tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64076158013241241732024-03-13T07:06:52.793-07:00USNAVJonMoseleyUS News and Views is the leaderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13360728280173174810noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6407615801324124173.post-72724275380204386652009-05-22T09:36:00.000-07:002009-05-22T09:49:19.897-07:00Can Obama's Stimulus Plan Rescue The Economy?Will Obama's stimulus package and the Bush/ama (Bush-Obama) bailouts rescue and stimulate the American economy? Answer, no. (As I wrote earlier, the economy will naturally rebound on its own, in the short-term, but will then collapse in 18 to 24 months under the weight of Democrat policies.)<br /><br />It is a fundamental error that government spending can stimulate the economy. And the error is this: <b><u>THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE ANY MONEY TO SPEND.</b></u> The economic theories that analyze government spending's contribution to economic growth fail to consider the fact that the government actually has no money. <br /><br />If the government truly had a nest egg of billions of dollars socked away under a mattress at the Treasury Department, then obviously spending it would contribute to economic activity. There are sophisticated economic equations analyzing the national economy, and they measure the contribution of government spending. <br /><br />However, the government must first suck money <u>OUT</u> of the economy through borrowing before the government can put it back in. The net effect is nil. Actually it is worse than zero, because we are then left with the national hangover of national debt we can never repay. Margaret Thatcher explained it like this: "The trouble with socialism is that it eventually runs out of other people's money [to spend]."<br /><br />An anonymous email making the rounds on the internet does a magnificent job of explaining: An economics professor at a college is asked by a student to explain Obama's stimulus bill. The mythical economics professor replies that he will explain if the student comes to his house on Saturday. On arriving, the student is instructed to help the professor with his swimming pool. "Take this bucket, fill it up at the deep end of the pool, and pour the water back in at the shallow end of the pool." After doing so a few times, the puzzled student protests: "We're not accomplishing anything. We're just pouring the water back in to the same pool. Other than wasted energy, nothing is happening." The professor replies: <b>"AH! <i>NOW</i> you understand Obama's stimulus bill!"</b><br /><br />Almost all of the Democrat Party, and certainly Obama, are firm believers in the left-wing economics of <a target="_blank" href="http://www.maynardkeynes.org/">John Maynard Keynes.</a> Stating it briefly, and doing him a great (deliberate) disservice, Keynes argues that the hypothetical economics professor really could make the narrow end of the swimming pool higher by pouring water there carried from the deep end of the pool.<br /> <br />Everyone in Washington except a few die-hard conservatives believes in Keynes. Although Keynes was not even born during FDR's New Deal, his theories later emerged as a strong defense of FDR's approach. Keynes advocated interventionist government actions to mitigate the adverse effects of economic recessions, depressions and booms. His theories are the basis for the school of thought known as Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics is basically big-government socialism dressed up in "drag" with capitalist lingo as camouflage.<br /><br />Almost all of Washington strongly believes in big-government, anti-free market Keynesian economics. Indeed governments around the world adopted Keynes, leading to various economic disasters for decades. President Richard Nixon declared "We are all Keynesians now!" shortly before America started a decade-long slide into crippling recessions and soaring inflation ("stag-flation"). Milton Friedman led the charge exposing Keynes as wrong.<br /><br />So how did this happen? Obama and liberal leaders in Congress have tried to learn (all the wrong) lessons from FDR and the Great Depression. Unwilling to admit that Roosevelt's monkeying with the economy made the Depression worse and longer, die-hard big-government liberals conclude that FDR made one mistake: He did not spend enough money fast enough. If only FDR had really hit the gas, the Great Depression would have ended sooner.<br /><br />FDR's Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, admitted near the end of Roosevelt's Presidency <u><i>that the New Deal was a failure.</u></i> <a target="_blank" href="http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012109f.cfm"> Morgenthau lamented in testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee:</a> "I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!" And: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work." Morgenthau's testimony is officially published in the Congressional Record for its date May 9, 1939. <br /><br />Historian Burton W. Folsom Jr. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-winter/burton-folsom-jr.asp">explores the record of the New Deal in his new book:</a> "New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America." Budget and financial experts at The Heritage Foundation recently distributed <a target="_blank" href="http://author.heritage.org/Press/ALAChart/alachart-detail.cfm?customel_datapageid_244663=291492">a chart showing that FDR's programs didn't succeed in pushing unemployment below 20 percent.</a> Heritage plotted New Deal unemployment using <a target="_blank" href="http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/CT1970p1-05.pdf">widely accepted Census Bureau data (Page 6, Series D, column 10), the "official" numbers that were compiled at the time.</a><br /><br />FDR's massive government spending actually made the Great Depression longer and worse. One reason is that the temporary band-aid of government spending actually "freezes out" the private sector. Instead of private companies building up permanent, long-term businesses to fill society's needs, government has invaded those areas with "temporary" government programs. Furthermore, not knowing what the government is going to do next, private businesses are afraid to invest money in building up companies that might be rendered obsolete next month by the latest expansion of the New Deal. Therefore, government spending like the New Deal actually harms the private economy and retards economic recovery. Government spending <u>appears</u> to be working by employing workers. But this simultaneously destroys private sector jobs, driving more and more unemployed toward the government band-aid jobs.<br /><br />Yet the liberal Congress, with Obama in tow, believe that FDR had the right idea... <br /><br />but FDR's mistake was waiting too long and spent too little government "investment." Instead of admitting that FDR's "New Deal" really did not work, liberals conclude that FDR simply failed to spend <u>enough</u> borrowed government money.<br /><br />That is why Obama and his back-up singers in Congress are determined to spend staggering sums of our children's and our grandchildren's money. They believe that this is the magic formula to restarting the economy.<br /><br />But there was a reason that FDR did not spend more recklessly than he did. Roosevelt understood what the modern Democrats do not. For all the hoped-for stimulus of government spending, there must inevitably follow the hangover of massive debt. The country can spend government funds today, but we must pay the tab tomorrow. FDR and his Treasury Secretary Morgenthau at least tried to balance the short term stimulus against the long-term harm of debt hanging over the economy. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid do not comprehend such fine points.<br /><br />And yet, strangely, this week <a target="_blank" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJsSb4qtILhg&refer=worldwide">President Barack Obama, called current deficit spending “unsustainable."</a>. Obama warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries. “We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, near Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.” <br /><br />Obama's remarks are most peculiar because Obama plainly does not believe one word of what he said. Obama is trying to give gullible voters and Obamatons who are only half paying attention a false image of himself. The same week the Obama Administration announced that its this year's budget deficit will be a Guiness Book style world record of $1.84 trillion. Obama's Office of Management and Budget also projected next year’s budget will be even larger than this year's -- $3.59 trillion.<br /><br />Furthermore, the stimulus money -- predictably -- cannot be infused into the economy fast enough to do any good. <a target="_blank"<br />href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/us/politics/13stimulus.html?_r=1">The New York Times reported this week</a> that nearly three months after President Obama approved a $787 billion economic stimulus package, intended to create or save jobs, the federal government has paid out less than 6 percent of the money, largely in the form of social service payments to states. The Department of Transportation has spent only about $11 million on the promised highway projects. Recall that the $787 billion package (over $1 trillion with interests costs included) was sold to the Congress with the pledge that it would go immediately into "shovel ready" projects such as roads and bridges. As was obvious, government cannot possibly respond that fast. Much of the money will not even be spent until 2010. And the economy does not respond instantly to anything. The effects may not be felt for another 6 to 18 months after that. That is, in 2011 and 2012.<br /><br />Moreover, there is the added problem that any government spending is inherently ineffective and often harmful. Why? Because government spending is directed by political interests and political choices, rather than economic efficiency. Every dollar spent by the private sector is someone's personal money at risk. Every dollar spent by the government is controlled by a bureaucrat or politician with no personal money at stake. It's not their money! Politically-spent money is diverted to ineffecient and ineffective purposes to serve political agendas.<br /><br />Furthermore, it is clear that Obama and the liberal Congress will open the borders to not only the estimated 20 million illegal aliens currently stealing jobs from Americans but also to more who follow. As illegal trespassers are given rights to work freely in the USA, they will start to take all sorts of jobs from Americans, cutting deep into salaries and opportunities in many industries. The downward pressure on salaries that has been confined to only certain industries will now spread to the entire economy.<br /><br />All of this has prompted some to wonder whether Obama is intentionally destroying the US economy. Austin Hill, a columnist for TownHall Magazine, is only one of many observers <a target="_blank" href="http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinHill/2009/05/10/obamanomics__naive,_or_intentionally_destructive">who believe Obama knows that his actions will destroy the United States.</a> Many say that socialists believe that the existing system of government and our economy must collapse before a truly socialist or even communist 'utopia' can replace it. This is consistent with tactics espoused by Obama's Mentors such as Saul Alinsky and Rahm Emanuel's philosophy 'never let a crisis go to waste."<br /><br />The U.S. now has a national debt we can never repay. Social security and medicare are going broke. Under current world conditions, we may be unable to borrow the money needed to fuel the nation's government spending. We will hit a wall if the Chinese and other simply say "We can't lend you any more money."<br /><br />If by next year, the U.S. Treasury tries to borrow yet another trillion dollars, and investors answer “no,” the United States of America could literally be bankrupt in 2010. And not just officially (on paper) but in reality, as in no money. There is no one to bail out the U.S.A. If the U.S. budget is short by another $1 trillion in 2010, that is lacking real money to operate without borrowing $1 trillion, and no one steps up to loan the money, our country could literally collapse next year. We should not forget that all of the State governments are also borrowing massive sums simultaneously. <br /><br />The total collapse of America's existing system may pave the way for a new, Marxist economy. (Unfortunately, talking about Marxism is problematic for people who do not konw what Marx actually taught. Rather than an insult, it is a precise term. When carefully examined, the class warfare and economic policies of today's Democrats fits neatly into the Marxist theory.)<br /><br />Alternatively, some suggest that the collapse of the U.S. economy could be intended to open the door to submerge the U.S.A. into a "North American Union" -- a new country consisting of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S.A. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98183">Jerry Corsi reported this week on the U.S. government's first steps actually implementing the merging of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S.A. into a "North American Union."</a> Highway signs showing an integrated North America have begun showing up on U.S. Interstate highways. This first small step implements NORPASS, a new electronic system that allows participating truckers in Canada and the U.S. to by-pass roadside weigh stations through the use of a transponder mounted on the windshield. Corsi has reported extensively on massive government planning for and promotion of creating a single North American country, with the "Amero" as its currency, hidden from public knowledge.US News and Views is the leaderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13360728280173174810noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6407615801324124173.post-11048455824124811872009-05-20T09:49:00.000-07:002009-05-20T09:55:23.185-07:00Conservatives Fumigate Tent To Remove LiberalsThe Republican Party certainly does require a "Big Tent" -- the kind of tent we sometimes see covering a house infested with termites. Unless conservatives can rid the GOP of Democrats hiding out in their midst, the Republican Party can never recover. Liberals are sapping the GOP's strength from within.<br /><br />It now seems that a looming divorce within the GOP has grown inevitable. Unless the Republican Party returns to its conservative principles, a number of conservatives will go on strike. They feel it is no longer acceptable for conservatives to do most of the hard work of winning elections, while the Party leaders promote mainly liberal policies. A new Party could even be the result.<br /><br />Liberals in the Republican Party (affectionately known as "Moderates" or "Vichy Republicans") severely threaten the existence of the Republican party in four fundamental ways: <br /><br />(1) "Moderates" lose elections by their failure to understand politics or how to lead a party. Political success requires persuading and inspiring. Conservatives believe that the opinions of the public and the votes of the electorate are fluid and dynamic. A candidate wins votes by <b><i><u>persuading</b></i></u> the voters that he or she offers a better plan and better leadership. The heart and soul of politics is convincing people that your party's ideas are best. <br /><br />Yet one of the fundamental errors of "Moderate" Republicans is that they view the electorate as frozen in place. Voters never change their minds. Therefore, "Moderates" approach elections by trying to patch together already-existing, static blocs of opinion. They want to pander to various interest groups in order to cobble together a majority. "Moderates" cannot understand elections in terms of changing minds. Therefore, they do not try to persuade the electorate. And they can't understand anyone else doing so, either. Moderates want to count noses, while conservatives want to change hearts.<br /><br />The <i>Vichy Republicans</i> propose an <i><b>"EMPTY TENT"</i></b> strategy. They want to erect a "Big Tent" -- but offer no reason for anyone to ever actually <u>enter</u> the GOP tent. The GOP "<u>Empty Tent</u>" pales in comparison to the circus next door in the Democrats' tent. <br /><br />Conservatives strongly believe that voters respond to leadership. They believe that voters actually decide in each election who is the better candidate, based on the policies, records, and qualities a candidate offers. Therefore, conservatives believe that they can <b><i><u>win</b></i></u> a majority by offering better ideas, plans, and proposals for the country. By contrast, if the GOP fields an awful candidate and runs an awful campaign, people will vote for the Democrat. This does not signal a permanent shift in the nation's politics requiring the Party to abandon its principles. This simply means the GOP nominated a terrible candidate.<br /><br />Conservatives believe it is a severe threat to allow confusion about what the Party stands for or fail to present clearly why their policies are better. Trying to water down the Party's message to pander to different groups is the path to certain defeat. The voters must be able to understand the difference between the parties. <b><i>The voters must see why conservative policies are better.</b></i> If we don't show the voters why our plans are better, no one else will.<br /><br />"Moderates" take all the wrong lessons from the last two elections. No one will vote for a party that stands for nothing, that will say anything to pander for a vote. And given a choice between a genuine, strong liberal and a pathetic imitation, the voters will choose the genuine liberal. Having a choice only between two bad shows on TV, people will watch the better show. But they will still be wishing the whole time that there was something better on to watch instead.<br /><br />Conservatives want to lead the country. Since the job description is that of <b><u>leader</u></b>, demonstrating qualities of leadership is important for winning votes. But most important is the lost and neglected art of convincing voters which direction is the best for the country.<br /><br />More than any other issue, "Moderates" have made horrible decisions about how to win on the issue of abortion. Just this week, a Gallup poll found a dramatic change in the nation's views on abortion, with 51% calling themselves Pro-Life, up from 44% only a year ago. "Moderates" base their entire political philosophy on the certainty that no one's views can ever be changed. Yet here is dramatic evidence that people's opinions do change, that Conservatives are right and "Moderates" are wrong. <b><u>Public opinion is sensitive to what political leaders say and do.</b></u><br /><br /><i>Vichy Republicans</i> are loudly objecting that demands for conservative "purity" result in a narrow, small Republican party. Conservatives respond that electoral success requires <b><i><u>purity of the MESSAGE</b></i></u>. It is impossible to persuade the electorate with a confusing, contradictory, meaningless message. To conservatives, the issue is not a Party whose membership or participation demands purity, but whose <u><i>policies</u></i> must present a clear, understandable message. All persons are welcome in the Republican Party. Liberal policies are not.<br /><br />The GOP under Newt Gingrich gained 52 seats in the House in 1994 after Bill Clinton's 1992 landslide. Why do "Moderates" ignore such examples of real-world success? <a target="_blank" href="http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/reagan/reagan1975.asp">As Ronald Reagan explained on March 1, 1975 after the Watergate fiasco,</a> "Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?" and "A political party cannot be all things to all people."<br /><br />(2) "Moderates" lose elections because liberal policies do not work for a Republican candidate. A Democrat can run in concert with his liberal base but a Republican cannot run in conflict with his conservative base. (Winning elections requires enthusiasm among volunteers and many months of work, not just counting votes in November.) Also, voters who favor liberal policies will <u>never</u> choose a Republican as a poor imitation of a Democrat. Those who desire liberal policies will choose the real thing, not a cheap knock-off.<br /><br />(3) "Moderates" use conservative footsoldiers in election campaigns and then stab conservatives in the back in government policies. Conservatives will not continue to endure such persistent betrayal. It is as if the Conservative movement caught "Moderate" Republicans in bed with another woman. And we've got pictures.<br /><br />(4) "Moderates" have a ferocious determination to sabotage the Republcian party whenever necessary to ensure the defeat of conservatives.<br /><br />In 2005 and 2006, something snapped. Republicans in Congress and the Bush Administration betrayed and undercut the Republican brand. <a target="_blank" href="http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/06/cnr.02.html">On CNN on October 6, 2006, one of the conservative movement's founders, Richard Viguerie explained:</a> "For six years, the conservatives have gotten basically lip service from this administration. They've been used and abused." As a fund-raiser for dozens of major conservative groups, Viguerie knows the mind of conservative leaders and their donors.<br /><br />Massive government spending, vast expansion of government, abuse of power, scandals, and many liberal policies infuriated the right wing of the party. (Sadly too many conservative Republicans were seduced and participated.) After 9/11, plans to give control of U.S. seaports to Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates convinced Americans that Washington had lost its mind. Bush's attempt to squander a Supreme Court nomination on Harriet Myers removed any doubts. The mad rush of the Bush White House and Republican leaders to give amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens, and place them on a path to U.S. citizenship, was too much. And the $700 billion bail-out to Wall Street, for a problem "suddenly" discovered at the last moment, struck Americans as crazy. Bush worked with the most liberal Democrats in Congress, such as on Ted Kennedy's education bill. <br /><br />Conservative frustration with Republican leaders has been building for decades. One of the founding fathers of the modern conservative movement, Paul Weyrich, wrote <u>LIP SERVICE</u> chronicling the betrayal of conservatives by George Bush Senior. Weyrich's booklet argued that the elder George Bush persistently lied to the voters and conservatives, giving only empty "Lip Service" to conservative beliefs, but then Bush betrayed conservatives at every opporunity. Conservatives believed that Bush the father, like his son after him, hijacked the language of conservativism while governing as a big-government liberal. Bush's famous lie <i>"Read my lips: No new taxes"</i> was but only one example of many.<br /><br />In 1992, Paul Weyrich and Brent Bozell announced outside the Republican National Convention in Houston that nothing conservatives could do would save George Bush Senior "from defeat since he [Bush] was refusing to advance a conservative agenda." In 2000, Bozell warned that "W" was making the same mistake as his father.<br /><br />Bush followed Ronald Reagan by promising a <b>"kinder, gentler nation"</b> -- an obvious insult to the Reagan Revolution that positioned him as Vice President and handed him the White House. His son George "W" Bush did exactly the same thing, promising a new brand of <b>"compassionate conservatism</b>." Both father and son rejected conservatives, while demonstrating ignorance of conservative theories and beliefs. Conservatives see their policies as the most compassionate government policies possible. Conservatives seek to help the poor rise out of poverty, while liberals persistently fail. The longest-running war in American history, the crack goes, is the war on poverty, and poverty is winning. Liberal policies keep the poor enslaved as a permanent under-class without hope of progress. For "W" to propose a "compassionate" conservatism proved that "W" had not the slightest clue about conservative principles.<br /><br />Then in 1994, the Republican Party of Virginia nominated Col. Oliver North as its candidate for the United States Senate from Virginia. A now-familiar pattern became clear: (a) When a liberal is nominated, liberals demand party unity, but (b) when a conservative is nominated, liberals in the GOP will go to any lengths to sabotage the conservative Republican. Liberals would rather destroy the Republican Party than allow a conservative to get elected and gain influence. As an elected member of the Arlington County Republican Committee, this author witnessed the raging debates in the Virginia GOP throughout 1994.<br /><br />Rather than supporting the Party nominee, liberal Republicans Sen. John Warner and Rep. Tom Davis engineered Oliver North's defeat by sponsoring Marshall Coleman as an independent spoiler candidate in the general election. North received 43% of the vote compared to 46% for Democrat Chuck Robb, a son-in-law of Lyndon Johnson. But Marshall Coleman (a liberal Republican running as an independent) peeled off 11% of the vote. Therefore, if liberal and moderate Republicans had backed the Republican nominee, Col. North would have won with 54% of the vote to Robb's 46%. (Democrats would have voted for Democrat Robb, so most of Coleman's 11% would have gone to North.) Liberal Republicans preferred to elect a Democrat to the U.S. Senate than allow a conservative to hold the seat. <br /> <br /><b>This pattern has been repeated again and again nationwide. Conservatives are expected to support the Party's liberal nominees. Yet Liberals almost never support the Party's conservative nominees.</b> GOP "Moderates" demand a one-way street. Indeed this was attempted against Ronald Reagan in 1980 by Republican Congressman John Anderson, who ran as an Independent spoiler trying to siphon votes away from Reagan so as to re-elect Jimmy Carter instead of conservative Reagan. Liberal Virginia Congressman Tom Davis seems to spend more time sabotaging conservative Republicans than serving as a Congressman.