When Race Is Used To Advantage

The late Reggie White, a full blood Black American, and probably the best defensive end in professional football history, was vilified and lost a job on national television because he said the truth.

He said, and I paraphrase his comments before the Wisconsin State Legislature, that the Bible holds homosexual life style as a sin, For this the press and Liberal intelligentsia branded him a homophobic!

Fast forward to 2008, and you will find both Barrack and Michelle Obama use race bating as a political one- up- manship, and no one says a word.

If you can't see the connection, I will explain. Both Racism and Homophobia are unacceptable viewpoints in our politically correct society unless you are a favorite of the media. The new political "savior"!

In a campaign speech in the past month Obama had this to say: “We spend our whole lives caught up in being told what we can’t do. And what’s not possible, and that children have to be poor and race always is going to matter in this country and there’s always going to be injustice and the economy can never work for anybody. We’re fed that stuff all the time. Mostly by folks who are in power and take advantage of the status quo.” —Barack Obama

His all Black wife, Michelle Obama, who seems to be concentrating her efforts on Black audiences, wrote her thesis at Princeton with this comment included that shows her racial bias. "In defining the concept of identification or the ability to identify with the black community," the Princeton student wrote, "I based my definition on the premise that there is a distinctive black culture very different from white culture." Other thesis statements specifically pointed to what was seen by the future Mrs. Obama as racially insensitive practices in a university system populated with mostly Caucasian educators and students: "Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments".

It appears that Mrs. Obama fails to recognize, or chooses to ignore, the fact that Ivy league schools such as Princeton have a very active affirmative action scheme that allows Black students like her to attend even though their grades are lower than the majority of White students admitted. More than 35 schools have replaced loans with scholarships, grants and paid work-study positions in an effort to recruit high-achieving, economically disadvantaged students to increase economic -- and, indirectly, racial -- diversity. Since eliminating loans for low-income students in 1998, Princeton University reported a more than 100 percent increase in the number of financially disadvantaged students to matriculate. Harvard University reported a 20 percent increase in the number of low-income grads after replacing the amount their parents were expected to contribute with grants, according to a 2006 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Source MSN Encarta 2/29/08

As News Max reported this week. Obama gets a pass despite his continued affiliation with Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Church in this way: "Imagine if John McCain's church proclaimed on its website that it is “unashamedly white.”
The media would pounce, and McCain's presidential candidacy would be over. Yet that is exactly what Barack Obama’s church says on its web site — except in reverse.
“We are a congregation which is unashamedly black and apologetically Christian,” says the Trinity United Church of Christ’s website in Chicago. “We are an African people and remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”
That’s just the beginning. The church has a “non-negotiable commitment to Africa,” according to its website, and its pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. subscribes to what is called the Black Value System. Reverend Wright had these words for his congregation one Sunday: "Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton “because her husband was good to us,” he continued. “That’s not true,” he thundered. “He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky.”

We all know that Obama is only half Black. His mother is White, but he revels in his Blackness for political and personal reasons known only to him and God. His Black half of his genetic composition also appears to be the attraction White liberals have for him.

A PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD BE BAD FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE

Tuesday night during the Democrat candidates debate, Senator Obama revealed his animus for the military systems deployed and under development. Among other things, Obama talks about slowing development of "future combat systems." That will sure scare our avowed enemies!

And he talks about cutting investment in "unproven" missile-defense weapons. I guess his handlers forgot to tell him about the successful shoot down of the falling satellite that was larger than a train car!. Yes, one of those "unproven" missiles shot down a falling satellite just last week? Unproven? ? ?

The real statement that should alarm all Americans who are concerned about Our security, and unless you are an embedded terrorist, you all should be concerned. Was his dismissal of the future development of weapons systems. This I believe, is a real threat to Our national security.

Had previous Presidents taken this approach, we would not have stealth bombers, laser guided smart bombs, and night vision capability, to name just a few of the weapons now available to our troops. Weapons that make them more combat capable, but also cause less loss of life for civilians from collateral damage.

In an August 27, 2007 article by Joe Gandelman, Obama's response to questions about fighting terrorism was stated this way.

Asked by The Associated Press after a breakfast with constituents whether there was any circumstance where he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, Obama replied: "There’s been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that’s not a hypothetical that I’m going to discuss".
When asked whether his answer also applied to the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons, he said it did. Thus if he was President the Iranians, Syrians, Russian, Chinese and North Koreans know they can do what ever they want in the way of aggression with no possible threat of nuclear retaliation.

WE lost Korea, and Vietnam because the leaders of this Country publicly claimed they would never use nuclear weapons for fear of a Russian retaliation. The negative media led by Red Walter "C" was a factor also in our country's lack of will to win.

Now we have a man who wants to occupy the Oval Office with one hand tied behind his back, while the tyrants and despots have no such compunctions about their nuclear capability. Iran is a prime suspect to use "nukes" if and when he gets them.

And don't give me the old lame argument that using nuclear weapons is immoral. Terrorism and despotic tyrants are not moral and neither is radical Islam. The left has for too long used their arguments about the immorality of this country. The immorality comes when you commit men and women to die fighting, if you don't intend to win!

