WILL CONGRESS TRY TO FOLLOW THE EUROPEAN MODEL FOR SOLVING FUEL CRRISIS?

Impact of fuel tax.INSTEAD OF BUILDING MORE REFINERIES AND EXPLORING FOR MORE OIL UNDERNEATH THE SEA AND IN THE EUROPEAN GROUND. the Europeans HAVE BECOME DEPENDENT UPON THE "RUSSIAN BEAR" TO SUPPLY THEM OIL, GAS AND NATURAL GAS. AND THEY ARE USING PUNITIVE TAXES TO ATTEMPT TO CUT DOWN ON FUEL CONSUMPTION.

You would think that benevolent Socialist bureaucrats would have more concern for the people in the lower income brackets. The wealthy will complain but still buy the high priced fuel to run their Mercedes, Volvos and Jaguars. But the "little guy" will have to choose between buying food for his family and buying gas for his car, and the choice will in most cases be the food.
Unfortunately food prices have, and will continue to, sky rocket because food grains are being used for bio-fuels in a vain effort to reduce CO2 emissions.


The Ecologists in Europe have decided that the way to reduce consumption is to support the politicians raising of the tax on fuels. This quote from the London Telegraph details the opinions of Jos Dings, Head of Transport and Energy, a coalition of European Environmental NGO's.
"The single most effective measure that has brought down motorists' fuel use in Europe, however, is taxation", says Dings.

On average, 60 percent of the price European drivers pay at the pump goes to their governments in taxes.

In Britain, the government takes 75 percent, and raises taxes by 5 percent above inflation every year (though it has forgone this year's rise in view of rocketing oil prices, and the French government has promised tax rebates this year to taxi drivers, truckers, fishermen, and others who depend heavily on gasoline.) On August 8, for example, the price of gas in the US, without taxes, would be $2.17, instead of $2.56; in Britain, it would be $1.97, instead of $6.06.

"There is really good evidence that higher prices reduce traffic," says Stephen Glaister, a professor of transportation at London's Imperial College. "If fuel prices go up 10 percent ... fuel consumed goes down by about 7 percent, as people start to use fuel more efficiently, not accelerating so aggressively and switching to more fuel-efficient cars. It does change people's behavior."

It may change peoples behavior in Great Britain and Europe, but in this Country, if the price of fuel keeps rising, those who have to drive because of the poor public transportation in most states, will force people to forgo food stuffs and the buying of clothing to pay for the fuel needed to get them to work.

The Center For Michigan has an article that includes the left wing attitude toward taxation and fuel economy as seen in this quote.
"The US authorities, however, "are unwilling to use resource price as part of their strategy" to conserve oil, says Lee Schipper, head of transportation research at the Washington-based World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank.

"The biggest hole in our policy today is fuel taxation," he adds. "Tax increases are something Americans should do but don't know how to do, and I wonder if they will ever be able to".

Elect Obama and maintain the Democrats control of Congress and I promise you the taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel will go up as will all other taxes. The Democrats cannot and will not operate their welfare state on a low tax basis. Get ready for the tax steamroller if Obama is elected!

ANOTHER REASON TO NOT RELY ON THE UN

New York, Jun. 5, 2008 (CWNews.com) - "A Maryknoll priest who was a leading figure in Nicaragua's leftist government during the 1980s has been elected president of the UN general assembly.

Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann, who was foreign minister of Nicaragua from 1979 to 1990, will succeed Macedonia's Srgjan Kerim in September, holding the position for a year. The president of the UN General Assembly ordinarily does not command media attention, but D'Escoto, with his penchant for controversy, may be an exception to that rule.

D'Escoto, the son of a Nicaraguan diplomat, was a key figure in the rise of the Sandinista party in Nicaragua. He defied instructions from the Vatican when he became foreign minister for the leftist Sandinista regime, which clashed frequently with the country's Catholi Church leadership.

In public remarks after he was elected, D'Escoto said that he would not use his UN position to continue his long history of public attacks on the US. Nevertheless he condemned "acts of aggression, such as those occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan."

At times like these the words of John Bolton ring true.
The November 15, 2005 Washington Times article "Can the U.S. find a substitute for the U.N.?" noted that Bolton advocates "a revolution of reform" at the UN. Specifically, he called for:
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council to work more closely to craft powerful resolutions and make sure they are enforced, and to address the underlying causes of conflicts, rather than turning them over to the Secretariat and special envoys; A focus on administrative skills in choosing the next secretary-general; and A more credible and responsible Human Rights Commission.

With the election of a 75 year old radical activist "priest" being elected to head the General Assembly, it would appear that the UN is home to radical leftists more than it is as was intended when founded, an instrument of Peace!

THE LEFTIST BLOGGS DESCRIBE bROCKMAN'S ELECTION THUSLY.Nicaragua, "an outspoken member of the new anti-imperialist bloc in the western hemisphere, last month won the backing of the 33-member Latin American and Caribbean group at the UN for presidency of the General Assembly—nearly assuring it of election to the one-year post in June. The man Nicaragua has put forward to be the new GA president this fall is Rev. Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann, a Catholic priest who was foreign minister of the Sandinista government from 1979 to 1990 and last year became a foreign affairs adviser to Daniel Ortega, the first Sandinista president, when he returned to office.

President Ortega this fall addressed the opening of the General Assembly, railing against "the tyranny of global imperialistic capitalism" and calling the United States "the most gigantic and powerful dictatorship that has existed in all the history of humanity." He asked what right the country that dropped atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to judge the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran".

And we contribute money to support this anti-American cabal!

TIME FOR HARD DECISIONS BY U.S VOTERS

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

The race for the nomination has been won. Now we begin the campaign to win the hearts and minds of the electorate.

The Media has already determined that their choice will be Obama, but the people not the media get to decide who will sit in the Oval Office in January 2009.

