The Fifth Column of Islam

There are many Internet sites devoted to the work that the Islamic terrorists cannot accomplish in Iraq. These sites are fulfilling the role of modern day Nazi Goebbels. They are masters of disinformation and divisiveness. One such site was closed by the FBI in Texas for reasons of National Security. The "'Infocom"website in Franklin,Texas outside Dallas was servicing 599 web pages for Muslims.

There are an estimated 4000 Muslim web pages, and one particular page has the following example of inciting violence: "Muslim pulls out a baseball bat, Muslim smashes Jew over the head, Muslim wipes off the blood." The few who control the Islam channel kick and ban arbitrarily whoever disagrees with their opinion or definition of Islam.

One site I reviewed is "altmuslim", written by Rabab Fayad who is a Middle East consultant in Washington, DC. She formerly served as deputy national director of ethnic outreach for the Kerry-Edwards 2004 presidential campaign. Her posts appear in Islamica magazine.

Her January 14th post includes the following: "The words used by Republican candidates to describe inhuman acts of terrorism wrongly associate those who practice these horrendous acts with the 5 million Americans and 1 billion people throughout the world who practice Islam. This has been in direct contrast to Democrats, who have opted to use language that does not make such an association.Rudy Giuliani is among the worst culprits. In effort to use scare tactics to keep his numbers up, Giuliani often paints a picture of Muslims as violent radicals and criticizes Democrats who refrain from linking Islam with terrorism, saying they are on the defensive in the war on terror. He has reinforced this association throughout the campaign trail, saying in Milwaukee for instance, "I believe we have to be on offense against Islamic terrorism," and again in New Hampshire, "Islamic terrorists... want to kill us".

Her comments regarding President Bollingers comments concerning Ahmedinajad's speech at Columbia show a twisted logic or a devious intent. "As a University, Columbia sees itself as a bastion of free speech and academic freedom. Indeed, this has been the repeated rhetoric surrounding the justification for Ahmedinajad's visit. However, were these values exemplified when President Bollinger viciously denigrated a head of state in his introductory remarks? Did these personal attacks against Ahmedinajad - which included calling him "uneducated," "evil," and "ridiculous"( blogger's note: he is all that and more!) - uphold the standards of discourse that Bollinger and Columbia as a university claim to defend? . Despite our own rhetoric about the exceptionalism of the university campus, today we realize that we too are vulnerable to political pressure. We too can manipulate a platform to our own political advantage- whether we are pandering to the conservative media, special interests, or university donors. We too have lessons that we need to learn about the essence of free speech.

This shows the anti-American bias of this blogger, who as all who are residents of this world know that the man she is defending is an advocate of the destruction of Israel and the "great Satan" United States.

She and other apologists of radical Islamic terrorism use the victim analogy to hide the fact that they have never denounced the acts of terrorism committed in the name of Islam. That is not to say that all Muslims feel the animus toward the United States, but then neither did all the women an children in Germany before WWII. They too hid behind the curtain of unknowing and denial!

Should We All Cheer The Reduced Killing?

Today's Washington Post headlined a "feel good" story, they thought! A survey of 1,787 abortionists nation wide revealed the "encouraging" fact that abortions are reducing. Their survey showed that in 2005 the number of abortions being performed in the United States has dropped to 1.2 million a year - the lowest level since 1976, the year Roe was approved by the Un-Supreme Court.

Since 1976 their have been 50 million abortions performed in the United States. A genocide of mythical proportions, and the Capitol of abortions is New York City! A city in a state that has the most liberal abortion laws.

The average payment for this death producing procedure is estimated at $413.00. The aborting is done on pregnant women aged 15-44, and most abortions are performed in the North East. The least number of abortions are performed in the Middle West and the South.

Many states do not even require a permission slip from the parents to have an abortion,nor do they have to notify the child's parents after. But most public schools need a permission slip from the child's MD and parent to give the child an aspirin.

Scientist have shown that a baby in the womb( aka fetus) can feel pain at six weeks, but they prove that the fetus can feel pain at the 20th week because the baby responds to the pain.

Doctor Carlo Bellieni, Professor of Neonatal Therapy at Le Scotte University of Siena, Italy has this to say about fetal suffering during abortion. "The scientific evidence for the humanity of the unborn is immense. We cannot understand how it can be thought that it becomes a person at a certain point, perhaps when coming out of the uterus. From the physical point of view, at the birth very little really changes: Air enters the lungs, the arrival of blood from the placenta is interrupted, the type of circulation of blood in the heart changes, and not much more.

"As I often say, only blind faith in magic arts or some strange divinity can lead one to think that there is a 'human' quality leap at a given moment -- certainly not science."He concludes, ". . .I think one should say 'enough' to that anti-scientific attitude that regards prenatal life as a second-class life. And the paradox is that instead the Church is accused of retarding progress. In reality, the Church has an attitude of protection of health."

New Yorkers, like Americans generally, start to get queasy when confronted with the best weapons in the pro-life movement’s arsenal: graphic descriptions of rarely used late-term-abortion methods, and the fact that thousands of New York women return each year to clinics for a third or fourth abortion. When we nod our heads at Bill Clinton’s famous formulation that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare” or Hillary Clinton’s more recent proclamation that abortion is “a sad, even tragic choice,” we admit some discomfort with the procedure.
Among New York’s pro-choice leaders, reaction to this message is divided. Political groups like NARAL say they understand the need for conceding to public opinion. But to providers, the Clintonian reframing of the issue capitulates to pro-lifers. “Hillary can say anything she wants about whether an abortion is a tragedy,” says Dr. Paul. “What I know when I perform an abortion for a patient is that the overwhelming feeling is one of relief. Because the abortion has solved a huge problem in her life, whether it’s because she couldn't’t afford another child, couldn't’t afford to be a good mother to another child, or doesn’t have the money to raise a child.” She becomes increasingly passionate as she speaks. “Every time I do an abortion I save a woman’s life. If you want to call that a tragedy”—she pauses and exhales a sharp sigh—“I don’t consider it a tragedy, I’m sorry.”

Not as sorry as the baby you just killed I say!

“Our view is, abortion is nothing special. Abortion is right up there with having a baby or getting the care for whatever other medical needs you have.”

This is the attitude of one who either fails to accept a Divine purpose to Life, or chooses to ignore it. Her reasons are lies and are fathered by the father of all lies! Let us not celebrate until abortion "on demand" is nothing but a nightmare in the memory of events that this Country has passed through!

