BIG BROTHER STRIKES THE LITTLE MAN AGAIN

IN THE NAME OF DOING GOOD FOR THE EARTH, ANOTHER DEAL THAT WAS LITTLE PUBLICIZED IN THe MSM has already Affected THE WAY ASTHMATICS ARE TREATED. This diabolical Montreal Protocol was signed in Montreal by 138 countries and the USA in 1986. By 2007 there were 19 additional meetimgs to solidify the strangle hold Environmentalists have over our lives.
It's full effect wasn't mandated until 2003, also with little press coverage. The protocol has affected the effectiveness that prescribed medicines have on Asthma patients.
The following is an excerpt from an article by Steven Rosenberg that will explain the politics of this semi-secret deal that was never approved by the US Senate!

By Steven Reinberg
FRIDAY, May 30 (HealthDay News) — Asthma inhalers that contain the drug albuterol to relax the airways also contain chemicals that harm the ozone layer. And these inhalers won't be available after this year, so U.S. health officials are urging patients to switch to alternative inhalers now.

Chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, are widely used to propel inhaled drugs into the lungs. However, products containing CFCs are being phased out, because the chemicals damage the Earth's protective ozone layer. CFC inhalers are being replaced by inhalers powered by HFAs, or hydrofluoroalkanes, which are ozone-friendly.

The change to HFA-powered inhalers has been in the works for several years, but the FDA issued an advisory,urging patients still using CFC inhalers to switch now. Inhalers containing CFCs are not now available.

FDA officials said people with respiratory problems, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, may need some time to acclimate to HFA-based inhalers.

"There are 52 million prescriptions written for albuterol inhalers each year in the United States," Dr. Badrul Chowdhury, director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Division of Pulmonary and Allergy Products, said during a teleconference. Albuterol is used to treat shortness of breath in people with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, he noted.

Chowdhury said that approximately 65 percent of inhaler users have already switched to HFA inhalers.

"These new handlers may taste and feel different than the current CFC inhalers," he said. "In addition, HFA inhalers may feel softer than CFC inhalers."

And I for one can testify that they do not work as well, as I am a Asthmatic who suffers from periodic episodes that have led to hospital admissions to save my life!

Also, patients using HFA inhalers will have to prime and clean them to prevent the buildup of albuterol in the inhalers' nozzle. This buildup could block the medicine from reaching the lungs, Chowdhury said.This is more work, and a potential for serious side affects for those who are unable or not smart enough to clean the new asthma sprayers properly!

Each HFA inhaler has a different priming mechanism and cleaning and drying instructions. So, users should carefully read the instructions before using the inhaler. And HFA inhalers may cost more, because there's no generic HFA inhaler available yet, Chowdhury said.

Three HFA-propelled albuterol inhalers have been approved by the FDA: Proair HFA Inhalation Aerosol; Proventil HFA Inhalation Aerosol; and Ventolin HFA Inhalation Aerosol. Also, an HFA-propelled inhaler containing levalbuterol, a medicine similar to albuterol, is available as Xopenex HFA Inhalation Aerosol, the agency said.

Dr. Ira Finegold, chief of the Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City, doesn't see much difference in the effectiveness of the two types of inhalers. "The end result — if you need it, does it open up your lungs? Yes, it does," he said.

However, the changeover will involve some patient education, he said. "The old medication, CFC albuterol, was really a very nice product, because the propellant got in your body and came out of your body — it wasn't absorbed. And remarkably, it is a cleaning agent, so the device was self-cleaning."

The new HFA propellant is safe in the body but can clog the inhaler, Feingold said. "So, after use, these inhalers need to be rinsed out or they are not going to work correctly," he said.

"In addition," Feingold added, "each of the four new inhalers on the market is different in the number of times you have to prime it. There is also a little difference in feel and taste."

The discontinuation of CFC-propelled inhalers is the result of the U.S. Clean Air Act and an international treaty known as the Montreal Protocol(1986) on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer.

Under provisions of this treaty, the United States agreed to stop the production and importation of substances that damage the ozone layer, including CFCs, according to the FDA.


SOURCES: May 30, 2008, teleconference with Badrul Chowdhury, M.D., Ph.D., director, Division of Pulmonary and Allergy Products, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Ira Finegold, M.D., chief, Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York City

If that were all that the Montreal Protocol affected, it would be just a problem that a relatively small group of sick Americans had to deal with, But it is only one of many problems caused by this miserable excuse for a "protocol!"

The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty developed to protect the earth from the detrimental effects of ozone depletion. Since it was begun in the late 1980's, it has been signed by over 160 countries ("Parties" to the Treaty), and controls the production and trade of ozone depleting substances on a global basis. This Treaty is now phasing out the CFCs and other ozone depleting compounds on a world-wide basis

Under the Clean Air Act and Montreal Protocol, production of methyl bromide, a widely used fumigant in agriculture and forestry has also been phased out due to claims that it contributes to ozone depletion.
It is critical that current efforts continue to quickly develop and implement economically viable and environmentally sound alternatives. Our food chain depends on protecting it from destruction in the growth fields from voracious insects!

"The role of methyl bromide as an ozone-depleting compound is now considered to be less than was estimated in the 1994 Assessment, although significant uncertainties remain. The current best estimate of the Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) for methyl bromide is 0.4 (with a range of 0.2 to 0.5), as compared to an ODP of 0.6 (with a range of 0.3 to 0.9) estimated in the previous Assessment (1994). The change is due primarily to both an increase in the estimate of ocean removal processes and the identification of an uptake by soils, with a smaller contribution from the change in our estimate of the atmospheric removal rate. Recent research has shown that the science of atmospheric methyl bromide is complex and still not well understood. The current understanding of the sources and sinks of atmospheric methyl bromide is incomplete."
Despite this the "Enviro zealots"took a tool out of the hands of farmers, and have as yet not found asingle replacement for the wide range of fumigation that methyl-bromide gave to our farmers.

All this, because so called "experts" decided that:"If methyl bromide use is not controlled in a timely manner, atmospheric scientists believe, emissions will contribute to a thinning of the ozone layer and will allow increased amounts of radiation to reach the earth's surface. This will have potential impact not only to human health, including skin cancer and the environment, but to agricultural crops as well".

The conclusion statement of the committee that has followed the nineteen International meetings since Montreal is revealing in the stark admission that the protocol and it's mandates were made despite the derth of exact scientific evidence.

The following is an excerpt from a paper written by Richard Benedict entitled; "Lessons From The Montreal Protocol". " Faced with a new generation of global environmental threats, governments must act while some major questions remain un?resolved. In achieving the Montreal accord, consensus was forged and decisions were made on a balancing of probabilities – and the risks of waiting for more complete evidence were finally deemed to be too great. In the real world of ambiguity and imperfect knowledge, the Montreal Protocol may hopefully be the forerunner of an evolved partnership between scientists and policy makers, as sovereign nations seek ways of dealing with uncertain dangers and accepting common responsibility for stewardship of Planet Earth".This only dem onstrates that if you tell a lie often enough, people will eventually believe you!

If this was not enough to worry you, there are forces that wish to destroy our economy by controling population. "Several authors identify energy as a limiting factor in population size. David and Maria Pimentel point out that the U.S. achieves its high agricultural yields through a prodigious use of finite fossil fuel and ground water resources. Paul Werbos notes that renewable energy and conservation cannot fill the energy needs of an increased population at our present standard of living. Paul and Anne Ehrlich argue that due to wasteful technology and consumption patterns, Americans do much more damage to the planet than the more numerous third world poor. These chapters present a convincing case that the U.S. population should be reduced below current levels.
These are all part of the new home of the Marxist Humanists who promote abortion and Euthanasia!

