bush and other leaders meeting on Saturday was (Point number 14) support for the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, “the development assistance commitments we have made,” and a reaffirmation of “the development principles agreed at the 2002 United Nations Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico, which emphasized country ownership and mobilizing all sources of financing for development.”

This language may sound vague or confusing. However, to those familiar with the U.N. and its conferences and the Millennium Development Goals, it all makes perfect sense. This is a commitment to devote 0.7 percent of the Gross National Product to official foreign aid, a plan envisaged in President-elect Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act. It will cost $845 billion, to be recovered in whole or part through a global tax. The phrase “all sources of financing for development” is U.N.-speak for global taxes.

In addition to his Global Poverty Act, which could pass Congress in a lame duck session or after President Obama takes office, the Jubilee Act is also being pushed for the benefit of other nations of the world. It would cancel as much as $75 billion in debt owed by foreign countries. The total of the two measures is $920 billion. Since the U.S. will have to borrow the money, the figure will go higher when interest is added.

In a conversation with Margaret Lee, my much older sister, I brought up the issue of the Global Poverty Act. Like so many Americans, she had not heard of it and questioned the validity of my claim. Many Americans will be surprised by this development, and share my sense of betrayal.

America's mainstream media are part of the complicity to impose this stealth globalization on our citizenry before they know what is going on. I believe the ball began rolling decades ago at the behest of the Trilateral Commission and more recently under the direction of the Bilderberg Group. This a global effort that is bypassing "voters" worldwide.

It is no coincidence that one of Obama’s personal representatives to the G20 meeting was former Republican Rep. Jim Leach, a left-winger who not only gave a speech backing Obama at the 2008 Democratic National Convention but is a long-time collaborator of the World Federalist Movement. This is a group that favors global taxes to finance world government.

Leach is clearly hoping for an appointment from Obama as the new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, where he could help implement the Millennium Development Goals.

To demonstrate how the media view all of this, Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby on Thursday devoted a column headlined “Supersize the IMF” to the idea that the global financial institution known as the International Monetary Fund should get a massive infusion of American taxpayer dollars as well. He argued that the U.S. and other governments should triple their financial commitments to the IMF.

Mallaby, who doubles as director of the Center for Geoeconomic Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, didn’t put a price tag on this. But it was clear that he believes the more money the better. “A bigger IMF should be on its [the Obama Administration’s] agenda, he said.

Meanwhile, now that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has admitted that his $700-billion plan didn’t work out as planned, some in the media are acknowledging that they helped stampede the Congress into passing it.

On his CNN Reliable Sources show, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post asked his colleague Steven Pearlstein, “Wasn’t there a prevailing drumbeat that this package had to pass?” The reply: “I was, I guess, part of that drumbeat. It did have to pass.” Pearlstein added, “You know, the Congress and the government had to do something to get liquidity moving in the financial system. There’s no playbook for how to do this in a situation like this. People are making it up as they go along. And so we really shouldn’t be surprised that they tried something, it doesn’t work. They try something else, maybe it works. They’re throwing a lot of darts at the wall.”

But since it didn’t work and Paulson changed the plan, Kurtz asked, “Where is the journalistic outrage here?” It’s a good question. The only outrage I can find is coming from the taxpayers.

For his part, Pearlstein’s new column, “Toward a New International Capitalism,” includes no apologies over his central role in what has happened. Instead, he hails the arrival of a new era in which America “can no longer expect to dominate the institutions of international finance and will have to share power and influence with rapidly developing countries…”

In other words, America has been cut down to size and the beneficiaries are those who were always jealous of her wealth and power. The result will not only be less U.S economic power but the diminution of American military power. One will inevitably follow the other, especially if more U.S. manufacturing industries go bankrupt.

This is not “international capitalism.” It’s the victory of global socialism.
We are witnessing the leveling of the global playing field. A field where all nations and peoples will be on equal footing, irregardless of personal effort, and lacking any reward.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". - Karl Marx

http://washingtonroundup.blogspot.com/

The Gay Embarrassment Over California Proposition 8

2008-11-17T11:17:00.000-08:00

There is a plague of embarrassment weaving its way through the gay community. Earlier in this decade, California voters had voted against 'gay marriage'. The sympathetic courts ruled it unconstitutional. The court ruled that the voters had violated the states constitution. Voters responded by placing a constitutional amendment on this years ballot. This ballot initiative would bar such marriage with a constitutional ban.

I am not commenting on the issue of gay marriage. My concern lies in the behavior of those who felt victimized by the outcome of the election. The response by the agrieved will not win them support. It will only reinforce every negative opinion of their opponents. They will not move to the 'front of the bus' by kicking out the windows. They will move to the front when they present themselves as normal contributors of society. Gay communities must break out of their gay ghettos and stop trying to fulfill every negative stereotype. Involving themselves in the 'straight world' where people can get to know them in a nonthreatening manner will open the doors. Then acceptance will follow.

In the lead up to the election, the left outspent amendment supporters by a 6-1 margin. The amendments opponents on the left believed that they could buy the favor of voters. They ignored the heartfelt beliefs of gay marriage opponents.

Gay activists continued to try to shove an agenda down the throats of detractors. Just before the election, the activists treated first graders at one California school to a field trip. The field trip was to the gay marriage of their lesbian teacher. A week later, these activists held a surprise national 'Gay Coming Out Day', for children in grades K-8. It was held under the guise of teaching the children to be tolerant and build alliances.

If these activists believed what they were doing was "right", they would have afforded parents the opportunity to decide if it was age appropriate for their children. In the case of the lesbian wedding, they did notify parents. In the case of 'Gay Coming Out Day' they did not let parents know until it was over.

These activists believe they know what is "right" for all children and selfishly usurp parental authority. Most of these activists will never have children and do not identify with the responsibility that goes into parenting. These people are not interested in building "alliances", they are bent on indoctrination. Not indoctrination into the gay lifestyle, but into acceptance of the lifestyle.

California voters voted to ban gay marriage. The Black community voted more than 90%for Obama. They voted to ban gay marriage by 70%. Hispanic and whites also voted for the ban.

Since this defeat, these activists have been on a rampage across the US. They have targeted anyone they think may have voted in favor of this amendment. The activists accuse amendment supporters of bigotry and hatred.

Hate has abounded, not from the corners of Jewish synagogues, Christian churches or Muslim mosques. Those are just the places we've been told "hate" resides.

The "hate" was also not found in any single ethnicity, political party, or geographical demographic.

No the side that has been doing all of the hating since election day in the troubled parts of our nation have been militant activists radicals, who happen to be mostly white, mostly godless.

It is the radical activists roaming the streets, pushing elderly women to the ground, staging obnoxious protests outside places of worship, and in some cases interfering in the midst of worship services that have expressed all of the hatred seen since election day. They have even taken to harassing people on their way to or from the church door and their car.

But these haters are ignorant and as such, many Christians, Muslims, and Jews have shown compassion upon them.

The activists keep marching, screaming and forcing spittle to fly in little old ladies faces, for what end? To change the definition of a word. Prop 8 didn't say that those who are protesting like wild coyotes can't create a contract in which every arrangement in life that they would like can be legally protected and allowed for.

In California, the civil union law is one of the most liberal in the nation. But even if it were not the drawing up of a legally binding document insuring rights is now, and has been available since before the term "gay marriage" was even considered.

The true reason that the radical activists wish Constitutional authority to be undone, is very simple. Those who have been displaying rage and hate at the houses of worship, publishing the names of people on blacklists on the internet and encouraging violence, harassment, and worse against Prop 8 supporters--ironically--is due to their desire to see "hate crimes legislation" not only be passed, but amended to include those they would label "religious bigots."

The activists here are merely mirroring the history in the Scandinavian nations, and Canada in wanting to silence anyone who disagrees with them.

The activists have displayed bigotry in their protests as well. Choosing not to protest churches in--shall we say "economically challenged" neighborhoods like--Compton, they instead of made primarily white voters the victim of their hate-filled tirades. And while it was 1.6 million Barack Obama voters--many black and latino--that really served to make the win the decisive victory for marriage that it turned out to be, they have shied away from the churches attended by these same groups.

The Prop 8 opponents lost for simple reasons, they do not recognize Constitutional authority, they do not respect the disagreement of their opponent, they are dishonest with the facts, and they are far less tolerant than what the majority have ever endured from the most homophobic person they've ever met in person.

just this past week a 69-year-old woman carried a Styrofoam cross in support of traditional marriage into a pro-gay marriage march in Palm Springs and within seconds had the cross ripped from her hands and stomped on, and then the homosexuals began to shove her around and curse her out.

we move to Lansing, Michigan and last Sunday’s protest inside the Mount Hope Church by the rabid gay group Bash Back. These winners entered the church along with worshippers and surprised the congregation when they stood up during the service, threw fliers and condoms at the congregants, pulled the fire alarm, made out in front of the church by the pulpit and shouted slogans such as “Jesus was a homo.” No arrests were made.

Then we come to one Charles Bouley, radical gay activist and talk show host on San Francisco’s (where else) station KGO who on November 1st angrily said on the air that Joe the Plumber was a “G** D*** M-F’er” that he wanted dead!

These radicals want the public to believe they speak for all gays. They do not.
The radical gay activists do not understand why they can not force acceptance. They are a small minority within a small minority. These activists hate God, they hate those who believe in God, and ultimately their argument is with Him and against Him.

Most gays do not condone this thuggish behavior. For many it is an embarrassment. "Mainstream" gays loath the idea of being lumped in with these radical gay activists. The mainstream gays want to continue to live their lives uninterrupted.

Valerie Jarrett Named Senior White House Adviser

2008-11-16T16:49:00.000-08:00

It figures Obama would name some of his sleazy Chicago cronies to his administration. We are going to be held hostage to these crooks for the next four years. Their brand of thuggery will continue to be embraced by the democrats.

With the naming of Jarrett,the role of "Cruella deVille" has been filled. In Jarrett we can easily look at the vast array of information available on her.

Valerie Jarrett served as a board member for several organizations that provided funding and support for Chicago housing projects operated by real estate developers and Obama financial backers Rezko and Allison Davis. (Davis is also Obama's former boss.) Jarrett was a member of the Board of Directors for the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corporation along with several Davis and Rezko associates, as well as the Fund for Community Redevelopment and Revitalization, an organization that worked with Rezko and Davis.

(According to press reports, housing projects operated by Davis and Rezko have been substandard and beset with code violations. The Chicago Sun Times reported that one Rezko-managed housing project was "riddled with problems -- including squalid living conditions...lack of heat, squatters and drug dealers.")

As Chief Executive Officer of the Habitat Company Jarrett also managed a controversial housing project located in Obama's former state senate district called Grove Parc Plaza. According to the Boston Globe the housing complex was considered "uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage...In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale -- a score so bad the buildings now face demolition." Ms. Jarrett refused to comment to the Globe on the conditions of the complex.

"Like Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett is a product of the corrupt Chicago political machine. And it is no stretch to say that she was a slumlord," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "We have real concerns about Jarrett's ethics. Washington already has plenty of corruption. We don't need to import more of it from Chicago." - http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/nov/obama-advisor-valerie-jarrett-linked-real-estate-scandals

I am surprised with Jarrett's questionable background that Obama and his poor judgement did not name her to head HUD. Jarrett and Obama really admire each other. Here is a video of her appearance on ''Meet The Press' declaring that Obama will be ready to "rule" on day one. I feel so reassured. http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/valerie-jarrett-obama-spokesperson-says-obama-ready-to-rule-on-day-1/

The End Of Free & Independent Media

2008-11-12T11:47:00.000-08:00

For several years our media (both print and telecast) have increasingly cast aside any pretense of being free and independent. They have allowed their personal bias to shine through in every aspect of their "coverage".

When you think back through our recent history it is evident. They did all they could to destroy the Republican brand with the GOP'S own missteps and outright lies. During this same period they have done everything in their power to ignore or cover any missteps by the Democrats.

Upon election of Bush they set out to destroy him and the GOP through a constant barrage of ridicule. The late night talk shows and special programs designed for this purpose, such as "Li'l Bush" were bent on this destruction. Newscasts are consistent in their tilted coverage. At the end of the campaign SNL even added an extra night to drive home their derision.

They hold the two parties to a different set of standards. They will bash the GOP and conservatism for something that they would give a pass to if it were the Democrats and liberals.

MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER (MRC) President Brent Bozell summarized the Obama campaign news media travesty this way: "Everyone should be forced to admit that the publicists formerly known as the 'news' media have worked themselves to the bone this year to elect Barack Obama." The MRC has carefully documented news media bias for over 20 years now, and offers a wealth of information and commentary at its website. The quotes and statistics cited below come from that source.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE recognize what is going on. A survey by the liberal Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that "by a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain win on Nov. 4." Even 62% of Democrats recognized the media favoritism for Obama. Another Pew poll found that only 30% of the public believes all or most of what CNN reports, with 24% for NBC and 22% for CBS. A Rasmussen poll found that by a margin of 10-1, the public believes that reporters were trying to hurt Sarah Palin politically through their coverage.

These views are well grounded in reality. A study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that since the conventions news reports about Obama were two-thirds positive and one-third negative. For McCain it was just the opposite. The Center also found that late night comics targeted 7 times as many jokes at the Obama ticket as compared to the McCain ticket. Even the liberal Project for Excellence in Journalism found that during the fall campaign, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by more than 3 to 1. But the MRC found that the networks produced 7 times as many positive reports about Obama as negative ones.

CNN, Special Correspondent Frank Sesno labeled Rep. Rahm Emanuel, announced as President-elect Obama's chief of staff, as "center to center-right." But the American Conservative Union gave Emanuel's voting record a score of 13% conservative in 2003, 4% in 2006, and 0% in 2007. The liberal Americans for Democratic Action, by contrast, gave Emanuel's record a score of 95% liberal in 2003, a perfect 100% liberal in 2004 and 2005, 90% in 2006, and 95% in 2007.

The model for a free and independent press is, in fact, the much maligned (by liberal left extremists) Fox News. If you examine its broadcasts closely, you will find that its policy is to include 50% liberals and 50% conservatives. Along with Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly (whom many conservatives consider too moderate), Fox News features liberals Geraldo Rivera and Alan Colmes, and Democrat Greta van Sustern. Regular contributors include liberal Democrats Juan Williams, Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, and Morton Kondracke, Democrat pollsters and strategists Bob Beckel, Pat Caddell, and Dick Morris, and liberal academics. Check out the guests who are interviewed on all of their shows. They are evenly balanced liberal and conservative.

By contrast, if you look at the liberal controlled mainstream media, you rarely see any conservatives at all. Their ruling mantra is obviously to broadcast or print the liberal left party line, and to exclude conservatives and their views, which they openly deride instead. So all the yelling and screaming we hear about Fox News, dear conservatives, are really objections against having you included to any significant degree. It is a demand that you be muzzled as socially unacceptable.

Here is some early tough reporting on Barack Obama from Joe Klein of Time magazine,

"Obama's personal appeal is made manifest when he steps down from the podium and is swarmed by well-wishers of all ages and hues…. Obama seemed the political equivalent of a rainbow -- a sudden, preternatural event inspiring awe and ecstasy…. He transcends the racial divide so effortlessly that it seems reasonable to expect that he can bridge all the other divisions -- and answer all the impossible questions -- plaguing American public life."

NBC reporter Lee Cowan admits, "It's almost hard to remain objective because it's infectious, the energy, I think. It sort of goes against your core to say that as a reporter, but the crowds have gotten so much bigger, his energy has gotten stronger."