A Stark Study In Contrast

This is a story of two prominent people and how they are treated in their own Country.

The first notable is Pope Benedict XVI, who under pressure from University Professors and radical leftist students was forced to cancel a scheduled speech at Rome's La Sapienza University.

His "people" cancelled the speech because of security concerns, as many professors and students faulted the intellectual, conservative and tradition-minded Pope for a series of positions he has taken that they say subordinate science and reason to faith. Authors note: The statements were about Galaleo many Centuries ago, and recent comments about radical Muslims!

The protest against the visit was spearheaded by physicist Marcello Cini, a professor emeritus (means he doesn't teach anymore basically)of La Sapienza, who wrote to rector Renato Guarini complaining of an "incredible violation" of the university's autonomy.
Sixty-seven professors and researchers of the sprawling university's physics department, as well as radical students, joined in the call for the pope to stay away on Thursday, the start of the university's academic year.

In stark contrast to the rejection of the Pope in Rome is the open arms reception given by the President of St. Peters College in Jersey City, NJ. where he was allowed to give a political rally speech. Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama held a rally at Saint Peter’s College Wednesday, January 9 at the Yanitelli Recreational Life Center.
“Sen. Obama is the latest in a long series of historic figures to choose to speak at St. Peter's College,” said Dr. Eugene J. Cornacchia, President, Saint Peter’s College. “We welcome him as we would welcome any presidential candidate who wishes to discuss and debate the ideas and events that are shaping our history.”

If only Catholics, especially the Head of The Church, were given the same courtesy that a Muslim born and raised, who is a convert to a Church whose Pastor honors Lewis Farrakahn is given by the President of a Catholic College!

Obama is an advocate of almost every thing the Jesuits, who founded this University, stand for. He is a proponent of repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, calling it an "abhorrant Law". He has voted(1997) against the ban in Illinois of partial birth abortions. This is considered a murder of a live person by all Catholics.

He is for research on embryos from fetal cells. This statement reveals his position. "And I'm proud to be a cosponsor of the stem cell bill before us today ["Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005" (H.R. 810)]. This bill embodies the innovative thinking that we as a society demand and medical advancement requires.

"When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society." Pope John Paul II

Gold As An Indicator

In January 1980, when Jimmy Carter was President and we had gasoline lines, gold was priced at $675.00. Today we are looking at gold prices that spiral day to day. This morning the market price for an ounce of gold is $910.00!

In 1968 during the Vietnam war, the price of one ounce of gold was just $36.50.

However, during these last 40 years Americans have lost confidence in OUR paper money. A rising gold price means investors are fleeing paper money for gold. This may be the result from the central bank issuing too much money, more than what's demanded to support trade, or by the U.S. Treasury selling dollars and advocating a lower foreign exchange value, as we have seen the devaluation of the the dollar compared with the Euro.

This policy has lowered the demand for dollars and raised the demand for gold. Today we see inflation running wild, the dollar declining and the secondary mortgage industry in free fall. We are spending money as a Country that acts like a drunken sailor on his first leave!

The stock market is a perfect illustration of the lack of confidence that Americans have for the economic condition in the United States.The free fall of most stocks illustrates the shift from stocks and bonds to gold.

This lack of confidence is directed by all the Democratic aspirants to the Presidency, and too many of the Republican candidates, toward President Bush. To be sure, he has some blame for the lack of a sound dollar. He should have used the veto pen many more times on spending bills passed by Congress than he did.

But the real culprit in this debasing of our dollar is the Congress of the U.S.. The profligate spenders in Congress sent more Pork back to their constituents this past session of Congress than ever before in our history. This despite the fact that as of December 19, 2007, the total U.S. federal debt held by the public was roughly $5 trillion.
This does not include the money owed by states, corporations or individuals, nor does it include the money owed to Social Security beneficiaries in the future. If intragovernment debt obligations are included, the debt figure rises to roughly $9 trillion If unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, etc. promises are added, this figure rises dramatically to a total of $59.1 trillion. In 2005 the public debt was 64.7% of GDP according to the CIA's World Factbook .

Of this outstanding debt a total of $2.079 trillion is owed by the Federal government in long term Bonds and notes held by such adversary Countries as Communist China.

U.S. Treasury statistics indicate that, at the end of 2006, foreigners held 44% of federal debt held by the public. About 66% of that 44% was held by the Central Banks of other countries, in particular the central banks of Japan and China.
This debt is a burden borne by the American public. Wikapedia states the following: The debt equates to $28,412 per head of the U.S. population, or $58,390 per head of the U.S. working population.

Despite these stark statistics, not one of the Democrat candidates who promise change in Washington, says anything about how they will reduce this burden on the U.S. taxpayer.

All we hear is promises to spend more money on welfare programs to garner votes.

The fires of National bankruptcy have been lighted, but like Nero in ancient Rome, Congress continues to spend and call for more money in the form of increased taxes.

The choice is clear. We Conservatives must turn our backs on the tax and spend Liberals, and elect a person who stands for fiscal responsibility.

Thompson For President

Last week Senator Clinton promised if elected President she would spend 70 billion dollars to help stimulate the economy.

Today, Senator Obama promised to spend 120 billion to aid workers, social security recipients and other welfare recipients.

Neither one made the slightest mention of reducing the Taxation of the over taxed middle class! Bigger Government

and withdrawal from Iraq is all we are promised by these deceptive politicians.

Obama supporters like to be compare him with John Kennedy, but The martyr President was born and raised Catholic, not a born and raised Muslim. He also advocated reducing the high tax rates of previous Administrations to help the economy. The list could be expanded, but these two items illustrate the fact that Senator Obama is no John Kennedy.

This life long Republican voted for Kennedy because of his compassion for the over taxed working man.

Presidential aspirants Clinton and Obama are trying to buy your votes with Cash that they have no right to spend! Americans are already weighted down with a heavy tax burden. We don't need a tax and spend Socialist in the White House.

The man who thus far has gotten very little traction in the race for the Presidency, is Ex- Senator Fred Thompson. A no nonsense candidate who firmly believes in the principles upon which this Country was founded. States Rights and a smaller Federal government with a strong military !

Thompson is some what like Reagan in terms of how to deal with the evil in our world. Like Reagan, Thompson is also very firm on free enterprise and free trade as the solution to economic challenges. Thompson stands for less taxation, regulation and litigation, as the way to grow a strong economy, just like Reagan.