NO DOUBT ABOUT WHY GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTER LIKES OBAMA

“You want to make every pundit look bad? Then stand tall for what you believe. Don’t be shy. You want to stun the establishment? Then become a mighty force for conservative principles, and tackle the task with confidence and cheer... This may be a time of testing. But it’s not our swan song. Not by a long shot. Instead... this is our moment. This is the time to do what we do best—turn adversity into strength.” —the late Tony Snow


THE BERLIN "SHOW HAS BEGUN, AND ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT MEMBERS OF THE GERMAN GOV. TO WARMLY GREAT OBAMA WAS WALTER STEINMEIER.
This man is the German foreign minister. A hold over from the Schreoder government, before the more conservative Angela Merkel took over the leadership of the German Government.
The interesting and revealing part of this meeting, is that Mr. Steinmeier said he has found that he and Obama think alike!
Perhaps one reason he likes Obama is that when he assumed the Foreign Minister role the German newspaper Die Zeit wrote of him: "Though Steinmeier is largely considered to have little direct foreign policy experience, his one memorable speech on foreign affairs does indicate that he might largely continue the course taken by Schröder".
As you will recall Scroeder was very anti-American!

The following is a brief biography of this anti-USA German.
Frank Walter Steinmeier - Curator of Germany's Secret Services Will Shape Foreign Policy
SOURCE: Simon Araloff, AIA European section

Schroeder and Steinmeier
ON THE 14 TH OF OCTOBER 2005, the leadership of the German Social-Democratic Party announced the list of its candidates for the ministerial positions in the future coalition government. The candidate for the office of Minister of Foreign Affairs is Frank Walter Steinmeier. This man is thought to be a "gray eminence" of the German Government. All the German special services are subordinate to him. He is a real conductor of "special relations" with Russia; he does not like the USA; he resurrects the "Great Germany"…
A Man of the "Hanover Mafia"

Since November 1998, Frank Walter Steinmeier occupies a number of key positions in the German leadership. He is the Chief of Staff in Germany's Federal Chancellery (Chef des Bundeskanzleramtes), the official of the German Government for Special Assignments in the rank of a minister (Bundesminister für besondere Aufgaben), and also the member of Germany's Security Council, members in which are the Chancellor himself, the Minister of Interior, and the Minister of Defense. Thus, the decisions and the deeds of this man define Germany's destiny".

It was him, and not Schroeder, who was negotiating with the Americans over Iraq in 2002. It was him, who then coldly told the American Ambassador in Berlin, Daniel R. Coats that the Germans' negative position concerning the US military operation in Iraq stays the same. In the same period, to spite the White House, Steinmeier carried out contacts with the son of the Libyan leader, Saif al-Islam Qaddafi. After September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the USA, the FBI representatives were complaining to the author that it was extremely hard for them to work with their German counterparts. In particular it could be explained by Steinmeier's unwillingness to share information with the Americans.

I believe that Obama chose Germany to give his political speech, because his polls have shown that the Socialist Germans are pinning their hopes on Obama. Whereas just 10 percent favor the Republican candidate John McCain, fully 76 percent consider Barack Obama the better candidate. Of course they do! He is a socialist/Marxist in "sheeps clothing" preaching an empty slogan of "Change".

Immediately following his meeting with Senator Obama, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier announced: "The atmosphere was open and trusting. We built on our telephone conversation from mid-April." Steinmeier said he detected parallels in their philosophy of foreign policy. "Cooperation instead of confrontation -- that is also his foreign policy aim." Steinmeier said it had been a good conversation".
Why Not! Two like minded Socialists talking about their type of "CHANGE"!!!

EU THROWS A TEMPER TANTRUM!

There are presently 27 Nations( they call them States to remove the appearance of sovereignty) that are members of the European Union. A union without a Constitution, because the Irish did not want to abrogate some of their sovereignty to this amorphous body in Brussels.

Of the 27 members, 11 nations that joined the Eu are from what was called Eastern Europe. Many were previously Communist countries. The USA, Japan, Singapore and Panama have refused to grant blanket immunity to citizens of these Countries that wish to visit the USA and the three other Nations.

Most of the EU's 27 members have visa-waiver deals with the US, allowing their citizens to enter the country for short visits without visas. However all but one of the 12 states that joined the EU from 2004 to 2007, most of which are in Eastern Europe, have no such deals. Neither does Greece, which has been an EU member since 1981. This is because of Our concern for terrorists entering our Country as tourists.The USA has in place a computer generated questionnaire that prospective passengers to this Country must complete no later than two days before their air travel.

Not unlike all rapidly growing Bureaucracies, the EU is slow in their process of obtaining visa immunity for new member states. Thus, Estonia and Latvia are taking a detour around Brussels in the quest for visa-free travel.
Impatient at the slow pace of European Union negotiations, two Baltic states are setting up their own deals with the US to provide visa-free travel for their citizens, despite protests from Brussels.
Estonia signed a bilateral visa-waiver deal with the US on Wednesday morning, with Latvia due to follow suit later this week.

This infuriated the proud "princes" of the Eu, who already have a "black eye" over the "no vote" in Ireland last month. So they are resorting to desperate measures to keep the USA from making separate deals with "member States".

The move by the Eastern European states is creating tension within the European Commission, which wants to be the single negotiator with the US on visa-waiver deals. The Commission, which has already tried to put pressure on the US to give citizens of all EU states visa-free travel, feels bilateral deals infringe on its authority over visa and border policy. It is also worried that such deals might allow the US to pressure individual countries to give US authorities additional data on air passengers on top of that stipulated in an existing US-EU agreement.
They also are afraid that bilateral deals infringe on its authority over visa and border policy. It is also worried that such deals might undermine their supreme authority over what once were sovereign Countries, in my opinion!

As an act of retaliation the EU announced that as of 2009;
In a report released Thursday on visa requirements in breach of the principle of reciprocity,"the European Commission is proposing "retaliatory measures" that would force US diplomats to secure visas before entering EU countries". source:jtw@Reuters

According to Diplomatic law established by the Vienna Conventions, Diplomats are include in International law. As such they are exempt from obtaining a visa to travel to or within the Country they are assigned to by their government.

Formally, diplomatic immunity may be limited to officials accredited to a host country, or traveling to or from their host country. In practice, many countries may effectively recognize diplomatic immunity for those traveling on diplomatic passports.



If the EU goes through with their obvious violation of International law. I believe the USA should make the diplomats from he EU pay their debts and traffic fines that they incurred in the USA.

The bulk of diplomatic debt lies in the rental of office space and living quarters. Individual debts can range from a few thousand dollars to $1 million in back rent. A group of diplomats and the office space in which they work are referred to as a mission. Creditors cannot sue missions individually to collect money they owe. Landlords and creditors have found that the only thing they can do is contact a city agency to see if they can try to get some money back. They cannot enter the offices or apartments of diplomats to evict them because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act says that "the property in the United States of a foreign state shall be immune from attachment, arrest and execution" (28 U.S.C.A. § 1609).

Maybe it is time to revisit this policy if the EU wants to play "hard ball" with us!

IS OBAMA A MODERN DAY CHARLIE McCARTHY?

