WILL OBMA BE A GOOD MILITARY LEADER?

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

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

The Maunder Minimum and Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source for both quotes is the "Patriot Post".

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

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

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

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

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

You Will Pay For Candidates Promises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Takes A Page Out Of History

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

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

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

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

Obama is nothing less than a very slick progressive Socialist!

Obama the New Messianic Symbol to Many

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

A Civics Lesson For Potential Voters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whose Side Is Pelosi On?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

NPT Nothing But Trash?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hold Your Nose And Vote For "R"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Chicago Tribune

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

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

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

A Radical Change Just Occured

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

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

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

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

Who Is In Charge Of Foreign Relations?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Nominate A Sure Looser?

Much to my mortification and chagrin, it appears that the nomination process of the Republicans is headed toward John McCain. The real Conservatives have left the race, and it is left to Romney to defrock McCain.

My problem with McCain is he has been too cozy with the leftist Democrats. His co-sponsorship of four significant Democratic Bills that cut off free speech, limited campaign contributions, called for amnesty for illegals, called for bowing to Global warming zealots and assisted Clinton and John Kerry in the lifting of the trade embargo of Communist Vietnam.

Then there is the fact that he is an open target for a Democrat "swift boat" attack on his POW status. Some ex-POWs have even called him the Manchurian Candidate!

Senator McCain allegedly collaborated with the Vietnamese enemy while in a POW camp in Vietnam. This may or may not be true. I don't question his patriotism, but some will!

In addition he has been collaborating with the leaders of the Mexican Reconquista movement for some time. Among other outrages, he was the keynote speaker at the 2004 annual conference of the National Council of La Raza. He told the biased racist crowd: “It is in our national interest to bring the 8 to 12 million undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and allow them an opportunity to become citizens of this great nation.”

He then kept his word to the Mexican illegals by teaming up with the grand daddy of Liberals,Ted Kennedy, to sponsor
the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act", S. 1033, better known as the Kennedy-McCain bill after its two principal sponsors. This is nothing less than Amnesty Legislation on a massive, historically unprecedented scale.

If enacted, S.1033, the immigration crisis America faces today, because all previous amnesties have failed to stop and actually encouraged greater levels of illegal immigration, illegal population will grow exponentially.

Fortunately the House blocked passage, but with McCain in the White House(God forbid) you can be certain it will pass the next time, and we will open the flood gates to illegals!

S.1033 incorporates the worst features of every failed amnesty program since 1986, but would allow in numbers of illegals greater than all the illegal and legal aliens who entered the U.S. in the past fifteen years combined. Source:FAIR

My choice for the nomination of President, Romney, had this to say during the recent Florida campaign:

"The McCain Feingold Bill is nothing more than a liberal pandering to the "Global Warming" zealots and would cause serious damage to our economy. McCain-Lieberman climate bill would add an extra 1,000 dollars to the average Florida homeowner’s energy bill without putting restrictions on other countries sending companies and jobs overseas". The idea of America saying we are going to unilaterally but a huge burden on ourselves and hope China follows, is simply out of touch with how the world works. “ ----- Source: FoxNews.com

Try finding a shoe or shirt used for sports that doesn't have a Fujian of China, Vietnam or Pakistan label! This bill would only put more baggage on an already over taxed business structure here in the United States.

The final and perhaps the most important reason I think McCain is a bad choice. The Main Stream media, including the granddaddy Liberal rag New York Times", is promoting McCain!

I am not a super intelligent person, but I am very discerning of the things that happen around me. The reason I believe the Left wing Media is promoting McCain now, is because they know what I know and probably a lot more dirt they can dish out to defeat him in the 2008 Presidential election. They view him as a weak candidate.

Mark my words. The minute the Party conventions are over the Media will start it's destruction campaign on McCain, and the DEMOCRAT NOMINEE WILL WIN IN A LAND SLIDE!

Time To Recognize Irans Threat

Newspapers, television and the internet are full of stories about Super Tuesday. No where can you find a story that should make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. I had to find it in the Bruni Times internet site.

IRAN yesterday fired a rocket into space to mark the opening of its first space centre, hailing the base's inauguration as a step forward in its battle against Western dominance. The space center, located in the remote desert of northern Iran, will be used to launch Iran's first home-produced satellite "Omid" (Hope) in May or June this year, officials said."We witness today that Iran has taken its first step in space, precisely and with awareness," declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as he gave the order for the rocket's launch."The evil and dominant system's key instrument is humiliating people and nations by making them think that they are incapable," he said in a reference to the West.