Leftists hated Reagan, just as much as they hate Bush, maybe even more. They called him “a cowboy” – a “war-monger” – a “fool on foreign policy” and “dangerous” due to his heavy handed willingness to confront evil wherever he found it, on the other side of the world, or the other side of the political aisle. I believe the left feels the same way about Mr. Thompson. And that alone makes me want to vote for him.

But unlike Reagan, Thompson has always been pro-life all his adult life.President Reagan was pro-choice until later in his life.

Thompson is a pure federalist, opposed to bigger government and for reducing the size, scope and expense of government. Unlike Reagan, he is fully opposed to any form of amnesty for those who have broken our laws and seek a free ride to American citizenship. History shows that Reagan relaxed immigration laws (aka amnesty) during his Presidency.

I believe it is time for the Americans to decide whether they want a "slick" politician who promises US a bigger government, with increased taxation and government control of our lives. Or would we be better off with a man who could be the 2008 "version" of Ronald Reagan. A man who doesn't believe in taxpayer funded scholarships for illegals and does not call President Bush's foreign policy arrogant. For those who don't know who advocates the above, it is Huckabee.

Huckabee is a wolf in sheep's clothing!

A syncretist is one who attempts the reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles. Trying to convince the United States voting public that the can be all things to all people appears to be the aim of today's candidates for the Presidency.

All except for Fred Thompson. What you hear him say is what he really means, and will deliver. Vote for the man who may not be "so slick" but will make a great President

The Travesty In The Pentagon

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

The recent sacrifice of Stephen Coughlin by the political correctness "police" of the Pentagon, for being to critical of the radical Muslims is an incident that should elicit shivers up and down the spine of any American who remembers 9/11/2001.
Technically he was not fired, but the man who is considered the most knowledgeable expert on radical Islam, did not have his contract renewed.
The injustice of this action has made a mockery of the recent statement made by US military chief Admiral Michael Mullen, who when asked about the situation in Pakistan said: "We know about al-Qaeda in Pakistan, we know it is having a significant impact, not just in Afghanistan, but certainly there are concerns about how much they have turned inward inside Pakistan. I am extremely concerned about this," he told a press conference. So concerned, he allowed the dismissal of the one man who knows more about al-Qaeda than anyone left on his staff. I wonder if his concern includes the infiltration by al-Qaeda here in the United States as well?

I have said it before and written it many times, but it needs to be shouted from the roof tops! We are letting our freedom be subverted by those who would destroy us. Kruscheff was right when he said we don't have to beat you on the battle field, we can defeat you from within!

Even the Democrat candidates for President refused to comment on the Islamic threat when prompted in the recent debate.None of the four Democrat presidential candidates — despite running for an office that demands they lead the ongoing global war against Islamic extremists — could bring himself or herself to define the enemy we face is Islamic.

The Republican candidates , on the other hand, called the enemy by its proper name.
The candidates referred to terrorists and terrorism as "Islamic," while also citing radical "Islam" as the problem, no less than 22 times.

Fred Thompson asserted, "We are in a global war with radical Islam. They declared war on us a long, long time ago. We took note, really, for the first time on Sept. 11, 2001."

The Republicans seem to get it. Democrats don't. They talked a lot about "fighting" — fighting insurance companies and big business and Wall Street and polluters. But will they fight the real enemy — Islamic terrorists?
To hear the Democrats in their debate, you'd think Islamic radicals had stopped plotting new attacks against us and scheming new ways of killing us.

WE allowed the secularist humanists to "kick" God out of our schools, public buildings, an WE stood by silently when the Supreme Court perverted the Constitution to allow the killing of unborn babies in the name of "free Choice". What choice, and whose choice I ask?
We have allowed many of the basic principals of our Constitution and Bill of Rights to be subverted in the name of "PC" and diversity. Will we give up our freedom completely by sitting on the fence of political correctness while organisations like CAIR and ACLU subvert our basic right of free speech?

Truth Is a Stranger To Hillary Clinton

There are some basic truths that describe the condition that we find ourselves and the Country in today.

The first is we are at war with World wide Radical lslam.A war that will probably last for years to defeat an enemy who has stated they want to destroy us!

The second is despite the relatively small number of home foreclosures. To date, approximately 500,000 of those sub prime borrowers have lost their homes to foreclosures. An additional 1.8 million are likely to follow as the market deteriorates. That’s nearly 2.4 million lost homes.

But compared with the number of total households in the USA, 111,269,000 in 2007, of which 67% were owned. It is evident that despite the painful experience for those who loose their homes. It is not a big National problem. Many of the people involved are second time home owners who over reached their financial capacity by buying a second house that cost more than they could afford!



The Third Truth is Social Security is the single largest federal program, and it is going broke. In 2004, the Social Security system took in $569 billion in tax revenue and paid out $493 billion in benefits. The program provided benefits to more than 47 million people--about two-thirds of them retired workers and the rest disabled workers, survivors of deceased workers, workers' spouses, and minor children.
Although today the program takes in more revenue than it spends, that situation will not continue once large numbers of baby boomers begin claiming retirement benefits. In coming years, the Social Security system will face mounting financial pressures as its outlays start to grow much faster than its revenue. CBO projects that scheduled Social Security outlays (those implied by the current benefit formula) will rise from 4.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) this year to 6.5 percent in 2050. Revenue, however, is scheduled to remain at 4.9 percent of GDP. This is the third basic truth, Social Security is going broke!
And yet, candidate Hillary Clinton seems to ignore the Basic truths and promise if elected she will spend 70 billion dollars on what this blogger believes are nothing more than an extension of the Federal Governments rush to bankruptcy or massive tax increases.

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton on Friday proposed a $70 billion emergency spending package and possibly another $40 billion tax rebate to counter what she sees as a coming recession, according to the New York Times.
“I have been looking at the latest unemployment numbers, and I really think it is imperative that we start to move to help people dealing with the housing market and give the country a jolt of confidence in the economy,”(aka more welfare at taxpayers peril) the senator from New York told the Times.
Clinton’s plan would provide $30 billion for an emergency housing crisis fund for states to help low-income families unable to make mortgage payments; $25 billion to help low-income families pay heating bills this winter; $10 billion to extend unemployment insurance for people unable to find jobs; and $5 billion for alternative energy programs, the Times said.
The $40 billion tax rebate would be enacted later if economic conditions worsen.
Clinton told the newspaper she “absolutely” believed it was possible for Democrats in Congress to work with US President George W. Bush to enact a stimulus package early this year. The US presidential election does not come until November and the new president would take over a year from now.
But President Bush has said any stimulus he is considering would most likely focus on tax cuts rather than spending.