Then there is MSNBC co-anchor Chris Mathews, who is as objective about Obama as Juliet was about Romeo, saying, "He's come from a white family and a black family, and he's married to a black woman, and they're cool people. They are really cool. They are Jack and Jackie Kennedy when you see them together. They are cool. And they're great looking, and they're cool and they're young."

Mathews later went on to describe how Obama sent a "tingling" sensation up his leg.

While on the subject of MSNBC, Keith Olberman, a man described by many to be in need of intense therapy for his neurosis, is on a nightly rant against anything other than the Democrats party line. As part of a group of letter writers that set out to overwhelm MSNBC's email during the GOP convention, I found solace that both Olberman and Mathews were removed from reporting. It was just as well, because they were unable to report. Olberman in his obsession, had derided the GOP for paying tribute to the 9-11 victims, and 'apologised' to viewers for airing it.

Associated Press writer Charles Babington offered this tough political reporting on the Obama campaign last May, "Presidential campaigns have destroyed many bright and capable politicians. But there's ample evidence that Obama is something special, a man who makes difficult tasks look easy, who seems to touch millions of diverse people with a message of hope that somehow doesn't sound Pollyannish."

When John McCain visited Iraq in March to check on how his ultimately victorious surge strategy was working, he got all of 10 seconds of coverage on the CBS Evening News, and two minutes on the ABC evening news broadcast. But when Obama went to the Middle East in July for the first time ever, the anchors from each of the three major networks went along with him, and gave their broadcasts from overseas with the Obama campaign. MRC's monthly newsletter The Watchdog accurately summarized this coverage with the headline, "Liberal Media Are Nearly Worshipping Obama."

Mark Phillips of CBS News reported on Obama's Berlin speech during that trip:

"There is a bit of a morning-after feeling here in Berlin after what they're calling the 'Obama show.' But if the intent of this trip was to raise Barack Obama's foreign profile, it could hardly have been raised any higher…. The stage could not have been bigger. The 200,000-plus crowd confirmed his rock star status, and his more cooperative sounding rhetoric was what the crowd wanted to hear."

Phillips did not mention that the crowd and the rock star status may have had something to do with the actual rock concert and free beer offered before Obama spoke.

Yet, when McCain later went on an out of country trip, Robin Roberts of ABC News reported, "Why is Senator McCain abroad when Americans are focused on the economy here at home and losing jobs, more and more jobs."

We are no longer dealing with media bias here. It has gone well beyond that, to outright partisanship and political activism. The so-called mainstream media, ABC, CBS, NBC, Time, Newsweek, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and others, are no longer journalistic enterprises. They are political activist groups posing as journalistic enterprises. The American people consequently no longer enjoy the benefits of a free and independent press. They suffer with a party-controlled press.

The one area the Democrats have failed is talk radio. They tried to offer an alternative with their 'Air-America'. Like MSNBC, nobody listened and they failed. Frustrated by this, and not satisfied by controlling all other forms of the media, they have decided to impose the "Fairness Doctrine". Of course it will only be imposed on talk radio. No mention to impose it on print or televised news outlets.

The Democrats thuggish attempts to stifle any dissent will wake the American public's curiosity. The public will see the left's unAmerican agenda and methods of censorship.

The internet will be a battlefield over the next four years. Many people of reason will set about to repay the left in kind for it's efforts. We will play up any missteps of the left or any attempts to mirror the European/Soviet model of governance.

Globalization Leading To One World Government

2008-11-10T13:40:00.000-08:00

In an earlier article, Obama's 'Global Poverty Act' was discussed. Concern was expressed at the prospect of ceding American sovereignty to the United Nations. The specter of the world approaching a new global alignment is welcome by some and derided by others.

Many believe the process started in the 80's with what President Bush Sr, called a new world order. For the most part it can be traced back to the creation of the United Nations itself. It accelerated under the UN's Millennium Project. Senator Obama laid a major building block with his 'Global Poverty Act'. The purpose of this legislation was to support the Millennium Project.

Obama is set to be a major player on the world stage as a globalization promoter. He is set to 'rule' from day one with use of executive orders. He was not just elected on November 4th. He was anointed long ago.

Obama is calling for a 'draft' for national service. His website previously called service a 'requirement'. Upon protest from bloggers, the language was softened. Still expected but reworded. As part of his stealth effort for ambiguous change, his website has removed his agenda.

The Millennium Project was hailed around the world for it's lofty goals by globalist. Here in the states it was barley mentioned in our media. The UN. is not as popular here as it is elsewhere, and the media was providing cover to the globalists stealth agenda. The media throughout this recent election played down any mention of values. They knew it was not Obama's strong suit.

Instead they focused their energy on creating the perception that Obama's election was inevitable. They sought to destroy anyone speaking out against him. Subtly supported his campaign's misdeeds of illegal fundraising, and illegal voter registration drives.

A person can not hold Obama's world view and defend American sovereignty. He has little intention of doing so. His administration will implement policies that are choreographed with other nations to promote globalization. The ultimate goal will be the culmination of one world government.

We heard this most recently from avowed globalist British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. In his annual speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, Brown -- who has spearheaded calls for the reform of international financial institutions -- will say Britain, the United States and Europe are key to forging a new world order.

"The alliance between Britain and the U.S. -- and more broadly between Europe and the U.S. -- can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order," an excerpt from the speech says.

Brown and other leaders meet in Washington next weekend to discuss longer term solutions for dealing with economic issues following a series of coordinated moves on interest rates and to recapitalize banks in the wake of the financial crisis.

"Uniquely in this global age, it is now in our power to come together so that 2008 is remembered not just for the failure of a financial crash that engulfed the world but for the resilience and optimism with which we faced the storm, endured it and prevailed," Brown will say in his speech on Monday evening.

"...And if we learn from our experience of turning unity of purpose into unity of action, we can together seize this moment of change in our world to create a truly global society."

Brown will set out five great challenges the world faces.

These are: terrorism and extremism and the need to reassert faith in democracy; the global economy; climate change; conflict and mechanisms for rebuilding states after conflict; and meeting goals on tackling poverty and disease.

Brown will also identify five stages for tackling the economy, starting with recapitalizing banks so they can resume lending to families and businesses, and better international co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policy.

He also wants immediate action to stop the spread of the financial crisis to middle-income countries, with a new facility for the International Monetary Fund, and agreement on a global trade deal, as well as reform of the global financial system.

"My message is that we must be: internationalist not protectionist; interventionist not neutral; progressive not reactive; and forward looking not frozen by events. We can seize the moment and in doing so build a truly global society."

Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Gordon Brown called on governments around the world to coordinate tax and spending policies to shore up a slowing world economy.
Next year, Britain's economy may shrink 1.3 percent, the most in the Group of Seven nations, according to the International Monetary Fund. The Washington-based lender expects a contraction of 0.7 percent in the U.S., 0.5 percent in the nations sharing the euro and 0.2 percent in Japan.

There are already signs that other countries are ready to heed Brown's call. China, the world's fourth-largest economy, announced a 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) stimulus plan yesterday, saying the funds will be used by the end of 2010 as part of a ``proactive fiscal policy.''

A similar message came yesterday from Sao Paulo, where finance ministers from the Group of 20 nations met over the weekend to lay the groundwork for the heads-of-state summit in Washington. Ministers agreed to act ``urgently'' to bolster growth as the world's leading industrialized economies battle recession, according to the G-20 statement.

Efforts Overseas

Japanese lawmakers approved a 1.8 trillion-yen supplementary budget as part of a stimulus package on Oct. 16, and Prime Minister Taro Aso on Oct. 30 promised to pump an additional 5 trillion yen into the economy. German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Nov. 5 announced a 50 billion-euro ($65 billion) stimulus package to spur economic growth.

In the U.S., Democrat lawmakers are considering passing two stimulus measures, one during a so-called lame duck session this month and another after President-elect Barack Obama and the larger Democratic majority in Congress take office in January.

``Further fiscal stimulus designed to bridge the gap until monetary policy becomes fully effective can be expected'' around the world, said Holger Schmieding, chief European economist at Bank of America Corp. in London.

In Britain, Brown and Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling will set out tax and spending plans this month or next. Brown has said he's ready to increase borrowing to ward off recession and that he will bring forward some spending.

"We must use the power of multilateralism to establish a global consensus on a new, decisive and systemic approach to strengthening the global economy,"

Opposition to these goals will be silenced and not tolerated. Censorship is on the rise around the world. Everywhere censorship is slowly being introduced in an effort to keep it unnoticed. This is similar to cooking a frog. Put him in the pot and raise the temperature slowly. He will be 'content' and does not notice the increasing temperature. If you drop the frog into an already boiling pot, he will jump out.

In Britain, security agencies and police would be given unprecedented and legally binding powers to ban the media from reporting matters of national security, under proposals being discussed in Whitehall.

The Intelligence and Security Committee, the parliamentary watchdog of the intelligence and security agencies which has a cross-party membership from both Houses, wants to press ministers to introduce legislation that would prevent news outlets from reporting stories deemed by the Government to be against the interests of national security.

The committee also wants to censor reporting of police operations that are deemed to have implications for national security. The ISC is to recommend in its next report, out at the end of the year, that a commission be set up to look into its plans, according to senior Whitehall sources.

The ISC holds huge clout within Whitehall. It receives secret briefings from MI5, MI6and GCHQ and is highly influential in forming government policy. Kim Howells, a respected former Foreign Office minister, was recently appointed its chairman. Under the existing voluntary code of conduct, known as the DA-Notice system, the Government can request that the media does not report a story. However, the committee's members are particularly worried about leaks, which, they believe, could derail investigations and the reporting of which needs to be banned by legislation.

Civil liberties groups say these restrictions would be "very dangerous" and "damaging for public accountability". They also point out that censoring journalists when the leaks come from officials is unjustified.

Australia is poised to join N. Korea, Iran, and China in its' imposition of censoring the internet. We have seen other forms recently right here in the US. Through the media, commentary or questions that dared to challenge Obama were downplayed or ignored. Ask 'Joe the plumber'. Efforts were made to destroy that man.

John McCain dared to name a lady to the Republican ticket who was not in favor of abortion as a means of convenience. Sarah Palin was maligned by the press and left wing bloggers with some of the most scurrilous accusations. Not only was she anti-abortion, but she dared raise the issue of Obama's program and past associations. Palin was sliced and diced for her positions, while Obama was given a pass by the globalist'.

The efforts to point out the Obama shortcomings are met with demonization. This is to stop anything from impeding globalization and the ensuing one world government. The global playing field will be made equal and everyone will be goose stepping to the same song. We can see this slow process unfolding before our eyes. Even when the globalist' in our midst implore that we do not believe our lying eyes. It is there.

'Civilian Security Force' Participation To Be Required

2008-11-08T11:21:00.000-08:00

While voters blindly threw 52% of their support behind Obama; plans went largely unnoticed for the creation of a civilian security force reminescent of the Hitler Youth Corp. Service will be compulsory from middle school through college.

Ideas abound of neighbor spying on neighbor, and child on parent. Voters enamored with the Obama cult of personality, gravitated to his rhetoric of 'hope and change'. Most people lazilly received their voter information by an overtly biased press in filtered, 30 second sound bites. Very few took the time to research either candidate on their own.

The official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website's wording was softened.

Originally, under the tab "America Serves" Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.

The language of requiring students to serve and the creation of a "Classroom Corps" sparked a surge of criticism from bloggers for bringing back memories of the much-publicized video of marching Obama youth and Obama's "civilian national security force," which the candidate said in July would be just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.

Gateway Pundit called the Obama's plan the "creation of his Marxist youth corps," and DBKP commented, "'Choosing' to serve should be approved by parents – not required by the government. No amount of good intentions can sugar-coat words like 'mandatory,' 'compulsory' or 'required.'"

Following the furor raised by bloggers, however, the website's wording was changed.

The word "require" was stricken from the website yesterday, replaced with the phrase "setting a goal" and now also listing tax credits toward college tuition.

The new wording is consistent with Obama's campaign website, which also described the college tuition tax credit and detailed "enabling" Americans to serve, rather than "requiring" them to serve.

Elsewhere on the Change.gov site, however, it still describes the plan under the heading, "Require 100 hours of service in college."

J.D. Tuccille of the Civil Liberties Examiner also points out, "Most public schools depend on federal dollars. As Obama elaborated in a speech last December, 'At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities'

"So, it won't be the nasty federal government forcing your kids to donate their time to government-approved service, it'll be the local schools – but that requirement will be among the strings attached to federal money," Tuccille writes.

Obama's selection of an advocate for mandatory civil service, Rahm Emanuel, as his chief of staff has further worried bloggers that Obama's plans may be more "requirement" than "encouragement."

In his book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," Emanuel writes: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."

Tuccille comments, "Emanuel and co-author Bruce Reed insist 'this is not a draft,' but go on to write of young men and women, 'the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service.' They also warn, 'Some Republicans will squeal about individual freedom,' ruling out any likelihood that they would let people opt out of universal citizen service."

Obama has also yet to clarify what he meant during his July "Call to Service" speech in Colorado Springs, in which he insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force."

"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.

His call generated intense Internet discussions.

The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"

Michael Kinsley also commented generally on plans for enlisting America's youth in voluntary versus required volunteerism on Time's website: "Problem number one with grand schemes for universal voluntary public service is that they can't be both universal and voluntary. If everybody has to do it, then it's not voluntary, is it? And if it's truly up to the individual, then it won't be universal."

Recruiting Suicide Bombers To Attack U.S.

2008-11-07T16:56:00.000-08:00

Joe Biden warned us a few weeks ago that Obama will be tested. His demonstrated naivety has been noted and exploited by those he sought to open Presidential level dialogue with. Stay alert in public venues. The article excerpt follows with a link to the full article.

Iranian group recruits young 'martyrs' to fight 'global arrogance'

A terrorist group is distributing flyers in Iran calling for young volunteers to join the Lebanese Hezbollah to carry out suicide operations against the "Global Arrogance" – also known as the United States.

The leaflets promise young recruits that they will join "fighters in the worldwide front against the Global Arrogance," the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, reported. The term is used by some Iranian officials in reference to the U.S.

On Nov. 1, Tabnak, an Iranian news website identified with Expediency Discernment Council Secretary and former Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Mohsen Rezai, announced a group has been actively recruiting members in Tehran and large Iranian provinces for Lebanon's Hezbollah. The flyers are labeled "Registration for Membership in the Lebanese Hezbollah " and "Registration for Martyrdom Operations." Each form requires addresses and additional information so recruits may be contacted for the cause.

Tabnak reports a Tehran phone number and address is located on the registration forms. However, the website reported "validity [of the address] could not be confirmed." Martyrdom registration forms reportedly include the name of an organization known to be active in the region, though Tabnak does not reveal its name.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79982

Will The US. Supreme Court Once Again Decide Our Presidency?

2008-11-07T16:26:00.000-08:00

The extent to which the mainstream media have done all they can to protect the brand Obama is amazing. Had this been George Bush, it would have been front page in all the newspapers and the lead story on the nightly news until resolved. How many readers are aware this has been going on behind the scenes?

Apparently the Obama team has been thrown a wrench that they thought they had put behind them. A solid date has finally been issued by the US. Supreme Court for Obama to prove his Birth Certificate. At the bottom I am including a video link that has his paternal grandmother and family members in Kenya stating that Barack Obama was in fact born in Kenya and the birth certificate on file in Hawaii is a filed copy merely documenting his Kenyan birth. The Governor of Hawaii had the Hawaii copy sealed just two weeks ago when access was requested.

If Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, why not release it and put this to rest? Last month his legal team responded to the suit in the Federal Court in Philadelphia that the party bringing suit did not have 'standing' before the court, and asked for dismissal. He won the 'standing' issue but failed to end the speculation. The case is now quietly before the US Supreme Court and he has been ordered to provide proof by December 1, 2008. The Electoral College meets in December for the official election of our President.

The United States could be headed for a Constitutional crisis not provided for in the constitution. Meaning there is no precedent or constitutional instruct on how to proceed if Obama is found ineligible to serve.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter has rejected an emergency appeal for the court to halt the tabulation of the 2008 presidential election results until Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama documents his eligibility to run for the office, according to an attorney who brought the action that challenges the Illinois senator's standing in the race.

However, the issue isn't going away, at least for now, since Souter set a schedule for a response from Obama to the challenge from attorney Philip J. Berg.

Berg brought his claims to the Supreme Court after a federal judge dismissed his lawsuit alleging Obama is ineligible to be president because he possibly was born in Kenya.

The judge concluded Berg lacks standing to bring the action.

In a statement today, Berg said he was told by a clerk for Souter that his application for an injunction to stay the election was denied. But he also said the defendants "are required to respond to the Writ of Certiorari" by Dec. 1.

The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor's office in Hawaii said he had a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin. Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii.

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born.

But a video posted on YouTube features Obama's Kenyan grandmother Sarah claiming to have witnessed Obama's birth in Kenya. <<<< VIDEO LINK HERE. Just click on word Kenya. There are several other related videos in the right hand side-bar of Youtube.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

OBAMA: The Political Stars Aligned

2008-11-05T13:28:00.000-08:00

The political stars aligned. Obama was handed an overwhelming victory in the Electoral College.
The alignment began at the Democrats convention..........in 2004. The Democrats Illinois Senatorial candidate gave the Keynote address. A star was born. He was an eloquent speaker. The message was of little importance but the delivery stole the show. The media swooned and in the backs of their collective minds, they decided he was to be anointed.

Senator Obama was elected, having defeated the flat footed Alan Keyes. He came to Washington with a minimal agenda. His main goal was the promotion of the brand Obama. He voted on legislation with an eye on the next step of his political ladder. Driven by political expediency.

The Democratic leadership was not ready for Obama and was busy laying the groundwork for Hillary Clinton. She had been the carpetbagger, junior Senator from New York since 2001. Having won her seat in part, with help of the 'wronged woman' genre.
The Democrats wanted a return to what they felt was a great Presidency.

Obama set out on his presidential quest less than a working year after arriving in the senate. He began networking with state level politicians. He spent mega time in Iowa and worked his connections in neighboring states. He took Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" and applied them to his presidential run. Known as the "father of modern American radicalism," Saul D. Alinsky developed strategies and tactics that take the enormous, unfocused emotional energy of grassroots groups and transform it into effective anti-government and anti-corporate activism. Activist organizations teach his ideas widely taught today as a set of model behaviors, and they use these principles to create an emotional commitment to victory - no matter what.

Grassroots pressure on large organizations is reality, and there is every indication that it will grow. Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work. RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

When the Iowa caucuses were held, he brought participants in that did not live there. He took Hillary's supporters by surprise. Obama became over confident after Iowa and went on to lose in New Hampshire. He learned his lesson. He reminded his supporters of this in the lead up to the general election last week.

Throughout the primaries, the media downplayed or ignored the alarms Clinton sounded in regards to Obama's character, experience and associates. He was their candidate and would not be swayed. The media was not going to report on anything that would tarnish his shine. When he stumbled the media was there, like a mother of a young child that had skinned their knee, off erring overt empathy and changing the subject.

At the very end of the primaries Obama's tactics prevailed. Much to the dismay of the Clintons and their followers.

After Obama had promised to work with the Republican nominee in accepting federal funding, he recognized the benefit of reneging and opted out. This was a smart move. By conversations I have had here in DC, it was the death of McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. No candidate will accept the public financing in the future.

We watched Youtube of Palestinians working phone banks in Gaza on Obama's behalf. We heard about the illegal money flowing into Obama's campaign coffers. When necessary it was refunded. Two brothers from a refugee camp in Gaza claim they never were refunded their $30,000. Then the Obama campaign turned off the feature on their computers that would have rejected questionable contributions. We know many contributions to his campaign were in small denominations and would not be reported.

Obama campaigned globally in July. He set out to garner the good will of other nations. A scenario that actually matters to those on the left. They worried about what 'others' think of them, unless 'others' are Americans. The lefts envy of all things Europe is nauseating. Obama used this opportunity to ease Israeli suspicions. It was not until the eve of the election that word leaked out that he had asked for secrecy from the Palestinians on his promise of a divided Jerusalem in a two state territory.

On Obama's global campaign in Germany, his attempts to take his campaign advisers & media entourage to an military base was thwarted and he cancelled the visit. Image was everything. No photo, no visit.

At the Denver convention the media's unabashed bias was on public display. MSNBC was over the top in their fawning. This was the opposite of what was to follow the next week at the Republican convention. In St. Paul the media was skewing each speaker to the delight of the left. It prompted an email campaign the likes of which the parent company had not experienced. Disgusted, I was active in this endeavor. I will not rest until Olberman is dumped.

Obama is a masterful speaker. He spoke of 'change' and 'hope'. Voters want change. Most do not understand the change that they were voting for. They heard eloquence, without comprehending the message. Oh, but his words were smooth as silk. With an electorate satisfied to glean information in 30 second sound bites that was all that was needed. They were not getting useful, balanced information from a unbiased media.

Obama's big break came around September 15th. At about this time it was announced that the American economy was near collapse. This was welcome by the Obama campaign like manna from heaven. From this point on, there would be little discourse on foreign policy or military matters. No discussion of nuclear disarmament. No discussion of the 25% cut in the military budget. Nothing about NATO expansion.

Obama had a faltering economy to hone in on. The media was more than happy to play along. It did.

Add to this the organization ACORN. Here was a tax sucking, rogue organization, worthy of any descriptive Chicago styled term, one chooses to attach to it. It was supposed to be neutral, to receive our tax dollars. It was many things, but neutral was not one of them. They actively sought to steal the election. Registering phony people or actual people, multiple times.

Obama 'donated' $832,000 to ACORN. The campaign did not report it. Hoping to keep it quiet until after the election. Whe caught, the campaign blamed it on a clerical error. When questioned, the left cynically assured us these sham registrants could not vote. They knew they could vote absentee.

McCain named Sarah Palin as his choice for VP. She had done interviews with the local press in Alaska, but was not prepared for worldwide coverage. She energized the conservatives. She was a woman and did not support abortion.

I believe that was the initial reason the media and the left pounced on her at the start. They shamelessly tried to portray her as Linda Blair in the Exorcist. They could not fathom a woman who did not support 'abortion-on-demand'. She dared to walk her talk.

If anyone brought up Obama's inexperience, character or associates, the media and the left cried 'foul', declaring that only the issue of the economy mattered. Unless it was them assassinating the character and experience of Palin. Palin was fair game, even though Obama was not. The Obama campaign and media hid behind the 'race card' without shame. Many bought into that. I did not.

While campaigning in Toledo, Obama stumbled upon 'Joe the plumber'. Obama explained his intention to "spread the wealth". He had shown his hand. The media and democrats were largely silent on Obama's comments. Instead they set out to destroy 'Joe'. This is an emerging pattern of Obama and his Goon Squad.

In the end, McCain made several tactical errors that contributed to his failed campaign. He fell victim to his own campaign finance reform. The additional money would have allowed him to counter Obama's ad blitz. He could have spoken directly to the American people, contrasting his plan to Obamas'. His comments on the 'fundamentals of the economy' was a major blunder. His speechwriter should have been fired along with his campaign manager. The campaign lacked focus and a steady message. He could have done so much more with the large amount of money needed to compete in presidential politics in 2008. He could have done so much more with a competent campaign staff. He could have done so much more.

We need to take the Obama tactics, which I have only touched on here, and build on them. In the first midterms, the opposition gains back some seats in Congress. This will be no different. We will be ready for 2010 & 2012.

http://washingtonroundup.blogspot.com/

Obama: Terrible Consequences For America

2008-11-02T09:33:00.000-08:00

Taxes
Obama campaigned on giving a tax break for those earning less that $250,000. During Obama’s infomercial he set the number at $200,000.
VP. Candidate Biden set the total at $150,000. The next day ardent Obama supporter and surrogate, Gov. Bill Richardson admitted the amount is $120,000 for an increase.

Obama says his expanded socialism is virtuous. He states that people wanting to keep the money they earn are "selfish". Well call me selfish, but most people go to work to provide for their families and expect to keep it. They pay their taxes and resent being forced to give it to the 40% of people who do not pay taxes. Biden calls paying taxes "patriotic", and this is a view shared by many............in Europe! There is a trend here and it does not favor the American public.

Obama wants to end the pre-tax provision on our 401K’s & IRA’s. This means we will have we will have less take-home-pay on our pay checks. This will drive down any savings incentives for Americans, leaving them vulnerable in retirement or making retirement impossible.

Obama wants to make the corporations pay more taxes. This sounds good to most Americans. Until we look at the consequences of this poor judgement. Corporations do not pay their taxes. People buying their goods & services will.

American’s will pay for it just the same as if this tax increase was placed directly on each of us. We will have to pay it with higher prices for groceries, gas, clothing, utilities, etc. That $1,000 check Obama is promising will not offset these price increases.

When prices rise we have inflation. The Federal Reserve will raise the interest rates to slow the resulting inflation. Companies will lay off workers or leave the country. That will raise our unemployment.

So we will have high inflation. High unemployment. High interest rates.
This is not a recipe for economic recovery. It is a second term for Jimmy Carter.

National Security
The Democrats and Obama want to slash our military budget by 25%. They are not going to apply these savings to the deficit. They are going to spend it on expanded socialist programs.

The scope of his planned defense cuts, combined with his angry tone, is breathtaking. He sounds as if the military is the enemy, not the bad guys it's fighting.

"Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.

"I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending.

"Third, I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal."

On the chopping block: the F-22 Raptor, the V-22 Osprey, the Virginia-class sub, the DDG-1,000 destroyer and the Army's Future Combat System.

Cutting allegedly "unproven" missile defense systems is music to Kim Jong Il's and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ears, let alone all the PLA generals wishing our destruction.

Proposing "deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal" amounts to unilateral disarmament, and it's suicidal given China's and now Russia's aggressive military buildup.

This makes about as much sense as taking all weapons away from your local police department and expecting the bad guys to no longer do bad things.

“It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?” Clinton “red phone” ad, February 2008.

I believe that Obama and the Democrats are either dangerously naive or are relying
on the 'good will' of those who have the stated purpose to annihilate the US and our allies. Do Americans want to wake up and find ourselves ‘nuclear free’, while Russia, China, N. Korea and Iran build up their nuclear arsenals? It is blind naivety or inexperience that leads to his poor judgement. Obama’s judgement does pose a danger to our survival.

Character & Judgement
Many Americans still value character and judgement. Obama lacks the experience that would have resulted in the needed judgement. We only need to take a glimpse of the people Obama has surrounded himself with over the years, and his behavior.

Questionable ‘Friends’
Obama had communist Frank Davis as a mentor during his formative years. Mr. Davis plied Obama with drugs and alcohol, while infusing the communist ideology into Obama.

Obama served on the Woods Fund and Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Obama used these organizations to direct monies to help fund the radical educational ideals of Domestic Terrorist, Bill Ayers. In return, Ayers held a function in his home to launch the first campaign of Obama.

Once in the Illinois State Senate, Obama directed funds to his friend Tony Rezko. Rezko was a slumlord that was given millions of Illinois tax dollars to maintain the slums within Obamas state senate district.

Rezko failed to deliver and most of the buildings fell into such disrepair that the Federal government had to step in and raze the buildings.

Rezko did manage to give over $150,000 to Obama campaigns. For many observers it was simple ‘money laundering’. Qui Pro Quo.

While in the State Senate, Obama voted “present” over 100 times, not wanting to take a position. That is not leadership.

Obama did vote “no” to legislation that would have required medical treatment for children who survived ‘late-term abortions’. Obama felt it would undermine Roe v. Wade.

Obama’s belief in Black Liberation Theology
Obama spent 20+ years sitting in the pews of the racist Trinity Church of Christ. We have all seen Rev. Wright’s racial diatribes on television. This is a church that follows the tenants of ‘Black Liberation Theology’.

Black Liberation Theology, as N. American founder James Cone describes it:
“Either God must do what we want him to do, or we must reject him”, Cone maintains:

”Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. In the black liberation theology taught by Wright, Cone and Hopkins, Jesus Christ is not for all men, but only for the oppressed:

In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors ... Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not” [Cone].

Another professor, actively teaching this theology in Trinity Church of Christ’s outreach program is Dr. Dwight Hopkins. He also has written extensively about this racist theology.

Obama chose to attend this church and only quit this past spring when the media called him out on its teachings. Obama quit for political expediency not a change of heart. Oprah Winfrey used to attend, but quit long ago when it became obvious to her what was the beliefs of this church.

Hillary Clinton speaking on Obama’s personal relationship with Rev. Wright:
“He would not have been my pastor. You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.” — Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, March 25, 2008.

This link will provide more information on ‘Black Liberation Theology. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html

Driver Licenses For Illegals
Obama has stated the he favors giving Drivers Licenses to Illegal Aliens. He knows they can register to vote when getting their license. Obama is willing to cast our country's safety aside for electoral gain. He believes additional voters are worth the risk of American lives. Obama's lack of experience is the only plausible reason that could lead to such fallible judgement.

“I think that it is the right idea,” Obama declared.

Socialism
Winning at any cost is one of Obama’s core beliefs. He does not welcome compromise as demonstrated by his voting record. Or by his campaigns reactions to questions that are not part of his neatly choreographed script.

“Joe the plumber” was in his own yard when Obama came upon Joe during a campaign stop in Toledo, Ohio’s suburbs. Joe commented that he thought Obama’s tax plans would “punish” small businesses with an unfair tax burden. Obama stated his expanded socialism belief that he did not want to punish, but that is better to “spread the wealth”.

Well as we all know the media is in the tank for the Obama campaign and they set out to destroy ‘Joe’ for exposing Obama for what he is: a Socialist. Socialism, as never before seen in America.

Obama does not just want to redistribute our wealth here in America. Being a believer in globalization, Obama wants to even out the global playing field worldwide. Americans will largely bear the economic burden of this redistribution.

Obama has sponsored the ‘Global Poverty Act’. It is in conjunction with the United Nations ‘Millennium Project’. It has the lofty goal of eradicating poverty worldwide by 2015. Many critics have suggested it will require a ‘global tax’ payable to the UN. Many of its supporters will argue it commits no funding and will only cost $1 million to implement. Their wording is laughable. They are careful to talk only about “implementing”, but carefully omit any mention of the needed “funding”.
Here is a link where you can learn more about this legislation setting America on the path to participation in “One World” government. http://www.elliscountypress.com/news/132/ARTICLE/1756/2008-05-05.html

ACORN
After college Obama was brought into the Chicago chapter of ACORN. At ACORN Obama trained the leadership team on ‘tactics’. Later he was brought in as an attorney to help them sue banks. The goal was to force banks to make loans to people who had questionable credit.

Each election cycle ACORN gets called out for their questionable voter registration tactics. 2008 is not the first time they have been in trouble for this. It is the first time we have heard much about it in the media.