The real immorality is in the removal of the threat that would keep tyrants from attacking us with their nuclear weapons, by taking the "nuke" off the table even before he is in the Oval Office.

Besides the question was about "tactical nuclear weapons", not the type bombs that were dropped on Japan! There is a huge difference!

A very wise Winston Churchill said this: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival"...Winston Churchill

UNMASKING THE REAL OBAMA

Senator Barrack Hussein Obama presents himself as a populist whose concern is with the "common" man. In reality his idea of the common man is a man in every impoverished country in the world.

Just a few weeks ago, on the 12th of February, Accuracy in Media reported about the single piece of signature legislation Obama has introduced in his two years in the Senate.

The Bill if passed would mandate the spending of 845 billion dollars of tax payers money to eradicate poverty. It also mandates that future American Presidents bring US in line with UN mandates on the percentage of National GNP we give to fight poverty! "A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations".

So far Obama's bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate.

During President Bush's two terms he has authorized, by signing foriegn aid bills, more money to eradicate poverty than any other President since the Marshall Plan. Even these increases, however, will not be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Obama bill. A global tax will certainly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.

Obama has molded himself into the modern day version of the Messia. The crown prince of niceness, bravely denouncing divisiveness, condemning controversy, eulogizing unity, and retelling his feel-good life story about how he, the child of a black scholar from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas, grew up to be editor of the Harvard Law Review.

However, Obama cherishes every cause for complaint he can discern against white folks. He is constantly distressed at being half-white. Obama says he “ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites,” even though he surely realizes that his media-sensation status stems from how much white people love highly accomplished blacks who speak with white accents. He would’t be a the Media's favorite candidate for President if he were not part black.

His penchant for his "blackness is shown in the people he uses as mentors. Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the man who until recently was Obama's Pastor and spiritual advisor. This man of the cloth has written many times about his admiration for Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan is notorious for his hatred of white people and particularly Jews, and has said:
- “They call (Hezbollah) terrorists, I call them freedom fighters. No one asks why they would do such a thing. Why would they do such a thing? What has driven them to this point? That’s what the UN, the U.S. and Europe doesn’t want to deal with because the Zionists have control in England, in Europe, in the United States and around the world.”
- “The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the lake of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years.”

Speaking to thousands of members of the Nation of Islam at their annual convention Sunday in Chicago, Minister Louis Farrakhan praised presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama as the only hope for healing the nation's racial divisions . Farrakhan compared Obama to Fard Muhammad saying, “A black man with a white mother became a savior to us. A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.”

Obama is still a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, an Afrocentric church that preaches what the New York Times calls Black liberation theology. A good question to ask is why does he continue to affiliate with a church, a pastor, that honors Louis Farrakhan, a man who called Judaism “a gutter religion,” the Pope an “Antichrist” and Adolf Hitler “a wickedly great man,” and said that “White people are potential humans - they haven’t evolved yet”?

DO YOU WANT THIS MAN IN THE OVAL OFFICE?

Revisiting Our Troops In Foreign Countries

The Democrats and left leaning RINO's have a mantra that keeps my mind in a constant state of anxiety. "Bring the troops home from Iraq Now".

Not unlike the protesters during the Vietnam war, the cry is to save the lives of our service men and women by withdrawal. Never mind that withdrawal leaves those left behind vulnerable to massacre.

Seldom do you hear the argument made for the withdrawal of troops from Korea, Germany or Japan.

U.S. troops in Europe and Asia dwarfs the small numbers of troops stationed in the other three regions: Africa, the Middle East, and the Amer­icas (excluding the United States).

During the second half of the 20th century, 52 percent of deployed troops were in Europe and 41 per­cent in Asia. More than one-third of troop deployments during 1950–2000 were to Ger­many alone, which hosted over 10,000,000 U.S. military personnel. source: US government archives

United States has troops in 70 percent of the world’s countries. The average American could probably not locate half of these 135 countries on a map.

Regular troop strength ranges from a low of 1 in Malawi to a high of 74,796 in Germany. At the time the most recent "Personnel Strengths" was released by the government (September 30, 2003), there were 183,002 troops deployed to Iraq, an unspecified number of which came from U.S. forces in Germany and Italy. The total number of troops deployed abroad as of that date was 252,764, not including U.S. troops in Iraq from the United States. Total military personnel on September 30, 2003, was 1,434,377.

On average, 2.3 million U.S. troops were on duty per year from 1950–2000. Of this average, 535,000 troops (23 percent of all military personnel) were deployed on foreign soil. The pattern of deployment varies over time, as deployment loca­tions and levels respond to changing threats as well as for­eign wars.

President Bush's proposed redeployment of 70,000 troops from foreign countries to domestic bases has been greeted as a major movement, but it needs to be kept in perspective. An average of 311,870 troops were stationed in Europe per year during 1986–1990. That force was slashed by two-thirds after the Berlin Wall fell, to an average of 109,452 troops per year during 1996–2000. This is a very small number when you consider that the Great Bear of Russia is once again raising their military might under Putin's directive.

