HISTORY DOES REPEAT ITSELF

Secretary of State Codi Rice is making the same mistake today that Neville Chamberlain made in 1936 when he signed the Munich Agreement with Adolph Hitler.

In the agreement that turned out to be the worst case of appeasement in recent history. Mr. Chamberlain gave up the Sudaten Land to Hitler. A right he did not have to give as Prime Minister of Great Britain, but he did it and when he returned home he proclaimed his agreement was the instrument to end war in "Our Times".

WE know only too well that his proclamation was a falsehood and hollow that led Hitler to pursue his dream of conquering all of Europe. All the Agreement did was give Hitler more time to build up his war machine.

"Chamberlain's Munich Agreement deal (peace for our time) (i.e., the surrender of the Sudetenland to Germany) with Hitler was internationally acclaimed and praised at home and abroad, by among others Pope Pius XI, Ireland's Eamon de Valera, the United States administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Canada's William Lyon Mackenzie King. Chamberlain was acclaimed by many British people for avoiding another war."(source Wikapedia)

Not unlike the attitude of too many Americans today, Chamberlain expressed his reasons for his agreement with Hitler with the following words: "How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing."

Fast forward to today, and you will find appeasement of an equal gravity. The Annapolis Peace Conference is predicated on the bring together Israel and The present Palestinian leadership to "hammer out" a peace process. The only problem is that the "hammering" will be done on the Israelis!

US and Israeli policy makers are premising the Annapolis Conference on foundations that have led to a series of bloody collapses in Oslo, Cairo, Hebron, Wye, Sharm el-Sheikh, Camp David 2, and the “Disengagement.” They assume that Abu Mazen has adopted a mentality of peace, thus granting yet another victory to the simplistic world of delusions over Mideast’s complex reality.

The late Professor Majid Khadduri, from Johns Hopkins University’, considered the world’s leading authority on Arab definitions of peace and war, noted that Arabs view peace as a tactical means for achieving their strategic objective – defeating the enemy. Peace constitutes a necessary, but temporary, break in the ongoing war against the enemy and/or infidel.

Israel will be forced to release more terrorists and surrender even more vital territory to hostile neighbors in return for more empty Arab promises. Given American pressure on the Olmert government to "take risks for peace" and make "painful compromises", there is cause for genuine Israeli concern since the current Palestinian leadership has never had any intention of preparing its people either for peace or for co-existence with Israel. You need only look at Hamas and Palestinian Authority-published textbooks showing maps of Palestine as encompassing present-day Israel, public statements (in Arabic), incitement in the media, and the toleration and encouragement of terrorist attacks to understand that there is no common ground here. This is not, as the U.S. State Department implies, a fight between two parties equally responsible for a terrible conflict. It is a war to exterminate the Jewish state that is being waged by Arabs and Islamists with differing strategies and agendas on the same extension of annihilation. Israel is our only ally in the Middle East despite the fact we "play nice" with Saudi Arabia where beheading in public is still considered proper punishment. But then Israel has no oil!

A LEAP TOO FAR!

There is no one who has lived or visited Los Angeles, Mexico City, Bakersfield, Dallas, New York, Pittsburgh or Cleveland, who will argue that there is a problem with the quality of the air we all have to breath to sustain our lives. You can see it, you can smell it and in some cities I have visited, you can even taste the air pollution!

But it is a serious breach of the truth and of scientific investigative results to jump from the dangers of pollution of the air we breath to the assumption that this phenomenon is causing "global warming".

The ''consensus'' among scientists, it is said, is that the planet's temperature is rising, the cause of the rise is the use of fossil fuels, and disastrous climate changes are looming unless drastic changes are made. The media likewise tend to take it as a given that the experts are in accord on global warming. So do too many politicians. ''The evidence of global warming keeps piling up,'' says Vice President Al Gore, who has made the issue a personal crusade,( AND A MONEY MAKING ENDEAVOR) ''month after month, week after week.''
So if the scientists are all in agreement, who said this?
''We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto. ... The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
''There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.''

It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry.

The statement was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine along with an eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change. The abstract - written for scientists but comprehensible by laymen - concludes that there is no basis for believing (1) that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, (2) that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful, or (3) that human activity leads to global warming in the first place.

This was reported in the Boston Globe, 11/05/98 by Jeff Jacoby. But the beat still goes on. A relentless assault on scientific truth by those who would see the destruction of the Capitalist system and our way of life, so they can substitute a "One World" Socialist, secularist government. A world where the "special people, performing artists, political leaders and the mega-wealthy(aka Sorros), can tell us how we shall live with the full force of the World Government behind them!

With global warming, however, greenhouse "gasbags" can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only global government can tackle such problems. National sovereignty? Democracy? Forget it: global warming has now brought the Left closer to global government, statism, and the eradication of individual rights than it has ever been before.

For decades, environmentalism has been the Left's best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in too many ways. It's for Mother Earth! It's for the children! It's for the whales! But until now, the doomsday-scenario environmental scares they've trumped up haven't been large enough to give the sinister prize they want most of all: total control of American politics, economic activity, and even individual behavior.

The oil industry is just one example of how much influence and damage to our economy and way of life can be caused by Environmental zealots.
Throughout the 1990s, the oil industry spent nearly 25 percent of capital investment -- more than $100 billion -- to comply with environmental regulations, and reduce air pollutants.

Oil refiner Premcor shut two Illinois oil refineries because it could not afford required upgrades; modifications in one refinery alone would have cost $70 million.
Gas prices have also been affected by the government. In order to fulfill various air pollution reduction plans, gasoline sold in the United States has been fractionated into about 17 different boutique fuels.
With three grades of gasoline, refiners produce more than 50 separate blends.
This is expensive, as each blend must be transported separately, which limits pipeline and storage capacity.
Moreover, it is difficult to replace supplies when there are disruptions and when refining capacity is taken off-line to clean tanks and pipelines when switching between winter and summer blends.
Unfortunately, these and other government mandates lead to a loss of $1 trillion in economic output and up to 5 million workers unemployed. Absent government intervention in the market, prompted by environmental pressure groups, refinery capacity would be expected to expand, reducing consumer prices. More economical and secure energy supplies are available if government gets out of the way.
Source: H. Sterling Burnett, "New oil refineries needed," Washington Times, November 26, 2007

And to top it all. Now President Bush has apparently caved in to the Global Warming scam. Look out America!