The campaign will be filled with promises of Change from the way our government has been run in the Bush administration. The Democrats will pound away at the opinion polls that shown that Bush has a less than 30% approval rating, ignoring the fact that Congress has an even lower approval rating!

I hope there will be enough people who vote, that realize this election is predictably the most important election we have had for the last 50 years.

The man who sits in the Oval Office could be faced with a decision to eliminate a large populous city, to prevent the Islamic terrorists from gaining access to nuclear weapons that they would not have any compunction to use on our major cities.

Intelligence agencies have obtained information that indicates that Iran, and Syria soon after, will have nuclear weapons capability.

Muslim radicals do not have the reticence to use nuclear weapons in their quest to rule the Earth for Allah, as we do. So, the President will have to have the "kahonies" to take out , if necessary, a whole city to keep the terrorists from getting their hands on nuclear weapons.This is because, the place or places they will manufacture the nuclear weapons will be very well dispersed and hidden.

A president McCain, with his military background and knowledge would probably pull the trigger, but an Obama President might talk us to the point where a nuke hits one or more U.S.cities before he reacts!
Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic."These are the words of Pope Benedict XVI, and they are appropriate to the promise of CHANGE of candidate Obama. But is the change in his mind one that would strip our military power and concede all demands from a Muslim nation with the nuclear threat?

Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao and Hitler all came into power with the promise of a "change", but the change was a Godless totalitarian change in each instance, and the people lost their personal freedom and suffered greatly. Do we really want change this much?

http://pics.livejournal.com/jaxconservative/pic/00074w8b/"><>%20src="

WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT?

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

The Internet,Radio, Tv and Television are celebrating the nomination of the first African-American candidate for President.The only problem with this announcement, is that Barack Hussein Obama was born to a white mother and a black Kenyan father, reared in Hawaii by his white grandparents and for a few years in Indonesia with his Indonesian stepfather, Obama identifies himself as African American, but his experiences are those of African- Americans, whites, Asian immigrants.
His mother was a white athiest, and his father was a Black muslim. This makes Obama a "half African-American". He uses this to his advantage with both Black and White voter groups.
When he was in the presence of a White Democrat audience he used issues that appealed to them with anti-war,Gay rights, pro-abortion, National Health Insurance issues, and down plays his African heritage.When appearing before Black audiences, very often Black Churches as he campaigned through the South. He talked about issues of affirmative action,environmental justice and establishing "faith forums" in churches. He stayed away from the gay marriage issue, because polls show that Blacks oppose gay maeeiage by a greater number than whites.
So what is all the fuss about? The Democrats have nominated apparently, a possible Muslim apostate, closet Muslim or a half Black activist Christian, who is married to a woman who wants to be the First Lady who never was proud of America until her husband ran for President!

If Democrats wanted to run a real Black, exoerienced Candidate for President they could choose Governor Deval Patrick of Mass. He is a Harvard educated lawyer just like the Obama's, but he has both government and private life experience. Not only did he serve as Assistant Attorney General during the Clinton Administration, but he also held executive positions at Coca Cola and Texaco.

OPEN MOUTH AND PUT FOOT IN IT!

AS anyone who has the rudimentary knowledge of economics understands that business and government all require money to operate. Without a source of money the business and a government will go bankrupt. s evidence of this fact we can look at the implosion of the once powerful Soviet Union. Try to keep up with the "Star Wars" arms race that President Reagan began was the undoing of a powerful and threatening regime.

Now comes a Congresswoman from California with a degree in Sociology. who with a slip of a tongue during a Congressional hearing indicated her desire to Nationalize the Oil Industry.

The following is an excerpt from an article written by Lance Thompson for The New Media Journal that illustrates the Leftist members of Congress are willing to "cut their nose off despite their face"!

"Sensing another opportunity to posture and pretend they are relevant to national events, members of congressional committees in May called oil company executives to hearings about high oil company profits and even higher gas prices. This would all have been quite forgettable but for Congresswoman Maxine Waters’ revealing slip of the tongue that laid bare the liberal agenda for private industry–nationalize it and replace it with government bureaucracy.

During the hearings in the House, Shell Oil Company president John Hofmeister charged that Congress bore some responsibility for high oil prices because of the severe limitations on exploration and drilling in Alaska and along the coasts. He further stated that prices were likely to rise further if these restrictions weren’t lifted. Congresswoman Maxine Waters answered with an angry, and barely controlled, threat that the government would retaliate for higher prices by taking over the oil companies".

It is not surprising that Ms.Waters made a threat to the Shell Oil executive, she has had similar outrageous incidents, such as dedicating the Impeachment Center in Los Angles. And it is notable that she like her fellow traveler Jesse Jackson, are exemplary as people who can intimidate and are extortionists in their operations.

Never the less, Ms. Walters should think before she puts her foot in her mouth. Free enterprise is the grease that runs the wheels of our government. The Oil Industry contributes billions of dollars in taxes each year to grease the government machine we call Congress, and the millions who work within it!

Exxon's tax payment in 2007 of $30 billion (that's $30,000,000,000) is a record, exceeding the $28 billion it paid last year.
By the way, Exxon pays taxes at a rate of 41% on its taxable income!
[Update: The $40.6 billion and $39.5 billion figures are after-tax profits. For 2006, Exxon's EBT (earnings before tax) was $67.4 billion, it paid $27.9 billion in taxes (41.4% tax rate), and its NIAT (net income after tax), or profit, was $39.5 billion.] .AND THIS IS JUST ONE OIL COMPANY!

In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.

Maxine Waters and her leftist cohorts better think twice about destroying "the chicken that lays the eggs"!

