MEMO TO OBAMA SPEECH WRITERS: REVIEW THE HISTORY!

Last week Our President gave an interview with Hisham Melhem of the Saudi-owned,Arab television network,Al-Arabiya satellite network.
He sent the message that he intended to change the negative attitude of the previous administration towards the Arab world, and expressed the desire to get back to the "good" relations the USA had 20 to 30 years ago. Specifically, he said: " "There's no reason why we can't restore that."

The speech was typical of one that Obama would give to his Obamaphiles that want peace at any price. But the speech was not one that took into account the historical facts of 29-30 years ago!

The Patriot Post has a piece written by Col. Oliver North that recounts the facts that President Obama ignored when he spoke to the Arabs of the World.
Excerpts from his article appear below, and show just how far from reality Obama and his handlers will go to confuse, obfuscate and twist facts to make their point. He intends to accept all Arab nations as partners in his World Government approach to "CHANGE"!

That is all except Afghanistan, where he plans to send a force of 30,000 soldiers into the "meat grinder" that the Russian full force of Arms failed to conquer in the days when the USA supported the Taliban.

OBAMA "talked about "communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest." He also responded to his interviewer in ways that denigrated his predecessors, by expressing his desire "to listen (and to) set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years."

During the interview, Mr. Obama also spoke wistfully of the "respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago" and added, "There's no reason why we can't restore that."

Some will say it isn't fair to make our new commander in chief stick to the facts. That's the trouble with television interviews. They are on tape and stay around for years. If you are going to do them, it helps to know the facts. Let's see, 30 years ago -- 1979 -- the year that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Iran, the "Islamic Revolution" was proclaimed, the U.S. was first described as "the Great Satan," our embassy in Tehran, Iran, was sacked, and 53 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. That's probably not the kind of "respect" Mr. Obama had in mind.

How about 20 years ago -- 1989? While investigators still were combing the wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103 in Lockerbie, Scotland, Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi sent MiG-23s to attack a U.S. Navy carrier battle group in the Mediterranean Sea. Final score: U.S. Navy 2, Libya 0. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa to kill Salman Rushdie. Islamic radicals murdered the president of Lebanon, and Saddam Hussein issued mobilization orders in preparation for invading Kuwait the following August. Some "partnership."Source: Patriot Post

It appears to me that the truth is not one of the things that comes easy to this new President. The most glaring example of the Semantics gymnastics used by Obama is his constant reference to the "fact" that this recession we are in, is the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930's.
The following is a portion of the Wikapedia posting on Recessions.
"According to economists, since 1854, the U.S. has encountered 32 cycles of expansions and contractions, with an average of 17 months of contraction and 38 months of expansion.However, since 1980 there have been only eight periods of negative economic growth over one fiscal quarter or more, and four periods considered recessions:

January-July 1980 and July 1981-November 1982: 2 years total
July 1990-March 1991: 8 months
March 2001-November 2001: 8 months
December 2007-January 2009: 13 months and counting*
* Note that this latest recession doesn't meet the traditional two quarter drop in GDP, yet it is considered a recession by the NBER.

From 1991 to 2000, the U.S. experienced 37 quarters of economic expansion, the longest period of expansion on record.[28]

The facts as offered by history show that he is distorting the truth to sell his $900 billion behemoth of a program, that I believe will not stimulate the economy. All it will do is devalue the dollar and bring hyper-inflation down the road!

"The American people deserve to know that the president's call for a compromise has been completely ignored by House Democrats who would use a time of national economic crisis to fund their big government priorities under the guise of stimulating the economy. ... The Democrat bill won't stimulate anything but more government and more debt." --Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)

One other item of interest is the attempt by Obama to blame the "RICH" Capitalists in Washington for the economic mess we are experiencing. He talks about the obscene bonuses of Wall Street, and they are too high, but he ignores the fact that the government caused the housing bubble to grow to such horrendous proportions by the actions of Barney Frank and his committee, and the demands on the "Fannies and Freddies"to loan to people who could not and would not be able to pay the mortgage.

Since 1995, house prices have risen by more than 70 percent after adjusting for inflation. This has created $8 trillion in housing bubble wealth. The run-up in house prices has led to a predictable oversupply of housing; an oversupply far beyond anything the country has ever experienced, with the inventory of unsold new homes 70 percent above its previous record and the number of vacant ownership units nearly twice the previous peak.

In other words, this isn't just about those "subprime" mortgages, but rather those sorts of bad loans are a consequence of grossly exaggerated home prices. The cost of housing has 'forced' lenders to lower their standards for giving out loans all the way to zero down-payment so that people can afford to keep buying them.

Simplified, the loans are but one part of the total issue that is sending the economy downward. The fundamental issue, as the in-depth analysis demonstrates, is absolutely unsustainable in the long term, and does not appear sustainable even in the immediate term. This bubble has given way to its own superficiality by virtue of the fact that high home prices have led to a huge record number of unsold homes, thereby causing prices for homes in general to decline. The declines, as we are seeing on Wall Street now, are already leading to widespread defaults and foreclosures since they are resulting in homeowners finding themselves with negative equity.
These defaults and foreclosures, in turn, are causing a further affect on prices, causing a vicious cycle of downturn. The downturn is affecting corporate profits and inflated stock values. These affects lead to widespread consequences throughout the economy. And we are already seeing spillover affects, with consumer spending (responsible for 60% of the gross domestic product) in considerable decline and the unemployment rate rising. Source:CEPR Report
But Obama and his supporters like George Soros, wants to socialize the USA, so he talks about the evils of Wall Street!

AND THEY SAY THAT THEY ARE PATRIOTIC

If you had any doubts about many of the Congressional Democrats opinion of OUR brave and dedicated military service members. This article from the New Media Journal should put to rest any doubts you had.

The greatest sacrifice a man/women can make is to lay down his life for another, has been an axiom in this GREAT Country for centuries.
But apparently many of the members, at least a majority, feel their sacrifice is not worth acknowledgement!

