MEMO TO OBAMA SPEECH WRITERS: REVIEW THE HISTORY!

Last week Our President gave an interview with Hisham Melhem of the Saudi-owned,Arab television network,Al-Arabiya satellite network.
He sent the message that he intended to change the negative attitude of the previous administration towards the Arab world, and expressed the desire to get back to the "good" relations the USA had 20 to 30 years ago. Specifically, he said: " "There's no reason why we can't restore that."

The speech was typical of one that Obama would give to his Obamaphiles that want peace at any price. But the speech was not one that took into account the historical facts of 29-30 years ago!

The Patriot Post has a piece written by Col. Oliver North that recounts the facts that President Obama ignored when he spoke to the Arabs of the World.
Excerpts from his article appear below, and show just how far from reality Obama and his handlers will go to confuse, obfuscate and twist facts to make their point. He intends to accept all Arab nations as partners in his World Government approach to "CHANGE"!

That is all except Afghanistan, where he plans to send a force of 30,000 soldiers into the "meat grinder" that the Russian full force of Arms failed to conquer in the days when the USA supported the Taliban.

OBAMA "talked about "communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest." He also responded to his interviewer in ways that denigrated his predecessors, by expressing his desire "to listen (and to) set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years."

During the interview, Mr. Obama also spoke wistfully of the "respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago" and added, "There's no reason why we can't restore that."

Some will say it isn't fair to make our new commander in chief stick to the facts. That's the trouble with television interviews. They are on tape and stay around for years. If you are going to do them, it helps to know the facts. Let's see, 30 years ago -- 1979 -- the year that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Iran, the "Islamic Revolution" was proclaimed, the U.S. was first described as "the Great Satan," our embassy in Tehran, Iran, was sacked, and 53 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. That's probably not the kind of "respect" Mr. Obama had in mind.

How about 20 years ago -- 1989? While investigators still were combing the wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103 in Lockerbie, Scotland, Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi sent MiG-23s to attack a U.S. Navy carrier battle group in the Mediterranean Sea. Final score: U.S. Navy 2, Libya 0. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa to kill Salman Rushdie. Islamic radicals murdered the president of Lebanon, and Saddam Hussein issued mobilization orders in preparation for invading Kuwait the following August. Some "partnership."Source: Patriot Post

It appears to me that the truth is not one of the things that comes easy to this new President. The most glaring example of the Semantics gymnastics used by Obama is his constant reference to the "fact" that this recession we are in, is the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930's.
The following is a portion of the Wikapedia posting on Recessions.
"According to economists, since 1854, the U.S. has encountered 32 cycles of expansions and contractions, with an average of 17 months of contraction and 38 months of expansion.However, since 1980 there have been only eight periods of negative economic growth over one fiscal quarter or more, and four periods considered recessions:

January-July 1980 and July 1981-November 1982: 2 years total
July 1990-March 1991: 8 months
March 2001-November 2001: 8 months
December 2007-January 2009: 13 months and counting*
* Note that this latest recession doesn't meet the traditional two quarter drop in GDP, yet it is considered a recession by the NBER.

From 1991 to 2000, the U.S. experienced 37 quarters of economic expansion, the longest period of expansion on record.[28]

The facts as offered by history show that he is distorting the truth to sell his $900 billion behemoth of a program, that I believe will not stimulate the economy. All it will do is devalue the dollar and bring hyper-inflation down the road!

"The American people deserve to know that the president's call for a compromise has been completely ignored by House Democrats who would use a time of national economic crisis to fund their big government priorities under the guise of stimulating the economy. ... The Democrat bill won't stimulate anything but more government and more debt." --Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)

One other item of interest is the attempt by Obama to blame the "RICH" Capitalists in Washington for the economic mess we are experiencing. He talks about the obscene bonuses of Wall Street, and they are too high, but he ignores the fact that the government caused the housing bubble to grow to such horrendous proportions by the actions of Barney Frank and his committee, and the demands on the "Fannies and Freddies"to loan to people who could not and would not be able to pay the mortgage.

