ARE YOU THE PIGEON IN THIS GAME OF POLITICS?

Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families, especially those of our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty while prosecuting the war with Jihadis

As I have written before, Obama changes positions more than a Chameleon changes color depending on it's environment. Apparently, the change he was calling foreign his campaign slogan, was not for Washington politics, but for his primary campaign positions. Abortion, gun control, capital punishment, FISA laws, the status of Jerusalem, faith-based federal programs, public financing of his campaign, welfare, NAFTA and free trade, and his commitment to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his Trinity Church all have fallen to reconsideration, rephrasing, changed rhetorical modulation, and other semantic miracles. source : Tony Blankley

As a conservative, of course, I like all his changed views except for the fact that I believe he is insincere. and doesn't believe his current statements of principle any more than he believed his previous positions he used in the primary.

H.L. Mencken defined a demagogue as “one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." It is not surprising that the youth is particularly enchanted by the senator from Illinois. Being young, they are inexperienced in the ways of the world, and subject to flights of fantasy and promises of better times! Obama and his handlers know just the right formula to spin what ever audience he is speaking to, but only a fool would believe a man who means what he says could change positions and policies as often as he changes his underwear!

But as Tony Blankley said in the Patriot Post; " When you are invited to a new poker game and look around the table for the pigeon but can't spot him, you're the pigeon".Our we the pigeon in Obama's political shell game?

IS SEIU TRYING TO BUY THE OVAL OFFICE?

One union with a long time connection with Obama, and 2 million members,is attempting to buy the presidential election this November. The Service Employees International Union was solicited by Obama to help his election campaign, and they jumped in with both feetas this quote from2/15/08 by Jennifer Farmer of SEIU illustrates!

“The outcome of this election will decide whether we finally achieve quality, affordable healthcare for everyone, whether we have economic fairness, whether we bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, and whether workers in America finally have the freedom to form unions without intimidation” said Dave Regan, President, SEIU District 1199. “We intend to mobilize our members in an unprecedented way in support of Senator Barack Obama,” Regan concluded.

SEIU outlined the key reasons for the Obama endorsement:

This is one of the most important presidential elections workers have faced. Families are struggling, we’re fighting two wars, and a majority of Americans are now worried that their children will be worse off than they are".source SEIU home page


The election laws require that so-called "independent expenditures" by political committees be limited to communications, such as the ubiquitous TV spots and newspaper ads to which we have all become accustomed, but SEIU's PACs have paid for such campaign essentials as door-to-door canvassing for Obama, voter identification and registration, and even bus rental and food for pro-Obama rallies.


A number of the expenditures listed in their report to the Elections Commission, show such reimbursement of SEIU employees' per Diem expenses or food for an Election Day rally, can qualify as "communication" by only the most Clintonian parsing of terms. Instead, they look like the nuts and bolts of running a campaign

The SEIU announced on June 24th that they plan "a budget of $85 million for this election, targeting swing states for Obama's presidential campaign" and other candidates. In addition, SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger said, "More than 100,000 SEIU members will be volunteering their time to ... elect Barrack Obama as our next president." (Which begs the question if the "volunteers' salaries and per Diem's will also be reimbursed.)source: American Thinker


As if to intentionally add new heights to political hypocrisy, the announcement followed by mere days Obama's pronouncement that the Democratic National Committee "won't take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party".
The truth apparently is a stranger to Obama and his campaign as this quote attests.
The story also raises to new levels Obama's hypocrisy about PAC money, since he is accused of doling out just such donations in exchange for endorsements". source: Washington Post


Obama apparently learned a lesson from the mistakes of the Kerry campaign. By opting out of accepting cash donations directly from PACs. He became the first major party candidate to opt out of federal funding and the restrictions that come with it -- Obama steered the committees who support him, and whose support he even "begged" for, down a path which allows limitless spending on his behalf!

And to rub salt in the wounds of the Republican party, the media elite goes after Vets for Freedom for making a TV buy for John McCain,but they're giving Barack Obama a free ride as he surfs a wave of PAC money to the Democratic nomination, a wave that, if anything, is nearing tsunami proportions despite his boasts (aka: lies) that he doesn't accept money from Pacs.

BALI ROAD MAP TO WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION!

The folly of negotiating with Communist countries is never more evident than in the recent Bali meeting to develop a Global Climate Policy.
The fiasco in Kyoto resulted in the exempting of three of the worst air polluters in the world, China, India and Brazil.