No other military in world history has been so widely deployed as that of the United States. Troop deployments are overwhelmingly supportive of host countries, and warm relations between sol­diers and local populations are generally the norm. How­ever, the first priority in deployment strategy is not a particular foreign government’s desire to keep a certain number of American troops in its country, but the American need to align its forces against contemporary and future threats. source:Tim Kane/Heritage Foundation

In my not so humble opinion, the cry for withdrawal is more of a hope and ploy to have the USA lose another war, than a sincere desire to save our troops from more casualties. The troops in every foreign Country are at risk, especially those in Korea, where there has been a "cease fire" with the Communists from the North and their co-conspirator China. But nobody has called for their withdrawal for the 50 years they have been deployed!

Let us not forget that if Iran is successful in developing nuclear weapons, they will pose a threat to the whole Middle East and in the not to distant future to USA. Wouldn't we be better off keeping a strong force in the Middle East rather than have to make a mass movement of troops and equipment to the field of battle when needed? And don't be deluded by Leftists like Barrack Hussein Obama who say we can talk our enemies to resolve their differences with us!

Reasons I believe Obama Is Not Presidential Material

First there was the endorsement by a statement from 16 supporters and leaders in the African American and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, including Tobias Wolff and Otis Moss Jr..Recently there has been an endorsement by Louis Farrakhan, radical African Muslim leader.

Then Michelle Obama said to a group of adoring Obama African-Americans that believe Obama is God's gift to our country, that for the first time in her life she was proud of America.

“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barrack has done well, but I think people are hungry for change.”—Would-be First Lady Michelle Obama
Barrack Obama later defended his wife: “What she meant was this is the first time that she’s been proud of the politics of America. She has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she’s encouraged.”
The Obamas fit in nicely within the “blame America” ilk and apparently missed things like our nation’s unity and resolve after 9/11; its victory in the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall; the first black Supreme Court Justice and first (and second) black Secretary of State, just for starters.
Michelle, who along with her husband boasts multiple Ivy League degrees and professional successes, might do well to recall the words of a real patriot, George Washington: “The name of American, which belongs to you... must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism.” Not just when you feel things are going the way you want them!

Then in Austin ,Texas he said: " I have said earlier in this campaign I would meet not just with leaders we liked,” Obama said, “but leaders we didn't. Not just our friends but with our enemies, and I was told by Washington, ‘Oh you can’t do that! You can’t do that. That would be naive, that would be irresponsible." This blogger believes such talk is not only naive, but down right stupid.Case in point Neville Chamberlain's talk and pact with Adolph Hitler only gave Hitler more time to build his war machine that caused millions to lose their lives!

In January, the communist newspaper People’s Weekly World published a letter from a supporter celebrating Obama’s Iowa caucuses victory as “more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle.” The words "transformational leadership" have been used to describe the "empty suit" who has little or no record of Governmental experience.

Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. Obama is the old revolutionary ‘mole,’ not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.” He gave hints about his strong feeling for Arabs in his speech in 2004 when he said: "that whenever someone insults or hurts Arab Americans, I am hurt too."
There is an inherent contradiction in seeking to become the next leader of the free world while apparently clinging to Marxist philosophy. WE would expect that one who would want to bear the standard of liberty,( as President) should embrace its philosophies. Unfortunately, common sense has become rather uncommon in today’s political arena., as platitudes and slick looks have taken over. But underneath the smooth talking good looks is the man who has embraced Frank Marshall Davis as his writer. Mr. Davis is a known member of the Communist Party of The United States of America!

Had it not, perhaps more scrutiny would be directed toward the Senator from Illinois who grasps Marxist ideologies with one hand and seeks to lead the United States of America with the other.

THE FIFTH COLUMN IN THE US

The Muslim Brotherhood, an ideologically radical and fundamentalist jihadi group, is, in essence, the ideological association that binds all Islamist jihadi groups together. It is global, it has massive financial means and it is targeting Western Civilization.Now world wide in it's reach. It was formed originally in Egypt.

And the Islamists have their supporters in people like Ramsey Clark, Mahdi Bray, Cindy Sheehan and Violette Daguerre .. names in the series of activists who came to Egypt to watch Military tribunals for Muslim Brotherhood , those all agreed with the just cause of MB and Egyptian Opponents in general.

Then we have former government employees giving speeches, that I consider traitorous, to Muslim audiences as the following excerpt from the "Ikhwan" Web Site illustrates.

In a speech given byArthur Sibler had this to say about his country. "The Bush administration has announced to the world, and to all Americans, that this is what the United States now stands for: a vicious determination to dominate the world, criminal, genocidal wars of aggression, torture, and an increasingly brutal and brutalizing authoritarian state at home. That is what we stand for.It failed again when the Democrats refused to impeach Bush and Cheney, the two greatest criminals in American political history".

Silber reminds us that America once had leaders, such as Speaker of the House Thomas B. Reed and Sen. Robert M. LaFollette Sr.(an avowed Socialist/Prrogressive) who valued the principles upon which America was based more than they valued their political careers. Perhaps Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are of this ilk, but America has fallen so low that people who stand on principle today are marginalized. They cannot become speaker of the House or a leader in the Senate.