The more I hear from Clinton, Obama and Edwards the more I think I am hearing a speech from the famous Socialist of the past, Karl Marx. But even he wasn't advocating the "genocide"of partial birth abortion!

Hollywood's New Matinee Idol Examined

The Hollywood elitists appear to have chosen their new Matinee Idol, Barrack Obama. The rich and "beautiful" of the celluloid screen helped push Bill Clinton into the Oval Office. Until the Iowa caucus it seemed their favorite was Bill's wife Hillary. But in all fairy tales the story has shifted a bit.

Yesterday the Hollywood mogul known for his lavish parties for Bill Clinton's campaign,David Geffen,endorsed Obama. His reasons were as follows:

He essentially said Hillary was unelectable. But he went further: he called her "incredibly polarising" before turning on her husband.Calling him "a reckless guy", who had given his enemies ample stout sticks with which to beat him, he even suggested Bill Clinton's personal habits would yet damage his wife's campaign, hinting at further skeletons in the cupboard. Referring to the couple, Geffen added: "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling."

Their are lies, liars and politicians who use semantics and double speak to convince voters to pull the lever opposite their name on election day.

The candidate in this election cyle who has thus far demonstrated the ability to sway voters with semantics and catchy slogans but little substance, is Senator Obama.

The junior Senator from Illinois has little to show for his two years in the U.S. Senate other than his votes against providing more money for the troops fighting radical Islam in Iraq.

He is using as his slogan for his campaign " Change We Can Believe In."

But what kind of change, does he envision much less promise to accomplish if he were to be elected President? Obama has voiced essentially the same positions that the top three Democrats running have itterated. Abortion on demand, withdrawal from Iraq, ebryonic cell research sponsored by government money, gun control, larger taxes, repeal of Bush's tax cuts and bigger government.

From this Socialist, secularist position how will he affect a change in Washington that will lead to better protection for US and make life better for the rapidly vanishing middle class?

This candidate is handsome, erudite and appealing to the young. Those who always think they can make the World a better place than their parents did. Maybe they can, but to do so One must have a plan or at least an outline of what he/she will do to affect the change.

So far all Obama has shown us is his anti-war sentiments, and with the situation in Iraq looking better each month you don't hear many Democrats talking about Iraq on the "stump".

With the Iranian situation becoming each day more threatening. I would hope Americans would not vote for a man who has said publicly that his way of dealing with Islamic terrorists is by negotiation, not by force of arms to defeat them!

This is not Mister or Miss America we will elect in November. The beauty contest is a far cry from electing the head of the Free World !

Billionaire And Who's Behind Bloomberg Movement

For the last few days articles have appeared in the newspapers and on the Web speculating about a Michael Bloomberg Presidential campaign as a third party candidate.

Mr Bloomberg’s wealth has been estimated at as much as $13billion. With a potential war chest of $1billion, he can afford to run at any time with little contribution from the public. Bloomberg, quit the Democratic and Republican parties when he entered politics, and is now an independent.

He has called for an end to partisanship.Which sounds good, but in my opinion will never ever happen again in American politics. His positions on issues such as immigration, gun control and trade would be appear to be the big issues of his campaign.

Not only does Mr. Bloombeg have no experience in Foreign affairs, and is little known outside of the North East. The group that is behind the campaign to get him to play the role of "spoiler"includes some interesting people. This group has been referred to as "moderates", but I think this blog will show they are anything but moderate!

To lead off the group who reporters call moderates is the notorious Gary Hart of the "Monkey Business" trip to the Bahamas with Donna Rice during his run for President.
The Miami Herald obtained photographs of Hart aboard the Monkey Business with then-29-year-old model Donna Rice, sitting in over-50 year-old Hart's lap. The photographs were subsequently published in the National Enquirer. On May 8, 1987, a week after the Donna Rice story broke, Hart dropped out of the race.

Then there is ex-Senator Danforth who as a mainline Episcopal priest, retired U.S. senator and diplomat,worships a humbler God and considers "the Christian Right's certainty a sin".He had the following to say in March of 2005.

"Legislating against gay marriage, for instance? "It's just cussedness." As he sees it, "when we see an opportunity to save our neighbors' lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research, and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so".
He also said: "We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.
Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals".

William Cohen is another of Bloombergs supporters. In commenting on the QDR,(Quadrenial Sefense Review).

Cohen stated that the Pentagon would retain the two regional wars scenario adopted after the end of the Cold War.However, he decided to scale back purchases of jet fighters, including the Air Force's F-22 and the Navy's F/A-18E/F, as well as Navy surface ships. The review included cutting another 61,700 active duty service members, 15,000 in the Army, 26,900 in the Air Force, 18,000 in the Navy, and 1,800 in the Marine Corps, as well as 54,000 reserve forces, mainly in the Army National Guard, and some 80,000 civilians department-wide. Cohen also decided to recommend two more rounds of base closings in 1999 and 2001. Sounds like a liberal not a moderate position to me. As a result when President Bush took over as the Commander in Chief, he inherited a weakened military.

Ex-Sentor Bob Graham, also is supporting the Mayor of New York as a Presidential candidate. He is remembered by this blogger for his Mea culpa in the Washington Post after he left the Senate in which he concluded: "From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan. Now I had come to question whether the White House was telling the truth -- or even had an interest in knowing the truth.
On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptier. Most of my colleagues could not."
The writer is a former Democratic senator from Florida. He was a fellow at Harvard University's Institute of Politics when he wrote the column. Perhaps his position at Harvard colored his opinion, although he based his oposition to the Iraq invasion based upon:"As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked."Sounds like the position of all Democrats now in the race to me.

Obama's Using Wife For Tough Issues

Although it is early in the campaign for the Presidential nomination. It appears The Barrack Hussein Obama has decided to use his wife to address issues that he doesn't want to go on record as being for or against.
Michelle Obama appears to be the "point" women used to go to Black schools and Churches, and try to convince those in attendance to drop their support for Hillary Clinton. She has appeared at numerous all Black meetings where her main message is "wake up and support one of your own."
She appears to be the "in your face" person bringing the message to the Black Community. This approach has been chided by some Black leaders as being duplicitous, and could backfire.

Mrs Obama serves as roaming ambassador for African-American audiences, Mrs. Obama is one of their own, with a more familiar background than that of her husband. At a black church in Cincinnati last week, the audience hummed approval throughout her speech.