It is not unusual for the Secretary of State to precede the President when a European trip is planned. The Secretary of State attempts to smooth the ground and corrects any misconceptions that the leaders of the country and the Media have regarding foreign policy issues.
But when a candidate for president plans a trip to Europe, ostensibly to discuss foreign policy if he is elected. Why would a member of his campaign entourage have to speak about policy issues before he arrives?

Such is the case in Germany today, as we see that foreign policy adviser(one of 300) Susan Rice was interviewed by Der Spiegel about Obama's foreign policy.

Ms.Rice is no light weight when it comes to foreign policy, as her resume indicates, she is somewhat of a "wonk"!
"
In 2004, Rice took a leave of absence from Brookings to serve as Senior Advisor for National Security Affairs on the Kerry-Edwards campaign. Rice served President Clinton as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs from 1997-2001. From 1995-1997, Rice was Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council (NSC) and, from 1993-1995, was Director for International Organizations and Peacekeeping at the NSC. She is now an unpaid senior advisor on foreign policy to Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign".source:Wikapedia


Could it possibly be that Obama only shines when he has A TELEPROMPTER TO READ FROM, OR ARE HIS HANDLERS AFRAID HE WILL MAKE ONE OF HIS NOW FAMOUS FLIP-FLOPS FOR THE WORLD TO WITNESS? A perfect example of his problem with unscripted interviews is illustrated in this ABC interview:

"Yes, Obama's campaign is getting stirring visuals at every stop of his world tour. But his answers in the interviews are terrible,
Obama to ABC's Terry Moran:

Q: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?

Obama: No. Because, keep in mind that —

Q: You wouldn’t?

Obama: "Keep in mind, these kind of hypotheticals are very difficult. You know hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one I just disagreed with".


In Berlin, an inerview with Ms. Rice was held by Gregor Pter Schmitz of Der Spiegel. The following are excerpts from that interview.

SPIEGEL: What would be the major change in trans-Atlantic relations under a President Obama?

Rice: Obama would proceed from a fundamentally different premise than has been the case in recent years. Obama does not perceive Europe in terms of "old" versus "new." He thinks it would be counterproductive to kick Russia out of the G-8. He sees the world as more complex than simply good versus evil. He recognizes that we can only deal effectively with global challenges if we have 21st century partnerships that work -- partnerships based on shared values, common security and mutual respect, in which everybody does their part and pulls their weight.


SPIEGEL: You said Europeans have to "pull their weight." What would that mean exactly in terms of their contribution in Afghanistan? More troops?


Rice: Obama's view is that circumstances in Pakistan and Afghanistan pose the most dangerous threat to Europe and the US right now. Al-Qaida is regrouping and reconstituting their safe haven; the Taliban are gaining strength. Europe is closer to that threat than we are. Yet, we all have to take it very seriously. The US has to put more resources and troops into Afghanistan, and NATO should do the same, while -- to the greatest extent possible -- lifting operational restrictions.

SPIEGEL: Would that lead to disillusionment with Obama in Europe?

Rice: We must be honest in acknowledging that neither Germany nor the US has the luxury of assuming that we can skate by on half-measures in Afghanistan and Pakistan and not risk suffering the consequences.

I guess Ms. Rice has not advised Obama about the bombings in Madrid Spain in March of 2004 carried out by Moroccan terrorists. They killed 200 people!
Or the failed bombings by terrorist groups from Mesopotamia, linked to Iraq, in Glasgow Scotland and London, England in 2007.
But more importantly, she deliberately ignores Iraq involvement with Al Qaeda because of this statement by the Bush Administration.

"In an April 2007 speech, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, called AQI "probably public enemy No. 1" for U.S. forces. In the first seven months of 2007, President Bush highlighted the importance of defeating AQI more than forty times during public speeches. After years of near-constant attention from Washington, the group's ability to carry out attacks in Iraq appears to have been diminished in 2007, experts say. But AQI is not the only purveyor of violence in Iraq. By the end of 2007, AQI was one among dozens of groups contributing to Iraq's violence". Source: Washington Post 11/1`9/07


Expert estimates on the number of foreign fighters among Iraqi insurgent groups range from a few hundred to over 3,000. Total AQI(al Qaeda International) numbers have been estimated at over 10,000. Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Syria, and Yemen were among the top suppliers of non-Iraqi militants to Iraq as of September 2005, according to the most recent data from the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index (PDF). As of August 2007 between forty to sixty foreign fighters entered Iraq each month, though U.S. military officials say foreigners still account for the majority of suicide bombers. Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East specialist at the Congressional Research Service, writes (PDF) that AQI insurgents, along with other foreign fighters, "entered Sunni-inhabited central Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein, from the Kurdish controlled north" and elsewhere in the Middle East.

They also believe that supporters in the region, including those based in Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, provided the bulk of past funding. AQI has also received financial support from Tehran (despite the fact that al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization), according to documents confiscated last December from Iranian Revolutionary Guards operatives in northern Iraq. But the bulk of al-Qaeda's financing, experts say, comes from internal sources like smuggling and crime. Source: Council on Foreign Relations

Some one ought to tell Obama and his advisers that there are many terrorist threats inside our own country as well as has been proven true in England. A"peacenik"like him is a clear and present danger to the USA just as these Britons were to London and all the passengers flying to and from America!

8 'Plotted to Blow Up' 7 Airliners
"An Islamic terrorist cell plotted a suicide mission to blow up seven transatlantic airliners in mid flight, killing more than 1,500 passengers, a prosecutor charged yesterday as a trial began for eight men in London. The explosives were to be hidden in soft drink bottles and set off by detonators improvised from disposable cameras, reports the Guardian".So much for there being one main treat!

The New Republic Learned Nothing From Glass Scandal

“You want to make every pundit look bad? Then stand tall for what you believe. Don’t be shy. You want to stun the establishment? Then become a mighty force for conservative principles, and tackle the task with confidence and cheer... This may be a time of testing. But it’s not our swan song. Not by a long shot. Instead... this is our moment. This is the time to do what we do best—turn adversity into strength.” —the late Tony Snow

Mr. Snow was a man whom we could all trust to report the News as it really happened. But there were, and still apparently are, prevaricator's(liars) reporting to an unwitting public, news that is nothing but lies.

For the past seven and one half years, the leftist Media has daily tried to destroy The President. Their secular humanist philosophy has driven them, almost fanatically, to print negative slanted news about the Christian who occupies the Oval Office.
Their stories are not only negative reports, but many also incude fabrications to make the Bush administration look crooked and inept.

The New Republic endured the scandal of Steven Glass in 1998,although their subsribers hover around 100K. They had to admit that of the 41 published articles, that Glass authored, 27 articles were complete fabrications devoid of any truthful reporting.
Apparently they did not tighten up their "fact check" department, because now ten years later they have a "black eye" again, because of a lying writer who wrote an article called "Shock Troops" July 23 ,2007.

They can't say we haven't seen this before! Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a writer for the New Republic, has recanted his tales of American military savagery according to the Weekly Standard (source: Powerline)
"The Weekly Standard has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp--author of the much-disputed "Shock Troops" article in the New Republic's July 23 issue as well as two previous "Baghdad Diarist" columns--signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth," in the words of our source.
Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:
An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims".

According to the military source, Beauchamp's recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military's investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, "I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name."

Apparently Fiction has become fact when writers of the New Republic, and other newspapers and magazines make up their mind to destroy President Bush and the war effort he began in Iraq! Is there any wonder why circulations for all major newspapers has declined, and the big Network television stations are being turned off more and more everyday!