SPEAKER PELOSI AND UNIVERSITY OF DELEWARE

As I was growing up I learned that my great-grandparents on my father's side were immigrants who fled Germany. They were originally from the Cities of Weisbaden and Stuttgart in the Bavarian Heartland. They fled Germany not to escape the Horrors of Nazism, but to find a new more profitable life in the 1890's America that they felt had good future for their children. One of their Children was my grandfather and he spoke no English. In fact the complete family spoke only German for a few Years, and although they learned enough English to gain employment. The language spoken in their home was heir native German.

When I was old enough to spend time away from my parents they sent me every summer to spend a week with my Grandparents in Northern, Wisconsin. Grandpa and Grandma still spoke German in their home to each other when they wanted to say something they thought inappropriate to my ears, but to me they would only speak English.

When I was old enough to understand my fathers motives. I learned that he had told his parents not to try to speak German to me. I am sorry he did that, but he wasn't interested in multiculturalism. He was concerned with my learning the language and the great culture that I was to live and work in when I "grew up".

For this reason it is hard for this blogger to understand the way teachers, politicians and leftist leaning advocates of the bi-lingual movement keep insisting we in the United States have to accept that people who speak Spanish only, should be protected from demands from employers that people they employ speak English.

The Wall Street Journal reported on November 19th that Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Speaker of the U.S. House is trying to force the Salvation Army to hire non-English speaking people!

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has moved to kill an amendment that would protect employers from federal lawsuits for requiring their workers to speak English. Among the employers targeted by such lawsuits: the Salvation Army.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, a moderate Republican from Tennessee, is dumbstruck that legislation he views as simple common sense would be blocked. He noted that the full Senate passed his amendment to shield the Salvation Army by 75-19 last month, and the House followed suit with a 218-186 vote just this month. "I cannot imagine that the framers of the 1964 Civil Rights Act intended to say that it's discrimination for a shoe shop owner to say to his or her employee, 'I want you to be able to speak America's common language on the job,' " he told the Senate last Thursday."
But that's exactly what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is trying to do. In March the EEOC sued the Salvation Army because its thrift store in Framingham, Mass., required its employees to speak English on the job. The requirement was clearly posted and employees were given a year to learn the language. The EEOC claimed the store had fired two Hispanic employees for continuing to speak Spanish on the job.

Previous to this disturbing event in Congress, the following was reported about the University of Delaware.

The WorldNetDaily reported on October 30th,2007, the following news from Delaware. It sounds to this blogger as though Speaker Pelosi and her ilk helped formulate the following mandate that denies students at the University of Delaware their Constitutional Right to Free Speech!

"The University of Delaware has mandated a program that requires residence hall students to acknowledge that "all whites are racist" and offers them "treatment" for any incorrect attitudes regarding class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality they might hold upon entering the school, according to a civil rights group."
Somehow, the University of Delaware seems unaware that a state-sponsored institution of higher education in the United States does not have the legal right to engage in a program of systematic thought reform. The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of conscience – the right to keep our innermost thoughts free from governmental intrusion. It also protects the right to be free from compelled speech.

This is strangely reminiscent of the types of thought control action taken by Hitler and Stalin, not something one would expect to find on the Campus of an American University. Unfortunately those of us who send off our Teen age children ( and many thousands of dollars)to college, often send them to schools that spend most of their time reprogramming our children's minds, so that they conform to the Liberal bias of today's secular humanists.

Birds Of a Feather?

Reuters New Agency has reported that another politically involved woman has endorsed Hillary Clinton. No, Not a U.S. Senator, Mayor, or Governor. The endorsement comes from another kindred soul. Bernadette Chirac, a woman who like her husband Jacques left the Presidency of France shrouded in scandals involving her and her husband, Not unlike the situation the Clinton's find themselves in today.

"Bernadette Chirac came out today in support of Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Chirac is the wife of former French President, Jacques Chirac, who just left office in May of this year.
Hillary must be pleased as punch at this endorsement. Is it the woman thing, do you think? Reuters offered no political reason, just this:
"From the first look, the first words, Hillary Clinton is a friendly, smiling person who never lets herself be caught out," she said. She even expressed interest in attending the Democratic convention in Denver in August. "And if I can be of any use to her somewhere in the campaign, I'm available. I'd like to go with her and I'm going to suggest it to her."

This is strangely familiar to the mutterings of Senator Kerry when he was running for President, and claimed he had the endorsement of the leaders of the free world backing his election.
The main difference and yet a similarity is the kindred spirit relationship between Madame Chirac and Senator Clinton. Both are accused of criminal activity!

Mr Chirac, who had one of the longest continuous political careers in Europe - twice president, twice prime minister and mayor of Paris for 18 years - has moved out of the comfort of State palaces for the first time in 30 years. But while he is lauded for his resistance to the war in Iraq and reconciling France with its history by apologising for Nazi collaboration, Mr Chirac has seen brutal appraisals of what critics call his wasted 12 years as the economy stagnated, public debt grew and youth unemployment and discrimination fed social unrest on housing estates. In a survey last week, 54% said his time in power had been "bad" for France.
For weeks before he left office, Mr Chirac's staff at the Élysée were busy shredding personal notes and confidential papers. A special rubbish truck destroyed miles of video and audio tapes. Not unlike the Clintons.
Mr Chirac and his wife, Bernadette, move d into a luxurious flat on Paris's left bank, with a view of the Louvre, lent by the family of Rafik Hariri, the Lebanese politician assassinated in 2005. Over the past month, furniture movers and officials have been transferring papers, works of art and cases of wine into the building. Sounds like the pilfering done at the White House as the Clinton's vacated it in 2000.
But when Mr Chirac returned from a holiday in Morocco he found decades-old corruption scandals returning to haunt him.

Judges are said to want to question Mr Chirac as a witness in an illegal party-funding scandal involving fictitious jobs, which claimed his protege and former prime minister, Alain Juppé. But an official in the ruling UMP party said Mr Chirac, who denies all knowledge of several corruption rackets, was unlikely to face sanctions.
Almost 50 people employed by Chirac's government, went on trial in Paris in the last few years, accused of involvement in one of the worst corruption scandals in French history.
Charged with rigging public works contracts in order to finance the country's major political parties, their testimony threatens to "dynamite" the country's political establishment and heap embarrassment on the French president.

