The Two Edged Sword Of Global Warming Scam

Last month, delegates from 187 nations and thousands of special interest "environmentalists" spent a luxurious week in Bali.

There meeting was slated to be a push for more restrictions on CO2 emissions, thus allegedly reducing the imminent threat of Global Warming.

From the reports I have read, their quest has been a futile attempt. Since they met in Kyoto, there have been more emissions from Countries like China, India, Brazil and other "developing" Countries, who were exempted from the Kyoto agreement.

The following is a report of the emission data since Kyoto. It shows the fact that large, rapidly industrializing developing nations like China, India, and Brazil that are not required to reduce their emissions have rapidly increased CO2 emissions.

China will soon pass the U.S. as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. According to a The Heritage Foundation source.
China is vastly expanding its factories and power plants, and as can be expected, opposed emission targets that would bind it.

China now "uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined," and so "the increase in global warming gases from China's coal use will probably exceed that for all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years".Source:The Heritage Press

India is not far behind in opening new coal-fired plants and is projected to become the world's third largest greenhouse gas emitter by 2015. It is indisputable that developing countries are rapidly increasing their emissions of greenhouse gases and will more than offset the reductions outlined in Kyoto.Yet the zealots of Global warming continue to ask the United States and Europe to cut back on their CO2 emissions by reducing our economic machinery.

Not only will this hurt our economy. Jobs will be lost, as if we haven't lost enough to China, India, Pakistan and Countries like Communist Vietnam.

If you doubt what I am saying. Just look at the label that shows where your athletic shoes, shirts and hats and golf clubs are being made.

What is actually happening, is a redistribution of wealth from our Country, in the name of preserving the ecology of the Earth!

Anyone who has studied basic science can tell you that the pollution in China or India drifts around the World, and into the atmosphere where it effects the reflection and deflection of the Suns rays.

If we believe the alarmists who proclaim the end of the World as we know it. Then the so called developing nations of China and India should be required to reduce their emissions or all we do is for naught.

As China is close to surpassing the U.S. and become the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses. When this shift happens it will have tremendous practical as well as symbolic significance, and it will dim the appeal of unilateral U.S. action. It is important to note that China isn't slowly edging past America; it is roaring ahead.

Emissions of carbon dioxide, the byproduct of fossil-fuel combustion and the greenhouse gas of greatest concern, are exploding along with China's economy. New coal-fired power plants are reportedly being added in China at the rate of about one per week, and these facilities are less efficient and higher-emitting than their western counterparts. While China becomes a Communist controlled economic giant, that co-incidentally holds billions of dollars of our debt paper, is still referred to as a developing country. It is developing at a more rapid rate than the U.S. , and because it has an autocratic government there is no "trickle down effect" that helps it's impoverished peasants. They should not be given a pass on this world wide scam, that has been called a fraud by more than 400 real climate scientists!

According to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which believes China has already surpassed America, emissions in China rose 9-percent in 2006, on top of a 12-percent increase in 2005. Meanwhile, America's emissions have been growing much more slowly, averaging little more than 1-percent per year and in 2006 actually went down!

Main Stream Media Demonstrates Bias Once Again

To those of us who long ago reorganized the bias of the Left Wing main stream media, it is no surprise that the associated Press story about the finding of an Al Queda torture chamber in Iraq didn't make the news in any one of the major networks other than Fox!

CBS, NBC, ABC And CNN will splash any news that deprecates the United States war effort in Iraq or Afghanistan. They featured news of the "water boarding" of Terrorist prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Secret CIA interrogation camps, and anything negative about the effort to obtain information from captured terrorist suspects.

But the news of the finding of a torture camp with electric wired bed springs, bloody knives and swords, and walls scrawled with sarcastic hate messages directed to the people about to be tortured, is no where to be found.

Could it be that the disinformation and extremely biased networks don't want the American public to know what monsters we are fighting in Iraq? No, it must be balanced news! Yes, and black is white!

The following quote was found first in the web page of the London Daily Telegraph, and after searching all major network sites . It was also found on Fox, as a feature story, for all to read and know the truth!

BAGHDAD — "Blood-splotches on walls, chains hanging from a ceiling and swords found on the killing floor of a suspected Al Qaeda in Iraq torture chamber are the latest horrors discovered by U.S. soldiers pushing into a province that remains an extremist stronghold.
Scrawled in white paint on one wall above a bed used for torture was a Quranic phrase normally used to welcome a guest, but given the horrific surroundings, conveyed only sadistic mockery: "Come in, you are safe" was the message in Arabic."

"We discovered several (weapons) caches, a torture facility that had chains, a bed — an iron bed that was still connected to a battery — knives and swords that were still covered in blood as we went in to go after the terrorists in that area," said U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, the top U.S. commander in northern Iraq.

It was not the first such torture chamber discovered in Iraq, and it was a stark reminder of the horrors that exist in this country after nearly five years of war, despite growing optimism as violence has fallen about 60 percent since June.
The U.S. military — which discovered the torture site, along with nine weapons caches during a Dec. 8-11 operation north of Muqdadiyah, about 60 miles north of Baghdad — said: "it was used by Al Qaeda in Iraq." Graffiti on the building proclaiming "Long Live the Islamic State" has been used by the insurgent group in the past. Their stated goal is to establish such a state, or caliphate, in Iraq.

Lets not hear any more the claims that the nightly news on television and in most papers is anything but anti- Iraq war, anti-Bush, and anti-Religion.

They all should be printed on RED paper!

A Good Reason To Not Vote For A Democrat

The Democrat party has always stood for the "little Man" in the United States. Beginning with the "New Deal" plans of President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, and continuing on to the Great Society of President Lyndon Johnson in 1964. The Democrats have been the party of the working poor and middle class.


Not so anymore, as the report from the Congressional Office of Budget and Management shows in the following excerpt.


Four of the five leading candidates for the Democratic nomination have signed on to the bill which will punish the "little Man" severely to satisfy demagogues of the Global warming scam. The old saying: "Say what you mean and mean what you say" is applicable to these four hypocrites who aspire to the highest office in the Land. You will not hear them talking about their signing on to a Bill that would financially strap the working poor. Nor will you see or read about this travesty in the main stream Media. This is why I am writing this blog!
Any person who votes for these big government and taxation addicts is shooting themselves in the foot literally if not actually. The pain will be felt long after these pampered and wealthy persons luxuriate in the glow of power in the White House.

This was reported this week.
Senate Environment & Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have proposed the "Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act" aimed at combating climate change. The proposed partisan bill (S.309) is supported by another 15 senators, including: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY); Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL); Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT); Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-DE); Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI); Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-WI); Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI); Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA); Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ); Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT); Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ); Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI); Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI); Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD), and Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD).
FACT: A new MIT study concludes that the Sanders-Boxer approach would impose a tax-equivalent of $366 billion annually, or more than $4,500 per family of four, by 2015. And the annual costs will grow after 2015.