Paul Craig Roberts, another left winger had this to say: "Today Congress is almost as superfluous as the Roman Senate under the Caesars. On Feb. 13 the U.S. Senate barely passed a bill banning torture, and the White House promptly announced that President Bush would veto it. Torture is now the American way. The U.S. Senate was only able to muster 51 votes against torture, an indication that almost a majority of U.S. senators support torture.
Bush says that his administration does not torture. So why veto a bill prohibiting torture? Bush seems proud to present America to the world as a torturer.
The U.S. government stole years of life from hundreds of ordinary people9 by whose definition) who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and were captured by warlords and sold to the stupid Americans as "terrorists."

The Taliban did not attack the U.S. The child soldiers were fighting in an Afghan civil war. The U.S. attacked the Taliban. How does that make Taliban soldiers terrorists who should be locked up and abused in Gitmo and brought before a kangaroo military tribunal? If a terrorist hires a driver or a taxi, does that make the driver a terrorist? What about the pilots of the airliners who brought the alleged 9/11 terrorists to the U.S.? Are they guilty, too?
The Gitmo trials are show trials. Their only purpose is to create the precedent that the executive branch can ignore the U.S. court system and try people in the same manner that innocent people were tried in Stalinist Russia and Gestapo Germany. If the Bush regime had any real evidence against the Gitmo detainees, it would have no need for its kangaroo military tribunal.
It is a government devoid of truth, morality, decency, and honor. The Bush administration is a blight upon America and upon the world".
Paul Craig Roberts

The leftist who attack the Bush administration for it's action against people dedicated to our erradication, apparently ignore the fact that mosques and religious associations have emerged as vibrant hubs of social, political and economic protest.

The resurgence of Islam as a political force also gained a boost from the marked increase in outward religious observance in what would represent a collective assertion of identity. Some observers characterize this trend as a form of Islamic nationalism; by calling for the restoration of Muslim pride and glory. Islamists appear to play a role analogous to that of traditional populists and nationalists in the West.

To better understand what the United States and the rest of the Western World are facing. A brief history of Al Qaeda is appropriate, since they are the heart and "soul" of the terrorist jihadist movement. It was born in the early 1970s as a reaction against the authoritarian regime in Egypt and was inspired by Sayyid Qutb, a radical Islamist who was executed by the Egyptian state in 1966 for opposing the Nasser government. Qutb and the jihadis who followed in his wake elevated the importance of jihad, or armed struggle, believing it to be equal with the five pillars of Islam. None other than Osama bin Laden himself believes that jihad is second only to faith as a Muslim ideal. It is generally accepted that he and his group were responsible for 9/11/2001. Source: "The Far Enemy".

Jihadis consider jihad "fard 'ayn", or a permanent and personal obligation. As such, jihadis believe that they are justified in taking up arms and carrying out terrorist attacks on their own authority. The leaders of the jihadist movement has always seen the United States and the West as its primary enemy.

However many liberal thinkers believe that Al Qaeda's attack on America was the result of a "civil war within the jihadist movement" and "represented a monstrous mutation, an implosion from within, not just another historical phase in the movement's evolution." Source:New Media Journal

While the Democrats continue their anti-war and anti-military diatribes across the United States, it can be said that they are not only benefiting themselves...but, the enemy. In October 2006, writer Brooks Mick said it best: “If one’s actions give aid to the enemy and make it more likely for the enemy to achieve his objectives, then one is pro-enemy, logically.”

Time To Take Away NEA's Tax exempt Status

The National Education Association (NEA) is the largest labor union in the United States, representing public school teachers and other support personnel, faculty and staffers at colleges and universities, retired educators, and college students preparing to become teachers. The NEA has 3.2 million members and is headquartered in Washington DC. It employs over 550 staff and had a budget of more than $307 million in 2006-7! source: Wikapedia

In 1857 the National Education Association was founded as a professional organisation. In 1906 it received it's charter from Congress. In 1966 it merged with the National Association of Colored Teachers

For years, the NEA pretended that it was not a union, and claimed to be opposed to teacher strikes. But that came to a halt in 159 when Wisconsin became the first state to pass legislation that allowed public employees to be involved in collective bargaining!

The NEA's maleficent influence and political pressures on elected officials can never be completely and fully measured, but can be indicated by the words of its own spokesmen. In 1970, NEA President George Fischer said: "We will put the fear of God in politicians all over the country. We plan to make it political suicide to vote against kids and educations." And so it came to be. They play political "hardball". And since they joined hands with the AFL/CIO in 2006 they have been a strong opponent of school vouchers, merit pay and anything conservative!
One irony in all this is that the NEA's political lobbying is an open and direct violation of the federal tax law which gives it tax exemption. The Internal Revenue Service has never revoked that tax exemption.
Today, we have created the most extensive and expensive educational system that has ever existed in the history of the world. Yet, it graduates thousands of young people who cannot spell, write a correct sentence, work a simple arithmetic problem, or read with understanding. They have no worthwhile skills. They do not even know the alphabet well enough to work effectively as file clerks. I know, because I have been forced by government mandated quotas to hire some of these young people who have been made "unenlightened".