<br /><br />Without conservatives, the "Moderates" in the Party could not win an election for dog-catcher. Conservatives are the foot soldiers of the Republican Party. Conservatives are the ones who do most of the work to win elections. "Blue blood" liberal Republicans do not often get their hands dirty. Generally speaking, liberal Republicans do not walk the neighborhoods doing literature drops or making phone calls. And conservatives know it. And they are tired of being taken advantage of. <br /><br />Even when Republican "Moderates" contribute to winning elections, they usually do so as highly-paid campaign consultants, vendors, or staffers. Conservatives are the unpaid volunteers, who give of their time because they care about their country and believe conservative policies will make the nation better.<br /><br />Heading into the 2006 election, conservatives began to talk openly about boycotting Republican politicians. In conservative publications, in the halls of conservative organizations, and on talk radio, conservatives started debating whether it would be better to let Democrats win. GOP politicians had refused to listen to or care about the rank-and-file. Many started to say that the GOP must start losing elections before its leaders will start listening. Many argue that America had to suffer through Jimmy Carter to realize that liberalism does not work. Jimmy Carter gave us Ronald Reagan, the theory goes. <br /><br />By 2008, the nomination of the Anti-Republian John McCain crossed the line. Only the prospect of electing far-left candidate Barack Hussein Obama gave conservatives any reason to fight for and vote for John McCain. Conservatives were shamefully guilty of staying silent for too long and allowing Republican "Moderates" to masquerade as conservatives. The fear of liberals like Al Gore or John Kerry winning election scared conservatives into biting their tongues.<br /><br />But this argument has worn thin. Conservatives now realize that even if they do elect a "Moderate" Republican there probably won't be "a dime's worth of difference" from electing a Democrat. Meanwhile, the public image of Republicans will be smeared by having a Moderate Republican masquerade as a conservative. Ann Coulter promised to campaign for Hillary Clinton against John McCain. Christian leader James Dobson announced that he could never vote for John McCain. <br /><br />McCain's frequent attacks on conservatives for decades, support for amnesty for illegal aliens, repeated swing votes for liberal policies, and infringement of free speech with the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill made him completely unacceptable to many conservatives. As a result, some conservatives went "on strike" and stayed home... enough to result in massive election losses for the GOP. Faced with having the nation's first Black President, or a useless liberal McCain, many saw no benefit to voting for McCain. Elections involve more than just election day, but many months of hard work. <b><u>Elections are decided by thousands of events months or a year before election day.</b></u><br /><br />Since November, a few Republican politicians and self-appointed experts have waged a <br />high-profile campaign to convince the Republican Party to become more liberal. In fact, every year, no matter what happens, liberals and moderates in the GOP always try to steer the Republican Party even further to the left than it already is. The answer to every news headline is always that the GOP must lurch madly to the left.<br /><br />Sen. Arlen Specter abandoned the GOP, claiming that the Party had moved too far to the right. In fact, however, the Party has never been more liberal than in the last eight years. John McCain was the most liberal Republican nominee for President since Gerald Ford, possibly more liberal than Ford. The fact that Republicans like Bush and McCain simply want to defend the country shows how far left the Democrats have shifted. National defense used to be a matter of bipartisan agreement. Even on foreign policy, Bush began his term by allowing China to knock an American surveillance plane out of the sky and kidnap the crew in their airplane. While America obviously could not go to war with China, Bush's groveling appeasement of China was humiliating. It was only the attacks of 9/11 that convinced Bush on foreign policy that he had to aggressively defend the country.<br /><br />Amazingly, we see the peculiar oddity of liberals in the mainstream media and liberals in Congress offering their "advice" on how the Republican Party can best defeat the Democrats. Obviously, such "advice" from the GOP's mortal enemies is calculated to destroy, not assist, the GOP. The only way that the GOP should listen to such continual advice in the media is to do precisely the opposite of what the media and Democrats recommend.US News and Views is the leaderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13360728280173174810noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6407615801324124173.post-41060176107734704942009-05-18T09:16:00.000-07:002009-05-18T09:18:52.119-07:00Will Obamnomics Destroy The US Economy?"Will the economy get better soon?" every household and businessman is urgently wondering. People's fears and hopes are emotionally invested, and people need to plan for whatever lays ahead.<br /><br />Short-term, the U.S. economy will continue its natural cycle of recovery over the next 18 months. Had Bush and Obama left things alone, the inevitable business cycle would have rebounded on its own. It would have been painful, but the economy inevitably ebbs and flows like the tides. Nothing can hold back the moon-driven tides and nothing can prevent the ripples of unavoidable ups and downs in the economy. <br /><br /><a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Conceit-Errors-Socialism-Collected/dp/0226320669/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242255184&sr=8-3">As Frederick Hayek and other scholars have shown us, there is only one thing that the government can do about this repeating "business cycle": Make things worse.</a> Attempts to prevent the economy from rising and falling are always doomed to fail for fundamental reasons. (Fully explored in Hayek's books.)<br /><br />However, soon America will plunge into the worst recession since the stag-flation of Jimmy Carter, after about 18 months. Indeed, there is a real possibility of a Great Depression or even the complete destruction of the American nation.<br /><br />This prediction may seem overly bold. Sadly, though, it is based on iron laws of economics that cannot be escaped. This is no more prophetic than predicting that a cannonball dropped out a window will fall to the ground. <br /><br />Since last September, the Federal Reserve has expanded the money supply more in six months than all of the growth of the U.S. money supply from the founding of the nation in 1789 until 2008. Yet that does not even begin to tell the full story. <br /><br />The nation has been flooded with so much newly-created money in just six months that it defies description. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlHBYQrCnIk">A dramatic graph released by the US Treasury is shown by Glenn Beck in this Fox News video (click here).</a> The staggering explosion in the money supply by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve requires <a target="_blank" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlHBYQrCnIk">seeing the graph.</a> <br /><br />Every American should understand: This has never happened in the 220 year history of the United States. Not on such a gigantic scale, with the astonishing amount of money flooding the system.<br /><br />However, we have seen real-world, historical experience on a much smaller scale. The crippling stag-flation of the late 1970's and early 1980's was caused by a much smaller expansion of the money supply. Double-digit inflation ravaged the economy. The interest rate (which responds to inflation) soared to 21%. Persistent unemployment resulted. <br /> <br />And we have seen such examples in other countries, such as Argentina, Peru, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Zimbawbe. In 2009, <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zimbabwe_$100_trillion_2009_Obverse.jpg">Zimbawbe has issued a $100 trillion dollar bill (Zimbawbe dollars) due to its hyperinflation.</a> Inflation there reached 624% in 2004, and 1,730% in 2006. By 2008, Zimbawbe's inflation rate was the inflation rate was 516,000,000,000,000,000,000%. <br /><br />In 1993, <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:500000000000_dinars.jpg"><br />Yugoslavia printed a 500 <u>BILLION</u> dinar bill</a> because of hyperinflation. Jovan Jovanovic Zmaj was 'honored' (disgraced?) on the banknote. After WW II, Japan printed a 75 billion Yen bill, because of hyperinflation.<br /><br />The most famous example was in the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfSDPY5rYZE&feature=related">Weimar Republic of Germany.</a> The collapse of German society led to the rise of Adolf Hitler. The German Deutschmark became so worthless that people needed a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread. The Germans became so desperate that they were willing to turn to anyone who offered them basic survival.<br /><br />Such "monetary" changes always take roughly 18 months to work their way through the economy, from one sector to another. The result is a short-term boost, like a bad energy drink, followed by a crash. The economy is stimulated at first. But because the effect is artificial, like a ponzi scheme, it cannot be sustained. As it works its way through the system, inflation begins to erase the short-term gains. (It is true that with weak demand, prices will remain low until the economy rebounds. Prices will then soar.)<br /><br />Consider this: Suppose there is $100 billion worth of U.S. currency in circulation. Now, the Fed doubles the amount of currency in circulation to $200 billion. Nothing else has changed. The value of a dollar must then fall by 1/2. If the same economy suddenly has twice as much currency in circulation, the currency must become worth 1/2 as much. So, $1.00 suddenly becomes worth 50 cents. Or more precisely, prices must double to cause the currency to come back into balance.<br /><br />Of course, the creation of new money by the Federal Reserve is mostly electronic, not primarily paper money. Such new electronic money is not "printed" strictly speaking. However, when the government "prints" money, the value of all U.S. currency most fall. <br /><br />George Bush is greatly to blame for (a) spreading panic and fear last Fall, and (b) kicking off this disaster with a $700 billion bailout of his own. Presidents know that anything they say about the economy can scare the markets to death. The stock markets used to rise or fall depending on whether Alan Greenspan looked happy or grim heading into Federal Reserve Board meetings. And yet Bush went on national television and announced the end of the world, the Apocalypse, total and complete disaster, that we were staring into the abyss. Bush scared the living daylights out of the markets and the business world. And amazingly, all the leaders of the world -- each of whom knows better -- followed suit, shrieking that it was Armageddon, the Earth was falling into an economic black hole. (<a target="_blank" href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,428921,00.html">Most Americans still opposed the bailouts.</a> Conservatives burned up the Congressional phone lines screaming no.)<br /><br />When businesses and investors believe the economy is in trouble, they stop spending money and pull back their investments. <b><u><i>Thus declaring a catastrophe in the economy can actually create one.</b></i></u>. Bush and then Obama have spent most of the time since September giving the business world massive heart attacks, day after day. One of the main reasons that such titanic sums of government money had to be poured into the economy is that the world's leaders have been busy frightening the markets half to death. <br /><br />There was a chance to avoid this, however slim. If the Treasury and Federal Reserve loans had been paid back relatively quickly, the inflation of the money supply might have been reversed. However, Obama is headed in the wrong direction, away from the only exit. We have stepped off the cliff. And all feels fine for the moment. It's not the falling that hurts. It's when you reach the bottom of the canyon that the trouble starts.<br /><br />Yet inflation is only part of the damage the economy will suffer. The Democrats' wild spending spree will result in the largest annual budget deficit in American history: <a target="_blank" href="http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/11/white-house-budget-deficit-top-18t/">$1.8 TRILLION.</a> That is 13.1% of the entire national economy. The government is currently borrowing 46 cents for every dollar it spends. Obama's budget projects will increase the national debt by $7.1 trillion from 2010 through 2019.<br /><br />This massive debt overhang will require enormous increases in taxes and will suck capital out of the private economy. Even more alarming, the recession is world-wide. Very soon, there may simply be no one left to borrow from. Who is willing to put their own $1.8 trillion at risk to loan to Obama this year? And then again next year? <br /><br />What will happen when the Treasury floats a bond auction, and no one shows up to buy? Even if the Treasury can find enough suckers to borrow $1.8 trillion from this year, what happens when next year the government needs to borrow another $1 trillion or so -- and can't? We could literally be facing national bankruptcy in 2010 or 2011. And of course most State governments are running equally bad debt loads at the same time, competing with the borrowing of the U.S. Treasury.