These French scandals are very instructive in providing a lesson about a socialized economy, one that Hillary espouses that includes among other schemes, socialized medicine. This type system is very prone to bureaucratic and political corruption. Those who call for socialist policies in the United States, particularly in the Democratic Party candidates Obama, Edwards and Hillary, often tout the equitable nature of such a system.
For example, under a system of socialized medicine, everyone will allegedly have equal access and quality, whereas under a free-market system, the rich will have better medical care.
In reality, however, such is not the case. In a socialized system, bureaucrats and the professional political class control much of a given society's resources. They and those who are connected to them have better access to the fruits of the society, including better housing and medical care.
In both systems, someone inevitably has more and better access than others. The difference, however, is this: under a free-market system, those who earned their wealth through hard work and ingenuity get to buy such access for themselves and for their families with their own resources. Under a socialized system, those who are elected or appointed to oversee the welfare of all gain access to the resources of the whole society, not resources of their own making.
Perhaps the Socialized philosophies of both Mrs. Chirac and Hillary are what prompted this meddler in our political system to speak out for Hillary.

THE UNDER BELLY OF PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS

The papers an TV news are filled with the fact that Hillary Clinton will not release her "First_Lady" papers until after the election in 2008. This provokes the feeling of "she has too much to hide" in any inquiring mind.

But she is not the only Democrat to refuse to allow the public to see prior political documents. Senator Obama has apparently "lost" his Illinois Senatorial papers. He spent six years in the State Senate, and he says he no longer has access to them ,so how can he release them.

The media is giving him a pass on this issue by in large, but a search of the Chicago area newspaper archives reveals a possible scandal hidden in the "lost" papers of Senator Obama.

The following is a headline in some Chicago area newspapers:
"INTERNET EDITOR AND REPUBLICAN CORRUPTION FIGHTER ANDY MARTIN REQUESTS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO “DEAL” BETWEEN SENATOR BARACK OBAMA AND INDICTED INFLUENCE PEDDLER TONY REZKO.NEWS CONFERENCE DETAILS"

Internet journalist/editor Andy Martin on November 16, 2006, held a news conference to announce that he has filed a complaint with the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division of the U. S. Department of justice seeking a criminal investigation into the financial links between U. S. Senator Barack Obama and indicted Illinois influence peddler Tony Rezko. The complaint also names U. S. Representative Luis Gutierrez. After his news conference, Martin went to the U. S. Attorney’s office to leave a letter for the foreperson of the U.S. Grand Jury.

Mr. Martin had this to say when questioned by reporters as to why he was filing this complaint: Mr. Obama says he made a ‘mistake’ when he entered into a deal with Tony Rezko,” Martin will state. “On the contrary, Obama committed a crime, and he knew it. Rezko was engaged in influence peddling, plain and simple. Obama was not some unsophisticated jerk. He had served as an Illinois State Senator, a body that has been a fulcrum of corruption for decades. He knew the ‘players.’ What Obama did is no different than the same kind of ‘honest graft’ that has sent Illinois politicians to jail since Governor Otto Kerner. Now that the election is over, it is time to focus attention on what I believe was Obama’s criminal conduct.”

And while the Sun-Times refers to dozens of housing rehab deals and to $43 million in taxpayer subsidies that were collected by Rezko-connected companies, Obama said the following in rebuttal to questions by Chicago Sun Times Reporters: "He worked on just four of those housing rehabs, and all he did was to create a legal corporate joint venture.""We set up the structures and that was the end of it,"

Sun-Times investigative reporter Tim Novak asked Obama how he could not have known that many Rezko buildings were horrible slums."My point is the implication is that we were out there facilitating these kinds of practices, and that just wasn't the case,"

For those who have never heard of Tony Rezko, I will add a brief description of his activities in Chicago during the last decade. Rezko is a Syrian born Muslim who made millions in Illinois and foreign real estate deals and "sweat heart pizza deals" in the Chicago area.

The "main dough" in Tony’s Chicago business is Pizza, but he was sued by the parent company,. He also owns 7 Subway sandwich shops on Illinois toll way, thanks to his chummy connections to the governor.

He has used his powerful web of connections( including the Muslim Community in Chicago) to aid most of Chicago area politicians (including Senator Obama), thanks to his donations to their political campaigns.

Since he was indicted last week, no one knows for sure where Rezko is. The FBI said that he was in an Amman Hotel; he also was reportedly in Qatar, where he is believed to be the Emir’s pal.Rezko could go to his native Syria, and simply not comeback. In addition to his legal troubles, Rezko is in really big financial trouble. His house in the ritzy suburbs of Wilmette has over 3 million dollar lean to GE Capital after defaulting on payments. His businesses are faltering.Rezko is also being sued by his former friend, also a native Syrian, Semir Serazi for defaulting on a million dollar loan, Serazi secured for Rezko.Serazi, who heads the Semir and Liyla Serazi educational foundation,a businessman and a noted philanthropist, www.Serazi.com, is seeking $10 million.

The irony of the withholding of documents by both Senators Clinton and Obama is that both are campaigning on a platform of "open" Government, and a promise to"clean out the "sleaze" in the White House. It sounds too much to me like "The Kettle Calling the Pot Black"! Neither one of these "front runners" deserves to sit in the White House any where but in the waiting room to see the next President!

400 YEARS OF DRIFTING AWAY

Two hundred and seventeen years ago, the President of the New Republic, George Washington, made a proclamation that We should set aside a day of Thanksgiving to God.
It was the 26th of November,1789.

Prior to that date the Pilgrims had made a Thanksgiving proclamation on June 29th, 1676, and it took place in Charlestown, Massachusetts.

The governing council of Charlestown, Massachusetts, held a meeting to determine how best to express thanks for the good fortune that had seen their community securely established. By unanimous vote they instructed Edward Rawson, the clerk, to proclaim June 29 as a day of thanksgiving.