Have we not had enough of the tax and spend Democrats? They promise no tax relief from the thievery that they now extract from our paychecks. They promise more spending on socialist programs that will require more taxation, and it won't be from the well tax sheltered "rich" guys!

Time Magazines Man Of The Year Is An Atrocity

You might expect it to happen in France or Iraq. Maybe even Iran,that a magazine would pick a "former" KGB officer as their Man Of The Year.

But not in the United States, unless it is a Left Wing rag like Time Magazine that has long since lost it's objective Journalism.

The Pick of Vladamir Putin is even more absurd than last years pick of the year, "YOU"!

Putin the new "czar" of Russia is dangerous in the sense that he doesn't care about civil liberties, he doesn't care about free speech."He also stood side by side with France against sanctions against Saddam Hussein the Butcher of Baghdad.

Putin is head of the Russian Presidents council and when the Oil for Food scandal finally was exposed it was revealed that this group , all ex-KGB members and close associates of Putin, received millions of barrels of oil from Saddam. Oil which they could exchange for cash, because they were opposing, in union with the French, any sanctions or action against the murderous regime of Saddam by the UN.

"Russia topped the list of nations from whom the Hussein regime wanted support at the Security Council. As a result, the Hussein regime granted allocations to Russian individuals, political parties, and others due to their good relationship with Iraq and their support for the lifting of sanctions. The scale of the oil allocations given to Russian individuals and political parties was substantial, totaling approximately 30 percent of all the oil allocated during the course of the program."Source:Reuters News

Many of these allocations went to the Unity party, a predecessor of the Unified Russia party, which holds 37 percent of the seats in the Russian Duma. This party nas been described as "a pro-Kremlin party associated with Russian president Vladimir Putin."

In a prison interview last month with Senate investigators, Tariq Aziz said the Unity party was chosen for the allocations "because Russia was taking positions at the Security Council that were favorable to Iraq."

To add to that infamy, Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned against military action against Iran and backed its right to nuclear energy, during the first visit to the country by a Kremlin chief since World War II.
Putin, attending a summit meeting of Caspian Sea states, arrived in the Iranian capital amid heavy security and secrecy over his travel plans after reports a squad of suicide bombers planned to kill him. If you wonder why, think back to the Journalist and politicians who were murdered because of opposition to Putin's actions.

Two notable murders are at least indicative of Putin associates involvement in murder. They are Anna Politovskaya who was gunned down in her apartment and the thallium poisoning of Alexander Litvenenko in London. Both were murdered in 2006.

A statement made by Mr Litvinenko before he died was read out by his friend Alex Goldfarb outside University College Hospital, London.
In it he accuses Russian President Vladimir Putin of involvement in his death and says his killer was "barbaric and ruthless".

Novaya Gazeta( Russian Newspaper) claims that Politovskaya was working on a major new expose of human rights abuses by Putins security forces in Chechnya. The fact that her murder coincided with President Putin’s birthday (birthdays are very important in Russian traditions) suggests that someone wanted to send a message, and has led many Western media outlets to charge that the Kremlin or security services were behind the crime. USA Today, the largest circulation newspaper in America, compared Vladimir Putin to Josef Stalin in one of their editorials.

While in Iran Putin had this to say: “It is also important that we talk about the impossibility of using our territory for other countries to carry out aggression or military action against Iran or other Caspian littoral states.” The other countries he is referring to are the United States and NATO.

Adding fuel to the "firestorm" over Iran's nuclear build up, Russia has delivered the first shipment of nuclear fuel to Iran's Bushehr atomic power station. A senior Iranian official said his country would under no circumstances halt its efforts to enrich uranium -- fuel. It says it needs nuclear fuel for other power plants, but the U.S. and other foreign powers fear the nuclear fuel could be used in a nuclear bomb.
Western nations led by the United States had urged Russia not to deliver fuel to Bushehr, a plant in southern Iran that Russian engineers are building under a $1 billion contract. This like all other requests to Russia has gone un-heeded.

Why not, We only saved them from being another Nazi satellite country with our invasion of Europe and the billions of dollars of military equipment we shipped to Russia in ships with great cost of American seamen!

In 1939 Time magazine pick Joseph Stalin for Man of the Year. A butcher who murdered untold millions of Soviet citizens he felt were a threat to him. It include half of his General Staff of the Military. This year they matched their perfidy in picking Putin!

WHY GIVE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS 8.2 BILLION DOLLARS?

Ever since the "Balfour Declaration" issued by the British Government in 1917, expressing support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. There has been fighting, intifada and Peace Accord meetings to settle the Palestinian problem.To no avail!





The world once again rallied to the support of the embattled Palestinian government on Monday, pledging $7.4 billion in aid over the next three years at a donors' conference — a sum that tops the Palestinians' own expectations.

The sum raised Monday was substantial even compared to the more than $10 billion that donor countries have given to the Palestinians in the past decade, according to the World Bank. Officials have said the Palestinians have received more international aid on a per capita basis than any other nation or group of people in the postwar period.

The key issues that dominate this area of Palestine are the need for Israel to ease restrictions on Palestinians while not compromising its security, and the fate of Gaza, which has been virtually cut off from the world since the Islamic militant Hamas seized control by force in June.
My question is this: will the militant Hamas get control of the money, and start another intifada, or will it go to the 1.5 million Palestinians who live in this area in abject poverty..There are 4 million Arabs living in the Gaza Strip that is only 140 square miles in size. Not much larger than Rhode Island!

The West Bank and The Gaza strip has approximately 3.5 million Arabs and 440,000 Jewish settlers living in the area that is situated between Israel and Jordan. This is the area known in Biblical times as Judea and Samaria. Samaria(The West Bank) is approximately 2,270 square miles in size.
This was the geography that the Israelis occupied after they won the war in 1967. The Gaza strip is slightly larger than two times the size of Washington, DC!

Of course, these historical details are of little interest to the Islamic fundamentalists, who, by most accounts, enjoy majority support in the Gaza Strip.They have expressed a desire to wipe out Israel and claim the whole region.

For them, history begins with the conquests of Muhammad and his caliphs in the seventh century. According to Koranic law, all the land they conquered (including not only today's Palestine but also Spain and Portugal) became inalienable Islamic territory. Or as Mahmoud Zahar, a Hamas leader, said recently, "the fundamentalists seek to control not just the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, but All of Palestine is our land."