<br /><br />But the private sector is also under attack by increased regulation and government interference. The President of the United States is "firing" the CEO's of private companies. The Congress plans on regulating how much private workers and executives can get paid by private employers. This creates massive uncertainty, risk, and fear among businesses and investors. <br /><br />Then there is the myth of global warming. Obama's Environmental Protection Agency recnetly ruled that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant that must be regulated. Carbon dioxide is what plants breathe. All life on Earth depends upon CO2 as the building block of life. Almost all forms of energy produce CO2 into the atmosphere (which is then breathed by plants, and the plants convert it back into oxygen and growing plants). <br /><br />However, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98036"> this new regulation triggers staggering consequences.</a> Many types of businesses such as your local dry cleaner and any office building of any size now come under drastic regulatory burdens. Simply the construction of an office building or other large structure would require an environmental impact statement and burdensome compliance. These emit CO2 simply to heat the building. Worse, environmentalists could sue to stop construction of new factories, businesses, and buildings. Lawsuits could expand the regulatory burden even further, often with the award of large attorneys' fees.<br /><br />Who wants to invest in an industry or a business if the rules of the game might change next month? This is the same reason that FDR's New Deal prolonged and worsened the Great Depression. When government meddles and interferes with the private economy, especially in such an aggressive manner, no one knows what will happen next. Uncertainty is one of investors' greatest fears. Fear of the unknown is the "kryptonite" of the business world. Businesses and investors freeze and pull back, not only because of what government is actually doing but out of fear of whatever the government <i><u>might</i></u> do next month.<br /><br />Therefore, even while the U.S. economy struggles to regain altitude over the next 18 months or so, it will be pulled back down again by massive weights. The economy will be unable to sustain the short-term growth, and will fall apart again over the next 2-3 years. I wish it were not so. But prudent families should be planning for rough waters ahead.US News and Views is the leaderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13360728280173174810noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6407615801324124173.post-48657020395945471602009-05-06T09:44:00.000-07:002009-05-06T09:48:29.095-07:00The Pakistan Trap And Obama's Afghanistan FolliesThere is one way that Osama Bin Laden could still inflict catastropic injury upon the United States... by serving as the bait luring the USA to step into "The Pakistan trap." In fact, if he is still alive, Osama may be plotting exactly this from the hills of Waziristan.<br /><br />On the campaign trail, Barack Obama ridiculed Bush's record in the war on terror. Those who attacked the United States on 9/11 came from Afghanistan, he argued. Obama claimed that the war in Iraq was a "distraction" from the war on terror. In other words, America should concentrate on chasing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not liberating Iraq. Vice President Joe Biden declared in August 2007 that it is U.S. policy to deploy U.S. troops inside Pakistan. <br /><br />However, liberal analysis of Bin Laden is hopelessly naive. Liberals accused the Bush Administration of failing to pursue Osama Bin Laden. Trouble is... Bin Laden is in Pakistan. And Pakistan is dangerously unstable.<br /><br />For the United States to invade Pakistan, as Joe Biden suggests, would risk an Iranian-style Islamic revolution. An already troubled society would erupt. If Muslim extremists took control of Pakistan, Islamabad's publicly-announced nuclear weapons would fall into the hands of Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and his Taliban friends. For Pakistan's military to invade the regions in which Bin Laden is hiding would risk provoking a civil war, with the same possible result. <br /><br />The Bush Haters, wishing to discredit whatever Bush did, simultaneously tell us that (a) the United States can never win the war in Afghanistan, and the United States is doomed to fail, but (b) Bush should have been fighting in Afghanistan instead of in Iraq, because the war in Afghanistan is so important. Liberals contradict themselves about whether the USA should or shouldn't be fighting in Afghanistan.<br /><br />In reality, the war on terror has never been exclusively in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda was founded in the Sudan, not Afghanistan. Al Qaeda's war on America probably began with the "Black Hawk Down" battle in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993. Some analysts insist that Al Qaeda helped the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City, though in deep background. Most politicians and commentators fail to recognize that Al Qaeda ("the base") was meant to be a training organization (enabler) of hundreds of other terrorist groups. Bin Laden's strategy was to equip other groups and set them all loose against the West. Therefore, many terrorist acts are stimulated by Al Qaeda, even though actually performed by other groups. Al Qaeda directly attacked the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, killing hundreds of African bystanders in the process. And Al Qaeda attacked the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, showing an extensive terrorist presence in Yemen (not Afghanistan).<br /><br />Al Qaeda moved from the Sudan to Afghanistan when the danger of being captured in the Sudan grew too serious. In Afghanistan, Al Qaeda set up extensive training camps at which thousands of terrorists -- including those who were not "members" of Al Qaeda -- were equipped to make war on the infidels. When the U.S. liberated troubled Afghanistan from the Islamofascists, the Taliban, Al Qaeda moved across the border into Pakistan's wild mountain regions in Pakistan's Waziristan province.<br /><br />However, once Al Qaeda's leadership escaped into Pakistan, the game became extremely complicated. The only ways that Bush could have pursued Bin Laden inside Pakistan are (1) pressuring Pakistan's troubled, ambivalent government into arresting the hero of much of the Islamic world, or (2) sending US troops in as a full-scale invasion of Pakistan to do the job ourselves. Either possibility risks a political explosion inside exceedingly-fragile Pakistan. That was especially true a few years ago when Bush was faced with this choice. <br /><br />Pakistan is dangerously unstable because so much of that country is already a hotbed of Taliban-style Islamic revolution. Indeed, the Taliban that conquered Afghanistan originated in Pakistan, and were covertly sponsored by Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI. Pakistan's ISI saw a Taliban conquest of Afghanistan as a means for extending Pakistani influence and control over its large neighbor. Beholden to the ISI, the Taliban would cooperate with the Pakistani government. And a Taliban conquest of Afghanistan would eliminate all rival powers that might diverge from Pakistani goals.<br /><br />The mountanious border regions near Afghanistan are ungoverned wilderness. The Pakistani goverment effectively has no authority there, and is unable to enforce its laws or governance in these wilderness areas. These regions are sometimes called the "tribal regions" indicating that tribal leaders -- not the Pakistani government -- controls the region. This includes the area known as Waziristan and the Swat Valley. The Taliban has increasingly gained power in this area, imposing Sharia law. The Taliban has grown so strong that it now threatens a full-blown civil war with the Pak government.<br /><br />Pakistan's government is riddled with Islamic extremists who have infiltrated every level and area of Pakistani government in any event. Until polarizing President Musharaf was replaced by President Bilawal Bhutto Zadari, Pakistan's political situation was disturbingly similar to Iran under the Shah, just before the Islamic Revolution in 1979. And yet Pakistan is still deteriorating by the day.<br /><br />The Sunni Taliban originally was a creation of Pakistan's intelligence services (ISI) as a means of gaining influence in neighboring Afghanistan, first against the then-Soviet Union and to counter traditional Indian and growing Shiite Iranian influence in Afghanistan. Pakistan regards Afghanistan as being rightfully in its sphere of influence. However, it now appears that Pakistan will be taken over by Afghanistan's Taliban, instead. "Pakistan is in the process of being gobbled by a Frankenstein's monster of its own creation," according to B. Raman, security expert with the South Asian Analysis Group. <br /><br />This is why the Bush Administration -- wielding far more diplomatic wisdom and expertise than the liberal poodles yapping at its heels -- changed tactics regarding Bin Laden. Bush went from promising to capture Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive" to adopting a "wait and see" game. Bush hoped that Musharaff could gradually defeat the forces of Islamic extremism and shift the balance. The hope was that the situation might improve and there would come a time when either Pakistan would go into the tribal areas or the U.S. could do it without sparking a revolution. <br /><br />Therefore, Bush, with a more thoughtful foreign policy than Obama's or Biden's, realized that it would be better to patient in apprehending Bin Laden rather than handing Al Qaeda and the Taliban the entire country of Pakistan complete with Pakistan's previously-announced nuclear weapons. The Bush Administration conducted a covert war against the terrorists with missile strikes along the border (and across the border) from unmanned aerial vehicles, and with cross-border raids. These have caused an uproar in the Taliban-friendly communities of Pakistan. But it is clear that the Pakistani government has secretly given its permission to the USA to pursue the terrorists into Pakistan's tribal wilderness regions, while officially protesting the attacks.<br /><br />Meanwhile, there is also great confusion among voters and in Washington about who the players are in this situation. Contrary to common confusion, during the Cold War the USA supported the local Afghan fighters, the Mujahideen. Native Afghans were already fighting the Soviet invasion, and the USA slowly came around to supplying the local Afghans with weapons, money, food, and other supplies. But the USA wanted the money to go to the native Afghans fighting the Soviets, not to Saudis and Yemenis and Egyptians with no knowledge of the terrain in Afghanistan or how to fight there. The native Afghans had more experience fighting the Soviet military than anyone else on Earth, from their direct confrontation with Soviet forces on their own territory.<br /><br />Al Qaeda did not exist at that time. However, Al Qaeda developed from Saudis, Yemenis, Egyptians, Iraqis, and Iranians foreign to Afghanistan. They had no expertise in fighting inside Afghanistan, unlike the locals. They arrived very late in the game, when the war was already six or seven years old. The USA never supported the foreign fighters now associated with Al Qaeda. Indeed, Bin Laden's only claim to fame at the time was Osama's ability to bring Saudi oil money from Saudi princes. Bin Laden would destroy his only strength if he could not deliver Saudi money. Bin Laden's people were then novices at warfare, and had nothing to offer on the battlefield compared with the local, battle-hardened Afghans. When the Soviet Union pulled out, the local Afghan Mujahideen fought a bloody nine-year war against the foreigners, who were seeking to install the extremist Taliban from Pakistan against the will of the Mujahideen.<br /><br />So if Al Qaeda already moved once, from the Sudan into Afghanistan, what's to stop Al Qaeda from simply moving again? If Bush had attacked the Taliban and Al Qaeda only in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda could have simply moved to Iraq or Libya. Libya renounced terrorism only after being scared silly by Bush's invasion of Iraq. Libya used to be a prime training ground for a variety of terrorist organizations. If Bush had not invaded Iraq, Al Qaeda and other terrorists would now be thriving in Libya. <br /><br />Similarly, we are seeing with the Somali pirates how Somalia is an ungoverned area, with essentially no govenrment. Al Qaeda could move there as well. So the war on terror requires attacking the terrorists everywhere, and "draining the swamps" in which the terrorists can hide, as Bush announced. Bush's declared strategy was to eliminate potential hiding places and bases of operations to prevent the spread of Islamic Jihad.