Since 1995, house prices have risen by more than 70 percent after adjusting for inflation. This has created $8 trillion in housing bubble wealth. The run-up in house prices has led to a predictable oversupply of housing; an oversupply far beyond anything the country has ever experienced, with the inventory of unsold new homes 70 percent above its previous record and the number of vacant ownership units nearly twice the previous peak.

In other words, this isn't just about those "subprime" mortgages, but rather those sorts of bad loans are a consequence of grossly exaggerated home prices. The cost of housing has 'forced' lenders to lower their standards for giving out loans all the way to zero down-payment so that people can afford to keep buying them.

Simplified, the loans are but one part of the total issue that is sending the economy downward. The fundamental issue, as the in-depth analysis demonstrates, is absolutely unsustainable in the long term, and does not appear sustainable even in the immediate term. This bubble has given way to its own superficiality by virtue of the fact that high home prices have led to a huge record number of unsold homes, thereby causing prices for homes in general to decline. The declines, as we are seeing on Wall Street now, are already leading to widespread defaults and foreclosures since they are resulting in homeowners finding themselves with negative equity.
These defaults and foreclosures, in turn, are causing a further affect on prices, causing a vicious cycle of downturn. The downturn is affecting corporate profits and inflated stock values. These affects lead to widespread consequences throughout the economy. And we are already seeing spillover affects, with consumer spending (responsible for 60% of the gross domestic product) in considerable decline and the unemployment rate rising. Source:CEPR Report
But Obama and his supporters like George Soros, wants to socialize the USA, so he talks about the evils of Wall Street!

AND THEY SAY THAT THEY ARE PATRIOTIC

If you had any doubts about many of the Congressional Democrats opinion of OUR brave and dedicated military service members. This article from the New Media Journal should put to rest any doubts you had.

The greatest sacrifice a man/women can make is to lay down his life for another, has been an axiom in this GREAT Country for centuries.
But apparently many of the members, at least a majority, feel their sacrifice is not worth acknowledgement!

"House Democrats blocked a measure that would have required new roads, bridges and schools funded by the $825 billion economic stimulus to be named after US armed forces members killed in action. Democrats on the House Rules Committee nixed the amendment Tuesday in a party-line 9-3 vote. The same vote also took down four other Republican amendments that would have funded job training for veterans, stopping all the measures from being considered Wednesday by the full House for inclusion in the stimulus. "For whatever reason, it was not to their liking," said Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, Michigan Republican, sponsor of the amendment that would have honored fallen troops. He said Republicans did not publicize the amendment because they did not want to appear to be "grandstanding" on the issue. But he said he was disappointed that it was so roundly rejected. Democrats on the committee were not philosophically opposed to honoring fallen troops but concerned about the amendment's vague language, which placed the naming requirement on all "new infrastructure" and could have resulted in the naming of sewer lines and water treatment plants, said an aide close to the committee and familiar with the internal debate. The aide, who stressed the amendment was considered as part of a package of amendments, did not want to be quoted discussing House members' deliberative process. Several Democrats on the committee declined interview requests."

I have listed below the names of the committee members. I hope all who read this will write, telegram or email their disgust in the dastardly sleight they did to Our fallen Warriors!
DEMOCRATS
Louise Slaughter (N.Y.), Chairman
James McGovern (Mass.)
Alcee Hastings (Fla.)
Doris Matsui (Calif.)
Dennis Cardoza (Calif.)
Michael Arcuri (N.Y.)
Peter Welch (Vt.)
Ed Perlmutter (Colo.)
Chellie Pingree (Maine)
Jared Polis (Colo.)
REPUBLICANS
David Dreier (Calif.), Ranking Member
Lincoln Diaz-Balart (Fla.)
Pete Sessions (Texas)
Virginia Foxx (N.C.)

WHILE WE FIGHT OVER "STIMULUS" RUSSIA STAKES CLAIM TO NORTH POLE!

The present financial debacle in Washington is taking more time to resolve than President Obama had planned. He entered the Oval Office and began signing executive orders that fulfilled campaign promises like the closing of Gitmo in one year.

But while the President is making his way through his plan to direct OUR free enterprise system into a Socialist, government controlled, government employed country. The Russians are doing more than rattling their scimitars!

