WILL OBMA BE A GOOD MILITARY LEADER?

Consider Obama's vote this week, which was in favor of prosecuting communications companies that assisted the government in wiretapping terrorists. Sure, the regulars will come out and claim that this was a vote in favor of our personal rights. But let's be sensible, enabling a whole new suite of lawsuits against American companies who are assisting the government in national security efforts does NOTHING to protect my rights. It may make a few lawyers richer, it might make things easier for terrorists, but my rights will still be the same.Need I remind everyone that our country is fighting a war, actually two war fronts and one more conceptual war. Historically, Americans have given up some liberties in times of war. Of course, this must be a temporary, and rare thing, and only done out of absolute necessity. We all know the old saying about those willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither. However, I just don't see the freedoms we are giving up, but I do see a real security issue.

The senator who voted in favor of the bill was Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who continues to demonstrate a solid understanding of national-security issues. The Democrat presidential candidates were not so astute: Sen. Barack Hussein Obama voted against reauthorizing the terrorist-surveillance program, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was too busy campaigning to vote at all.

The Maunder Minimum and Science

Two items of Climate science have appeared in print and on the History Channel that bear notice and understanding by all Americans who believe in our way of life. Yes, there are things that can and should get better for all of us, but bottom line, the way of life of citizens, and non-citizens, is better here in the United States than any place else on Earth.

This way of life is threatened by Al Gore's pseudo-scientific group that has joined hands with the new home of the American Marxists, the Ecologists, to try to eliminate the use of fosile fuels.

There are just a few things that should be exposed before we stampede into unchartered territory that could make the United States a second rate nation.

The real scientists who study climate changes have come up with two facts, not theories, that should be considered.

The first is the fact that shifting from fosile fuels to bio-fuels will produce more CO2 gases than the present use of fosile fuels. I offer this as the first point to consider.

"According to the first study, which was conducted by ecologists from Princeton and the Woods Hole Research Center, biofuel advocates have made massive accounting errors by ignoring renewable energy’s “hidden costs.” For example, there is 2.7 times more carbon stored in plant material than the atmosphere, and massive amounts of this plant material would have to be burned off to make room to grow biofuel crops. Moreover, plant material serves as a sort of “carbon sink,” absorbing large amounts of CO2. By removing trees to make room for biofuel crops, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will only increase. The study ultimately concludes that when one considers production costs, the amount of greenhouse-gas emissions from ethanol over a period of 30 years will be twice as high as from gasoline, and that it will take 167 years for ethanol to “pay back” the carbon released by making land suitable for biofuel crops".

The second is the "Maunder Minimum". An occurence that had a severe cooling effect on the Earth's climate in 1860.

"Solar activity occurs in cycles of 11 years, and thus far, in the current cycle, the sun has been unusually quiet. The sun’s inactivity could indicate the beginning of what is known as the Maunder Minimum. This event occurs every few hundred years and lasts possibly as long as a century. The last Maunder Minimum occurred in 1650 and was marked by 50 years of terribly freezing winters and cool summers. These findings prove once again what should be blatantly obvious: that Al Gore’s man-made global-warming circus is not scientific, but rather is a scare tactic used for the promotion of class warfare and the redistribution of wealth. Liberals hope that, in addition to piling up political capital with global warming, they can also guilt-trip Americans into surrendering their quality of life"

Source for both quotes is the "Patriot Post".

One other thing must also be mentioned regarding bio fuels. Ethanol has been used in Wisconsin and a few other mid-western states for over a decade, The results of their use has shown that ethanol damages fuel injectors and other parts of the fuel delivery system more than gasoline. Thus we have costs for replacement parts on top of the damaging effect the conversion from food products to ethanol producing crops has on our food supply and it's cost.

This damaging effect will also have an impact on the military in the near future. The military machine runs on fosile fuel!

Any one who thinks that the Ecologists will be satisfied with just involving the private sector in this bio fuels crusade is nuts!

The military will be mandated soon after they convert the private sector, and this could have serious consequences for the effectiveness of our military cabability to fight in the field of battle. More break downs, repairs and costly replacements will be reflected in increased costs for military spending.

If ,God forbid, the Democrat front runner in the primary race, Barack Obama, should become President. His diplomacy over military approach to foreign threats to Our Country will have a devastating effect on the military. Not unlike the Clinton administration, that was marked by "slash and burn" approach to the military. A pacifist like Obama will drastictly reduce our military capabilty you can be sure!