<br /><br />Many say -- as a triump of imagination over reality -- that Saddam Hussein was a secular Muslim and would not get along with Al Qaeda. That is absurd. United in hatred for the United States, Saddam would have gladly helped another group to inflict damage upon his enemy. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." <br /><br />Consider the example of the Axis Powers in World War II. Imperial Japan believed that the Japanese were a superior race destined to rule the entire world (indeed the origin of all other races) and that the Emperor should rule the Earth. Nazi Germany, by contrast, believed that the Germans were a superior race destined to rule the entire world. Yet despite this incompatible clash of goals and visions, Japan and Germany were united in their opposition to the United States and European democracies. In fact, at one point despite Hitler's hatred of communists, Hitler entered into a treaty with the Soviet Union. Similarly, the United States cooperated with the Soviet Union despite the hostility between the USA and USSR.US News and Views is the leaderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13360728280173174810noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6407615801324124173.post-44028896466240853202009-04-29T09:51:00.000-07:002009-04-29T10:18:09.913-07:00Is Barack Hussein Obama (Still) A Muslim?The national news media, acting as the Palace Guard for "Dear Leader" Barack Obama, is fiercely protective of Obama's image. Facts about Obama's religious upbringing as a Muslim have been censored and attacked. The media tells us that it is perfectly okay for any American to be a Muslim. Our Constitution forbids any religious test for anyone to serve in government. But it is not acceptable to the media to inform the country about President Obama's Muslim roots as a child, and who they voted for.<br /><br />On February 27, 2007, <a target="_blank" href="http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/opinion/06kristof.html">Barack Hussein Obama described the Muslim call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," in an interview with Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times. </a> Obama's comment is especially odd<br />because no one forced to listen to the "Adhan" would call the screeching song 'pretty' without enormous indoctrination into Islam. Obama also told Kristoff how he was once caught making a face at a classmate during Koran study classes.<br /><br />Even more astonishing, Obama then sang perfectly the entire Muslim call to prayer to Nicholas Kristof "with a first-class [Arabic] accent." Not only had Obama memorized the call to prayer precisely, but his long years of experience in singing it to melody was so extensive that his Arabic accent was 'flawless.'<br /><br />According to Islamic scholars, reciting this Muslim declaration of faith makes one a Muslim. The words express a Muslim's complete acceptance of, and total commitment to, the message of Islam. The opening lines chanted by Obama say: "Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! I witness that there is no god but Allah! I witness that there is no god but Allah! I witness that Muhammad is his prophet! " Having attended Islamic religion classes, Obama knows this.<br /><br />Recent events have now revived questions about Obama's allegiances. <a href="http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Jesus-Missing-From-Obamas-Georgetown-Speech.html" target="_blank">On April 14, to deliver another speech on the economy, the President demanded that Georgetown University cover up the name of<br />Jesus in a campus hall before Obama gave a speech there.</a> (The speech was widely interpreted as an attempt to defuse the tea parties scheduled for April 15.)<br /><br />The gold "IHS" monogram inscribed high on the wall was covered over by a piece of black-painted plywood, and remained covered over the next day, CNSNews.com reported. Georgetown University confirmed this to the Washington Times. "IHS" is a "Christogram" derived from the first three letters of the Greek name of Jesus. "IHS" is also sometimes said to mean Iesus Hominum Salvator ("Jesus, Savior of men" in Latin).<br /><br />So why would someone claiming to be a Christian first choose a private Catholic University as the location for a speech to appeal to conservatives on the eve of tea parties, but then demand that Christian symbols be covered up? Why didn't Obama, as a professed Christian, want pictures of him speaking below the Christian symbol "IHS" visible in the Muslim world?<br /><br />Meanwhile, another event this week in Kenya brought this taboo topic to attention once again. Obama's grandmother, Sarah Obama had arranged to be baptized to become a Christian in a large evangelistic revival in Kisumu, Kenya. The event led by Australian evangelist John Jeremic filled the Jomo Kenyatta Sports Ground for<br />several days.<br /><br />When the van arrived to bring Obama's grandmother to the Christian service, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95456">her son Saidi Obama refused to let her go</a>, insisting that Obama's Grandmother is a Muslim. Her son said: "I did not understand why they were asking her to attend a Christian ceremony, yet she is a Muslim." Her son described this as the<br />decision of most of her family. However, two of Sarah's sisters-in-law had previously accompanied Mama Sarah to earlier sessions of the evangelistic crusade, and had taken her to the Christian Church for the previous three weeks.<br /><br />This incident confirms that (a) Barack Obama's Kenyan family is largely Muslim, and strongly so, opposing grandmother Sarah's desire to convert to Christianity, and (b) Barack Obama's Kenyan Grandmother does not believe she is yet a Christian and was preparing to become a Christian through baptism at the event.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JGK-xbXxMw&feature=related" target="_blank">At the G-20 summit of the world's 20 largest economies, President Obama bowed reverently to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah.</a>. By contrast,<br />Obama did not bow to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLuLEfVNow&feature=related" target="_blank">Queen Elizabeth of England, other than to simply look down from his greater height, standing straight.</a>.<br /><br />Of course, Saudi Arabia is the guardian of the Muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina, making King Abdullah very important and revered among Muslims. Therefore, a Muslim would instinctively give reverence to His Majesty, the "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques." By contrast, the British Monarch is technically the head of the Church of England. Obama did not bow to the royal queen who is guardian of the world's first and oldest Protestant Christian Church.<br /><br />Diplomatically, the summit placed the heads of state on an equal footing. Therefore, President Obama's sign of subservience and allegiance to the king of Saudi Arabia was diplomatically incorrect. Saudi's king was obliged to treat the President of the United States with equal respect no less than he received. Then, continuing his<br />tour into Turkey, Obama declared that the United States is not a Christian nation and does not consider itself a Christian nation.<br /><br />Most Muslims do not recognize the possibility that a Muslim can ever leave the Islamic faith. Islamic converts to Christianity are put to death around the world, in accordance with Islamic teaching, sometimes by their own families in "honor killings."<br /><br />It is undeniable that Barack Obama was raised as a Muslim. Obama's biological father was a Muslim, as is most of Obama's extended family in Kenya even today. Obama wrote in his auto-biography that his father had lost faith in religion. However, Muslim communities do not accept this concept of a non-practicing Muslim. "Once a Muslim, always a Muslim" is their approach. Therefore, Obama's extended family and neighbors would have demanded the son's regular attendance at a local Mosque with the entire community.<br /><br />Obama's mother later re-married to Lolo Sotero (or Soetero), also a Muslim, and an Indonesian citizen. In Indonesia, Lolo enrolled their son, then "Barry Sotero," in school. Obama's step-father had to identify Barry's religion, since religious instruction is a required part of education in Indonesia. "Islam," wrote his father.<br /><br />This choice determined which religious instruction the future President was enrolled in: Muslim, Buddhist, or Christian. Obama's identification as a Muslim is documented by his <a href="http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13056.htm" target="_blank">school registration papers in that country, first obtained by a citizen journalist "Israel Insider."</a><br /><br />Thus it is beyond dispute that Barack Obama, then Barry Sotero, was trained as a Muslim in his youth. He was presented to all other Muslims in the school and community as a fellow Muslim, by his participation in Islamic classes. That would compel him to attend Mosque with his classmates and his Muslim father Lolo. In Islam, one is automatically a Muslim if the father is a Muslim. One of his classmates Emirsyah Satar, now CEO of Garuda Indonesia, said: <a href="http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12745.htm" target="_blank">"He (Obama)<br />was often in the prayer room wearing a 'sarong', at that time," and "He was quite religious in Islam...."</a><br /><br />It must be said that rumors during the campaign that Obama attended a "Madrassah" as a youth were false. A "Madrassah" is essentially a form of child abuse, in which young boys are taught nothing but memorization of the Koran. Not only are Madrassah students indoctrinated in extreme, militant views of Islam, but they emerge with<br />no skills or useful education with which to get a job to support themselves. Their lack of options further pushes them into Islamic Jihad. While a great many mysteries remain unexplored about Obama, the news media leapt into action, flying reporters to Indonesia, to prove that Obama's school there was not a Madrassah. But Obama's enrollment in the school as a Muslim was confirmed (though buried).<br /><br />Nevertheless, Obama presented his unusual, international childhood as his main qualification in foreign affairs for the Presidency. Early in the campaign, we were told that because Obama had lived overseas, he could understand and relate to other countries. Because he had been trained as a Muslim, he could reach out to the<br />Muslim world and understand their mindset. Working as a community organizer in Chicago did not provide experience in foreign affairs, so his campaign depended upon his international childhood. But it has now become taboo to mention it, just as mentioning his middle name "Hussein" is harshly criticized. (Since Obama changed<br />his name back from Barry Sotero, he could have legally removed the "Hussein" in the process had he wished to. He did not.)<br /><br />However, Barack Obama professes to have converted to Christianity approximately 20 years ago in Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, under the leadership of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. It is certainly common for Americans to change religions, and well-accepted. Many insist that a person's claim to be a Christian should<br />never be questioned. The very idea of doubting a person's professed choice of religion is offensive to many. Many of various religions demand that if Obama claims to be a Christian, his declaration cannot be questioned.<br /><br />However, many other Christians place great importance on the authenticity of conversion, citing the many warnings of Jesus about people who will believe they are followers of Jesus, but on Judgement Day Jesus will tell even those who performed miracles in Jesus' name "I never knew you, depart from me, you who practice lawlessness."<br /><br />Matthew 7:23. They warn that a clear understanding of who Jesus is and what salvation means is vitally important. Without a clear understanding, a person may falsely believe they are a Christian, leading to personal tragedy. Also, Jesus spent a great deal of His Ministry challenging the depth and reality of people's<br />relationship with God.<br /><br />Adding to doubts is Obama's claim that Christianity is only one of many alternate paths to God. According to columnist Cal Thomas, Obama gave an interview in 2004 to Chicago Sun-Times religion editor Cathleen Falsani for her book, "The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People." Obama told Falsani: "I believe there<br />are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people." According to Falsani, Obama thinks that "all people of faith — Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone — know the same God." Falsani adds, "Obama doesn't believe he, or anyone else, will go to<br />hell. But he's not sure he'll be going to heaven, either."<br /><br />However, Jesus explicitly stated that there is no other way to God without Him. See John 14:6. Jesus also warned against false prophets who would come after Him, and commanded Christians not to listen to them. Matthew 24:11-24. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cMB8ktCT8&feature=related" target="_blank">And the essence of<br />salvation through Jesus Christ involves absolute certainty -- that is, faith -- that one will go to heaven because of what Jesus did for us on the cross (not at all based on our own worth or works).</a><br /><br />On June 28, 2006, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnmS_vULPxw&NR=1" target="_blank">Obama sarcastically mocked the Bible at the Call to Renewal Conference,</a> implying that the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cMB8ktCT8&feature=related" target="_blank">Bible could not be trusted,</a> while taking Biblical quotes <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Kh-xzerjE&feature=related" target="_blank">out of context.</a><br /><br />In an ABC News interview, Obama said that "John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith." Only when George Stephanopolous corrected him, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw&feature=related" target="_blank">did Obama change "Muslim" to "Christian."</a><br /><br />On the campaign trail, Barack Obama described how <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws" target="_blank">he had visited 57 of the 58 States.</a> While slip-ups on the campaign trail are not new, in fact there are <a href="http://www.oic-oci.org/member_states.asp" target="_blank">57 States in the Organization of Islamic Conference.</a>. So the number of Islamic OIC States appears to have sprung more readily to Obama's mind than the 50 States of the U.S.A.<br /><br />Does membership in Rev. Wright's church mean Obama became a Christian? On February 15, 2008, Usama K. Dakdok, President of The Straight Way of Grace Ministry called Trinity United Church of Christ and reported the following conversation: " I then asked the person who answered what I needed to do to join. She told me that I needed to attend two Sunday School classes in a row and then I would walk the aisle. I replied, "That sounds easy. One last question please. If I am Muslim and I believe in the Prophet Mohammed, peace be unto him and I also believe in Jesus, peace be unto him, do I have to give up my Islamic faith to be a member in your church? <a href="http://www.thestraightway.org/frequentlyaskedq.html" target="_blank">She answered: "No, we have many Muslim members in our church."</a><br /><br />Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church does not inspire confidence for those wondering about the authenticity of Obama's introduction to Christianity and conversion. Trinity United Church of Christ appears to have been little more than a left-wing political club. From what we can tell, Jesus was rarely mentioned, and then only in his guise<br />as just a moral teacher. So was Barack Obama confronted with the true identity of Jesus Christ as Creator of the Universe <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O7-vajcDUQ&feature=related" target="_blank">(see John 1), God<br />Incarnate,</a> and Savior, and explained the complete meaning of the gospel and Jesus' death on the cross? <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?=rEYeDGOW83I&feature=related" target="_blank">Obama attacked Black pastors who preach the Bible, while praising Wright.</a><br /><br />So could a Muslim attend a Christian Church for 20 years? Actually, yes. Muslims honor Jesus very strongly as a great prophet of God, really the second greatest prophet to Mohammed himself. Islam teaches that Jesus Himself will stand up at the end of the world and confirm that Mohammed is the true Prophet of Allah. Most Muslims have a higher opinion of Jesus than many casual pop Christians in America. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivKsqhkeTQI&feature=related" target="_blank">However, Muslims adamantly deny that Jesus<br />Christ is God or that Jesus died on any cross.</a> They believe that God swapped Jesus for someone else at the last minute, and it was a murderer who died on the cross instead. Since Islam denies that Jesus is God, they view it as an outrageous idea that God would pick some random man to die for mankind. Islam teaches that Jesus was a Muslim (as was Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Israel), Moses, King David, etc.)<br /><br />So a Muslim could feel comfortable sitting in a "social gospel" liberal church that presents Jesus as only a good teacher, and never preaches Jesus as being God Incarnate or the Savior who died for our sins. Obama was exposed mainly to political speeches from the pulpit with a little bit of Jesus-as-just-a-good-man thrown in.<br /><br />Joining Rev. Wright's African-American mega-church was surely no accident. For any Black man interested in a political career in Chicago, membership at Trinity United Church of Christ was almost a requirement. Black churches play a very major role in the Black community, and Wright's mega-church more than most. Wright's highly-poltical, "Jesus-lite" brand of almost-Christianity attracted visits and speeches from politicians all over the area. Wright's politics-heavy church was the perfect place for Obama to make his early political contacts, get noticed, and get connected for his later runs for office. (Note that Wright's church is unusual<br />and very different from most Black churches. Many Black churches are vastly more sincere, devout, serious, deep and profound in Christianity than the typical White church.)<br /><br />So did Obama convert to Christianity in Obama's church? Or did he simply make a career move by professing to join Trinity United Church of Christ? Even if Obama thought he was learning about the real Jesus, did Rev. Wright's brand of anti-American politics starve and deprive Obama from an encounter with the real Christ? Could Obama have truly wanted to know Jesus, but was cheated with a counterfeit Christ instead? Does Obama not even realize that he does not yet know God?<br /><br />But would a Muslim sit through Rev. Wright's sermons for 20 years? Islamic teaching encourages strategic deception, when necessary, to advance Islam throughout the world. It is possible that a Muslim could intentionally pose as a convert, in a church that talked about Jesus as only a moral teacher, as Muslims already believe.<br /><br />Of course, everyone must seek out God and find Him. It is reported that President Abraham Lincoln, one of our two greatest Presidents, received salvation through Jesus only very late in his Presidency. After many years of quoting the Bible, as deep analysis of the nation's crises and as great encouragement, Lincoln himself came to realize he had never actually been "saved." Lincoln had only an intellectual education in the Bible, but not a personal faith or experience. It is reported that one evening the President -- all alone -- knocked on the door of a pastor in Washington, D.C. After they talked for a few hours, the pastor led Lincoln in praying the sinner's prayer and giving his life to Jesus. Obama likes to compare himself with Lincoln also of Illinois.<br /><br />Likewise, perhaps God may also lead Obama to understand that there is more than Obama has yet found, and bring Obama to salvation at the right time.US News and Views is the leaderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13360728280173174810noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6407615801324124173.post-64103141843998387722009-04-29T09:25:00.000-07:002009-04-29T09:50:53.139-07:00Global Warming's Astronomical OriginsLast week, former Vice President and Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore testified in Congress to encourage massive "cap and trade" regulation by which the government would effectively seize state control of the nation's economy.<br /><br />Having been previously stung by snowstorms and freezing cold snaps whenever Al Gore speaks, the Congressional hearings were scheduled in late April and avoided a dramatic rebuttal by Mother Nature. However, the Earth's cooling that began in 1998 continues to challenge the global warming theory.<br /><br />The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, is working with 30,000 scientists who oppose the idea that global warming is caused by man's activities. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/See" target="_blank" v="FfHW7KR33IQ">Coleman plans to sue Al Gore for fraud to finally get some forum in which to debate the theory.</a><br /><br />In January, Japan's prestigious Society of Energy and Resources gave an "astonishing rebuke" to scientists promoting the idea of man-made global warming. <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/" target="_blank">JSER, a government advisory board, compared global warming theories to "ancient astrology."</a> JSER noted that the Earth stopped warming in 2001 (other say 1998), but in general the Earth has merely been recovering naturally from the "Little Ice Age" that occurred between around 1400 and 1800.<br /><br />The Japanese scientists criticized over-reliance on inherently-unreliable computer models, without real-world testing of the hypothesis. JSER concluded that cycles in the sun's activities cause variation in the Earth's climate: "Through the 11 year sunspot cycle, ultraviolet rays vary considerably, the ionosphere and ozone layer<br />are affected."<br /><br />Poland's Academy of Sciences recently published a document <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Polish-Academy-of-Sciences-Questions-Gores-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Theory-43618922.html" target="_blank">that rejects man-made global warming, also known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).</a> The Polish Academy notes that over the history of the Earth, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased an average of 800 years <em>AFTER</em> warmer temperatures. This data decisively proves that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Global warming comes first. Then carbon dioxide increased later. (Most likely dissolved CO2 evaporated from warming oceans.)<br /><br />The Academy also noted that global temperatures have been higher than today in Earth's past. And the Academy explained that temperature monitoring of the Earth is very spotty, starting only 200 years ago. Even today only 28% of the world is represented by temperature monitoring, and far less of the Earth was measured as we look back through older, historical records. Measurement of the vast oceans is only about 40 years old.<br /><br />The Academy pointed out that urban growth has encroached upon and surrounded the weather stations that were previously in the countryside. Today's measurements from those stations are hotter because of the heat effect of asphalt and concrete of the cities, while readings from those same stations thirty years ago were then in the<br />countryside. Therefore, we are measuring not increased global temperatures, but the "heat effect" of the concrete jungle expanding to surround the weather stations.<br /><br />In one case, a U.S. investigator for the website "Watts Up with That" <a target="_blank" href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/28/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-86-when-in-rome-dont-do-as-the-romans-do/">discovered that a weather station at an airport was catching the hot jet exhaust from jet airplanes on<br />the runway!</a> (Meanwhile, note that Russians and East Europeans are often far-superior theoretical scientists to those in the West, sometimes holding multiple Ph.D's. Their economy manufactured junk due to political interference in the marketplace. But their scientists have traditionally been better-educated.)<br /><br />Now, recent scientific analysis is coming out of hiding that precisely identifies the strongest driving factors in the Earth's climate: It is the sun. The sun goes through a number of powerful cycles. The sun's 11-year sunspot cycle is fairly well known. However, the sun also goes through much longer cycles as well, including one<br />of approximately 180 years, and one of approximately 1,000 years.<br /><br /><a target="_blank" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3325679/The-truth-about-global-warming---its-the-Sun-thats-to-blame.html">As a result of these cycles, the sun in 2004 was measured as being the hottest it has been in 1,000 years.</a> However, measurements can be difficult because the sun emits energy across a broad spectrum, including in the charged particles known as the solar wind, not only in visible light. Energy can be transferred through the solar wind alone. There are conflicting opinions about the sun's energy output varying.<br /><br /><a target="_blank" href="http://itsonlysteam.com/articles/landscheidt_minimum_part2.html">Cycles in the sun's energy output are apparently linked to the movements of the solar system.</a> Russia's Pravda reports that <a target="_blank" href="http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0" >"Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles."</a><br /><br />We learn in school only a simple, approximation of the complexities of the sun and the solar system. Actually, the sun wobbles around a point representing the center of mass of the solar system. The sun does not stay still, but circles an invisible spot.