Michelle Obama, said "Black America will wake up and get it" in an interview running on MSNBC.
In a clip that's featured in one segment, Michelle Obama invoked the name of civil rights leaders Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. when talking about African-American turnout, a crucial voting bloc for the Illinois senator.
She said:
"The legacy of slavery and racism is that a large number of African-Americans do not believe that they are able to succeed in the world. Not that they lack the capacity to succeed, but they simply do not believe that it will be possible because they still believe they will not be given the opportunity".
Many will point out that all candidates have their spouses out on the campaign trail drumming up votes for their spouse. This is true, but none other than Michelle Obama is playing the race card!

Mr Obama's refusal to wear one of Mr Bush's omnipresent American flag pin, which the senator called a substitute for real patriotism has attracted some voters, but makes me wonder if he were elected would he have more respect for Our flag?
Because the junior senator from Illinois has no achievements at all in foreign relations, very little accomplishments in national politics, and no significant achievements while in Illinois politics. He hasn't done anything, so they have to come up with nonsensical, or Racial reasons to vote for him. Where are his plans for dealing with illegal aliens, radical Muslims, Irans nuclear threat, Russia's saber rattling, fixing our weak dollar? He says nothing concrete. Just elect me for a new begining, and just what will that be?

In addition to the many reasons listed above, not to vote for Obama, there is his alleged ties to Tony Rezko, his membership in a church many consider racist, his acceptance of genocide as a possible cost of a too early withdrawal from Iraq.
The record shows a troubling deal with a shadowy figure in the Chicago area. The following is a brief description of his dealings with this man.

In June 2005, Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining parcels in Kenwood. The state's junior senator paid $1.65 million for a Georgian revival mansion, while Rezko paid $625,000 for the adjacent, undeveloped lot. Both closed on their properties on the same day.
Sen. Barack Obama says he regrets purchasing land from politcal fundraiser Antoin Rezko.(AP)
Last January, aiming to increase the size of his side yard, Obama paid Rezko $104,500 for a strip of his land.
The transaction occurred at a time when it was widely known Tony Rezko was under investigation by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and as other Illinois politicians befriended by Rezko distanced themselves from him.
The land deal came up in a court hearing that delved into Rezko's finances. Obama said he has not been approached by federal prosecutors about the transaction nor has plans to go to them about it.
Obama and Rezko have been friends since 1990, and Obama said the Wilmette businessman raised as much as $60,000 for him during his political career. After Rezko's indictment, Obama donated $11,500 to charity--a total that represents what Rezko contributed to the senator's federal campaign fund.
The reason I would never vote for Obam is that Obama has been opposed to any military action in Iraq since the days he was in the Illinois State Legislature.His speeches on the campaign trail have included demands for immediate withdrawal, and statements that indicate we were led into the war by President Bush's duplicity. This is a common theme for all Democrat Presidential aspirants, but the "johnny come lately" with Muslim roots is in direct odds with ex-President Clinton who strongly said their was a threat in Iraq for WMD.


President Bill Clinton, during his second term, warned Congress of Saddam Hussein's pursuit of nuclear weapons:
"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world," and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again."

The Paradox Of The Right To Choose

This picture of a 21-week fetus hand reaching up through an incision in its mother's uterus to grab the finger of the surgeon who had just performed a life-saving procedure appeared in the November 16 edition of The National Enquirer.
It should be "The Picture of the Year," or perhaps, "The Picture of the Decade."
The 21-week-old unborn baby is named Samuel Alexander Armas, and is being operated on by a surgeon named Joseph Bruner. The baby was diagnosed with spina bifida and would not survive if removed from the mother's womb.

This picture and the surgical procedure performed puts the lie to the Women's Right to Choose argument that the fetus is not a living person until he/she is delivered.

Before I continue my argument for the Right To Life advocates, of which I am a proponent. I would ask the question to the Feminist advocates. The right to chose what? The question is one of the only Philosophical arguments with a premise that does not explain it's purpose. Is it the right to kill the baby inside her womb?
If so, then why does the criminal justice division of the government consider it a double murder when a pregnant women is murdered?

Apparently Roe vs Wade didn't consider the murder situation when they decided to make the murder of unborn and partially born babies legal. But in the real world, the decisions that dictate a double murder when a pregnant woman is killed. The Fetus is considered a murder victim!

I show the picture of a public hanging in Iran to illustrate the way non-Judeo/Christian Countries demonstrate their disregard the value of human life.Have we degraded our society to the point where the Genocide of unborn children is not a concern?

A Hobson's Choice For Me

"A free choice in which only one option is offered and one may refuse to take that option." So said Hobson, the English Nobleman of the 16th Century. He ran a stable and you had one choice. The horse in the first stall, or no horse. Take it or leave it!

Yesterday the Democrats had a Hobson's choice to make and only slightly less than 12% of the population turned out to vote.
There were seven mega wealthy Democrats who courted the voters in Iowa. Some richer than others, but all of them millionaires who pretend to be the champion of the "little man"!

The three who garnered the most votes were a millionaire Senator, aka "ambulance chaser" attorney, who lives in North Carolina on 120 acres in a 28,000 square foot house. An ex-first lady who has managed to hide her wealth and avarice for power to most voters. But former Clinton confidant, Dick Morris, and his wife and partner, Eileen McGann, are positing a theory of Clinton enrichment that attempts to explain the dramatic increase--from as little as $352,000 in 2003 to as much as $50,000,000 in 2005--in Hillary Clinton's disclosed assets.
Then their is the first term African -American Senator from Illinois, who from his one parent childhood has managed to write two best-selling books, has a nice salary as a Senator and a wife with a handsome income. Earlier this year he reported assets of up to $1.14 million in addition to his Chicago home. Of all the Democrats running for President he has the least money, but he still is a privileged man with a Harvard education and mega wealthy backers like Oprah and Warren Buffet.

The thing that unites all three is their vision of the future. The three believe the Federal Government can take care of all your needs and wants from cradle to grave. In fact they are Socialists, even though they pose as rescue workers who will save US from the Horrible ills of the Free Enterprise system!
Thus the Hobson Choice!

