AMERICAN YOUTH YOU ARE BEING HUSTLED!

A National survey in 2000 showed that although 71 percent of high school students planned to attend a four-year college, only 52 percent of parents thought their children would make it. And high-school teachers expected only one-third of their students to go to four-year colleges.
Teachers salaries eat up approximately 85% of most school board budgets, so the main job they have is to prepare their students with cognitive minds that prepare them to either enter college or the work force. Which apparently, the teachers believe will happen to more than 66% percent of the students that pass through the four years in the school they control.

The end result is that each year we spend more tax dollars on education, and more high schools pass a greater percentage of their seniors, but the SAT grades and number of students that make it to the 2nd year of college is decreasing proportionally. It would appear that educational standards, and results have produced a dumbed down generation of high school graduates. Basic reading writing and math scores are lower than ever compared with many foreign countrys, and those that go on to graduate from college are full of sociological knowledge, but often times cannot put a properly structure sentence on paper!

This is a problem for employers who hire people with college degrees,and expect them to perform well, but it also is a national problem in that too many college students are brain washed in leftist ideology to appreciate or understand what this Country really has to offer them in the way of freedom and opportunity if they are willing to put in the effort.

That is why, in my not so humble opinion, I think Obama is so popular with the college types. Obama's rhetoric is promising, and signifies the "change" college students look forward to in their lives. Idealistic and inspiring!
The problem is that too many of his supporters don't comprehend what the change will have attached to it. The demands, and mandates that accompany Obama's plans for Americans have not been elucidated by his handlers.
Pie in the sky platitudes, and promises of social programs like universal medical care, clean air, and peace all are ideals we aspire to, but are we willing to pay the price. Especially when hidden beneath all the "goodies" Obama promises US, is the redistribution of wealth . Not only in our Country, but internationally to Africa, and the issue of reparations to Blacks has also been raised.

Government makes no money! It exists and functions on the backs of taxpayers, and every new plan Obama promises will add to the over 600 billion dollars spent today on welfare programs that is 300 billion more than we spend on defense. The big bad "bogey-man" of the Socialists!

An example of the sleight of hand that the Obama campaign has perpetrated on the uninformed public is his stance on drilling in ANWR and off shore to reduce our dependence on OPEC oil.
Despite his recent flip-flop on drilling in the USA, because of poll numbers showing that over 70% OF AMERICANS FAVOR DRILLING.

Obama has led a one-man crusade to keep the American people ignorant about what is at stake in the debate over off-shore drilling". In 2005, he voted to kill legislation that would have measured our offshore reserves. That effort failed and a preliminary inventory report was produced in February 2006.

Obama, not finished in his opposition to the public understanding about the amount of oil under USA soil, did not give up in his efforts to keep the public ignorant. In January 2007, he proposed legislation to eliminate the authorization to conduct the inventory, as established in the 2005 law. Obama's bill is S. 115. The key provision is section 101(a)(5). It provides that "Section 357 (42 U.S.C. 15912) (relating to comprehensive inventory of OCS oil and natural gas resources)" is "repealed as of the date of enactment of this act." It's my understanding that Obama is the only sponsor of this legislation.

Americans don't realize that the Obama campaign is constantly sending out famous Marxist slogans, Which are instantly understood by the radical Left, including Obama's supporters in the Black Liberation movement. Then Senator Obama tells the oil companies to send a thousand dollars to each American, playing the anti-capitalism card that the Marxists love so much. It's all part of the "Audacity Of Hustle". The phrase, "Knowledge is Power" is one that is acting out in reverse in the Campaign for Preisdent!

THE DEMOCRATS "ROBINHOOD"

On Thursday July 18,2007 Obama introduced his social welfare program,he plans to implement if elected to the presidency, to the Press. The following is a quote from the Washington Times.

"The government has spent $11 trillion on the war on poverty since it was declared by President Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964, said Robert Rector, senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation. In 2004 federal, state and local governments spent $583 billion, or 5 percent of the gross domestic product, on food, housing, medical and targeted social services for the poor, Mr. Rector said.
Mr. Obama's plan to replicate successful urban youth programs would greatly expand the federal government's role in helping the nonprofit groups that now operate them."