The proclamation concluded with the following words: "The Council has thought meet to appoint and set apart the 29th day of this instant June, as a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favour, many Particulars of which mercy might be Instanced, but we doubt not those who are sensible of God's Afflictions, have been as diligent to espy him returning to us; and that the Lord may behold us as a People offering Praise and thereby glorifying Him; the Council doth commend it to the Respective Ministers, Elders and people of this Jurisdiction; Solemnly and seriously to keep the same Beseeching that being perswaded by the mercies of God we may all, even this whole people offer up our bodies and soulds as a living and acceptable Service unto God by Jesus Christ."
The language is the same as was used in those early days of the New Americans, and it shows that despite being beset by disease, failed crops and severe weather. The New Americans wanted to thank God for their survival.
The people who would come to be known as the Pilgrims (known as the Pilgrim Fathers in the UK) were brought together by a common belief in the ideas promoted by Richard Clyfton, parson at All Saints' Parish Church in Babworth, East Retford, Nottinghamshire, between 1586 and 1605. This congregation held Separatist beliefs comparable to nonconforming movements not in communion with the Church of England). Unlike conforming Puritan groups who maintained their membership in and allegiance to the Church of England, Separatists held that their differences with the Church of England were irreconcilable and that their worship should be organized independently of the trappings, traditions and organization of a central state church.
The Separatists had long been controversial. Under the 1559 Act of Uniformity, it was illegal not to attend official Church of England services, with a fine of 12d (£.05; 2005 equivalent: about £5) for each missed Sunday and holy day. The penalties for conducting unofficial services included imprisonment and larger fines. Under the policy of this time, Barrowe and Greenwood were executed for sedition in 1593.
Concerned with losing their cultural identity, the group arranged with English investors to establish a new colony in North America.
The colony, established in 1620, became the second successful English settlement in what was to become the United States of America, the first being Jamestown, Virginia, which was founded in 1607. Their story was to become a central theme in United States cultural identity.
But if you fast forward to today you can readily see that the main reason the Pilgrims came to the "New World", Religion, has been largely discarded and removed from most all forms of our daily lives.
Secular humanism has taken it's place. License has been replaced for freedom. If it feels good, do it. I am O.K. you're O.K. has taken over the real Truth.
Thanksgiving today, is just a day off work, with people of means gorging themselves and watching football. God has been replaced with television and the pursuit of pleasure. It is as if the God of today is the almighty Turkey.
In 1939 President Roosevelt started the movement toward secularizing Thanksgiving when he tried to move the date from the fourth Thursday, as proclaimed by President Lincoln during the Civil War, to the third Thursday of November.
His reason for proposing the change, as verified by his papers in the Presidential library, was to give one more week of Christmas shopping to help quick start the stagnant economy of the depression. He finally settled for the fourth Thursday due to severe pressure of a letter writing campaign against the change. Congress approved the date in 1941.
Tomorrow we all should give thanks to whatever Being you believe has allowed this Country to persevere, despite the threats and calumny that have afflicted Us in the last 400 years.
I myself will give thanks to Almighty God for his blessings and the trials and tribulations that have made us stronger, and I hope all of you will take a moment to reflect on the blessings that we still have and are worth fighting to preserve!

THE REAL THREAT IS IGNORED

In our busy lives we perceive threats to our livelihood, threats to our children, threats to our savings, threats to our freedoms, and the omnipresent threat of global warming.

The media presents an unrelenting cacophony of dire predictions of what CO2 gases we produce will cause in the years to come. But they seldom present articles about the , imminent treat of radical Islam.

This is the one threat that this blogger believes could become an action that happens in the very near future.

The Media and unfortunately too many of our leaders in Washington would have us believe that there are two kinds of Muslims, radical and moderate. The radicals, they say is the small group that is waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as parts of Indonesia.

The rest are law abiding peaceful people who just like us want the freedom to worship their religion in peace.

There are over 2.35 million Muslims living in the United States. Some legally and many illegally. There are over one million in the Greater New York area, and they have a television station devoted to Arab speaking people in that area.

The television station is under investigation for possible subversive activities. The investigators will be looking at the following broadcasts: A broadcast in December included a lengthy speech by Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah. The network later said the speech had not been screened for anti-Israeli content before it was broadcast because no supervisor spoke Arabic.
In another broadcast, Ismail Haniya, the Palestinian prime minister and a leader of the hard-line Hamas faction, appeared to support the assertion that the Holocaust was a myth. Also, the network’s coverage of a Holocaust deniers’ conference in Iran has been criticized as insufficiently skeptical.
Another broadcast included printed words at the bottom of the screen that referred to the 1948 founding of Israel by an Arabic phrase meaning “the catastrophe.” The words were discovered and “fixed” after an hour, said Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman.

There are many Muslims who do see, and practice, Islam, as a religion of peace, grace and mercy. And there are clearly many others who do not. Those who want Islam to be a religion of peace have a problem, a conflict, for they cannot follow the inerrant, eternal, unchangeable words of Allah, as recited by Muhammad, as written in the Koran, and also practice Islam as a religion of peace, justice, grace, and mercy, for the Koran demands eternal Jihad, never-ending war against the infidels, until Islam is victorious over all other religions, and all people submit to the supremacy of Islam.

If you don't believe me just go to the Google search and look up what Muhammad did to the men who stole his camels over 700 years ago during his 23 years of preaching as the Prophet of Allah. For those who don't want to spend the time. " A group of eight Bedouin Arabs of the Uki tribe came to Medina and embraced Islam. They stayed with the people of As-Suffa. But the unpleasant climate of the city did not suit them; it 'affected their spleen,' so they went to Muhammad to seek help. Muhammad recommended that they go into the desert in the neighborhood of al-Jammu and drink the milk and urine of his (Mohammed's) milch-camels as medicine. The Bedouins recovered their health despite following this repulsive advice. Then, true to their Bedouin nature, they stole the herd and attempted to escape. The herdsman, called Yasir, pursued the plunderers, but they killed him and took the camels away.
He cut off their arms and legs and impailed them on pointed sticks, then while they died he refused them water.

The Quran itself refers to Muhammad in this way:

Al-Fath 48 (Victory), 29.4
"Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration."

Thus we have the paradox of the militant Muslims joining in with the Peace Movement here in the United States to further there cause.

How can this be you say? The following is a quote from Dr Walid Phares, the Director of Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy and the author of the War of Ideas. Dr Phares was one of the architects of UNSCR 1559.

"Jihadism is joined with the antiwar movement even while promoting "holy war," which is the essence of their rissala (mission). The ideology of the Salafists and Khumeinists is to prepare for, mobilize for, incite, and engage in a constant war of jihad against the infidels, who are supposed to be all those who aren't Islamists, including moderate Muslims.
Theoretically, the jihadi connection to the antiwar concept is impossible. But in the realm of reality, it does occur, mainly because of the mutating "pragmatism" of both of the antidemocratic movements. The radical Islamists, as I argued in Future Jihad, have undergone a strategic mutation that has allowed them to coalesce tactically with ideological foes, among them Baathists, Neo-Marxists, and anarchists. The jihadi manipulation of the bourgeois-Neo-Marxist "struggle" has played a central role in the so-called "mass demonstrations" in the West since 2002, and the demonstrations themselves are an important component of the War of Ideas against democracy. On campuses, both in North America and Western Europe, the jihadi-antiwar axis has planted deep roots, and thanks to the skills of university-based anarchist groups, the jihadists have found a cover they can hide under, instead of simply becoming members of the typical Wahhabi-controlled Muslim Student Unions.
The last group, under an international neo-Left umbrella in the West, created the anti-war movement, which is reminiscent of the old Cold War Communist-controlled "peace movement."