<br /><br />This is like two children holding hands and whirling around. They "orbit" an imaginary spot between them. In the same way, the planets do not technically orbit around the sun, but the sun and the planets orbit around each other like the two children holding hands. Because the sun is unimaginably massive compared to the planets, the gravitational center of the solar system is close to the sun's center. But not precisely there.<br /><br />As a result, the sun circles and orbits the solar system's center of gravity. This causes the sun to move in a circle on a complex cycle of 178 years, with oscillations every 11 years and every 70 years. In fact, this is the technique which astronomers are using to detect planets around distant stars. They observe a star wobbling (or partly eclipsed when a planet crosses in front of it), and conclude that there is a large planet circling it.<br /><br />However, the sun is not solid. It is gas compressed by gravity to the point of acting like a liquid (plasma). So just like taking a bowl of water and swirling it around, the sun's motion causes movement in the liquid substance of the sun. Because the sun is orbiting the solar system's center of gravity, this motion creates waves, oscillations, and disturbance in the sun's plasma. The sun's orbit creates torque (spinning forces) that are different throughout the cycles of the planets' motions around the sun.<br /><br /><a target="_blank" href="http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/swinging.htm">The astronomical cycles involved match the cycles in the sun's activity.</a> There is a 178 year cycle in sunspot activity which matches the sun's complex orbit around the system center of mass every 178 years. The effect changes because the various planets are circling at different times. Every now and then, when Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune -- the heaviest planets -- are on the same side of the solar system, they swing the sun differently than when they are scattered about the solar system.<br /><br />The orbital torque of the sun changes during this 178 year cycle, which affects the pressures and conditions in the sun's core. Although the effect is tiny compared to the overall power of the sun, it is enough to cause slight increases and decreases in the energy output and activity of the sun.<br /><br />The biggest planets line up on the same side of the solar system at various times. Jupiter orbits the sun every 11.8 years, very similar to the 11 year sunspot cycle. Saturn orbits every 29.5 years, Uranus circles every 84 years, and Neptune in 165 years.<br /><br /><a target="_blank" href="http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/papers-by-dr-theodor-landscheidt/">Pioneering work was performed by Dr Theodor Landscheidt, in papers like "Swinging Sun, 79-Year Cycle and Climatic Change" and "Solar Rotation, Impulses of the Torque in the Sun's Motion, and Climactic Variation."</a> Dr. Landscheidt's work -- overwhelmingly ignored -- predicted the current minimum in the sun's activity that is currently puzzling the world's scientists.<br /><br /><a target="_blank" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8008473.stm">The BBC, like many news outlets, reported last week: "'Quiet Sun' baffling astronomers: The Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century."</a> This very-recent downturn in solar activity may be the reason that the Earth stopped cooling in 1998. What is being called the "Landscheidt Minimum" might produce an unusually-quiet sun for as long as 70 years (not an absence of sunspots, but fewer than usual). If the sun-drives-climate theorists are right, this could produce a significant cooling of the Earth reminiscent of the "Little Ice Age" from 1400 to 1800, or perhaps only the slight cooling experienced from 1945 to 1970.<br /><br />Cyclical changes affect the activity of the sun, including the magnetic field (which affects the temperature on Earth), sunspot activity (related to the magnetic field), and energy output. The most visible evidence of these cycles is the change in the number of sunspots.<br /><br />The 11-year sunspot cycle is caused by dramatic changes in the sun's immensely powerful magnetic field. Just as the Earth's molten-iron core generates a weak magnetic field, that makes a compass work, the sun's boiling mass of electrically-charged particles generates a magnetic field of incomprehensible power. Not only is the strength of the sun's magnetic field staggering, but the sun is a liquid ball -- actually plasma made of compressed gases at high pressure. The boiling motion of this plasma creates an irregular, extremely complex, and constantly-changing magnetic field.<br /><br />In fact, the sun's magnetic field actually reverses every 22 years! Magnetic North becomes South and vice versa. The sunspot minimums every 11 years occur at the point of reversal. Sunspots are created when irregularities in the magnetic field pull the sun's plasma downward. Heat moving to the surface is restrained, so the surface<br />becomes cooler than the surrounding sun (though still very hot).<br /><br />The presence of sunspots indicates a boiling, active sun -- primarily in a turbulent magnetic field. The same irregularities in the magnetic field can also push plasma upward, creating gigantic solar flares leaping toward space above the sun, and coronal mass ejections -- enormous "burps" of the sun's matter spit out into space.<br /><br />The absence of sunspots indicates a less-energetic sun, particularly in terms of its magnetic field.<br /><br />Changes in the sun's magnetic field can affect the Earth in many ways. Bombardment of the Earth by solar wind (high-energy charged particles spit out of the sun) is an additional mode of energy transfer from the sun to the Earth, and one which varies substantially during the sunspot cycle. Similarly, a new theory pioneered by Dr.<br />Svensmark has found that when the sun's magnetic field is strong, it shields the Earth from cosmic rays -- charged particles from outside the solar system. When the magnetic field is weaker (especially when it is reversing) more cosmic rays get through. These cosmic rays stimulate cloud formation in the Earth's atmosphere,<br />changing the Earth's temperature.US News and Views is the leaderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13360728280173174810noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6407615801324124173.post-45210304933687184022009-04-29T09:16:00.000-07:002009-04-29T09:25:02.565-07:00Bye, Bye Specter, You Won't Be MissedThis week's political shocker is Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter's announcement that he is switching parties to join the Democrats. With his current term almost up he will run in the Democrat primaries next Spring for re-election. <br /><br />Liberals are crowing that this is a humiliating blow to the Republican Party, already on the ropes after losing both the White House and the Congress in last year's election. This has encouraged President Obama's supporters in pursuing his statist agenda.<br /><br />However, Specter's betrayal is actually a blessing in disguise... at least long-term. This development may enable Republicans to place an actual Republican in Specter's Senate seat for the first time in decades. Conservatives are determined to flush out of the GOP Party-crashers known as R.I.N.O.'s -- Republicans in Name Only. <br /><br />Conservatives are extremely concerned that allowing liberal candidates to represent the GOP has destroyed and distorted conservatives' image in the country. It may take decades to re-establish what it means to be a true conservative in the minds of the voters. In 2006 and 2008, conservatives withheld their volunteer work from the <br />Republican Party, arguing that failed Democrat President Jimmy Carter led to the election of conservative Ronald Reagan. Specter's departure has removed another liberal Party-crasher from the GOP. <br /><br />Specter's votes in the Senate will not change. Conventional wisdom says that the Democrats now have 60 votes as a filibuster-proof majority. So Democrats can now pass whatever legislation they wish. That assumes that the stubborn and egotistical Specter will change his votes. Observers assume Specter will now vote for legislation he would have voted against earlier. The truth is that left-leaning Specter would have voted for much of Obama's far-left agenda anyway. At least if the mainstream media approves, Sen. Specter will seek to please the liberal media consensus. Any legislation he might support under a "D" label he would have voted for anyway. His votes are unlikely to be any different. <br /><br />Meanwhile, Specter is unlikely to win re-election. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democrat Party came only 13 days after former Congressman Pat Toomey announced his bid to wrestle the baton away from Specter in the Republican primary. Toomey also challenged Specter in 2004,losing the GOP nomination by only 1.7% of the vote. Many <br />mainstream news sources openly acknowledge that Specter is switching parties because he cannot win in the upcoming Republican primary. <br /><br />According to a new Rasmussen Reports survey, Specter is viewed unfavorably by 55% of Pennsylvania Republicans. According to a Quinnipiac University poll, Specter has a higher approval rating in Pennsylvania among Democrats than among Republicans, and 43% of voters believe Specter should not be re-elected. Sen. Specter trailed Pat <br />Toomey 47% to 29% among Republicans. This and similar polls probably drove the Senator's defection. So, Specter's switch is a move of desperation. <br /><br />Specter's long-shot "Hail Mary" pass will probably be a serious blunder. He apparently assumes that Pennsylvania voters will continue to 'pull the lever' for his familiar name. This is a gamble. Most of those who vote on habits are punching the "R" button reflexively out of loyalty to the Republican Party. Upon seeing an actual Republican on the ballot, they are likely to vote the "R" not the man. Unlike politicians who have gone independent, Specter will appear with an actual "D" next to his name. <br /> <br />Other voters who decide from more in-depth study of the news will feel angry betrayal. Specter is no longer "<em>Our </em>flawed, imperfect candidate" but 'Benedict Arlen' who has slapped Republican voters in the face. <br /><br />Earlier arguments that President Bush needed Republican votes in Congress will no longer wash. So, Specter's assumption that people will keep voting for him out of habit may prove questionable. <br /><br />Meanwhile, most Democrat voters in the Keystone State are in the habit of voting against Specter and for their own Democrat candidates, over many election cycles. Liberals are accustomed to demonizing Specter as more conservative than he really is, to try to get a Democrat elected. They may not trust a recent convert. Also <br />Specter will be 80 years old in 2010, and may not have the same appeal to youthful voters as Obama. <br /><br />Most analysis of Specter's prospects in 2010 assume Democrats will vote to keep the seat in Democrat hands. That is, only election day itself matters. In fact, over the long process of a campaign, fund-raising and the labor of campaign workers are crucial. The foot soldiers of the far Left will face a situation similar to conservatives, who held their nose to vote for liberal John McCain. Liberals may have difficulty summoning the necessary enthusiasm for an ex-Republican. <br /><br />Specter voted with the Republican Party 67.1% of the time in 2007 according to "On The Issues." Specter has been rated highly by a variety of pro-business and pro-free trade organizations. <br /><br />However, the Senator voted for the controversial bill to give "amnesty" to illegal aliens and in favor of Federal funding for "sanctuary cities" who refuse to enforce immigration laws or cooperate with the Federal government. <br /><br />In May 2006, Specter voted to allow illegal aliens to participate in social security. The organization U.S. Border Control, which opposes illegal-immigration rated Specter's voting record with only 16% approval, reflecting Specter's support for amnesty of illegal aliens. Specter has earned a 0% rating by the National Right <br />to Life Committee, with a life-time record of 42% from the American Conservative Union, but a 60% rating by the ACLU. Specter has received a 61% rating from the AFL-CIO. <br /><br />Predicting Republican primaries can be hazardous business, as the 2008 Presidential election demonstrated. Likely candidates to send Specter off to writing his memoirs are former Congressman Pat Toomey and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum. <br /><br />Three-term Congressman Toomey is the favorite of many conservatives who were angered by Santorum's party-loyalty campaigning for Specter. Toomey has a 97% favorable rating from the American Conservative Union. In 2004, Toomey had challenged Specter and lost in the primary by only 1.7% of the vote after President George Bush endorsed incumbent Specter and GOP leaders like Rick Santorum campaigned for Specter. Conservatives feel Toomey could have won the primary if not for misguided loyalty to the Party over principle. Unlike Santorum, however, Toomey has never won a State-wide race in Pennsylvania. Toomey points to his victories in a liberal Congressional district to argue that he could win State-wide. <br /><br />Santorum, charismatic, handsome, and well-spoken, has kept in the public eye with