You Will Pay For Candidates Promises

In 1935 President Roosevelt proposed and got passed the now infamous Social Security Act. In 1935 the rate of taxation was 2% of incomes up to $3,000, and there were 47 workers paying into the fund for every potential recipient over age 65.

Today there are 3 people working and paying in to the fund for every one on social security. The rate is 12.5% and the maximum has been raised to $100,000 of earned income.

In 1935 the average length of life was 63 years, so not many people ever got to receive the benefit, and the fund was solvent. Now with the advent of medical advancement and new drugs to sustain longer life, more and more people are living into their 80's.

It has been projected by those who "manage" the social security fund that by 2047 the fund will be bankrupt. This will occur even sooner if the beaurcratic system of our federal government keeps tapping into the yearly surplus as they have been doing for years.

A seldom publicised fact is that each year the federal government takes what ever is left over from the taxes paid into the fund for use in the general revenue. They give the fund an IOU which is held by the fund for redemption when needed.

The problem is the IOU's are not worth the paper they are written on. The government is running massive deficits because of Congress's profligrate spending on both sides of the aisle for "pork" projects that keep them in Washington living the high life of a federal government politician.

The one who will pay the bill when it comes due, and it will be a "doozy" is estimated at 65 trillion dollars that will come from the people in the form of more taxes. Even that won't help the fund unless the tax rate for social security is raised to 20% of earned income, as estimated by experts in analysis of the Social Security sytem have said.

This being said how in the blazes is the tax payer going to afford to pay for not only universal heatth care coverage, defense and welfare without going to a tax rate, independent of social security, of at least 40%?

Demagogues like Hillary and Obama, not only promise universal health coverage, but are getting to the point of being asinine, when Obama promises one thing Hillary tries to "OneUp" him. Take this as an example: "My opponent promised you drivers licenses," Clinton said at a rally in Jackson Heights, NY. "Well, ladies and gentlemen, I will do you one better. I will give every family a car to drive so you have a use for those drivers licenses!"

The atrociousness and diabolical nature of this promise is that she is not promising this to legal poor citizens of United States. She is making this promise to a rally of aliens, most of whom are illegals from Mexico! I know in both cases the candidates realize that illegals should not and cannot vote by law, but this is pandering to the Latin and Mexican voters that are legal, and will vote because they belive the candidates are for them. There dilema is that McCain also is an advocate of "amnesty" for illegals. No one appears to care about the impact on the neglected taxpayers.

Hillary Clinton delivered a Valentines Day promise in Texas that went like this: She outlined a path for illegal immigrants to gain citizenship in exchange for paying fines and back taxes and learning English. She said she wanted to develop a continuous working relationship with Mexico’s government and national organizations. She said she would help deliver the area’s first veterans hospital south of San Antonio. And she vowed to examine border security and push for more personnel and technology, in contrast to the federal government’s focus on building a border fence. You know who will pay for this!

When you consider whom you will vote for remember promises are good only if you can back them up! Both Hillary and Barack have promised universal health care to cover the 15 to 20 million Americans who don't have any coverage, but all wokers will have to pay for it in the form of additional taxes or garnishments of wages. And don't believe for a minute that atxing the"rich" more will pay for all they promise. If you confiscated all the ealth of the so called"rich" you still wouldn't have enough to bail out socialsecurity and runa balanced budget!

Experts on health care costs predict the following: The health care plans proposed by Senators Clinton and Obama are similar in many ways, but they differ in several important respects. The Clinton plan "mandates" health insurance for everyone. The Obama plan requires that all children have insurance, and subsidizes health care for other Americans who are presently uninsured. Clinton estimates that her plan will cost in the region of $110 billion a year; Obama has put a $50 to $65 billion price tag on his proposals.