Islamists found it easier to insert themselves as partners in an "antiwar" movement than a "peace" movement. Effectively, in the jihadi aqida (doctrine), seeking permanent peace with others is a non issue, given that jihad is constant, regardless of its form. Jihadism cannot accommodate a peace movement in principle."

This I believe is a threat that should be taken seriously by all Americans who value their right to worship or not to worship as the desire. If the Radical followers of the Terrorist movement are successful in Iraq. It won't be long until we here in the United States will find ourselves in the same "pickle" that Holland, France and Spain are presently.

WHO DO YOU BELIEVE? SORE LOSER OR MEN WHO PUT MAN ON THE MOON?

Watching football played by NFL teams on Sundays, during the fall and early months of winter, is a National pastime. I belong to the group of millions of Americans who look forward each Sunday after Church to watching grown men try to maim each other on a green field 100 yards long.

What I have noticed in the last few weeks, is more commercials sponsoring the games by the automobile manufacturers, highlighting their new "hybrid" cars.

Apparently the Auto makers have given in to the pressure of the "Global Warming" crowd. The "Goreites" have convinced a sizable number of Americans that CO2 emissions is causing the Polar ice cap to melt, and endanger not only the Polar Bears but the Human Race.

Even President Bush has succumbed to the "Global Warming" pressures it would seem.

But the profits of doom are not the real climatology experts. They are led by a failed Presidential aspirant, and many other pseudo-climate experts, with a lot of help from the Leftist in every walk of life who would like to see the United States drop back to the middle -ages.

The real scientists have just released a report on the conclusions they reached after going to the site where all this melting of the "ice-cap" is taking place. And the people doing the study are representatives of the group that helped put Americans on the Moon! NASA

The following is a report from James Morison the leader of the scientist who did the study.

" A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming. The team, led by James Morison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory, Seattle, used data from an Earth-observing satellite and from deep-sea pressure gauges to monitor Arctic Ocean circulation from 2002 to 2006. They measured changes in the weight of columns of Arctic Ocean water, from the surface to the ocean bottom. That weight is influenced by factors such as the height of the ocean's surface, and its salinity. A saltier ocean is heavier and circulates differently than one with less salt. The very precise deep-sea gauges were developed with help from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the satellite is NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). The team of scientists found a 10-millibar decrease in water pressure at the bottom of the ocean at the North Pole between 2002 and 2006, equal to removing the weight of 10 centimeters of water from the ocean. The distribution and size of the decrease suggest that Arctic Ocean circulation changed from the counterclockwise pattern it exhibited in the 1990s to the clockwise pattern that was dominant prior to 1990. Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, the authors attribute the reversal to a weakened Arctic Oscillation, a major atmospheric circulation pattern in the northern hemisphere. The weakening reduced the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, decreasing its weight and changing its circulation. "Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison."

The liberals in the Media, Hollywood and the Norwegian NOBEL PRIZE committee would rather you don't read this, but facts and the truth are hard to hide!

HILLARY CLINTON IS NO SNOW WHITE

After last nights Democrat debate in Las Vegas.Charlie Hurst of the New York Post referred to Senator Clinton as "Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs".

If ever there was a misnomer, this is a "la la palooza". Comparing the angelic Snow White to Hillary is like comparing a mule to a race horse.

I don't think anyone who lived through the eight years of the Clinton's Presidency could possibly forget the multitude of Scandals that involved both Clinton's or those that were provoked by Hillary Clinton's actions. This story leads to a trail of corrupt campaign funding scandals unlike any in previous political history.

One of the biggest sources of political donations to Hillary Rodham Clinton is a tiny, lime-green bungalow that lies under the flight path from San Francisco International Airport.
Six members of the Paw family, each listing the house at 41 Shelbourne Ave. as their residence, have donated a combined $45,000 to the Democratic senator from New York since 2005, for her presidential campaign, her Senate re-election last year and her political action committee. In all, the six Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005, election records show.
That total ranks the house with residences in Greenwich, Conn., and Manhattan’s Upper East Side among the top addresses to donate to the Democratic presidential front-runner over the past two years, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal of donations listed with the Federal Election Commission.

If that were not enough, consider this fact:Three recipients of controversial 11th-hour pardons issued by former President Bill Clinton in January 2001 have donated thousands of dollars to the presidential campaign of his wife, Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., according to campaign finance records examined by ABC News, in what some good government groups said created an appearance of impropriety.
"It’s not illegal," Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told ABC News. "But, of course, it’s inappropriate and she should return the money. It does raise the appearance that this is payback.
"One can only hope that she wasn’t yet aware of who made the donations," said Sloan.
One of the pardonees who has become a donor to Sen. Clinton is David Herdlinger, a former prosecutor in Springdale, Ark., who, according to press accounts at the time of his pardon pleaded guilty in 1986 to mail fraud after taking bribes to reduce or drop charges against defendants charged with drunken driving offenses.
Now a life and business coach in Georgia, Herdlinger was pardoned by President Clinton in January 2001; he donated $1,000 to Sen. Clinton’s presidential campaign in August.
Insurance agent Alfredo Regalado, who gave Hillary Clinton $2,000, was pardoned by her husband for failing to "report the transportation of currency in excess of $10,000 into the United States," according to the Department of Justice.
Then there are the allegations of malfeasance and corruption that occurred while Hillary was First Lady:

Hillary Clinton is the first first lady to testify before a grand jury when she was subpoenaed by the Whitewater grand jury.
Took a $100,000 bribe, camouflaged as futures trades, from Tyson Foods Inc.
Speculated in Health Care industry futures while overseeing legislative reform of same.
Failed to correct false testimony by co-defendant Ira Magaziner in Health Care trial.

Obstructed justice by ordering the shredding of Vince Foster's documents in the Rose Law Firm.
Ordered members of the Health Care Task Force to shred documents that were the target of a court probe.
Ordered the removal of documents from Vince Foster's office and told aides to lie about their removal of documents.
Obstructed justice by keeping her billing records, a document sought under subpoena, in the White House residence.
Lied to investigators about her knowledge about billing records.
Lied to investigators about her involvement in the Castle Grande land flip con.
Ordered the use of the FBI to discredit Travel Office employees.
Lied to investigators about her involvement in the firing of Travel Office Employees.
A Federal judge orders a trial on July 25, 1994 to determine if Hillary Clinton's heath care task force illegally operated in secret.
The White House finally releases more than 2,000 documents on June 25, 1996, relating to the travel office firings, originally requested two years ago by congressional investigators.