He vowed to pass a plan that he outlined last year to provide more financial support to unwed fathers who help raise their children and crack down on fathers who don't, and to help new mothers by expanding the Nurse-Family Partnership, which offers home visits by registered nurses to low-income mothers and mothers-to-be. He would also spend $1 billion over five years in jobs programs that place unemployed workers into temporary jobs and then train them for permanent ones".My question is where will he find the jobs for the unskilled?

The Illinois senator said he would spend about $6 billion annually, with his first task being to replicate in 20 cities such successful child and youth development programs as the Harlem Children's Zone in New York City and the Town Hall Education, Arts and Recreation Campus in the District, where he outlined his plan.
"I'll be honest, it can"t be done on the cheap. It will cost a few billion dollars a year." Once again by more taxation!

After explaining that his involvement in poverty programs was not new. He said he had been involved for 25 years in poverty plans in Chicago,but didn't reveal that his associates were known anarchists!

Perhaps the most ambitious feature of his plan is his promise to raise the minimum wage automatically every year by tying it to the cost-of-living index. This could raise the cost of a "Big Mac" to $5.00!
In addition, Mr. Obama said he would create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund dedicated to adding as many as 112,000 units annually in mixed-income neighborhoods and ensure that capital for inner-city businesses is available using a national network of business incubators.
Throughout his speech, Mr. Obama attempted to solidify his centrist position by chastising Democrats for defending programs enacted by Mr. Johnson's Great Society that they knew to be "ineffective" as well as for ignoring the role of absent fathers and inner-city crime in the persistence of poverty. It is an old bromide of Marxists to say Communism failed because they did not do it right!
At the same time, he criticized Republicans for not valuing such investments in youth and working families. Perhaps they were trying to leave some money in the middle class taxpayers pocket

"The right has often seized on these failings as proof that the government can't and shouldn't do a thing about poverty — that it is a result of individual moral failings and cultural pathologies, and so we should just sit back and let these cities fend for themselves," he said. Sounds like Marx or Lenin to me!


"And so Ronald Reagan launched his assault on quote-unquote welfare queens, and George Bush spent the last six years slashing programs to combat poverty, and job training, and substance abuse, and child abuse." Senator, they also made the economy work, and raised tax revenues by incentive to do more work for less taxation!

What does his extremely liberal leadership mean for America?” The answers are beginning to show themselves. Obama’s campaign theme is “change.” Voters, if he’s elected president, we may all be working for “change,” pocket-change.
“I believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change,” Obama has asserted. He also says his faith has led him to question “the idolatry of the free market.” Now it appears that a President Obama’s foreign and domestic policies are much like his previous church’s Afrocentric doctrine he once pledged to uphold. Americans will pay a hefty price. It’s not too hard to figure that trading Iraq for third-world countries tips the scale in the wrong direction.
The Global Poverty Act, Senate Bill S.2433 sponsored by none other than Obama. If l passed in the Senate in September, Barack Obama and the U.N. may well be on their way to having their hands in the U.S. taxpayer pockets.
This bill requires the president to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to advance a foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day. It also includes guidelines for what the strategy should include -- from foreign aid, trade, economic development and debt relief to working with the international community and leveraging the participation of businesses and nongovernmental organizations.
All the objectives are noble goals, but eliminating World poverty is a job for all nations including China, Russia, Brazil and the EU. None of these countries has stepped forward to tax their citizens more than they are already to accomplish Obama's goals.
Also, the proposals in his campaign platform, if implemented would put a tremendous tax burden on the already heavily taxed American taxpayer!

This is blatant Socialism on a global scale that Obama is advocating. If you don't believe me, read the statement of a well known and respected economist who has taken the position that Obama is a danger to the USA.


"Edgar K. Browning, professor of economics at Texas A&M University, has a new book aptly titled “Stealing from Each Other." Its subtitle, “How the Welfare State Robs Americans of Money and Spirit," goes to the heart of what the book is about. The rise of equalitarian ideology has driven Americans to steal from one another. Browning explains that certain kinds of equality have been a cherished value in America. Equality under the law and, within reason, equality of opportunity is consistent with a free society. Equality of results is an anathema to a free society and within it lie the seeds of tyranny".