Nationalizing private industry has a long track record in communist countries, and the petroleum industry is a common target. Dictators such as Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, and Saddam Hussein have all nationalized their energy industries and funneled the profits to themselves. Waters has always occupied the extreme left of her party, and evidently the ways of totalitarian regimes appeal to her.

WHY YOU SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

WHY OBAMA SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT

82% of veterans who saw heavy combat strongly believe the war was lost because of a lack of political will. Nearly 75% of the general public (in 1993) agrees. These are the poling statistics regarding the outcome of the Vietnam war.

A war that was waged with the commanders in the field of battle having one hand tied behind their back.The Democrats that started the war in Vietnam were noble and experienced warriors. The Kennedy administration, led by president Kennedy, a war hero of PT boat 109, intended to defeat the Communist aided North Vietnamese, but after his assasination, the Johnson, McNamara group took over the control of the war. They sent 55,000 brave draftees and regular troops to their death, with no intention of winning the war. A sin beyond comprehension.

The brave boys who slogged through the rice paddies to engage the vietcom won every battle they fought against the vietcong and the north vietnamese. In the air the brave warriors, like John McCain, waged air combat against a communist supported MIG air wing with Chinese Communists as pilots of many planes they fought.

The air war was won as long as they were allowed to cross the Yalu river in persuit. But Mcnamara dictated that they could not cross the Yalu, and the commies avoided the superior skills of our pilots by racing across the Yalu!

This was a war which the media and the neo-communists wanted us to lose.America was too strong ,and succesful to suit the left. So they printed and showed stories on TV that indicated the USA was loosing the war, and highlited the "atrocities" commited at Mi-Lai! The result was disaster for support of a war that was against the the Communists in Southeast Asia and China.

As a result we won all the battles, but lost the war. And the worst sin of all was that 55,000 brave troopers died in a fight they were not allowed to win.

Fast forward to 2008, and you will find that a Bush administration that has let the military do their job. General Petraeus, despite the carping from Pelosi, Murtah, and Reid has waged a successful campaign against the Muslim terrorists in Iraq. The war has been costly, as all wars are, but they are winning despite what you read in the lame stream press or watch on the communist news network!

This is something that all voters should consider when they go to the polls in Novemeber. Do we want a President like Jimmy Carter or Johnson, or do we want a President who will stand up to our enemies and fight to preserve our way of life. Do we want a "nanny state " that takes care of us from cradle to grave , but stifles initiative and the will to excel? Or do we want a strong America, that encourages free enterprise, strong defense and individual freedom and rights?

If you believe this is a great country as I do, why do we need a "empty suit" who promises change that includes decreasing our military preparednes in exchange for diplomacy? Do we want more taxes?
Do we want more government controls over our industies to satisfy enviromental wackos? Do we want amnesty for illegals,and National health insurance that includes illegals?If not, do not vote for Barack Hussein Obama in November

Message to All Catolics

The following excerpt appeared today in an article written by Ethel Fenig for The American Thinker. I am using this part of her article to show the bias that most people have regarding race. In the article she says that the "priest" Pfleger's endorsement will not help Obama with WHITE Catholics.
I take exception with this conclusion as I believe ALL Catholics, both Black and White should be abhorred by the antics of this priest who has apparently forgotten what his vows as a Priest include. As a Catholic Priest, he is to preach only that which has been revealed to him by sacred scriptures, sacred tradition and the teachings of the Catholic Church's Magesterium.

The activist priest, Father Michael Pfleger, of the Archdiocese of Chicago wants people to know that pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage Senator Barack Obama “is the best thing to come across the political scene since Bobby Kennedy".
How a man who took his prieslty vows can endorse a man who supports a mortal sin is beyond my comprehension. All Catholics should know that abortion is a mortal sin for Catholics. Both the Great Pope John Paul II, and the present Pope Benedict XVI, have reaffirmed the position that abortion is a mortal sin. Aiding and abbeting a man who advocates not only in utero abortion but late term partial birth abortions does in my opinion,negate this priests vows.

All Catholics, both Black and White should examine their conscience, and determine if they can vote in good consience for BHO!


"When white Roman Catholic priest Michael Pfleger spoke at neighboring black Trinity United Church of Christ (yep, Barack Obama's church for 20 years) last Sunday hate was in the air.

In his best white man imitating black preacher role, Pfleger roared
...When Hillary was crying (gesturing tears, uproarious laughter from audience)-and people said that was put on-I really don't believe it was put on.
I really believe that she just always thought ‘This is mine' (laughter, hoots). ‘I'm Bill's wife. I'm WHITE. And this is mine. And I jus' gotta get up. And step into the plate. And then out of nowhere came, ‘Hey, I'm Barack Obama.' And she said: ‘Oh, damn!' WHERE DID YOU COME FROM!?!?! (Crowd going nuts, Pfleger screaming). I'M WHITE! I'M ENTITLED! THERE'S A BLACK MAN STEALING MY SHOW. (SOBS!) SHE WASN'T THE ONLY ONE CRYING! THERE WAS A WHOLE LOTTA WHITE PEOPLE CRYING!
I'm sorry. I don't wanna get you in any mo' trouble. The livestreaming just went out again...
And the congregants loved it. This is the same church Jeremiah Wright preached a similar brand of hatred to an approving crowd while Obama ostensibly snoozed in his seat.

Pfleger is a priest at a predominantly black Catholic church not far from Trinity; he has spoken at Trinity several times previously and several admiring profiles of him have appeared in Trinity's church magazine Trumpet. Pfleger and Obama are good friends; Obama has, in the best of interfaith, inter ethnic relations, referred to Pfleger as one of his spiritual mentors. And Pfleger has solidly returned/ the favor. Pfleger's support of Obama is well known in Chicago, and an Obama aide confirmed Pfleger contributed to Obama's state Senate campaign during his years in the Illinois legislature.
The aide told FOX News that when Obama was a state Senator in 2000, he secured a $100,000 earmark for the ARK Community Center, a center attached to Pfleger's St. Sabina church. The aide said the initiative was awarded to help keep at risk kids off the streets by giving them a place to play.
Pfleger was also once a member of the Catholics for Obama Committee, which is a voluntary advisory committee to the Obama campaign, the aide said. But the aide said Pfleger decided to step down a few weeks ago from this committee, though the campaign did not request the resignation.
But given Pfleger's many previous antics--he's an "activist" priest--his endorsement will probably not help Obama much with the white ethnic Catholic vote".