"House Democrats blocked a measure that would have required new roads, bridges and schools funded by the $825 billion economic stimulus to be named after US armed forces members killed in action. Democrats on the House Rules Committee nixed the amendment Tuesday in a party-line 9-3 vote. The same vote also took down four other Republican amendments that would have funded job training for veterans, stopping all the measures from being considered Wednesday by the full House for inclusion in the stimulus. "For whatever reason, it was not to their liking," said Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, Michigan Republican, sponsor of the amendment that would have honored fallen troops. He said Republicans did not publicize the amendment because they did not want to appear to be "grandstanding" on the issue. But he said he was disappointed that it was so roundly rejected. Democrats on the committee were not philosophically opposed to honoring fallen troops but concerned about the amendment's vague language, which placed the naming requirement on all "new infrastructure" and could have resulted in the naming of sewer lines and water treatment plants, said an aide close to the committee and familiar with the internal debate. The aide, who stressed the amendment was considered as part of a package of amendments, did not want to be quoted discussing House members' deliberative process. Several Democrats on the committee declined interview requests."

I have listed below the names of the committee members. I hope all who read this will write, telegram or email their disgust in the dastardly sleight they did to Our fallen Warriors!
DEMOCRATS
Louise Slaughter (N.Y.), Chairman
James McGovern (Mass.)
Alcee Hastings (Fla.)
Doris Matsui (Calif.)
Dennis Cardoza (Calif.)
Michael Arcuri (N.Y.)
Peter Welch (Vt.)
Ed Perlmutter (Colo.)
Chellie Pingree (Maine)
Jared Polis (Colo.)
REPUBLICANS
David Dreier (Calif.), Ranking Member
Lincoln Diaz-Balart (Fla.)
Pete Sessions (Texas)
Virginia Foxx (N.C.)

WHILE WE FIGHT OVER "STIMULUS" RUSSIA STAKES CLAIM TO NORTH POLE!

The present financial debacle in Washington is taking more time to resolve than President Obama had planned. He entered the Oval Office and began signing executive orders that fulfilled campaign promises like the closing of Gitmo in one year.

But while the President is making his way through his plan to direct OUR free enterprise system into a Socialist, government controlled, government employed country. The Russians are doing more than rattling their scimitars!

The latest move of the Putin/Medvedev coalition in Moscow is the move to claim the Arctic as their property.

The government-controlled newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta is preparing Russians for the notion that "the fight for the Arctic will be the initial spark for a new division of the world." Artur Chilingarov, a member of the Russia parliament and Moscow's chief ideologue when it comes to conquering the Arctic, puts it this way: "We are not prepared to give our Arctic to anyone."

Chilingarov -- who in August 2007 used a remote-controlled submarine arm to plant a Russian flag made of titanium on the ocean floor at the North Pole at a depth of 4,261 meters (13,976 feet) -- wants to "present evidence to the United Nations within one year" that the North Pole belongs to the Russians. His threat to those in the West who disagree is simple: "If these rights are not recognized, Russia will withdraw from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea."

Alexander Dugin, a political scientist and well-known intellectual backer of Moscow's neo-imperial claims to a Greater Russia, becomes so caught up in nationalist fervor that he loses his grasp on biological realities: "The purpose of our being lies in the expansion of our space. The shelf belongs to us. Polar bears live there, Russian polar bears. And penguins live there, Russian penguins."

Although the Arctic may be somewhat lacking in penguins, Russia's frozen north does contain vast mineral resources. Arctic Russia is already responsible for 11 percent of the country's gross domestic product and 22 percent of its export earnings.

The intended expansion of Russia's northern border by at least 150 miles (241 kilometers) and 1.2 million square kilometers (463,000 square miles), an area three times the size of Germany, promises to yield immense natural resource earnings.

It was precisely these riches that Russian Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and Ecology Sergei Donskoy discussed at the Arctic Frontiers conference in the northern Norwegian city of Tromsø, where several hundred scientists, politicians and economic experts came together last week.

"We hope to find reserves of oil and gas corresponding to about 20 percent of Russian reserves," Donskoy said, outlining Russia's plans for the Arctic.

Under that plan, geologists will first study the Barents Sea and the Kara Sea. They expect to find at least two to four large oil or gas fields beneath the ocean floor in each of these two seas. According to Russia's environment minister, a petroleum engineer by trade, the fields contain an estimated 3.3 billion tons of oil and up to 5 billion cubic meters of gas.

If all goes according to plan, the first gas from the Arctic should begin flowing in 2013 or 2014, says Hervé Madeo, the deputy director of an energy consortium led by Russia's Gazprom that is developing the Shtokman field in the Barents Sea. Of the field, he says: "It is one of the largest in the world and unique in Russia."

Despite the financial crisis, preparations for drilling are moving forward at a fast pace. The project "has too much potential" for the global economic downturn to affect it much, Madeo claims.

Moscow has unveiled aggressive new plans to exploit the Arctic's natural resources.
The gas field could become the first major milestone in the development of the energy reserves of the north. This prompted Norwegian Rear Admiral Trond Grytting to comment sarcastically in his presentation at the Tromsø conference (entitled "From the Cold War to the Hot Arctic"): "We have lots of natural resources, military personnel and disputed borders in the Arctic. This has never been a recipe for peace".
While Obama talks about windmills and small electric cars to wean ourselves off crude oil. The Russians and Chinese are marching forward at a rapid pace to control the crude oil resources located in the Artic and Africa.
Will the American people stand still for the Obamaphiles , Eco -freaks and Goreites while they make millions on Carbon Credits scams. While at the same time those who Ronald Reagan called the "Axis of Evil" gobble up the available crude oil resources, and continue to pollute the atmosphere while advancing their hegemony?

I assume that when Medvedev said he hoped to make the USA a full partner with Russia, he intended that we should allow anything they want as long as they do not launch mislles against us.
On the day Obama was elected,the Russian "puppet president" had this to say: " "I stress that we have no problem with the American people, no inborn anti-Americanism. And we hope that our partners, the US administration, will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia," Source: Der Spiegel.com

Then why did they have nuclear missles aimed at the USA all during the cold war?

In 1971 Saul Alinsky had this to say about CHANGE:
"What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away".[

"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."Source: Wikapedia

FIRST THE LIES AND NOW COMES THE INTIMIDATION

The Obama administration has shown in the nine days that they have taken over power that they intended to use half truths, lies and intimidation to accomplish their Socialist Change for America.
First they tried to pass the "stimulus package" off as a way of quick starting the faltering economy, when what they were proposing in their over 850 billion dollar spending bill was PORK and goodies for such things as contraceptives, clearing forest pathways and millions for gay men "how to" guides.