The latest move of the Putin/Medvedev coalition in Moscow is the move to claim the Arctic as their property.

The government-controlled newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta is preparing Russians for the notion that "the fight for the Arctic will be the initial spark for a new division of the world." Artur Chilingarov, a member of the Russia parliament and Moscow's chief ideologue when it comes to conquering the Arctic, puts it this way: "We are not prepared to give our Arctic to anyone."

Chilingarov -- who in August 2007 used a remote-controlled submarine arm to plant a Russian flag made of titanium on the ocean floor at the North Pole at a depth of 4,261 meters (13,976 feet) -- wants to "present evidence to the United Nations within one year" that the North Pole belongs to the Russians. His threat to those in the West who disagree is simple: "If these rights are not recognized, Russia will withdraw from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea."

Alexander Dugin, a political scientist and well-known intellectual backer of Moscow's neo-imperial claims to a Greater Russia, becomes so caught up in nationalist fervor that he loses his grasp on biological realities: "The purpose of our being lies in the expansion of our space. The shelf belongs to us. Polar bears live there, Russian polar bears. And penguins live there, Russian penguins."

Although the Arctic may be somewhat lacking in penguins, Russia's frozen north does contain vast mineral resources. Arctic Russia is already responsible for 11 percent of the country's gross domestic product and 22 percent of its export earnings.

The intended expansion of Russia's northern border by at least 150 miles (241 kilometers) and 1.2 million square kilometers (463,000 square miles), an area three times the size of Germany, promises to yield immense natural resource earnings.

It was precisely these riches that Russian Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and Ecology Sergei Donskoy discussed at the Arctic Frontiers conference in the northern Norwegian city of Tromsø, where several hundred scientists, politicians and economic experts came together last week.

"We hope to find reserves of oil and gas corresponding to about 20 percent of Russian reserves," Donskoy said, outlining Russia's plans for the Arctic.

Under that plan, geologists will first study the Barents Sea and the Kara Sea. They expect to find at least two to four large oil or gas fields beneath the ocean floor in each of these two seas. According to Russia's environment minister, a petroleum engineer by trade, the fields contain an estimated 3.3 billion tons of oil and up to 5 billion cubic meters of gas.

If all goes according to plan, the first gas from the Arctic should begin flowing in 2013 or 2014, says Hervé Madeo, the deputy director of an energy consortium led by Russia's Gazprom that is developing the Shtokman field in the Barents Sea. Of the field, he says: "It is one of the largest in the world and unique in Russia."

Despite the financial crisis, preparations for drilling are moving forward at a fast pace. The project "has too much potential" for the global economic downturn to affect it much, Madeo claims.

Moscow has unveiled aggressive new plans to exploit the Arctic's natural resources.
The gas field could become the first major milestone in the development of the energy reserves of the north. This prompted Norwegian Rear Admiral Trond Grytting to comment sarcastically in his presentation at the Tromsø conference (entitled "From the Cold War to the Hot Arctic"): "We have lots of natural resources, military personnel and disputed borders in the Arctic. This has never been a recipe for peace".
While Obama talks about windmills and small electric cars to wean ourselves off crude oil. The Russians and Chinese are marching forward at a rapid pace to control the crude oil resources located in the Artic and Africa.
Will the American people stand still for the Obamaphiles , Eco -freaks and Goreites while they make millions on Carbon Credits scams. While at the same time those who Ronald Reagan called the "Axis of Evil" gobble up the available crude oil resources, and continue to pollute the atmosphere while advancing their hegemony?

I assume that when Medvedev said he hoped to make the USA a full partner with Russia, he intended that we should allow anything they want as long as they do not launch mislles against us.
On the day Obama was elected,the Russian "puppet president" had this to say: " "I stress that we have no problem with the American people, no inborn anti-Americanism. And we hope that our partners, the US administration, will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia," Source: Der Spiegel.com

Then why did they have nuclear missles aimed at the USA all during the cold war?