The opening of the space center comes as Iran has been announcing its progress in its nuclear program, which President Bush and our allies fear could be used to make atomic weapons.

The emphasis on Iran's development of its own domestic space technology is highly reminiscent of its insistence on developing its nuclear capabilities, which has led it into a four-year standoff with the West.

Ahmadinejad has made Iran's scientific development one of the main themes of his presidency."No power can overcome the Iranian nation's will," said Ahmadinejad.

Until two years ago, the United States' export controls over most satellites tightly proscribed what information could be shared. But in 1996, President Clinton overruled Secretary of State Warren Christopher and transferred export controls on satellites from the State Department to the Commerce Department, which has less rigorous restrictions on sharing sensitive technology. And the flood gates were opened! source: New York Times

No one from satellite makers to Congress to the White House can say for sure what China has actually done with information passed along. So the question roiling Capitol Hill this week is whether Mr. Clinton's decision to make it easier to export satellites to China for launching has jeopardized United States national security. This issue is of particular note since China has like Russia contributed experts and materials to Iran for the development of their space program and rocket arsenal! New York Times

As in the case of its nuclear and long-range missile programs, Iran turned to countries which assisted her in developing its military capability in the past including Russia, China and North Korea. These countries are currently involved at different levels in the Iranian space program and in particular in the development of the booster which will probably be a derivative of the Shihab ballistic missile.

Despite the fact that Israel News Agency reported a year ago on Feb. 27, 2007, that An Israel security official had told the Israel News Agency that the recent launch of a missile from Iran into space illustrated a direct threat to both Europe's and US national security. Where was this story in our Liberal Press?
On February 25, Iran launched a missile reaching space. "Iran has successfully launched its first space missile made by Iranian scientists," the head of Iran's aerospace research center, Mohsen Bahrami, was quoted as saying. On Saturday, Iran Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said Iran was planning to build a satellite and launcher".
"Iran has no plans to land a man on the moon," Col. Adam an Israeli security source told the INA. "The same technology is used to build intercontinental ballistic missiles. This Iran space launch is not a threat to Israel. The Iranians need not reach a space orbit to attack Israel, but such a high orbit would be needed to deliver a nuclear payload into Europe or the US."!!!!

History is about to repeat itself. During the 1930's the Nazi war machine was secretly building the V-2 rocket while the World looked on or occupied themselves with talk,talk, talk with Hitler.

Iran is no different than Nazi Germany. The Nazis built up an army, resources and created the V-2 rocket. The V-2 was the first man-made object launched into space, during test flights it reached an altitude of 189 km (117 miles) in 1944. "While Germany was putting the finishing touches to the V-2 which was eventually used against Britain, the world stood by wanting to talk. Now we have Iran repeating history, declaring to "wipe Israel off the map" while planting bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan, one which nearly killed US Vice President Cherney during his visit there.

I believe we and our European allies have two options once the American people wake up to the threat. We can attack Iran and suffer the consequencces of a retaliatory attack using chemical weapons by not only Iran but their "henchmen" Syria. Or we can immediately place severe sanctions against Iran and any country(aka Russia and China) that is aiding in the development of their nuclear weapon capability.

The Iranians are not threatening to use nuclear weapons once they get the weapons they deny they are making. They are promising us "Infidels" that they will use them against the "great satan"when they have developed them. Will we wait until we like London witness the massive loss of life here at home or in one of our Alled Countries?