Don't take my word for it, just read what Wikapedia says about this scandal.
"The Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy concerns the publication of a series of diaries by Scott Thomas Beauchamp (b. 1983 St. Louis, Missouri) – a private in the United States Army, serving in the Iraq War, and a member of Alpha Company, 1-18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.[1][2]
In 2007, using the pen name "Scott Thomas", Beauchamp filed three entries in the The New Republic about serving at Forward operating base Falcon, Baghdad. These entries concerned alleged misconduct by soldiers, including Beauchamp, during the US post invasion Iraq involvement.
Several conservative publications and bloggers questioned Beauchamp's statements. The New Republic investigated the statements, first standing by the content of Beauchamp's articles for several months, then concluding that they could no longer stand by this material. A U.S. Army investigation had previously concluded the statements in the material were false".

For me.I stopped reading and watching the major news outlets long ago. The internet is a more reliable source if you don't mind spending the time to research.

ONLY FDR HAD SUCH MANAGED NEWS AS OBAMA

In 1932 When FDR ran for president he and his advisers worried about the impact of his disability, but it turned out to be an issue of no consequence. As a campaign issue it never surfaced during FDR's career.Perhaps it was because an already "leftist" press took no pictures showing him in his wheel chair or hobbling along on crutches.

FDR was anything but open or casual about his inability to walk. On the contrary, he wanted little or no mention of it, particularly any comment that conveyed weakness.
In short, FDR was extremely sensitive to any one's calling attention to his infirmity. His family made no mention of it except if some practical arrangements were to be made.And a willing newspaper corps accommodated his wishes!

"The press tacitly agreed to not take pictures of FDR in his wheelchair. When he was settled in his chair there would be lots of photos, but not before. Journalists, with whom he met regularly, never talked to FDR about the fact that he could not walk. It would have been rude to raise the topic with the president — or even to seem to be aware of his useless legs. In those days people had a different view of privacy, even when it came to public figures" source: Curtis Roosevelt

Appearing in public presented logistical problems for FDR. On such occasions, when the president had to put on his heavy braces, required planning. By swinging his hips, which pushed his legs forward, leaning on a cane with one hand and gripping the arm of a sturdy companion with the other, FDR seemed to be walking. Thus he was able to navigate the few steps to a podium or to greet official guests when protocol required him to stand.

Roosevelt knew instinctively that American voters did not need to know about his disability, and the Press co-operated!

Today we have much more media coverage of candidates for public office with 24 hour television , Newspapers and the ever growing power of Internet blogger.
The obvious positive spin that the major newspapers and network television is giving to Barack Obama is reminiscent of the coverage given to FDR.

Obama is shown playing basket ball with the troops in Kuwait, going to church in the South,and the almost adoring, treatment from the media compared with rival Democratic Senator Clinton in the primary debates.
As expected, Hillary Clinton agreed that Obama was getting preferential treatment from the media,especially from the late Tim Russert in the opening debate.

Then was Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who dominated news coverage for a few days when YouTube videos circulated of the reverends fiery sermons. But the MSM quickly consigned any further coverage of Wright to the trash can!.
When his wife Michelle made her infamous speech about "never being proud", the left came to her aid with statements that she was being unfairly picked on because she was a Black outspoken woman! And negative coverage of her evoked such replies as, "It is a bold-faced exercise in Conservative desperation and fear. It's a shallow, pathetic maneuver put forth by a shallow, pathetic right wing movement"!

A new study of primary coverage by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University shows Clinton and Obama had almost 70 percent favorable coverage of their personal narratives, while only 43 percent of McCain’s coverage was favorable.

And a October 31 release by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. Called “The Invisible Primary–Invisible No Longer,” during the first five months of 2007, Obama received by far the most positive coverage of any presidential candidate.

This new study follows a long line of media complaints that Obama has received reverential coverage from the press. Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz has claimed that the “walk on water coverage” of Obama “ranges from glowing to gushing,” Slate.com's Timothy Noah even started a feature titled "The Obama Messiah Watch.”


In a perfect world the Media would be totally neutral in their reporting. It is the obligation of the media to report, not make, public opinion. They can express their opinion on the editorial pages and segments, but not in the stories. This expectation should apply to all media from USA Today and CNN to the the city gazette in Podunk! Kind of reminiscent of the 40s when both FRD and a little dictator with a mustache got nothing but positive Press!

OPEN LETTER TO OBAMA SUPPORTERS

To those of you who think Obama is an anti-war zealot like you. I would like to submit a wake up call!
In Afghanistan today, Obama had this to say about bringing our troops home as you have demonstrated and insisted since the beginning of the primary campaign.

"Obama is a good person," said Abdul Basir, 40, a former army officer. "During his campaign I heard he was saying that if I become president I will withdraw the U.S. troops from Iraq and bring them to Afghanistan and I will attack on the terror center on other side of border (in Pakistan). It is very important and I appreciated that."

Surprise, the empty suit either betrayed you now that he has your primary vote, to capture the average American who believes we should finish the job before we leave Iraq, I remind you we are still in South Korea after over 50 years to honor a commitment!

In the presidential campaign against Republican rival John McCain, Obama has argued that the war in Afghanistan deserves more attention as well as troops. McCain has criticized Obama for his lack of time in the region. Obama is expected to stop in Iraq at some point during his tour.He then said this:
"I look forward to seeing what the situation on the ground is," Obama told a pair of reporters who accompanied him to his departure from Andrews Air Force Base on Thursday. "I want to, obviously, talk to the commanders and get a sense both in Afghanistan and in Baghdad of, you know, what the most, their biggest concerns are, and I want to thank our troops for the heroic work that they've been doing."

You would think that he would apologize to the troops for his lack of support until now when he needs to change his image for the "normal" American who doesn't live on either Coast or is a left wing zealot!

Tell me how you can equate obama with a "peacenik" when he says this kind of gobbly-gook! Obama advocates ending the U.S. combat role in Iraq by withdrawing troops at the rate of one to two combat brigades a month. But he supports increasing the military commitment to Afghanistan, where the Taliban has been resurgent and Osama bin laden is believed to be hiding."This is a war that we have to win," he said. "I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions — with fewer restrictions — from NATO allies.

"I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions."


It would appear his purpose in the previous statement was to deprecate President Bush and his opponent John McCain, but at the same time he reveals his duplicitous nature on the WAR issue.His opposition to the war in Iraq,and his call for an end to the U.S. combat role, helped him overcome his rivals in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination. Now he is singing a different tune!

A PERSONAL MESSAGE TO AL GORE!

To Mr.Al Gore,the Carbon Credit meister, you have been on a world tour speaking about the threat of Global Warming, while collecting exorbitant fess. Your spin is that we don't realize the evils of fossil fuels as they relate to Global Warming,But at the same time you are investing heavily in the Carbon Credit market.
The big surprise for all who have bought into Your slick distortion of scientific
evidence is based upon your claim that crude oil is a fossil. Please take the time to read what real scientists have to say about the origins and supply of crude oil.

If per chance you are interested in facts, keep reading, if not , then stop reading now! If you would like to learn about real research in the field of oil exploration and it's derivation, keep reading.