I believe that most Arabs would like to "de-Judaize"( eliminate Israel) all of Palestine, and many, no doubt, see the Gaza evacuation as a first step.
Is the United States and The European Union going to Pay for this genocide?

Yossi Melman of the Israeli Daily Haaretz had this to say about the situation in Gaza and the West Bank. "The official government, led by Mahmoud Abbas and celebrated by George Bush and most of the world, is weak and lacks the authority to reestablish its rule as sole representative of the Palestinian people.
At the same time, the government of Ehud Olmert – like most previous Israeli governments – is scared to death of initiating a dramatic, daring move to end the occupation.
The Saudi ambassador said that speeches made at the conference need to be matched by deeds. "The proof is in the pudding," he told us reporters. Once again, he was right. I don't believe that both sides (the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority) have the imagination, the vision, and the guts to deliver on the promises of Annapolis.
To make it come through, there is a need for two dramatic and probably traumatic events: a civil war among the Palestinians, in which hopefully the Abbas camp would crush the Hamas fundamentalists; and, on the Israeli side, dismantling settlements and moving 200,000 Jews still left in the West Bank – probably igniting a civil war."

And still Diplomats and World leaders keep funneling money down the rat hole that for the past decades has seen nothing but blood, sweat and tears. Is there no end to the fight between Palestinians and Israelis? I don't think so, because since the early 50's when the United Nations made Israel a sovereign Country, the Arabs have had a bur under there camels saddle to eradicate the state of Israel. There has to be an end to this bloody fight!

Obama Is No JFK!

In news articles and blogs the supporters of Barrack Obama have tried to compare him to President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
This is ludicrous on first blush when you compare the political record and positions that Obama has taken compared with JFK.
JFK and Obama both went to Harvard, but that is where the comparison ends.
Kennedy was against abortion, Obama is for it, He was against the Iraq war before it began, and still is despite the gains our brave troops have made towards victory.
Kennedy wasn't for war, almost nobody is for war, but when one begins, the brave and the patriotic support the war effort. JFK is famous for his Purple Heart he won in the battle of Leyete Gulf when he commanded PT-109.
As President he authorised the use of defoliants, napalm and jet airplanes for use against the Communist North Vietnamese. He also sent 16,000 Green Berets as military "adviser's" in 1963.
He approved the Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba and the Cuban Missle crisis showed he was willing to go to war to protect our Country from the Soviet Union placing ballistic mislles in Cuba. I can't envision Obama giving the military that kind of support, since he was protesting the War before it even began!

Obama is for repealing President Bush's tax cuts so he can fund socialised medicine and the giving of tax dollars to those who pay no taxes, aka: Earned In come Tax Credit. A euphemism for taking money from those that have and giving to those who have not. Charity it is not. It is redistribution of wealth and confiscation, and JFK would oppose it!

Obama supporters and "modern day" Democrats (aka socialists) have hijacked the good name of John F. Kennedy. One of JFK's key economic plans included massive, across-the-board tax cuts, similar to those of Reagan. Much like the 1920's and 1980's, it was these tax cuts that led to the Golden Kennedy-Johnson years.
Pro-tax lobbyists and leftist Congressmen/women, claim that Kennedy's tax cuts were significantly different than the tax cuts of Reagan, and the tax cuts of President Bush. They claim that Kennedy's tax cuts benefited low-income families, while Republican tax cuts only benefit the wealthy.

To some extent, Kennedy's tax cuts benefited the upper and upper middle classes even more. By the time Kennedy took office, the top income tax rate had reached 94%. Kennedy originally asked for it to be reduced to 65%, but a Democrat Congress slashed this down to 70%.


During a speech, JFK stated, "the current tax system exerts too heavy a drag on growth, reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk taking. Without a question, it is mostly the middle and upper classes that undertake risky purchases and investment".


As expected, the tax revenue from the top 1%, the top 5%, and top 20% surged as a result of income growth from the tax cuts. Tax revenue from the rich increased from almost 12% in 1963, to 15% by 1966.

One only needs to examine the true economic policy and beliefs of JFK. History is on the side of tax cuts - the same side of Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. If JFK had been alive today, it is likely he would have switched to the Republican Party. The following is an actual quote from President Kennedy: "An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget - just as it will never produce enough jobs or profits." Yep, JFK was a supply-sider, one of those greedy, rich, white, politicians who liked to cut taxes. Obama is not a new JFK!

As Senator Lloyd Bentsen said to Senator Dan Quayle during the Vice-Presidential debate of 1988: "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." If he were alive today, I believe he would repeat the same message to Obama and his supporters. We had one charismatic personality in President Bill Clinton, now it is time to elect a President who has the experience and willingness to stand up to our enemies no matter what the rest of the decaying World thinks. Our very survival depends upon it, and charisma won't get it done!

Let Us Stop The Religion Bating In Presidential Race

When John Fitzgerald Kennedy ran for President of the United States the rap against him by those who didn't want him elected was that if We elected a Roman Catholic to the Presidency. The Pope would have an influence on Our political system.

Of course this was nonsense, and just another example of the hate language used in modern day politics by candidates and their operatives, in the run for office.

Today we have perfect examples of multiple cases of religious hatred being used against men running for the Presidency.

Obama has been noted for his youthful Muslim schooling, Romney is vilified because he is a Mormon, and Huckabee is both promoted and derided because he was once a Baptist Minister.

In the history of this Country there have been 42 different Religions represented by the occupants of the Oval Office. Just to name a few. There have been 11 Episcopalians beginning with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, the two Roosevelt's and George Bush. There were 10 Presbyterians including such notables as Ronald Reagan, Eisenhower in his later years and Wilson. Five Methodists and 4 Baptists including Carter, Harding Clinton and Truman.

There has been one Jehovah's Witness, Dwight David Eisenhower as a child, and as mentioned just one Catholic despite the fact that over 25% of the United States population claim to be Roman Catholics.

What is the point of all these statistics. It is that the Quality of the man, and what he /she stands for, and has voted for, that should be the determining factor in deciding whom we should elect to the highest office in Our Country, not his/her religious affiliation.

I believe a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest are more important than where he/she goes to Church on Saturday or Sunday!

President JFK had this to say about religion in the Presidency:"Whatever one's religion in his private life may be, for the officeholder, nothing takes precedence over his oath to uphold the Constitution and all its parts -- including the First Amendment and the strict separation of church and state. We the voter should ignore the hypocrisy of Religion bating and support and elect the person we believe will keep this Country Great, powerful and Free!

The Trojan Horse Being Presented BY The UN

For over 90 years there has been a Communist influence in the World. Since the 1917 revolution in Russia, the Bolsheviks have been advocating tearing down the "rich" and redistributing their wealth to the workers.