ACORN is being investigated in over a dozen states for violating voter registration laws. In Seattle ACORN turned in over 1,800 new registrations. Upon investigation, workers admitted to making up registrations at Seattle’s downtown library. Of the 1,800, only ‘6’ were found to be legitimate.

In Las Vegas, ACORN’s offices were raided by the FBI after they registered the names of the Dallas Cowboys players. In Ohio they registered one guy 72 times. When questioned he said he was just “trying to help”!!

Obama’s campaign donated $832,000 to ACORN’s voter registration drive. Not wanting the media to discover this, the campaign did not include it in their filed report as required by law. When questioned about it, the campaign blamed the omission on a ‘clerical error’.

The terrible consequences of an Obama administration are overwhelming. We will not recognize our country after Obama finishes with it. His brand of ‘change’ is not for the better!! And ‘Hope’ is not a ‘plan’!!

http://washingtonroundup.blogspot.com/

John McCain On National Security

2008-10-30T16:58:00.000-07:00

A Strong Military in a Dangerous World

In a dangerous world, protecting America's national security requires a strong military. Today, America has the most capable, best-trained and best-led military force in the world. But much needs to be done to maintain our military leadership, retain our technological advantage, and ensure that America has a modern, agile military force able to meet the diverse security challenges of the 21st century.

John McCain is committed to ensuring that the men and women of our military remain the best, most capable fighting force on Earth - and that our nation honors its promises to them for their service.

The global war on terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country's vital interests and deter challenges to our security. America confronts a range of serious security challenges: Protecting our homeland in an age of global terrorism and Islamist extremism; working with friends and partners overseas, from Africa to Southeast Asia, to help them combat terrorism and violent insurgencies in their own countries; defending against missile and nuclear attack; maintaining the credibility of our defense commitments to our allies; and waging difficult counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

John McCain understands national security and the threats facing our nation. He recognizes the dangers posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, violent Islamist extremists and their terrorist tactics, and the ever present threat of regional conflict that can spill into broader wars that endanger allies and destabilize areas of the world vital to American security. He knows that to protect our homeland, our interests, and our values - and to keep the peace - America must have the best-manned, best-equipped, and best-supported military in the world.

John McCain has been a tireless advocate of our military and ensuring that our forces are properly postured, funded, and ready to meet the nation's obligations both at home and abroad. He has fought to modernize our forces, to ensure that America maintains and expands its technological edge against any potential adversary, and to see that our forces are capable and ready to undertake the variety of missions necessary to meet national security objectives.

As President, John McCain will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight.

Fighting Against Violent Islamic Extremists and Terrorist Tactics

The attacks on September 11th represented more than a failure of intelligence. The tragedy highlighted a failure of national policy to respond to the development of a global terror network hostile to the American people and our values. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 bombing of the USS COLE indicated a growing global terrorist threat before the attacks on New York and Washington. On the morning of September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden's declaration of war against the United States hit home with unmistakable clarity.

America faces a dedicated, focused, and intelligent foe in the war on terrorism. This enemy will probe to find America's weaknesses and strike against them. The United States cannot afford to be complacent about the threat, naive about terrorist intentions, unrealistic about their capabilities, or ignorant to our national vulnerabilities.

In the aftermath of 9/11 John McCain fought for the creation of an independent 9/11 Commission to identify how to best address the terrorist threat and decrease our domestic vulnerability. He fought for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the creation of the U.S. Northern Command with the specific responsibility of protecting the U.S. homeland.

As President, John McCain will ensure that America has the quality intelligence necessary to uncover plots before they take root, the resources to protect critical infrastructure and our borders against attack, and the capability to respond and recover from a terrorist incident swiftly.

He will ensure that the war against terrorists is fought intelligently, with patience and resolve, using all instruments of national power. Moreover, he will lead this fight with the understanding that to impinge on the rights of our own citizens or restrict the freedoms for which our nation stands would be to give terrorists the victory they seek.

John McCain believes that just as America must be prepared to meet and prevail against any adversary on the field of battle, we must engage and prevail against them on the battleground of ideas. In so doing, we can and must deprive terrorists of the converts they seek and counter their teaching of the doctrine of hatred and despair.

As President, John McCain will take it as his most sacred responsibility to keep America free, safe, and strong - an abiding beacon of freedom and hope to the world.

Effective Missile Defense

John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses. Effective missile defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran that threaten American forces and American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China. Effective missile defenses are also necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary.

John McCain is committed to deploying effective missile defenses to reduce the possibility of strategic blackmail by rogue regimes and to secure our homeland from the very real prospect of missile attack by present or future adversaries. America should never again have to live in the shadow of missile and nuclear attack. As President, John McCain will not trust in the "balance of terror" to protect America, but will work to deploy effective missile defenses to safeguard our people and our homeland.

Increasing the Size of the American Military

The most important weapons in the U.S. arsenal are the men and women of American armed forces. John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security. For too long, we have asked too much of too few - with the result that many service personnel are on their second, third and even fourth tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. There can be no higher defense priority than the proper compensation, training, and equipping of our troops.

Our existing force is overstretched by the combination of military operations in the broader Middle East and the need to maintain our security commitments in Europe and Asia. Recruitment and retention suffer from extended overseas deployments that keep service personnel away from their homes and families for long periods of time.

John McCain believes that the answer to these challenges is not to roll back our overseas commitments. The size and composition of our armed forces must be matched to our nation's defense requirements. As requirements expand in the global war on terrorism so must our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard be reconfigured to meet these new challenges. John McCain thinks it is especially important to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to defend against the threats we face today.

John McCain knows that the most difficult and solemn decision a president must make is sending young Americans into harm's way. Having experienced firsthand the brutality of war, as president, John McCain would never make the decision to use force lightly, only when the cause is just, and our nation's values and interests absolutely demand it.

Modernizing the Armed Services

Modernizing American armed forces involves procuring advanced weapons systems that will help rapidly and decisively defeat any adversary and protect American lives. It also requires addressing force protection needs to make sure that America's combat personnel have the best safety and survivability equipment available.

Modernizing the armed forces also means adapting our doctrine, training, and tactics for the kind of conflicts we are most likely to face. Today, American forces are engaged in dangerous operations throughout the world. From Iraq and Afghanistan to Somalia and the Philippines, American forces are fighting the battles of the 21st century against terrorists and insurgents. These asymmetric conflicts require a very different force structure than the one we used to fight and win the Cold War.

The missions of the 21st century will not center on traditional territorial defense or mass armor engagements. Instead, the men and women of the U.S. armed forces will be engaged in, among other things, counter insurgency, counter terrorism, missile defense, counter proliferation and information warfare. This calls not just for a larger and more capable military, but for a new mix of military forces, including civil affairs, special operations, and highly mobile forces capable of fighting and prevailing in the conflicts America faces.

Smarter Defense Spending

John McCain has worked aggressively to reform the defense budgeting process to ensure that America enjoys the best military at the best cost. This includes reforming defense procurement to ensure the faithful and efficient expenditure of taxpayer dollars that are made available for defense acquisition. Too often, parochial interests - rather than the national interest - have guided our spending decisions. John McCain supports significant reform in our defense acquisition process to ensure that dollars spent actually contribute to U.S. security.

John McCain also feels strongly that our nation's military spending, except in time of genuine emergency, must be funded by the regular appropriations process, not by "emergency" supplementals that allow defense to be funded outside the normal budget cycle. This process gives Congressional committees less ability to closely scrutinize defense budget requests to ensure military funding is being budgeted wisely. It makes possible Congressional pork-barrel spending that diverts scarce defense resources to parochial home-state interests. And it allows the administration to add spending above that set by budget caps, bloating the federal deficit. Budgeting annually through emergency supplemental appropriation bills encourages pork barrel spending. The American taxpayer has a right to expect us to get the most out of each and every defense dollar, especially at a time when those dollars are so critical. Throughout his career, John McCain has fought pork-barrel defense spending that diverts scarce defense resources to parochial, home-state projects rather than addressing the needs of service personnel. He believes that unauthorized earmarks drain our precious defense resources and adversely affect our national security. John McCain will continue to fight pork-barrel spending to ensure that military funds are spent where they are needed most - in support of our military personnel and our national defense.

Taking Care of Our Military Personnel and their Families

Our military personnel and their families deserve the nation's unfailing gratitude, respect, and support. As a former naval officer with a distinguished record of military service, John McCain understands the profound sacrifices made by our men and women who serve in the uniform of our country and their families.

He believes one of America's most solemn obligations is to treat our military personnel with the same sense of devotion and duty as they demonstrate in rendering their service to the nation. John McCain has fought for improved military pay and benefits, and an improved quality of life for military families.

America's deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan rely heavily on Reserve and National Guard forces. John McCain has worked hard to ensure that benefits for deployed Reservists and National Guardsmen are brought in line with our active-duty military forces.

As president, he will make sure that just as we are always proud of our military personnel for what they do for the country, the country can be proud of what we do for them.

American Repulsion With Socialism

2008-10-30T16:16:00.000-07:00

I read a column in which the writer rejoiced because the word, "socialism," is no longer a scary bogeyman to Americans. When I Googled the writer and learned he was only 31 and graduated from Columbia, it wasn't hard to figure out how he got it all wrong.

Since he had clearly been taught our "revised" history -- the one that glosses over the 100,000,000-grave killing fields of the communists and makes high drama out of the "sufferings" of the Hollywood blacklisted and the McCarthy hearings -- he didn't have a clue about what actually happened. This Ivy-League indoctrinated writer had reached the false conclusion that Americans used to be scared down to their skives of the big bad commies, but weren't anymore.

Isn't it hard to believe that reasonably intelligent parents actually pay big bucks for those fancy degrees in ignorance.

Americans aren't scared of socialism. They find it viscerally disgusting.

One must never mistake disgusted for fear. The first is based upon reason, the latter upon emotion.

And the reasons for loathing socialism are as clear as the nose on anyone's face.

No fully-grown human being with a single ounce of self-respect ever wants to be taken care of by others. No person with dignity will tolerate being told what to do, what to think, how to work or how to be an "acceptable" person. No free man or woman will tolerate the loss of liberty in exchange for material comfort.

Many generations of Americans vehemently rejected these notions over and over again, not out of fear, but out of the kind of visceral loathing that makes a normal person wretch, gag and grab for his religion and his guns.

The Lure of the Nanny State

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C. S. Lewis

A great many Americans -- perhaps even a majority -- seem poised to hand over vast amounts of their hard-earned money and their hard-won liberties to the promised "collective redemption" being offered by Barack Obama and his socialist band of "progressives" in Congress. With the votes of nanny-state supporters from all classes among us, their utopian dreams will be put to the test on our own ground and the reach of our federal government will be expanded drastically according to their plans.

But how does this really play out?

Always and everywhere it is tried.

The Socialist's Lure

One of the simplest realities of life is that the person who pays the bill is the one who makes the decisions. When that person is you, you decide. When the payer is a state collective, the collective decides. And you obey.

This ain't rocket science. The freedom to decide is the reason all children finally leave the security of the nest and jump to the ground. It's innate. This will to be free. To decide for oneself.

Consider only these 3 areas of Obama's collective plan for the redemption of American society:

Obama wants to use a lot of taxpayer money to offer education to children from birth through college. Free to mommies and daddies. On the taxpayer dollar, rather than on the parents'.

The socialist lure: Give the state your children and the state will relieve you of the burden of educating them and teaching them values and knowledge. Parents, you're off the hook.

The result: The state then makes all the decisions about what your children will be taught, how they will be brought up, what knowledge is important and what is not. Similar to what we witnessed last week when the lefts agenda overrode parental authority. One first grade class was taken to their lesbian teachers wedding, while another school celebrated "Gay Coming Out Day" for grades K-8. Without parental consent or counsel.

Obama wants to bring the federal government's involvement into healthcare to an unprecedented level. We remember the Clinton's attempt at this. Even with control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, they failed. It did pave the way for the rise of the Republicans and the 'Contract with America'.

The socialist lure: Give the state your money and the power to enforce healthcare for all, and the collective state will relieve you of your responsibility to provide this service for yourselves and your children.

The result: The state makes healthcare decisions. Healthcare is then rationed according to need, as decided by the state. Elderly or infirmed need not apply.

Obama wants to enshrine positive rights to all citizens that include a guaranteed "living wage" to all regardless of individual work. He expects the productive members of society to take up the slack for the less productive.

The socialist lure: No citizen will be without the means to live a fairly equitable life regardless of individual delinquency or extra effort.

The result: The poor and unfortunate become wards of the state and vastly increase in number. Work incentives plummet, relative to the decrease in reward.

Obama wants our politics to be nice, not mean or divisive. He wants unity. He wants us all to get along.

Another socialist lure: Peace. Harmony. Goodwill to all. No good guys and bad guys. All will be nice and we will sing Kumbayah in perfect harmony all over the world. This goes to a globalist view. Coupled with a desire of one world government.

The result: Anyone who dissents, who finds error, who sees things differently will be silenced. This is the only way collectives ever enforce their ideas of "unity."
We received a prelude to this concept when "Joe the plumber" dared to ask Obama a question. The media minions set about ignoring Obama's response of a 'redistribution of wealth', and trying to destroy Joe. This man had exercised his first amendment rights and paid a hefty price. Socialism views the 'Bill Of Rights' to be overrated when applied to them.
Progress? In the memorable words of C. S. Lewis:

"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."

Freedom and individual responsibility are inseparable.

The choice we are facing in this election is simple. We have freedom only when we accept personal responsibility for ourselves and our children. If we want to divest ourselves from the responsibility to provide for ourselves, then we also forfeit our freedom to make our own decisions.

Great leaders have appeared from time to time to warn free people of the innate deceptiveness of the socialists' lures. Ronald Reagan saw the evil as clear as day. Reagan's "ten scariest words in the English language":

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

Winston Churchill expounded further on leftist ideology:

"Let them quit these gospels of envy, hate and malice. Let them eliminate them from their politics and programs. Let them abandon the utter fallacy, the grotesque, erroneous fatal blunder of believing that by limiting the enterprise of man, by riveting the shackles of a false equality...they will increase the well-being of the world."

John McCain is a leader in the same mold as Reagan and Churchill when it comes to seeing the innate evil within the Marxist lure and its deceptive threat to real peace and any prosperity worth having. But of these three -- Reagan, Churchill and McCain -- McCain is the only one who has seen firsthand, from the inside, how it is that collective regimes may appear fair and just and unified.

McCain learned the hard way that socialist fairness is a carefully choreographed illusion, that socialist justice is a capricious commodity doled out on a whim by dictators with hard-core boots and clubs. His time in the Hanoi Hilton left a crippling impression on McCain.

Unity? Unity is obtained through coercive means and by taking children very early into indoctrination as model, happy future workers for the collective "good."

So, Obama got his ideas by palling around with radical communist revolutionaries of the 60s. Obama chose these radicals as mentors and friends. Obama's own parents were from the same mold as well. Obama's communist mentor was Frank Davis. As a young boy and teenager, Obama spent a lot of his formative years under the tulledge of Davis. This was where Obama was introduced to marijuana and cocaine. Obama wrote of this in his autobiography.

John McCain spent a good deal of his adult life with radical socialists too. Five and a half years to be precise. Only McCain got his education on the merits of communism from inside one of their "utopian" cells under force.

Hillary Clintons Words Haunt Obama Campaign

2008-10-29T18:49:00.000-07:00

I read this article revisiting the primary campaign battle between Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama. Hillary's words ring as true today as they did back then.

