Time To Take Away NEA's Tax exempt Status

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHY CHANGE NOW OBAMA?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federalist 57 Is Still Appropriate

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

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

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

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

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

The following is an fragment excerpted from Federalist 57:

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

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

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

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

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

Unmasking Al Gore's CO2 Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source for this article: Human Events

Media Bias Bares It's Ugly Teeth

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

We Need Labels Designating Country Of Origin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WILL OBMA BE A GOOD MILITARY LEADER?

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

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

The Maunder Minimum and Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source for both quotes is the "Patriot Post".

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

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

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

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

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

You Will Pay For Candidates Promises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Takes A Page Out Of History

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

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

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

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

Obama is nothing less than a very slick progressive Socialist!

Obama the New Messianic Symbol to Many

Note to non-Catholics: You won't like this blog!


Apparently there are followers and the majority of the MSM that believe Barrak Obama is the best example of Liberation Theology since Jesus walked on the the Earth. The youthful "minds of mush" that cheer at every word uttered by this "man of change" illustrate a messianic fervor not unlike a new convert to Liberation Theology. A relatively new form of Christianity. The promises he makes are very much like those espoused by the New Liberation theology.
It is not incognizable that young people would gravitate toward a man who espouses a change.
These young voters are at the period of their life where they are of a mind to reject all that their parents and established organizations, including government and the Church, stand for. It is the rebellious nature of youth expressing itself, and it is the mantra of most college and university professors that teach them. But why so many adults?

What does this man have to offer other than platitudes of change. A man who attends a church in Chicago that has as it's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright ,Jr., an avowed Black racist who has a masters degree in Theology with emphasis on Islam. Has traveled extensively in the Middle East with Louis Farrakhan, and had this to say about his race:
"We are an African people, and we remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization." Not we are African Americans who are first Americans and then Blacks who are proud of our heritage!
Unfotunately this sounds strangely similar to the slogans of La Raza and many illegals parading through our streets to demonstrate their solidarity against our rule of law. It is axiomatic that a lust for "Change" is a common feature of revolutionaries. Maybe that is why you will find a Cuban flag and poster of Che Guevra in Obama's campaign headquarters in Houston, Texas.

But I digress! Over and over again, Obama invokes his double mantra: "It's time for change!" and "Yes, we can!" This sounds very scarey to me. Change for change sake is not a good thing, and an advocate for change without naming the specific changes he/she will make is very frightening. We have had in the last seventy five years too many tyrants who preached change for the common good. Pol pot, Hitler, Chairman Moa, Lenin, Stalin and Marx are but a few that came to power or prominence by proclaiming the need to change. They changed the lives of those they ruled in ways that only the anti-Christ would be proud. Never the less the one thing he will not change is the unfettered continual aborting of unborn and partially born babies. He is and always will be for abortion rights!

Perhaps Obama has good intentions, but you cannot decide if his intentions and the way he will change our lives, by anything he has said or done in the past.
The man is an enigma, a "preacher" type who wants to rule the free world from the oval office with promises of a repeal of tax cuts, and if need be, increased taxation to accomplish his socialist programs like universal health care.

In the minds of his "followers", hope is interpreted as "confidence in the.future" and as working for the future and thus is subordinated once more to the history of class conflict. Pope Benedict XVI had this to say about those who promise that government will provide for people that for which is reserved to God.
"The liberation theologians emphasize very strongly the partiality and partisan nature of the Christian option; in their view, taking sides is the fundamental presupposition for a correct hermeneutics of the biblical testimony. Here, I think, one can see very clearly that amalgam of a basic truth of Christianity and an un-Christian fundamental option which makes the whole thing so seductive: The Sermon on the Mount is indeed God taking sides with the poor. But to interpret the "poor" in the sense of the marxist dialectic of history, and "taking sides with them" in the sense of the class struggle, is a wanton attempt to portray as identical things that are contrary.
The fundamental concept of the preaching of Jesus is the "Kingdom of God". This concept is also at the center of the liberation theologies, but read against the background of marxist hermeneutics. According to one of these theologians, the Kingdom must not be understood in a spiritualist or universalist manner, not in the sense of an abstract eschatological eventuality. It must be understood in partisan terms and with a view to praxis. The meaning of the Kingdom can only be defined by reference to the praxis of Jesus, not theoretically: it means working at the historical reality that surrounds us in order to transform it into the Kingdom.
"Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic." Pope Benedict XVI