If the preceding is not enough to make a mockery out of referring to her as Snow White. Perhaps this item might lead you to believe that Hillary qualifies as the Wicked witch of the North( she was born in Illinois)of the Wizard of Oz.

Former sixties radical David Horowitz says that both Hillary Rodham and Bill Lann Lee, who later became President Clinton’s head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, helped organize the pro-Panther demonstrations at Yale. Others sympathetic to Hillary contend that she was merely among a group of law students who monitored the trial on behalf of the ACLU, which was concerned that law enforcement was violating the civil liberties of members of the party. But Hillary says nothing in her book about even this role.
What is not in dispute is that she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action, a “progressive” alternative to the school’s traditional review, and that its fall 1970 issue was devoted to the trial and glorifying the Panthers.

So, enough of the comparison of Hillary Clinton with the "fairest in the land."

THE BACKLASH MAY HIT LEFTISTS IN CONGRESS

The Associated Press is reporting the following story, and I believe this may be a warning to the RINO and Democrat members of Congress that were elected from districts with large military bases. If they don't believe Secretary Gates they may see a situation develop similar to the one that occurred when President Reagan locked out the striking air traffic controllers.

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that unless Congress passes funding for the Iraq war within days, he will direct the Army and Marine Corps to begin developing plans to lay off employees and terminate contracts early next year. Gates, who met with members of Congress on Wednesday, said that he does not have the money or the flexibility to move funding around to adequately cover the costs of the continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "There is a misperception that this department can continue funding our troops in the field for an indefinite period of time through accounting maneuvers, that we can shuffle money around the department. This is a serious misconception," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon. As a result, he said that he is faced with the undesirable task of preparing to cease operations at Army bases by mid-February, and lay off about 100,000 defense department employees and an equal number of civilian contractors. A month later, he said, similar moves would have to be made by the Marines. Some members of Congress believe the Pentagon can switch enough money to cover the war accounts, Gates said. But he added that he only has the flexibility to transfer about $3.7 billion - which is just one week's worth of war expenses. Lawmakers, he said, may not understand how complicated and restrictive the situation is.

Despite the dangling preposition that ended Secretary Gates statement. I believe the 218 who voted to force the Commander in Chief to withdraw His troops by December 2008 should be concerned. I believe it is right and just to cut off funds to the civilians before you take the weapons and ammunition out of the hands of the brave men and women who are on the fighting line.


The House on Wednesday passed, 218-203, a $50 billion bill that would pay for the wars, but require that troops start to leave Iraq in 30 days. It sets a goal of ending combat by December 2008, as well as establishing interrogations standards that would make waterboarding - or simulated drowning - illegal. The Senate planned to vote as early as Friday on the measure. The bill was expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to advance."


If Congress doesn't approve $196 billion for the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gates says, bases may partly shut down and civilians may lose jobs.
Thursday he said that he will have to lay off 200,000 civilian employees and contractors, terminate military contracts and partially shut down U.S. military bases unless Congress acts quickly to approve additional funding for the Iraq war.


But the Congressional "Queen" from San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi, in her "power happy" way says: "House Democrats would refuse to send the president a funding bill free of conditions if Senate Republicans block the House measure. "We're not going to be taking it up anymore over here," she told reporters.


I believe Speaker of the House Pelosi has a short memory. Just five years ago the majority of the House and Senate authorized the Use of force against Iraq in the passage of H.J. Res 114 and S.J.Res. 45, and then followed this in June 2003 with appropriation Bills to fund the military action. My how they have change their minds for political reasons and because of pressure from anti-war Leftist back home!



On October 10,2002 Senator Clinton stood in the "Well" of the Senate and spoke these words: "Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran."....... "So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Thank you, Mr. President."


Now she is bowing to the anti-war supporters as she campaigns for the seat in the Oval Office that she covets. We cannot let this happen. Please write, email and call your Congressional and Senate representatives and tell them to fund our brave men and women as long as it takes. We have had to give up very little for this war compared to that which our parents and grandparents gave up to defeat Nazi Germany, and the troops will just have to go back again, if we bring them home before the job is done!















The February 6, 2006, testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority, however indicates otherwise:
GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.
The courts have consistently refused to intervene in this matter, and in practice Presidents have the power to commit forces with congressional approval but without a declaration of war.

THE CREEPING SOCIALISM IN AMERICA

The Tax Foundation estimates that 41 percent of whites, 56 percent of blacks, 59 percent of American Indian and Aleut Eskimo and 40 percent Asian and Pacific Islanders had no 2004 federal income tax liability. The study concluded, “When all of the dependents of these income-producing households are counted, there are roughly 122 million Americans — 44 percent of the U.S. population — who are outside of the federal income tax system." These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. In other words, if you have little or no financial stake in America, what do you care about the cost of massive federal spending programs?

It all began during the Great Depression when approximately 15 million Americans were out of work ,and with no money for the basic necessities of life. In 1935, President Roosevelt started what is now the Welfare State of America, only if he could come back he would be shocked to to how far Left we have gone.

During the first few years of Social Security, eligible Americans received, on average, $58.06.
Before Franklin Roosevelt's administration, it was unusual for the government to give people money, and some Americans were against Social Security. My how things have slid to to the Left. More than 50% of US Americans depend on the Government for their "daily bread".

Prior to the New Deal, Congress, the Supreme Court, and leading constitutional lawyers had generally interpreted the Constitution in such a way that the principal responsibility for social welfare matters was left to the States. However, State governments proved to be extremely reluctant to undertake costly social welfare measures on anything less than a nationwide basis, for fear of imposing economic burdens on locally based industries that would put them at a competitive disadvantage in the national market, and get them thrown out of office. The result was a major political paradox--a built-in block against social welfare legislation by the States. The Federal Government was the only agency by which broad social welfare programs could be achieved.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt's original Social Security plan included provisions that would have allowed people to make personal investments — not much different from the private accounts that President Bush is currently proposing. In fact, this was one of three 'necessary principles' in FDR's legislative package presented to Congress on January 17, 1935:

FDR proposed that along with the funds each employee was required to contribute from his/her paycheck, workers could make periodic investments that would give them certificates redeemable for monthly payments upon their retirement. These certificates were referred to as 'annuity bonds,' and, much like Bush's private accounts, could be redeemed by the annuitant's spouse or beneficiaries upon his/her demise.
Unfortunately, this provision —— initially referred to as 'Title V' —— was deleted from the final bill that came out of Congress due to pressures exerted by the insurance industry.