Like long-lost companions, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama kissed, embraced, and waved to an adoring throng of 40,000 supporters during their joint appearance Oct. 20 in Orlando.

Attacking al-Qaida in Pakistan

“And this campaign, just like every other thing that happens in the United States, is looked at and followed with very great interest. And, you know, Pakistan is on a knife's edge. It is easily, unfortunately, a target for the jihadists. And, therefore, you've got to be very careful about what it is you say with respect to Pakistan.” — Democratic Primary debate, Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 19, 2007.

“And on a number of other issues, I just believe that, you know, as Senator Obama said, yes, last summer he basically threatened to bomb Pakistan, which I don't think was a particularly wise position to take.” — Democratic Primary debate, Cleveland, Ohio, Feb. 26, 2008.

Campaign Tactics

“Stagnant in the polls and struggling to revive his once-buoyant campaign, Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope and embarked on a journey in search of a campaign issue to use against Senator Clinton.” — Clinton campaign e-mail, Oct. 22, 2007.

“Shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you.” — Campaign rally, Cincinnati, Ohio, Feb. 23, 2008.

Driver’s Licenses for Illegals

“I do not think that it is either appropriate to give a driver's license to someone who's here undocumented, putting them frankly at risk, because that is clear evidence that they are not here legally.” — Democratic primary debate, Los Angeles, Calif., Jan. 31, 2008.

Flip-Flopping

“You know, Senator Obama, as The Associated Press described it, could have a pretty good debate with himself, because four years ago he was for single-payer healthcare. Then he moved toward a rejection of that, a more incremental approach. Then he was for universal healthcare; then he proposed a healthcare plan that doesn't cover everybody.” — Democratic primary debate, Manchester, N.H., Jan. 5, 2008

“Well, you've changed positions within three years on, you know, a range of issues that you put forth when you ran for the Senate and now you have changed. You know, you said you would vote against the Patriot Act; you came to the Senate, you voted for it. You said that you would vote against funding for the Iraq war; you came to the Senate and you voted for $300 billion of it. — Democratic primary debate, Manchester, N.H., Jan. 5, 2008.

Guns and Religion

“I don't believe that my grandfather or my father, or the many people whom I have had the privilege of knowing and meeting across Pennsylvania over many years, cling to religion when Washington is not listening to them. I think that is a fundamental, sort of, misunderstanding of the role of religion and faith in times that are good and times that are bad.” — Democratic primary debate, Philadelphia, Pa., April 16, 2008.

“And I similarly don't think that people cling to their traditions, like hunting and guns, either when they are frustrated with the government. I just don't believe that's how people live their lives. Now, that doesn't mean that people are not frustrated with the government. We have every reason to be frustrated, particularly with this administration. But I can see why people would be taken aback and offended by the remarks. — Democratic primary debate, Philadelphia, Pa., April 16, 2008.

Diplomacy Sans Preconditions

“I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don’t want to make a situation even worse.” — Democratic primary debate, Charleston S.C., July 23, 2007.

“I thought that was irresponsible and, frankly, naive.” — Quad City Times, Iowa, July 24, 2007.

“So I think that, when you've got that big an agenda facing you, you should not telegraph to our adversaries that you're willing to meet with them without preconditions during the first year in office.” — Democratic primary debate, Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 19, 2007.

“And I disagree with his continuing to say that he would meet with some of the worst dictators in the world without preconditions and without the real, you know, understanding of what we would get from it.” — Democratic Primary debate, Cleveland, Ohio, Feb. 26, 2008.

“I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad, because even again today he made light of 9/11 and said he's not even sure it happened and that people actually died. He's not someone who would have an opportunity to meet with me in the White House.” — Democratic primary debate, Philadelphia, Pa., April 16, 2008.

Louis Farrakhan

“It is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to. And I think that it wasn't only the specific remarks, but some of the relationships with Reverend Farrakhan, with giving the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas to put a message in. You know, these are problems, and they raise questions in people's minds.” — Democratic primary debate, Philadelphia, Pa., April 16, 2008.

National Security

“It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?” Clinton “red phone” ad, February 2008.

Obama’s Nuclear Stance

“Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don’t believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse.” — Washington Post, Aug. 3, 2007.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright

“He would not have been my pastor. You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.” — Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, March 25, 2008.

“But I have to say that, you know, for Pastor Wright to have given his first sermon after 9/11 and to have blamed the United States for the attack, which happened in my city of New York, would have been intolerable for me. And therefore I would have not been able to stay in the church, and maybe it's, you know, just, again, a personal reflection that regardless of whatever good is going on — and I have no reason to doubt that a lot of good things were happening in that church — you get to choose your pastor. You don't choose your family, but you get to choose your pastor. And when asked a direct question, I said I would not have stayed in the church.” — Democratic primary debate, Philadelphia, Pa., April 16, 2008.

Obama’s Rhetoric

“Words are not action and as beautifully presented and as passionately felt as they are, they are not action. What we’ve got to do is translate talk into action, and feeling into reality. I have a long record of doing that.” — Democratic primary debate, Manchester, N.H., Jan. 5, 2008.

“So, I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered.” — Democratic primary debate, Manchester, N.H., Jan. 5, 2008.

“Now, I could stand up here and say, ‘Let’s just get everybody together. Let’s get unified. The sky will open. The light will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.” — Campaign rally, Providence, R.I., Feb. 25, 2008.

Obama and Special Interests

“When it comes to lobbyists, you know, Senator Obama's chair in New Hampshire is a lobbyist. He lobbies for the drug companies. So I think it's important that all of us be held to the same standards, that we're all held accountable.” — Democratic primary debate, Manchester, N.H., Jan. 5, 2008.

“You know, the energy bill that passed in 2005 was larded with all kinds of special interest breaks, giveaways to the oil companies. Senator Obama voted for it. I did not because I knew that it was going to be an absolute nightmare.” — Democratic primary debate, Manchester, N.H., Jan. 5, 2008.

Obama and William Ayers

“I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position. And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died.” — Democratic primary debate, Philadelphia, Pa., April 16, 2008.

Obama & The Democrats Plan To Slash Our Military And Raise Taxes

2008-10-27T19:15:00.001-07:00

Rep. Barney Frank D-MA, has unwittingly given America a preview of what Washington will set out to do if the Democrats gain unfettered control of Congress, the White House and eventually the Supreme Court.

There is an intention to decimate our military with a 25% budget cut. This, while we are fighting in two wars and the world grows more dangerous by the day. The Democrats want to return our military to its' Carter era capabilities. We all remember when the military did not have the ability to fly 16 helicopters into Iran and rescue our hostages.

Obama speaking before the Iowa caucus to a left-wing pacifist group that seeks to reallocate defense dollars to welfare programs. The lobbying group, Caucus for Priorities, was so impressed by Obama's anti-military offering that it steered its 10,000 devotees his way.

In a 132-word videotaped pledge (still viewable on YouTube), Obama agreed to hollow out the U.S. military by slashing both conventional and nuclear weapons.

The scope of his planned defense cuts, combined with his angry tone, is breathtaking. He sounds as if the military is the enemy, not the bad guys it's fighting.

"Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.

"I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending.

"Third, I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal."

His plan, needless to say, is frighteningly irresponsible given the world threats.

Caucus for Priorities aims to redirect 15% of the Pentagon's discretionary budget away from "obsolete Cold War weapons towards education, health care, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger and deficit-reduction."

On the chopping block: the F-22 Raptor, the V-22 Osprey, the Virginia-class sub, the DDG-1,000 destroyer and the Army's Future Combat System.

Cutting allegedly "unproven" missile defense systems is music to Kim Jong Il's and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ears, let alone all the PLA generals wishing our destruction.

Yet Obama wants to kill a program that's yielding success after success, with both sea- and land-based systems. The military just this week intercepted a ballistic missile near Hawaii in a sea-based missile defense test.

Proposing "deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal" amounts to unilateral disarmament, and it's suicidal given China's and now Russia's aggressive military buildup.

Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea threaten nuclear madness, and Osama bin Laden dreams of unleashing a nuclear 9/11 on America.

In contrast, John McCain has vowed: "We must continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses and superior conventional forces that are capable of defending the United States and our allies."

We've been down this road before. President Clinton pursued a denuclearization program, including his 1995 pledge to sign a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and it led to him kicking open our nuclear labs to the Chinese, who proceeded to steal our warhead secrets and strengthen their own arsenal.

Like the Ben & Jerry's crowd that supports him, Obama believes "real" national security is "humanitarian foreign aid" — essentially using our troops as international meals-on-wheels in Africa.

We've been down that road before, too, in Somalia and elsewhere. Thanks, but we don't need a third Clinton, or a second Carter, term.

Obama clearly stated:

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.
I will not weaponize space
I will slow development of future combat systems
I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons and to seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons

Things that need to be looked at closely are:

-Slowing the development of future combat systems would weaken America's
conventional military preparedness.
-Not developing new nuclear weapons and placing deep cuts in America's nuclear
arsenal would leave America left with an increasingly obsolete nuclear capability
and will have little to no nuclear option in case of a threat to our survival.
-If America's ICBMs are off "hair trigger alert," then any response to a nuclear
attack may come too late to do any good at all. This at a time when nations such as
-Iran and/or North Korea have been working to arm themselves with nuclear weapons.
-The cancellation of America's missile defense program or not weaponizing space
would lead to across-the-board unilateral disarmament. This makes about as much
sense as taking all weapons away from your local police department and expecting
the bad guys to no longer do bad things.

I believe that Obama and the Democrats are either dangerously naive or are relying
on the 'good will' of those who have the stated purpose to annihilate the US and our allies. Whether it is blind naivety or inexperience that leads to their poor judgement. They pose a danger to our survival.

The democrats overt desire to expand socialism in the US. is another example of questionable judgement.

We have all learned of their plan to provide 95% of Americans an additional tax refund. They are careful in their parsing of words. This is not a reduction in our income tax rate. It is an additional refund that can be taken away at any time. Another folly in this logic is that approximately 40% of Americans do not pay income tax. We are indeed going to redistribute the wealth by writing this 40% of non taxpayers a check. It amounts to another form of welfare. Or vote buying, depending on how you choose to view it.

An additional 'slight of hand' on the democrats part is the planned increase of our corporate tax rate. Already second highest in the world. The democrats will raise it ten percent. The problem is that corporations do not pay income tax. When their rate goes up, they pass that additional cost onto consumers.

Obama and the democrats are aware of this, but are counting on the media to provide cover until after the election. They know they can not fund their socialist programs with the current tax rates. If they put a tax increase on the lower and middle class in their tax plans, they will lose the election. They will still collect from the lower and middle class but they will do it through the corporate tax rate increase. Letting consumers pick up the tab indirectly.

As we remember from the Carter years, this has an upward spiral affect. As the resulting unemployment and consumer prices increase, so does the corresponding inflation rate. As the resulting inflation rate goes up, the Federal Reserve steps in and raises interest rates in an attempt to slow the inflation. Before long we will find ourselves in the second term of Jimmy Carter.

I have spoken to taxes and our military. I want to touch on the social agenda being pushed by Obama and the democrats.

Obama voted against any restrictions on abortion up through late term procedures. As he appoints Supreme Court Justices and rams them through a 'rubber stamp' congress, his abortion stance will be reflected in constitutional interpretation for decades to come. He also voted to not require medical attention for any child that survives a late term abortion.

Last week a class of 1st graders were taken to their lesbian teachers wedding during school hours. Defenders of this, argued that it would teach tolerance. I do not think children are able to process such information at the age of six and seven. Last Thursday, another elementary school treated their students to Gay "National Coming Out Day". This was done with grades K-8. Without parental notification, and was not included in the school's published calender. This was done to teach children the importance of building 'alliances'. Never mind parental authority. The leftists know what is best for our children.

Additional funding will be flowing to ACORN. The democrats know this is a winner for their reelection efforts. Voter registration fraud on a nationwide scale. This will continue to be funded through the federal 'Housing Trust Fund'.

While hunting guns will be protected, handguns are a target. American Hunters Shooters Assoc, has endorsed Obama. This organization is a front group for anti- handgun backers. The NRA endorsed McCain for a reason.

Obama's 'Global Poverty Act' funding. Currently the GAO and CBO omits funding language in the cost estimates. Filibuster proof majorities will remove the need to hide the actual costs. Actual estimates are $850 billion US taxpayer dollars to fight poverty in Africa. None of this money is targeting poverty in the US. This money will be paid to the United Nations and is over and above current foreign aid.
The 'Global Poverty Act' is part of a greater United Nations program, know as the "Millennium Project". It commits the US to the World Courts criminal division and will usurp the authority of the US. Supreme Court. Google the Millennium Project to learn other included tenants. The ultimate goal here is one world government. A redistribution of wealth globally between nations.

The Lefts Strategy: "Win At Any Cost"

2008-10-25T07:02:00.000-07:00

This election season has seen the political left's veiled push for remaking America into their own image. They are on a stealth quest, hidden behind vague, but sweet sounding rhetoric. This is not just about Obama. He is joined in this endeavor by a very biased media and DNC. The thuggish response they have weiled upon any dissent has been brutal, and overtly ignored by the press.

For their part, the media is well choreographed in playing up anything positive about Obama. Anything negative about Obama is downplayed or completely ignored by the press. If any negativity does slip out, the 'goon squad' is called out and everyone circles the wagons, setting out to destroy whoever exposes their illusion of perfection.

The media has a well established set of double standards. One for Obama/Biden and one for McCain/Palin. Report and exaggerate anything negative about McCain/Palin and ignore or downplay anything about Obama/Biden. Had Sarah Palin told a group of supporters that McCain would be tested by foreign forces in the first six moinths of his administration, it would have been the lead story for a week. Biden did say that and it was played down.

The GOP spent $150,000 on clothing for Palin. She is not a millionaire and her wardrobe is naturally more geared towards Alaska's weather, not Florida. That said, the media reported and made a huge issue of it.

Joe Biden directed $ 2,000,000 to his family for "working" on the campaign and the media is silent. Rather disingenious at best.

Barack Obama's plan got caught this week with the consequences of his own words to a working class guy from Toledo, the nation got a peek into his soul. It was not pretty and it should serve as a preview of what we can expect from Barack Obama towards those who disagree with him. It has been unattractive, unbecoming of someone running for President, and certainly riddled with hypocrisy and double standard.

Think about it. Just two days before Barack Obama eagerly walks up to a working "Joe," fields a question about his policies, and gives his answer.

Only two days later Obama, Biden, the DNC, and many in the mainstream leftist establishment (you call them the media) go wall to wall on the attack against... the man who asked the question, not the one who gave the answer.

Of course it was one of the worst answers ever given by any presidential candidate in history. I mean people in free countries generally decided a generation ago that when Government has sole discretion over the supply of money, where it goes, and who gets it (especially when disconnected from effort, work, or accomplishment) that the only ones who end up doing better are those running for office. If you get enough people so brain washed and brain dead that they "think" that they can live off the great government udder, then those who give access to such will enlarge their power, capital, and position. These people are Marxists. Conversely if you empower people to provide, care, and steward themselves and their families - the need for government begins to fade. These two principles and world views will always be at war with each other on the fundamental basis: Marx says let the state provide for you, the Bible says if a man does not work--he should not eat.

The Left, and especially Obama, are completely ignorant of the fact that the majority of Americans think Marxism is not just less attractive but immoral. It offends the decency and sensibilities of many a man and woman who work upwards of ten, twelve, sixteen, hours a day and find themselves punished for such hard work. (Also based in the Biblical truth found in the "Parable of the Talents.")