SCAM's Aid And Abet Illegals

It appears that we have developed into a generation of people who were brought up by sixties radicals that preached to their children "to question authority", and "if it feels good, do it!" The result has been a secular population that distrusts authority , the military and the rule of law.
This attitude is manifest in the lack of political discussion, by candidates for the Presidential nomination, about the issue of illegal immigration.
Presently we have between 20 and 30 million illegals in the United States. Close to 65% are illegals from Mexico who crossed into the USA through wide open borders , and are living free from prosecution for their illegal act. Yes, there have been a few "round ups" and well publicized raids on a few employers of illegals. But most of them a have been booked and released. Never to return to Court much less be deported.
The people behind the support for this horde of law breakers are Socialists, Communists, Anarchists and Marxists who detest our Constitution, which they profess is just after all a piece of paper!
The Constitution did not grant illegals any rights!
The very first sentence of the Constitution (often referred to as the Preamble) clearly states: “We the People of the United States, in Order to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” It doesn’t say “in Order to bestow various rights and privileges on aliens and their Posterity” Illegals are law breakers not poor individuals to be aide and abetted.
Unfortunately there are those who believe it is not only O.K. to aid and abet these felons, but their religious duty to do it.
Kim Bobo is one such person. A labor activist who has been in the news for 30 years operating in such areas as the UAW and United Mine workers strikes. Now she has taken up the mantle of illegals with the organization of "The National Interfaith Worker Justice Organization". This group is opening "sanctuaries(in direct violation of Federal Law) in 28 cities around the United States to hide illegals. They have their "cells" in L.A., N.Y. , Seattle and San Diego operating now.
Her quest includes not only sanctuary, but wants Our minimum wage laws to apply to illegals as well. Taking into account that as illegals they have NO rights afforded them by the Constitution, she is advocating the absurd to an already felonious action of aiding and abetting a criminal.
Only a government that believes in the One World Orderwould stand by and do nothing when an organization like her's commits a felony each time they assist an illegal in avoiding detection and apprehension. The penalty for aiding and abetting is up to 5 years in jail. The very least a government that cares about it's legal citizens should do is take away this organizations tax exempt status! But then there are members of the Council of Foreign Relations that predict that by 2010 we will abolish our borders!
These people are not Christians following Jesus teachings, they are people who with their leftist philosophies have invaded religions with their Marxist ideas. Many if not all were part of Ms. Bobo's "Lets Dump Bush" campaign, and many are members of the "Young Peoples Socialist League", an arm of the American Socialist Workers Party here in the USA.
The disturbing thing to this blogger, are the number of Catholic leaders who have joined in the fight for illegals. Many priests have opened their doors to feed and hide the illegals, and Cardinal Mahoney publicly opposed HR 4437, a Congressional bill which would force the government to closed the sieve that we call our border.
Apparently Cardinal Mahony and the US Bishops hadn't read the Pope's Encyclical from Christmas 2005 where Pope Benedict XVI clearly ordered the Church to stay out of politics. The call by Mahony to engage in politics is in disobeyance of the Pope's Encyclical Letter, Deus Caritas Est of 12/25/05 where he states: "Fundamental to Christianity is the distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God . . . The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics . . . The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible . . . The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society, on the other hand, is proper to the lay faithful. As citizens of the State, they are called to take part in public life in a personal capacity."
Those who can and do read, must realize the riots that have happened in Holland, France and Great Britain by aliens can happen here if the rule of law is not enforced. Yet no leader in the race for the White House has an illegal alien plank in his platform, God help US!

Why Is The Holocaust the Only Genocide for media?

I do not doubt for a minute that Nazi Germany under Hitler, Himmler and Goebels commited the murder of, depending on whom you use as your reference, 1.5 million to 6.5 million people in the seven Nazi death camps. Of this numer the largest proportion was Jews. There also were Catholics, gypsies, homosexuals and undesireables of any description also murdered.
The question I have is why does the media, especially the Movie industry and the History channel on television, keep showing features of the Nazi genocide, but you never see documentaries about the genocides commited by people like Joseph Stalin, Mao, PolPot or the Japanese.

To illustrate the enormity of the genocides that are ignored I have include some statistics gathered from the internet.
Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years.But first a deffinition of Democide: "Democide is a term coined by political scientist R. J. Rummel for "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder". Rummel created the term as an extended concept to include forms of government murder that are not covered by the legal definition of genocide, and it has found currency among other scholars".
In Russia under Stalin and Lenin the following murders are calculated.
1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
1939-45: 18,157,000
1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine
William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+
Robert J.Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science and author of "Lethal Politics" has this to say about Stalin's genocide: "I calculate that the Communist regime, 1917-1987, murdered about 62,000,000 people, around 55,000,000 of them citizens. As for Stalin, I calculate that Stalin murdered about 43,000,000 citizens and foreigners. Therefore, the usual estimate of 20 million killed in Soviet democide is far off for the Soviet Union per se, and even less than half of the total Stalin alone murdered."

Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr:Has estimated that between 51 and 60 million Russians were murdered.
A consensus of scholars seems to be forming around a death toll of 20 million. This would adequately account for all documented killings without straining credence, as all numbers are estimates.
In "The Great Terror" (1969), Robert Conquest suggested that the overall death toll was 20 million at minimum -- and very likely 50% higher, or 30 million.