Insurance lobbyists felt that this plan might cut into their industry's ability to sell such policies, as the government would suddenly become a direct competitor.

The initial monthly cap of the proposed annuity distribution was fixed at $100, this was intended to represent a very significant percentage of one's future benefits. The first monthly check distributed by Social Security was $22.54, or less than a quarter of what one could have received from an annuity bond.

President Roosevelt, a Democrat, promised:
1) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary.
2) That the participants would only have to pay 1 percent of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program. (During the Depression years most wage earners made around $10 to $20 a week.)
3) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.
4) That the money would be put into the independent “Trust Fund” rather than the General Operating Fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other government program.
5) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month – and then finding that we are getting taxed 85 percent of the money we paid to the Federal Government to “put away” – you may be interested in the following:
Which political party took Social Security from the independent “Trust Fund” and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it? It was Democrat President Lyndon and the Democrat controlled Congress House and Senate.
The Democrat party also eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding.
The Democrat party also started taxing Social Security annuities, with Vice President Al Gore casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote.
The Democrat party led by President Jimmy Carter also decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants. Immigrants moved into America and, at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments.
Now the Democrat politicians running for public office are lying to Americans by saying the “Republicans want to take away your Social Security!”
For the record, the New Deal “entitlements” were all in violation of our nation’s Constitution.
Finally, after all of the Democrat maneuvering over the past 70 years, the Social Security Trust Fund is broke. There is no money in the Trust Fund. Instead, there is an IOU from the federal government in the amount of $1.7 trillion. This amount increases by over a Billion dollars each month!

The current SS tax rates are 10.4 percent for the wage owner and 6.14 for his/her employer. In 2007 the SS tax base was $97,500, with no maximum for the 1.45% tax for Medicare. Government officials and even AARP, have recommended increasing the taxable income base for Social Security to $140,00.

Presidential candidate Obama has the Chutzpah to tell the American people that if elected he will raise the taxes on Our income for Social Security!
Vote the tax and spend Princes and Princesses in Congress out of office in 2008!

TAX PAYERS MONEY WASTED BY FEMA

The Media has printed hundreds of articles about the Bush failure to respond properly and promptly to National disasters, particularly Hurricane Katrina.

My complaint about FEMA is not directed at the Bush administration, but to the continual waste of taxpayers money in their response to national disasters.

The News was replete with cries from State and Local officials that President Bush wasn't taking their disaster seriously. Blame came from all quarters, and was repeated night after night by the Leftist leaning Media.

It later was revealed that the former Democratic Governor, Kathleen Blanco, and the Mayor of New Orleans, were partially responsible for the delayed evacuation. Hundreds of school buses were sitting idle, and were not made available to the evacuees.

The latest example of Government waste involves FEMA officials and the Aquarium of the Americas in New Orleans.

Katrina destroyed the aquarium and the majority of its tropical fish. To replace the fish, a dozen aquarium staff members went fishing in the coastal waters off Mexico, Florida and the Bahamas to capture tropical fish. They worked 12 hour days ,but put in invoices for only 8 hour days for reimbursement from FEMA. The captured 1,661 fish for which they paid $99,766.

The problem, that has resulted in a delay in FEMA reimbursement for over 17 months, is the strict interpretation of the Stafford Act. This law, passed by Congress, requires that facilities damaged by disaster can only be restored to their pre-disaster condition, not improved.

FEMA requires that all purchases should be made from approved commercial sellers of tropical fish, and they must be of the approximate age and size of the lost 'specimens"!

How do they determine the fish's age?

The shame of this bureaucratic debacle is that had the aquarium taken the easy way out, and bought the fish from commercial vendors, the cost has been estimated at over $500,000.

New Orleans is just one example of the Government waste of taxpayers money by the nit-picking bureaucrats of FEMA.

FEMA said that as of Aug. 8, it had a total work force of 20,287, up from 8,388 on Sept. 22, 2001.There are 2400 full time administrators located in Washington,DC . R David Paulison is the Chief Administrator.
Most of the increase – 9,346 – came from disaster medical assistance teams transferred from the Health and Human Services Department. FEMA's full time staff rose to 2,400 from 2,132.

Congress has approved more than $62 billion in supplemental spending for the recovery and rebuilding of Gulf Coast areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina. More such spending is certain to help people recover from Katrina and the follow-up punch of Hurricane Rita.
The Katrina response alone amounted to more than 11 times FEMA's 2005 budget of $5.5 billion. That budget was higher than usual because of cleanup costs due to four major hurricanes that hit Florida last year.
FEMA has borne the brunt of criticism about the Bush administration's lagging response to Katrina. The agency's director, Michael Brown, was removed from on-site command and resigned.

Another example of "turf" protection was related by an attorney from Jefferson Parrish, La. He relates that a group of approximately 1,000 citizens pulling 500 boats left the Acadiana Mall in Lafayette the morning of 9/17,2005 (Weds.), and headed to New Orleans with a police escort from the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Department. The “flotilla” of trucks pulling boats stretched over five miles. This citizen rescue group was organized by La. State Senator, Gautreaux from Vermilion Parish. . . .
The State Police waved the flotilla of trucks/boats through the barricades in LaPlace and they sped into New Orleans via I-10 until past the airport and near the Clearview exit. At that time they were stopped by agents of the La. Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries. A DWF agent looked at the boats and told approximately half of the citizens that their boats were “too large” because the water had “dropped during the night” and that they should turn around and go home. . . .many people drowned because of this type of bureaucratic snafu!

My intent is not to join sides with Leftists sites like MoveOn.org and the Daily Kos in piling on FEMA for their response to Katrina. My intent is to point out the problems spun out of control. Large and small Government agencies have bureaucratic rules, policies and regulations that make them much more difficult to administer than business in the private sector.

Despite this fact we have most of the Democrats running for the nomination of their party for the Presidency, advocating an increase in the size and scope of the Federal Government.

Socialized Medicine, expanded college aid, welfare expansion, Amnesty for illegals, universal free kindergarten for every single four-year-old, to name but a few.

Do we really want this?

Senator Clinton is advocating even more spending of taxpayer hard earned dollars. Clinton sponsored or co-sponsored 169 bills increasing spending by a total of $124 billion, while failing to sponsor or co-sponsor a single bill to reduce spending.