The present American educational system has left a generation of Americans largely ignorant of the moral, economic, political, and spiritual principles on which the greatness of our nation is founded. It has brainwashed a generation of Americans into accepting the illegal conversion of our Constitutional Republic into a tyrannical, inefficient socialist-welfare state. It scorns individual excellence and extols mass mediocrity. Can you really be sure your children won't come out any different?

The National Education Association (NEA)--the 2.7 million member kingpin for much of the local teacher union activism--is spending as much as one-third of its $271 million annual income on politically related activities, according to an analysis of NEA documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service.
The analysis was conducted by the Landmark Legal Foundation, a Virginia-based public interest group. Landmark has filed complaints seeking IRS collection of taxes for NEA political activities, since such activities do not qualify as tax-exempt.
The filings show the NEA spends almost $50 million a year to fund a national advocacy staff called UniServ, the 1,800 directors of which help screen political candidates and then campaign for their election. State and local NEA affiliates spend an additional $43 million on the UniServ network.
Mark Levin, Landmark president, contends the UniServ operatives are basically "precinct workers," and the NEA should have to pay income taxes on their activities. NEA officials counter such UniServ activities as helping NEA affiliates encourage their members to vote for "pro-public education advocates."

Apple Inc. CEO, Steve Jobs, has criticized the NEA and other teacher unions for its lack of support for voucher programs, merit pay, and the removal of bad teachers. On February 17, 2007 at an education reform conference in Texas, Jobs said, "What kind of person could you get to run a small business if you told them that when they came in they couldn’t get rid of people that they thought weren’t any good?”

Also criticized by some is what they perceive as the NEA's promotion of the gay rights agenda, especially since the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 2005 case Fields v. Palmdale School District.[citation needed] The court in that case ruled that parents' fundamental right to control the upbringing of their children "does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door," and that a public school has the right to provide its students with "whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise."[citation needed] NEA maintains that it does not “encourage schools to teach students to become gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered (GLBT),” but the Association does believe that schools should be safe for all students and advocates that schools should raise awareness of homophobia and intervene when GLBT students are harassed."

But you don't find the NEA advocating the same awareness for religion or abstinence as a means for birth control and disease prevention!

The IRS began auditing the National Education Association in in 2003. NEA has allocated millions of dollars to elect pro-education candidates while reporting on tax forms that it does not spend union dues on politics....The NEA has tax-exempt status as a union, but must report "direct and indirect" political expenses on its tax return. Some of those expenses could be considered taxable by the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS defines a political expense as "one intended to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of anyone to a federal, state, or local public office."...The documents were gathered by Landmark Legal Foundation, a conservative law firm that has filed complaints with the IRS seeking an audit and, more recently, a criminal investigation of whether the NEA evaded taxes! There is no doubt in my mind that they are evading taxes!

Although NEA is active in all 50 states at this election time. The issue of school vouchers is a real threat to the monopoly the teachers union has on the education of our children, In Utah the NEA donated $1.53 million to the Utah Education Association as of Sept. 17. In addition to national support, the UEA also received $57,700 in small-dollar donations from Utah teachers and a couple of legislators, plus donations from the teachers’ unions in Maine, Colorado, Ohio, and Wyoming. An umbrella group of public school advocates, Utahns for Public Schools, collected thousands more in teacher donations.

Some NEA Resolutions Passed at the 2007 Convention in Philadelphia illustrate the political agenda of NEA.

Voucher Plans and Tuition Tax Credits. The Association opposes voucher plans, tuition tax credits, or other such funding arrangements that pay for students to attend sectarian schools. The Association also believes that any private school or agency that receives public funding through voucher plans, tax credits, or other funding/financial arrangements must be subject to all accountability measures and regulations required of public schools.
A-33. Federally or State-Mandated Choice/Parental Option Plans. The Association believes that federally or state mandated parental option or choice plans compromise free, equitable, universal, and quality public education for every student. Therefore, the Association opposes such federally or state-mandated choice or parental option plans.
B-1. Early Childhood Education. The National Education Association supports early childhood education programs in the public schools for children from birth through age eight. The Association also apparently isn't satisfied that they can begin to re-educate our children beginning in kindergarten. They are advocating taking the post natal care and education from the mother and giving it to their leftist organisation.

Source"NEA report on resolutions", that also had these controversial issues.

Increase respect, understanding, acceptance, and sensitivity toward individuals and groups in a diverse society composed of such groups as American Indians/Alaska natives, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered persons.

The Association supports access to financial aid and in-state tuition to state colleges and universities. The Association further believes that students who have resided in the United States for at least five years at the time of high school graduation should be granted amnesty by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, granted legal residency status, and allowed to apply for U.S. citizenship.

Tell me with a straight face that this is not a political organization. What is worse, is that they are advocating destruction of the basic precepts of our Constitution in favor of secularist, relativist Marxist values that strike at the heart of the moral fabric of our Republic!