The only problem with this reasoning is that the money robbed from the "Whites" in Russia never trickled down to the masses. It benefited those few who were members of the Communist party, who became the new elite class in Russia. The peasants saw not one dime. In fact those who had small farms, that they tilled to scratch out a small living,had them confiscated, and the farmers became part of "collective farms" working for the Communists.

The failure of Communism in Russia and the pending collapse of the Chinese Communists hasn't stopped the Communist movement. They just found a new home, and this week they showed their ugly face at the "Global Warming Conference" in Bali.

The advocates of redistribution and confiscation of wealth finally showed their "Hold Card"!

Today's' Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works published a report that illustrates the "Global Warming" advocates real agenda.

They want to "rob" the wealthy and give to the poor in the form of a Global Carbon Tax!

A panel of UN participants on Thursday urged the adoption of a tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”
“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, told Inhofe EPW Press Blog following the panel discussion titled “A Global CO2 Tax.” Schwank is a consultant with the Switzerland based Mauch Consulting firm
Schwank said at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.”
The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

The redistribution of wealth in the World is just an organism for extracting money from a Country (USA) that has a successful economy, and give it to a United Nations organisation that has been shown to be a corrupt organisation,that does not have the best interests of the United States.

Long before Al Gore jumped on his "hobby horse" to sound the alarm bells for Global Warming, their were people in our government who were advocating support of a tax on energy. The following quote illustrates this truth!

Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said in 1990, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

Despite the protestations of real climate scientists the Left in this Country and the World has decided to push Global Warming scares to gain their ultimate prize. Robbing the rich and giving it to the poor! The IRS does enough of that we don't need another large hand in our pockets extracting more of our hard earned income!

In conclusion, think on this: MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned about these types of carbon regulations earlier this year. "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Lindzen said in March 2007.
In addition, many critics have often charged that the proposed tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science.
Now that the UN has officially announced what the "fearmongering" about man-made global warming has been designed to justify all along - a global carbon tax which will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions but everything to feed the trough of world government, and put 10-40 billion dollars a year in the hands of the UN Multilateral Adaptation Fund, aka: redistribution of Our wealth to the undeveloped World. It is time to have the courage to stand up and say I won't take any more! Call or write your Congressmen/women and tell them to hold the line against this outrageous tax!

The Pot Calling The Kettle Black!

Will Rogers said many things, but one quote is appropriate to begin this blog. He said: "The Country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when a baby gets hold of a hammer"!

The following illustrates his point very well.

Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), Chairwoman of the New Democrat Coalition, demands an AMT(alternative minimum tax) bill that conforms with budget rules. “I want AMT paid for. I think the entire Democratic Caucus wants the AMT paid for. I am very resolved to that.
“I’m very mindful of the number of constituents damaged if we don’t get this fixed … [people] also want [tax relief] paid for because they are deeply concerned about the way the Republicans ran the Congress.”

Perhaps she should listen to the report by this Advocates report: " In 2006, the IRS's National Taxpayer Advocate's report highlighted the AMT as the single most serious problem with the tax code. The advocate noted that the AMT punishes taxpayers for having children or living in a high-tax state, and that the complexity of the AMT leads to most taxpayers who owe AMT not realizing it until preparing their returns or being notified by the IRS."

Although federal debt has soared during the Bush presidency, Republicans say deficit spending was needed after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the ensuing recession.
Congresswoman Tauscher said Senate Republicans need to recognize that a new party controls Congress, and compromise. Maybe that is why Congress approval rating is lower than President Bush by over 10 points!

She reminds us, "we took the majority and decided we were not going to run the government as they did, as profligate spenders. They need to be cooperative.”Sounds pretty partisan to me. So much for co-operation.

Perhaps Ms. Tauscher should check the recent history of the Democrats spending in 2006 and 2007, before she gets her panties in a knot! She must know the following facts: CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS HAVE A LONG-STANDING RECORD OF FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY
This year, Democrats Passed A Budget That Includes The Largest Tax Increase In U.S. History:
Democrats In The House And Senate Voted To Pass A $2.9 Trillion FY2008 Budget Resolution That Includes The Largest Tax Increase In U.S. History. (S.Con.Res.21, CQ Vote #377, Adopted 214 - 209: R 0 - 196; D 214 - 13, 5/17/07; S.Con.Res.21, CQ Vote #172: Adopted 52-40: R 2 - 40; D 48 - 0; I 2 - 0, 5/17/07)
The Democrats' $2.9 Trillion Budget Fails To Extend All The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts. "Congressional Democrats ... recently announced agreement on a $2.9 trillion budget blueprint for 2008, promising a budget surplus in five years but only by allowing some of President Bush's tax cuts to expire." Source: Andrew Taylor
The top Republican on the Senate committee, Sen. Judd Gregg, said: " the Democratic plan would produce 'the largest tax increase in U.S. history, billions in new spending, and no attempt to address the long-term fiscal crisis' in retirement programs and Medicaid, the health care program for the poor and disabled." Source: Associated Press

Over the next ten-year period, the average household's taxes would increase by $2,641 annually, or 12 percent above current tax levels." The Senate Budget: A $2,641 per household tax increase, and no entitlement, (the largest part of the annual budget) reforms, Source: The Heritage Foundation, (3/22/07)
Democrats' recent show of earmark reform left the veneer of transparency but gutted the substance.
Less than two weeks after the Senate's new Earmark Rules took effect, critics are accusing Democrats of providing less openness than promised by persons like Speaker Pelosi!

"As It Stands, Complete Earmark Information Will Not Have To Be Put Online Until 48 Hours Before Bills Reach The Floor." Source: (CQ Today)

In January, the Senate voted unanimously to provide this budget information. However, by July, a "star-chamber" conference committee left the veneer of transparency but gutted the substance." (CQ Today, 9/24/07)
"This Is One Of The Most Bald-Faced Bait And Switches I've Seen In Washington." source:Bart Jansen and Jonathan Allen,

Senator Hillary Clinton apparently doesn't mind weakness of the Democrats Earmark Reform, She has a history of piling on the pork.
From the 107th - 109th Congress, Sen. Hillary Clinton sponsored or co-sponsored Bills that total over $674.1 billion in spending. (National Taxpayers Union Website)

Yet she has the chutzpah to ask you to help by bringing your mops and brooms so she can clean out the mess in Washington. I think she should get her "pink slip" instead of mops and brooms. Unless they are used to sweep her and Bill out of politics!

The Hill Newspaper Reported ... "That Clinton Secured 26 Pet Projects, Or Earmarks, Worth $148 Million In A 2008 Defense-Spending Bill More Than Any Other Democrat Except For The Chairman Of The Armed Services Committee." Nuff said!