And just for those Catholics whom have already forgotten the words of Pope John Paul II, about those who espouse the philosophy that man can do for his fellow man what he believes is reserved to God alone. He said this: " I also believe a person that talks like a communist, acts like a communist, associates with communist, praises everything communist, might just be a communist, independently of whether he/she uses a uniform or a robe, and even if he/she would throw in 10% or so of biblical related terms in their speeches."
The Pope(john Paul) believed that the Church should operate primarily in a spiritual dimension and that social change and public attitudes would be a consequence of the growth of that spirituality.
From what I have heard in the political speeches made by Obama. He is offering a Marxist change that is diametrically opposed to the frame work and meaning of our Constitution. He is nothing less than a "preacher of Socialism!

A Civics Lesson For Potential Voters

My mother and father used a truism that I will never forget, when they told me not to pass judgement on people at first glance. They said:"You can't judge a book by it's cover"! What they meant, was to like or dislike people by observing their words and actions, not by how they looked , what clothes they wore or the color of their skin.

It takes a while to determine the quality of a man or woman, and their actions and record of their actions speak volumes about what kind of person they are.

This can be translated very easily into the judgement of whom a person would like to lead his/her Country. What have they done to warrant the position of leadership, what do they stand for: not what are they promising, should influence your choice.

In the prelude to the Presidential election we have been deluged with articles about the campaign promises, and little has been said about the actual records of the three major candidates still in the race. Today's Patriot Post has an excellent article about the two Democrat candidates that are full of promises for what the government will do for those who vote for them. In his article Cal Thomas points out the fallacy of the policies and programs that both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama promise during their campaign speeches. The important issue is that what they promise is unlike many other campaign promises. They will deliver if elected, not promise and forget! The italics are added by me for emphasis.

“[Barack] Obama [has said] the top priority of the next president should be the creation of a more lasting and equitable prosperity than achieved under Presidents Bush and Clinton. Obama apparently missed the class that teaches government doesn’t create prosperity; people do. During [a recent] debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama said he would pay for his proposed new programs, including mandatory health insurance, by imposing higher taxes on ‘the wealthy’ and raising the tax on Social Security wages. He added, ‘What we have had right now is a situation where we’ve cut taxes for people who don’t need them.’ Should government determine how much money people ‘need’? This is Marxism: ‘from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.’ Sen. Clinton expressed similar sentiments on ABC’s ‘This Week’ when she said if people refuse to buy health insurance under her plan she might garnish people’s wages.

One reason this socialistic mind-set resonates favorably with many is due to the shift in the last half-century from promoting hard work, self-sufficiency, marriage, personal responsibility and accountability and living within one’s means, to a mentality that I am entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor. That used to be called robbery before government started doing it more than a century ago through the income tax. How many politicians today talk about looking out for one’s self, not relying on government?” —Cal Thomas

Both Democrats are advocating a shift in this Country's government toward socialism. Does the senior body politic want their hard earned social security benefits taxed to help pay for the hordes of illegals that will surely pour into our Country if the Democrats win?

Does the average worker who makes over 30 thousand dollars a year realize that in the minds of Socialists like Hillary and Obama they are the rich from whom they intend to take more of the honestly earned income either by increased taxation or if Hillary has her way by garnishment?

Don't people realize that Senator Clinton is talking about invoking ,if necessary, a deed which is a corner stone of anarcy! Confiscation through garnishment to make her Socialized health plan work, is nothing less than advocating the begining of anarchy. It takes more than a village to live through what she will bring to government if elected to the oval office.