So when a working man, who does work twelve to sixteen hours a day, asks Senator Obama about the dream of his future, his hopes to someday, if he works hard enough, to be able to actually buy the company he works for, Senator Obama rhetorically pats him on the head and tells him to take his marxist plan and be thankful for it, the working Joe (gasp) disagrees.

Had the issue ended with that interchange on YouTube Barack Obama would've forgotten all about this working class guy and his dreams. But it didn't because to Barack Obama's great surprise his answer that government knew better how to "spread the wealth around," and the implication for working class people, that they would now be crushed under the economic plan Obama has put forward caused a lot of people to take pause.

McCain seized on Obama's gaffe and the working Joe became the star of the debate.

Yet here is the most troubling aspect of all. The Obama camp unleashed the hounds, not against his opponent's plans, records, or words from the debate. No. They rolled bulldozers into the life and background of a man who has worked in a blue collar job for most of his adult life, and began to look for any and every piece of suspect baggage that they could throw up to the media.

The next morning Biden openly sneers at working class people on the morning talk shows. In the debate Obama pretended as though Joe might not have even existed when he prefaced a response to McCain with, "Joe, if you're even out there..." And Obama stayed on target at his next two rallies publicly and openly mocking a plumber's ability to ever make more than $250,000.

But wait Sen. Big Government...

Isn't the American dream summed up in the idea that if you work as hard as possible that you can break through to new earnings? Isn't it the American ideal to base your economic rise or fall on the shoulders of your own efforts? Shouldn't the desire for social justice inform you that it is immoral to take what one has earned and give it to one who did not? (And please don't start with compassion... Genuine compassion is when someone who has earned it voluntarily gives it because he is so moved to help his brother in need. Mandating such, violates the heart and the conscience.)

Team Obama's entire media operation became a heat seeking missile aimed at one target--destroy the working class person who dares to think, work, plan, and save for the benefit of their family, community, and nation. And do so especially if in the asking of honest questions you expose the leftist candidate in a presidential race to be the secret godless-worldview-marxist Barack Obama is.

The Obama campaign, the leftist media, and the Democratic party began "dumpster diving" to investigate any dirt they could find on 'Joe the plumber'. They set about to destroy the man who dared ask a reasoned question. If the left wins unchecked power in Washington, we can expect this behavior on a grand scale. They have already announced they intend to implement the 'fairness doctrine', which is an contradiction of terms. It is an attempt to stifle public discourse of their leftist policies.

One lesson learned from this week: when the left feel weakened they will level you with brute force, if necessary, to keep their stranglehold on the lifeline to our pocketbooks.

Obama's Socialistic Expansion Of Johnson's Failed Policies

2008-10-23T08:56:00.000-07:00

Senator Obama has promised 'change'. However, it is not anything new, not real change. We have tried these same policies before. Under Lyndon Johnson. These policies failed to deliver there touted intentions, but Obama insists on returning the US. to an expanded version of these disasterous programs.

"Indeed, Senator Obama’s economic ideas and outlook — large expansions of federal entitlements and explicit efforts to redistribute income — look little different from the failed liberal policies of the 1960s." - James Capretta

In the aftermath of President Lyndon Johnson’s landslide victory in 1964, Congress embarked on a period of unprecedented governmental activism. A flurry of new laws expanded welfare benefits, created two health-care entitlement programs, thrust the federal government into education financing and policy — and much, much more. To pay for these initiatives, Congress increased federal taxes substantially, including payroll taxes. Between 1965 and 1969, federal taxes increased from 17.0 to 19.7 percent of GDP.

Senator Obama’s economic plan is remarkably similar to those Johnson-era efforts in terms of its goals, even if the legislative tactics are somewhat different. Senator Obama promises to expand welfare benefits to many more households, although he would do so mainly with a series of expensive, refundable tax credits. He has proposed an unprecedented increase in federal spending on K-12 education programs. And his health-care plan would offer publicly funded insurance to nearly 50 million more people — at a time when the federal budget is already groaning under the weight of existing health-care entitlements.

Senator Obama would pay for this expansion of government with a massive tax increase. He is promising to raise the top marginal income-tax rate to nearly 40 percent. He wants to increase payroll taxes on high-income earners as well to pay for an unreformed Social Security program that will have fewer workers paying the benefits of growing numbers of baby-boomer retirees. And, according to an analysis from the independent Tax Policy Center, his plan depends on somehow finding nearly $1 trillion in revenue over ten years from as-yet-unspecified sources.

Americans are not averse to paying for government programs that genuinely help people. Indeed, many Americans would have concluded that 60s government activism was worth the cost — if it had actually worked to bring about prosperity and equality. But no reasonable observer could conclude that it did — and frequently enough, it made matters worse.

Instead of ending poverty, the Great Society ushered in an era of deepening welfare dependency and inner-city cultural decline. Well-intentioned support for single mothers and their children enabled an epidemic of fatherless families, with disastrous results. Family breakdown accelerated, and out-of-wedlock births soared. Moreover — with taxes and spending rising, the national economy fell into a decade-long period of sluggish economic growth, with high inflation and high unemployment. American businesses became less competitive. Confidence in our future fell.

Were Senator Obama’s program to be adopted, expect unintended consequences. Alex Brill and Alan Viand of the American Enterprise Institute have shown that his lavish new refundable tax credits would have the perverse effect of increasing the tax rate faced by many low-wage workers looking for better-paying jobs. The more these households earn, the less they would get from Senator Obama’s program of government-engineered financial assistance.

Similarly, Senator Obama’s plan for improving education would backfire. Increasing federal spending for K-12 education would simply allow state and local governments to cut back on their own funding commitments. The net financial gain to schools would be minimal at best. Moreover, with more federal funds comes muddled political accountability: No matter how much money is provided, it won’t stop local school administrators from claiming that their problems are due to insufficient federal support.

In addition, Senator Obama’s health-care plan would stifle job creation. Employers would be required to “pay or play,” meaning they would either have to offer government-approved insurance, or pay a new payroll tax. Such a mandate would make it more expensive for firms to hire low-wage workers. Unemployment would rise.

Moreover, many businesses that sponsor insurance for their workers today would stop doing so when faced with Obama’s expensive insurance mandates. Millions of workers and their dependents currently in private insurance would therefore end up in a government-run plan, with price controls and other regulatory red-tape. In time, increased government dominance in the health sector would undermine quality and stifle investments in those new drugs and devices which might provide breakthrough improvements in patients’ health.

And of course, Senator Obama’s marginal income-tax rate increases would reduce incentives for work and entrepreneurial activity at a time when our global competitors are moving in the opposite direction.

It took the presidency of Ronald Reagan to get things back on track after the decade-long malaise of the 1970s. Reagan understood that broad-based prosperity comes not from the government trying to engineer economic results but from the accumulated efforts of millions of individuals striving to improve their standards of living with hard work. Given the right incentives — and it’s the government’s job to get the incentives right in tax and spending policy — businesses and households will find ways to improve productivity and bring valuable innovations to the marketplace.

Even President Reagan came up short when it came to reforming the welfare state. That did not occur until Republicans took over Congress. Voters going to the polls in November would do well to recall the debate over the 1996 welfare-reform law. At the time, proponents argued that ending the entitlement to cash welfare benefits was crucial to breaking the culture of dependency so prevalent in urban America. They pushed successfully to replace the entitlement structure with a fixed block grant that states could use to provide temporary cash assistance and support services for those families trying to stay in the workforce.

Opponents of the law argued strenuously that it would produce a calamity, with millions of households getting pushed into poverty — with children starving in the streets, according to the most hyperbolic Democratic rhetoric.

What happened? Welfare caseloads fell by more than half almost overnight, from 4.6 million in 1996 to just over 2 million in 2002. And the Congressional Budget Office found that the lowest-income households experienced a 35-percent jump in their real incomes between 1991 and 2005, as rising wage income more than offset the reduction in cash welfare benefits. The 1996 welfare reform law is almost surely the most successful social-policy change in a generation.

It is instructive that Barack Obama, then a state senator in Illinois, strongly opposed welfare reform — and criticized President Bill Clinton for signing it — before claiming to have changed his mind about it during the presidential campaign.

The present moment cries out for an aggressive economic-reform agenda. Federal tax law has become a jumbled mess of excessive social engineering. Entitlement spending is set to rise dramatically over the next two decades as baby boomers head into retirement. Government agencies operate today much like they did in 1980, even though businesses have been transformed by the information-technology revolution.

I want to thank James Capretta for contributing to this post.

Obama And The Democrats Overplay The 'Race Card'

2008-10-20T20:41:00.000-07:00

America has been in the throes of an very competitive campaign for almost two years. For the first time in history an African American is leading a major party. Throughout the campaign Obama's supporters have tried to quash any legitimate questioning of their candidate. Anyone who raises real concerns about Obama's positions is pounced on with charges of racism. The offender is called a racist and their character called into question, while Obama's defenders gloss over the issue.

Obama has led this sham. Perhaps he is paranoid. He started off saying that Republicans would say he was 'different', and did not look like the other presidents on the dollars bills. He did this in an well choreographed way. Obama raised the race card, much the way people spray on "Off" prior to going outside in the summer.

The left has played the race card like a teenager plays a new CD. 'Joe the plumber' asks a question. The Democrats and the media set out to destroy him and call him a racist. Palin points out Obama's association with "white" domestic terrorist Ayers. She is an racist. I question his racist church and its racist theology, pointing out that he attended there twenty years, and I get called a racist.

America is used to Jack Murtha's moronic manner. Last week in an interview with the Post-Gazette's editorial board, "There's no question that Western Pennsylvania is a racist area." Barack Obama would win, he predicted, but not in a "runaway," due to racism.

After Mr. Murtha's brash set-up, Mr. Patrick's appeal to vote-as-racial-atonement was delivered Friday via the unnamed overseas visitors he meets regularly. They range from foreign businessmen and heads of state, and they are "very, very interested in Barack Obama's candidacy," he said in a Post-Gazette story. "Once, I asked one why, and his response was so beautiful. He said, 'We are watching to see if America is who she says she is.' " - Ruth Ann Dailey

The American ideal is to vote for racial identity rather than political ideas? And that's beautiful? That sounds like typical left-wing .

Which foreign nations are these, anxious to judge the American voters? The ones in Europe that keep their, Muslim minorities as second-class citizens in out of sight suburban ghettos? The ones whose leaders openly make outrageous anti-Semitic remarks? The ones who themselves have even fewer minorities in positions of power?The countries whose economies have been mired for years in the stagnation of cradle-to-grave socialism?

Other countries views of Americas political process is a moot point. The fact that we have an African American nominated in itself puts us ahead of them.

The best thing that could happen on Nov. 4 is for like-minded people to give him their votes, regardless of their race or his, and for people who embrace free-market, limited-government principles to vote for his opponent, regardless of their race or his.

That said, to some unknowable extent, Mr. Murtha's accusation is both true and lamentable. There are still racists living in the United States, and some of them even live in Western Pennsylvania, which happens to be a Democratic stronghold.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter, made the same claim about the entire state back in February. Also while chatting with the Post-Gazette editorial board, he said, "You've got conservative whites here ... who are not ready to vote for an African-American candidate." (Note the tiresome Democratic smear of equating racism with conservatism.)

Mr. Rendell's comments came two months before the primary, but Mr. Obama's remarks about bitter small-town voters clinging to their guns and religion exploded into public debate 10 days before the primary. Mrs. Clinton won Pennsylvania by a margin of 10 percent.

Were the Democrats who voted for her motivated by racism, or were they turned off by Mr. Obama's disdain for their lives and values? "Were they clinging to their guns and religion"? Or did they just prefer her prescription for the country's future?

The same questions will still apply on Election Day. Republicans have won nine of the 15 presidential races since the end of World War II. Candidates of either party usually win by very slim margins. That's a strong enough pattern to assert that Americans are pretty evenly divided ideologically, are in general a little more conservative than the Democratic Party and like to invigorate the body politic regularly with a tonic of something completely different.-Ruth Ann Dailey

The Democrats have hidden behind the race card so many times throughout the campaign, that they have devalued and exploited the term. It has been rendered as nothing more than background noise.

Obama Favors Drivers Licenses For Illegals

2008-10-19T16:24:00.000-07:00

As America approaches the crossroads of an election, we are reminded once again of the stark contrast of our candidates.

Senator Obama believes we should award illegal aliens with the coveted American Drivers License. If people come here illegally, why would Obama reward this illegal behavior? Obama knows these people would have an opportunity to register to vote. As we have seen with the debacle of ACORN's voter registration scam, this offers yet another means for the Democrats to expand their voter base. The Wall Street Journal reported that eight of the 9/11 terrorists were registered to vote. Senator McCain's experience affords him the judgement to oppose such an misguided proposal.

An ad is now airing, that goes after Obama on this exercise in poor judgement. It correctly points out that of the nineteen terrorists on Sept. 11th, “thirteen get driver’s licenses. The 9/11 plot depended on easy-to-get licenses,” a women narrator reveals as images of a burning World Trade Center are juxtaposed with a mock up of Mohammed Atta’s Florida driver’s license. Atta was fingered as the ringleader of the 9/11 terror attacks.

“Obama is the most radical liberal ever to be nominated by the Democratic Party,” Scott Wheeler, executive director of the NRTrust, told Newsmax. “The driver’s license is just one of many issues that proves it.”

His Web site [www.nationalrepublicantrust.com] cites a 2007 Rasmussen poll showing that 77 percent of voters oppose granting illegal immigrants driver’s licenses.

A recent Zogby poll on the question found that 46 percent of voters said they would be less likely to vote for Obama if he backed the idea of driver’s licenses for illegals. (Thirty-eight percent of voters said they were “much less” likely to vote for him under those circumstances.)

The Zogby data suggests the issue could hurt Obama across party lines. Almost 20 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of independents said they would be less likely to vote for him if he backed such a license plan.

Though white voters strongly opposed Obama’s plan (50 percent), core Democratic groups also were negative on the issue, with 29 percent of Hispanics and 42 percent of blacks saying they would be less likely to vote for him with such a plan.

Wheeler’s group quotes political strategist Dick Morris as praising NRTrust as “a very effective organization” and saying the driver’s license issue could “make a huge difference on Election Day."

Wheeler says his group has raised $500,000 and has close to 10,000 donors. His organization said it is rolling its first ad in key swing states this weekend.

Obama is willing to cast our country's safety aside for electoral gain. He believes additional voters are worth the risk of American lives. Obama's lack of experience is the only plausible reason that could lead to such fallible judgement.

“I think that it is the right idea,” Obama declared, adding that licensing and insuring illegals is “a public safety concern.”

“We can make sure that drivers who are illegal come out of the shadows, that they can be tracked, that they are properly trained, and that will make our roads safer,” he said. “That doesn’t negate the need for us to reform illegal immigration.”

In the days that followed the Drexel debate, critics blasted Spitzer’s proposal. Polls showed that the issue was sinking Spitzer’s approval ratings even in heavily Democratic New York.

Critics warned that giving illegal immigrants licenses would be a security nightmare, allowing terrorists to travel on planes, rent trucks and vans, and move about the country with ease, and without detection or scrutiny.

In October 2007, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called former New York Governor Spitzer to voice concerns that New York’s initiative could undermine federal plans to enhance security and improve documentation.

In the aftermath of 9/11, authorities reported that the 19 terrorists involved in the attacks had obtained 13 driver’s licenses, plus 21 federal or state-issued ID cards.