I think it should affect all Catholics as we see not color but religion and a belief system that has existed for over 2000 years, upon which all but the Jewsih faith is based!

DEMAND RELEASE OF TROOP FUNDS NOW!

Lex et Libertas—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for the editors and staff. Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families, especially those of our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan.
They will need all of our prayers if Congress does not release the funds earmarked for the men and women in harms way!

Do not believe the Democrats when they say they are for the troops, but not Bush's war! The war is the troops war. They have to face a hostile, fanatical enemy with a terrorist mind, and anyone who does anything to block all the money these brave men and women need to fight is an enemy of the troops. It is just that simple.

As long as the troops are in harms way, they need all the money this country can give them to get them home alive. Nothing else is more important!But apparently the Democrat controled Congress doesn't feel they need to support our troops. They have delayed the appropriations bill as I have mentioned in previous blogs, and now they are being asked by the Defense Department to release funds that are earmarked for the troops before they run out of money.


The following is a quote from TheNewMedia web site.
"The Pentagon has asked Congress for the authorization to borrow and transfer $9.7 billion from various accounts to pay for war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The so-called reprogramming request is necessary because a new war supplemental funding bill is still pending in Congress, the Department of Defense stated.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told the Senate last week that, if Congress did not approve the remainder of the 2008 war supplemental, he would submit a reprogramming request — taking money from less pressing accounts to front war costs — on May 27 to avoid depletion of the Army’s personnel and operations funds. The Pentagon submitted two reprogramming requests to Congress on Tuesday: One would transfer $5.7 billion from the military personnel accounts of the other services to the Army’s military personnel account; the second would transfer $4 billion from the operation and maintenance accounts of the other services and the Department of Defense Working Capital Fund to the Army and Special Operations Command operations and maintenance accounts.
Without the ability to transfer these funds, the Army will run out of military personnel funds necessary to pay its soldiers by June 15, according to the Pentagon. In order to avoid that, Congress would have to approve the reprogramming requests by June 9, according to the Pentagon".


For the troops sake write, call, fax or email all your members of Congress and Senators, and demand that they release the funds for the warriors in Iraq and Afganistan.

A BLIND MAN MAKES AN BAD DECISION FOR MARRIAGE

Gay rights advocates had reason to celebrate on both coasts Thursday, with New York set to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and California preparing to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on June 17. Hours after California issued a directive Wednesday authorizing that date, word came that New York Gov. David Paterson instructed state agencies — including those governing insurance and health care — to immediately change policies and regulations to recognize gay marriages.source:Associated Press

Gov. Paterson is one of only four Black men to sit in a State Governors chair in our history, and is well known for his stance on stem cell research, voting rights for non-citizens(illegals), and now he will be known as the man who is attempting to "solomnize" the marriage of sodomites.

In an anterview after Gov. Paterson made his announcement at a meeting of gays and lsbians, his spokeswoman, Erin Duggan said this: " we want it clearly understood that marriage includes gay couples in the solomnized marriage pact".

Thesaurus defines "solemnized" as bless, celebrate, commemorate, dignify, exalt, sanctify and venerate. Only a blind person could call a relationship that involves sex between two same sex people in these terms!

Let me say at the beginning. What people do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business, or any government agency. That is unless they are making bombs, or some other gross violation of the law.

But when an elected official panders to a politically active group like the gay and lesbian community, by tearing down the framework of the American family unit. He is a really morally blind person! That makes Gov. Paterson doubly blind, as he is legally blind himself!

This Country was built upon the Judeo-Christian principles that are found in the Talmud and the Bible. One of which is the numerous condemnations of the "sodomite".

Granted our Country has slipped slowly to the secular, nihilist, atheist's interpretation of what the Founding fathers intended this Country to be. The killing of millions of unborn and partially born babies testifies to this fact. But when persons, who are elected to a position of power, try to change the natural law of marriage,that being a man and a woman who can produce offspring(babies), to that based upon "love"of two same sex people. We are well down the road to the fate of the Roman Empire!

A LAME ATTEMPT AT A COMPARISON BY THE MEDIA

THE LAME STREAM MEDIA IS FILLED WITH COMPARISONS WITH THE PROBLEM BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS WITH HIS PASTOR OF 20 YEARS, REVEREND WRIGHT, AND JOHN McCAIN WITH TWO EVANGELICAL PASTORS WHO ARE NOT HIS PASTOR.

First of all, we must understand the difference between associating and contributing to the support of a Pastor, and the speech and philosophy of someone who publicly endorses a candidate, but has no personal connection to the candidate!Obama spent twenty years at the feet of his racist Black activist Pastor.

He was married, had his children baptised and contributed thousands of dollars to him.McCain had no connection with the two apparently twisted pastors who publicly announced their support for him. This is something he does not need to defend, but chose to do so. More power to him for clarifying his position on the issues these "pastors" were preaching. But you cannot tag him with the same "donkeytail" that Obama carries for his 20 year association with Wright.