There are 2,982,085 people living in Iowa. 354,000 went to the Caucus yesterday. 115,000 voted for Republican candidates and the Democrats garnered 239,000 voters. Hardly a death knell or victory bell for any of the winners or losers. Yet the always "truthful" New York Times printed that the results in Iowa spell doom for the Republicans while cheering Obamas victory.
"With a win in the Iowa caucuses last night, Obama shook conventional wisdom to its political core, preaching “post-partisan” comity and becoming the first African American candidate in either party to win the first-in-the-nation balloting. Obama went into a state of 3 million people, just 2 1/2 percent of whom are black, and cleaned up, topping Clinton and former vice presidential nominee John Edwards by more than eight percentage points."

I would hardly call getting 39% of 238,000 votes "cleaning up". But then we are used to the hyperbole of the Media, or are we?

The New York Times political correspondent David Brooks was so excited by the "Two Earthquakes" in Iowa that he had this so say: "Whatever their political affiliations, Americans are going to feel good about the Obama victory, which is a story of youth, possibility and unity through diversity — the primordial themes of the American experience.
And Americans are not going to want to see this stopped. When an African-American man is leading a juggernaut to the White House, do you want to be the one to stand up and say No?

All this over a man who the press wants to label as an person who can change the United States from the "horrible" Bush/Cheney Gulag to a new beginning! But what kind of new Country will we get from any of these Democrats? One that favors the Privileged few. Politicians, entertainers, finance moguls, captains of industry and all the other mega-rich who would put him/her in the White House. The rest of us will get higher taxes, more government control, open borders and a weaker military.

I for one will stand up and say no, Mr. Brooks!

What if the Pope Declared A Fatwa?

Fatawas are expected to deal with religious issues, however in exceptional cases, religious issues and political ones seem to be inextricably intertwined.

The term fatwa is used by Islamic extremists to mean "permission" to do a certain act that might be otherwise illegal under Islamic law.
Some examples of fatawa follow:
Ayatollah Ruhollah khomeini in 1989 pronounced a death sentence on Salman Rushdie, the author of The Satanic Verses.
Yusuf al-Qaradawi released a fatwa on April 14th 2004, stating that the boycott of American and Israeli products was an obligation for all who are able.

Well what is good for the goose is also good for the gander, as the saying goes!

It won't happen, but the situation in Great Britain is such an insult, that if the Catholic Church was led by a man like Khomeini, the Pope would issue a fatwa today!

First it was a crucifix upside down in a bottle of urine shown in an "art" show in New York City. Now it is a one foot high statue of Jesus with an erection!

This obscenity is on display in a gallery at Gateshead Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art. It has offended those Christians of all Christian faiths, not just Catholics,who have seen this obscene statue that is the central figure in the exhibit.
The exhibit is a traditional statue of Jesus which has been "doctored" by controversial Chinese artist Terence Koh.

Outraged visitors and church leaders have criticised the artist and Baltic Center bosses for disrespecting the Christian faith.
Dad-of-two John Monaghan, 33, of Heaton, Newcastle, said: "I feel this sculpture is overstepping the mark with regards to respect. This blogger believes it is an insult to picture The Christ in any way other that which is pictured in Sacred Scriptures. If I were Pope I would issue a holy edict condemning any Catholic to excommunication who attended this heretical exhibit!
"If other religious characters were portrayed in this way, Mohammad for example, there would be riots. It should be withdrawn immediately."
Assistant priest at St Mary's Roman Catholic Cathedral in Newcastle, the Rev Christopher Warren, branded the statue offensive.
"For Christians the image of Jesus is very special and to interpret it in a sexualised way is an affront to what we hold dear," he said.

The statue is part of the Zabludowicz Collection, owned by Newcastle-born collector Anita Zabludowicz.
She studied fine art and history at Newcastle's College of Arts and Technology before spending 10 years as an interior designer.
Koh, 30, was born in Beijing but raised in Vancouver, Canada, and lives in New York. (source the Daily Mail)

No one would think that a statue of your father, son or brother shown with his private parts would be acceptable. That is no one except an addict to pornography. Then why is there no out cry from the public over this repeated demonstration of hatred for religious symbols? Have we become so humanistic , nihilistic and decadent that we accept these obscenities as art?

God help us, and forgive us if we have!

The Neologism Of Candidates For President

In 1945 Winston Churchill said this about Socialism:
" A socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance".

The primary campaign rhetoric from both party's candidates, especially the Democrats, demonstrate that the voters of the United States have many "closet" Socialists to choose from.
With out exception, all the Democratic candidates advocate elimination of the present free enterprise system of Medical Care for the 13% of Americans who have no medical insurance. These 40 million probably included a majority of the estimated 20-30 million illegals presently in the U.S.
The "seven dwarfs" also advocate the amnesty solution to the illegal immigrant problem in this country. Not exactly a conservative or voter friendly position. That is unless you are an illegal with fake documents that will allow you to vote for an "Amnestyista".
You hear little about taxation reform from anyone other than my favorite candidate,Fred Thompson. The Dems. all want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, and are proposing so many welfare programs that the only way to pay for them will be to increase all manner of Federal taxation!

When the issue of protecting the rights of the unborn, the aged and infirmed. No one candidate is out front championing the rights of those who can't defend themselves or demand equal rights with those illegals who are receiving equal protection in the name of diversity and political correctness.
Deconstructionists have seemed to dictate the parameters of the political debate.

Fred Thompson seems to have the best policy positions and the best political track record among the Republican candidates -- and the least effective presentation of himself.
If Senator Thompson can beat the odds and become president, he would probably be better than most of those who have been in the White House in recent times -- though that is not extravagant praise.credit for this comment is due Thomas Sowell, and I firmly agree with his position.

As for all the other candidates in both parties, the big question is why anyone takes them seriously as candidates to lead the nation at a time of huge dangers that terrorists will end up with nuclear weapons, whether from Iran or Pakistan.
An ambulance chaser who became wealthy by suing insurance companies, An ex-minister who agrees with the Supreme Court ruling against sodomy laws, a Republican front runner who joined Senator Feingold to strike a blow against first amendment rights in politics, and joined with the worst leftist of all, Ted Kennedy, in sponsoring amnesty for illegals.
A Democrat who believes in busing so much he will have his campaign people bus college students from Iowa who go to college in the Chicago area back to Iowa so they can vote.
He is the Fred Astaire of politics -- graceful and elegant, with a surface so pleasing to the eye that it seems mistaken, even greedy, to demand depth. No one, however, would have given Astaire control of nuclear weapons, and that is what this man is asking you to give him.