At the conference in Bali(Had to be an exotic vacation location for the pampered ),late last year, China, India and Brazil not only showed up, but were active in shaping policy decisions. They did not commit to concrete standards or goals to reduce emissions, but Bali was noteworthy for the enhanced role that major emerging economies played in shaping the discussion. China, India, and Brazil led the developing country bloc and -- for the first time in the history of the negotiations -- accepted possible commitments to reduce emissions.
The key word here is possible. Yes, maybe they will close all the plants in and around Beijing for the Olympics to make the air breathable for the athletes, and to showcase their concern for clean air. But once the games are concluded they will continue their pollution spewing industries while giving lip service to the Bali agreement.

Now we learn that The United States lost its singular veto power and a group of emerging powers, most notably China, India, and Brazil, and economic powerhouse Russia, have started to use their new economic and political weight to shape negotiations. The European Union tried to retain political leadership by acting as a broker between diverging interests, but it will only be able to make a real difference if the transatlantic climate policy partnership can be revitalized.

This may be why the Germans and French are so giddy about the impending election of the socialist leaning Obama. He will be easier to deal with than a hard line patriot like McCain. He will not give away OUR sovereignty.

The Bali conference agreed upon five basic goals. One is the reason I believe this is just another scheme to confiscate more tax dollars from Americans to give to "developing countries"!
"Developing countries(aka: China, India and Brazil among many others) have to be supported with technology,financing, and capacity building. In oterwords in the name of controlling Global Warming we have to send money and expertise to Communist China. A country that already has thousands of our jobs,
because of their slave labor standards!

Russia too, is a "fly in the ointment" of a successful Global Plan. Russia is the last of the BRIC countries,and has developed into a major headache for the European Union. The Russian delegates stated in informal consultations that it expects to benefit from climate change, and that the proposed reduction commitments were incompatible with President Putin’s goals to double electricity production and to increase oil and gas exports.Damn pollution, we want to be the European economic power house with our oil resources,is what they are saying!source: Sacha Muller-Kraenner of Nature ConservancyThe most alarming domestic development in the United States is the Senate’s discussion of a national cap and trade system for greenhouse gas emissions (the Lieberman-Warner bill). This scheme draws strongly on lessons from the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). If the bill is passed,( God forbid that it does) the auctioning of emission permits would generate significant amounts of funding for the introduction of sustainable energy technologies and international climate change assistance. Author's note: Yes, and it would put our indusrtial production in a great disadvantage because of the restrictions. Lost productivity and lost jobs!

The remaining question is whether a future US administration will accept two necessary cornerstones of any future global climate agreement: legally binding targets and significant finance transfers to developing countries, even if those countries, like China, compete with the United States in other economic areas. China and India are considered developing countries even though they have many thousands working on jobs that were held by Americans, and both have the atom bomb!

Der Spiegel, the left wing newspaperin Germany, had this to say about the Bali"Road Map"."The change of the US administration in January 2009 creates a historic opportunity to resurrect transatlantic leadership on global environmental issues. The European Union and the United States have three major reasons to start a new era of climate policy cooperation. First of all, the United States remains the world’s major emitter of greenhouse gases, even though China has surpassed the United States in emissions of CO2, the main gas under consideration".Sounds like double talk to this writer!

And this is the scary part! "A new American administration in 2009 would be wise to help build a system of international law that will bind Washington to the future-powers-to-be.aka: World law that supersedes our Constitution and laws!

VIEWS OF CURRENT EVENTS FROM MY SIDE OF THE STREET

Maybe America Deserves an Obama Presidency? 9th, 2008 | 11:25 am
The United States of America has essentially become a secularized, humanistic society. Not even faintly symbolic of the Republic that the Signers of the Declaration of Independence or the framers of our Constitution intended this Republic to evolve into.
There have been 27 amendments to the Constitution since it's adoption 221 years ago on 9/17/1787. Only 26 are currently in force, and the Firt is the one that has been used to change this country from a Republic to a quasi-socialist government.
Although the First Amendment explicitly prohibits only the named rights from being abridged by laws made by the Congress, the courts have arbitrarally interpreted it as applying more broadly. As the first sentence in the body of the Constitution reserves all legislative authority to the Congress, the courts have held that the First Amendment's terms also extend to the executive and judicial branches.