The Begining Of The End For Free Speech?

" Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
John Adams, Letter, April 15, 1814

It would seem to me, that what is happening to the majority of people in the United States, and the Rest of the civilized world, in the name of political correctness and diversity is the fruition of John Adams polemic. The following blog will try to illustrate why I believe we are attempting to correct a small evil by using a weapon of mass destruction. Limiting free speech!

The Europeans have taken tolerance and diversity to the extreme. Poland would like to become part of the European Union, but since it is predominantly a Catholic Country the Poles oppose abortion.

The EU is insisting that the Poland, which is the native land of the former Pope John Paul II, must lessen or eliminate its stand against abortion and the practice of homosexuality before it can come under the full graces of the European Union.

Here at home, recently passed legislation in California illustrates what happens when the popular notion of "tolerance" intrudes into the realm of law.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed a bill in October 2007 that disallows the use of the words, Mom, Dad, Husband and Wife in California schools.

The new language laws in California are an example of tolerance becoming militantly intolerant. Gays and transsexuals are protected from any offence imagined or real. This is accomplished at the expense of offending over 95 percent of the heterosexuals and their families who reflect the make up of California schools.

Is this tolerant? Has any one asked the question; just how many high school and elementary students are gay or transsexual? Gay high school students perhaps, but transsexuals in elementary schools? Just how many of them are there in California? Has California changed its laws to defend the sensitivities of a non-existent group of people?

Have we traversed from the silent majority up to the moral majority only to slide over to the tolerant majority; then all the way back to the silent majority again?

Now we seem to have the new "American morality"; the new partner of tolerance and diversity! We risk hurting ourselves irreparably with something that claims to take the hurt off of everyone.

Tolerance is a word that is sailing around at the speed of insanity and stupidity. What about the rights of the majority?

The confusion this creates is apparent when Islamic groups like CAIR go about pointing out every perceived insult to Islam in America, even as America and the rest of the world are not afforded a speck of tolerance in return, in fact the doctrine and ideology of Islam as written in the Quran and Sharia law, forbids it.

A cartoon, a negative statement about Muhammad or refusal to convert to Islam can result in death, as it did in the Netherlands.

Yet there are Americans (ACLU for one) who also watch for any and all possible intolerant language as it pertains to Islam. Double standards notwithstanding; this is the stupidity connected to the word "tolerance" that betrays its obvious lack of wisdom and social importance.

If we are not vigilant, these United States of America will become the United States of Tyranny.

Who Shall We Believe?

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation." These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).
And the Hartland Institute reported this week that the ice cap in Antartica is growing larger. "Antarctic sea ice set a new record in October 2007, as photographs distributed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed penguins and other cold-weather creatures able to stand farther north on Southern Hemisphere sea ice than has ever been recorded. The news of expanding Antarctic sea ice stole headlines from global warming alarmists who asserted Arctic sea ice had reached its lowest extent since 1979."

Despite these reports, Climate Nobel Laureate Al Gore, is traveling through Great Britain and Europe giving speeches that netted him over six thousand dollars a minute for a speech in Great Britain recently.The London Daily Mail reported the following today: "Many of the audience at last month's Fortune Forum summit were restless as Mr Gore, who has won both a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his Global Warming campaigning work this year, delivered the half-hour speech that netted him $203,099,000...Guests had paid between $2,000 and $100,000 to attend."

Despite the evidence to the contrary, Democrat Senators known for their Liberal, left wing stand are forming their own group to attend the "climate Change Conference" in Malasia. This despite the fact that the President has a delegation attending that will support the position taken by the President and Congress previously, to not sign the Kyoto Agreement.

The following was reported by The Congressional Quarterly: "This week, representatives of more than 180 nations will meet on the Indonesian island of Bali to begin discussing a climate change agreement intended to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. But the delegation that will be the most closely watched will not even have an official seat at the table. A "bipartisan" group of US senators and their top aides, which will be led by Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Barbara Boxer of California, plan to meet with attendees and affirm their commitment to participating in the next round of global efforts to cap carbon emissions".

Their position will be sharply at odds with that of the official US delegation, which consists of Bush administration officials who remain opposed to mandatory emissions curbs. It also will deviate from positions taken by past US Congresses that deemed the 1995 Kyoto agreement onerous,unworkable and bad for the U.S. economy.

In Australia the Carbon Frenzy has gotten so bad that the following was reported today by CNS: "Having babies is bad for the planet, and parents of more than two children should be charged a birth levy and annual tax to offset the "greenhouse gases" their child will be responsible for over his or her lifetime. At the same time, those who use and prescribe contraceptives and sterilization procedures should earn tax relief for such greenhouse friendly services" that help to keep the population size down. These proposals, by an Australian academic, were published in the country's leading medical journal on Monday.

When will people in the United States wake up to the FACT that the Ecology movement is the new home of the Communist Party in the United States?

Don"t Believe The Populist Lies

Not only will the 2008 Presidential election be the most expensive in history, it will be first time that the Democrat Party can legitimately be called the party of the rich.

For decades the Democrats have snidely referred to the Republicans as the party of the Rich, but during this election cycle the Democrats are becoming the party of the rich and famous. Four Democratic presidential candidates — Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama – are named among a list of leading party members who have accepted donations from the law firm of Milberg Weiss, which last year was indicted on bribery and fraud charges.

Senator Obama has already raised millions in campaign funds from such notable billionaires as Oprah Winfrey, Kenneth Griffin, head of the Chicago-based hedge fund Citadel Investment Group, one of Mayor Richard Daley's top financial patrons. Griffin's $1.4 billion pay in 2006 made him the second highest-paid hedge fund manager in the country, according to Institutional Investor's Alpha Magazine.

Then there is Warren Buffet who sponsored two fund raisers in Omaha, Nebraska. One for Hillary Clinton that raised a million dollars and in the fall he sponsored a fete at his Country Club for Obama.

The network of fundraisers generating money for the Illinois senator Barack Obama's campaign includes a lop sided representation of attorneys at well-connected law firms and members of the financial industry, including highly paid managers of hedge funds and private equity funds.

Despite this affluent support, yesterday he stood on a stage in Columbia, South Carolina with Oprah Winfrey and his wife proclaiming that he wouldn't hand over the Government, if elected President, to the lobbyists and the rich!

Does he really believe that we the people will believe that campaign contributors who donate large sums of money do it with no strings attached?

Opra even said to the applauding audience that Obama would "stand up and change the world!" Not satisfied with saying he would change the United States, this Billionaire claimed he would change the world!