WHY CHANGE NOW OBAMA?

The basic pillars of Obama's campaign to be the Democratic Presidential nominee is "CHANGE". A slogan that coupled with his eloquence and good looks have apparently captured the hearts and minds of many Americans. His stunning victories in the last ten primaries are stark testimony of his messianic powers.

But my question to those who think he is the savior that will cure government ills is this. Why did he not introduce any legislation in the Senate, during his two year stint in that poweful body of government? He had over two years to at least propose law that would advance his campaign promises long before he took to the campaign trail.

There is no better "monday morning quarterback" than a politician running for office.

It is easy to express indignation and make promises about "hot button" items while campaigning. Never the less, we voters must choose a man/woman who is not only good with words, but has demonstrated the ability and proclivity to affect change!

In this bloggers opinion it would be better if he took positions in the Senate on Abortion, partial birth abortion and amnesty for illegals long before he started spewing platitutdes on the campaign trail.

In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning government funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother. For his stand on this and voting against requiring parents of minors to be notified prior to performing an abortion, have acquired a rating of zero from the National Right to life Organisation!

In the illegal alien problem he also has had plenty to say that worrys me. In a meeting of La Razza in Miami Beach he said this: “Find out how many senators appeared before an immigration rally last year. Who was talking the talk, and who walked the walk — because I walked,” Mr. Obama said at the National Council of La Raza’s annual convention in Miami Beach. “I didn’t run away from the issue, and I didn’t just talk about it in front of Latino audiences.”
The Illinois Democrat said the recent Senate immigration debate “was both ugly and racist in a way we haven’t see since the struggle for civil rights.”…
Mr. Obama was the most forceful, promising “in my first term we will make this a priority and get this done.” He promises amnesty! Why did he not introduce a bill to that effect in the two years preceeding the Presidential campaign?

He has shown why, while in the Illinois Legislature he voted present 130 times, so he could not be branded as either for or against issues. A perfect example of his duplicity was reported in the New York Times with this: "In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.
In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator". We don't need a "fence sitter" in the Oval Office.

Federalist 57 Is Still Appropriate

Federalist Paper 57, written by James Madison to the people of the State of New York, discusses the issue of elected representatives being advocates of the priviledged and powerful few instead of the many who elected them. He is saying that to prevent the domination of elected members of the House of Representatives, by the special interest few, is to use term limits.

Today with the Cost of Presidential, Senatorial and US House elections reaching mega-millions. The total amount of money raised by the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates may, by the time of Election Day 2008, approach or even break $1 billion. For just the first nine months of 2007, presidential candidates in the two major parties had already collected a total of $415 million.

It is appropriate to reflect on who is paying this expense, and what will the price be in return for their beneficence?

A case in point is the campaign verbosity of Obama and Hillary Clinton. Obama's "Time for a change" populist speeches are fine prosaicisms, but ring hollow when the fact is revealed that millions of dollars have been poured into his campaign from the trial lawyers and invesment bankers. The pharmaceutical and health industry are also large contributors to both Obama and Hillary.

One of Mr. Obama’s fund-raisers, Kirk Dornbush, president of Iconic Therapeutics, a biotech company in Atlanta, said, “The contributions reflect the simple calculus of the health care industry, making a bet that Democrats will control the White House and both houses of Congress after the next election.” Lobbyists, Commercial Banks, Health Professionals, Lawyers/Law Firms, Pharmaceuticals/Health Products, Real Estate, and Securities and Investment. The list is endless of the special interest goups buying influence with people who profess they will represent the people who want change!

The following is an fragment excerpted from Federalist 57:

"The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust. The elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government. The means relied on in this form of government for preventing their degeneracy are numerous and various. The most effectual one, is such a limitation of the term of appointments( note: aka:election) as will maintain a proper responsibility to the people.

"We are to presume that in general they will be somewhat distinguished also by those qualities which entitle them to it, and which promise a sincere and scrupulous regard to the nature of their engagements. In the second place, they will enter into the public service under circumstances which cannot fail to produce a temporary affection at least to their constituents.

"It is possible that these may all be insufficient to control the caprice and wickedness of man. But are they not all that government will admit, and that human prudence can devise? Are they not the genuine and the characteristic means by which republican government provides for the liberty and happiness of the people? What are we to say to the men who profess the most flaming zeal for republican government, yet boldly impeach the fundamental principle of it; who pretend to be champions for the right and the capacity of the people to choose their own rulers, yet maintain that they will prefer those only who will immediately and infallibly betray the trust committed to them"?

The framers of our form of government never intended the representatives of the people would come to Washington and serve their entire active life in a position of power and influence, where corruption and accumulation of personal wealth has a perfidious effect on our government of the people and by the people!

It is past time when we the people enact term limits. WE have it for the highest office in the land, and we need it for all elected officials. Our very freedoms depend on this, even if we have to do it despite the kicking and screaming of the "chicken littles" in Congress!