In 1971 Saul Alinsky had this to say about CHANGE:
"What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away".[

"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."Source: Wikapedia

FIRST THE LIES AND NOW COMES THE INTIMIDATION

The Obama administration has shown in the nine days that they have taken over power that they intended to use half truths, lies and intimidation to accomplish their Socialist Change for America.
First they tried to pass the "stimulus package" off as a way of quick starting the faltering economy, when what they were proposing in their over 850 billion dollar spending bill was PORK and goodies for such things as contraceptives, clearing forest pathways and millions for gay men "how to" guides.

The fact that most of the money would not funnel into the economy was not even mentioned until Conservative radio talk shows pointed this out to the unsuspecting public.

Now the President himself, after trying to sway the leadership of the Republican party to his way of thinking by inviting them to the White House, has decided to use intimidation and voter pressure to sway the Republicans to his side. This way when the plan fails, and it will, he can say the plan was approved by both parties. If the Republicans stand tall and appose this travesty of Federal spending. They will have capital in the 2010 Congressional elections to gain back some lost seats.

President said yesterday: "Pushing back against the unanimous House Republican vote against President Obama’s stimulus plan, the White House plans to release state-by-state job figures “so we can put a number on what folks voted for an against,” an administration aide said.
“It’s clear the Republicans who voted against the stimulus represent constituents who will be stunned to learn their member of Congress voted against [saving or] creating 4 million jobs,” the aide said.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the lawmakers will have to answer to their constituents.

“I do believe that there will be people in districts all over the country that will wonder why, when there’s a good bill to get the economy moving again, why we still seem to be playing political gotcha," Gibbs said.

And a Democratic official added: “We will run campaigns in their districts.”

And later today, MoveOn, Americans United for Change, AFSCME and SEIU will be announcing a new ad campaign targeting moderate Republican senators who might support the stimulus — Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Charles Grassley of Iowa. Source: Ploitico.com

If a Republican president announced he would do this the Media would scream that he was interfering with States rights and add it to the list of reasons why they think he should be impeached, I believe!

Another example of the untruths in Obama's campaign toward Changing the USA is the promise that if elected he would stop the influence of powerful lobbyists.

"President Obama promised during his campaign that lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House."

So far, though, at least a dozen former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration, according to an analysis done by Republican sources and corroborated by Politico.

Obama aides did not challenge the the list of lobbyists appointed to administration jobs, but they stressed that former lobbyists comprise a fraction of the more than 8,000 employees who will be hired by the new administration. And they pointed out that before Obama made his campaign-trail promise, he issued a more complete - and more nuanced - policy on former lobbyists.

Formalized in a recent presidential executive order, it forbids executive branch employees from working in an agency, or on a program, for which they have lobbied in the last two years.

Yet in the past few days, a number of exceptions have been granted, with the administration conceding at least two waivers and that a handful of other appointees will recuse themselves from dealing with matters on which they lobbied within the two-year window.

Here is a list of former lobbyists who now work within the Obama administration. You be the judge if Obama lied!

Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm.

Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.

William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.

William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.

David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.

Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.

Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.

Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

And Obama is not alone in his quest to interject the Federal government into all forms of what are considered the Private Sector. The machine that runs the economy.
First they lie about this being the worst recession since the 1930s, in fact we have had at least two recessions greater than this since the 30s. But never mind the details. The liberal economists who have lined up behind Obama's Plan have this to say:"Among those who say government needs to spend more, not less, there’s a consensus figure for exactly how much more: $400 billion over two years, for a total package of about $1.2 trillion.

“The stimulus does not need to be timely, targeted and temporary,” argues Robert Kuttner, co-editor of The American Prospect. “It needs to be adequate to do the job.” He runs some quick back of the envelope math. “Eight hundred and twenty billion is about 2.5% of GDP. But the economy is sinking at the rate of five to six percent. So they may find out they have to come back and ask for more.”