The fact that most of the money would not funnel into the economy was not even mentioned until Conservative radio talk shows pointed this out to the unsuspecting public.

Now the President himself, after trying to sway the leadership of the Republican party to his way of thinking by inviting them to the White House, has decided to use intimidation and voter pressure to sway the Republicans to his side. This way when the plan fails, and it will, he can say the plan was approved by both parties. If the Republicans stand tall and appose this travesty of Federal spending. They will have capital in the 2010 Congressional elections to gain back some lost seats.

President said yesterday: "Pushing back against the unanimous House Republican vote against President Obama’s stimulus plan, the White House plans to release state-by-state job figures “so we can put a number on what folks voted for an against,” an administration aide said.
“It’s clear the Republicans who voted against the stimulus represent constituents who will be stunned to learn their member of Congress voted against [saving or] creating 4 million jobs,” the aide said.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the lawmakers will have to answer to their constituents.

“I do believe that there will be people in districts all over the country that will wonder why, when there’s a good bill to get the economy moving again, why we still seem to be playing political gotcha," Gibbs said.

And a Democratic official added: “We will run campaigns in their districts.”

And later today, MoveOn, Americans United for Change, AFSCME and SEIU will be announcing a new ad campaign targeting moderate Republican senators who might support the stimulus — Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Charles Grassley of Iowa. Source: Ploitico.com

If a Republican president announced he would do this the Media would scream that he was interfering with States rights and add it to the list of reasons why they think he should be impeached, I believe!

Another example of the untruths in Obama's campaign toward Changing the USA is the promise that if elected he would stop the influence of powerful lobbyists.

"President Obama promised during his campaign that lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House."

So far, though, at least a dozen former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration, according to an analysis done by Republican sources and corroborated by Politico.

Obama aides did not challenge the the list of lobbyists appointed to administration jobs, but they stressed that former lobbyists comprise a fraction of the more than 8,000 employees who will be hired by the new administration. And they pointed out that before Obama made his campaign-trail promise, he issued a more complete - and more nuanced - policy on former lobbyists.

Formalized in a recent presidential executive order, it forbids executive branch employees from working in an agency, or on a program, for which they have lobbied in the last two years.

Yet in the past few days, a number of exceptions have been granted, with the administration conceding at least two waivers and that a handful of other appointees will recuse themselves from dealing with matters on which they lobbied within the two-year window.

Here is a list of former lobbyists who now work within the Obama administration. You be the judge if Obama lied!

Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm.

Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.

William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.

William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.

David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.

Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.

Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.

Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

And Obama is not alone in his quest to interject the Federal government into all forms of what are considered the Private Sector. The machine that runs the economy.
First they lie about this being the worst recession since the 1930s, in fact we have had at least two recessions greater than this since the 30s. But never mind the details. The liberal economists who have lined up behind Obama's Plan have this to say:"Among those who say government needs to spend more, not less, there’s a consensus figure for exactly how much more: $400 billion over two years, for a total package of about $1.2 trillion.

“The stimulus does not need to be timely, targeted and temporary,” argues Robert Kuttner, co-editor of The American Prospect. “It needs to be adequate to do the job.” He runs some quick back of the envelope math. “Eight hundred and twenty billion is about 2.5% of GDP. But the economy is sinking at the rate of five to six percent. So they may find out they have to come back and ask for more.”

Kuttner and his economic allies reject the idea that enormous deficit spending is an immoral passing of the buck to the next generation. “This is not about morality, it’s about economics,” he says. Kuttner argues that even worse than government debt is an economy in which housing is unaffordable, jobs are scarce and college is a receding dream for many Americans. “What we leave to our children will depend largely on whether we slide into a depression or not.” My comment is if you keep printing money to promote this Socialist program. The net result will be the devaluation of the dollar even more than it is presently. With devalueation comes hyper inflation, and lest we forget this happened in Germany after WWI when the 1 Mark note was raised to one thousand marks, and Germans needed the equivalent of a wheel barrel full of money to buy a loaf a bread!

Is this the Change we can believe in?

WHILE OBAMA PLANS TALKS, IRAN IS BUILDING NUKES!

THE OBAMA GOVERNMENT HAS YET TO SAY THAT A WAR EXISTS BETWEEN RADICAL ISLAMISTS AND THE USA.
The actions during the first few days of his Presidency has given me the opinion that He and his minions believe we are back in a pre-911 situation. But while he plays the political ostrich the latest news on line from the Jerusalem Post, alleges that Iran will have a nuclear device by the end of this year!

"Iran will most likely have produced enough enriched uranium to make an atomic bomb by the end of 2009, according to a paper released Tuesday by Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). He clarified, however that before the uranium could be used for a nuclear weapon, it would have to be further enriched.
Iran's nuclear power plant in Bushehr, southwest of Teheran.

Fitzpatrick said that this reality brings up "the question of whether military action is needed in the absence of progress in diplomacy."

The London-based institutes's report, titled "The Adelphi Paper" assessed that the Iranian nuclear threat "can only be solved if Iran makes a strategic decision not to seek a nuclear weapons capability." My opinion,for what it is worth, is to take out the nuclear production plants as Israel did in Syria before they developed the bomb! Talk is not a weapon against an enemy who has dedicated itself to your elimination!

"Based on Iran's past diplomacy, it can be expected to neither accept nor reject proposed restrictions, but rather to shunt them aside through non-responsive counter-proposals and endless negotiation and filibuster," Fitzpatrick surmised.

To make things even worse apparently H. Clinton's new job as Secretary of State is to make the rest of the World love US. In her interview recently she revealed that "other" countries are pleased that we are going to do things for them. I thought her job was to do things for the USA?

"She(Clinton) said the administration is undertaking a wide-ranging and comprehensive survey of US policy options toward Iran.

"There is just a lot that we are considering that I'm not prepared to discuss," she added.

More broadly, Clinton said her initial round of telephone calls with world leaders has yielded positive signs.

"There's a great exhalation of breath going on around the world as people express their appreciation for the new direction that's being set and the team that's [been] put together by the president," she said.

