THE POT IS BOILING WHILE COOKS TAKE VACATION

Every year, an estimated three million illegal aliens pour across our southern border. Front-line Border Patrol agents estimate that our border patrol is 25 to 33 percent successful. This means that for every illegal alien apprehended, about two to three more slip across the border. What other business allows a 33 percent success rate? Certainly not doctors, contractors or cashiers. Why do we allow our federal government to do its job only a third of the time? As a sovereign nation, we must control our borders. We must ensure that terrorists cannot and do not infiltrate the United States to plot and carry out attacks against citizens. Apologists for illegals refuse to acknowledge the connection between terrorism and our lax immigration policies, despite the fact we know the 9/11 terrorists were here illegally.

The Sept. 11 hijackers used our own laws to enter the country, but remained in the country and violated their visas by staying when they expired. Only four years has passed since Sept. 11, 2001, but did we learn no lesson? We must be able to make sure our visitors abide by our rules and if they're participating in terror activity, we should deport them. It's common sense.
Intelligence tells us there are terrorists in the U.S.striving to recreate a massive tragedy like Sept. 11, 2001. They know our border security weaknesses, and are exploiting it to enter our own country - right now. This is because, the federal government instructs their agents to minimally enforce the law.

In 2003 the agents responsible for apprehending illegals in the workforce, arrested only 445 illegals. This lax enforcement costs American tax payers at least 10 billion dollars a year in benefits to illegals. Medicaid costs 2.5 billion a year, and an estimated one billion dollars goes out of the U.S. economy back over the border.

This Country accepts one million legal aliens each year since the 1990 Immigration Reform Act. The U.S. Census estimates that in addition to these legals, 8-11 million illegals reside in the U.S.

In 1995 during testimony before a Congressional Committee the following quote was uttered: "In closing, the testimony of the chairman of the Commission on Immigration Reform, the late Barbara Jordan, said "Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."
If only it was true!

WE are told by such great prognosticators as the Washington Post that deporting all 11 million illegals would take five years and cost 1.7% of the annual federal GDP. By calculations made by people smarter than me it shows that it would cost the average family, earning the medium family income of $43,527.00, $148.00. This is little more than it would cost to change the lock on your front door!

A Country with a GDP of 12 trillion dollars annually can afford the deportation. It is the people we trusted, and elected to Congress and the White House over the past 20 years who don't want to do what Americans want them to do. Secure the borders and deport all illegals, and begin now!

The debate, actually the battle,is between "national-community Americans" -- those who continue to believe in the idea of a separate, self-governed nation -- and those who have a "post-American" vision. The post-American vision is for (1) America's workers to be "allowed" to compete directly with every worker in the world who makes the effort to move to this country and for (2) the quality of life of a local community to be determined by global forces rather than by democratic self-determination.

The words in italics are courtesy of "NUMBERSUSA">

Why WE Can't Afford a Clinton In The White House

Although James Patterson, an eminent historian on American history, has written in the Oxford Series "that President Bill Clinton achieved very little during his eight years in office." It is the damage that the sixties generation darlings did while "they" were in office that should disqualify Hillary Clinton from ever becoming President or for that matter hold a position of power in the United States Senate.

No politician in many years has shown the brazenness and outright dereliction of duty as President as did Bill Clinton and His accomplice, Hillary.

The list of reprehensible actions caused or taken by the Clinton's is very long, and I won't attempt to write about them all.

It is important to remember that Hillary Clinton was no normal wife or First Lady. A charming, stay in the background until needed at public functions, she was not!

In the first few years of Bill's Presidency, Hillary organized a large committee that met behind closed doors. in secrecy, to draft plans for a National Health Insurance Plan.

Hillary was not satisfied with the Marine Guards being present only to provide protection and a sense of regal presence. She used them as servants on many occasions as "waters and "bellhops" for Clinton guests who stayed in the Lincoln bedroom.

She was heard uttering profanity and her spewing her venom in frequent outburst with her Secret Service detail, showing how little consideration she has for "subordinates" and people below her status.

Her "Travelgate" episode was another example of her disdain for the "little People" as she often now refers to people she is courting for their vote.

In what has since been called an abuse of power. Hillary fired the whole White House Travel Office staff, so she could replace those long time employees with her personal friends.

In her travels around the country pandering for votes, she has said many things contradictory to her real feelings and beliefs, but the following is one good example of her two faced personality.

Hillary's new add sounds alarms with the message: "As I travel around America, I hear from so many people who feel like they are invisible to their government. Americans from all walks of life may be invisible to this President,but they're not invisible to me, and they won't be invisible to the next President of the United States."

I guess she has a short and convenient memory about her past treatment of little people! Garry Aldridge, former FBI agent, wrote in his book "Unlimited Access" that staff members in the White House and Old Executive Office Bldg. were instructed to clear the hallways when Hillary was "out and about". If anyone happened to meet Hillary they were not to make eye contact with her. They were to remain "invisible to the "Queen"!

If that isn't enough to persuade you that Hillary should never set foot in the Oval Office again. Then the fact that if, God forbid, she does win. She will bring her perpetually adolescent Husband with her.

A Presidency that included eight years of ignoring the Terrorist threat, Troopergate, Filegate, Pardongate(that included pardoning Marc Rich, many drug dealers and money launderers),and allowing sale and transfer to Communist China of sensitive computer components now used in nuclear missiles aimed at our allies and soon to be a threat to OUR mainland.
The lies that got US into the War in Kosovo, that has now been made into a radical Muslim Base for Terrorist Islamofascists (The Fort Dix Six), and as reported by the UN, made "sex slaves" of hundreds of young girls, dislocated hundreds of thousands of Gypsies, Christians and other "undesirables" by the Muslim who have taken power.

Why anyone other than a sixties radical now full grown leftist, would vote for this pair, is a mystery to me. But as Will Rogers once said: "A great many people only know what they read in the papers" I will add, and see on television. WE know the media has been an apologist for the Clinton's, and now they are leading the Cheer leaders for Hillary's election!

MEDIA IN FULL COURT PRESS TO FORCE IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

THE NIGHTLY NEWS ON TELEVISION ISN'T THE ONLY PLACE THAT BOMBARDS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH LEFTIST PROPAGANDA.

The cable channels appear to have joined forces with the "get out of Iraq" crowd, and are showing many movies and documentaries that at the very least can be considered anti-military, and in some cases outright condemning of the American military-industrial complex. A system which has by the way allowed us to fight with weapons that are state of the art.

Last night the Encore channel had a documentary entitled "Why we Fight Wars". It featured President Eisenhower's farewell speech when he left the presidency, and had well known liberals like Gore Vidal commenting on the out of control military-industrial complex.