For those who hope that the positions of these two Evangelical leaders will effect the voters, let me remind you of a statistic. The 2004 survey of Religion and politics in the United States[11] identified the Evangelical percentage of the population at 26.3%; while Catholics are 22% and Mainline Protestants make up 16%. In the 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, the figures for these same groups are 28.6% (Evangelical), 24.5% (Catholics), and 13.9% (Mainline Protestant.) The latter figures are based on a 2001 study of the self-described religious identification of the adult population for 1990 and 2001 from the Graduate School and University Center at the City University of New York. [12]

The National Association of Evangelicals is a U.S. agency which coordinates cooperative ministry for its member denominations.the Christian Right is not made completely (or even a majority) of Evangelical Christians. According to an article in the November 11, 2004 issue of The Economist, entitled "The Triumph of the Religious Right", "The implication of these findings is that Mr. Bush's moral majority is not, as is often thought, composed of a bunch of right-wing evangelical Christians.

Rather, it consists of traditionalist and observant church-goers of every kind: Catholic and mainline Protestant, as well as evangelicals, Mormons, and Sign Followers. Meanwhile, modernist evangelicals tend to be Democratic." Although evangelicals are currently seen as being on the Christian Right in the United States, there are those in the center as well.

In other countries there is no particular political stance associated with evangelicals. Many evangelicals have little practical interest in politics.
In the end McCain, as recently as in a June of 2007 interview with McClatchy newspapers, has consistently described himself as an Episcopalian. He was raised in the denomination and attended the prestigious Episcopal High School in Alexandria, Va.

Biographical sketches in several well-known congressional directories -- information that is usually provided by members of Congress or their staffers -- list McCain’s faith as the Episcopal Church.

Sorry, Leftist media and Obama sycophants, you can't paint him with the same brush as Obama was by his Pastor Wright!

ECOLOGY POLICE COMING TO THE USA?

Der Spiegel is reporting on conference of "scientists" who are planing to make their "cult" a profitable business.At a global conference in Bonn, Germany, representatives of 191 nations are discussing their revolution in conservation.

They believe that by making a highly profitable business out of saving forests, whales and coral reefs, environmentalists they can put a stop to an apparent, they say, dramatic wave of extinctions. The currency in their new environmental age is called a "forest certificate," and a potential market for the green money already existsthanks to Al Gore and his ilk.

In the EU emissions trading system, for example, industrial corporations and energy utilities are allocated carbon dioxide pollution rights known as CO2 certificates. They define how much carbon dioxide a given company's factories are permitted to emit into the atmosphere. If a company's CO2 emissions exceed its allocated limit, it must buy additional certificates to offset the difference. Unused pollution rights can be sold. In other words, the certificates have a real monetary value, which is currently at €25 ($39) per ton of CO2, but could increase to €60 ($93) in the future.Smells like a ponzi sheme to me! But this sounds to me like World dictatorship for the United States if their quest for environmental power succedes.

Apparently the tropical rainforest countries are keenly interested in entering this growing market.Note: most are countries considered third world countries. At the next UN Climate Change Conference, in Copenhagen in 2009, the course could be set for the development of a market in forest certificates. Large electric utilities, like Germany's RWE, are already waiting in the wings. "Forests as a part of a global emissions trading system would be of interest to us," says Michael Fübi, the company's climate protection manager. The company would benefit by satisfying climate protection requirements more quickly and at a lower cost than through the installation of costly new technologies.

In the medium term, however, this could not serve as a replacement for modernizing power plants, says Fübi. How much money this forest certificate system would ultimately generate is still written in the stars. Experts estimate that it would cost $10 billion (€6.45 billion) a year to truly benefit the world's forests.Authors note: how do you give monies to trees?

Otherwise it would be far more profitable for tropical countries to cut down their forests for lumber, as they presently do.Seems to me as though they want successful economic countries to agree to a scheme that has a great possiblility of failure. Never the less,experts estimate that at least twice as much as is spent today on ecoological efforts, will be required to protect nature in the long term. Professional environment police officers must monitor the reserves.

Education is critical in helping local populations find new ways to live in harmony with nature. Microloans are needed to help people implement new business models compatible with the natural environment. Police Ecologists!!!! Can such global financial transfers truly bring about change? "Once CO2 trading translates into large amounts of money, the question that inevitably arises is who actually owns the forest," says Tom Griffiths, who is with the human rights organization Forest Peoples Programme. "Is it the investors or the people who live in the forest?" A typical socialist/communism question!

The underlying problem in these eco schemes is that those who seek to effectively protect nature, make ocean zones off-limits and allow forests to remain untouched must ensure that the people who have depended on these facets of nature for their livelihoods are given new opportunities, and thus far their is an eerie silence about this problem from those promoting the eco-economics.And they have another problem in Germany. While they are meeting in Bonn the head of the current German government, German Chancellor Merkel did little to ease tensions when she recently signed an energy treaty with Brazilian President Lula da Silva. The Brazilians see German concern for the Amazon rainforest as an attempt to corner the biofuels market. To produce bio-ethanol, they plan to have planted sugarcane in an area almost as large as Great Britain by 2025.

The World Bank allegedly plans to incorporate the entire Congo basin into its Forest Carbon Partnership program. The Washington-based organization wants to enter the emissions trading market with the CO2 stored by the Congo rainforest. Because deforestation in tropical regions is responsible for about 20 percent of "climate change, protecting the forest is synonymous with protecting the climate" -- and the world community(?) is increasingly willing to pay a lot of money to make that happen.

Blogger's comment:who do they include in the World Community? China and India are exempt from Kyoto, and the USA has rejected the proposal as being draconian!

While the politicians plot their Ecology "war"there are private wealthy people involved in their own personal ecology shemes topersonally control the fate of nature. Patagonia, for example, appears to be firmly in the hands of billionaires. For years, Douglas and Kris Tompkins, the co-founders of the apparel companies North Face and Patagonia, have owned several thousand square kilometers (more...) of untouched wilderness in the region. Some of their neighbors are speculator George Soros, fashion magnates Luciano and Carlo Benetton, actors Sharon Stone and Christopher Lambert, and CNN founder Ted Turner. Do you believe they are involved for soley altruistic reasons?