Kuttner and his economic allies reject the idea that enormous deficit spending is an immoral passing of the buck to the next generation. “This is not about morality, it’s about economics,” he says. Kuttner argues that even worse than government debt is an economy in which housing is unaffordable, jobs are scarce and college is a receding dream for many Americans. “What we leave to our children will depend largely on whether we slide into a depression or not.” My comment is if you keep printing money to promote this Socialist program. The net result will be the devaluation of the dollar even more than it is presently. With devalueation comes hyper inflation, and lest we forget this happened in Germany after WWI when the 1 Mark note was raised to one thousand marks, and Germans needed the equivalent of a wheel barrel full of money to buy a loaf a bread!

Is this the Change we can believe in?

WHILE OBAMA PLANS TALKS, IRAN IS BUILDING NUKES!

THE OBAMA GOVERNMENT HAS YET TO SAY THAT A WAR EXISTS BETWEEN RADICAL ISLAMISTS AND THE USA.
The actions during the first few days of his Presidency has given me the opinion that He and his minions believe we are back in a pre-911 situation. But while he plays the political ostrich the latest news on line from the Jerusalem Post, alleges that Iran will have a nuclear device by the end of this year!

"Iran will most likely have produced enough enriched uranium to make an atomic bomb by the end of 2009, according to a paper released Tuesday by Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). He clarified, however that before the uranium could be used for a nuclear weapon, it would have to be further enriched.
Iran's nuclear power plant in Bushehr, southwest of Teheran.

Fitzpatrick said that this reality brings up "the question of whether military action is needed in the absence of progress in diplomacy."

The London-based institutes's report, titled "The Adelphi Paper" assessed that the Iranian nuclear threat "can only be solved if Iran makes a strategic decision not to seek a nuclear weapons capability." My opinion,for what it is worth, is to take out the nuclear production plants as Israel did in Syria before they developed the bomb! Talk is not a weapon against an enemy who has dedicated itself to your elimination!

"Based on Iran's past diplomacy, it can be expected to neither accept nor reject proposed restrictions, but rather to shunt them aside through non-responsive counter-proposals and endless negotiation and filibuster," Fitzpatrick surmised.

To make things even worse apparently H. Clinton's new job as Secretary of State is to make the rest of the World love US. In her interview recently she revealed that "other" countries are pleased that we are going to do things for them. I thought her job was to do things for the USA?

"She(Clinton) said the administration is undertaking a wide-ranging and comprehensive survey of US policy options toward Iran.

"There is just a lot that we are considering that I'm not prepared to discuss," she added.

More broadly, Clinton said her initial round of telephone calls with world leaders has yielded positive signs.

"There's a great exhalation of breath going on around the world as people express their appreciation for the new direction that's being set and the team that's [been] put together by the president," she said.

"In areas of the world that have felt either overlooked or not receiving appropriate attention to the problems they are experiencing, there's a welcoming of the engagement that we are promising," she said.

"It's not any kind of repudiation or indictment of the past eight years so much as an excitement and an acceptance of how we are going to be doing business. The American people are holding their collective breath to see what the Change Obama promised will bring to the USA in areas of National Security, economy and freedoms!

And from Der Spiegel there is this analysis of another way that President Obama is trying to "pull the wool over" the American public's eyes about his poorly named "stimulus" package.
"US President Barack Obama has said this week he wants to fight climate change, making the kind of statements the rest of the world has been waiting to hear for a long time. He's dressing his proposals up as an economic stimulus package, but can he drum up enough US support for a deal in Copenhagen later this year? By Gregor Peter Schmitz in Washington more... italics are mine for serious attention!
"Obama elegantly intertwines the economic crisis with the battle to save the environment. His advisers have already alluded to this in the title to the address: "Jobs, Energy Independence, Climate Change." The signal is clear: Obama plans to launch a new approach to climate protection.

"According to Obama's plan, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will once again review whether the state of California is permitted to introduce stricter emission controls, which call for a 30 percent reduction in vehicle pollution emissions by 2016 and which 18 states had intended to follow. The plan goes far beyond that envisioned by a federal law passed in 2007. But, under the presidency of George W. Bush, the EPA blocked the more stringent standards, reasoning that it would be better to wage the battle against CO2 emissions at the national, rather than the state level".Source: Der Spiegel

Just one more example of the duplicity of the Democrats in Washington. After it was revealed that "queen" Pelosi had tried to insert millions of dollars into he stimulus package for contraceptives. She had the gaul to refer to having babies was a drain on State resources! God help us!WE appear to have a sleight of hand in the Oval Office!