Obama is mimicking Hillary"s Socialist agenda, and has little to show for his two years in the US Senate. He has sealed his record in the Illinois Legislature, so that is not available for scrutiny. But his selection of a Church with a radical anti-white Pastor is of concern, not only to me but his handlers, who keep him away from the campaign. He is a handsome smooth talker, but is this what we want to stake on the future of Our Country? I think Not!

Whose Side Is Pelosi On?

The self annointed "Queen" of The House of Representatives is back on her "hobby horse" again. Yesterday while being interviewed by "chicken little" Wolf Blitzer, she said that the Iraq war is a total failure and the "surge" has failed.
The media is reporting that she had this to say:
"Pelosi (D-Calif.) said twice Sunday that Iraq “is a failure,” adding that President Bush’s troop surge has “not produced the desired effect.” Ms. Pelosi’s comment came during a discussion of her call for “the redeployment of our troops out of Iraq.”
I assume she feels that the British handing over the security control of Basra to the Iraqi's is one of the "failures" to which she is referring.

Apparently the leaders of alQaeda in Anbar province don't share this egomaniacs feelings about the "surge"! Martin Fletcher of the London Times had this quote from one of two letters discovered that were written last November by al Qaeda leader Abu-Tarig to another leader in Balad, north of Baghdad.

“I am Abu-Tariq, emir of the al-Layin and al-Mashahdah sector,” the author begins. He goes on to describe how his force of 600 shrank to fewer than 20.
“We were mistreated, cheated and betrayed by some of our brothers,” he says. “Those people were nothing but hypocrites, liars and traitors and were waiting for the right moment to switch sides with whoever pays them most.” In a later part of the 16 page document he said this:

"This created weakness and psychological defeat. This also created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight. The morale of the fighters went down. There was a total collapse in the security structure of the organization.”
The emir complained that the supply of foreign fighters had dwindled and that they found it increasingly hard to operate inside Iraq because they could not blend in. Foreign suicide bombers determined to kill “not less than 20 or 30 infidels” grew disillusioned because they were kept hanging about and only given small operations. Some gave up and went home.

Apparently Ms.Pelosi feels she has to beat the "defeatest war drum" to help deflect the fact that the Democrat party is in the middle of a "cat fight" between the Obama and Hillary Clinton campaign cadre that could possibly split the party in half.

Apparently she doesn't comprehend the fact that the voting public trusts her and her Congressional conspirators less than they do the President according to the latest polls. Nor does she apparently read the intelligence reports from Iraq that are available to her as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Perhaps she just chooses to ignore them as do her Leftist co-horts and "fellow travelers" in the Media!


The the words above are not from al-Qaeda's enemies, but of one of its own leaders in Anbar province — once the group's stronghold. They were set down last summer in a letter seized during a US raid on an al-Qaeda base near Samarra in November".

NPT Nothing But Trash?

It would appear from the latest news from Pakistan, Iran, Jordan, Egypt and Morroco that the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty is nothing more than the equivalent of toilet paper!

The Bruni Times reported yesterday that Iran has begun construction of it's second nuclear power plant near the border of Iraq in the city of Darkhovin in the province of Khagistan. They previously built their first nuclear reactor in Busher, and purchased the complete fuel supply for it's operation from Russia. With the annonced launching of a space missle this month, even the Deputy Russian Foreign minister Abasder Losyukov was quoted as saying "he was suspicious of Iran's atomic program's real nature".

At the same time Pakistan announced that it is building it's third plutonium enrichment facility with Communist China's help. Their first reactor was operational in 1998 and they tested their first nuclear device in 2006!

Pakistan has promised King Abdulla II of Jordan that they(Pakistan) will help them constuct a nuclear power plant. Egypt and Morrocco have signed agreements with France to build a nuclear reactor, and Saudia Arabia allegedly has similar plans, so much for UN non-proliferation!