"In areas of the world that have felt either overlooked or not receiving appropriate attention to the problems they are experiencing, there's a welcoming of the engagement that we are promising," she said.

"It's not any kind of repudiation or indictment of the past eight years so much as an excitement and an acceptance of how we are going to be doing business. The American people are holding their collective breath to see what the Change Obama promised will bring to the USA in areas of National Security, economy and freedoms!

And from Der Spiegel there is this analysis of another way that President Obama is trying to "pull the wool over" the American public's eyes about his poorly named "stimulus" package.
"US President Barack Obama has said this week he wants to fight climate change, making the kind of statements the rest of the world has been waiting to hear for a long time. He's dressing his proposals up as an economic stimulus package, but can he drum up enough US support for a deal in Copenhagen later this year? By Gregor Peter Schmitz in Washington more... italics are mine for serious attention!
"Obama elegantly intertwines the economic crisis with the battle to save the environment. His advisers have already alluded to this in the title to the address: "Jobs, Energy Independence, Climate Change." The signal is clear: Obama plans to launch a new approach to climate protection.

"According to Obama's plan, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will once again review whether the state of California is permitted to introduce stricter emission controls, which call for a 30 percent reduction in vehicle pollution emissions by 2016 and which 18 states had intended to follow. The plan goes far beyond that envisioned by a federal law passed in 2007. But, under the presidency of George W. Bush, the EPA blocked the more stringent standards, reasoning that it would be better to wage the battle against CO2 emissions at the national, rather than the state level".Source: Der Spiegel

Just one more example of the duplicity of the Democrats in Washington. After it was revealed that "queen" Pelosi had tried to insert millions of dollars into he stimulus package for contraceptives. She had the gaul to refer to having babies was a drain on State resources! God help us!WE appear to have a sleight of hand in the Oval Office!

WILL AMERICA LOSE ALL IT'S CATHOLIC HOSPITALS

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

If the signals from the Obama administration are correct. President Obama is seriously considering repealing the exemption that Catholic Hospitals,that treat medicaid and Medicare patients, have to do abortions on demand.If this abomination comes to be, the Catholic Bishops of the USA have threatened to close all the Catholic hospitals. This would reduce the valuable available beds and medical services that these CATHOLIC HOSPITALS PRESENTLY PROVIDE!

As many as 1 in 5 Americans, regardless of religion, race, age, or ability to pay, receive health care from Catholic caregivers. More than 15 million emergency-room visits and 84 million outpatient visits occur in Catholic hospitals in a given year. Source:NRO

EWTN interviewed noted Jurist Judge Bork about this important issue. Following is an excerpt from that interview:

Judge Bork was unsure about whether the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold such a right. He predicted the decision would rest with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who in some cases sides with liberals and at other times with “originalists,” those who profess to hold a more tradition-minded interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

“It depends upon Anthony Kennedy,” Judge Bork told CNS. “Now, it’s a funny situation in which the moral life of a nation is in effect decided by one judge, because you have four solid liberal votes, four solid originalist votes, and one vote you can’t predict too accurately in advance.”

Though Justice Kennedy is a Catholic, he sided with the majority who upheld the pro-abortion rights Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Judge Bork said that a decision involving the freedom of Catholic hospitals to refuse to perform abortions would split by a 5-4 vote.

“But I don’t know which way,” he added.

The Cybercast News interview with the jurist also touched upon the place of religion in public life.

“I don’t think the disputants talk much about God anymore,” Judge Bork commented. “That’s one of the things that I think is regrettable--and I know liberals have said the same thing, it is not a conservative position particularly--but it is regrettable that religion has dropped out of our public discourse. I think it impoverishes it and makes it more violent.”

He explained that he believed this violence was not armed conflict, but rather “violent language and propaganda.”

Judge Bork said he also thought that America is “now going down a path towards kind of a happy-go-lucky nihilism.”

“A lot of people are nihilists,” he continued. “They don’t think about religion. They don’t think about ultimate questions. They go along. They worry about consumer goods, comfort, and so forth.

“As a matter of fact, the abortion question is largely a question about convenience. If you look at the polls about why people have abortions, 90 percent of it has nothing to do with medical conditions. It’s convenience. And that’s I think an example of the secularization of an issue that ought to have a religious dimension.”

When asked whether a nihilistic society can remain “happy-go-lucky” for long, Judge Bork replied:

“I don’t know. I guess we are going to find out.” I believe this is the greatest threat to the freedoms of the USA since the attack on New York twin Towers! The hospital system is already over burdened by patients who use the emergency room as their source of medical care. Law prevents emergency rooms from denying service to the needy because of lack of money, but the right of a religious belief to be exercised in their owned hospitals would be a blow to our Constitution and the Bill of Rights!

And one of the unintended consequences of the 15 million babies that have been killed since Roe/Wade is the fact that as those dead babies could have been wage earners and taxpayers by now.The number of people contributing to the pool of taxpayers who support the Social Security program and other government entitlements has decreased from 3 workers for every one on Federal assistance to a ratio of nearly 1 to 1. What comes after this is the possibility that euthanasia for aged people will be approved to winnow down those who no longer contribute to the welfare of the State!

And as a postscript to this travesty it is being reported that our new President has called to quasi apologize to the Arabs for our Countries past mistakes. Has he forgotten that it was Arabs that started this WAR by destroying the Twin Towers.
The following is an excerpt from his telephone conversation that I believe is a travesty!
"President Obama said his administration will offer a hand of friendship to the Muslim world.
"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy,'' Obama said in an interview with the Al-Arabiya satellite television network. ''We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect.'' Source:CNN Wire

NEW UN DELEGATE USES DOUBLE SPEAK!

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S NEWLY APPOINTED DELEGATE TO THE UNITED NATIONS HAD THIS TO SAY TO THE PRESS AFTER HER FIRST MEETING WITH THE UN SECRETARY GENERAL.
"Susan Rice says the new administration led by US President Barack Obama will engage in "direct diplomacy" with Iran.

"She warned, however, of further action unless Tehran meets UN Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment as a prelude to talks on its nuclear program".

Rice spoke to reporters shortly after meeting with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on her first day on the job Monday.

She said the US plan for "vigorous diplomacy that includes direct diplomacy" with Iran "must go hand in hand" with a firm message from the US and international community that Iran must meet it UN Security Council obligations.