This so called documentary is indicative of left wing propaganda. It takes a man whose whole life was dedicated to the killing of enemy soldiers and in the end stage of his career, responsible for killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of women, children and old people in the fire bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, and Berlin during February 1945.

the Allies' political-military leadership started to consider how they might aid the Soviets with the use of the strategic bomber force. The plan was to bomb Berlin and several other eastern cities in conjunction with the Soviet advance. In the summer of 1944, plans for a large and intense offensive targeting these cities had been discussed under the code name Operation Thunderclap.Prior to this the Soviets had several discussions with the Allies on how the strategic bomber force could help their ground offensives once the eastern front line approached Germany. The US ambassador to the USSR, W. Averell Harriman, discussed it with Joseph Stalin as did General Eisenhower's deputy at SHAEF, British Air Marshal Arthur W. Tedder in January 1945, when he explained how the strategic bomber could support the Soviet attack as Germany began to shuffle forces between the fronts.

The result of this bombing killed at least 40,000 civilians and wounded soldiers in hospitals in Hamburg,30,000 in Dresden and 50,000 in Berlin during February 1945. The massive bombing also allowed the Russians to take Berlin before General Patton was allowed to enter the area.A decision that allegedly was made at Yalta between Stalin and an ailing President Roosevelt. It was the prelude to a long and perilous "cold war"!

The movie documentary last night, highlighted the portion of "IKE's" speech in which he declared Americans should beware of the "MI" complex getting too strong , and out of control. A strange shift of philosophy from a man who spent his military career using every weapon provided to him in his pursuit of victory and glory! But taken out of context is fodder for leftist anti-military propaganda.

While the media puts on anti-war films of the Vietnam and Korea era. There is little or no mention any where of ex-KGB agent Putin's decision to once again begin long range bomber patrols over the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean.These bombers carry nuclear weapons are capable of striking both coasts of the United States.The Country that some Russian newspaper writers like Yulia Litiynina referred to as the "New Third Reich".

This decision was the week before his "air-show", showing the Chinese military officals, and other potential enemies of the United States, his newest tactical fighters, the MIG-29-OVT and the Sukboi Jet SV-35 that he has for sale.

While the American left is trying to destroy OUR ability to defend ouselves. The Communists who did not disband, but went "to ground", are rebuilding their first strike potential. They are also selling these weapons to our "enemies"!

Only One Religion Does Not Get My Vote

"Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.” —Alexander Hamilton

This quote is appropriate for the perilous times we live in. There are those people in the Federal judiciary and in the Congress of the United States who would like nothing better then to be in control of all our lives from cradle to grave, and some are running for President!

When President Kennedy ran for President, the left wing press and their minions in the Government claimed We shouldn't elect a Catholic. They said if we did the Pope would be running the Government in abstention.

Now we have a decent man running for President in Mitt Romney, and the same secular anti-religion groups are saying we can't have a Mormon for President.

I am a Catholic, and don't agree with Mr. Romney's beliefs, but As we saw in the Presidency of John F. Kennedy. Religion played no part in his Presidency, and I believe it should have no bearing on who gets elected President. Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon or agnostic are all eligible for my vote if he/she believes in the sanctity of individual life, even before birth, individual freedoms including free speech without PC constraints and the rule of law.


The one person who should never be leader of this Country is a true believer of Mohammed. A Muslim who believes in the words as written by the founder of the Muslim religion over seven hundred years ago.

Mohammed writes in the Koran, "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection (Surah 009.029)." Further, Mohammed says: "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'."
Any person who follows the atrocities committed in Iraq by the "IRI"(Islamic Army of Iraq) knows that these Muslims are committed to destroying all non-believers. Even it means cutting off their heads while a video camera is recording the murder! The Islamic Army in Iraq, IAI, conducts a brutally violent campaign against foreigners within Iraq, specifically anyone believed to be cooperating with the U.S.-led coalition.
IAI has been implicated in several gruesome beheading deaths. The terrorist group aims to drive all U.S. and related Coalition forces, both military and civilian, from Iraq. But IAI does not limit its attacks to just these groups; in addition to the beheading of the American civilian contractor, Nicholas Berg by Abu Musad al-Zaqawi. The Radical Fascist Islamists have also murdered French journalists, Pakistani contractors, an Italian journalist, and Macedonian citizens working for a U.S. company.
Anyone who is follower of this "religion" must never lead this Country, or God help us!

There are those who will say I am getting the moderate Muslim confused with the radical, fascist Muslim. My answer to this is let all Muslims here in America disavow and reject radical Islam, and condemn the abhorrent violence they are committing in the name of Allah. Then I will gladly admit I was wrong.
Until there is an end of the "deafening silence" of Islamic leaders and their apologists, in the United States, who never condemn the slaughter of innocents by their fellow Muslims, I invoke the words of President Bush the week of 9/11: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

NATIONAL HEALTH CARE CONTINUED

Medical care for the healthy and Euthanasia for the mentally and/or physically challenged younger people and also for the elderly with poor health.

This is what is really being practiced by subterfuge in many areas of this country right now under a disastrous plan called Medicare,not to mention an even worse plan called Medicaid.

With a National Health Care Plan for all,anybody who is deemed an excessive financial burden to an already flawed system of government controlled medical care will be given substandard care to hasten his death.If that sounds like a statement which is insensitive, exaggerated and plain nuts,just look at the indifferent slaughter of millions of children yearly by legalized murder called by the more gentle name, abortion.

Murder of one group will not stop with the babies as it has not stopped in some of our overseas countries with similar health programs.The quality and dedication of today's physician has already been hampered by frivolous lawsuits,excessive filing of paper work for a poor monetary reimbursement for services,excessive rules and regulations created by bureaucrats who aren't even physicians who control a doctors practice directly and indirectly.

.Many excellent physicians have turned to other professions because of an already unbearable system of obstruction imposed by the state and federal governments.Universal Health Care will be a debacle in a country that can't even control costs with today's foolish and exorbitant money wasting ventures.

However,these tax and spend advocates are almost to the man and woman against a strong defense for our country. Any half way sane thinking person would think our defense of what we hold dear is much more important than another big government scheme foisted on the American citizens.

The middle class will be paying these bureaucrats salaries with more and more taxes with little or no medical benefit.

If we had fewer self serving politicians and lawyers attacking our personal freedoms,and more real Statesmen ,we might save this country from an apparently inevitable slide to a socialistic disaster.God Bless America. We need it!

WHY WE SHOULD NOT HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Despite the media frenzy over the uninsured in America. The health care debate should not be about how we find a way to cover the 15% percent of Americans who presently are not covered by any type of health coverage. It should be about how we save the present medicare and medicaid insurance coverage presently in place. If their are no changes made these systems will be bankrupt in a few short years.