Rummel blames the Japanese for 5,964,000 democides
POWs: 539,000 (400,000 Chinese)
Forced Labor: 1,010,000 (142,000 Chinese)
Massacres: 3,608,000 (2,850,000 Chinese)
Bombing/CB warfare: 558,000 (all Chinese)
Imposed Famine: 250,000 (none in China)
Rummel also estimates that General/Prime Minister Tojo Hideki was responsible for a lifetime total of 3,990,000 democides.

People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong's regime (1949-1975): murdered 40, 000 000 Agence France Press (25 Sept. 1999) citing at length from Courtois, Stephane, Le Livre Noir du Communism:
Rural purges, 1946-49: 2-5M deaths
Urban purges, 1950-57: 1M
Great Leap Forward: 20-43M
Cultural Revolution: 2-7M
Labor Camps: 20M
Tibet: 0.6-1.2M
TOTAL: 44.5 to 72M source: Twentieth Century Atlas and the
Guinness Book of World Records:
Although nowadays they don't come right out and declare Mao to be the "Top Dog" in the Mass Killings category, earlier editions (such as 1978) did, and they cited sources which are similar, but not identical, to the Glaser & Possony sources:
On 7 Apr. 1969 the Soviet government radio reported that 26,300,000 people were killed in China, 1949-65.
In April 1971 the cabinet of the government of Taiwan reported 39,940,000 deaths for the years 1949-69.
The Walker Report lists: between 32,2500,000 and 61,700,000 killed.

With these kind of numbers there can only be one reason why Hollwood and their ilk prefer to pound away at the Germans. They are all subliminaly if not actually pro-Communist, and all the numbers in the world would not change their position that Fascism is the great threat not "misapplied" Communism!

Can We Afford Another Crooked President?

In today's New York Times the following scandal has been revealed.

"Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private MD-87 jet plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them. Kazakhstan has 1/5 th of the Worlds Uranium deposits and it is mined by Kazatomprom.

Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic, with a horrible human rights record. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton. It is also worth mention that he also is a board member of "international Crisis Group" that has George Soros and Wesley Clark as members.

Within two days, corporate records show that Mr. Giustra also came up a winner when his company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom. Mr.Giustra's Canadian Mining Company UrAsia produces about 1,8-million pounds of uranium a year and plans to accelerate the development of two other uranium mines in Kazakhstan. It didn't hurt his cause that the night they arrived they had dinner at the palatial home of the President of Kazakhstan!

Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges".

This is just one more financial deal that the Clinton's are or were involved in that smell to high heaven of corruption and quasi-legal kick backs.

If Senator Clinton is running on her experience in the White House when husband Bill was President. She also must be culpable for the shady deals they have been involved in. She can hide behind the abused wife mantle when the Lewinski issue is discussed, but the "shady" financial deals and renting out the Lincoln bedroom are fair game for criticism.

First there was White Water where Hillary Clinton's relationship with her employer, the Rose Law, firm suddenly became the legal representative for James McDougal's Savings and Loan Company Madison Guaranty.When it declared bankruptcy it cost the U.S. taxpayers over 68 million dollars.

The secretive campaign money, allegedly given in a Chinese restaurant in Los Angeles, from the Chinese Communists, involving convicted felon Charlie Trie, during Clinton's second Presidential campaign.

And then Janet Reno, Attorney General, had to investigate claims that Clinton allowed "soft money", raised to promote the Democratic Party and its positions on issues of policy, to be diverted into the effort to elect Clinton and Vice- President Gore. If that happened, and the President knew it, a crime was committed.

There was the claim that he and Gore authorised White House staff to use telephones in the White House to solicit campaign funds. A clear violation of the law!

Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich, a big contributor to Clinton Campaigns, just before he left office is very suspect. U.S. pardon attorney Roger Adams says "when the White House sent over Rich's name for pardon consideration — only a few hours before the President was due to leave office — there was never any mention of Rich being a fugitive". There is also suspicion that donations made to Clinton campaigns and to the Clinton presidential library by Rich's ex-wife, Denise, could be a quid pro quo for the pardon. Source: Time Magazine

Add to this the Peter Paul lawsuit against the Clintons that claims malfeasance was involved in fund raising for a Clinton Gala ,using White House personnel ( Kelly Crawford)to solicit contributors to the event being arranged by Paul. The Federal Elections Committee eventually fined the Senatorial Campaign Committee $35,00 and Indicted Senator Clinton's financial campaign director. John Armor, an Election Law Expert, was quoted as saying Hillary Clinton was "involved in the largest election law fraud in U.S. history. Source: Doug Ross Journal

Do we really want this pair in the White House again?