An analysis by the Chicago Tribune of Senator Obama's Campaign contributors tends to make one wonder if this candidate is nothing more than a prevaricator like many other candidates for the White House?

The Obama campaign disclosed the names of 120 major fundraisers who had attracted at least $50,000 in contributions to Obama by June 30,2007. A list released at the end of the first quarter showed the campaign has identified 260 people who have raised that amount or more.

Half the fundraisers live in just three metropolitan regions that are seats of financial or political power: Washington, New York and Chicago. Obama's home base of Chicago accounts for the largest proportion of the large fundraisers, about a fifth, according to a Tribune analysis.

Along with many corporate executives, the newly disclosed Obama fundraisers include a smattering of entertainment industry figures. Lawrence Bender, co-producer of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" As is Hollywood agent Ari Emanuel, brother of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). Fox Films Entertainment Chairman Thomas Rothman and BET President and CEO Debra Lee also are among them.Those major fundraisers, sometimes called "bundlers", have an unusually large importance in financing the Democrat campaign.

Obama's disavowal of lobbyist contributions is less than completely honest, because he still has wealthy executives who employ lobbyists raising money for him. Obama fundraiser, Robert Wolf, America's chairman for Swiss-based UBS Investment Bank, "a foreign-owned bank" with "lobbyists in Washington." Employees of UBS have given at least $142,000 to the Obama campaign.

Though it is impossible to know exactly how much of the $58 million Obama raised during the first half of the year came by way of "bundlers", those on the list would not be there if they had not raised at least $50,000. That means at least $13 million of his year-to-date total came through "bundlers".

Perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of all is the connection of the Democrats with the "Health Industry". The majority of Democrat candidates espouse Socialised Medicine, but still the industry has given more money to the Democrats this election cycle.

In a reversal from past election cycles, Campaign records show the Democratic candidates for president are exceeding Republicans in donations from the health care industry, even as the leading Democrats in the field offer proposals that have caused deep anxiety(Socialised Medicine) in the industry.
Hospitals, drug makers, doctors and insurers gave candidates in both parties more than $11 million in the first nine months of this year, as demonstrated by an analysis done for The New York Times by the Center for Responsive Politics, an independent group that tracks campaign finance.

In all, the Democratic presidential candidates have raised about $6.5 million from the industry, compared with nearly $4.8 million for the Republican candidates. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has amassed the most of any candidate, despite her calls for broad changes to the health care system that could pose serious financial challenges to private insurers, drug companies and taxpayers.

Among all the candidates in both political parties, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the health care industry, having raised about $2.2 million, according to campaign finance records.

So don't believe the "tales" being spun by Oprah and the candidate himself, that he will represent the "common man". He may be the light at the end of the tunnel for Black Americans, but he, like all politicians, will be captive by his wealthy contributors if he should capture the "Golden Key" to the White House!

A Glimpse Of What Socialized Medicine Would Produce

In another example of government bureaucracy s lack of compassion toward elder health care and complete disregard for accepted clinical treatment standards and the Hippocratic Oath. The federal government(DHHS) is demanding repayment of hundreds of millions of dollars from hospices that exceeded arbitrary Medicare reimbursement limits because they enabled residents to live longer than permitted by the government. The key words are "live longer than permitted". Showing no sense of humanity, the federal government’s retroactively assessed reverse charges are being sent to hospices that already spent the funds delivering care for the terminally ill in prior years.
The result of this retroactive Medicare reimbursement demand is that many hospice providers will be put out of business. The unintended consequences of this bureaucratic meddling will reduce the number of hospice facilities and encourage the remainder to withhold care while simultaneously demanding premium increases. It is rarely clearer that government health care and its cost-control rationing is a prescription for an early grave. And still we have Democrats running for President advocating socialization of the Fine Health Care system we now have for the majority of Americans. Better they build government clinics and hospitals for the indigent, and staff them with Doctors, PAs and Nurses who are delinquent in paying there student loans, which in many cases amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

We have a 9.13 trillion dollar National Debt. The three leading drains on the U.S. Treasury are Medicare, Social Security and the War. We can't quit spending for the war, or we will loose yet another war that we were wining, as we did in Vietnam.

If you don't believe that statement just read the memoirs of North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap that were recently published. He wrote," the American media won the Vietnam war for the Vietcong. “What we still don’t understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it,” then he wrote. “But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!” Giap’s words are an important lesson from the past, to be sure. He says, "had the U.S. kept bombing Hanoi for just a few more days after Johnson called a halt they would have surrendered!"

Perhaps politicians should concentrate on waste and extravagant spending first, before they advocate more burden on the already heavily taxed American middle class.

An example of waste outside the realm of 10,000 dollar toilets for Congressmen and other such extravagant spending is the lack of communication between the IRS and the Medicare Auditing arm of Health and Human services. This would be a good place to start.

The following was reported recently by The Washington Post: The federal government has failed to collect more than $1 billion in back taxes owed by Medicare doctors and suppliers, nearly half of it payroll taxes deducted by health-care providers who spent the money on luxury cars and other personal expenses rather than sending it to the IRS, a congressional report says.
The money has not been collected because the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees Medicare, has failed to connect its computers to the Internal Revenue Service and other Treasury Department divisions, the Government Accountability Office report says. Such a connection would allow the agencies to quickly identify who owes taxes and begin deducting that money from checks the federal contractors receive from Medicare.

The situation is particularly distressing because there could easily have been a system in place to fix it. Apparently. in 2001, when the GAO first suggested to HHS that it could coordinate with Treasury to identify tax deadbeats, HHS said the two agencies' computers were not compatible, making it impossible to work together. HHS computers were updated by 2004, giving the department no excuse.
Imagine how much confusion we would have if the whole medical system was socialised if these type things were allowed, and in a free society it appears there is no limit to the graft and corruption that can occur.

Carbon Credits Another Step to World Government Control

The United Nations was founded in 1945 to replace the failed League of Nations, in the hope that it would intervene in conflicts between nations and thereby avoid war. The first session was convened on January 10,1946 in the Westminster Central Hall in London and included representatives of 51 nations. It actually came to exist on 10/24/1945 when The Republic of China, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, France and the United States signed the Charter. It now is located at "Turtle Bay" on the Hudson River.

Today the budget of the UN is 4.19 billion dollars, of which the U.S. pays 22%. Communist China pays 2.05%, United Kingdom pays 6.15% , Russia pays only 1.10 % of the UN budget. One of the oil rich Nations pays $18.7 million dollars, and the United States, an oil poor nation, is assessed $423,464,855 annually. This despite that each Country has the same vote and veto power over any proposal made by the United States to the U.N.