Iran's "continuing refusal to do so will only cause pressure to increase," she added.

What I would like to know is how long will Obama use the useless and effete UN that has been proven to be a bloated bureaucracy with veto control by Leftist Countries, as a conduit to get Iran to stop it's production of nuclear weapons?

The experts who have insight into the Iranian nuclear program have already said that Iran will have enough nuclear material for two nuclear bombs within two years. This does not leave a lot of time to negotiate(jaw-jaw-jaw)with the Country led by a maniac who has said he wants to eliminate Israel and do serious damage to the USA!

Ms. Rice is a Brookings Institute fellow and an article that she was involved in writing with Connie Graft and Janet Lewis entitled "Poverty and Civil WAR" gives a glimpse of how this new delegate thinks.In my opinion she is more of an internationalist than OUR delegate should be!

The conclusion of the article written in December of 2006 follows:" Finally, in Iraq, civil conflict is intensifying and devolving into full-scale civil war. Upon leaving the post of commander of the Multinational Corps in Iraq in late 2006, Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli said that finding jobs for "angry young men" and taking them "off the street" was "absolutely critical to...lowering the level of violence" and "just as important as growing the size of their army."8 To date, however, relatively little attention has been devoted to the economic drivers of this conflict. No doubt, the civil conflict in Iraq is rooted substantially in sectarian differences that were exacerbated by Saddam's tyranny. It is stoked by foreign jihadists, meddling neighbors and by resentment of the U.S. occupation. Yet, roughly 50 percent of Iraqis were unemployed in 2005 and real per capita GNI stands at only a fraction of what it was in the 1980s. Deteriorating economic conditions have almost certainly contributed in some measure to the rising violence in Iraq.

These and other cases of civil conflict may each in isolation offer policymakers some useful insights. Yet, viewed together, they beg an overarching question: is there a significant and demonstrable link between income poverty and the risk that a country will slide into civil war? Could U.S. foreign policy benefit from greater emphasis on promoting economic growth and alleviating poverty? The answers to these questions bear directly on several current challenges to U.S. national security from the Middle East to South Asia and Africa.bold letters added by me for emphasis!

In her appointment we have one more example of what I believe Obama has in mind when he says CHANGE! I believe that he is man who believes in One World and thinks that redistribution of wealth will include sending our tax dollars to Third World Countries. And by the way the Stimulus package monies that is being given to banks has no restrictions on to whom they lend.

IT IS OFFICIAL, WELFARE STATE IS HERE TO STAY

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

If you believe the following quote that a previous member of the Reagan administration has written for Breitbart.com. The only option we Conservatives have is to accept the FACT that Socialism is here, and it is moving in like a mother-in-law who never intends to leave.
How this liberal mind was a part of Ronald Reagan's administration is beyond my comprehension. In my opinion, the best president in my life tried to stop the growth of BIG government, not grow it like Obama has begun with his trillion dollar "stimulus".

Mr. Bartlett said: "I think conservatives would better spend their diminished political capital figuring out how to finance the welfare state at the least cost to the economy and individual liberty, rather than fighting a losing battle to slash popular spending programs. But this will require them to accept the necessity of higher revenues.
It is simply unrealistic to think that tax cuts will continue to be a viable political strategy when the budget deficit exceeds $1 trillion, as it will this year. Nor is it realistic to think that taxes can be kept at 19 percent of GDP when spending is projected to grow by about 50 percent of GDP over the next generation, according to both the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office. And that’s without any new spending programs being enacted.

If conservatives refuse to participate in the debate over how revenues will be raised, then liberals will do it on their own, which will likely give us much higher tax rates and a tax system that is more harmful to growth than necessary to fund the government. Instead of opposing any tax hike, I think it makes more sense for conservatives to figure out how best to raise the additional revenue that will be raised in any event.

In the end, the welfare state is not going away, and it will be paid for one way or another. The sooner conservatives accept that fact, the sooner they will regain political power.

Bruce Bartlett worked in the Reagan White House and at the Treasury Department under President George H.W. Bush.Source: Breitbart.com

Thank the Good Lord this man is just another columnist, not a decision maker for the Conservatives left in the Republican party.
If this idiot was a leader of troops he would surrender every time the enemy surrounded him, unlike my hero Chesty Puller of the US Marine corps, who once said" we are surrounded, I have them right where I want them"! He was no quitter and I am not as I hope most Conservatives are not.

Socialism has been tried all over the world and whenever it has been adopted the quality of life has been reduced to the state where the governing class live well and the rest of the poor "slobs" who take what scraps they can get from their "welfare State".The only thing Socialism does is change those who work hard to be a success to welfare providers for those who refuse to make the effort, because they depend on the state for "cradle to grave" care!

Russia, China, Great Britain and Germany to mention just a few Countries that have shifted their government to Socialism all have struggled with it. Most have swung away from total Socialism because it just doesn't work long. People get tired of waiting six months to a year for elective surgery, and that is the prime reason why so many Canadians come to the USA to seek medical care. If you do not believe me just check the roles of patients at places like the Mayo Clinic.

My suggestion to Mr. Bartlett and the Republicans in the USA congress is to stop the spending, and let the free enterprise system level itself. Continuing to spend "printed, worthless " money to artificially pump into circulation will do nothing but devalue the dollar even more than it is now. The plan Obama and his minions have is to grow government and those dependent upon the welfare state that he and Liberals like him desire. Do not be confused with the smooth talking rhetoric of the new President. He is choosing all his actions with FDR in mind. FDR started the welfare State via the NRA and social security. Obama will need a war like FDR did to salvage him if he continues to spend money like a drunken sailor. And it sounds like Afghanistan may be the place it starts. If you believe what he and vice-president Biden have said about increasing troops in Afghanistan.

WE cannot spend ourselves out of the Recession, especially with all the PORK that is included, especially monies for contraceptives and money for ACORN!

THE STIMULUS PACKAGE IS NOTHING BUT MORE PORK AND WELFARE

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

AMID ALL THE RHETORIC OF PRESIDENT OBAMA AND HIS OBAMAPHILES. There is a certain dishonesty being perpetrated on the American public, who if this vast spending bill is passed, will add at least $6700 in tax dept to every American household, and since every house hold does not pay taxes. The number for taxpayers would be even larger!
From the original estimate of $770 billion. The cost is now estimated at $850 billion, and "queen" Pelosi and Obama have told us that it might grow.