WILL AMERICA LOSE ALL IT'S CATHOLIC HOSPITALS

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

If the signals from the Obama administration are correct. President Obama is seriously considering repealing the exemption that Catholic Hospitals,that treat medicaid and Medicare patients, have to do abortions on demand.If this abomination comes to be, the Catholic Bishops of the USA have threatened to close all the Catholic hospitals. This would reduce the valuable available beds and medical services that these CATHOLIC HOSPITALS PRESENTLY PROVIDE!

As many as 1 in 5 Americans, regardless of religion, race, age, or ability to pay, receive health care from Catholic caregivers. More than 15 million emergency-room visits and 84 million outpatient visits occur in Catholic hospitals in a given year. Source:NRO

EWTN interviewed noted Jurist Judge Bork about this important issue. Following is an excerpt from that interview:

Judge Bork was unsure about whether the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold such a right. He predicted the decision would rest with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who in some cases sides with liberals and at other times with “originalists,” those who profess to hold a more tradition-minded interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

“It depends upon Anthony Kennedy,” Judge Bork told CNS. “Now, it’s a funny situation in which the moral life of a nation is in effect decided by one judge, because you have four solid liberal votes, four solid originalist votes, and one vote you can’t predict too accurately in advance.”

Though Justice Kennedy is a Catholic, he sided with the majority who upheld the pro-abortion rights Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Judge Bork said that a decision involving the freedom of Catholic hospitals to refuse to perform abortions would split by a 5-4 vote.

“But I don’t know which way,” he added.

The Cybercast News interview with the jurist also touched upon the place of religion in public life.

“I don’t think the disputants talk much about God anymore,” Judge Bork commented. “That’s one of the things that I think is regrettable--and I know liberals have said the same thing, it is not a conservative position particularly--but it is regrettable that religion has dropped out of our public discourse. I think it impoverishes it and makes it more violent.”

He explained that he believed this violence was not armed conflict, but rather “violent language and propaganda.”

Judge Bork said he also thought that America is “now going down a path towards kind of a happy-go-lucky nihilism.”

“A lot of people are nihilists,” he continued. “They don’t think about religion. They don’t think about ultimate questions. They go along. They worry about consumer goods, comfort, and so forth.

“As a matter of fact, the abortion question is largely a question about convenience. If you look at the polls about why people have abortions, 90 percent of it has nothing to do with medical conditions. It’s convenience. And that’s I think an example of the secularization of an issue that ought to have a religious dimension.”

When asked whether a nihilistic society can remain “happy-go-lucky” for long, Judge Bork replied:

“I don’t know. I guess we are going to find out.” I believe this is the greatest threat to the freedoms of the USA since the attack on New York twin Towers! The hospital system is already over burdened by patients who use the emergency room as their source of medical care. Law prevents emergency rooms from denying service to the needy because of lack of money, but the right of a religious belief to be exercised in their owned hospitals would be a blow to our Constitution and the Bill of Rights!

And one of the unintended consequences of the 15 million babies that have been killed since Roe/Wade is the fact that as those dead babies could have been wage earners and taxpayers by now.The number of people contributing to the pool of taxpayers who support the Social Security program and other government entitlements has decreased from 3 workers for every one on Federal assistance to a ratio of nearly 1 to 1. What comes after this is the possibility that euthanasia for aged people will be approved to winnow down those who no longer contribute to the welfare of the State!

And as a postscript to this travesty it is being reported that our new President has called to quasi apologize to the Arabs for our Countries past mistakes. Has he forgotten that it was Arabs that started this WAR by destroying the Twin Towers.
The following is an excerpt from his telephone conversation that I believe is a travesty!
"President Obama said his administration will offer a hand of friendship to the Muslim world.
"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy,'' Obama said in an interview with the Al-Arabiya satellite television network. ''We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect.'' Source:CNN Wire

NEW UN DELEGATE USES DOUBLE SPEAK!