All of the Democrat candidates for President are for universal health coverage! They have their own semantic way of describing what if passed will be no more and no less than socialization of the most advanced medical system in the world.

I am not writing to defend the way the system has become too much business and in many cases not enough medicine. Government interference in a private medical system started the paper avalanche and raised the number of bureaucrats working for HRS by the tens of thousands. This all began in the late 60's with the passing of legislation that included both Medicare and Medicaid.
President Lyndon Johnson signed the Bill in the Harry Truman Library in Independence. Mo. in honor of the man who first asked Congress to pass a Universal Health Insurance Bill in 1945 while he was president.

The cost to enroll in the Program was $3.00 per month, and Truman was the first enrolled. We have come a long way baby! Look at your payroll stub to see how much you pay for medicare today, even though you are not eligible because you are not old enough. It is a large and ever growing portion of your tax confiscated from your earnings.

Unfortunately like every other government program the bureaucracy gets bigger every year, and HRS has become a jobs program for big government. Through out the years the medical care has grown so much better, despite the Socialists claims to the contrary, hat people come from Europe, Great Britain, South America and Canada to be treated.

I live in an area which is fortunate to have one of the more well known medical centers of the world, and my visits to this center demonstrates this, by the foreign languages I hear from so many in the registration areas.

Yes it is expensive, but socializing it won't get it to be any less expensive. All this would do is shift the dollars to the payroll of more administrators, away from the people who provide the care.
The one thing you can count on if Hillary, Obama, John or any of the other "Me TOO" candidates gets elected. There will be a shift towards socialization of our medical care, and before you vote for them you should consider what is happening in Europe under Socialized Medicine.


The perils of socialized health care can already be seen in Europe, where certain medical treatments or drugs are no longer available to Europeans above a certain age, says Paul Belien, editor of the Brussels Journal and an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute.

In Europe, says Belien:
"More expensive drugs and treatments with fewer side effects are set aside for younger patients, while less expensive drugs are given to the elderly because of budgetary constraints in a system providing "free" health care.
Studies of kidney dialysis show that more than a fifth of dialysis centers in Europe and almost half of those in England have refused to treat patients over 65 years of age.
If governments continue these policies, euthanasia will soon be the price that the solidarity principle of the European welfare states imposes on the very old and the very sick."

In the United States, the situation is the reverse:
Elderly Americans are entitled to universal health coverage via the Medicare program.
In America, the bulk of government health-care expenditure goes to those over 65 years old, while in Europe most of the government money is spent on those under 65. Even if you are under the age of 65 you must hope you will someday make it to that age, and do you want this type of situation to await you. And in the meanwhile consider this. No government program is paid for by the government. Every program has a tax consequence to you the tax payer. So while you work toward the age of retirement you will be paying ever increasing amounts of YOUR earnings to a program that may not be friendly to old people!




the perils of socialized health care can already be seen in Europe, where certain medical treatments or drugs are no longer available to Europeans above a certain age, says Paul Belien, editor of the Brussels Journal and an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute.

In Europe, says Belien:

More expensive drugs and treatments with fewer side effects are set aside for younger patients, while less expensive drugs are given to the elderly because of budgetary constraints in a system providing "free" health care.
Studies of kidney dialysis show that more than a fifth of dialysis centers in Europe and almost half of those in England have refused to treat patients over 65 years of age.
If governments continue these policies, euthanasia will soon be the price that the solidarity principle of the European welfare states imposes on the very old and the very sick.
In the United States, the situation is the reverse:

Elderly Americans are entitled to universal health coverage via the Medicare program.
In America, the bulk of government health-care expenditure goes to those over 65 years old, while in Europe most of the government money is spent on those under

Lex et Libertas—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for the editors and staff. (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.)

THE BIG LIE IN POLITICS

One of the most frequently used terms used to describe the Republican party is a party of the wealthy "fat cats".

This is probably true when you speak of those serving in the Senate of the United States, and most men who get elected to the Presidency. The same can be said of the Democrats who are or were members of the higher echelons of government. The simple fact is you have to be wealthy or have many very wealthy friends to get elected to an office in either the Senate or the White House.

But the comparison ends there! The Republicans stand for less taxation, smaller and more efficient government, and many other social issues too numerous to mention that represents the vanishing middle class in America.

Yet, the richest men and women in America seem to be supporting the tax and spend Democrats in every election since President Reagan left the White House. The latest billionaire to join the ranks of Democrat supporters is the financial wizard, 76 year old Warren Buffett.

This man has amassed a fortune of 168.4 billion dollars with his Berkshire Hathaway Investment Fund. He did it taking faltering companies from their owners, many whom had inherited the business and could not pay the 55% "death tax".He bought them at much less than he knew they were worth, and with a aggressive development team made money from the apparent losers.

Now he publicly joins all the other "rich" celebrities and modern day "robber barons" in stumping for Hillary Clinton and recently Barack Obama. During a fund raising event last night in Omaha, Nebraska for Obama. Mr. Buffett had these words of "wisdom". Buffett's said that he's the third richest man in the world, and he blasted the US tax system, because he said he pays a lower rate of taxes than his secretary. And last night he went even further about who should run this Country with these words: "U.S. Senator Barack Obama is a ``leader'' who can ease economic disparity while increasing prosperity.", ``We have abundance but we don't have as much fairness as we might have in the system,''
Buffett, has not endorsed Obama, 46, or rival New York Senator Hillary Clinton, 59, but said earlier this year that he would help either of them with their presidential campaigns if asked. He has often criticized the government for favoring the rich, repeating a charge last night that Congress is the ``tax planner'' for the rich.

``Apparently the government in its wisdom thinks that some guy like me is like the condor or the spotted owl or something to be protected,'' he said last night. ``We really need to figure out some way not to fill the golden goose but actually to have abundance grow.''

Obama can ``lead us to the right place, Buffett said, spreading prosperity so that it is more inclusive". The "all inclusive" words sound to this blogger as strangely similar to what a Socialist would have spoken. They believe in what is good for all instead of being concerned with the individuals rights and privileges.


When Democrats talk about raising taxes on the rich, they're starting with families of four making $200,000 a year. You start raising their taxes, and they're not going to have any savings. They probably will never be able to get their kids to "good" college without student loans.
But for people like Buffett and other super wealthy that have all these "gazillions". There's no tax on their portfolios other than when they sell it.
A stock or any asset,is subject to capital gains tax, and the capital gains rate is 15%. There is no tax on wealth per se. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income appears to be designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there. You can blame the tax and spend liberal Democrats for that.

It started with Roosevelt's "new Deal" and it continues today as we get closer and closer to Total Socialism in America.