Obama Takes A Page Out Of History

Of all the speeches and Press conferences Obama has given. I believe the one that reveals the true Obama is the one speech he gave in Madison, Wisconsin. In his speech he revealed what he means by change.
Despite the fact that organized labor contributes large sums of money to his campaign, he advocates removing the effects of power and influence in Washington. The New America he speaks of is not new at all. In fact the American Progressive Party has been campaigning on issues he is advocating since the dawn of the twentieth century.
He speaks of a "game" where lobbyists set the agenda and the voices of the workers is drowned out. He says he will stand with the "workers" when he is President. Obama seems to have a natural command of the double-game. He pitches himself as above partisan party politics, but in a consummately political fashion. He once said, "I've become a receptacle for a lot of other people's issues that they need to work out. . . . I've been living with this stuff my whole life". But he also attracts this identification with himself deliberately so that he embodies the national unity many Americans long for.
Obama is a fine example of a mere product of the American system, shallow window-dressing for its global pretensions and further evidence of the transformation of its politics into entertainment. The triumph of looks and style over substance!
He speaks of ending the mind set that got us into the war. A pacifist socialist platform back in the early 1900's.
He is speaking about the division that exists in the country, further promoting the class animus that was started by peole like Victor Berger, Emil Slidel, and LaFollette. All Wisconsin progressive Socialists who preached taxation and power to the working man.
He speaks of a "calling", he has dream and a hope of a boy who was not born to wealth, but hope to eleveate poverty, improve our schools, and change attitudes to bring jobs to the jobless. He says somebody must be willing to stand up and fight, and then compares his campaign to the "greatest generations" fight in WWII, the fight when women won the right to vote and the fight for civil rights.
He says he will rebuild this country block by block and city by city. And there is no better place to start then in Wisconsin where the Progressive movement was started. "Our Dream will not be denied"!

The previous paragraph is jumbled because it was typed while I listened to his speech in Madison, and the speech was a eloquent rambling rant, filled with promises for change that is based on class alienation and enmity. These are Socialist ideas that have been foresaken, with the exception of Pacifism which is still one of the endorsements of Socialists.

What Obama is doing is repackaging and recycling the theories and philosophy of one of the founders of the Wisconsin Progressive Socialist movement. Apropos to the speech he gave in Madison, Wisconsin. Madison and the University of Wisconsin are hot beds of left wing ideas.
He concludes his speech referring to a figure of the early 1900's , Robert M. La Follette. Although he doesn't call him by name, he does refer to the beginnings of what he calls the Progressive movement that he represents.

Senator La Follette is best remembered as a proponent of Progressivism and a vocal opponent of railroad trusts, bossism, World War I, and the League of Nations. The Wisconsin Socialist Party web site provides this information about La Follette.
"La Follette was one of the most eloquent voices of his day in speaking out in favor of popular democracy and in opposition to government by special interests. As governor, he developed the "Wisconsin Idea," the use of university professors to draft reform legislation and administer policy. At his urging, the legislature provided for direct primary elections, equalization of taxation, conservation of forests, and control of railroad rates.
From 1906 to 1925, La Follette was a United States Senator. There, to combat conservatism, he organized the National Progressive League in 1911. His greatest national prominence came when he spoke out forcefully in opposition to the United States entry into World War I, believing it to be a war to protect overseas business investments. He also spoke against U.S. membership in the League of Nations.

Obama is nothing less than a very slick progressive Socialist!

Obama the New Messianic Symbol to Many

Note to non-Catholics: You won't like this blog!


Apparently there are followers and the majority of the MSM that believe Barrak Obama is the best example of Liberation Theology since Jesus walked on the the Earth. The youthful "minds of mush" that cheer at every word uttered by this "man of change" illustrate a messianic fervor not unlike a new convert to Liberation Theology. A relatively new form of Christianity. The promises he makes are very much like those espoused by the New Liberation theology.
It is not incognizable that young people would gravitate toward a man who espouses a change.
These young voters are at the period of their life where they are of a mind to reject all that their parents and established organizations, including government and the Church, stand for. It is the rebellious nature of youth expressing itself, and it is the mantra of most college and university professors that teach them. But why so many adults?

What does this man have to offer other than platitudes of change. A man who attends a church in Chicago that has as it's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright ,Jr., an avowed Black racist who has a masters degree in Theology with emphasis on Islam. Has traveled extensively in the Middle East with Louis Farrakhan, and had this to say about his race:
"We are an African people, and we remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization." Not we are African Americans who are first Americans and then Blacks who are proud of our heritage!
Unfotunately this sounds strangely similar to the slogans of La Raza and many illegals parading through our streets to demonstrate their solidarity against our rule of law. It is axiomatic that a lust for "Change" is a common feature of revolutionaries. Maybe that is why you will find a Cuban flag and poster of Che Guevra in Obama's campaign headquarters in Houston, Texas.