Unmasking Al Gore's CO2 Plan

Despite the fact that it snowed in Greece and Jerusalem this past week, the Northern tier of the United States is experiencing frigid winter cold, and the News Max Service reports in the London Daily Express that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming. The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate. Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years. As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the skeptics. As the Express notes, scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. And yet the Global Warming alarmists continue their march toward global regulation of CO2 emissions.

In Great Britian they have imposed a 25 pound sterling tax on SUVs and "luxury" performance cars for parking in London, and yesterday some "wag" proposed that the government levy a 10 pound tax for people who wish to buy cigarettes in England!

The European Union has bought into the Kyoto agreement since 2002, but not completely. The main producers of CO2 gases, Transportation, Agriculture and Residential Heating have been exempted from the EU regulations.

Their main thrust is to convert coal fired electricity producers to gas. They believe, unlike Americans have been led to believe by our MSM, that there is a plentiful supply of crude oil to accomplish their goal of coverting all coal fired plants in Europe to gas.

The McKinsey Global Institute started studying the costs of reducing "green house gases(cO2) in 2002. Their conclusions in 2006, were that to regulate CO2 gases, the cost of carbon credits( a euphemism for tax) would cost energy producers between $14.80 and 29.60 for the rights to produce a ton of emitted Co2. This compared with their estimate that Carbon Rights for Wind woul be $50, and Solar $100.

Under the EU model the increased cost of energy would be borne by the consumer in an increase of 30% to 40% if price controls were not enacted!

And we In the United States know what price controls on fuel can produce--limited supply and long lines at the gas stations!

None of the proposed and already enacted regulation, addresses who will regulate the sellers and traders of Carbon Credits. A term that AL Gore uses freely in his discussion about global warming.

But you can be sure those who control the purse strings will have great influence on whom and what effect they have in their control. Arbitragers and brokerage house have already begun to trade Carbon Credits in European markets.

But while the mainstream media promote his ideas about the state of planet Earth, they are mostly silent about the dramatic economic impact his scheme would have on America. Journalists routinely ignore evidence that he may personally benefit from his programs. Would the romance fizzle if Gore’s followers realized how much their man stands to gain?

To resolve the “climate crisis,” Gore wants to put a cap on the production of greenhouse gases. He calls for an immediate freeze on U.S. emissions, a ban on new coal-fired power plants, tough new fuel-economy and energy-efficiency standards, renewable energy mandates, carbon taxes and mandatory targets and timetables for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Those emissions consist mostly of carbon dioxide (CO2), the byproduct of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas, which supply 85% of all U.S. energy.

Gore’s blueprint to save the planet moves the United States towards a command economy in which government regulators hold sway over what kinds and amounts of energy will be made available to the private sector. His principal regulatory tool is what’s called "carbon-credit trading". Even the EU does not have such a stringent program, and they approved Kyoto!

Under a so-called “cap-and-trade” system, government places a ceiling or “cap” on private-sector emissions of CO2 and other “greenhouse gases.” Each sector, industry or business is allocated a fixed quantity of carbon credits that allow it to emit specific quantities of greenhouse gases. As an example, one tradable carbon credit might permit the emission of one ton of CO2. If a business emits more tons of CO2 than its supply of credits allows, it has the option to buy surplus credits from other firms -- or it will have to pay a fine in proportion to the amount of the excess emission. By contrast, businesses that emit less than their allocation can sell their excess credits.

The cap-and-trade carbon "scheme" is sure to boost the economic and political prospects of people and groups that are behind it. Before the company collapsed under the weight of financial scandal, Enron under CEO Ken Lay was a key proponent of the cap-and-trade idea. So was BP’s Lord John Browne, before he resigned last May under a cloud of personal scandal. In August 1997, Lay and Browne met with President Bill Clinton and Vice President Gore in the Oval Office to develop administration positions for the Kyoto negotiations that resulted in an international treaty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Which the US Senate promptly rejected 95-0!

I agree we need to be wise stewards of the world God gave us, however we do not have the power we think we do to alter or resist true climate change. A process that has been going on since the worlds creation. Anyone who has ever been trapped in a car or house while a tornado or hurricane has ripped past you for hours understands we are very minute when it comes to the force of nature.

Source for this article: Human Events

Media Bias Bares It's Ugly Teeth

Despite the fact that a poll taken by Pollster.com, shows that President Bush has a popular rating similar to that of the US Congress. Neither has a rating higher than 35%, meaning that the Country views both sides of the political spectrum with disdain. In fact "Wake Up America" shows that Bush's approval rating is 33% and Congress is 28%!

The Left wing Media is still leading off articles that have content that is favorable to the President, with negative statements like the following post from Reuters columnist Barry Moody;

"DAR ES SALAAM (Reuters) - Unpopular at home and in much of the world during the last year of his presidency, George W. Bush is basking in rare adulation on his African tour.
Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete poured praise on Bush in Dar es Salaam on Sunday, the second day of his five-nation African tour, each compliment applauded warmly by members of the east African country's cabinet.
Although around 2,000 Muslim demonstrators protested against Bush on the eve of his visit, many thousands more cheering, waving people lined his road from the airport on Saturday.
Banners across the route, decorated with Bush's image against a backdrop of Tanzania's Mt. Kilimanjaro, read: "We cherish democracy. Karibu (welcome) to President and Mrs Bush".