Russian scientists concluded that oil is a product of a hydrogen-carbon [H-C] system, in distinctly non-equilibrium states, composed of mixtures of highly reduced, hydrocarbon molecules, all of very high chemical potential, most in the liquid phase. As such, the phenomenon of the terrestrial existence of natural petroleum in the near-surface crust of the Earth has presented several challenges, most of which have remained unresolved until recently.

The primary scientific problem of petroleum has been the existence and genesis of the individual hydrocarbon molecules themselves: how, and under what thermodynamic conditions, can such highly-reduced molecules of high chemical potential evolve.

The scientific problem of the genesis of hydrocarbons of natural petroleum, and consequentially of the origin of natural petroleum deposits, has regrettably been one too much neglected by competent physicists and chemists; the subject has been obscured by diverse, unscientific hypotheses,( aka You Mr. Gore) typically connected with the rococo hypothesis that highly-reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high chemical potentials might somehow evolve from highly-oxidized biotic molecules of low chemical potential. The scientific problem of the spontaneous evolution of the hydrocarbon molecules comprising natural petroleum is one of chemical thermodynamic stability theory. This problem does not involve the properties of rocks where petroleum might be found, nor of microorganisms observed in crude oil.


Modern petroleum science, - or what is called often the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins, - is an extensive body of knowledge which has been recorded in thousands of articles published in the mainstream, Russian-language scientific journals, and in many books and monographs. However, effectively nothing of modern petroleum science has been published in the U.S.A., and this body of knowledge remains largely unknown in the English-speaking world.


The hypothesis that petroleum might somehow originate from biological detritus in sediments near the surface of the Earth is utterly wrong. It deserves note that Lomonosov himself never meant for that hypothesis to be taken as more than a reasonable suggestion, to be tested against further observation and laboratory experiment. The “biological hypothesis” of petroleum origins has been rejected in this century by scientific petroleum geologists because it is formidably inconsistent with the existing geological records “on the ground.” That hypothesis has been rejected also by physicists, chemists, and engineers because it violates fundamental physical law.

The scientific correction must be stated unequivocally: There have never been observed any specifically biological molecules in natural petroleum, except as contaminants. Petroleum is an excellent solvent for carbon compounds; and, in the sedimentary strata from which petroleum is often produced, natural petroleum takes into solution much carbon material, including biological detritus. However, such contaminants are unrelated to the petroleum solvent.

The claims about “biomarkers” have been thoroughly discredited by observations of those molecules in the interiors of ancient, abiotic meteorites, and also in many cases by laboratory synthesis under imposed conditions mimicking the natural environment. The claims put forth about porphyrin and isoprenoid molecules are addressed particularly, because many “look-like/come-from” claims have been put forth for those compounds

If liquid hydrocarbons might evolve from biological detritus in the thermodynamic regime of the crust of the Earth, we could all expect to go to bed at night in our dotage, with white hair (or, at least, whatever might remain of same), a spreading waistline, and all the undesirable decrepitude of age, and to awake in the morning, clear eyed, with our hair returned of the color of our youth, with a slim waistline, a strong, flexible body, and with our sexual vigor restored. Alas, such is not to be.
The merciless laws of thermodynamics do not accommodate folklore fables. Natural petroleum has no connection with biological matter.source M.S. Studier and R.Hayatsu

Although the modern Russian theory of abiogenic hydrocarbon origins is mostly unknown in the U.S.A., there is not space in this short blog to describe it. Thus it must suffice to state simply that the modern theory of hydrocarbon origins recognizes that petroleum is a primordial material erupted from great depth.


Because the modern theory of hydrocarbon origins recognizes hydrocarbons as primordial material erupted from great depth, the exploration process began with a detailed analysis of the tectonic history and geological structure of the crystalline basement of the Northern Monoclinal Flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin.

The exploration and drilling project(in Russia) which followed, resulted in the discovery and development of 12 fields with oil reserves equal to 219 million metric tons of oil equivalent,the major part of which is produced from the Precambrian crystalline basement. These petroleum fields have been discovered in a narrow strip approximately 30-35 km wide and 400 km long near the Northern Marginal Deep Fault where the oil and gas bearing rocks are Middle and Lower Carboniferous period sandstones and Precambrian granites, amphibolites, and schists of the crystalline basement complex. These results, taken either individually or together, confirm the scientific conclusions that the oil and natural gas found both in the Precambrian crystalline basement and the sedimentary cover of the Northern Monoclinal Flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin are of deep, and abiotic, origin.


In 1951, the Russian geologist Nikolai Kudryavtsev enunciated what has become the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins, a fundamental tenet of which is that natural petroleum is a primordial, abiotic material, erupted from great depth. Kudryavtsev was soon joined by many prominent Russian geologists, geochemists, geophysicists, and petroleum engineers who together developed the extensive body of knowledge which now forms modern petroleum science.

All chemical and analytical results favor an abiogenic origin for the concerned hydrocarbon in the upper mantle and/or along the rift and fractures in the plateau basalt in southern Syria.

Carbon and hydrogen, necessary for the formation of hydrocarbons, originated from the reactions Of CO2, CO, and H2O with catalysts, especially ferrous oxide and magnetite in mafic silicates (olivine and pyroxenes), at 230-500 C.

In conclusion Mr. Gore, you should consider this: With recognition that the laws of thermodynamics prohibit spontaneous evolution of liquid hydrocarbons in the regime of temperature and pressure characteristic of the crust of the Earth, one should not expect there to exist legitimate scientific evidence that might suggest that such could occur. Indeed, and correctly, there exists no such evidence.

Nonetheless, and surprisingly, there continue to be often promulgated diverse claims purporting to constitute “evidence” that natural petroleum somehow evolves (miraculously) from biological matter. These claims when subjected to scientific scrutiny, are demonstrated to be without merit, and dismissed.

The claims which purport to argue for some connection between natural petroleum and biological matter fall into roughly two classes: the “look-like/come-from” claims; and the “similar(recondite)-properties/come-from” claims.

The “look-like/come-from” claims apply a line of unreason exactly as designated: Such arguments that, because certain molecules found in natural petroleum “look like” certain other molecules found in biological systems, then the former must “come-from” the latter. Such notion is, of course, as absurd as asserting that elephant tusks evolve because those animals must eat piano keys.

The scientific correction must be stated unequivocally: There has never been observed any specifically biological molecules in natural petroleum, except as contaminants. Petroleum is an excellent solvent for carbon compounds; and, in the sedimentary strata from which petroleum is often produced, natural petroleum takes into solution much carbon material, including biological detritus. However, such contaminants are unrelated to the petroleum solvent.

The claims about “biomarkers” have been thoroughly discredited by observations of those molecules in the interiors of ancient, abiotic meteorites, and also in many cases by laboratory synthesis under imposed conditions mimicking the natural environment.
The scientific results reported here fall into two categories: (1), the discoveries of large deposits of commercially producible petroleum in geological environments which would be considered extraordinary (at least in the U.S.A.); and (2), the analyses of the chemical, bacteriology and paleontology investigations of that oil for determination of its origin.

In conclusion, team of scientists and engineers found that oil is not a ‘fossil fuel’ but is a natural product of planet earth – the high-temperature, high-pressure continuous reaction between calcium carbonate and iron oxide – two of the most abundant compounds making up the earth’s crust. This continuous reaction occurs at a depth of approximately 100 km at a pressure of approximately 50,000 atmospheres (5 GPa) and a temperature of approximately 1500°C, and will continue more or less until the ‘death’ of planet earth in millions of years’ time. The high pressure, as well as centrifugal acceleration from the earth’s rotation, causes oil to continuously seep up along fissures in the earth’s crust into subterranean caverns, which we call oil fields. Oil is still being produced in great abundance, and is a sustainable resource – by the same definition that makes geothermal energy a sustainable resource. All we have to do is develop better geotechnical science to predict where it is and learn how to drill down deep enough to get to it. So far, the Russians have drilled to more than 13 km and found oil. In contrast, the deepest any Western oil company has drilled is around 4.5 km.