But I digress! Over and over again, Obama invokes his double mantra: "It's time for change!" and "Yes, we can!" This sounds very scarey to me. Change for change sake is not a good thing, and an advocate for change without naming the specific changes he/she will make is very frightening. We have had in the last seventy five years too many tyrants who preached change for the common good. Pol pot, Hitler, Chairman Moa, Lenin, Stalin and Marx are but a few that came to power or prominence by proclaiming the need to change. They changed the lives of those they ruled in ways that only the anti-Christ would be proud. Never the less the one thing he will not change is the unfettered continual aborting of unborn and partially born babies. He is and always will be for abortion rights!

Perhaps Obama has good intentions, but you cannot decide if his intentions and the way he will change our lives, by anything he has said or done in the past.
The man is an enigma, a "preacher" type who wants to rule the free world from the oval office with promises of a repeal of tax cuts, and if need be, increased taxation to accomplish his socialist programs like universal health care.

In the minds of his "followers", hope is interpreted as "confidence in the.future" and as working for the future and thus is subordinated once more to the history of class conflict. Pope Benedict XVI had this to say about those who promise that government will provide for people that for which is reserved to God.
"The liberation theologians emphasize very strongly the partiality and partisan nature of the Christian option; in their view, taking sides is the fundamental presupposition for a correct hermeneutics of the biblical testimony. Here, I think, one can see very clearly that amalgam of a basic truth of Christianity and an un-Christian fundamental option which makes the whole thing so seductive: The Sermon on the Mount is indeed God taking sides with the poor. But to interpret the "poor" in the sense of the marxist dialectic of history, and "taking sides with them" in the sense of the class struggle, is a wanton attempt to portray as identical things that are contrary.
The fundamental concept of the preaching of Jesus is the "Kingdom of God". This concept is also at the center of the liberation theologies, but read against the background of marxist hermeneutics. According to one of these theologians, the Kingdom must not be understood in a spiritualist or universalist manner, not in the sense of an abstract eschatological eventuality. It must be understood in partisan terms and with a view to praxis. The meaning of the Kingdom can only be defined by reference to the praxis of Jesus, not theoretically: it means working at the historical reality that surrounds us in order to transform it into the Kingdom.
"Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic." Pope Benedict XVI

And just for those Catholics whom have already forgotten the words of Pope John Paul II, about those who espouse the philosophy that man can do for his fellow man what he believes is reserved to God alone. He said this: " I also believe a person that talks like a communist, acts like a communist, associates with communist, praises everything communist, might just be a communist, independently of whether he/she uses a uniform or a robe, and even if he/she would throw in 10% or so of biblical related terms in their speeches."
The Pope(john Paul) believed that the Church should operate primarily in a spiritual dimension and that social change and public attitudes would be a consequence of the growth of that spirituality.
From what I have heard in the political speeches made by Obama. He is offering a Marxist change that is diametrically opposed to the frame work and meaning of our Constitution. He is nothing less than a "preacher of Socialism!

A Civics Lesson For Potential Voters

My mother and father used a truism that I will never forget, when they told me not to pass judgement on people at first glance. They said:"You can't judge a book by it's cover"! What they meant, was to like or dislike people by observing their words and actions, not by how they looked , what clothes they wore or the color of their skin.

It takes a while to determine the quality of a man or woman, and their actions and record of their actions speak volumes about what kind of person they are.

This can be translated very easily into the judgement of whom a person would like to lead his/her Country. What have they done to warrant the position of leadership, what do they stand for: not what are they promising, should influence your choice.

In the prelude to the Presidential election we have been deluged with articles about the campaign promises, and little has been said about the actual records of the three major candidates still in the race. Today's Patriot Post has an excellent article about the two Democrat candidates that are full of promises for what the government will do for those who vote for them. In his article Cal Thomas points out the fallacy of the policies and programs that both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama promise during their campaign speeches. The important issue is that what they promise is unlike many other campaign promises. They will deliver if elected, not promise and forget! The italics are added by me for emphasis.