Super Wealthy people like Mr.Buffett feel no matter what happens they will not be effected. After all there was even a "rich" privileged class in Communist Russia. Of Course they all were Party members! Besides he is 76 and won't be around to see the disaster that will result if his favorite candidates for President win!

YOUR COLLEGE STUDENTS TUITION HELPS DEMOCRATS

Those of you who spend 40 to 50 thousand dollars to send your children to Universities hailed as the best Institutions for learning. Should know that while the "kiddies" are away at school, their minds are being polluted by liberal, anti-religious ideologies that are taught in our Colleges and Universities.

Not only are nine out of ten professors at our universities liberal in thought. They are very liberal and generous in their political contributions to left leaning candidates for the Presidency of the United States.

CNSNews.com reports the following about how the well paid professors in American Universities spend their salaries. Which you pay with your tuition for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama received about $1.5 million in contributions this year from college professors and others in the education field, outpacing the party's front-runner, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who got $940,000 from academics.

Still, Clinton's near-$1-million second-place finish was almost as much as academia's total combined donations to leading Republican candidates Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. (See Complete Candidate Breakdown)

That many college professors and academics lean to the political left is no surprise -- 76 percent of their donations went to Democratic candidates in the first two quarters of 2007. But the volume of their donations is increasing, according to an analysis by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), which tracks money in politics.

"College professors and others in the education field have contributed more money than the oil industry and drug makers, with the nearly unanimous goal of putting a Democrat in the White House," the report said.

Faculty members from Harvard University led the way in overall political contributions -- $266,044 -- with 81 percent of those gifts going to Democrats so far in 2007."

At the same time candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama say they want to go to the Oval Office as a President who will clean up the mess in Washington. I guess Hillary thought it would be easier to do the cleaninug if she didn't have to carry the baggage of 2 million documents that she and Bill have locked up in his Presidential library until after the 2008 election. These documents are emails, appointment logs and memos that just might give light to Peter Franklin Paul’s more than $1.2 million in donations to Bill and Hillary (manifested in their gala), and show the harder truth, election law fraud, obstruction of justice, perjury, suborning of perjury, the illegal solicitation and coordination of the money for a fundraiser, who was involved, how much money was involved, and the videotape that appears to corroborate all of it. But none of the mainstream media outlets will cover it, how will it get exposed? Bloggers like me and those with even greater distribution must do it!

Obama does not have clean hands either. The Chicago Tribune reported that Obama had this to say about the current situation in Washington.
“The reason that we’re not getting things done is not because we don’t have good plans or good policy prescriptions. The reason is because it’s not our agenda that's being moved forward in Washington – it’s the agenda of the oil companies, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the special interests who dominate on a day-to-day basis in terms of legislative activity.”

Well, let us take a look at what those enemies of progress have done for Presidential candidate and hypocrite Barack Obama.

Michael M. Bates reports in the NewMedia Journalthe following:
"In terms of money received from the oil and gas industry, Obama ranks third among the eight announced Democratic presidential candidates. He does the same with insurance, again coming in third. First place is reserved for Senator Christopher Dodd who, in his capacity as a committee chairman, can investigate the insurance industry if he wants to. Obama is number two in contributions from the pharmaceuticals and health products industry.

Senator Obama didn’t include banking interests among those nefarious special interests. Then again, with over $600,000 so far, he ranks number one among all candidates of either party in money from commercial banks.

And you may have noticed he didn’t mention teachers’ unions either. Surely that has little to do with the $1.3 million he’s gotten from the education industry, again putting him at the top spot among all announced Democrats and Republicans.

Railing against those abominable special interests is always a winner among liberals. If Mr. Obama were genuinely concerned about the deleterious effects of huge campaign contributions, he should set an example.

Let’s see him return the more than $5 million he’s taken from lawyers and law firms. He can also send back the more than $3 million from the securities and investment industry and attach a letter saying he doesn’t need or want special interest funding.

Then there’s the $1.3 million from real estate, the $1.3 million from the entertainment industry, and the $652,000 from hedge funds and private equity sources he’s accepted so far. Send it back with regrets. He could bow out of Oprahlalooza next month, saying that he doesn’t want to give even the slightest hint of impropriety by accepting all that dough from fat cats.

This is not to say that Rebublicans don't have their generous special interest donators, but at least they don't act as though they are not a party to what has become the most expensive election process in recorded history.

Do we really want these devious people in the highest office of this still great Country? I think not!

ANOTHER OBAMAISM UTTERED

Presidential candidate Barack Obama uttered another of his absurd pronouncements upon hearing that Karl Rove had tendered his resignation to President Bush.
He said:"an architect of a political strategy that has left the Country more divided."

I guess Obama was too busy reading fairy tails about "frogs turning into princes" or some of the lessons he learned in the Muslim school he attended as a youth, to learn that this Country has always been divided politically. In fact we fought a civil war that cost over 600,000 lives over political differences.

A simple review of Presidential election returns from the past will show just how divided this country was and still is.

Long before the debacle in 2000 when the Supreme Court decided that President Bush had won over Democrat Al Gore. there has been factual evidence of the great divide in this Country.

Some of the elections for president as far back as 1888 when Democrat Grover Cleveland won the popular vote, but Benjamin Harrison(R) won the electoral college vote and became President. In 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes beat Samuel Tilden by one electoral vote 185-184.Previous to this, the election of 1800 resulted in a tie when Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson got the same number of electoral votes.Congress had to form a commission of 15 members from the Government, including the Supreme Court, to decide the issue. Jefferson finally won 8-7.

In more modern times the election of 1960, between Kennedy and Nixon was decided by a 49.7% to 49.6% vote. Kennedy won by a slim0.1%! Nixon beat Humphrey in 1968 by 43.4% to 42.7% and Carter won over Ford 50.1% to 48.0%.

Yes, this country has been divide politically for a long time, but the divide has become more ideological in recent years. Secular humanism has apparently taken over the Democrat party and too many RINOs. Abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage,animus for anything religious and rejection of moral values that once were the benchmarks of this Great Country seem to be what is driving the Democrat party.

A great patriot, Samuel Adams, had these words to say about our country: “Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness.”

Underneath all the rancor and loose talk there seems to be willingness on at least 50% of the American people to deny the existence of a supreme being, and they do so at their own and the Country's peril. The Muslim radicals will gladly fill the void!

Infitada NYC? What Happened to Melting Pot?