So, Mr. Gore why do you continue to spread your lies about oil being one of the fossil fuels causing Global warming, except maybe because you have discovered that if you tell a lie often enough, many people will believe it! My suggestion is YOU STUDY THE AVAILABLE SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES THAT PROVE YOUR ATTACK ON OIL IS A CANARD SO HEINOUS AS BE UNPATIOTIC AND SELF SERVING!

Perhaps, Mr. Gore you have spent some time reading the following: "Considering that oil prices are likely to remain above $100 a barrel, the time for shock is over. Investors are now faced with an unprecedented opportunity to play the U.S. and Canada's new hottest oil stocks... several of which are poised to make 300% gains during 2008. Thanks to Pelosi and Reid's stonewalling, there is no drilling in our known oil rich areas!
SOURCE:GAS RESOURCES lINK

PELOSI SPEAKS ECONONSENSE

The question of whether to allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been a political football for every sitting American president since Jimmy Carter. Today it has become an issue of major importance to the stability of our economy and way of life.
With gasoline approaching the five dollar per gallon rate, Americans are beginning to experience decisions they never believed in their wildest dreams that they would have to make.Pay for gas to get to work, or buy quality food for themselves and their families.
In every grocery store around the world the price of food products, particularly grains like corn and rice have sky rocketed in price. Famine is raising it's deadly head in some parts of the world. This is criminal and sinful!

The causes of the rapid rise of oil in the past year are many,but one is because America has chosen to plow under millions of acres of wheat and other grains to plant corn for use in the production of bio-fuel.Ethanol has become at least 10% of each gallon that you pump into your car or truck tank when you buy the pricey gasoline.
The other main reason for the dependency and costly gasoline and diesel is the demand has far outpaced the supply. China, and India have growing economies and rapid growth in industry that demands crude oil products. The Chinese have captured leases fro Cuba, and many African Countries to drill or buy millions of gallons of crude oil to met their demand.
Meanwhile we here in America have experienced a population explosion. Some of it legal but at least 12 million are illegal. Thus ,instead of a country with 350 million people, we now have 300 million and growing daily.
The demand for food products and energy has grown each year while Congress has sat by doing absolutely nothing to help this once great country to become independent of OPEC1

There has been no oil refinery constructed for 36 years, and Congress has blocked drilling for oil in places which could have made us independent of OPEC. ANWAR and off shore oil deposits, plus the oil shale in the mountain states and Dakotas could make us oil independent, but our Congress has bought into Global Warming and other Ecology scares, and has refused to allow any drilling!

To put the argument for or against drilling I offer the following information courtesy of Wikapedia

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is just east of Prudhoe Bay in Alaska's "North Slope," which is North America's largest oil field. Currently, the Prudhoe Bay area accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production.[1] In 1987, and again in 1998, studies released by the United States Geological Survey have estimated that significant deposits of crude oil exist within the land designated as the "1002 area" of ANWR.[2][3]
Oil interest in the region goes back to the late 1960s. Since the 1979 energy crisis, the question of whether to drill for oil has become a hot-button issue for various groups. Most Alaskan residents, trade unions, Republicans, and several business interests have supported drilling in the refuge, while many ecologists, environmental groups, and Democrats have opposed it.


The last off shore oil spill occurred in 1969 off Santa Barbara, Ca., and the steady push to tap the potential reserves off the state's rugged coast had galvanized Californians and made opposition to offshore drilling part of the political DNA of up-and-coming figures like Pelosi.

She repeatedly resisted oil drilling in marine sanctuaries off the state's coast near her San Francisco district and, after joining the Appropriations Committee, was an advocate of reinstating the coastal drilling ban through spending restrictions each year.

Now, with gas prices soaring, those drilling restrictions are facing their most severe test in years as calls intensify to more aggressively pursue domestic oil. Yet despite increasing pressure from President George W. Bush, a full-bore assault by congressional Republicans and some anxiety among her own rank-and-file Democrats, Pelosi is not budging.

The self anointed "queen" of the U.S. House of Representatives has joined the Ecology zealots against the average American's call to Drill and Drill now!
A person who has a family fortune of over 25 million dollars an afford to thumb her nose at "Joe six-pack" as do most of the mega-millionaire Democrats in th Senate. Buying gasoline for their limousines is no problem financially for them. Nor is the rising cost of food real concern to them or their cooks!

She had the guts to say, "The President of the United States, with gas at $4 a gallon because of his failed energy policies, is now trying to say that is because I couldn't drill offshore," Pelosi said in an interview. "That is not the cause, and I am not going to let him get away it".

Somebody should try to bring this woman back from the other planet she lives on, and tell her that it is the main reason we are oil step-children to OPEC---NO DRILLING FOR OIL in places we know oil is in the USA! It is just that simple, start drilling and before the first spurt of oil comes out of the ground the oil sheiks will pump as fast as they can to take advantage of the high prices before they fall due to our output!

Representative John Boehner of Ohio,put it in plain English that any non-closed min d can understand,when he said; "the Democratic approach was woefully insufficient. He said Pelosi, in insisting on preserving the drilling ban, was putting Democrats in the cross hairs of voters furious about gas prices.
"I think Speaker Pelosi is walking her Blue Dogs and other vulnerable Democrats off a cliff and they know it," said Boehner, referring to the coalition of Democrats representing more conservative districts.
Boehner the Republican Congressional leader,is escorting a fact finding delegation to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge this weekend,

I encourage everyone who feels the squeeze on his income because of the high cost of fuel. To write, call, or email their Congressional representative and say just two words, "DRILL NOW"! And a few million bumper stickers withe "DRILL NOW" would help.

IF ANYONE DOUBTED MEDIA BIAS, IT SHOULD BE GONE NOW

“You want to make every pundit look bad? Then stand tall for what you believe. Don’t be shy. You want to stun the establishment? Then become a mighty force for conservative principles, and tackle the task with confidence and cheer... This may be a time of testing. But it’s not our swan song. Not by a long shot. Instead... this is our moment. This is the time to do what we do best—turn adversity into strength.” —the late TONY SNOW

This truly is the time of severe testing of the principles upon which this Country was founded. The secular-humanists have e all but denied evil as a force to be reckoned with, and banished God from all public places. Our own government has issued a NEW COIN WITHOUT THE WORDS, "IN GOD WE TRUST", FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OUR HISTORY!

Another historic event is the selection by the Democrat party of a man with the most liberal record in the U.S. Senate to be their candidate for president.A man with only two years experience in Washington, a great deal of that time spent campaigning for the Oval Office.
This empty suit has captured the main stream media's devotion for liberal causes. Their coverage of him has been almost savior like. Now in an overt demonstration of their loyalty to Barack Obama, all three major networks will be sending anchor persons to accompany Obama on his first trip to Iraq and Europe. You can expect wall to wall coverage of this desperate attempt to show that Senator Obama has a grasp of International politics. Brian Williams of NBC, Katie Couric of CBS and Charles Gibson of ABC will be in the entourage of political reporters from Newspapers and magazines.