Why are these statistics important? Because behind the headlines and fears of doom from Global Warming, there is a movement by "Goreites" and international bankers and brokerage firms to jump on the "band wagon" to profit from Global warming. It comes in the form of Carbon Credits. The Kyoto Agreement produced the Carbon Credit scheme as a way for Nations and international businesses to contribute to the anti-CO2 problem without actually reducing their CO2 emissions. They can buy carbon credits!

Carbon credits create a market for allegedly reducing greenhouse emissions by giving a monetary value to the cost of polluting the air. Emissions become an internal cost of doing business and are visible on the balance sheet alongside raw materials and other liabilities or assets.
For example, a business that owns a factory putting out 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in a year. Its government enacts a law that limits the emissions that the business can produce. So the factory is given a quota of 80,000 tonnes per year, 20,000 less than last year.The factory either reduces its emissions to 80,000 tonnes or is required to purchase carbon credits to offset the excess.
After costing up alternatives the business may decide that it is uneconomical or infeasible to invest in new machinery. Instead may choose to buy carbon credits on the open market from organizations that have been approved as being able to sell legitimate carbon credits.Which still leaves the company producing 100,000 tons of pollution, but makes some Carbon Credit broker a fee!
One seller might be a company that will offset emissions by planting a number of trees for every carbon credit you buy from them under an approved CDM project. So although the factory continues to emit gases, it would pay another group to go out and plant trees which allegedly will draw back 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year.
Another seller may have already invested in new low-emission machinery and have a surplus of allowances as a result. The factory could make up for its emissions by buying 20,000 tonnes of allowances from them. The cost of the seller's new machinery would be subsidized by the sale of allowances. Both the buyer and the seller would submit accounts( to whom? a World regulating organisation?) for their emissions to prove that their allowances were met correctly.

Credits were chosen by the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol as an alternative to Carbon taxes. It is easier to convince a credulous public to accept Credits than to impose taxes. A criticism of tax-raising schemes is that they are frequently not pledged as security, and so some or all of the taxation raised by a government may be applied inefficiently or not used to benefit the environment. IE your social security taxes!
The theory of the Carbon Credit advocates is: "By treating emissions as a market commodity it becomes easier for business to understand and manage their activities, while economists and traders can attempt to predict future pricing using well understood market theories. Thus the main advantages of a trade in Carbon Credits over a carbon tax are:
the price is more likely to be perceived as fair by those paying it, as the cost of carbon is set by the market, and not by politicians. Investors in credits have more control over their own costs." (source Wikapedia)
The flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol supposedly ensure that all investment goes into genuine sustainable carbon reduction schemes, through its Internationally agreed validation process. Here again you have a World Government body deciding and dictating how business in the United States will be conducted!

Goldman Sachs, the investment bank, has strongly come out in favor of government regulation that creates long-term value for greenhouse gas emissions reductions and new technologies. Voluntary action, it reasons, is insufficient. It also will guarantee a market for it's investment in Carbon credits!

Market analysts have called the U.S carbon market a "hibernating giant." With Goldman Sachs leading the way. Greed is the middle name for these people.

Goldman Sachs has a history of making long-term strategic investments in new product lines. Gus Levy, its former legendary partner, famously conceded that the investment bank was greedy, but clarified, "long-term greedy." The fact that the powerhouse of capitalism is taking the plunge into environmental markets is perhaps the embodiment of this mantra, and the surest signal yet that there is money to be made on sustaining ecosystem services.

Goldman Sachs has made overtures to leadership in Communist China, one of the Worlds worst polluters, to form a joint venture with their Carbon Credit scheme. It is Reforestation, to creation of a carbon sink--a carbon reservoir that is increasing in size--in which plants and other organisms use photosynthesis to remove carbon from the atmosphere by incorporating it into biomass and release oxygen into the atmosphere. The carbon sink concept has become more widely known because the Kyoto Protocol allows the use of carbon dioxide sinks as a form of carbon offset credit, which can be traded on global markets subject to obtaining United Nations approval through a formal application process. My question is how long does it take a tree to grow before it is a CO2 "sink"?

Do Americans really want to go down this road. It only leads to more World Government control, and less freedom for us.

Is Poor Officiating Tolerated BY NFL?

In September of 1920, 14 team representatives met in Akron, Ohio to create a new football league. In the interest of ticket sales and crowning a yearly champion, they decided to form the American Professional Football Association. On October 17, 1920, the Decatur Staleys( who became the Bears) played their first NFL game.Their coach was George Hallas, who changed the name to Bears when he bought the team for $100.00 in 1922. The owners adopted the name National Football League also in 1922. The league currently consists of 32 teams.
The first Commissioner, Elmer Layden, was appointed in 1941. He was a member of the legendary "Four Horsemen" of Notre Dame's 1925 football team.
Layden left Notre Dame in February of 1941 to become Commissioner of the NFL, a post that had been renamed upon him taking the job. Prior heads of the league had been referred to as presidents. In five years as Commissioner, Layden struggled with less skilled players due to many "stars" being drafted during WWII.
The NFL muddled through for years as a small group of 10 teams with small attendance and no television contracts.

When Pete Rozelle was appointed Commissioner, in 1960, after more than 23 ballots by the owners, the NFL .was still struggling financially.
The election of Pete Rozelle as Commissioner turned out to be a fortuitous event for the NFL.

When he took office there were ten teams in the NFL playing a twelve game schedule to frequently half-empty stadiums, and only several teams had television contracts. By the time of Rozelle's resignation, the number of teams had grown to 28 and team owners presided over sizable revenues from U.S. broadcasting networks. The NFL in 1960 was following a business model that had evolved from the 1930's.

Mr.Roselle negotiated television contracts for all NFL games, and persuaded the owners of the large City teams to share TV revenues with smaller city owners. In doing so, Rozelle not only cleverly played one television network against the other, but also persuaded NFL team owners of the Baltimore Colts, and the Washington Redskins to agree to share revenues between teams of smaller cities like Green Bay, as the competing AFL had done since its inception. His business model was essentially a "cartel" that benefited all teams equally, from revenue sharing to the player draft.
This money has not only changed the wealth of the owners of NFL teams and the players. It has made the NFL organisation a major influence in the game itself.
The reason for this is the dramatic and exorbitant amount of money the NFL receives for the television rights to it's games.
Beginning in 1962 when CBS paid the NFL 4.65 million dollars for the contract to televise all regular season games. The revenue has exploded to a total of 3.735 billion dollars paid by the networks involved in televising NFL games in 2007.

The NFL's status as a prime offering that makes billions in advertising for the networks has led some to conclude that unbiased coverage of the league is not possible.