All this money is supposed to help rid the USA of the deep recession we are sinking into, but in fact it will just post pone for an indeterminate number of years the very deep recession with run away inflation that must following such massive spending by the Federal government with "printed but un-earned money.

Fort Knox has only 187 billion dollars in gold reserve. At one time in our history. In the not so distant past the dollar was backed by a dollar in gold in the vaults of Fort Knox. Not so today, we have an ever diminishing valued dollar that buys less and less each year.

Despite this fact President Obama and is minions plan to spend the following with a large portion of the stimulus package. "The grocery list includes $87 billion for aid to states for covering Medicaid costs; $79 billion to local school districts and public colleges; an additional $41 billion in aid to impoverished and disabled students, school construction, modernization and new technology; $54 billion in renewable energy incentives; $82 billion in unemployment benefits, retraining and insurance; $20 billion extra for food stamps; and $90 billion in infrastructure spending. And don't forget that the money called for here is above and beyond what all these programs already receive in the annual federal budget. Didn't Bill Clinton tell us 13 years ago that the era of Big Government was over? Source: The Patriot Post

HOW WILL $60 MILLION HELP OUR ECONOMY?

The UN agency UNfPA, an arm of the United Nations relief fund that funds "family" planning in foreign countries, but is really a front for contraceptives and abortion for clinics around the world. Is asking for 60 million dollars from the United States in this fiscal year.
The critics of this program, including ex-President Bush, say that Communist China is using their share of the UN funds to help their enforced family planning, that limits the number of children a family can have, by abortion and forced sterilization. The president of Americans for UNFPA, Anika Rahman, denies this, but it is a fact that China does use abortion and sterilization as the heart of it's family "planning"!

My question is this. How can President Obama give 60 million taxpayer dollars to the UN for this questionable cause when our country is in the midst of what he and his supporters call the worst economic period since the Great Depression?

The web page "Politics 08" has this to say about Obama's position on this dastardly action.
"President Obama kept a low profile on Friday as he fulfilled a campaign promise by reversing President Bush’s policy barring U.S. aid to international organizations which provide abortions or advise women on how to get them.
His low profile is illustrated by this quote from John Gerstein: "there were also indications Obama and his advisers sought to minimize press attention to the polarizing issue and may have tried to avoid antagonizing anti-abortion activists. The administration skipped the chance to issue the directive on Thursday, the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, as thousands of abortion opponents gathered in Washington for an annual rally.

However, the new president also extended an olive branch to anti-abortion groups and expressed a desire to end what he called a “stale and fruitless debate.” (my opinion is that it is a moral issue that has become political, not as Obama says a fruitless debate!)

“It is time that we end the politicization of this issue,” Obama said in a written statement which accompanied an official presidential memorandum canceling Bush’s abortion-related restrictions on American aid money, referred to by critics as a “gag rule.” The new president promised “a fresh conversation on family planning” and said his aides would “reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies.”(HE MEANS AS LONG AS THE PRO-LIFE GROUP RECOGNIZES THAT HIS MIND IS MADE UP, HE WILL LET THEM TALK TO HIM)

And to add more emphasis to his pro-abortion stance he and the Democrat controlled Congress have included in the so called "stimulus package"contains hundreds of millions for contraception and abortions as reported to Reuters News by Congressman John Boehner(R).

AND TO SHOW ANOTHER CARD HE HAS NOT PLAYED YET. HE DISMISSED OFF HAND the idea that during a recession he will not raise taxes!!

The ban on funds for this UN agency has been a political football since Ronald Reagan introduced the measure at the UN conference in Mexico City during his Presidency.

IS PRESIDENT OBAMA INCLINED TO GRANT AMNESTY TO ILLEGALS?

IN APPOINTING THE NEW SECRETARY OF LABOR, OBAMA MAY HAVE GIVEN US A LOOK AT HIS INTENTION TO GRANT AMNESTY TO THE ESTIMATED 12 MILLIONS ILLEGALS HERE IN THE USA.
The following is an excerpt is from the January 9, 2009 issue of the Sacramento Bee newspaper.
UNITE HERE, president John Wilhelm of one of the fastest growing U.S. unions, organizes workers, many of them immigrants and ethnic minorities, in businesses ranging from garment factories to hotels and casinos.He had this to say about illegals in America,

"I don't think it's possible to fix the economy without comprehensive immigration reform," Wilhelm said.


The union leader said he believes immigrants have always fueled U.S. economic growth and filled legitimate labor needs. But he said the country needs a new immigration system that can better manage and admit workers legally to fill labor shortages.

Wilhelm urged offering an earned legalization program to an estimated 12 million undocumented workers. He said it would help increase all workers' bargaining power and boost tax collection.

"In the interest of the economy, we've got to bring the 12 million out of the shadows,"

And from what President Obama did this week it would indicate to this blogger, that Amnesty for illegals is on the mind of our new President.
Despite the fact that in December of 2008 524,00 legal American workers lost their jobs, and in 2008 a total of 2.589 million Americans lost their jobs. The worst job lost since 1945!

Janet Murgia, president of National Council of la Raza, a Hispanic civil rights group, responded that most Americans are "tired of naysayers" on immigration issues.And Leftist Cardinal Mahoney joined the call to give blanket amnesty to all illegals.My comment is who is she listening to!

She and others are buoyed by Obama's statements of support for immigration reform and Cabinet appointments such as Los Angeles-area Rep. Hilda Solis, Obama's nominee for secretary of labor.

On its Web site, UNITE HERE calls Solis, the daughter of Mexican and Nicaraguan immigrants who were union supporters, "a proven advocate." This in case you have not grasped it, is the indication I believe, that Obama is leaning toward amnesty!

Lined up on the other side of this issue are most legal Americans who not only are not only worried about job loss, but the amount of drugs coming across the border between Mexico and the USA, and the crime and violence associated with it!

I feel that the correct way to approach the illegal problem is to beef up the borders at both our North and Southern divisions by creating thousands of jobs for border guards and for the government to help unemployed Americans by moving as many of the 7 million illegal aliens out of their jobs as feasible,and by reducing the 138,000 monthly foreign workers allowed by the present immigration laws, as close to zero as possible.