From a simple definition of the rights of citizens of the USA that states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". The leftist supreme court "packed by FDR has twisted this amendment to mean that illegal aliens, even those accused of terrorism have the right to the same trial by jury as a citizen of the USA.
They have twisted logic to allow the genocide of our times, abortion on demand, as a right of women to choose!
They have banished the name of God from court rooms and public places, and ruled against all religious displays such as the Nativity scene at Christmas.
The court has made burning our flag legal even though they previously deemed burning a draft card illegal!


In 1969, the Supreme Court decided the landmark Brandenburg v. Ohio,which overruled Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), a case in which a woman was imprisoned for aiding the Communist Party. Brandenburg effectively swept away Dennis as well, casting the right to speak freely of violent action and revolution in broad terms: “[Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Some one explain to me the logic of allowing people who enjoy the rights and privileges of the USA can stay out of jail despite advocating the overthrow of the government, not imminently, but in the near future. Sounds like the well worn phrase used by Bill Clinton. "it depends upon the definition of is-is". source: Wikapedia


We Americans who love our Country, and I believe we are the majority, despite it's "warts and faults", have stood by silently while the Marxist/socialists have used our Constitution to destroy us from within. Both Joe Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev must be laughing they dead A**es off in H**L. They said they would never have to defeat us in battle, because they could destroy us from within!
They have been aide on the left,by unions, pro-choice and environmental groups, MoveOn.org, and 527 groups funded by the likes of George Soros, Peter Lewis and the Sandlers. When the smoke clears, and the election is decided,they will have far outspent similar groups supporting the right.
Because of their money, and the MSMedia cover-up of Obama's Marxists leaning policies,Obama will have a huge money advantage in the next four months.

Thus, if an October surprise does not happen, that will expose Obama for the left wing advocate that he his, we will have the most radical left President in the Oval Office in our history. Then only God can help us! And after we stood silent while his name and laws were debased. I wonder if he is not fed up with us?

THE NEW YORK TIMES OUTS THE WRONG PERSON

The New York Times outed a CIA agent who interrogated the mastermind of the (/11/01 Twin Towers attack. This despite the repeated pleas not to use Mr. Deuce Martinez's name in their article. This is the man who used psychology tricks to interrogate Khalid Shaik Mohammed, not water boarding or other "torture" methods as the Times has referred to in the past.
This man himself asked the Times editors not to use his name in the article, and so did numerous CIA officials, but to no avail! Now this man's life and that of his family is in jeopardy, but not to worry! The time editors published a statement that essentially said they needed his name to corroborate the story. They added insult to injury by writing that Al Qaeda poses no threat to individual Americans here in the USA.

I guess when it suits their political and philosophical mind set they use the old bromide, source confidentiality, as was done in the Valerie Plame debacle.

What should be apparent to anyone but a Marxist leaning liberal is that the New York Times, and their equally leftist co-conspirator in Washington, The Washington Post only print what the leftist pseudo-intellectuals want to read. Bad news for anyone in the military, CIA, FBI or Bush administration.

They are careful not to out the "empty suit" running for the Presidency, Obama.
They carefully print story's of his shift to the center. He has a long way to go to run from his leftist record, but they will spend every inch of ink to try to con the American people that Obama is a centrist.

They do not print story's that illustrate that Obama's positions on such important issues is contrary to the majority of Americans, as this list shows.

Obama opposes offshore drilling for oil. Voters support drilling by 67% to 18%. (Rasmussen, June 2008).

Obama supports giving driver licenses to illegal immigrants. Americans oppose this 76% to 23%. (CNN/ Opinion Research, Oct. 2007)

Obama supports affirmative action in public employment, contracting and university admissions. Americans oppose giving an advantage in these areas on the basis of race by a margin of 82% to 14%. (Newsweek, July 2007)

Obama says that he will cut funding for research and development of missile defense systems. 89% of Americans support development of or research for missile defense -- 8% don't. (Program on International Policy Alternatives, March 2004) It's worth noting that Obama's closer to a pre-9/11 view of missile defense. An August 2001 Bloomberg News poll showed only 49% favored missile defense at that time whereas 41% opposed it.