"We should always remember that our strength still lies in our faith in the good sense of the American people. And that the climate in Washington is still opposed to those enduring values, those ‘permanent things’ that we’ve always believed in... Washington is a place of fads and one-week stories. It’s also a company town, and the company’s name is government, big government... In the discussion of federal spending, the time has come to put to rest the sob sister attempts to portray our desire to get government spending under control as a hard-hearted attack on the poor people of America.” —Ronald Reagan
I used this quote from a great President and a great American to illustrate His apprehension of government spending. Spending the money confiscated from you and I in the form of ever increasing taxation.
When My Great grandparents emigrated from Europe to their new home in America thay came to flee oppressive government and to begin a new life, new language and new customs.
They sent their children to American schools to learn English, and through the children's learning, they learned to also speak English. Although in some cases, slightly muddled by their native language.

To them the melting pot of America was a way to assimilate into a new life. This does not appear to be the plan for many in the once great city that welcomed them when they immigrated in the late 1890s.

An article in the New York Post illustrates the way that the Melting pot has given way to a Balkanization of New York and some of our other large Cities.

Under the supervision of School Chancellor, Joel Klein there are presently 60 taxpayer funded "public Schools" that focus on a language other than English! The schools are "charter schools" that teach in one of the following languages: Spanish,Russian, Greek,French,Chinese Koean and now Arabic.

The Arabic school, Khalil Gibran Arabic Academy, is still in construction, but the designated principal was to be an activist Muslim who wore a T-shirt with the words "Infitada NYC". Dhaba Almontaser has resigned her position before the school opened because of media exposure of her radical views, but the school will be completed, and open to teach Arab Culture, history and Arab language.And maybe Infitada aginst the U.S.

The word intifada was coined in 1988 when the Palestinians were waging war with the Israelis.It has no other logical definition than a word to describe the violence of waging war against the Infidels! Ms. Almontaser was quoted as saying it meant nothing other than "shake off".

There are no taxpayer supported Catholic or Jewish Rabinical schools. Nor are there Baptist, Evangelical or any other Religious schools that are tax payer funded. You can bet your last dollar that the Arabic school is a religious school based upon the teaching of Sharia and the precepts of Muhammed found in the Koran.

Why do the people of New York stand for this situation? It can only be that secular humanism, political correctness and apathy has taken over a City that should know better.

BEWARE OF THOSE WHO SAY THEY CAN FIX HEALTH CARE

Senator Obama, Senator H. Clinton and every other Democrat candidate for President is traveling around the Country like little Red Riding Hood, bearing a basket of "goodies " they promise to deliver if elected to the Presidency.

But just like in the fairy tale. look out for the wolf in "Red Ridding Hoods" clothes!

Behind the promises some of this countries most liberal academics are meeting to develop plans for the socialization of the finest abd costly, medical system in the world.

The Brookings Institute recently held a forum called The Hamilton Project,moderated by Robert Rubin and included such experts as Ezekiel Emanuel, a bio-ethicist from NIH and Victor Fuchs, an Economics Professor at Stanford University.

The following is a direct quote from the publish report of their first meeting: "The universal basic package should be financed by a dedicated tax that everyone pays, such as a value-added tax.

We would administer the program through an independent National Health Board and 12 regional boards modeled on the Federal Reserve System. They would oversee health plans, define the benefits packages and, through strong incentives, facilitate adoption of patient safety measures and electronic management of medical records.(blogger note;this would produce thousands more government jobs while providing not one medical service to the public)

·We would establish an independent Institute for Technology and Outcomes Assessment to systematically evaluate new technologies and quantify their health benefits in relation to their costs. These evaluations would be used by the National Health Board and health plans.(more bureaucrats no care here!)

Reform based on these measures would eliminate job lock, increase workers' wages and make labor markets more efficient. It would also give Americans -- rather than their employers -- their choice of health plans, doctors and hospitals. And it would eliminate the $200 billion business tax deduction for providing health coverage.
(sounds like the taxes would decrease wages and have no effect on efficiency of markets)
Most important, such measures would improve efficiency and provide cost control for the health-care system. Eliminating employers' vetting of insurance companies and all associated costs would save tens of billions of dollars. Since all Americans would be guaranteed coverage, means testing and determination of subsidies necessary for Medicaid and SCHIP would be eliminated. Finally, the expected consolidation of the health insurance industry would also increase efficiency.(They don't mention that to do all of this $4-5 billion dollars would have to be collected in "value -added taxes")

Only comprehensive change of our broken system can The universal basic package be accomplished. It would be financed by a dedicated tax that everyone pays, such as a value-added tax.(see no numbers here, GAO estimates the 4-5 billion)

The program would be administered( more government employees-no care) through an independent National Health Board and regional boards modeled on the Federal Reserve System. They would oversee health plans, define the benefits packages and, through strong incentives, facilitate adoption of patient safety measures and electronic management of medical records.( sounds like the efficiency of the Postal Service_YUCK!)

· Establish an independent Institute for Technology and Outcomes Assessment to systematically evaluate new technologies and quantify their health benefits in relation to their costs. These evaluations would be used by the National Health Board and health plans.( more bureaucrats-no care here)

Reform based on these measures would eliminate job lock,(what job lock?), increase workers' wages( How?) and make labor markets more efficient. It would also give Americans -- rather than their employers -- their choice of health plans, doctors and hospitals. And it would eliminate the $200 billion business tax deduction for providing health coverage.(Typical socialism that sounds like Karl Marx)

Most important, such measures would improve efficiency and provide cost control for the health-care system. Eliminating employers' vetting of insurance companies and all associated costs would save tens of billions of dollars. Since all Americans would be guaranteed coverage, means testing(soak those who have,and give to have nots) and determination of subsidies necessary for Medicaid and SCHIP would be eliminated. Finally, the expected consolidation of the health insurance industry would also increase efficiency.

Only a comprehensive change of our broken system can The universal basic package be implemented, and it should be financed by a dedicated tax that everyone pays, such as a value-added tax.

What Ezekiel and Victor don't highlight is the Plan they propose would very soon eliminate Medicare and Medicaid, and end the tax exemption for employers health plans for their employees!

"Big Brother"is alive and well, and this time instead of meeting in closed door sessions directed by Hillary Clinton. They are holding forums allegedly for the purpose of fixing a broken medical system. What they actually are doing is planning the further socialization of our way of life.

DEMOCRATS A MASTER AT THE BLAME GAME!