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S NEWLY APPOINTED DELEGATE TO THE UNITED NATIONS HAD THIS TO SAY TO THE PRESS AFTER HER FIRST MEETING WITH THE UN SECRETARY GENERAL.
"Susan Rice says the new administration led by US President Barack Obama will engage in "direct diplomacy" with Iran.

"She warned, however, of further action unless Tehran meets UN Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment as a prelude to talks on its nuclear program".

Rice spoke to reporters shortly after meeting with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on her first day on the job Monday.

She said the US plan for "vigorous diplomacy that includes direct diplomacy" with Iran "must go hand in hand" with a firm message from the US and international community that Iran must meet it UN Security Council obligations.

Iran's "continuing refusal to do so will only cause pressure to increase," she added.

What I would like to know is how long will Obama use the useless and effete UN that has been proven to be a bloated bureaucracy with veto control by Leftist Countries, as a conduit to get Iran to stop it's production of nuclear weapons?

The experts who have insight into the Iranian nuclear program have already said that Iran will have enough nuclear material for two nuclear bombs within two years. This does not leave a lot of time to negotiate(jaw-jaw-jaw)with the Country led by a maniac who has said he wants to eliminate Israel and do serious damage to the USA!

Ms. Rice is a Brookings Institute fellow and an article that she was involved in writing with Connie Graft and Janet Lewis entitled "Poverty and Civil WAR" gives a glimpse of how this new delegate thinks.In my opinion she is more of an internationalist than OUR delegate should be!

The conclusion of the article written in December of 2006 follows:" Finally, in Iraq, civil conflict is intensifying and devolving into full-scale civil war. Upon leaving the post of commander of the Multinational Corps in Iraq in late 2006, Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli said that finding jobs for "angry young men" and taking them "off the street" was "absolutely critical to...lowering the level of violence" and "just as important as growing the size of their army."8 To date, however, relatively little attention has been devoted to the economic drivers of this conflict. No doubt, the civil conflict in Iraq is rooted substantially in sectarian differences that were exacerbated by Saddam's tyranny. It is stoked by foreign jihadists, meddling neighbors and by resentment of the U.S. occupation. Yet, roughly 50 percent of Iraqis were unemployed in 2005 and real per capita GNI stands at only a fraction of what it was in the 1980s. Deteriorating economic conditions have almost certainly contributed in some measure to the rising violence in Iraq.

These and other cases of civil conflict may each in isolation offer policymakers some useful insights. Yet, viewed together, they beg an overarching question: is there a significant and demonstrable link between income poverty and the risk that a country will slide into civil war? Could U.S. foreign policy benefit from greater emphasis on promoting economic growth and alleviating poverty? The answers to these questions bear directly on several current challenges to U.S. national security from the Middle East to South Asia and Africa.bold letters added by me for emphasis!

In her appointment we have one more example of what I believe Obama has in mind when he says CHANGE! I believe that he is man who believes in One World and thinks that redistribution of wealth will include sending our tax dollars to Third World Countries. And by the way the Stimulus package monies that is being given to banks has no restrictions on to whom they lend.

IT IS OFFICIAL, WELFARE STATE IS HERE TO STAY

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

If you believe the following quote that a previous member of the Reagan administration has written for Breitbart.com. The only option we Conservatives have is to accept the FACT that Socialism is here, and it is moving in like a mother-in-law who never intends to leave.
How this liberal mind was a part of Ronald Reagan's administration is beyond my comprehension. In my opinion, the best president in my life tried to stop the growth of BIG government, not grow it like Obama has begun with his trillion dollar "stimulus".

Mr. Bartlett said: "I think conservatives would better spend their diminished political capital figuring out how to finance the welfare state at the least cost to the economy and individual liberty, rather than fighting a losing battle to slash popular spending programs. But this will require them to accept the necessity of higher revenues.
It is simply unrealistic to think that tax cuts will continue to be a viable political strategy when the budget deficit exceeds $1 trillion, as it will this year. Nor is it realistic to think that taxes can be kept at 19 percent of GDP when spending is projected to grow by about 50 percent of GDP over the next generation, according to both the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office. And that’s without any new spending programs being enacted.