ESPN attempted to run a dramatic series showing steamier aspects of pro football, "Playmakers", but dropped the series after the league reportedly threatened to exclude the network from carrying its games under the next set of TV contracts.
The NFL also has a strict policy prohibiting networks to run ads during official NFL programming (pre and post-game studio shows and the games themselves) from the gambling industry, and has rejected some ads from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority.

Commissioner Roger Goodell explained in 2007 that he did not think it behooved the sport to associate with sports betting. Additionally, the networks and their announcers cannot discuss or run graphics showing point spreads during NFL shows. They do allow Fantasy Football, however.
Despite all the above it is my opinion that either the NFL has some incompetent Referees, Linesmen and Umpires, or they have a potential scandal brewing over the Officials involvement in determining the outcome of games. This could be the Achilles Heal of the NFL.

The Coaches, game announcers and players are forbidden from commenting negatively about the officiating of games. Those coaches who do are severely fined. Those announcers who express criticism of the officiating seem to do it in a way that lends one to believe they are incompetent or did not see what happened.
The Commissioner routinely fines players for their infractions on and off the field, and these fines and suspensions are made known to the Media. But the league goes merrily along through the years without publicly chastising any official for actions on the field of play.
Scandals involving officials have surfaced in other major and collegiate sports. Why not the NFL?

We all see games each Sunday that have obvious missed calls, or phantom calls for holding or interference. But the final four minutes of the Game between the Patriots and Ravens was the worst I have seen in over 40 years of watching NFL games on TV. The Patriots have to be the luckiest team in the NFL or the officials gave them the game! I am neither a Raven fan nor a Patriot hater!

The Ravens won every category of statistic in that game but the score. The last four calls by the officials in the final minutes determined the eventual winner, New England Patriots.

There were two calls on 4th down plays, a 3rd on a pass interference call. The additional down, after Brady failed to score on a quarterback sneak, in the final minute due to a phantom time out was the topper. The winning drive in the final minutes covered 73 yards and required two fourth-down conversions, one on a defensive holding penalty, on a pass play where the ball thrown was incapable of being caught, 6 seconds before Gaffney beat Dawan Landry in the left corner of the end zone.

Is the problem with officiating caused by people who are unproficient?

The officials make from $25,000 to $70,000 per season depending on seniority. For a part time job that ain't bad, so they should be able to find 119 men/women who could call the game correctly.

Or does the league tolerate incompetence because they don't want to rock the "Money Boat"? An officiating scandal not only would rock the boat it could sink it!

Where Is The Outrage?

It is troubling to this blog writer that three politically powerful groups have been strangely silent, if not active supporters, of the Muslim Community and it's organizations, despite the obvious animus written and spoken in their dogma against these groups.

The three groups I am referring to are the Feminists. Gay and Lesbian Groups and the Jews.

None of these groups have come forward to condemn what is an apparent threat to their existence, if the Muslim movement gains political or military power in the U.S.

Is it the hatred for the current occupant of the White House or is it something else that keeps these three groups, and too many others from asking why if there are radical Muslims and peaceful Muslims? Why don't the Muslims as a group, who professes to be a peaceful Religion, do not renounce the parts of the Koran and the Hadith that proclaims the following: One Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad appeared in Egyptian publications in the 1930s and 1940s:
"The resurrection of the dead will not come until the Muslims will war with the Jews and the Muslims will kill them; ... the trees and rocks will say, "O Muslim, O Abdullah, here is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."2 The holy writings of Islam also contain benign references to Jews, which often are cited to support the fantasy of "harmonious relations between Muslims and Jews in Arab lands." Wherever Jews have lived under Arab Islam, however, their conditions appear to have been determined by the negative images of Jews within the Hadith Reports and the Koran, the juridical source of Islamic law, images found in such statements as the following:

"Muslims Oppress women in general. Men are allowed to have as many as four wives simultaneously and as many concubines as they wish or can afford. Men can easily divorce their wives and automatically have the custody of the children, if they so decide. Women have subservient status to men in all areas of the Sharia law. Equality under the law has no meaning in Islam. Just one example of the dreadful way of treating women in Islam is a case of a Saudi woman who was gang-raped. The Islamic court convicted the woman to prison term and lashes for having committed the “sin” of riding in a car with a male who was not her relative. This is a standard form of Islamic Shariah justice—a savage heritage of barbarism that ruled the Arabian Peninsula some centuries ago."

The Islam solution for Homosexuals should be a subject the Gay and lesbian Community would fear. Muslims deal with homosexuals, for instance, by hanging them "en mass", even though homosexuality is just as prevalent in Islamic lands as anywhere else. Recently an Ayatollah made a ruling on homosexuals. He said that they should be hanged and tortured before they are hanged.

This reminds this blogger of the type of Punishment King Henry the VIII wrought upon people who threatened or disagreed with him. In 1535 he had Sir Thomas Moore tried, found guilty and sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered for refusing to sign an oath rejecting Catholicism and recognizing the Kings New Church (Anglican Church of England) that King Henry formed because the Pope refused to grant him a divorce from Catherine of Aragon, so he could Marry Anne Boleyn.

The Muslim Religion is considered the most anti-homosexual of all world’s religions by condemning the practice and enforcing strict punishments. Twenty-one percent of the world follows Islam giving this denomination great power and influence. There is no degree of acceptance and the Koran clearly states that it is sinful and undisputedly illegal.
(Koran 4:16)If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both...
(Koran 27:55)Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than Women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant!
The Hadith are a group of passages and rights claimed to be written by Muhammad and are used in teaching Islam.
“When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes.”
“Kill the one who is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to.”he following is a quote from the Quran:

If this were not enough to alert all Americans to a potential threat to freedom that is posed by the Muslim movement.

Then the Israeli-Palestinian problem should alert the American Jews to awaken to the threats posed to their fellow Jews in Israel.

The recent Annapolis Conference, that had the purpose of getting Israel to give more concessions to the Palestinians, is a case on point.

Diplomats have tried in vain for decades to resolve the Palestinian crisis, but when you know that the children are being brain washed in their schools to hate Jews. It is hard to fathom the idea that diplomacy will bring peace to that region of the world.

" Palestinian Authority school children are actively taught that the Jews and Israel are the enemy, in a broad range of contexts. The school texts portray the Jew as the enemy of believers, the enemy of Islam, the enemy of the Arabs, as well as generally evil and dangerous. Jews are killers and robbers and have stolen Arab land. Modern events are misrepresented to portray Israel and Jews as the evil force in their world. Zionism is equated to Nazism, together they are depicted as the prototype examples of racism. These themes also appear regularly on Palestinian Authority television."
The preceding quotations were taken from a study by The Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, which is based on 85 current Syrian textbooks.