This has nothing directly to do with Socialized Medicine in Wisconsin, but it has a lot to do with the Democrats crass indifference for the taxpayers that ignorantly vote for these left wing Robin Hoods.
The tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis,Minnesota which is another bastion of left wing socialists, immediately started the liberal MEDIA putting the blame on the vast right wing conspiracy,especially on our President George Bush.
The truth is that affer ignoring the known facts of structural defects of thousands of defectively built and obsolescent bridges across the United States for years, while squandering billions of dollars in mostly worthless programs.
The liberal answer to this inexcusable problem is to add on more taxes to the working man by increasing gasoline taxes which are outrageously excessive at present.
Democrats think their "gods" will somehow answer their passion for a wide open spigot for taxation of the working masses to solve all the problems of the world.They peach tax the rich,but a Democrats view of "rich" is anyone above the poverty line who is working.
Every Democrat running for office since I can remember has boastfully claimed that if he or she is elected they will improve the roads in their state or across the nation.
I don't remember a bridge not being part of a vehicle highway except the foot bridges that taxpayers also pay for in parks, school crossings,etc.
Thank God that President George Bush has the common sense and wisdom to see that increasing gasoline taxes would be another disastrous liberal mistake that would further hurt America's economy by cutting back even more their driving to malls TO SPEND MONEY,taking vacations,etc.
It IS IMPORTANT to mention putting further restraints on the family budget,and the President rightly rejected such shallow thinking nonsense as unworkable.
Yes,providing medical service to the deserving poor is a wonderful idea,but to brazenly take over an industry by the State or Federal government is a Marxist act of folly.

We can have good,safe bridges,highways,and motor vehicles that travel them if tax money is spent prudently by people who show respect for those who work for their money.
The liberal philosophy of self gratification of peoples wants instead of peoples needs is just another way to get votes to be elected.
It is such selfish, self serving arrogance that has brought countries to financial ruin in the past.The only fiscally responsible way for running any free type of government, and of this the left wing Socialists just have no clue, is to start with the word RESTRAINT, from taxing and spending recklessly.

Red Versus Blue as Blue Fought Grey in 1860's

This great country of ours is just as divided today as it was in 1861 when the eleven Southern States seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America.
The reason historians give for the split was slavery, and perhaps it was, and should have been an issue of great importance.
But those who took this Country into a war that lasted until 1865 and caused the death of 811,000 uniformed combatants who were in some cases brothers fighting each other. Because one believed in States rights granted to the States by Thomas Jefferson in his Kentucky and Virginia Papers, and the other believed in preserving the Union. But the Northern "abolitionists" didn't even consider the possibility of granting the freed slaves, civil or voting rights. This had to wait until the 1960s.

Today the Country is even more divided over who will decide how we live and speak. The Blue State people believe in taxation, abortion rights, gay rights, hate speech legislation, gun control,reduced military and amnesty for illegal aliens. All dictated by Big Government.
The Red States, that voted in President Bush twice, believe the individual not the State should be responsible for him/her from cradle to grave. Big government and punitive taxation are anathema, and a strong military is necessary to protect our freedoms.

A good example of the irresponsible promises made by Democrats in Federal Government service was made by Hillary Clinton. Senator Hillary Clinton said she would, if elected, establish a national academy to train public servants.
"I'm going to be asking a new generation to serve...I think just like our military academies, we need to give a totally all-paid education to young men and women who will serve their country in a public service position."
Once again, to he** with encouraging individualism, Senator Clinton prefers the government to train young Americans how to serve their country. Sounds to me like a page out of Franklin Roosevelt's "CC Camps" during the great depression. You can be sure she's not advocating compulsory military service, with the animus, despite her tepid support for the troops in Iraq, she and husband Bill have for the military.

The question needs to be asked of Ms.Clinton and all the other socialists running for President of the United States. How are you planing to pay for all the government largess you are promising to enact if you are elected President?

Liberals are all for repealing the tax cuts implemented by President Bush. Cuts that have resulted in economic growth that brought in more tax dollars to the U.S Treasury since 2003 than before the cuts were made. They also want to grant amnesty to 20 million illegal immigrants that will immediately allow them benefits of big government.

During this weeks Forum in Chicago the Candidates for President made not one single reference to the dwindling solvency of the Social Security system or Medicaid and Medicare. Hillary almost shouted out, above the loud Union crowd, that she would not let the Privatization of social security happen, but that was the extent of any show at physical responsibility by the "Democritus!

The following is a quote that illustrates a real fiscal problem this country faces that was not even mentioned by the seven "dwarfs" in Chicago.
"Medicare and Social Security combined are on track to eat up the entire federal budget.
The trustees estimate the 75-year burden on general revenues from these two programs at $31.9 trillion, more than six times the current outstanding federal debt.
Looking beyond 75 years into the indefinite future, the combined long-run funding gap is $74.8 trillion in today's dollars.
Further, Congress will not have to wait long to feel the pinch, says Goodman:

"Last year the combined deficits in the two programs claimed 5.3 percent of federal income tax revenues; in 15 years these two programs will require more than a fourth of income tax revenues.
By 2030, about the midpoint of the baby boomer retirement years, these two programs will require almost half of all federal income tax dollars; by 2040 it will require two-thirds.
What can be done? We are going to have to start thinking about choosing between health care and other uses of money, says Goodman. We are also going to have to start thinking about having each generation of retirees save for its own retirement and its own retirement health care needs. If we wait too long, the solutions will be drastic and painful."
Source: John C. Goodman, "A Fundamental Shift in Thinking," Washington Post, August 8, 2007.

A vote for any Democrat in 2008 is nothing short of financial suicide for Americans who work for a living!

THEY ARE CALLED CHEESE HEADS FOR GOOD REASON

While the Democrat candidates for the President bicker with each other. They have at least one thing in common with all other socialists. They advocate socialized medicine, or as one of the participants who appeared on TV, wearing what looked like his older brothers clothes, said during the Bush Bash in Chicago. "I will establish a single payer medical plan for all Americans."

It seems the great state of my birth is racing to beat the National political aspirants to the punch! Wisconsin has recently passed a bill in their senate that would give health insurance to every person in the state.If passed it will be against the law to buy health insurance from any company outside of Wisconsin,and you can expect amass influx of immigrants from other states who want to get in on the "health insurance" goodies".

I left Wisconsin, actually I left the Milwaukee area many years ago, because I hated the severely cold winters and even at a young age could see that a City that consistently voted in a socialist mayor was not the place to live.

Despite my animus for the politics of the sate I have remained a loyal Packer fan through good and bad seasons. But I never could quite grasp why the fans wanted to be called "cheese heads"?

Now I know two things for sure. Wisconsin is, or was, a big cheese producing cheese state. That is until the tax burden caused many of the small but better quality cheese producers to close shop.

The other fact is that if the polls taken are correct. The people are 67% behind this "Healthy Wisconsin" bill.Then instead of needing to show their loyalty to the Packers football team, all they need do is expose their heads. They must be filled with cheese not brains!