The Tyndall Report has stated that the three major networks covered Obama 114 minutes to McCain's stingy 48 minutes in June of this year! Source: Tyndall Report

In Europe he will be welcomed by the people of countries that have already embraced the socialist type governments that Obamna proposes to take the USA.
But it is Iraq where the news will have to be carefully managed. The troops have read and heard of his disparaging remarks about their mission. These are not draftees, but volunteers who are in many cases on their second or third tours, because they believe in the mission they are executing.

The Generals have already been warned that Obama will not take their advice. He will listen, but has said repeatedly that he will begin withdrawing their troops once he inhabits the Oval Office. Even Matt Lauer had his liberal mind confused by Obama's switch, and asked:"throughout the primaries you did talk about this, this idea of getting U.S. troops out within 16 months of being elected and now you say, ‘Look I’ll talk to commanders and generals on the ground and my, my ideas are being refined.’ People do get nervous about that senator, you understand that"?

This from a man who wants to be president but apparently doesn't know that the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Armed Services does not control the war in Iraq, as this statement displays. “I’m going to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and give them a new mission, and that is to bring the war in Iraq to a close. We are going to get out.”

Not all Iraqi's want to be free of U.S. troops. The New York Times published an interview with an Iraqi official Saad Sultan, an man in the Iraqi government. He said during his travels in Germany, where there have been American bases since the end of World War II, softened his attitude toward a long-term presence. "I have no problem to have a camp here," he said. "I find it in Germany and that's a strong country".

As for Obama's plan for withdrawal, "It's just propaganda for an election"!
"Al Qaeda would rearrange itself and come back, if the Americans withdraw," said
Falah al-Alousy ,the director of an organization that runs a school in an area south of Baghdad that was controlled by religious extremists two years ago. "Former insurgents turned against the militant group, but local authorities still rely heavily on Americans to keep the peace; the Iraqi Army, largely Shiite, is not allowed to patrol in the area of his school".

THE IRONY OF EUROPEAN ELITE AND OBAMA

Henryk Broder, German Jewish author and provocateur who wrote"Hurray We Are Capitulating", said so eloquently three years ago in the newspaper Die Welt.

"Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program."
... "We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat (Tony) Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy." ...
"In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China."
"On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance" ... Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass."
Arrogance. And ignorance.

"Our enemies have learned that we have no stomach for confrontation. We have grown so content within our material success that we view all conflict as economic problems to be solved through concessions and compromise. Broder wonders what Europe and the West will sacrifice next for appeasement. Who will be the next Czechoslovakia -- France? Sounds to me as though he is a speech writer for Barack Obama's Campaign!


Where have we seen that attitude before? How about among our very own history with the reticence of President Bill Clinton to act(in 1996) when he was notified that the Sudanese were willing to capture and turn over to the Americans, Osama bin Laden!

There was little question that under U.S. law it was permissible to kill bin Laden and his top aides, at least after the evidence showed they were responsible for the attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. The ban on assassinations -- contained in a 1981 executive order by President Ronald Reagan -- did not apply to military targets, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had previously ruled in classified opinions. Bin Laden's Tarnak Farm and other terrorist camps in Afghanistan were legitimate military targets under this definition, White House lawyers agreed. And yet Clinton and his "chums" choose to pass on the deal that would have saved many thousands of lives in my opinion!


Despite , and probably because of, this concept of appeasement that has swept over too many Americans. Barack Obama has been applauded and lauded, by the Left,for his detailed plan of "not listening to the generals in Iraq" even before he has made his first "campaign" stop in Country!

Obama made that statement before his entourage has left for Iraq. In his statement, He reaffirmed his commitment to an arbitrary 16 month time-table for withdrawing combat troops. Yet in typical chameleon style, he also claims he will listen to the generals.

The two positions are not congruent if the generals tell him that such a time-table is a mistake. Once again the Change artist reappears.
And as if that were not enough to make people realize that the megalomaniac in the empty suit thinks he can talk US out of harms way, I submit this quote from Glenn Johnson's article of July 16th.
"Our enemies have learned that we have no stomach for confrontation. We have grown so content within our material success that we view all conflict as economic problems to be solved through concessions and compromise. Broder wonders what Europe and the West will sacrifice next for appeasement. Who will be the next Czechoslovakia -- France?


Perhaps this type statement from the presumptive next President will give credence to the previous attitude.
Democrat Barack Obama warned Wednesday about the danger of "fighting the last war" as he pledged to focus on emerging nuclear, biological and cyber threats if elected president.
Two goals of his administration would be to secure all loose nuclear material during his first term and to rid the world of nuclear weapons, Obama told an audience before a roundtable discussion at Purdue University.

"Obama said adhering to nonproliferation treaties would put pressure on nations such as North Korea and Iran. North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon and Iran has an energy program the Bush administration warns could be a precursor to nuclear weapon development.

"As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy," Obama said" source: Breitbart.com.


It has to be either pure arrogance or stupidity to believe he or any president could rely on an agreement with either the Communists in China and North Korea, or with Islamic terrorists to disarm the nuclear weapons the all hope will some day destroy the bastion of freedom in the World!

This man is more dangerous than a loose cannon on the decks of a rolling ship!

SENATOR REID IS NO "CHICKEN", HE IS A JUDAS

When next you fill your car, an it costs from 60 to 70 dollars, just remember that you are being betrayed by the Democrat Congress led by the modern day eqivalent of Judas, Senator Harry Reid.

You don't have to be an economist to understand the impact of supply and demand to understand the affect that passing a bill in Congress that would allow drilling off shore and in ANWAR, would have on the psyche of the Arab oil cartel.

Currently they have a grip on our collective necks that is sucking the breath of our economy out of America. Because of the dependence on a diminishing supply of crude oil in the Arab countries, and an increasing demand occurring in so called "developing" countries like China, India and Brazil the speculators and hedge funds have been able to bid up the price of oil to it's present punitive levels.

This makes the Arabs happy, because they are reaping a harvest of wealth from the high price, and the neo-communist Ecology zealots are happy because their dream of destroying our economy is working!
Doubt me, and check the cost of food products, and everything else from your utilities bill to the cost of propane gas to use in your back yard barbecue.

The Arabs, would be given a startling wake-up call, if Congress passed a bill allowing unlimited exploration and drilling for oil here at home. They would anticipate that in five years the flow of oil from our own oil wells would reduce their strangle hold on us to zero, and would begin pumping more oil to take advantage of the high prices while they last.
Venezuela would soon follow suit, as would all other oil producing countries, and the price would plummet! Speculation would dry up and the arbitragers would have to find another commodity to exploit!

Manu Raju,of The Hill wrote the following story for The New Media Journal that explains why I call Senator Reid a "Judas". He is selling out Americans for his "thirty pieces of silver"from the Ecology zealots!

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said Monday that he would not allow a vote on an amendment giving states new authority to seek oil off their coasts when he brings a Democratic energy bill to the floor later this month.

In a sign of escalating tensions, one senior GOP senator called Reid a “chicken” for deciding not to allow amendments on energy production, prompting a Reid spokesman to say that “name calling won't lower the price of oil and gasoline.” Reid criticized President Bush’s announcement earlier in the day to rescind a longstanding executive order banning offshore oil drilling, saying it was a gift to the oil companies that are not exploring for oil in 68 millions of acres available to them.