Most economists agree that income is closely related to productivity". SOURCE:WALTER WILLIAMS

LOST BEFORE IT IS FOUND

While most people are struggling to try and balance between buying gasoline for their car and groceries for the family. The female Pontius Pilate of the U.S.Congress,last Friday, turned the lights out in the Congress and left for her sanctuary in Sodom and Gamorra by the bay.
While she washes her hands of the peoples problem with high fuel costs, the Senate is approaching the point of approving one of the most threatening pieces of legislation, that our freedoms and Independence as a Republic has faced in many years.

The LOST treaty if passed, will not only give away our sovereignty , but will make it possible for one of the Worlds most corrupt and ineffective organizations to extract millions of dollars of "tribute" in the form of international taxes for oil which scientists say lies beneath the seas off shore and in the Arctic.

You will excuse me for burdening you with statistics, but I believe that if the American public knew what the Congress, and apparently President Bush intend to burden the USA public with. They would be marching on Washington in such numbers that the million man march would look like a girl scout gathering!


Douglas Stone, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy, warns that, “LOST fostered the idea, per se, of international organizations with increasing transnational jurisdiction. Its bureaucracy will be nourished by royalties on mineral extraction and provide a model for similar agencies to assume authority and impose taxes and to inexorably devour American institutions and autonomy.”
Can you imagine gifting the United Nations with $50 trillion in Arctic oil taxes? That is what the U.S. Senate proposes to do if it ratifies LOST.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr., president of the Center, reminds us that, “If Americans have learned anything about the United Nations over the last 50 years, it is that this ‘world body’ is, at best, riddled with corruption and incompetence. At worst, its bureaucracies, agencies and members are overwhelmingly hostile to the United States and other freedom-loving nations…”

For more than a decade, the United Nations International Seabed Authority (ISA) has never produced a single commercial minerals harvesting operation despite having unfettered access to all the world’s great oceans resources.

The United States, however, needs more oil now. In addition to Congress having put vast reserves in Alaska’s ANWR off-limits, it has done the same for exploration and drilling in 85% of the nation’s continental shelf.

The solution to America’s present oil crisis lies in part in the Arctic Commons and, in particular, the Amerasia-Canada basin that holds the promise of huge oil reserves for centuries to come.

A dangerous scramble for the oil and gas reserves between Russia and the West can be avoided and, more to the point, the U.S. will lose its entire future commercial and energy security by signing onto LOST. Meanwhile, Democrat leaders in both houses of Congress have already rejected President Bush’s July 14 effort to end a 25-year moratorium on drilling in most coastal waters.

The Democrat controlled Congress is either insane, treasonous, or both. Its presumptive candidate for President wants to repeat Carter’s appalling windfall profits tax on oil companies. The ultimate result was a nearly 60% reduction in U.S. oil production.

As the Bloomberg News report noted, “The region above the Arctic Circle also holds an estimated 1,669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, equal to 27 percent of the world’s known gas reserves, according to the U.S. Geological Survey report. “Contributors to the data included the Geological Survey of Canada, the U.S. Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service, the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, the Cambridge Arctic Shelf Program, and researchers in Denmark and Greenland. No Russian institutions took part in the study.”

At a time when nationalized foreign oil companies control more than 70% of the world’s energy resources, private enterprise is the only answer to our national energy security. The largest transfer of wealth in history is occurring and it bodes ill for the United States. We dare not compound this travesty by failing to take steps to ensure access to the Arctic Commons vast reserves.

Call, write, fax and email your Congressional representatives telling them to vote against LOST, or you will vote for anyone but them the next time they are up for re-election. source: Canada Free Press

DO NOT LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN

In the children's movie, The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy finally gets to meet what she thinks is the Wizard of the Emerald City.
But all she sees is a projected image on a screen with a voice. Disappointed in the charade she looks about to find the source of the voice. She sees the curtain moving, and moves to look behind it. Before she can see what or whom is behind the curtain, a voice shouts out, "do not look behind the curtain"!

There is an strange similarity with that statement and the way the handlers of Obama are presenting their anointed.
Even the MSM has failed to look behind the curtain of the facade that Obama has presented to the electorate.Both have portrayed their candidate a a middle of the road uniter who will Change our government for the better!
They are short on details about just how he will accomplish all the socio-economic changes he is promising, but his record in the Illinois legislature demonstrates just what a leftist, racist this man is.