Obama voted against a ban on partial birth abortions. Americans support a ban by a margin of 66% to 28%. (CNN/Opinion Research, May 2007)

Despite his equivocal statements regarding the recent Supreme Court decision striking down the D.C. gun ban, Obama has never met a gun ban he didn't like. Although many Americans support certain types of restrictions on guns, they oppose broad bans by a margin of 68% to 30%. In fact, 58% insist no new gun laws should be passed.(Gallup, Oct. 2007)

Obama opposed the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act while in the Illinois state legislature. The measure is designed to prevent abortion providers from withholding medical care and sustenance from infants born after surviving an abortion attempt. There's no national polling data on this state issue, but when the Senate voted on a analogous piece of legislation -- the Born Alive Infant Protection Act -- the measure passed unanimously.

Obama voted against a bill that would make English the official language for conducting business with the U.S. government. Americans support making English the official language 85% to 11%, including 79% of Democrats. (Rasmussen, July 2006)

While in the Illinois state legislature, Obama voted against parental notification requirements for abortions for minors. Americans support parental notification laws by a margin of 79% to 17%. Even 64% of those identifying themselves as pro-choice support such laws. (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, April 2005)

Obama maintains that the Supreme Court's recent decisions prohibiting the use of race in determining public school assignments are wrong. In contrast, 71% of American agree with the decisions and only 24% disagree. (Quinnipiac, July 2007)

A good title for an article about Obama would be the Chameleon changes color again, color being a euphemism for positions!

WHO DOES OBAMA BELIEVE HE CAN CONVERT?

Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families, especially those of our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan.

Obama was photographed watching a Forth Of July parade in Montana, holding a small American flag. Obama EVEN paid homage to patriotism, faith, service to the community and military service—every national touchstone beside baseball and apple pie. July 4th brought images of Obama immersed in traditional Independence Day pageantry at a picnic and parade with his family in Montana.Nothing but show!!

Previously, he refused to wear a flag lapel pin while campaigning for the nomination, because he said it was not a real show of patriotism.
Now that he has captured the nomination and is assured of the left wing radical element of this country, and is certain to capture the majority of Black voters. He is shifting tactics to trick the middle American voters whom he essentially called early in the campaign, "nothing more than gun loving, religious zealots".

But let us not forget that people like Jane Fonda has said she would vote for Obama. In April of this year she was questioned as she left a restaurant, whom she would vote for? OBAMA, was her answer.


For those of you under thirty, Jane Fonda is not a name you are familiar with. Hanoi Jane went to Hanoi, Vietnam in 1972 and gave a radio address critical of the Nixon administration's waging war against the Communist North.It concluded with this statement:

"But now, despite the bombs, despite the crimes being created- being committed against them by Richard Nixon, these people own their own land, build their own schools- the children learning, literacy- illiteracy is being wiped out, there is no more prostitution as there was during the time when this was a French colony. In other words, the people have taken power into their own hands, and they are controlling their own lives.

And after 4,000 years of struggling against nature and foreign invaders- and the last 25 years, prior to the revolution, of struggling against French colonialism- I don't think that the people of Vietnam are about to compromise in any way, shape or form about the freedom and independence of their country, and I think Richard Nixon would do well to read Vietnamese history, particularly their poetry, and particularly the poetry written by Ho Chi Minh.Many American's believe what Fonda did during the Vietnam war were treason, at least giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Not unlike the modern day equivalent of, marxist dominated Iraq war protesters.

While Obama feigns his patriotism by having photographs staged showing him holding a flag. There are those anti-war,flag burning Marxists who are happy to have Hanoi Jane join the ranks of supporters of an Obama presidency.

McCain’s history as a Vietnam War POW who suffered torture while Fonda gave his captors photo-ops will resonate even further if she takes to the stump on Obama’s behalf. She probably has been told to "bug off", because her presence would draw connections between Obama’s anti-war supporters and the radicals — like Weathermen Ayers and Dohrn,of Fonda’s generation. While that might thrill the MoveOn crowd, it will likely lose Obama the heartland, independents, and centrists who will balk at that kind of radicalism, especially while the more moderate option in Senator McCain.

IFC IS PART OF CARBON CREDIT SCAM

The International Finance Corporation is a member of the World Bank Group.
Their vision is that people should have the opportunity to escape poverty and improve their lives. IFC is now the fastest growing component of the World Bank Group.


IFC allegedly provides investments and advisory services to build the private sector in developing countries. What they do is make money, lots of money, while redistributing our wealth and the money of less supportive nations to Third World Countries.The issue I have is that much of their money goes to some not so poor countries like Communist China and quasi-Communist Russia. Both rich in economies that do not trickle down to the majority of their population, because of the totalitarian regime that controls both countries.