While President Bush reaches out the hand of friendship in Africa, a land that comprises 20% of the Worlds total land mass and comprises over 18% of the Worlds population.

Obama and Hillary are complicit in an act that some would consider treason and at the very least, giving aid and comfort to an avowed enemy of the US.

Yet, no place in the Major news outlets, only on the Internet, do you find this piece of demaogogic news. Why? Because it is bad news for the opposition, not President Bush!


"Right in the middle of the hottest presidential primary in decades, both Obama and Hillary are sending their foreign policy honchos to Damascus. These advisors are people who have a chance of running US foreign policy in the next administration. They aren't shy. They are taking over our foreign affairs right now, because they are entitled to. They know better than our elected officials". Says who!

This despite the fact that US military leaders have said the Iranians have been supplying arms and aid to the terrorists in Iraq. At least this has been reported by the print media as divulged in a featured article in the Los Angeles Times:

"U.S. commanders had said there were signs that Iranian authorities were keeping a vow made to Iraqi leaders last summer to help stem the flow of support across the notoriously porous border. Lately, however, U.S. officials have reported a rising number of attacks that use the kind of sophisticated armor-piercing explosives that they allege come from Iran".

In a reference to Bush's domestic problems, Prme Minister Kikwete added: "Different people may have different views about you and your administration and your legacy.
"But we in Tanzania, if we are to speak for ourselves and for Africa, we know for sure that you, Mr. President, and your administration have been good friends of our country and have been good friends of Africa."

Apparently the Media believes Africa is not a major part of what they call "much of the rest of the World"!

We Need Labels Designating Country Of Origin

In May of 2000 President Clinton's efforts to normalize relations with Communist China finally was approved. With the passage of "PNTF" by Congress, the Communist Country was given the "Green Light" to manufacture, fabricate and sell goods and products with a great reduction in US tariffs.
Clinton had pushed for this open ended trade deal for months before he finally got what he wanted, and the rewards for him and his wife Hillary have been reported in numerous stories about Chinese contributions to Hillary's Senatorial campaign. The Charlie Trie scandal is one example of the pay back to the Clinton's from Chinese recipients of his China deal.

The approval of the trade bill represented a political victory for President Bill Clinton, who had lobbied for months to get the measure approved.
"US companies want to invest more in China", he said the trade bill represented an "historic step towards continued prosperity in America, reform in China and peace in the world".
"Our administration has negotiated an agreement that will open the Chinese market to American products made on American soil. By this agreement, we will also export one of our most cherished values, economic freedom", Mr Clinton as reported in the Chicago Tribune

Unfortunately the unintended consequences of opening the trade doors wide has manifested itself in the Drug, Toy, Dog Food and over the counter medicine areas.

The first issue was the toothpaste from China that had diethylene glycol in it, a chemical found in anti-freeze! Then in the same year it was discovered that dog food from China had melamine in it, and lolly pops with metal fragments were found in them. A cough syrup with DEG was shipped from China, and antibiotics were discovered from China that had the same DEG chemical. All these products were recalled, but the Public was at risk!

Bogus rabies vaccine has also been reported, and the real shocker is the Chinese Heparin that was shipped to the US before the plant that synthesized the heparin was even inspected by the FDA. Nor did the plant have a license from the Chinese government to make drugs. This heparin has been recalled by it's distributor, Baxter International, but not until after over 350 people had allegic reactions, such as tachacardia, vomiting, fainting and sudden decreased in blood pressure. As a result 4 people died.

Heparin is fabricated from pig intestines, and is widely used in the US for cardiac surgery, anti-embolism treatment and dialysis. Baxter made over 29 million dollars a year in heparin sales to hospitals and dialysis units.

With the announcement by the Chinese Communist government that Zhing Xiaoyu, former head of the Chinese Food and Drug administration, was executed for taking $832,000 in bribes from fake drug manufacturers over a nine year period from 1997 to 2006. Some of the blame may be laid at his now dead feet, but the bulk of the blame in this bloggers opinion is the US distributor Baxter International, and all other US sellers of toxic or dangerous Chinese products.

It is easy to point fingers at the foreign producer, but the ultimate blame lies with the people who bought the drugs and products cheap from Chinese manufacturers to add to their bottom line of profits.

This Country will most likely have some type of National Health Insurance in the near future, and paramount to OUR saftey is a law that requires a label that lists the origin of the ingredients in any medicine dispensed or administered. Without it the government and the government suppliers will buy from whomever is the cheapest, and buyer beware!

Our very life could depend on it, because as the Wall Street Journal reported, US suppliers of pharmaceutical supplies buy over 4.4 billion dollars worth from China and India each year! They are the largest producers of foreign drugs.

WILL OBMA BE A GOOD MILITARY LEADER?

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

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

The Maunder Minimum and Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source for both quotes is the "Patriot Post".

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

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

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

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

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

You Will Pay For Candidates Promises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Takes A Page Out Of History

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

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

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

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

Obama is nothing less than a very slick progressive Socialist!