The following quote is from Stanley Kurtz's Book "Barrack Obama's Lost Years"
"Important though it is to Obama, the crime issue runs a distant second to his deepest passion: social welfare legislation. "Big government liberal," "redistributionist"-call him what you like, Obama's fondest hope is to lead America into another war on poverty. Everything in his state-legislative career points in this direction, and Obama calls for a renewal of expensive national anti-poverty programs in his book The Audacity of Hope. True, Obama's promotion of government partnerships with private-sector housing contractors (like Antoin "Tony" Rezko) was supposed to open up novel, post-Great Society solutions to the problem of poverty. Yet, as a devastating Boston Globe report on Obama's Illinois housing policy recently showed, the results of Obama's new war on poverty are just as counterproductive as those of the old war on poverty. Neighborhoods supposedly renovated now lie deserted by the private developers who took Obama's government handouts and ran-quickly building or renovating housing units, but failing to maintain them.

Race and crime issues excepted, Obama's Illinois legislative career as covered in the newspapers essentially boils down to a list of spending measures. Many of Obama's proposed expenditures were tough to oppose. Because he was working under a Republican majority for the bulk of his time in the Illinois State Senate, Obama became a master of incrementalism. His pattern was to find the smallest, most appealing spending proposal possible, pass it, then build toward more spending on the same issue. An Obama bill exempting juvenile prisoners from paying for nonemergency medical or dental services isn't something you'd want to vote against. Obama's small, targeted spending measures tended to pass and to be followed by more: Obama called for a $30 million youth crime prevention package; Obama requested additional funds to expand the regulation of electrical utilities; Obama asked for $50 million over five years to overcome the "digital divide"; Obama proposed to fund anger management classes for children age 5-13; Obama ran for Congress promising to restore federal block grants to pre-Republican levels, and so on.

Don't be confused by the smooth talk, this is nothing but a tax and spend liberal with Marxist and racist leanings who would lead this country down the path toward anarchy!

DRILL NOW IS THE ISSUE!

QUEEN NANCY Pelosi, who has repeatedly slammed the door on new drilling as an answer to high gas prices, rushed Thursday to clarify comments to reporters that appeared to hint at new flexibility on an issue that has pitted environmental concerns against the need to respond to consumer pain with gasoline at $4 a gallon. “It could be that in the bigger picture of things, as things go together it may be that it has a place,” Pelosi said in an end-of-session round table with reporters. “Whether it’s for coal, for natural gas or whether it’s for nuclear...If it fits into the bigger picture, it may have a place.” And, asked if she could envision a scenario where there could be a vote on new offshore drilling, she said, “Of course.” But shortly thereafter, Pelosi’s office issued a written “clarification” stating that Pelosi was not changing her position. “She has no plans to bring to the floor a bill to allow drilling in protected areas,” spokesman Drew Hammill said in the statement. “The Speaker was referring to the issue of expanding supply. Drilling, no doubt, will be part of the mix in transitioning to a more fuel-efficient global economy.”...On Thursday, [Republicans] detected a shift from Pelosi’s insistence, voiced earlier this month, that “we can’t drill our way out” of soaring fuel costs. “It’s clear her spinners are backpedaling,” said House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (FL). source New Media Journal

So the U.S. Congress adjourned Friday at 11:36 a.m. ,and proceeded to turn out the lights and the microphones on the Republican Congressman who were arguing the merit of drilling for oil off shore and in ANwR to end our dependence on OPEC oil!
It became so dark in the "people's house: that C-Span discontinued it's normal full coverage of the proceedings of the House. Thus the Democrats actually allowed "Queen" PELOSI TO DERAIL THE Republicans ATTEMPT TO AFFECT SOME RELIEF FOR THE American PUBLIC THAT IS HAVING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN PAYING FOR FUEL OR BUYING GROCERIES FOR THEIR FAMILY!
And now they have the Chutzpah to go home and tell their constituents that they should be re-elected because, they are doing their best for them!!

ATTEMPTING TO DEAL WITH THE DEVIL!

The United States, the UN and the Group of Six have repeatedly enacted articles of embargo against Iran for failing to halt their development of nuclear weapons.