DEMOCRATS TELL YOU ONLY WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO KNOW

In the spirit of an over protective parent, the Democrats once again only tell you something they want you to hear. They hope the "news" will further damage the image of President Bush. They also hope to bring more voters and protesters to the anti-war front.

Today's MSN News highlights a report leaked to the Washington Post that was compiled by the Democrat's staff of Congress's Joint Economic Committee.

A 21-page draft obtained by the newspaper estimates that the wars have cost the average U.S. family of four more than $20,000, the Post said.
The study concludes that the cost to the average family could more than double, to $46,300, over the next decade, with estimated economic costs to the United States reaching $3.5 trillion if the conflicts continue at their current pace, the Post said.

The study concludes that the cost to the average family could more than double, to $46,300, over the next decade, with estimated economic costs to the United States reaching $3.5 trillion if the conflicts continue at their current pace, the Post said.

What the Democrats are not telling you is that their welfare State and profligate spending over the last couple of decades is costing the American family.

To date, all $3.6 trillion of surpluses of various trust funds have been siphoned-off (of which 76% was siphoned from the social security, federal employee pension and medical trusts) - - all spent on non-pension things and not counted in deficit calculations - an illegal act if done by private sector pension funds. (Some political leaders bragged to the general public "we ran more than $100 billion budget surplus in calendar year 1998 and 1999."

They also said they wanted to 'save social security'. Listening to such rhetoric citizens might be misled-led to believe the federal government cut general spending to produce general government surpluses so as to save social security and reduce total debt. In fact, they ran an operational deficit (not a surplus) AND, 2000, 01 and 02 and 03 each ended with another increase in debt, to a record high. There omitting these facts in their report is not only political bias but defrauding Americans by saying they are paying down debt, whereas there are $44 trillion in unfunded liabilities. NOTE: The accuracy of above was confirmed on July 19, 2001, when Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told AP that trust funds hold NO real assets.

Further research reveals that $4.4 trillion. 44% of the economy controlled by federal, state & local government spending, compared to 12% before - - now costing $14,549 per man, woman & child. America has moved away from the principle of Thomas Jefferson: "The government that governs least governs best."

Federal spending has increased to$2.8 trillion, or $9,223 per person - or 26% of the economy, compared to 3% before 1982. When you compare spending trends by category. The culprit of debt and spending has been social spending, which increased 14 times faster than the economy, as trust in government and voter turn-out rates have plummeted. Democrats and RINO Republicans don't put these facts in headlines.

Another travesty of the profligate spender in Congress, who intend to buy the re-election via spending for the voters back home, is the SIN of the Social Security mess!

The present Social Security tax rates taken from Americans workers is 5 times higher than seniors, now on Social Security, paid and fewer benefits are expected.

While government consumed all $1.6 trillion trust fund surpluses to date, including $139 billion last year (17% more than prior year), spending every penny for non-pension purposes. Politicians 'claim they are trying to save social security, but in fact are siphoning-off all surpluses for non-pension spending! There are presently $44 trillion in un-funded contingent liabilities and an empty trust fund..

Most people know that today, each working person supports more seniors than prior generations, but few know each must also support more State & Local Government employees than ever before. Each year the number of these employees increase faster than the national population, creating today's indicated excess of 12 million employees.

When you go to the polls next time please don't let the Media and Leftist propaganda about the cost of war cloud your judgement. Remember, a bankrupt Country with no monetary security becomes a Country filled with angry people and anarchy follows. Vote for a person who believes in physical responsibility and one you can believe. There are not to ,any politicians out there that are believable, but voting records tell the true feelings and Philosophy of Government that is in their heart.

THE SEMANTICS OF THE GLOBAL WARMING ZEALOTS

"Lord, what fools these mortals be" - Shakespeare is reputed to have said.
With each passing day, Americans are increasingly behaving as though Al Gore's mantra "the debate (over man-made global warming) is over",as if what he says is true. Warming folklore is deserving of incredulity as the extreme Lefts latest armament in its ongoing battle against capitalism and globalization. But instead it has found insinuation into virtually every corner of our culture.

Communism didn't die it found a new home in the Ecology Movement, and carried to its fulfillment, it will destroy Our Republic and the Capitalistic system that runs our way of life.

Even though nearly 20,000 scientists have signed a petition disputing AGW( global warming) and denouncing Kyoto. This must be loudly shouted at those sluggishly slipping into the green stupor to reinvigorate debate and assure that reasoned voices are heard over the irrational drone of this ultimately political machine.

The pomposity of Mr.Gore knows no bounds, as illustrated by his statement at the 2007 Oscars, Gore smugly told the audience -- and an estimated 1 billion television viewers:
"that resolving the threat posed by a warming climate is ‘not a political issue, it's a moral issue."

Thus Mr. Gore has assumed the position of not only the "Real Elected "President in 2000, the inventor of the Internet and the arbitrator of Good and Evil. Only God has that right!

The pompous pseudo-scientific community that has deliberately ignored for their own purposes the effects of the Sun on Our Worlds climate. This despite the fact that most Climate Scientists have postulated the affect that Sun bursts have on Our Climate. The varying intensity of the atomic explosions on the surface of the Sun 82 million miles away from Earth do have a determinate affect on the weather,and this can be sen in recorded history of droughts and "ice-ages through out Our history.

It is not only pompous, but fool hardy for the American public to assume that man can have a lasting affect on the weather patterns due to our activities. Even more outrageous is the argument that what we are doing now will have a lasting effect on our children and grandchildren.

This argument works when we talk about the burden that profligate spending by a Democrat controlled Congress has produced for generations to come. It also has a direct import if we continue to follow the Lefts path "from cradle to grave" welfare state. These are things that we can quantify, and are the truth. The Global Warming scam is fear mongering at its worst and direct lies at best. Many people try to legitimize Mr. Gores arguments by referring to his 2007 Nobel Peace Prize award. A prize that should go to a person who has advanced the Peace process in Our World, not an Environmental zealot.

I would remind you that the august body of Leftists that selects the recipients of the Nobel award also chose in 1973, Le Duc Tho who was born in Nam Ha province, Vietnam on 14th October, 1911. As a young man he became involved in radical politics and in 1930 helped establish the Indochinese Communist Party. He campaigned against French rule in Vietnam and was twice imprisoned for his political activities (1930-36 and 1939-44)! They also gave an award to what I believe was Americas worst President, and anti-Israel nutcase,

Jimmy Carter!