If natural landscapes are increasingly assigned a value, they could lose their role as "the world's free garbage dump," as Gordon Shepherd of the WWF puts it. But Shepherd also warns that adding value to nature is "no panacea." Indeed, it raises many questions. For instance, developing countries would have to prove that their goal is not simply to rake in additional cash, but that they are serious about protecting diversity. Sounds to me as though this is just another scheme to redistribute the world's wealth to undeveloped countries, where dictators will grab it ,and the poor people will continue to get "the short end of the stick"!

Omar al-Bashir, president of Sudan, retains his position as the worst dictator in the congo!And lest we forget the infamous dictator Mobutu; According to Transparency International, Mobutu embezzled over $5 billion USD from his country, ranking him as the third-most corrupt leader in world history and the most corrupt African leader ever. He is a constantly recurring theme in African dictators to whom these "pi-heads plan to give hundreds of millions to stop producing the wood we need to buil homes and the grains needed to make the new panacea, bio-fuel!!

THE UNITED NATIONS INVESTIGATING RACISM IN THE USA?

As Americans contemplate electing a mixed-race man for president, race is becoming an explosive issue. And taking this opportunity to stir the simmering pot of racial division is none other than The United Nations.
Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU Human Rights Program, said: “The visit of the special rapporteur is a critical opportunity to shed light on the pervasive and systemic problem of racism and discrimination in the United States.
In this election year, the eyes of the world will be turned toward America and its long-standing promise to end racial and ethnic inequalities.”
When both the Democratic candidate, and his wife, are graduates of Harvard law school. It would seem racial bias has been effectively neutralized by affirmative action in the USA!


A UN representative( Dr. Diene, a Muslim lawyer from Senegal) arrived Monday for a three-week visit to eight American cities—from New York to L.A., Chicago to New Orleans—at Washington’s unenthusiastic invitation. His mission “to gather first-hand information on issues related to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” Islamaphobia will be one of the main priorities of his investigation.
That’s right. As Arabs enslave and slaughter blacks in Sudan, as violent anti-Semitism chokes the Middle East—this is how the United Nations Human Rights Council (unhrc) chooses to allocate its resources: by criticizing the freest and most universally prosperous integrated society on Earth.
Interesting timing. The racial climate in the U.S. at this moment can be described as charged, and presidential power is in play. Could it be that the UN is planning to intervene in United States politics? It is not the first time that the UN has investigated the USA while ignoring racial hot spots like Dafur!


As Arabs enslave and slaughter blacks in Sudan, as violent anti-Semitism chokes the Middle East—this is how the United Nations Human Rights Council (unhrc) chooses to allocate its resources: by criticizing the most free and most universally prosperous integrated society on Earth!

discrimination in the United States.” Yes, that’s exactly what it will do, whether true or not—and whether it will help a problem or intensify it.

Though the unhrc report on U.S. racism won’t be released until spring of 2009, we can already predict its outcome. Just consider the source.
The unhrc is the United Nations at its hypocritical best. Similar to the Commission on Human Rights that it replaced in 2006, the unhrc is filled with human rights abusers in high-profile positions who use it as a cloak for their own abuses. Among its current 47 members are human-rights hypocrites like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Cuba, China and Russia; the ngo Freedom House rates nearly a third of them “not free.”


The UN investigator has been charged to to search out “contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,” specifically “any form of discrimination against blacks, Arabs and Muslims, xenophobia, negrophobia, anti-Semitism and related intolerance ….” Yes, supposedly he’s looking for anti-Semitism, but those searches invariably come up empty. Source: James Reine, UN correspondent.


Is it not strange that this investigation takes place in the middle of a Presidential campaign when the Democrat front runner has been accused of spending twenty years attending a church led by a pastor who is a racist Black activist?

THE REAL VILLANS IN TODAYS PRICE OF OIL

IN 1988 A $150 million lawsuit was brought to court against the Hunt brothers of Dallas in Manhattan, with a lawyer representing the leading Peruvian mineral company accusing the Hunts of engaging in an elaborate scheme in 1979 and 1980 to manipulate silver prices.

In addition to the Hunts, the suit named as co-conspirators two Saudi Arabian sheiks - Ali bin-Mussallam and Mohammad Aboud al-Amoudi -as well as Mahmoud Fustok, a Saudi businessman; Naji Nahas, a Lebanese citizen who lives in Brazil, and the International Metals Investment Company, a Bermuda partnership.

From 1973 to 1979 the Hunt brothers managed to capture enough silver futures( about half of the worlds silver) to drive the price from $1.95 per ounce to $54.00 an ounce!

After the Hunts crashed and burned and were sent to jail for conspiring to manipulate the silver market. Some ultra-wealthy investors such as Warren Buffett, George Soros (through Apex Silver) and Bill Gates (through Pan American Silver) took on significant silver positions. I hardly think that any of these well-known investors were like the Hunt brothers, but more likely these masters of wealth saw a profitable trade in having major positions in silver where others didn't.

That was a major scandal that the Federal government discovered involving manipulation of a commodity that was in a finite supply.

Now we have the potential for another commodities scandal. This time the culprits are Arbitragers and big commodity players, I believe.

We now have a similar situation, to 1988, that our government should look at, but probably will not. Prices for crude peaked above $135 a barrel Thursday in electronic trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Globex platform. See Futures Movers. Record prices over the past several months have raised questions over manipulation of the market.
A U.S. Senate panel listened to testimony on May 20 that said financial speculation by institutional investors and hedge funds in the commodity markets are contributing to energy and food inflation. See full story.
"The regulatory environment is becoming so undesirable to foreign and domestic funds that they have no choice but to go offshore," said Kevin Kerr, president of Kerr Trading International and editor of MarketWatch's Global Resources Trader.
Speculative activity in commodity markets has grown "enormously" over the past several years, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said in a news release. source: Market Watch

They pointed out that in five years, from 2003 to 2008, investment in the index funds tied to commodities has grown by 20-fold -- to $260 billion from $13 billion.
The growth offers "justifiable concerns that speculative demand, divorced from the market realities, is driving food and energy price inflation and causing human suffering," HSGAC said.