With recent reports that Mulla Omar, the one eyed cleric, and Bin Laden are hiding in the Pakistani border city Quetta, there are suspicions that not only was al Qaeda resposible for the murder of Benazir Butto, but that Pakistans weapons, including nuclear wareheads, will fall into the hands of terrorists if the present government falls.

The bombing of a hotel by a suicide bomber in a hotel in the city of Peshawar that killed 25 and seriusly wounded 30 people had the signs that al Qaeda was resposible for the bombing. After the blast, a leg was found of the suicide bomber with the letters written in indelible ink" this will be the fate of American spies".

A notorious al-Qaeda leader named Baitullah Mehsud was named by Pakistan’s Government last night as the mastermind behind Benazir Bhutto’s assassination.
The security services intercepted a call from Mehsud yesterday morning in which he “congratulated his people for carrying out this cowardly act,” Brigadier Javed Iqbal Cheema, the Interior Ministry’s spokesman, announced in the Middle East Times release yesterday.

Further complicating the nuclear proliferation is this story from the Sunday London Times: "An investigation into the illicit sale of American nuclear secrets was compromised by a senior official in the State Department, a former FBI employee has claimed.
The official is said to have tipped off a foreign contact about a bogus CIA company used to investigate the sale of nuclear secrets.
The firm, Brewster Jennings & Associates, was a front for Valerie Plame, the former CIA agent. Her public outing two years later in 2003 by White House officials became a cause célèbre.
The claims that a State Department official blew the investigation into a nuclear smuggling ring have been made by Sibel Edmonds, 38, a former Turkish language translator in the FBI’s Washington field office".

And if that is not enough to get your attention, at the same time Dutch authorities are reporting that Abdul Qadeer Khan, a nuclear scientist, had stolen nuclear secrets from a Dutch Uranium plant in 2004. He allegedly has sold these secret documents to Iran, North Korea and Lybia!

The result is that North Korea tested it's first nuclear bomb in 2006! Will Iran, Lybia and the rest of the oil rich nations of the Middle East join the "nuclear weapons club"?
Why is this not newsworthy in US papers and television?

Hold Your Nose And Vote For "R"

By now the anger and frustration of most Conservatives has begun to subside. There are many who will contemplate sitting out this election, saying their beliefs and principles won't allow them to vote for either candidate in November.

To them I say, remember when you jumped into the water for the first time? You held your nose and did it because you knew you had to do it. Well, if need be, hold your nose and vote for the Republican. Because the election of Hillary or Obama is too frightening to contemplate. I will remind you of just a few reasons why we cannot stay at home on election day!

"A Clinton administration would move this country to the far left in four years, complete with a defunding of the military and the intelligence communities while abdicating much of our country's sovereignty to the United Nations when it comes to global policy. As was the case under the first Clinton administration, terrorism would be relegated to a matter of “law enforcement.” source: Frank Salvato of New Media Journal

A Clinton administration would continue the corruption and liberalization of the whole of the Executive Branch (the State Department, the Justice Department, the Pentagon, etc.). It would continue to encourage the State Department to embrace its one-world, globalist policies, policies that have usurped the Constitution by ignoring the authority of Executive Branch under the Bush administration. This usurpation is acomplished by the hands of many Bill Clinton appointees. We will also see a continued politicalization of the Justice Department as foes of the Clintons are scrutinized while their allies and benefactors go unprosecuted for their malfeasance – both financial and criminal.

A Barack Obama Administration Has too many negatives to contemplate for this Country. But I will list a few:
We have no actual record on which to judge Barack Obama (he destroyed his records from when he was an Illinois State Senator and he hasn’t done anything of substance in the US Senate) so we have to judge him at his word and deeds, that is an offer of a Change. But change has two side of the coin! Not all change is good!

Obama would be extremely weak on the global war against radical Islamism. He has stated that he would remove US forces from the field of battle in Iraq within 90 days of being sworn in, even as we stand at the brink of victory in the Iraqi theater.