The international community is hoping that new sanctions on Iran will turn the country away from its nuclear program. An economic embargo is, perhaps, the last chance for peace. But can it work?
"On the one hand, formulaic diplomacy is being strictly adhered to. His Excellency, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union, Dr. Javier Solana, recently presented to his Iranian counterpart, Manucher Mottaki, the latest offer from the so-called group of six nations, consisting of the three European powers Great Britain, France and Germany, as well as China, Russia and the United States. The goal is international cooperation in determining the true purpose of Iran's nuclear program".source: Der Spiegel

United States has maintained a trade embargo on Iran since 1979, and the United Nations Security Council, at the instigation of the group of six, has imposed further economic sanctions three times. Only last week, the Europeans froze Iranian assets and imposed travel prohibitions on Iranian politicians,scientist and military officials.

I believe, the World has two choices to affect the cessation of Iran's quest to become a member of the nuclear bomb "coterie". The apparent preference of the majority of the countries involved in the attempt to halt Iran's resoluteness to develop a bomb to annihilate Israel and any European country they choose, is diplomacy and embargoes.

There are many of us who believe talking in convincing and persuasive terms to the devil, is an exercise in mutual masturbation. It makes us feel good, but the results are non-productive. Changing the mind of a zealot is impossible! Despite this the International community is still talking to Iran!
Dr. Javier Solana, recently presented to his Iranian counterpart, Manucher Mottaki, the latest offer from the so-called group of six nations, consisting of the three European powers Great Britain, France and Germany, as well as China, Russia and the United States. The goal is international cooperation in determining the true purpose of Iran's nuclear program". Source: Der Spiegel

I believe that unless we destroy the Iranian capacity to produce nukes, they will develop and use nuclear weapons as surely as President Truman did against Japan!

The Iranian leadership has made it clear that they intend to destroy "the great Satan", the United States and Israel. There can be no doubt that the mind set of the Iranians is the devastation of what they consider is the epitome of evil sooner or later.
And from the news we received from Kuwait recently, they are stepping up production not halting it despite all the embargoes enacted.

The reason the embargoes have little chance of working is money! German and Russian companies are still selling infra-structure materials for hundreds of millions of dollars with the "blessing" of their governments, despite the fact that they have signed agreements embargoing Iran.
Banks are also complicit in this subterfuge of the embargo as the following quotes will show.

The assets of Bank Melli Iran were frozen as a result of the EU sanctions imposed on Iran. This should have put an end to their business dealings with Iran."

"Contracts in Iran represent a very significant part of some German business, partly because of the Nabucco pipeline, which is being built to supply Iranian natural gas to Europe beginning in 2013 and make the continent less dependent on Russian gas. "The restriction imposed on Bank Melli forces them to create jobs in Dubai or Kuwait, and then deliver their products to Iran through those countries,".
Not unlike off shore banking for drug lords!

Bank Melli Iran, which is fully owned by the Iranian government, is the country's largest commercial bank, with about 45,000 employees and 3,000 branches worldwide, and total assets of €38 billion ($59 billion US).
The bank handles transactions for much of the overall German trade with Iran. Despite the restrictions in Germany, however, the bank is not yet completely out of the picture. Bank Melli's Moscow branch continues to process transactions, including, as is rumored, those originating in Germany. Melli also has seven branches in the United Arab Emirates, the most popular alternative gateway for international business with Iran.
As recently as 2006 Germany, with exports worth $5.2 billion (€3.35 billion), was one of Iran's key trading partners. But the pressure exerted by the United States had already begun to take effect in recent years. In 2007, German exports to Iran declined to $5.0 billion. This illustrates that greed and the quest for money trumps agreements between nations". Source: Der Spiegel

For this and many other reasons, I say to all of you who are concerned about the opinion of the USA by Europeans, is a joke. They are too absorbed in self to give a damn about us until they want something, or need help to ward off enemy threats.
Germany is a perfect example of national betrayal to a fiend(USA).

We have maintained bases that spent millions of dollars in the German economy for over 60 years. The military was left there to protect them from the Communist USSR after the Berlin airlift saved them from starvation. We could pull out our military and leave their effete military to shift for itself, but as an ally we maintain a military presence to keep Europe safe from the Russian Bear who is once again beginning to flex it's muscles.