If conservatives refuse to participate in the debate over how revenues will be raised, then liberals will do it on their own, which will likely give us much higher tax rates and a tax system that is more harmful to growth than necessary to fund the government. Instead of opposing any tax hike, I think it makes more sense for conservatives to figure out how best to raise the additional revenue that will be raised in any event.

In the end, the welfare state is not going away, and it will be paid for one way or another. The sooner conservatives accept that fact, the sooner they will regain political power.

Bruce Bartlett worked in the Reagan White House and at the Treasury Department under President George H.W. Bush.Source: Breitbart.com

Thank the Good Lord this man is just another columnist, not a decision maker for the Conservatives left in the Republican party.
If this idiot was a leader of troops he would surrender every time the enemy surrounded him, unlike my hero Chesty Puller of the US Marine corps, who once said" we are surrounded, I have them right where I want them"! He was no quitter and I am not as I hope most Conservatives are not.

Socialism has been tried all over the world and whenever it has been adopted the quality of life has been reduced to the state where the governing class live well and the rest of the poor "slobs" who take what scraps they can get from their "welfare State".The only thing Socialism does is change those who work hard to be a success to welfare providers for those who refuse to make the effort, because they depend on the state for "cradle to grave" care!

Russia, China, Great Britain and Germany to mention just a few Countries that have shifted their government to Socialism all have struggled with it. Most have swung away from total Socialism because it just doesn't work long. People get tired of waiting six months to a year for elective surgery, and that is the prime reason why so many Canadians come to the USA to seek medical care. If you do not believe me just check the roles of patients at places like the Mayo Clinic.

My suggestion to Mr. Bartlett and the Republicans in the USA congress is to stop the spending, and let the free enterprise system level itself. Continuing to spend "printed, worthless " money to artificially pump into circulation will do nothing but devalue the dollar even more than it is now. The plan Obama and his minions have is to grow government and those dependent upon the welfare state that he and Liberals like him desire. Do not be confused with the smooth talking rhetoric of the new President. He is choosing all his actions with FDR in mind. FDR started the welfare State via the NRA and social security. Obama will need a war like FDR did to salvage him if he continues to spend money like a drunken sailor. And it sounds like Afghanistan may be the place it starts. If you believe what he and vice-president Biden have said about increasing troops in Afghanistan.

WE cannot spend ourselves out of the Recession, especially with all the PORK that is included, especially monies for contraceptives and money for ACORN!

THE STIMULUS PACKAGE IS NOTHING BUT MORE PORK AND WELFARE

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

AMID ALL THE RHETORIC OF PRESIDENT OBAMA AND HIS OBAMAPHILES. There is a certain dishonesty being perpetrated on the American public, who if this vast spending bill is passed, will add at least $6700 in tax dept to every American household, and since every house hold does not pay taxes. The number for taxpayers would be even larger!
From the original estimate of $770 billion. The cost is now estimated at $850 billion, and "queen" Pelosi and Obama have told us that it might grow.

All this money is supposed to help rid the USA of the deep recession we are sinking into, but in fact it will just post pone for an indeterminate number of years the very deep recession with run away inflation that must following such massive spending by the Federal government with "printed but un-earned money.

Fort Knox has only 187 billion dollars in gold reserve. At one time in our history. In the not so distant past the dollar was backed by a dollar in gold in the vaults of Fort Knox. Not so today, we have an ever diminishing valued dollar that buys less and less each year.

Despite this fact President Obama and is minions plan to spend the following with a large portion of the stimulus package. "The grocery list includes $87 billion for aid to states for covering Medicaid costs; $79 billion to local school districts and public colleges; an additional $41 billion in aid to impoverished and disabled students, school construction, modernization and new technology; $54 billion in renewable energy incentives; $82 billion in unemployment benefits, retraining and insurance; $20 billion extra for food stamps; and $90 billion in infrastructure spending. And don't forget that the money called for here is above and beyond what all these programs already receive in the annual federal budget. Didn't Bill Clinton tell us 13 years ago that the era of Big Government was over? Source: The Patriot Post