Then there is the candidate who stood by and watched her husband degrade not only the office of the Presidency, but her own marriage in the White House , and said nothing!
Her programs, which would cost billions and billions of dollars by even the most generous accounting, are simply “gifts” for the American people. No sacrifice, no cost, no strings attached at all — save the price of your vote.And If You believe that the next thing she will try to sell you is that she is a Conservative!

Happy New Year And God Save Us From Our Leaders

As we get ready to celebrate the beginning of the New Year and the National elections in 2008, there is at least one issue which should put a damper on our enthusiasm for the celebration of a new beginning in 2008.

If you have not hard about it, the Congress passed a new CAFE bill and President Bush did as he has so many other times during his seven years in office. He pulled the rug out from the little man! He signed a bill into law that will make automobiles drastically smaller and less safe on the highways to satisfy a bunch of Ecology worshipers whose theory of the Global Warming has not been conclusively been proved. As reported in this blog and many others, there are at least 400 scientist whose expertise is in climate and its relation to man made pollution, who decry the claim that man made pollution has an adverse effect on the Warming of the World.

Never mind scientific testimony. The world has apparently bought into the philosophy and religious fervor of the man who claims to have invented the Internet, Al Gore and his ilk.

The House of Representatives on Tuesday passed the revised version of the Energy Independence and Security Act, returned to it from the U.S. Senate this week. After a camera-ready trip to the White House in a Toyota Prius, the bill was signed into law by President Bush. A key provision of the bill is an increase in fuel-economy standards to average 35 mpg by 2020, which is the first time the CAFE average has been raised since the 1970s.

Also included in the bill were mandates for the U.S. fuel supply to include 36 billion gallons of biofuels — including 15 billion gallons of ethanol, with the rest from "non-food" sources — in 2022. A substance that will make the mega-farmers rich and raise the cost of most food products, that has been shown to damage the fuel injectors of cars over time.

The horrors of this bill will be born by those who have to drive on the highways with the uncontrolled behemoth trucks. To make cars more fuel efficient the auto makers will have to make vehicles for passenger travel smaller and lighter. While they do this the trucks get larger, and become more of a threat to the health an safety of the "individual" driver.

It is much easier to take on the individual than the trucking industry or the teamsters!

Recent studies by Harvard University demonstrate the dire consequences of reducing the size of passenger vehicles. Not only will more cars be blown off course when one of the double trailer trucks passes At more than 75 miles an hour. The real crisis will occur when their is a collision with one of these monsters of the highway!

Researchers at Harvard University and the Brookings Institution found that these micro-cars are not as safe as the current U.S. fleet. Their research found that for every 100 pounds shaved off cars to meet CAFÉ standards between 440 and 780 additional people were killed in auto accidents. This means that an additional total of 2,200 to 3,900 lives will be lost per model year. Adrian Lund, of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said, “Fatalities are much higher with small, lightweight vehicles.” Politicians are force-feeding the micro-cars on the American public even if that means these vehicles will be less safe.

A study in Florida concluded with the following facts: According to the 2003 Florida Department of Transportation Factbook, on average 704 traffic accidents occur in Florida each day. In 2002, there were 250,470 traffic accidents which resulted in 229,611 injuries and 3,143 deaths.

A recent visit to a Toyota dealership, the number one car being sold today in the U.S., it was discovered that only one car meets the standard passed by Congress. The Toyota Prius.Where as the smallest car made by Toyota, the Yaris, had a maximum 36 mpg on the highway, and its combined city and highway average was below the required 35 mpg. The Toyota Camry Hybrid also failed the new CAFÉ standards.

Don't think for a minute that the limousine riding Prince's and Princesses of Congress will be found driving one of the new fuel efficient and dangerous to our health cars. They will cruise up to the Embassy party's in their gas guzzling limos. You can bet on that!

Critical Look At Poverty In U.S.A.

Because of the leftist bias of most newspapers and TV news programs. I tend to get my news from various sites on the Internet. I use domestic as well as foreign sites to gather knowledge of what is happening today.

This has been a reliable source of balanced reporting for me, but today when I logged on, the MSN home page featured an article that caught my eyes.

The article is about 41 million people in the United States not having the basic necessities of life.The article is the product of Professor Donna Haig Friedman and others who are feminist activists that teach at The University of Mass.in Boston, and are leaders of the Center For Social Policy.

In their report they stated that 41 million persons could not afford the basic necessities of shelter and medical care.

Yet in a June 2005 report, she and her collaborators reported that in homeless people they studied for their report. The number one medical problem for 78% of those interviewed was substance abuse!!

To give you an inkling of this professors political sympaties I offer the following quote from her report on the recruitment of PHD candidates at UMass.

"Again this year, we were contacted by the Open Society Institute about a program that is funded by the Soros Foundation Network and USAID that brings Palestinian doctoral students to a limited number of American universities. Although this year’s candidates were better matched to a program in public administration rather than public policy, we are definitely interested in future collaboration".

This gives us a slight inkling what their political positions are. Could it be Socialism?

Before I list some statistics that were released by the Census Bureau. I have to point out that their article says nothing about the impact on poverty by the illegal aliens in this Country. If these women want to write about poverty they could look to the Sudan, Bangladesh or some parts of Communist China!

Homeland Security's Office of Immigration Studies released a report August 31 that estimates the number of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. is between 8 and 12 million. But the group Californians for Population Stabilization, or CAPS, has unveiled a report estimating the illegal population is actually between 20 and 38 million.
Four experts, all of whom contributed to the study prepared by CAPS, discussed their findings at a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington Wednesday. James Walsh, a former associate general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, said he is "appalled" that the Bush administration, lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and every Democratic presidential candidate, with the exception of Joe Biden, have no problem with sanctuary cities for illegal aliens.

As our nation prepares to ring in the new year, the U.S. Census Bureau today projected the Jan. 1, 2008, population will be 303,146,284 -- up 2,842,103 or 0.9 percent from New Year’s Day 2007.
In January, the United States is expected to register one birth every eight seconds and one death every 11 seconds.
Meanwhile, net international migration is expected to add one person every 30 seconds. The result is an increase in the total U.S. population of one person every 13 seconds.

There is no disputing that there is poverty in the United States, but overstating the problem in the middle of an election campaign is demagogic and the connection of professor Friedman's UMass. doctorate program indicates where her motivation comes from.

Much of her article concentrates on the plight of the children, but how many children live without at least one parent? If the Census Bureau statistics are true, perhaps the reason children don't have adequate health care is the parents confusion between NEEDs and WANTs!