Perhaps those who want to compare Obama with President Roosevelt should be reminded that FDR did not increase immigration during the Depression -- or legalize illegal aliens. Instead, net immigration actually fell below zero many years while FDR conducted mass roundups and deportations of illegal workers. He did however, put together the same type coalition that President Obama did to get elected with the exception that he did not have the gay and lesbian issue to deal with. He put together the New Deal coalition of labor unions; farmers; ethnic, religious and racial minorities; intellectuals; the South; big city machines; and the poor and workers on relief( aka welfare).

Today Marks 36 Years of Infamy

« previous entry | next entry »
Jan. 22nd, 2009 | 03:31 pm

Hollywood and the Cable Networks keep showing episodes of the Nazi death camps. Certainly a low point in mans inhumanity to his fellow man. But there is a genocide ongoing right here in the USA, that was started by seven men in Black Robes(kind of appropriate)36 years ago.
This quote from the Patriot Post,illustrates my feelings on this atrocity to those in the most protected place on earth--their mothers womb!
"On Thursday, the most tragic Supreme Court fiat in America's history will turn 36. The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision federalized a legal issue that historically had been individually decided by each state. Seven unelected justices struck down Texas' abortion law -- and by extension, those of the other states -- instead of having elected legislators properly decide the matter. The primary issue, of course, remains the right to life affirmed in our Declaration of Independence. Since Roe, nearly 50 million babies have been denied this foundational right, trumped by the so-called "right to choose" supported by our new president and Democrat-controlled Congress."
Tags: abortion, genocide, opinion

DO NOT CLOSE "GITMO" PRISON

During his campaign for President, Obama promised to close "gitmo" prison. The ACLU is licking it's chops to get the hundreds of terrorist in the USA, and so are the large group of supporters of Obama. The trial lawyers.
The reasons given for the closure are that violations of the Geneva Convention have been repeatedly perpetrated. Water boarding is the "cause celeb" in the Halls of Congress by those calling for closure ,including the new appointee designated Attorney General.

But I contend, and offer for your consideration, that most of those incarcerated at GITMO have no right to protection under the Articles of the Fourth Revision of the Geneva Convention.
Article four details who is covered, and article five details who is by their actions exempt from coverage.

This quote comes via the web site:Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, adopted in 1949 as a result of the atrocities committed by Hitlers Germany.

Article 4
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

Article 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention. In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.Italics and bold letters are mine for emphasis.

There has been every effort possible made to try these terrorist in military courts, but the courts have been very busy trying American soldiers for alleged violations such as murder of civilians.( they were found guilty in some cases, and not guilty in some, so it was important to try them) These cases have clogged the judicial calender, and now President Obama has delayed the most heinous, alleged imprisoned man for 120 days. The trial of the mastermind of the bombing of New York's Twin Towers blg.
Bringing them to the USA will be a problem since at least three Federal Prisons have already said they do not want them, because they cannot accommodate them. Returning them to the Country of origin will result in one of two things. They will be killed by their own people, or they will return to the task of killing Americans!

COMPARING PRESIDENT OBAMA TO LICOLN COULD BE MISTAKE

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

As we were during Lincoln's era, we are once again a nation at war, and the laws of war are different. I know that this is a difficult concept to grasp, because most people today are not used to thinking in terms of wartime and peacetime. But in reality, the laws of war are different. And Obama's delay of the alleged mastermind of 9/11/2--1 and his proposal to close "gitmo" prison are examples of a President who apparently is letting A special interest group of voters cloud his attitude toward the war situation in which we presently are involved.

Think about this: We lost 620,000 people over the four years of the Civil War. We could lose that many people in one day if we realized a chemical or biological attack at the hands of terrorists.

The horror of, and after, September 11, 2001, has again raised tensions between and dialog about American security and personal liberty. As Lyndon B. Johnson said on January 20, 1965, while taking the presidential oath, "We can never again stand aside, prideful in isolation. Terrific dangers and troubles that we once called `foreign' now constantly live among us."3

Today, I hope to provoke not only thought, but also comments and questions from you regarding those issues that President Lincoln confronted in the area of civil liberties and those facing our current Commander in Chief.Source: Heritage Foundation


In the words of historian James G. Randall: "No president has carried the power of presidential edict and executive order (independently of Congress) so far as [Lincoln] did.... It would not be easy to state what Lincoln conceived to be the limit of his powers.

In the 80 days that elapsed between Abraham Lincoln's April 1861 call for troops--the beginning of the Civil War--and the official convening of Congress in special session on July 4, 1861, Lincoln performed a whole series of important acts by sheer assumption of presidential power. Lincoln, without congressional approval, called forth the militia to "suppress said combinations,"6 which he ordered "to disperse and retire peacefully" to their homes.7 He increased the size of the Army and Navy, expended funds for the purchase of weapons, instituted a blockade--an act of war--and suspended the precious writ of habeas corpus, all without congressional approval.

Lincoln termed these actions not the declaration of "civil war," but rather the suppression of rebellion. We all know that only Congress is constitutionally empowered to declare war, but suppression of rebellion has been recognized as an executive function, for which the prerogative of setting aside civil procedures has been placed in the President's hands.

Lincoln's critics, especially abolitionists and Radical Republicans, said he moved too slowly as President to end slavery. In his written response to Horace Greeley's editorial (see below), having already discussed a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation with his cabinet, Lincoln wrote, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that...I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."EMPHASIS IS MINE

During the American Civil War, Lincoln used the war powers of the presidency to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared "all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free" but exempted border states and those areas of slave states already under Union control. As a practical matter, at first the Proclamation could only be enforced to free those slaves that had already escaped to the Union side. However, millions more were freed as more areas of the South came under Union control.