In a show of appreciation they have sent 1000 troops to North Afghanistan , not to fight the Taliban, but to build superstructures! They have been given orders not to engage in combat unless they are attacked! This while our men and women are putting their lives on the line where the battle rages!

It is time for all Americans to realize that we stand alone as the Worlds super power and bastion of freedom, and quit trying to make deals with the Devil!

CALL OFF THE TALKS WITH TEHRAN!

Obama backs Bush-Iran engagement
CHICAGO (RTRS): US presidential candidate Barack Obama said President George W. Bush’s decision to send a senior diplomat to nuclear talks with Iran was a substantive move and should be taken seriously by Tehran. Obama, a Democrat, has been highly critical in the past of Bush’s policies toward Iran and has promised that if elected he would pursue a policy of greater engagement aimed at persuading Tehran to abandon its nuclear enrichment program. But in a rare signal of solidarity with the current Republican administration, Obama told a news conference in Paris on Friday that Iran should not wait for the next US president to try to reach a deal over its nuclear program. He also praised Bush’s decision to send senior US diplomat William Burns to talks in Geneva with Iranian officials.


Then this news made both Bush and Obama look stupid! from the Kuwait News the following quote was published today,
"‘Secret N-plant discovered at Al-Zarqan area’
KUWAIT CITY : A secret nuclear bomb manufacturing center at Al-Zarqan Area in Al-Ahwaziya Region, which was first established in 2000, was discovered recently, highly reliable sources told Al-Seyassah. Sources from Al-Ahwaziya claimed Tehran has started building a secret nuclear plant for manufacturing atomic bombs in Al-Zarqan Area near Al-Ahwaz City in southwest Iran and its border with Iraq. Sources said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is not aware of this plant since it was not included in negotiations with Iran held in Geneva at the beginning of this month. Sources revealed Iran started implementing the project some time between 2000 and 2003, which led to the evacuation of a large number of Arab tribes from the area to Al-Zarqan. Sources added the Tehran administration vacated the location, destroyed all the houses, wells and farms, and started full implementation of the project in 2007"

This facility has been constructed during the period 2000 and 2003 unbeknown to the International Atomic Energy Inspectors, who were directed to other sites where nuclear centrifuges and apparent peaceful use of atomic energy was taking place.

The new from the "Arab Times" indicates that hundreds of tribal people were removed from their home, and the homes destroyed to make room for the construction which is near the Iran/Iraq border in a remote location.

The Kuwait News Disclosed that Tehran directed international A-bomb inspectors to other places, sources warned the project poses a very serious threat to international security. Sources affirmed the Iranian authorities built a three-meter high wall around the project site, which allegedly measures thousands of kilometers.
Sources added, "IAEA inspectors focused on other Iranian nuclear plants, such as Dour Khawain in Al-Ahwaz and Bu Shahri reactor, because the Iranian government diverted the international media’s attention from the secret nuclear plant. Sources asserted the Iranian government is currently working on another nuclear program touted to be more dangerous than Bu Shahri".


This should be a clear indication that something other than talk, talk, talk, must be done before the first nuclear bomb goes off in a U.S. city! If not a military action, at least a total embargo by all free nations( cannot expect Russia or Communist China to co-operate) of all goods and services should be immediately implemented. And the envoys designated as diplomatic negotiators should be recalled immediately.

If Iran gets their nuclear weapons. The Cuban missile crisis would look like a tea party compared with the peril that would pose to the USA and all of Europe!

ARE REPERATIONS A PLANK IN OBAMA'S PLATFORM?

Barrack Obama has proposed increasing every major Federal tax. He supports increasing individual income tax rates, allowing the Bush tax cuts, which cut rates for all income levels, to expire. He has proposed almost doubling the capital gains tax rate, from 15% today to 28%. He supports more than doubling the tax on dividends, from 15% to as high as 39%. He has proposed numerous corporate tax increases. He supports increasing the death tax back to the stratospheric levels that applied before President Bush. He supports increasing the payroll tax on higher income earners. In other words, if you run a profitable small business, you can expect to be plundered by the Obamanistas from every angle. If you work for a small business, you can expect to be looking for another job.