My belief is that the high price of oil is just what the Socialist Democrats want. They need an issue to hammer home in the months preceding the November Presidential election. What better than the high cost of food and fuel! They can blame the Republicans for their connection to "big-oil" even though many Senators and Congressional Democrats also have oil stocks and accept campaign funds from the oil companies and their producers. These people play both sides of the street! And are the same players, Soros and Buffett, that support the candidacy of Obama, back at their old game of manipulation?

Before we blame "Big Oil", I think we need to look at who is manipulating the crude oil futures! And we need to look at ourselves for letting a special interest group of Ecologist keep us from extracting crude oil from known sources here at home which could make us independent of OPEC!

With a controversial candidate like Obama, and all the Baggage he carries with him. The Democrats would like nothing better than for the voting public to ignore the fact that he may be a apostate Muslim, or a closet Muslim and a total Socialist and racist candidate.

IN DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE

In the beginning, God created man and women. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. This simple phrase is in the beginning of the Old Testament of the Bible used by all Christians the World over. Now the Left, or neo-pagans as I like to call them, are using as their center piece of the attack on the Family, the repeal of DOMA.

The way to destroy a basically religious Country is to destroy the family unit, as all religious believing countries are made up of a family unit. A unit made in the mold of the Trinity of the Catholic Church. My definition also includes single parent families, but not same sex couple "families". The family is the basic building block , the under pining, of societies acround the World. But what exactly is meant by the word "family"? One might think the answer was obvious – a husband and wife, and their kids – but these definitions would not cover all the different types of families that exist. There are "nuclear" families, extended families, one-parent families and families with adopted children in all civilized countries.

Although Obama opposes same-sex marriage, the "pride" section of his campaign Web site calls for repeal of DOMA.The legislation, passed in 1996, defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and it says states do not have to recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) SAID that she would support Obama in such a plan. "Yes, I would," she said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is from one of the two states where the courts have upheld same-sex marriage, told Cybercast News Service that she was not aware of Obama's call to repeal DOMA. "I have not talked to Sen. Obama about that. I have not heard anything about that," she said. "I did not vote for DOMA in the first place. I voted against it, and I don't know anything about this."

"Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions," his Web site says.

For those of you who think I am making this all up, I submit the following: The following letter was released by Democratic presidential candidate Barrack Obama to GLBT Americans. This letter follows the announcement that the Obama campaign will be taking out full page ads in GLBT newspapers in Ohio and Texas beginning Friday. Read Obama's previous Bilerico guest post A Call for Full Equality.

"As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary".

And you probably are thinking, this is just another blogger who is Homophobic! I now state that I am not afraid or prejudiced of Gays and Lesbians. I believe what they do is wrong, because of my religious beliefs, but I believe they are all children of God, and as such I honor them. I hate the sin, not the sinner! Never the less, a repeal of the DOMA law would be a direct attack on the basic principles that this country was founded. I ask all like minded people to write, call, email or fax you representatives in Congress to defeat this promise of Obama's. And for those who think they will vote for him. This is one more reason for Pause in your commitment to Senator Obama!

OBAMA YOU ARE NO KENNEDY OR REAGAN!

During a speech Obama gave today in Billings, Montana he took a swipe at John McCain, who had said yesterday that Obama showed recklessness and inexperience, because he said he would talk to Iran's president with no preconditions.

Obama said the threat from Iran had grown as a result of the US war in Iraq. "Iran is the biggest single beneficiary of a war in Iraq that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged,"(I guess he forgot that the war got rid of the tyrant Saddam Hussein) he said. "And John McCain wants to double down that failed policy."
If McCain is elected, Obama said, "We'll keep talking tough in Washington, while countries like Iran ignore our tough talk." ( and they won't ignore a man born of a Muslim father?)

The alternative, Obama said, is to follow the example of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who negotiated with the Soviet Union. Obama called for "tough, disciplined and direct diplomacy."
"That's what Kennedy did; that's what Reagan did," he said.

Obama either knows nothing about history, or he chooses like all other liberals, to write his own version. History shows that it was not talk, but the Naval blockade that stopped the Cuban missile crisis during the Kennedy administration. And during the Cold War the build up of the Strategic Air Command, and building a ring of missiles under the sea in submarines around Russia, that defeated the Russian Bear, not talk!

"President Ronald Reagan proposed a new missile defense system, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), dubbed "Star Wars". In an interview with the Soviet press, Reagan proposed eliminating nuclear weapons before deploying the missile shield; in other reports he suggested sharing the Star Wars technology with the Soviets. Although both of these suggestions were later repudiated, they demonstrate Reagan’s hope that a missile shield would render nuclear weapons obsolete".His talk was accompanied by "conditions". Only a political hack who is uninformed would propose a talk with no "Quid pro Quo"..

source: Wikapedia

OBAMA SPEAKS AS IF HE IS RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENT OF UN

Perhaps he was temporarily rendered senseless by the crowd, estimated at 65,000 people, that showed up for Obama's rally in Roseburg ,Oregon.

Whatever the reason, Obama once again showed his proclivity for international bias, that probably overshadows his concern for the "beer drinking, gun toting and church going" Americans.

This is not as bad a knock on us Americans as his wife Michelle's pejorative comment about never being proud of America until her husband decided to run for President. Never the less, the statement about other countries feelings about us, shows me he is more concerned about International opinion than he is about our maintaining our present life style!