An article explaining the estimated costs for this socialized medicine scheme follow.
"The Wall Street Journal editorial-page editors are correct in saying that Wisconsin's universal health care plan is "openly hostile to market incentives that contain costs," and that the state can "expect to attract health-care free-riders while losing productive workers who leave for less-taxing climes" says news correspondent John Stossel.
Consider:
"The Wisconsin plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes.
Further, the $15 billion is based on the usual Pollyannaish assumptions such as millions in savings "from putting more emphasis on primary care."
As usual, most of the new taxes will be imposed on employers, says Stossel."

Liberals believe money taken from them doesn't cost anything; rich corporations will simply waste less on lavish perks and excess profits.
But taxes on business are often paid by workers, stockholders and consumers.
Consequently, businesses that can't pass the taxes on to someone else will close or move out of state.
America needs "Healthy Wisconsin" because the fall of the Soviet Union deprived us of the biggest example of how well socialism works, says Stossel. We need laboratories of failure to demonstrate what socialism is like. All we have now is Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the U.S. Post Office, and state motor-vehicle departments. It's not enough. Wisconsin can show the other 49 states what "universal" coverage is like.

Source: John Stossel, "Let Wisconsin Experiment with Socialized Medicine," Townhall.com, August 8, 2007.

WATCHING THE SEVEN DEMOCRAT DWARFS

It is not in my Conservative nature to listen to the hyperbole and outright untruths uttered by politicians who seek the high office of the President of the United States.

But last night quite by accident while channel surfing I came upon the Union "love fest" in Chicago being aired on MSNBC. I quickly turned to another channel muttering to the effect "why listen to those seven dwarfs lie to the viewing audience. there was another person in the room who had different ideas. My wife said,"lets hear what the opposition has to say". The end result was I watched 90 minutes of pandering by the seven Democrats to a captive audience of AFL-CIO members.

The moderator of this "Forum" aka debate was well known Bush hater Keith Olbermann, so I knew from the beginning the questions would be couched to make Bush look bad and the Democrats on stage as the "cavalry" coming to the rescue of the endangered union members.

I was not disappointed or surprised. Mr. "O" fed questions about the Iraq war, NAFTA, workers rights, and foreign trade. All subjects that allowed the seven dwarfs to fall all over themselves pandering to the labor vote.

There were no questions to Hillary Clinton about the scandals her and husband Bill were involved in while Bill Clinton was President. Things like Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate(Mr. Berger),her being the first "First Lady" to be suoenaed to testify before a grand jury(Whitewater),renting the Lincoln bedroom in the Whitehouse to wealthy supporters, and the Lewinski scandal were not broached, even though Hillary said numerous times that the first thing she would do "is clean up the mess in Washington caused by Bush". No mention of Vincent Fosters strange and unsolved death,or the note allegedly written by him being withheld for some time before it was turned over to the police investigating the "suicide".

During the first round of questions Senator Clinton included in her response that the Democrats should "come together to be a united party." Then she proceeded to attack Obama at every opportunity. By ten minutes to eight, 50 minutes into the 90 minute "forum", blood was on the floor, as they all heated up their attacks on each other, and Mr."O" could not control the time limits for responses or the crowd reactions including "boos" to candidates responses that obviously made them angry or unhappy!

I and my wife will not be watching anymore of the Democrat propaganda television "debates". One was enough for this Conservative who has seen the Bush tax cuts produce an economy that brings in more tax revenues than before they were enacted, a 4.6% unemployment, 3% per year growth in the nations economy that has produced 8.2 million jobs, and a Country that is safer at home than we were before 9/11 despite all the "wannabee" protestations to the contrary!

It Took The Colonial Forces Six Years to Beat the Britts!

The leftist media and the left wing of the Congress of the United States keeps reminding the public how long it is taking to win in Iraq. The un-patriots like Senator Reid and Congressman Murtha have gone so far as to say the war is already lost.
Of course the war is a tragic way to lose the lives of our young people in uniform, but The cause is noble and even the sceptics are beginning to see the progress made by the new military leadership of General Petraeus and the additional 25,000 troops inserted in operation "break al Qaeda's back".

History is a boring thing to any people, but it tells us many things that are applicable to today.

In 1773 the Colonists in the New America grew tired of the "taxation without representation" so they dumped a ship load of tea into Boston Harbor. Many historians claim this was the beginning of the Revolutionary war for OUR Independence.

Most history books, if you can still find them, will show that the Revolutionary war began at Lexington on the 19th of April 1775, and was continued two months later at Bunker Hill. The colonists were soundly defeated in both battles. In fact if it were not for the help of the French Naval Forces, the colonists probably would have lost the war. Most of the land battles were won by the superior trained and disciplined British forces.

But we did win in six years, and by that time had the Declaration of Independence ratified by all the colonies. Virgina, the home of Thomas Jefferson, the writer of The Declaration of Independence, was the first to ratify it in and declare their independence from England, even though the war was raging on.

Then Americans proceeded to give themselves a Constitution which they hoped would hold them together more effectively than the Congress which carried them through the war.Then they held a Convention for that purpose at Philadelphia during the summer of 1787. The difficulty was to find terms of union between the three great states—Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts—and the smaller ones, which included New York. The great states would not allow equal power to the others; the small ones would not allow themselves to be swamped by mere numbers. Therefore one chamber was given to population, and the other, the Senate, to the states on equal terms. Every citizen was made subject to the federal government as well as to that of his own state. The powers of the states were limited. The powers of the federal government were actually enumerated, and thus the states and the union were a check on each other. That principle of division was the most efficacious restraint on democracy that has been devised; for the temper of the Constitutional Convention was as conservative as the Declaration of Independence was revolutionary.

The Federal Constitution did not deal with the question of religious liberty. The rules for the election of the president and for that of the vice–president proved a failure. Slavery was deplored, was denounced, and was retained. The absence of a definition of State Rights led to the most sanguinary civil war of modern times. Weighed in the scales of Liberalism the instrument, as it stood, was a monstrous fraud. And yet, by the development of the principle of Federalism, it has produced a community more powerful, more prosperous, more intelligent, and more free than any other which the world has seen.

What has this got to do with Iraq? We are trying to help establish a freely elected constitutional based society in a country that was ruled by a tyrant dictator for years. It took us six years to establish OUR REPUBLIC, and it will take many years to assist Iraqis in forming their new country. How long? Until the job is done!

Political Correctness and Religious Beliefs Clash

The European Union was established by the Treaty of Rome in 1957. It is a union of 27 European countries who have given up their individual rights, laws and in some cases freedoms to a supranational intergovernmental body that still has no Constitution. The EU is run without a capital, although it's defacto government headquarters are located in Brussels, and it's Parliament meets in Strasbourg. They operate with a "Reform Treaty"(Rome 2004) that dictates secularist policies to it's member nations. Norway, Switzerland and Russia do not belong, but the rest of Europe and most of the United Kingdom are represented in the Parliament.