During the November Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, moderator Wolf Blitzer raised the issue again, asking Obama whether he supported driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.

Obama began by recounting that he had vigorously promoted the concept in the Illinois State Senate, where he said he voted to train, license, and insure illegals to operate motor vehicles, to “protect public safety.”

Wheeler argues that Obama’s position in support of licenses to help public safety is ludicrous.

“Imagine if a potential terrorist enters the U.S. but has no history of previous terror activity or has changed their identity,” Wheeler says, adding, “How does Obama weed such dangerous people out before giving them a driver’s license? You can’t.”

Sen. John McCain has stated he opposes driver’s licenses for illegals. He also has stated his opposition to any benefits for those who “have come here illegally and broke our law.”

In a February 2007 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, McCain said, “It would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.”

http://washingtonroundup.blogspot.com/

Obama's Taxes Hit Sophie And Jeff

2008-10-19T07:26:00.000-07:00

Senator Obama plans to raise the corporate tax rate. I am frustrated by our economy as much as the next guy. I would not mind watching corporations take one on the chin. I believe many voters share my feelings.

However, upon closer examination of the actual impact, this proves to be an economic folly. Reflective of Senator Obama's poor judgement and inexperience.

The US. currently has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, and is full of loopholes. Obama's proposal to raise the rate even further, will drive more companies overseas. They will take their jobs with them. Compared to much of the world, out labor costs are already cost prohibitive. Increasing the tax rate makes locating or continuing operations in the US even less attractive.

One of my best friends lives in Titusville, Fla. Sophie Clark, aka, Titusville Mary, claims to be undecided in this election. Sophie cleans houses for a living. Her boyfriend, Jeff is retired military, and works one full time job, while maintaining a second part time job. Jeff is behind Obama.

Like so many voters they like the eloquent speeches Obama gives; failing to recognize the vagueness of his words. They do not foresee the implications of Obama's proposal. They do not realize that a ten percent increase in the corporate tax rate will affect them directly.

Sophie and Jeff have not thought through the issues, such as this. Raising the rate is going to drive away companies and jobs. Remaining companies are not going to absorb the tax increase. The voters are. Companies are going to offset the increase by laying off workers, cutting investment, and increasing their prices. This will drive up unemployment, prices and inflation. At a time America can ill afford it.

Imagine a ten percent increase hitting your monthly expenses. Your household's monthly operating expenses (minus mortgage), will be going up at a rate reflective to this tax increase. If you currently have an $1,000 overhead, add 10%.
The gallon of gas and milk that already seem expensive will be even more under Obama's plan. Sophies boyfriend is remodeling his home. This plan will add to the materials cost of this seemingly endless endeavor. Sophie has her home in state of perpetual renovation. This will be taking the wind out of her sail.

McCain wants to take out the loopholes and lower the rate. By lowering the rate, he will appeal to companies to remain in the US. Saving Americas jobs. By closing the loopholes, McCain will actually increase the revenue.

Obama's tax break to working families will not offset this corporate rate increase and the affects on consumers wallets. It will hit American consumers the same as if Obama raised the taxes of all Americans, because all Americans will be paying for it. Someone once said you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. America get ready to squeal!

As for Obama's tax break to 95% of Americans, it is another expansion of an increasingly socialist program. A twist on redistribution of wealth. Currently, approximately 35% of Americans do not pay any taxes. Under this plan they will get this "tax break" at the expense of legitimate taxpayers. Spreading the wealth does not help in the long run. It merely serves to decrease incentive for workers to strive to get ahead.

Add to this, Obama's plans for bringing back the 'Death Tax', adding to the already overtaxed small businesses tax liability, and we have a prescription for economic disaster. Small business is where jobs are created and Obama wants to stifle this growth.

The Senator from ACORN lacks the experience and judgement to recognize what is best for America. Rhetoric is not a viable plan and is not a substitute for experience.

I do hope Sophie and Jeff think things through between now and the election.

Obama, Wright And 'Black Liberation Theology'

2008-10-17T20:24:00.000-07:00

To help everyone better understand Black Liberation Theology as taught at Trinity Church of Christ, where Obama attended for 20 years. Here is an outline with a link to the full article.

Senator Barack Obama is not a Muslim, contrary to invidious rumors. But he belongs to a Christian church whose doctrine casts Jesus Christ as a "black messiah" and blacks as "the chosen people". At best, this is a radically different kind of Christianity than most Americans acknowledge; at worst it is an ethnocentric heresy.

During the black-power heyday of the late 1960s, after the murder of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr, the mentors of Wright decided that blacks were the Chosen People. James Cone, the most prominent theologian in the "black liberation" school, teaches that Jesus Christ himself is black. As he explains:

Christ is black therefore not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor were despised and the black are, disclosing that he is with them enduring humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberating servants.

Biblical theology teaches that even the most terrible events to befall Israel, such as the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, embody the workings of divine justice, even if humankind cannot see God's purpose. James Cone sees the matter very differently. Either God must do what we want him to do, or we must reject him, Cone maintains:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. [1]
In the black liberation theology taught by Wright, Cone and Hopkins, Jesus Christ is not for all men, but only for the oppressed:

In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors ... Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not [Cone].
In this respect black liberation theology is identical in content to all the ethnocentric heresies that preceded it. Christianity has no use for the nations, a "drop of the bucket" and "dust on the scales", in the words of Isaiah. It requires that individuals turn their back on their ethnicity to be reborn into Israel in the spirit. That is much easier for Americans than for the citizens of other nations, for Americans have no ethnicity. But the tribes of the world do not want to abandon their Gentile nature and as individuals join the New Israel. Instead they demand eternal life in their own Gentile flesh, that is, to be the "Chosen People".

Obama chose to sit in this church for 20 years. The glaing racism found in the subscribed theology is troubling and widely ignored in the media. They will not risk the election of their candidate by exposing him to the American voters.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html

Unions, Democrats And The Secret Ballot

2008-10-17T18:42:00.000-07:00

America goes to the polls on November 4th. We vote using a secret ballot. That is a way to allow us to exercise our right to enfranchisement as citizens. We are able to vote according to our own conscience, without sharing our choice, if we so choose.

The Unions and Democrats are pushing to remove the secret ballot as an means for those deciding whether to form a union. They have come up with the 'Employee Free Choice Act'. It is a misleading name at best. At worst it is downright cynical.

Currently, once 30% of a company's workers sign union authorization cards, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administers a confidential vote, typically 39 days after it receives the cards. The union and employer campaign for votes.

Under the 'Employee Free Choice Act' being promoted by unions, when more than 50% of employees sign authorization cards, the NLRB would have to recognize the new union. No campaign. No secret ballot.

The measure passed the US House in 2007 after the Democrats took control. The Democrats still need more votes to pass it in the Senate. They also need a President who will sign it. This coming election may provide them the Senate votes and that President. Obama supports it, McCain does not. Even former Democratic nominee George McGovern has come out against it.

The proposed change would give unions and pro-union employees more incentive to use peer pressure, or worse, to persuade reluctant workers to sign their cards. And without elections, workers who weren't contacted by union organizers would have no say in the final outcome. Who wants a union organizer standing at their work space with a card and pen in hand, asking them to sign; while their coworkers all stare?

Labor leaders, such as AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, argue's that the proposed law wouldn't prohibit private balloting. This is accurate but misleading. Union organizers would have no reason to seek an election if they had union cards signed by more than 50% of workers. And if they had less than a majority, they'd be unlikely to call for a vote they'd probably lose.

The legislation has other questionable provisions as well. For example, once a union is formed, if labor and management can't agree on a contract, a federal arbitration board would be called on to go beyond the normal role of facilitating talks and actually dictate terms.

Labor has seen its role decline since the 1950s, when about a third of all private sector employees belonged to unions, compared with about 7.5% today. So it's understandably eager to find ways to expand membership, particularly at a time when workers are feeling economically vulnerable. More members, more members dues.

The Democrats have a vested interest in ensuring passage. The unions have long been big donors to Democratic candidates. If the unions have declining membership and related dues, then there is less to give to the Democrats. If the Democrats get thispassed and signed into law, the union officials and Democrats win. Unfortunately, the workers lose. This undermining of Democratic ideals is a poor deal for America's workers.

Acorn Has Received $31 Million From Our Taxes

2008-10-17T06:49:00.000-07:00

We all know how the political gamesmanship works in Washington, DC. If you want someone to support your legislation, you have to give them something in return. Irregardless of whether it is an Emergency Funding bill or roads projects.

The Democrats play the game quite well. They have managed to insert funding into various bills over the past ten years, giving ACORN $31 million of our tax dollars. It is not lost on Democratic strategist, that ACORN targets low income people to register to vote. Therefore, the Democrats directly benefit from ACORN's efforts.

We all know by now that ACORN has been involved in forcing banks to give otherwise unqualified low income people, home loans. Adding to the crisis in our finacial markets. ACORN has been in the news during this election cycle for their voter registration fraud.

They have problems with their registration activities every election cycle. Every election cycle, they apologise and claim they will improve the "next time". This time they have pulled out all the stops in an attempt to help one of their own.

ACORN claims they have registered 1.3 million new voters this cycle. In Ohio, there are 600,000 new registrations. Of this, Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner has refused to make the known 200,000 questionable registrations available to county election officials. Federal law requires new registrations to be cross checked against Drivers License and Social Security numbers. Ohio's Secretary of State is making a naked attempt to steal Ohio's electoral vote and deliver them to Obama. Perhaps she is making a high profile bid for a position in an Obama administration.

ACORN is being investigated by the FBI, to see if they have an goal of disrupting the electoral process through nefarious means.

In Seattle, ACORN turned in one batch of registrations. Of the 1,800 registrations, investigators discovered only "6" were legitimate. During questioning, ACORN's employee's admitted they had gone to the public library downtown and made them up.

Obama worked for the Chicago chapter after completing law school. He was brought in to train their executive team on 'tactics'. As an adolescent, he was 'mentored' by Frank Davis, a self described communist. Obama wrote about him in his autobiography. Obama had also learned tactics from domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers.

Many people on the left ask us to ignore the 500# gorilla in the room (ACORN). They implore Americans to not believe their 'lying eyes'. Well folks, if it walks and quacks like a Duck. It is a Duck!

America is laying witness to the usurping of our electoral process.

On The Precipice Of Pakistans Overthrow

2008-10-15T16:06:00.000-07:00

America's semi-reliable ally, Pakistan, is on the precipice of overthrow. The political climate there has ripened into a disaster in the making. Benazir Bhutto's husband is now in office, but only tenuously. They are having energy and food shortages. Al-Qaeda has taken control of two regions. The military command is dicey. Terrorists have longed for an opportunity to gain control of nuclear weapons, and may have found their mark. If the government there falls to radical Islamists, then the western world will be fighting for it's own survival. Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal.

This is the picture being outlined in a soon-to-be released U.S. Intelligence Assessment.

A U.S. official who participated in drafting the top secret National Intelligence Estimate said it portrays the situation in Pakistan as "very bad." Another official called the draft "very bleak," and said it describes Pakistan as being "on the edge."

The first official summarized the estimates conclusions about the state of Pakistan as: "no money, no energy, no government."

Six U.S. officials who helped draft or are aware of the document's findings confirmed them on the condition of anonymity because NIEs are top secret and are restricted to the president, senior officials and members of Congress. An NIE's conclusions reflect the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

The NIE on Pakistan, along with others being prepared on Afghanistan and Iraq, will underpin a "strategic assessment" of the situation that Army Gen. David Petraeus, who's about to take command of all U.S. forces in the region, has requested. The aim of the assessment - seven years after the U.S. sent troops into Afghanistan - is to determine whether a U.S. presence in the region can be effective and if so what U.S. strategy should be.

"Can it get that bad in Pakistan? The Pakistanis themselves now say that two vital regions - Swat and the area around Peshawar - are already in al-Qaeda's hands. The whole government is rotten to the core so it won't take much to push it over.

Then what? Same thing that happened in Afghanistan. A coalition of conservative fundamentalist parties take over and we have the nightmare scenario come true.

I want to say I'm confident Obama would do something if worse came to worse, but we just don't know, do we?" - Rick Moran

This is not the same world we lived in prior to 9/11. These radicals hate everything about the western culture. They want to destroy it. A member of Hamas was quoted as saying about our negotiations:"There is nothing to negotiate. We do not want anything from you. We want to destroy you."

I see people in the middle east supporting Obama. I hope they do so out of respect for him. However, I believe that he is viewed as the weaker Presidential candidate, naive and inexperienced. He would be easier to walk over. He might also be more hesitant to react. The radicals know what to expect from McCain and it gives them pause. Not so, with a perceived weaker Obama.

The Democrat's Shameful War On Poverty

2008-10-14T16:24:00.000-07:00

President Johnson professed to declare war on poverty in the United States. He promised the less fortunate an Government issued check to lift them out of poverty. Medicaid was also supposed to help alleviate the scourge of those who lacked health care.

I believe this was perhaps one of the most cynical political plays of the 20th century.

Our population is much larger now. Three trillion dollars have gone into this effort in the forty plus years since adopted. Is there less poverty? As a percentage of our population it is lower. However, in raw numbers, there are in fact more Americans living below the poverty level now, then when the program began. How could this be?

The Democrats gave the poor a check, under the guise of helping them. The greatest number of poor, tend to be the least educated of our nation. These people saw the Democrats as caring for and about their plight. It did not take long for these recipients to come to believe this paltry sum was their worth as a people. The poor repaid the Democrats by becoming a loyal voting block. In their eyes it was quid pro quo. Something for something.

Did the Democrats really help them? No. Had the Democrats cared about them, they would not merely sustained them in poverty. The Democrats would have given these recipients a way out of this pit. Where were the accompanying educational opportunities for school age children, meaningful college assistance, parenting classes, nutrition classes? Any attempts at addressing child care issues? How about birth control or abstinence? Not to mention a mentoring program to help these people navigate their way through the myriad of nonexistent, truly helpful programs. Had these extra steps been taken at the time that the 'free money' began flowing, then we would be closer to seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.

The Democrats are tethered to the NEA, and teachers unions. They approach education accordingly. We shackle the poor to failing schools. We continue to pay our teachers meager wages. We need to pay our teachers a sum that is commensurate and reflective of the task we give them. There needs to be enough incentive in teaching to attract and retain the quality of teachers needed to prepare our children to compete in a global economy. We have some excellent teachers, and I applaud them. We also have some teachers who are biding their time until their retirement or they find something 'better'. We need to untie school administrators hands and end tenure for all educators.

The Democrats beholden to the unions refuse to seriously consider providing our children the opportunity to escape the schools that are failing. Merely throwing good money after bad has not helped. Our children's test scores, when compared to other developed countries are lagging way behind.

Serious options that the Democrats refuse to consider are vouchers, charter schools, home schooling, etc. We know that there is a direct correlation between quality and competition. School funding is tied to an per-pupil ratio. If the schools have to compete for students and the related dollars, they will clean up their act. This increase in education quality will be reflective in test scores. I do believe we need to also explore additional new metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of the transfer of knowledge being imparted upon our children.

The Democrats cynically left these provisions out of the mix, because winning the war on poverty was not their goal. Sustaining and expanding the war was the goal. They now have a loyal, uneducated voting block that they can continue to take for granted.

I support helping those who need help. If they have the physical and mental capacity to become productive contributors to society, than we need to provide some of the provisions outlined above. If a person has physical or mental limitations, they can be evaluated on case by case basis. Merely sustaining poverty is not an option. Not if we really care.