The census Bureau released the following data in 2003:

Of those considered below the poverty line($20,650 for a family of four), 97% had color TV, 46% owned their own houses,73% owned microwave ovens, 76% lived in air conditioned dwellings, 75% own cars and 30% own two cars.

The average living space for a family of four, below the poverty line, in the United States is larger than the average non-poor person living in Athens, London, Vienna and Paris.

The Census Bureau also reported Tuesday that 36.5 million Americans, or 12.3 percent — were living in poverty last year. That’s down from 12.6 percent in 2005.
The median household income for all families was $48,200, a slight increase from the previous year. But the number of people without health insurance also increased, to 47 million..

If we believe the figures quoted by Profesor Friedman, then only six million people above the poverty line are without health coverage. Not bad for a Country with 20-30 million illegals and a total population over 300 million. But then negative reports always seem to be the Lefts long suit.

Sports At All Levels Deny Free Speech

Bobby Knight was reprimanded by the big 12 Conference for derogatory remarks he made about the officials after a game. What he said follows and does not seem to be deogatory, What he said was his opinion:

"I thought it was a horrendous call," Knight said after the game.
Knight's comment violated the Big 12's sportsmanship code, which prohibits public comments about officiating, the conference said in a statement.

This is as good an illustration of the Gag rule that appears to exist in College and especially in professional football. A rule against anyone involved in the playing of games, from the players and coaches to the television announcers, not to make any negative comments about the officiating or any official in particular.

Bill Carollo, an NFL official for 29 years, who officiated two Super Bowls, had this to say about officials. "We make three or four mistakes a game. Most aren't known to the public. Just like the players, everyone is human, and no one's perfect. We're graded on every single play of every single game. The players get better, and the coaching schemes get better. You're scrutinized more because of the media. You can't ever get too comfortable. We have one-year contracts. You make one bad call, you could be out."

If that is true, then why are players and coaches fined and suspended from games for criticizing officials calls during crucial moments in the games?

During the Ravens and patriots game an official allegedly insulted a player repeatedly.Raven's player, Rolle's accused head linesman Phil McKinnely of repeatedly calling him "boy" at one point in the game. This provoked a semi-violent response from the player toward the referee

McAlister had more critical words about the referees and singled out a late holding call on rookie safety Jaimaine Winborne.
"It's hard to go out there and play the Patriots and the refs at the same time," McAlister said. "They put the crown on top of them, they want them to win. They won."

The NFL reacted severely, and four Ravens players were fined for violating league rules prohibiting the "abuse" of game officials. Speaking your mind is now equated as abuse!
Linebacker Bart Scott was fined $25,000 for verbally abusing game officials and throwing an officials flag into the stands during Monday night's game against New England.
Cornerbacks Samari Rolle and Chris McAlister and wide receiver Derrick Mason were fined $15,000 each for publicly questioning the integrity of the officiating in the game.
"This is about the importance of sportsmanship and respecting the integrity of our game," Ray Anderson, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations, said in a statement. "We do not tolerate inappropriate conduct between teams and game officials. This includes reminding game officials that they are to conduct themselves at all times as professionals in their dealings with players, coaches, and other club personnel."

Or is it more about preventing anything that would question the integrity of the biggest "Cash Cow" in professional sports? In a Country where free speech is being reduced daily by PC and diversity rules and decisions. You would think a violent sport like football could stand some criticism of all those involved in the game. Including the officials!

From Folly To Corruption

In 1924 the World had just experienced the killing of tens of millions of men that resulted from the assassination of the Arch Duke of Austria. One gun man killed the Arch-duke. No nations invaded another, but things escalated to the point where in two battles, Verdun and Somme, during six weeks of battle the Allies lost 350,000 men!

During the course of World War One, eleven percent (11%) of France's entire population were killed or wounded! Eight percent (8%) of Great Britain's population were killed or wounded, and nine percent (9%) of Germany's pre-war population were killed or wounded! The United States, which did not enter the land war in strength until 1918, suffered one-third of one percent (0.37%) of its population killed or wounded.

Because of this carnage the victorious Nations decide to form the League Of Nations in hopes of ending war for all our times.

The League Charter had 26 Articles of which I will quote only the preamble and the last, to illustrate where we have come since 1924.

"THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, In order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war, by the prescription of open, just and honourable relations between nations, by the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among Governments, and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another, Agree to this Covenant of the League of Nations".

ARTICLE 26. "Amendments to this Covenant will take effect when ratified by the Members of the League whose Representatives compose the Council and by a majority of the Members of the League whose Representatives compose the Assembly. No such amendments shall bind any Member of the League which signifies its dissent therefrom, but in that case it shall cease to be a Member of the League".

History shows that this grand attempt to establish World Peace failed miserably. The Sino-Japanese War raged from 1937 to 1945, and then the World experienced the killing of an estimated 60 million soldiers, airmen, naval, marines and civilians during World War II(1939-45). It has been estimated that close to 30 million military personal lost their lives in WWII!

Then the victorious Nations got the grand idea that they could prevent war by forming the United Nations. So, in 1945 in the City of San Francisco, they gathered and began the United Nations. The Charter is quoted below, and it like the League of Nations has also failed in it's stated purpose--prevent War!

Since June 26, 1945, when the UN Charter was drawn up and implemented in October of the same year, there have been many wars. Some were euphemistically called "peace keeping" missions, for political reasons, like Korea, but there were hot wars in Vietnam, Bosnia, Nicaragua, Angola, Darfur, The Sudan and the Greek Civil war to name but a few that the UN did not prevent or help to win.

In the African Continent waring tribes of Muslims are killing thousands of people today, but the UN seems more preoccupied with getting a Carbon-Tax passed that will help them with, what this blogger believes has evolved into their primary function. The redistribution of wealth, and the control over the productivity and way of life of US in the United States!

I have a suggestion that would help with the national debt. Since the League of Nations was rightly located in a neutral Country, Switzerland. Lets start a movement to relocate the UN to Geneva, and when it is gone we can tear the buildings down and sell the bricks and pieces of concrete to those who bought the "pet rock" and pieces of the Berlin Wall!

We could turn the valuable land, United States property, into a money making endeavor by leasing or selling the land in "Turtle Bay" for hundreds of millions of dollars!

At least that way we would remove from our sight an organisation that was formed in 1945 with good intentions, but has evolved over the years since 1945, into an adversary of our sovereign Country. Just think of the unpaid tickets and citations that the New York police would not have to file in the "round file" on the floor!