Obama has parroted the very same “change” mantra – a false promise of hope – which Bill Clinton advanced in 1992, again without actually advancing a substantive policy or platform. This demonstrates that he is untested in his leadership and willing to use the tools of political opportunism to achieve his personal goals. Promises at election time are usually broken when elected. As this record from the Illinois legislature indicates:
" On June 11, 2002, Obama’s vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child welfare office.
Shortly afterward, Obama chastised Republicans for their “sanctimony” in claiming that only they had the mettle to make tough choices in a tight budget year. And he called for “responsible budgeting.”
A fellow Democrat suddenly seethed with anger. “You got a lot of nerve to talk about being responsible,” said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.
Obama replied right away. “I understand Sen. Hendon’s anger. . . . I was not aware that I had voted no on that last — last piece of legislation,” he said.

Source: Chicago Tribune

Perhaps most disturbingly, he has advanced a racial element in his presidential campaign that exhibits a willingness to divide in order to conquer, a most despicable trait in any politician. If white candidate tried using racial statements in his campaign the Media would demand an apology and possible sanctions.

Further, his deeds, statements and silence on select issues present serious questions about his ideology. The radical, afro-centric tenets of his church, Trinity United Church of Christ and it's Pastor Rev. Wright, have never been adequately examined by the main stream media. Couple this with the fact that the leaders of the radical Islamist movement – Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, could at any time issue a fatwa against Obama for, not only being a Muslim apostate, but for being a Muslim apostate and aspiring to be the leader of “the Great Satan,” the United States of America, and you have a boat load of troubling situations that most certainly cast a shadow on his candidacy". And what would we do if a fatwa was issued after he was elected?

We have no alternative as Conservatives but to vote for McCain in November if he is the nominee. Staying home is not an option!

A Radical Change Just Occured

It is appropriate at this time of the pre-election speeches and campaign promises to keep in mind the words of the man I believe was the greatest Conservative American President, Ronald Reagan. He had this to say about diplomacy and the use of force:
“We must be ever willing to negotiate differences, but equally mindful that there are American ideals that cannot be compromised. Given that there are other nations with plausabile and probable hostile design, we recognize that we can reach our goals only while maintaining a superior national defense, second to none.”
With that in mind I ask this question. Who do we have still in the campaign for the nomination of President, of either party, who represents this type of thinking?
Unfortunately the only candidate we had, who this blogger can trust the words coming out of his mouth, Mitt Romney, has just quit the good fight. He has withdrawn from the race for President. First we lost Hunter than Thompson, now Romney is gone!

We all know that Hillary and Obama are anti-military despite their platitudes of support for our troops. Hillary and her husband hated the military, and proved it by slashing budgets and troops personnel in all areas.
Obama was against the war in Iraq when all other Democrats including Kerry and the Clintons supported the invasion of Iraq.

Although McCain is considered a veteran Hawk. I remember his speech on the floor of the Senate during the brief conflict in Somalia, when he demanded the withdrawl of our troops from Somalia. In this Case he may have been right!
In his announcement of his withdrawal from the Republican race Romney had this to say:
"Let us consider the greatest challenge facing America—and facing the entire civilized world: the threat of violent, radical Jihad. In one wing of the world of Islam, there is a conviction that all governments should be destroyed and replaced by a religious caliphate. These Jihadists will battle any form of democracy—to them, democracy is blasphemous for it says that citizens, not God shape the law. They find the idea of human equality to be offensive. They hate everything we believe about freedom just as we hate everything they believe about radical Jihad.
To battle this threat, we have sent the most courageous and brave soldiers in the world. But their numbers had been depleted by the Clinton years when troops were reduced by 500,000, when 80 ships were retired from the Navy, and when our human intelligence was slashed by 25%. We were told that we were getting a peace dividend. We got the dividend, but we didn’t get the peace. In the face of evil in radical Jihad and given the inevitable military ambitions of China, we must act to rebuild our military might. Raise military spending to 4% of our GDP, purchase the most modern armament, re-shape our fighting forces for the asymmetric demands we now face, and give the veterans the care they deserve!
Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child’s play. About this, I have no doubt".