The more people we have contributing to the economy, the better for all of us. Think where our country would be today had this been fully funded and resolved in 60's dollars versus just "helping" the poor get by. We would have largely moved beyond this as an issue and been reaping the return-on-investment.

America Under Obama Styled Socialism

2008-10-13T11:16:00.000-07:00

I found a decent explanation of Socialism and how Obama's brand of Socialism could change the face of America forever. The U.S. already has minor touches oF Socialism, (public transportation, social security, medicare, schools, etc) but an Obama victory will push us into an uglier realm that many Americans do not realize. We learned recently that Obama once belonged to an Socialist Party. Obama realized that in order to succeed in American politics he would have to leave the Socialist Party and join the Democrats, if he was to have a chance to really push his agenda, ideals and himself.

For conservatives opposed to an Obama presidency, the last few days have brought the wonder of the smoking gun: Obama really was a socialist. Combine that hidden paper trail with his Ayers affiliation, and it's reasonable to believe that Obama still holds these socialist political views.

Conservatives' excitement at finally having found the real socialist hiding inside that empty suit is tempered by one thing -- outside of conservative circles, nobody really seems to care. The media, of course, is very aggressive about not caring, but the malaise seems to affect ordinary Americans as well.
The only way to explain this disinterest in Obama's past and its relationship to his present is that Americans no longer consider the label "socialist" to be a pejorative. To them, it's just another content-neutral political ideology. In our non-judgmental age, it falls into the same category as Liberal vs. Conservative, or Left vs. Right. To most people, it just means Obama is a more liberal Liberal, or a leftier Lefty, and they already knew that.
Socialism is not simply a more liberal version of ordinary American politics. It is, instead, its own animal, and a very feral, dangerous animal indeed.
If it were up to me to attach labels to modern political ideologies, I would choose the terms "Individualism" and "Statism." "Individualism" would reflect the Founder's ideology, which sought to repose as much power as possible in individual citizens, with as little power as possible in the State, especially the federal state. The Founder's had emerged from a long traditional of monarchal and parliamentary statism, and they concluded that, whenever power is concentrated in the government, the individual suffers.

And what of Statism? Well, there's already a name for that ideology, and it's a name that should now be firmly attached to Sen. Obama: Socialism.
It took Marx and Engels to carry socialism to the next level, in which they envisioned the complete overthrow of all governments, with the workers of the world uniting so that all contributed to a single socialist government, which in turn would give back to them on an as needed basis. Assuming that you're not big on individualism and exceptionalism, this might be an attractive doctrine as a way to destroy want and exploitation, except for one thing: It does not take into account the fact that the state has no conscience.

Once you vest all power in the state, history demonstrates that the state, although technically composed of individuals, in fact takes on a life of its own, with the operating bureaucracy driving it to ever greater extremes of control. Additionally, history demonstrates that, if the wrong person becomes all-powerful in the state, the absence of individualism means that the state becomes a juggernaut, completely in thrall to a psychopath's ideas.
One sees the same pattern as in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia: individuals were instantly subordinated to the needs of the state and, as the state's needs became ever more grandiose, more and more people had to die. Current estimates are that Mao's "visionary" Great Leap Forward resulted in the deaths of up to 100 million people. The people died from starvation, or were tortured to death, or just outright murdered because of thought crimes. The same pattern, of course, daily plays out on a smaller scale in socialist North Korea.

Those are examples of hard socialism. Soft socialism is better, but it certainly isn't the American ideal. Britain springs to mind as the perfect example of soft socialism. Britain's socialist medicine is a disaster, with practically daily stories about people being denied treatment or receiving minimal treatment. Invariably, the denials arise because the State's needs trump the individual's: Either the treatment is generally deemed too costly (and there are no market forces at work) or the patients are deemed unworthy of care, especially if they're old.

British socialism has other problems, aside from the dead left behind in her hospital wards. As did Germany, Russia, and China (and as would Obama), socialist Britain took guns away (at least in London), with the evitable result that violent crime against innocent people skyrocketed.

The British socialist bureaucracy also controls people's lives at a level currently incomprehensible to Americans, who can't appreciate a state that is constantly looking out for its own good. In Britain, government protects thieves right's against property owner's, has it's public utilities urge children to report their parents for "green" crimes; tries to criminalize people taking pictures of their own children in public places; destroys perfectly good food that does not meet obsessive compulsive bureaucratic standards; and increasingly stifles free speech. (Impressively, all of the preceding examples are from just the last six months in England.)

Both history and current events demonstrate that the socialist reality is always bad for the individual, and this is true whether one is looking at the painfully brutal socialism of the Nazis or the Soviets or the Chinese, with its wholesale slaughters, or at the soft socialism of England, in which people's lives are ever more tightly circumscribed, and the state incrementally destroys individual freedom. And that is why Obama's socialism matters.

Regardless of Obama’s presumed good intentions, socialism always brings a society to a bad ending. I don’t want to believe that Americans who live in a free society that allows people to think what they will, do what they want, and succeed if they can, will willingly hand themselves over to the socialist ideology. They must therefore be reminded, again and again and again, that socialism isn’t just another political party; it’s the death knell to freedom. So remember, while McCain wants to change DC, Obama wants to change America.

Obama Sponsored 'Global Poverty Act'

2008-10-11T15:49:00.000-07:00

The United States Senate may vote any day on the stealth imposition of what could amount to an $845 BILLION United Nations style global tax on American citizens.

It's called the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), and it is being sponsored by none other than Senator Barack Obama.

According to some conservative sources, this disastrous legislation could eventually force U.S. taxpayers to fork over as much as 0.7 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product -- or $845,000,000,000-- on welfare to third-world countries.

Here's what Phyllis Schlafly, conservative activist and founder of Eagle Forum, recently wrote: "Obama's costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433), which could come up in the Senate any day, is called the Global Poverty Act. It would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on foreign handouts..." Time is of the essence because Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just issued a report on the Global Poverty Act and it was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on Thursday the 24th.

Let them know in no uncertain terms that you are watching and you will not tolerate massive United Nations style giveaways that are passed in the dark of night -- or in broad daylight for that matter.

Tell them that putting us on the road to give billions to petty tyrants and dictators is NOT a solution to poverty. The Senate Shell Game...Advocates of the Global Poverty Act are claiming that it does not really commit the United States to anything... that it won't really cost anything... that it simply requires the President -- in conjunction with the Secretary of State -- to "develop" strategies to alleviate world poverty.

In fact, Biden's report incredulously states, "implementing S. 2433 would cost less than $1 million per year..."Technically he's correct... after all, it doesn't really cost that much to develop and formulate strategies...But such a cleverly worded contention begs the question: Why formulate or develop a strategy if there is no intention to follow through on that strategy?

And what would it cost to actually follow through on a strategy to alleviate world poverty?

The Global Poverty Act intentionally gives no specific figures but it does contain clues, and those clues are stated repeatedly in the legislation's reliance on the United Nations Millennium Development Goal.

WorldNetDaily.com quotes Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media as saying: "The bill defines the term 'Millennium Development Goals' as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration..."

"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child."

As for specific figures... WorldNetDaily.com reports: "Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims."

"[T]he legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years... would amount to $845 billion 'over and above what the U.S. already spends.'"

"The plan passed the House in 2007 'because most members didn't realize what was in it.' Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

And, how would the United States pay for this $845 BILLION commitment? According to Kincaid, who published a report on the legislation; "A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money." And that $845 BILLION global tax is in addition to our nation's current Foreign Aid programs, which, in 2006, cost American taxpayers about $300 BILLION!

It Gets Worse! Here are some of the additional provisions of the Millennium Development Goal:a "currency transfer tax," that is, a tax imposed on companies and individuals who must exchange dollars for foreign currency; a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources"; a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy projection -- oil, natural gas, coal"; "fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels." a "standing peace force," meaning a standing United Nations army that might, in time, be large enough to force us to bend to its will; a "UN arms register of all small arms and light weapons," the beginning of the end of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; the "eradication of poverty" by the "redistribution [of] wealth and land"

How do you suppose the United Nations expects to "redistribute" the land and the wealth? And what country do you think the third-world majority will go after first? cancellation of "the debts of developing countries," "a fair distribution of the earth's resources." and "political control of the global economy."

In other words, it's a blueprint for a world government, owned and operated by the United Nations. One thing is clear: the Millennium Development Goal is a dagger aimed at the heart of America. While the Global Poverty Act, as presently championed by its Senate supporters, embraces certain aspects of the Millennium Development Goal, one should wonder if some of our legislators also support land and wealth "redistribution." We must stop this bill dead in its tracks. We must stop this subversion NOW! Don't let Senator Obama's Global Poverty Act sneak through the Senate.

Other Appropriate Entities...Dr. Jeffrey D. Sachs -- a Columbia University economist -- is monitoring the Millennium Development Goal for the United Nations. In his 2005 report to Kofi Annan -- based on the research of 265 "poverty specialists" -- Sachs criticized the United States for giving only a mere $16.3 billion a year to alleviate global poverty. He argued that we should spend at least an additional $30 billion a year. And Sachs has decreed that the only way to force the United States to commit that much money is to IMPOSE A GLOBAL TAX. Has Senator Obama
-- along with the other Senate co-sponsors -- introduced the Global Policy Act at least in partial obedience to Sachs' wishes?

Joe Farah, publisher of WorldNetDaily.com said of this treacherous bill:"Now comes an even grander proposal by Barack Obama. It's called the Global Poverty Act, that would, in the next decade, transfer at least $845 billion of U.S. taxpayer money overseas. Think of Johnson's failed war on poverty going international -- directed not by Americans but by the United Nations."
And yes, just in case you think the massive amounts of your tax dollars that were wasted under the United Nation's Oil for Food program were an aberration, and that such a thing could not eventually happen on a more massive scale were the Global Poverty Act to sneak through the Senate, Doug Powers, writing for WorldNetDaily.com made this observation: "Not long ago, Nigeria's 'anti-corruption commission' -- runner-up in the 'oxymoron of the year' competition, second only to 'U.S. Senate Intelligence' -- found that past rulers of Nigeria have stolen or misused billions of dollars."

"The commission discovered that the amount of money 'missing' adds up to all the Western aid given to Africa in four decades. Obama, Hagel and Cantwell want to throw more at them. Apparently they won't be happy until there are trillions of our tax dollars stolen by crooke leaders and warlords."

Obama and ACORN Voter Registration Fraud In Pennsylvania

2008-10-11T15:44:00.000-07:00

A retired Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice says that she is "not confident we can get a fair election" in the state come November.

Justice Sandra Newman, accompanied by Dauphin County District Attorney Edward Marsico and Pennsylvania Republican State Chairman Robert Gleason, expressed her concerns at a Harrisburg press conference this morning. A thick document replete with photo copies of phony registrations and aerial shots of vacant lots used as "addresses" for "voters" was handed out to journalists.

Gleason was even more explicit.

"Between March 23rd and October 1st, various groups, including ACORN, submitted over 252,595 registrations to the Philadelphia County Election Board" with 57, 435 rejected for faulty information. "Most of these registrations were submitted by ACORN, and rejected due to fake social security numbers, incorrect dates of birth, clearly fraudulent signatures, addresses that do not exist, and duplicate registrations. In one case, a man was registered to vote more than 15 times since the Primary election.

In the state of Washington, ACORN turned in 1,800 registrations, and only 6 were legitimate. Volunteers told investigators that they went to the library and made them up. There are indictments and convictions in several states against these people. Many are facing Federal charges. If you look closely, you will realize that most are in the "swing" states.

As a young man out of Law School, Obama was hired to train the Chicago chapter of ACORN in 'tactics'.

Obamas campaign donated $832,000 to ACORN's voter registration drive. In the campaign's monthly report to the FEC, they failed to list the donation. The campaign blames this ommission on a 'clerical error'. Ibelieve that the campaign did not want voters or media to know of the donation.

Character, judgement, integrity, and experience, count when choosing a Leader. Obama lacks these needed characteristics.

The Left Wing: Whales Trump National Security

2008-10-09T18:16:00.000-07:00

I am in favor of conserving the environment and protecting the Whales. Most Americans recognize the need to do so. However, there needs to be proportionality in our approach. Our friends on the left have overwhelmingly thrown their support behind the Democrats. They do so, because the Democrats grant them more influence, even at the peril of old fashioned ‘common sense’. When I see the environmentalist putting their cause ahead of my family’s safety, I object. This article that I have provided excerpts from, highlights this short sided fallacy. A link is provided at the bottom.

It’s a dangerous world out there. Iranian mullahs push forward their missile and nuke development programs while musing about a world without Israel ... or America. Russia rattles its saber, invades Georgia, plants its flag in the Arctic and dismisses the United States as a has-been superpower. Islamists wage a “holy war” against “the Great Satan” with firefights in Afghanistan, bombings in the Middle East and plots around the world.

Perilous times, indeed. And while America is at war, environmental extremists are on a mission, too. Just not necessarily on our side.

Case in point: The Navy has a whale of a problem. It uses sonar to detect underwater dangers and to navigate its own submarines. But sonar may adversely affect the navigational ability of whales and other sea creatures. In five different cases, environmental groups have sued the Navy to restrict testing low- and medium-range sonar frequency arrays.

For example, when naval ships detect sea mammals within 200 yards during training exercises, they shut down the sonar immediately. Scientific experiments by the Navy determined that a 200-yard buffer minimizes the risk that whales will become disoriented by military sonar.

But instead of deferring to the service’s scientifically-based buffer zone, a U.S. District judge decided the Navy must turned off its sonar at a range of 2,200 yards. The new buffer zone - more than a mile-and-a-quarter radius - appears based on nothing but the whim of the court. The Navy called the restrictions “crippling.”

As a result of this decision, the commander of the USS Ronald Reagan Strike Group recently had to slash sonar training. Meanwhile, China continues to build its super-quiet diesel submarines that are harder and harder to find - even with sonar up and running.

The Navy is not the only service losing “lawfare” battles to the enviros. Earlier this year, a U.S. district judge ruled the Pentagon violated the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) by failing to evaluate how a new air base, the Futenma Replacement Facility, might affect the Japanese dugong.

Since NHPA is intended to apply to historical property, not animals, the court’s decision is as strange as the unusual mammal it purports to protect.

More than odd, the ruling undermines security. A joint statement by U.S. and Japanese officials “reaffirmed that completion of the Futenma Replacement Facility ... by the target date of 2014, is the key to ... the overall realignment plan for Okinawa,” including relocation of a Marine Expeditionary Unit to Guam. The actions of an activist judge have now all but ensured this vital process will not be complete by the deadline.

Worse, the dugong decision may create a new opening for environmental activists to target other U.S. bases around the world, re-labeling arcane animals as historic relics that must take precedence under the NHPA.

Judges gone wild is a symptom of a bigger problem. In the end, the greatest threat to American security may be constituent politics that puts narrow self-interest above the common good.

“Lawfare” advocates a constituent concern regardless of the cost. As long as stakeholders advance their agenda, nothing else matters. This problem can get out of control when judges cultivate a culture of litigation and creative interpretation of law.

The activists can rightly argue they are just doing their job, lobbying for their thing. Government, however, is supposed to be about more than just the sum of constituent politics.

Lawmakers have an obligation to give us laws that will keep us all free, safe and prosperous. Courts are obliged to protect us from those who would violate or abuse the law.

But when activists hijack the judiciary and advance one goal at the expense of another, justice is perverted. And when government’s fundamental obligation to “provide for the common defense” falls victim to perverse court rulings, the nation’s future is at risk.

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed100608d.cfm