Time To Wake Up to the Real Threat

From the pages of the Afganistan section of the Middle East Times comes an article by ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE.

"One wing of the Taliban movement wants to give its top priority to demoralizing and evicting the United States and its NATO allies from Afghanistan. The other, led by Baitullah Mehsud, the man who allegedly ordered the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, wants to focus on the Talibanization of Pakistan. Mullah Muhammad Omar, the one-eyed Taliban leader whose movement was deposed and who has been in hiding since the U.S.-led invasion a month after Sept. 11, 2001, resurfaced – long enough to fire Mehsud.
Mehsud, a Pakistani Talib warlord, let be known that while he remained loyal to Mullah Omar, he also remained "the amir of Tehrik-Taliban Pakistan," and it wasn't much longer before both sides denied his expulsion. Commander Mehsud makes no bones about jihad, and says it is in fact the duty of every Muslim to wage jihad against "the infidel forces of America and Britain".
He certainly echoed Omar when he told an al-Jazeera television reporter: " We now fear America will use a nuclear bomb against the Muslims … so we fear the American bomb, but not the Pakistani bomb. At least it's in the hands of Muslims. We pray to Allah the Muslims will take over all the nuclear bombs from infidels, whose hands are soiled with the blood of the innocent."
As for al-Qaida, added Mehsud, "I have the utmost love and respect for Osama bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, because of their enmity toward the Jews and the Christians … the Islamic zeal that runs in their veins is very rare … we will serve them, even if they ask us to sacrifice our heads for their sakes."

He concludes his interview with these warning words: "Lest anyone still doubt their global strategy, Mehsud spelled it out: "We will wage jihad in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Bosnia and Iraq as well. There are no borders in Islam. We fight the Jews and Christians in Afghanistan out of ideological motives."
NATO allies are already tiring of the Afghan campaign. Canada now says it will only extend its mission there if Germany, France, Spain or Italy agree their soldiers should also be involved in harm's way missions. NATO's future is now clearly at stake in the Pakistan-Afghan mess".

The reason I am posting this small piece of informantion is because it will never appear in the Main Stream Media or cross the lips of any of the candidates for President. This despite the fact that today's foreign papers are filled with reports that Afghanistan is on the verge of a destabilization of it's fragile government. This from Guardian Unlimited:

"If Afghanistan fails, the possible strategic consequences will worsen regional instability, do great harm to the fight against Jihadist and religious extremism, and put in grave jeopardy Nato's future as a credible, cohesive and relevant military alliance."

None the less, the National cognizance of the war against radical Islam has taken a back seat to the secularist talk about extending the Welfare State in the United States. It is the economy that appears to have blotted out of the minds of Americans, the threat that radical Islam poses to Middle East stability and to our present way of life. Since we send over $400 billion dollars each year to Middle Eastern Countries for the purchase of oil, that runs our economy.

I believe, the United States people are in the frame of mind that asks what can my Government do for me, insted of asking themselves what can I do for myself and my Country?

We seem to have taken the slippery slope toward secularized Socialism of the entire Country as is indicated by the three front runners remaining in the race for the Presidency.

John McCain is anything but a Conservative. He has voted with Feinglod and Ted Kennedy more times than he has voted to support Our President. The only position that he has, that is in line with Conservative opinion, is his stance on Iraq and Afganistan.
Hillary and Obama are outspoken advocates of bigger government and more "hand outs". They also would begin withdrawal of the troops in Iraq, there by making Iraq a staging location for al Qaeda and Taliban Terrorists. A situation that will allow them to aid in the fabrication of small nuclear weapons to use against American Cities and Israel.

A famous Biblical scholar wrote "what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul". I postulate that the United States of America has lost it's soul, It has become a Greek like tragedy and is headed for a catastrophic occurence, because of our political correctness, libertine hedonism, greed, and the disregard for the unborn and the elderly.

In too many of our "newer" generation minds there is no room for "tumults " of war, and those people whom they believe are not part of the "great work force" it takes to support a welfare state.