“[Barack] Obama [has said] the top priority of the next president should be the creation of a more lasting and equitable prosperity than achieved under Presidents Bush and Clinton. Obama apparently missed the class that teaches government doesn’t create prosperity; people do. During [a recent] debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama said he would pay for his proposed new programs, including mandatory health insurance, by imposing higher taxes on ‘the wealthy’ and raising the tax on Social Security wages. He added, ‘What we have had right now is a situation where we’ve cut taxes for people who don’t need them.’ Should government determine how much money people ‘need’? This is Marxism: ‘from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.’ Sen. Clinton expressed similar sentiments on ABC’s ‘This Week’ when she said if people refuse to buy health insurance under her plan she might garnish people’s wages.

One reason this socialistic mind-set resonates favorably with many is due to the shift in the last half-century from promoting hard work, self-sufficiency, marriage, personal responsibility and accountability and living within one’s means, to a mentality that I am entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor. That used to be called robbery before government started doing it more than a century ago through the income tax. How many politicians today talk about looking out for one’s self, not relying on government?” —Cal Thomas

Both Democrats are advocating a shift in this Country's government toward socialism. Does the senior body politic want their hard earned social security benefits taxed to help pay for the hordes of illegals that will surely pour into our Country if the Democrats win?

Does the average worker who makes over 30 thousand dollars a year realize that in the minds of Socialists like Hillary and Obama they are the rich from whom they intend to take more of the honestly earned income either by increased taxation or if Hillary has her way by garnishment?

Don't people realize that Senator Clinton is talking about invoking ,if necessary, a deed which is a corner stone of anarcy! Confiscation through garnishment to make her Socialized health plan work, is nothing less than advocating the begining of anarchy. It takes more than a village to live through what she will bring to government if elected to the oval office.

Obama is mimicking Hillary"s Socialist agenda, and has little to show for his two years in the US Senate. He has sealed his record in the Illinois Legislature, so that is not available for scrutiny. But his selection of a Church with a radical anti-white Pastor is of concern, not only to me but his handlers, who keep him away from the campaign. He is a handsome smooth talker, but is this what we want to stake on the future of Our Country? I think Not!

Whose Side Is Pelosi On?

The self annointed "Queen" of The House of Representatives is back on her "hobby horse" again. Yesterday while being interviewed by "chicken little" Wolf Blitzer, she said that the Iraq war is a total failure and the "surge" has failed.
The media is reporting that she had this to say:
"Pelosi (D-Calif.) said twice Sunday that Iraq “is a failure,” adding that President Bush’s troop surge has “not produced the desired effect.” Ms. Pelosi’s comment came during a discussion of her call for “the redeployment of our troops out of Iraq.”
I assume she feels that the British handing over the security control of Basra to the Iraqi's is one of the "failures" to which she is referring.

Apparently the leaders of alQaeda in Anbar province don't share this egomaniacs feelings about the "surge"! Martin Fletcher of the London Times had this quote from one of two letters discovered that were written last November by al Qaeda leader Abu-Tarig to another leader in Balad, north of Baghdad.

“I am Abu-Tariq, emir of the al-Layin and al-Mashahdah sector,” the author begins. He goes on to describe how his force of 600 shrank to fewer than 20.
“We were mistreated, cheated and betrayed by some of our brothers,” he says. “Those people were nothing but hypocrites, liars and traitors and were waiting for the right moment to switch sides with whoever pays them most.” In a later part of the 16 page document he said this:

"This created weakness and psychological defeat. This also created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight. The morale of the fighters went down. There was a total collapse in the security structure of the organization.”
The emir complained that the supply of foreign fighters had dwindled and that they found it increasingly hard to operate inside Iraq because they could not blend in. Foreign suicide bombers determined to kill “not less than 20 or 30 infidels” grew disillusioned because they were kept hanging about and only given small operations. Some gave up and went home.

Apparently Ms.Pelosi feels she has to beat the "defeatest war drum" to help deflect the fact that the Democrat party is in the middle of a "cat fight" between the Obama and Hillary Clinton campaign cadre that could possibly split the party in half.

Apparently she doesn't comprehend the fact that the voting public trusts her and her Congressional conspirators less than they do the President according to the latest polls. Nor does she apparently read the intelligence reports from Iraq that are available to her as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Perhaps she just chooses to ignore them as do her Leftist co-horts and "fellow travelers" in the Media!


The the words above are not from al-Qaeda's enemies, but of one of its own leaders in Anbar province — once the group's stronghold. They were set down last summer in a letter seized during a US raid on an al-Qaeda base near Samarra in November".