"As the hypnotic mantra of "change" is repeated endlessly, few people even raise the question of whether what few specifics we hear represent any real change, much less a change for the better. Raising taxes, increasing government spending and demonizing business? That is straight out of the New Deal of the 1930s. The New Deal was new then but it is not new now. Moreover, increasing numbers of economists and historians have concluded that New Deal policies are what prolonged the Great Depression:. source: Thomas Sowell

On top of all the programs that Obama promises voters he will do if elected president, is reparations one of his "hidden" agenda items?
This article illustrates a mind set that is predisposed to Reparations that has been rearing it's ugly head occasionally in the Halls of Congress by the Black Congressional leadership.

Obama Calls US History ‘Tragic’
Laurie Au, The Honolulu Star Bulletin
"Sen. Barack Obama, speaking to a gathering of minority journalists yesterday, stopped short of endorsing an official US apology to American Indians but said the country should acknowledge its history of poor treatment of certain ethnic groups. "There's no doubt that when it comes to our treatment of Native Americans as well as other persons of color in this country, we've got some very sad and difficult things to account for," Obama told hundreds of attendees of UNITY '08, a convention of four minority journalism associations. The Hawaii-born senator, who has told local reporters that he supports the federal recognition bill for native Hawaiians drafted by US Sen. Daniel Akaka, noted other ethnic groups but did not mention native Hawaiians when answering a question about his thoughts on a formal US apology to American Indians. "I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged," the Democratic presidential hopeful said. "I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the US government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds." Sounds to me like he is talking about monetary deeds!!!

Just one more reason why this country cannot afford to let this Marxist get his hands on the power of the Presidency!!!

THE STRANGE SIMILARITIES OF 1933 AND 2008

Democratic candidate for president, Senator Barrack Obama's campaign slogan is strangely similar to that of two men who came to power in the early 1930's.
FDR and Adolph Hitler both came to power at a time of economic hardship for their country. One became the President who was re-elected three times. The other took power by becoming a dictator!

FDR implemented the "New Deal" which put people to work on many government programs developed by the NRA, declared a bank "holiday", closing all banks. Thus stopping a "run" on the banks by people who feared the banks would fail.
Adolph built the Autobahn, convinced women to leave the work force and return to their role as mothers in the home. He also put all the men to work by rebuilding a military that had been destroyed by the Treaty at Versailles.Both made promises of returning their country to greatness!

Hitler essentially was a product of the German culture that he was raised into, that stands out as particularly aggressive and racist. He came to power at a time when people were so anxious for someone to take control over the chaos and madness of the economic and social scene, that the German people did not think about the consequences of letting someone like Hitler have that much power. The German culture molded Hitler into the man he was and the social and economic situation of the 20’s and 30’s enabled him to come to power.

Hitler came to power due to a combination of many different reasons. However a skilful historian can say that the backbone of Hitler’s rise was based on the great economic instability of the time, which enabled Hitler to exploit the situation, and the craftiness of the backstairs intrigue.

I am not trying to asociate Obama with either FDR or Hitler, but it is surpisingly similar that the three men were all demagogues with charismatic speech ability. Promises made by Obama's "Change" would cure all our ills as well as those of the world we live in. When in Berlin last thursday he promised to address many issues including nuclear disarmament, global warming, poverty and many other utopian issues we humans desire for better conditions for all of humanity. He speaks of the longing for strong and dynamic presidents who are capable of acting on a global scale. He sounded as if he were running for president of the world.

He dreamed of a world without nuclear weapons. He established a new tenor on the issue of climate change, which he said the current US administration continued to deny even existed until only recently. "Let us resolve that all nations, including my own, will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere." "The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand." Or even better: "We will reject torture". "We must come together to save this Planet".
But he did not mention what sacrifices people of his country and the Germans would have to submit to in order for him to accomplishs his promises.

This is where the similairty to the two other leaders of their country were strangely similar> FDR's promises and the things his New Deal resulted in resulted in a deepening of the depression he said he would resolve. Only WWII and the military industrial complex that was necessary to beat Hitler, pulled our economy out of the depression.
In Hitler's case, his promises and oratory of a Greater Germany resulted in the complete destruction of his country, and only the Marshall plan saved Germany from extinction!

Do we want another slick orator who has minimal experience in economics, and military ignorance to occupy the Oval Office during a time of war? source: Wikapedia

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!