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," He said this as part of an attack on the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain.

Since,as President, he would be riding in a taxpayer payed limousine ,and living in a White House with the best air conditioning system tax payers can buy. I guess he doesn't have to worry if we have to put up with discomforts and alterations in our life to satisfy his Ecological aspirations.

While President Bush is a "Johnny come lately"on a call for drilling for fossil fuels here at home, Obama is throwing in the towel for Americans, because he doesn't want to offend the rest of he world. Never mind the fact that China and India are marching toward financial greatness with little or no regard for the Kyoto agreement from which they are exempt!

OBAMA'S FIX FOR SOCIAL SECURITY IS A HOAX!

ONCE AGAIN THE "EMPTY SUIT" FROM ILLINOIS HAS MADE A PROMISE THAT HE EITHER KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW AS A U.S.SENATOR, THAT HE CAN NOT DO!

In a speech given in Oregon, Obama promised that if elected he will protect The Social Security Trust Fund. A fund that does not exist, but rather is a "fund" filled with promissory notes from the government to the government. The "fund" is a misnomer for the deficit that the government has created by lumping all taxes including social security taxes into the general fund that is used to pay for the Socialist WELFARE society that our government has operated since the years of LBJ.

The Social Security system is primarily a "PAY AS YOU GO" system, meaning that payments to current retirees come from current payments into the system. In the early 1980s, the financial projections of the Social Security Administration indicated near-term revenue from payroll taxes would not be sufficient to fully fund near-term benefits, thus the Congress raised the possibility of benefit cuts. Instaed they increased the taxes taken from your paycheck for social security.

The following is an excerpt from Wikapedia: "Though widely used, the term "Social Security Trust Fund" is something of a misnomer, as the Social Security Administration of the United States actually oversees two separate funds that hold federal government debt obligations related to what are traditionally thought of as Social Security benefits. The larger of these funds is the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which holds in trust those funds that the federal government intends to use to pay future benefits to retirees and their survivors.[2] The second, smaller fund is the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund, which holds in trust those funds that the federal government intends to use to pay benefits to those who are judged by the federal government to be disabled and incapable of productive work, as well as to their spouses and dependents.[3]

" The securities issued under this scheme constitute the assets of the Social Security Trust Fund. Because under current federal law these securities represent future obligations that must be repaid, the federal government includes these securities within the overall national debt.[1] The portion of the national debt that is not considered "publicly held" represents the obligations incurred by the government to itself, the bulk of which consists of the government's obligations to the Social Security Trust Fund".
In 2001, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill upset some people by simply telling the truth. He had the temerity to say that the Social Security Trust Fund has no tangible assets. It was empty!

Knowing that the Trust Fund is a figment of our collective imagination. There’s no money, only IOUs there. It doesn’t exist, Obama has the gaul to say he will protect the "fund"!
Every cent that the American people pay in FICA payroll taxes is immediately spent. Anything left over after the current retirees are paid off goes into the general treasury where it is used, first, to make up any operating shortfall, and then to pay the government’s creditors. The Social Security Trust Fund is credited for that money in the form of nonnegotiable notes.

While speaking to a group of senior citizens in Gresham, Oregon,( a group he needs to win in November) the man who appears to be the Democratic presidential nominee raised the thorny Social Security issue. He criticized the George Bush/John McCain plan and offered one of his own.Obama wants higher earners to pay more into the system -- to "protect" senior citizens "who have earned the right to retire with dignity." "A secure retirement is no longer a guarantee for the middle class," he said -- "because Washington is not working to preserve this fundamental part of the American dream."

Invoking "the promise that FDR made," Obama said that when he's president, he will "fight every single day" to protect Social Security, which is coming under increasing strain as more Baby Boomers retire.First, Obama said he would "preserve the Social Security Trust Fund" -- by not spending money raised through payroll taxes on other things. Another example of a politicain who promises anything even if it is a lie, to get votes!

He said he would make sure that "money that's coming in for Social Security stays for Social Security." (Al Gore proposed a similar "lock-box" policy when he was running for president.)Unlike Sen. John McCain, Obama said he believes that privatizing Social Security is a "bad idea," and "I won't stand for it as president."

Some one should tell him the President doesn't control the budget, Congress does that. But since this is just another of his promises, we must assume that if (God forbid) he is elelected, will be just another campaign promise he fails to produce.

A Totally Lame Response

This past week President Bush apparently decided he was tired of Obama's Bashing of his Iraq policies, and went on the offensive. Although it is a little late, I would have preferred he had used the "bully pulpit" long ago and more frequently, but it was appropriate and on point.

Obama has gone on record, that if he is elected President, he would go to Iran to talk Amadinejad out of developing nuclear bombs. Immediately after he made this promise, many including this blogger compared him to Neville Chamberlain, and his "peace in our time" debacle with Hitler in 1939. We could also reference the failure of diplomacy in the explosive situation between Israel and Hezbolla since the "heady days" of the Camp David Accords in the Carter Days.

President Bush had this to say about trying to bargain with despots: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Ahmadinejad has demonstrated time and again that he will not listen to the UN, much less an "apostate" President!

Typical of the the double talk of the man in the "empty suit", he had this to say the following day.

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel."
"Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy -- to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

Obama keeps trying to compare himself to President Kennedy, and in this instance he even stoops to include Nixon and President Reagan, both of whom history proves were "Hawks" not "Doves" like Obama! Obama belongs to the Peace at any price ilk, as he showed when he came out against the Iraq war when the US Congress was approving, by a large majority, the invasion of Iraq!

Many people disagree with our involvement in Iraq, but not too many sensible thinkers could believe that a megalomaniac can be talked out of acquiring weapons that will help him to carry out his vow to obliterate"the great Satan"!