The IFC does this through their investment branch. A company or entrepreneur seeking to establish a new venture or expand an existing enterprise can approach IFC directly by submitting an investment proposal.

After this initial contact and a preliminary review, IFC may proceed by requesting a detailed feasibility study or business plan to determine whether or not to appraise the project.

IFC's project/investment cycle illustrates the stages a business idea goes through as it becomes an IFC-financed project.

Although IFC is primarily a financier of private sector projects, it may provide finance for a company with some government ownership, provided there is private sector participation and the venture is run on a commercial basis. For example:For the World Bank after approving a loan for Shell’s contractors in Nigeria, the IFC immediately moved to the next critical piece of funding for the poor. In mid-June, the Board approved a $1.75 million loan for a 4-star hotel in Port Harcourt because “these companies will continue to demand clean reasonably priced hotel rooms.”source: — Stephen Kretzmann


Although IFC does not accept government guarantees for its financing, its work often requires close cooperation with government agencies in developing countries. Sounds like bureaucratic double talk to me. Either they deal with the private sector or they don't!

But today,their big investment venture is in the new Carbon Credits market. A scheme that has spawned the Global Warming sector that will make huge sums of money for these supposed philanthropists.


The Carbon Finance Unit serves as IFC's in-house resource for all carbon finance-related issues, providing services directly to buyers and sellers. The Unit leads in the development of new products, and serves as an advisor on a variety of products and services to support private sector participation in the evolving carbon market.

IFC is well-positioned to assist project sponsors with participation in the rapidly growing market for 'carbon credits'. Through the Carbon Finance Program, IFC contributes to the development of an important new market for environmental services.

The Carbon Finance Unit brings IFC's extensive experience in project finance to manage long term and credit risks in emerging markets. Carbon Finance products and services include:

Finance Products and Services
Carbon Delivery Guarantee
Monetization of future cashflows from sales of carbon credits
Debt and equity for carbon rich products and businesses
Work with Financial Intermediaries and municipalities to help aggregate carbon credits from their various investment operations

CERs and ERUs (carbon credits) are greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions that are created when a project reduces or avoids the emissions of GHGs, such as carbon dioxide or methane, relative to what would have been emitted under a 'business as usual' scenario. For example, a new wind power plant that displaces existing or expected coal-fired power generation would create a significant amount of credits, as would a project at a landfill that captures and utilizes some or all of the methane that previously escaped into the air. In contrast, a wind power project that offsets hydropower would not generate credits as the baseline itself has no GHG emissions.

The USA is the largest CONTRIBUTOR TO THE IMF BY CONTRIBUTING 24% OF THE IMF ANNUAL BUDGET. Russia contributes 3%, and Great Britain 5%.

The United States had to borrow 47% of the money borrowed from international markets to prop-up our dollar in 2007. Yet we are still contributing more than 450% more money to the IFM than Great Britain, and 800% more than Russia, the European producer of a majority of the fuels used.

IFM is viewed as a philantrophic organisation, but since 1956 when it was formed, it has been a profit making machine.Their 2007 annual report showed an operating income of 2.6 billion dollar profit! This is an operating return on net worth of 21.7% for 2007.source: annual report of IFM
Communist China received 1.5 billion dollars in aid from the IFM in 2007, and even more disturbing is the investment of 2.4 billion dollars in Russia! Russia is a powerhouse economic giant in Europe because they have oil! Why give them monetary assistance?

Even the IFC’s own economists believe the IFC suffers from an “approvals culture, which provides a disincentive for rigorous analysis [that] still persists today.” This “approvals culture” is fueled by the fact that investment officers’ job performance is assessed on the amount of money they can move out the door, not on the success of projects or the social, environmental or development impacts of the projects.


World Bank watchers have their own take on the IFM monetary projects. "The IFC is using tax payer’s money to create corporate welfare for a huge multi–national," says Lori Pottinger, director of the Africa program at International Rivers, an environmental organization in Berkeley, California. And this won’t be the first time. According to Friends of the Earth, an environmental watchdog agency, AES stands to gain a billion dollars in financing from the IFC for the company’s power projects around the world.


IFC investment officers continue to develop projects like luxury resort hotels and shopping malls, which may generate modest foreign exchange and create employment but few other benefits, especially when the investors and occupants are foreigners.
The bottom line is we should stop supporting this World organization. Better to spend the money on the the poor in our own country!