God help us if the Democrats win in November. I don't like or respect a man who co-operates with the enemy, as did McCain with Feingold, Lieberman and Kennedy, but he is the only one left with the will to lead this Countries fight agianst Radical Jihadism. Vote: McCain!!!!

Who Is In Charge Of Foreign Relations?

"The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States, as mentioned in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S. Department of State, are "to create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community." In addition, the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs states as some of its jurisdictional goals: "export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; measures to foster commercial intercourse with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad; International commodity agreements; international education; and protection of American citizens abroad and expatriation."Source: Wikapedia

American foreign policy has been the subject of much debate, criticism and praise both domestically and abroad, and I choose to throw a little more coal on the debate fires.

Recent activity, or I should say, lack of activity in the ongoing war-like situation in Lebanon indicates that we as a Country seem to be loosing the battle for the hearts and mind of the Lebanese.

The following excerpts are from the Feb. 6, 2008 issue of TheMiddle East Times.

"Indeed after the momentum of the spring 2005 revolution, it really looks like the West has given up on Lebanon and left the anti-Syrian forces in the mud. This trend has been quite clear in the past few months. Even after 29 terror attacks (since October 2004), targeting anti-Syrian personalities (mostly journalists and politicians), believed by many analysts to have been ordered by Damascus, the West is giving a free pass to the regime of Bashar Assad.
All the more mind-boggling is that recently Western targets have been victims of Syria's terror policy, according to some intelligence analysts. UNIFIL forces stationed in Lebanon have been murdered and on Jan. 15, a U.S. embassy vehicle was targeted. One would think that the West would react accordingly to attacks on its citizens, by retaliating with force or diplomacy. But nothing....
On the contrary, in the past year, Syria has been very much courted by the West, from U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to the Belgians, Italians, Spanish, Germans, and lately the French. In fact, the Nicolas Sarkozy administration was put in charge, by its allies (most notably the United States), to deal with the Lebanese situation and in particular the selection of the next president in Lebanon".

History should have taught Nancy Pelosi and Western European powers that engaging a regime like Assad's does not work;( you can't bargain with the devil)on the contrary it actually emboldens them.

Syria has now adopted an even tougher stance. Assad can be really satisfied with his strategy. He did not concede anything, he publicly humiliated France and he showed that he was a key partner who broke out of his prior isolation.

Last week, in Washington, a courageous Shiite leader, Ahmad al-Assad, who is vehemently opposed to Hezbollah, clearly summed up his frustration when he rightly pointed out that Damascus and Tehran are being given a free pass. Critics of the regimes in Damascus and Tehran say, "These two dictatorial regimes actually feel no Western pressure whatsoever for their role in spreading chaos, blood and mayhem in Lebanon. So why should they stop?"

If the West is serious about winning the war against radical Islam, Lebanon is a key battle that should be fought. The Lebanese people deserve no less, and least you forget, the real player in Lebanon is Iran. They have established a close relationship with the Lebonese Shiite movement Hezbolla.

Iranian supplies missles to Hezbollah, either by sea or overland via Syria, this is well known. U.S. government officials say the current conflict also indicates that some of the rockets in Hezbollah’s arsenal — including a 220-millimeter rocket used in many deadly attack on Israel were made in Syria.

President Bush has apparently shoved the Lebanese problem to the back of his mind.

After years of berating Damascus, the sudden silence regarding Syria in President George W. Bush's final State of the Union address was deafening.

Syria is already looking ahead to the post-Bush years, hoping to convince the next U.S. administration that perhaps in return for the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel in the 1967 war, and a free hand in Lebanon, Damascus would be willing to scrap its alliance with Tehran.

A Democratic victory in November will seal the fate of not only Lebannon but Israel in my opinion!