This Eu is totally secularist. When it was formed the Christian Countries tried to include religious references in the Constitution. But as the Vatican has said it "is a militant atheism Union".This could well be attributed to the following quote taken from an article in the Brussels Journal written by Paul Belian 6/23/06.

"According to a report of the COE’s Parliamentary Assembly, creationists are dangerous “religious fundamentalists” who propagate “forms of religious extremism” and “could become a threat to human rights.” The report adds that the acceptance of the science of evolutionism “is crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies.”

“Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon,” the report says.

“Today creationist theories are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states. […] [T]his is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism, synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights. […] The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that the advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy. [...] If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists.”

This language as all speech, has consequences, and a perfect example is found in what recently happened in Erlangen, Germany.
A German court sentenced a 55-year old Lutheran pastor to one year in jail for “Volksverhetzung” (incitement of the people) because he compared the killing of the unborn in contemporary Germany to the holocaust. The European governments are asked to fight the expression of creationist opinions, such as young earth and intelligent design theories. According to the Council of Europe these theories are “undemocratic” and “a threat to human rights.”

Without legalized abortion the number of German children would increase annually by at least 150,000 – which is the number of legal abortions in birth dearth Germany. Pastor Johannes Lerle "compared the killing of the unborn to the killing of the Jews in Auschwitz during the Second World War". On 14 June, a court in Erlangen ruled that, in doing so, the pastor had “incited the people” because his statement was a denial of the holocaust of the Jews in Nazi-Germany. Hence, Herr Lerle was sentenced to one year in jail. Earlier, he had already spent eight months in jail for calling abortionists “professional killers” – an allegation which the court ruled to be slanderous because, according to the court, the unborn are not humans.

Other German courts convicted pro-lifers for saying that “in abortion clinics, life unworthy of living is being killed,” because this terminology evoked Hitler’s euthanasia program, which used the same language. In 2005, a German pro-lifer, Günter Annen, was sentenced to 50 days in jail for saying “Stop unjust [rechtswidrige] abortions in [medical] practice,” because, according to the court, the expression “unjust” is understood by laymen as meaning illegal, which abortions are not.

Volksverhetzung is a crime which the Nazis often invoked against their enemies and which contemporary Germany also uses to intimidate "home schoolers".

And IF you think this is an isolated incident, the following happened in France. People such as Johannes Lerle and Christian Vanneste, the French parliamentarian have been convicted for “homophobia.” Free Speakers are being persecuted by Western Europe’s political regimes – a phenomenon which is ignored completely by the Western mainstream media, who participate in the persecution. I refer to the many statements comparing President Bush to Hitler by people who know better, but say it because of hate for the man and his religious beliefs.
In Germany, believing abortion to be as murderous as the holocaust is a crime, and educating your own children is a crime too. In France, saying that “homosexual behaviour endangers the survival of humanity” is a crime, and so is the distribution of pork soup to the poor. In Belgium, speaking out against immigration is a crime.

My question to those of you who read this blog is this. Are we Americans heading toward the same secularization of our Country because of Political Correct Speech? Abortion on demand is presently the law of the land, but the case used in this blog was for illustration as to how the control of speech leads to the control of thoughts and beliefs. The Secular -Leftists in this Country would love to imitate what Hitler did in Germany in the 1930's, but they will do it by claiming anyone who opposes their secularization is a Nazi or an uninformed idiot.





"In his 1939 book, Days of Our Lives, Pierre van Passen wrote: “Germany is much farther on the road to dechristianization than the Soviet Union, even if the churches in the Reich remain on and the incense still rises from the altars. In the place of God has come the would be almighty state which, insatiable as the Moloch of old, demands man’s entire devotion, mentally and physically.” As Walker writes, “Heinrich Himmler despised Christianity and members of the SS had to formally renounce their Christian faith and formally become agnostic in order to become a member of the Schultzstaffel,” and, “The only people who opposed the Nazis solely on grounds of moral conscience when opposing on grounds of moral conscience placed them in mortal danger were Christians.” As Franklin D. Roosevelt said on January 6, 1942: “[The Nazis] know that victory for us means victory for religion. And they could not tolerate that. The world is too small to provide adequate living space for both Hitler and God.”

IT IS 1933 ONCE AGAIN

It is somewhat frightening to read in the New York Sun of the British government allowing the destruction of books because a "rich" Saudi Arabian Muslim believes they are offensive.

The following quote should bring nightmares of Hitler's May 10,1933 book burning. The action by the Cambridge Press is the equivalent of what the Hitler Youth did under the leadership of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels in 1933.
The swastika arm banded devils of Hitler youth ransacked libraries, to remove books written by 58 authors who were determined by Hitler and Goebbels to be "offending books that did not match the Nazi ideals". Then they went after the movie films that Hitler and Goebbels felt were not supportive of his Nazi regime. This is how thought control began in Hitler's Germany.

Among the 58 authors were works by Thomas Mann, Albert Einstein, Ernest Hemingway, Arnold Sweig,Upton Sinclair, Jack London and Helen Keller. These authors were accused of being Marxists, Bolshevists, and of course many were Jews.Their books were not only burned in a public square, anyone who possessed these authors books after the book burning could be arrested!


"Cambridge University Press has agreed to destroy all unsold copies of a 2006 book by two American authors, "Alms for Jihad," following a libel action brought against it in England, the latest development in what critics say is an effort by Saudis to quash discussion of their alleged role in aiding terrorism. In a letter of apology to a wealthy Saudi businessman, Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz, Cambridge University Press acknowledged that allegations made in the book about his family, businesses, and charities were "entirely and manifestly false." The publisher wrote, "Please accept our sincere apologies for the distress and embarrassment this has caused." The press also published a separate apology on its web site and wrote that it would pay substantial damages and contribute to legal costs. A press release by Sheikh Mahfouz's London-based law firm, Kendall Freeman, said Cambridge University Press was also writing to over 200 libraries around the world asking them to withdraw the book from shelves."

The "surrender monkeys, multi-culture apologists and "PC" leadership in England is allowing this attack on freedom of speech to happen. Will it be allowed here in the United States before long?

The progressive-leftists who have taken a strong grip on the Press, Media and Federal Government all believe that their superior intellect and inflated sense of self qualifies them to dictate through propaganda and legislation what is acceptable and what is not.

They believe they know how Americans should live our lives, and it includes tools garnered from Marxist-Leninist ideals and theories, and everyone who disagrees with them is either ignorant or uninformed and unenlightened as they are.

Because of this strong political movement present in the United States. What has just happened in Great Britain may be coming to US soon if we are not vigilant and prevent it by voting out of office anyone who supports Political Correctness and even a hint of restricting our freedom of speech!