Although Lincoln initially resisted efforts by his generals to free slaves in areas captured by the Union[citation needed], including revoking emancipations proclaimed by some of his generals such as Freman, eventually he gave in to necessity and drafted the Emancipation Proclamation. The war powers were the basis for the Emancipation Proclamation. The technical language of the Proclamation never actually freed slaves in the border states or in areas of the Confederacy already back under Union control, but strategically only gave freedom to slaves in Confederate territories where Lincoln did not have actual power and would disrupt the enemy. Many slaves were freed however, as the war continued. Lincoln was hesitant about pursuing broader emancipation during the war for areas already under Union control[citation needed], not wanting to provoke sedition in those Union areas that would be affected. Lincoln also attempted to compensate former slave owners for their losses throughout the war[citation needed]. The border states were pressured to abolish slavery on their own (all but Kentucky did so), and in doing so contributed to the more than 180,000 blacks in the Union Army and Navy. Lincoln credited these soldiers and sailors with turning the tide of the war[citation needed], and argued that their sacrifice earned both freedom and the right to vote. The Thirteenth Amendment made abolition permanent.
And history shows that Lincoln was not adverse to revoking the Constitutional rights of citizens. During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and set up military courts in several states in the South and Midwest. Many at the time felt that Lincoln had superseded his authority, and in 1878 Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the military from performing civilian law enforcement without congressional approval.

Do the members of the team of President Obama want him to be compared with this side of President Lincoln that cannot be found in school room text books today?

WILL PRESIDENT OBAMA BE A REPEAT OF NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN?

Unfortunately history has a tendency of repeating itself.Particularly if people ignore the facts that resulted adversely from actions by leaders who made bad decisions with serious, even disastrous consequences!

One of Planks of Obama's campaign for the presidency was to change what he called the "saber rattling" diplomacy of president Bush. He spoke often about his desire to restore friendly relations with Countries like North Korea and Iran by talking to their leadership with no reservations preconceived before the talks took place. He also voted to not invade Iraq when almost all of the Senate, including his new Secretary of Sate Hillary Clinton, agreed that it was the appropriate reaction to Saddam's refusal to comply with many UN resolutions about dismantling weapons of mass destruction.

Renewing American Diplomacy includes the following statements about what people like MoveOn.org and the Peace/anti Iraq war crowd expects Obama to do regarding our foreign policy decisions. Particularly with Iran.
"The Problem: The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support.
Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama and Biden are willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe.They will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs. SOURCE:OBAMA /BIDEN The Challenge To Restore Our Standing

My opinion is the OBAMA and his supporters act as though the years of failed efforts by Countries in the European Union, to dissuade Iran from going nuclear simply didn't happen. That is blindness, not continuity. And that's without Mr. Obama's pledge to meet personally with Iran's leaders, an incredible act of legitimization he seems willing to give away for nothing.

In 1937 the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Neville Chamberlain thought that talking and making concessions to Hitler would avoid war with Germany.
He went to Munich by airplane. This was the first time he had flown in an airplane!
Hitler appeared charming and promised that if the French and Great Britain would give back the geography called the Sudetenland to Germany. It had been taken from Germany at the the treaty of Versailles after world War. Hitler would stop his plans to invade Czechoslovakia .

Chamberlain became Prime Minister of Britain on 28th May, 1937. Over the next two years Chamberlain's Conservative government became associated with the foreign policy that later became known as "appeasement".

Chamberlain believed that Germany had been badly treated by the Allies after it was defeated in the First World War. He therefore thought that the German government had genuine grievances and that these needed to be addressed. He also thought that by agreeing to some of the demands being made by Adolf Hitler of Germany and Benito Mussolini of Italy, he could avoid a European war.


In November, 1937, Neville Chamberlain sent Lord Halifax to meet Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and Hermann Goering in Germany. In his diary, Lord Halifax records how he told Hitler: "Although there was much in the Nazi system that profoundly offended British opinion, I was not blind to what he (Hitler) had done for Germany, and to the achievement from his point of view of keeping Communism out of his country." This was a reference to the fact that Hitler had banned the Communist Party (KPD) in Germany and placed its leaders in Concentration Camps.

In February, 1938, Adolf Hitler invited Kurt von Schuschnigg, the Austrian Chancellor, to meet him at Berchtesgarden. Hitler demanded concessions for the Austrian Nazi Party. Schuschnigg refused and after resigning was replaced by Arthur Seyss-Inquart, the leader of the Austrian Nazi Party. On 13th March, Seyss-Inquart invited the German Army to occupy Austria and proclaimed union with Germany.

The union of Germany and Austria (Anschluss) had been specifically forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles. Some members of the House of Commons, including Anthony Eden and Winston Churchill, now called on Neville Chamberlain to take action against Adolf Hitler and his Nazi government.

In March 1938 Hugh Christie told the British government that Adolf Hitler would be ousted by the military if Britain joined forces with Czechoslovakia against Germany. Christie warned that the "crucial question is 'How soon will the next step against Czechoslovakia be tried?' ... The probability is that the delay will not exceed two or three months at most, unless France and England provide the deterrent, for which cooler heads in Germany are praying." German Historians allege that when Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler, he told Hitler about the plot that was being hatched by the German General staff headed by General Beck!

On 29th September, 1938, Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier and Benito Mussolini signed the Munich Agreement which transferred to Germany the Sudetenland, a fortified frontier region that contained a large German-speaking population. When Eduard Benes, Czechoslovakia's head of state, who had not been invited to Munich, protested at this decision, Chamberlain told him that Britain would be unwilling to go to war over the issue of the Sudetenland.

The Munich Agreement was popular with most people in Britain because it appeared to have prevented a war with Germany. However, some politicians, including Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden, attacked the agreement. These critics pointed out that no only had the British government behaved dishonorably, but it had lost the support of Czech Army, one of the best in Europe.

One staunch critic of appeasement was the journalist Vernon Bartlett. He was approached by Richard Acland to stand as an anti-Chamberlain candidate at a by-election in Bridgwater. Bartlett agreed and in November, 1938, surprisingly won the previously safe Tory seat. Henry (Chips) Channon , a junior member of the government wrote in his diary: "This is the worst blow the Government has had since 1935".

In March, 1939, the German Army seized the rest of Czechoslovakia. In taking this action Adolf Hitler had broken the Munich Agreement. The British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, now realized that Hitler could not be trusted and his appeasement policy now came to an end.Source: www.Spartacus Educational.com

I am not suggesting that Obama is as naive or stupid as Chamberlain, but if he tries to fulfill a promise to the "pecenik" crowd by trying to talk to Tyrants that run North Korea and Iran. I believe they will see a sign of weakness and take advantage of it. Dealing from a position of strength is the only way to deal with Bullies!