Republicans are now pressuring Democrats to rescind a congressional moratorium prohibiting the practices and give states the option to decide whether to allow drilling off their coasts. However, Senate Democrats rejected those calls on Monday. “We want oil and gas companies to drill on the leases they’ve been given,” Reid said. He added that oil companies should report to Congress their activities on their leased land and said Congress will invest in renewable energy by pushing through a stalled package of expiring tax incentives".

Democrats blame market speculators on oil industry futures for playing a role in propping up energy prices, and are drafting a bill targeting the practice, which will be unveiled Wednesday. But if they just passed a bill authorizing drilling in ANWAR and OFF Shore, they speculators would be out of business in very short order.

"When the Senate votes on that bill, as soon as this month, Reid said he would not allow amendments dealing with oil drilling, which the Republicans will almost certainly seek...Republicans support targeting speculators as well, but have called for a broader energy package that would also boost domestic production"...Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM)

Obama is a Ward Politician Masked as Presidential Caliber

Today's media-driven politics has eclipsed machine-driven politics, such as were prevalent in Chicago, Boston and New York in the 60's. This was obvious because It became increasingly difficult to get into homes and apartments to talk about candidates. High-rises were tough if not impossible to campaign, and other parts of cities had become too dangerous to walk around in for hours at a time.
Because people didn’t want to answer their doors, political candidate became increasing dependent on TV, radio, direct mail, phone-banking,and robocalls.

These new campaign methods cost a lot more money than patronage workers, who were themselves in decline,because of anti-patronage court rulings. Instead of a large army of ward heelers dragging people to the polls, candidates need a small army of donors to pay for commercials. Money replaced bodies as the currency of big city politics. This new system became known as “pinstripe patronage,” because the key to winning was not rewarding voters with jobs but rewarding donors with government contracts.All the more reason why this Country needs term limits for all elected positions. If it is good for the President. Why not for Senators and Congress persons?


E. J. Dionne, Jr., of the Washington Post, wrote about Obama's Change(aka), transition in a 1999 column after Daley was reelected. Dionne wrote about a young Barack Obama, who artfully explained how the new pinstripe patronage worked: a politician rewards the law firms, developers, and brokerage houses with contracts, and in return they pay for the new ad campaigns necessary for reelection. “They do well, and you get a $5 million to $10 million war chest,” Obama told Dionne. It was a classic Obamaism: superficially critical of some unseemly aspect of the political process without necessarily forswearing the practice itself. Obama was learning that one of the greatest skills a politician can possess is candor about the dirty work it takes to get and stay elected.

In a perfect example of the "Change" Obama's willing to make in his own positions to satisfy his thirst for power. During his U.S.Senate campaign, Mr. Obama joined in a “Walk for Israel” rally along Lake Michigan on Israel Solidarity Day. The Crowns and other Jewish leaders raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for him. Several days before the primary in 2004, some of his Jewish supporters took offense that Mr. Obama had not taken the opportunity on a campaign questionnaire to denounce Yasir Arafat, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, or to strongly support Israel’s building of a security fence.
But in a sign of how far Mr. Obama had come in his coalition-building, friends from the American Israel Political Action Committee, the national pro-Israel lobbying group, helped him rush out a response to smooth over the flap.
In an e-mail message, Mr. Obama blamed a staff member for the oversight, and expressed the hope that “none of this has raised any questions on your part regarding my fundamental commitment to Israel’s security.” Mr.Ali Abunimah has written of running into the candidate around that time and has said that Mr. Obama told him: “I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping that when things calm down I can be more upfront.”

Abunimah emphasizes that no partition is ever going to be acceptable to a majority of Israelis and Palestinians (e.g., few Palestinians in the occupied territories would accept Israeli annexation of even the largest Israeli settlement villages
The Obama camp has denied Mr. Abunimah’s account. Mr. Khalidi, who is now the director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University, said, “I’m unhappy about the positions he’s taken, but I can’t say I’m terribly disappointed.” He added: “People think he’s a saint. He’s not. He’s a politician.”


In another example of Obama tepid patriotism, was his reaction to the dastardly attack 9/11/01. It was luke warm at best. He conclude with words that betray his internationalist philosophy as apposed to a true patriot like McCain.
"We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.
We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores".source: The New Yorker

You will notice that there is not one word about religious zealotry or fanaticism in his explanation of why this attack happened!

Like many politicians, Obama is paradoxical. He is by nature an incrementalist, yet he has laid out an ambitious first-term agenda (energy independence, universal health care, withdrawal from Iraq). He campaigns on reforming a broken political process, yet he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game. He is ideologically a man of the left, but at times he has been genuinely deferential to core philosophical insights of the Right!

Another sign of Obama's deceptiveness is the way he has had a unwillingness to condemn the corruption scandals in Illinois, ensnaring Daley and Blagojevich, both of whom he supported for reelection. Do people want this man to be our president?

Musings on Leftist Writers And Bloggers

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.

I can't help but notice that Right(CONSERVATIVE) bloggers are defending the legacy of Tony Snow, but Left bloggers are trying to call him another loser "flack". I'm also noticing how some have blamed Fox for the legs on Jackson's ridiculous gaffe about Obama.
One lefty blogger has repeated the litany of Righties guilt all the way up to the president of FOX, Roger E. Ailes. I've always noticed that dozens of folks who don't bother to lookup Hayek still can't figure out what a semi-intelligent writer( I do have a doctorate) such as myself does following the marching orders of Bill O'Rielly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. The fact is that I don't, but that doesn't stop the guilt by association.And the incumbent personal attacks!
For those who are not familiar with Hayek;

Friedrich August von Hayek, May 8, 1899 – March 23, 1992) was an Austrian-British economist and political philosopher known for his defense of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought in the mid-20th century. He is considered to be one of the most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century. He also made significant contributions in the fields of jurisprudence and cognitive science. He shared the 1974 Nobel Prize in Economics with ideological rival Gunnar Myrdal "for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena."He is considered to be one of the major forces of change from the dominant interventionist and Keynesian policies of the first part of the 20th century back towards liberalism after the 1980's. source:Wikapedia

What I've figured out, "is that the Left associates dissent from its rose colored glasses policy of social experimentation, as stupidity". The least educated people seem to have the most diverse group of political discussion mates, whereas people with graduate degrees, Phd's, are the least likely to talk politics with people who disagree with them. I can testify to how easy it is for conversation among academics, the most educated group of people, to turn into a one-position echo chamber. Liberalism is taken to be an IQ test, and the rare conservative is encouraged to be quiet or go elsewhere!
And sorry to say, but my Alma mater Northwestern University has morphed into a left wing think tank that allowed Arthur Butz to remain a professor in good standing after he lauded Iran's president for his Holocaust denial.


BUT THEN AGAIN, NU's position is no more bizarre than that of the left wing writer's candidate for president, Obama. Last week: He pledged to revitalize the Clinton Doctrine for dealing with terrorists—treat. "Treat terrorism as a criminal matter".
In regard to Obama’s plan for overall military preparedness, it just gets worse.
“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”

This year, both our sea-based SM-3 and ground-based midcourse defense system missiles proved to be successful. The U.S. Bureau of Arms Control concluded in May, “The ballistic missile danger to the US, its forces deployed abroad, and allies and friends is real and growing.”
Obama also, in addition to his pledge to abolish missile defense, said "I will not weaponize space.” Memo to Senator Obama: Our current policy is not to weaponize space, but I would not trust Russia not to do it if they can!