frequent appearances on cable television news networks like Fox. Santorum has a life-time rating by the American Conservative Union of 88 compared to Specter's 42. Having already been elected to the U.S. Senate by the entire State of Pennsylvania, <br />Santorum could instantly steal the previous voter-loyalty voters from Specter. Voters who reflexively vote the Party slate will support a recognized former GOP Senator. <br /><br />Santorum served in the House of Representatives after defeating a Democrat in a Democrat-leaning district in 1990. In 1994 and again in 2000, he won election to the U.S. Senate. He served as Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. In 2006, Santorum lost re-election to the son of popular governor Robert Casey, Sr., a <br />strong conservative Democrat, State Treasurer Bob Casey. Unlike Specter, Casey shared Santorum's opposition to abortion, thus removing Santorum's Pro-Life record as a factor. In a match-up with liberal, pro-abortion Specter, Santorum would not suffer that difficulty. Ironically, Santorum also suffered considerable anger from <br />conservatives for his misguided Party loyalty (with many others) of supporting none other than Arlen Specter in 2004. <br /><br />So far, only Toomey has announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination. Santorum has been discussed as a candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania. Therefore, Toomey may end up as the unchallenged Republican nominee for the Senate.US News and Views is the leaderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13360728280173174810noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6407615801324124173.post-12039041383161636402009-04-27T10:11:00.000-07:002009-04-27T10:15:06.340-07:00Geneva Convention Does Not Protect TerroristsIn April, President Obama released Bush Administration legal memoranda from around 2002 which approved "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques." The nation's left-leaning mainstream media, and commentators the world over, are attacking these so-called "Torture Memos" from the Bush Administration. Activist groups, including many funded by George Soros, are calling for criminal prosecutions of Bush Administration officials for having approved "torture." <br /><br />However, calls for investigations lost momentum on Capitol Hill. Republicans aggressively documented how Democrat Congressional leaders were briefed on the interrogation techniques over the years. Democrats had approved or at least raised no objection. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was reduced to quibbling over whether she had been briefed only about waterboarding as an approved technique or about when the military actually start using it. Democrats waved off questions about their own involvement in approving the techniques by protesting that the briefings are still classified. <br /><br />Accusations that the Geneva Convention was violated might allow prosecutions of Bush Administration officials and U.S. soldiers in the International Criminal Court in the Hague with accusations of war crimes. Already, a Spanish court agreed to consider a criminal case against six former Bush administration officials, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; former undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith; former Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff David Addington; Pentagon lawyer William Haynes and Justice Department officials John Yoo and Jay S. Bybee. <br /><br />As reported in the POLITICO, Senate Leader Harry Reid offered one of the most curious quotes in Congressional history: “I think it would very unwise from my perspective to start having commissions, boards, tribunals until we find out what the facts are." Normally, finding out what the facts are is the reason for holding commissions, boards, and tribunals. Thus, Sen. Reid apparently suggested that the Democrat-controlled Senate would hold commissions, boards, and tribunals with pre-determined outcomes, after deciding behind closed doors in advance what facts those bodies would be organized to "find." <br /><br />Initially it must be said that no actual "torture memos" exist. The released Bush Administration memos analyze what interrogation techniques are NOT torture. The memos identify techniques that are lawful and approved for US interrogation of captured terrorists and detained combatants. So technically the memos are "not torture memos." <br /><br />The actual content of the "not torture" memos has been routinely ignored in favor of sensationalized myths and misconceptions. In fact, the disparity is significant, with approved interrogation techniques including putting a harmless caterpillar in a known terrorist's prison cell, reading Harry Potter books to a terrorist, and playing Celine Dion' records to a terrorist. <br /><br />This causes wonder if someone might one day call in a "caterpillar scare" at the U.S. Capitol, warning that somewhere in the Congress a caterpillar is loose. Would there be an evacuation, or would everyone admit that caterpillars are really not all that scary? Might a protestor someday disrupt a Congressional hearing by singing Dion's "Near, Far, Wherever you are..." from Titanic? <br /><br />Even the practice of "walling" turned out to involve a fake, harmless, soft "nerf" wall. The technique was to make a terrorist believe he was going to be slammed against a wall, but it was actually a soft, flexible fake. All the techniques required medical supervision to ensure safety. <br /><br />However, one of the most important parts of this issue is whether the Bush-approved interrogation techniques violated the Geneva Convention. This is especially troubling, because left-leaning, generally anti-American bureaucrats in Europe, the United Nations, and around the world have a great deal of influence in redefining the meaning of the Geneva Convention and related protocols. There is no precise meaning of "international law" because there is no ultimate authority like America's Supreme Court. Therefore, international bureaucrats have enormous opportunities to bend and shape such concepts to their liking, and against America's interests. <br /><br />As Cliff May, President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, explains, U.S. detainees are "not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention." In fact, Cliff May was quoting from Eric Holder, now Obama's Attorney General. Holder said those words on CNN in January 2002. Attorney General Holder explained in that 2002 interview that if Al Qaeda hijacker Mohamed Atta had "survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not." <br /><br />Article 4 of the Geneva Convention defines "prisoners of war" as either members of the armed forces of a nation that has signed the Geneva Convention (which does not apply) or -- <br /><br />"2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: <br /><br />(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; <br />(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; <br />(c) That of carrying arms openly; <br />(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." <br /><br />However, the terrorists and unlawful combatants detained by the United States military do not fall within this definition. They do not belong to a "Party" (a signatory to the Geneva Convention). In fact, they are attempting to overthrow the elected governments of Iraq and Afghanistan. <br /><br />The terrorists do not operate under the command of a responsible officer, but independently as decentralized cells. They do not have a distinctive sign -- that is a uniform or insignia -- recognizable at a distance. They do not carry arms openly, but conceal themselves as civilians hiding among the civilian population. And they do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. <br /><br />These conditions are extremely important because they are intended, in part, to protect civilians. Fighters who are disguised as civilians -- not wearing uniforms or "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" -- endanger the civilian population. The Geneva Convention was designed to punish those who act in this way by depriving them of its protections. A recent example was the battle in Gaza, in which Hamas used hospitals as military command posts and Hamas leaders dressed up as doctors. <br /><br />Therefore, it is imperative that unlawful combatants be deprived of the rights of the Geneva Convention. There must be consequnces for fighters who endanger civilian populations. There must be a clear difference between how fighters are treated when they obey "the laws and customs of war" and when they do not. Any failure to punish those who hide among and behind civilians is as dangerous as failing to enforce the Convention. It is vitally important that combatants who violate its terms and endanger civilians must feel the consequences of losing their rights under the Convention. <br /><br />To extend the Geneva Convention's protections to the terrorists places civilians in grave danger, by encouraging combatants to hide among them and behind them. Thus, ironically, attempts to extend the Geneva Convention to irregular combatants like the Taliban or terrorists threatens the Geneva Convention itself. Allowing irregular combatants to violate the laws of war and yet suffer no consequences, undercuts the Convention in general. The proposed expansion of the General Convention to cover the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists who do not abide by the Convention's requirements, encourages non-compliance with the Convention and international law.US News and Views is the leaderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13360728280173174810noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6407615801324124173.post-61289941395294724462009-04-24T09:41:00.000-07:002009-04-24T10:13:50.783-07:00Torturing The Word "Torture"Last week, President Obama released Bush Administration legal opinions from 2002 which had analyzed the legality of "aggressive interrogation techniques." Most of these techniques were revealed before, yet the memos were trumpeted as an expose, amidst calls for criminal prosecutions of Bush, Cheney, and past officials.<br /><br />There are four things we can say for sure: (1) The United States should not engage in torture. (2) Terrorists have no rights under the Geneva Convention, which covers only soldiers fighting in uniform (3) Nothing that the Bush Administration did qualifies as "torture." And (4) there is no limit to the lies and distortions which liberals and America haters will engage in to bash the United States.<br /><br />Trouble is, the definition of "torture" has changed. In fact, American politics is facing a crisis of confusion by re-definition of key words. Many actions are rough, unpleasant, nasty, or humiliating yet still not "torture." Using a new, altered definition, the national news media, liberals, Democrats in Congress, and international organizations have trumpeted charges that the USA engaged in "torture. Then, liberal officials in government and those pandering to the news media have joined in the chorus.<br /><br />So a giant "echo chamber" has been created in which several million words have been written world-wide merely assuming that the USA used torture. Did we? Or is this just "The Big Lie?"<br />The only new information Obama "exposed" was about plans to put a caterpillar in a small cell with terrorist Abu Zubaydah who has a fear of insects. (The tough guy has killed or arranged the murder of hundreds of human beings.) Then we also learned how many times Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were waterboarded, around 200 times each. We also learned details about the medical supervision of interrogations mandated by the Bush Justice Department to ensure that subjects remained safe at all times.<br /><br />Most Americans, however, naturally believe that if interrogation does not involve any physical injury, it does not qualify as torture. Simply knowing that there is a caterpillar in the room is not what most people call 'torture.' (In fact some therapists might recommend that as a cure for getting over Zubaydah's fear of bugs.) Nasty? Perhaps. But it simply does not meet the definition of "torture." One may oppose such techniques without calling them torture.<br />Most Americans believe that if an activity is regularly practiced by cheerleaders or part of the annual San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, it should not properly be termed torture. So creating human pyramids, wearing underwear on heads, having a leash harmlessly around one's necks, and being half-naked are events we can see both at Abu Ghraib prison and also in the streets of San Francisco during the annual parade celebrating homosexuality.<br /><br />Most Americans feel that living conditions that U.S. soldiers must regularly endure should not be called torture. One technique involved keeping prison cells cold. Yet if our U.S. troops in the field have to endure cold, bad food, cramped conditions, and hard ground as a bed, or stay awake for days in a battle, well then, doggone it, terrorists can share the same conditions. Anything that our U.S. military has to put up with is good enough for the terrorists who were trying to kill our troops and who have murdered hundreds or thousands of people.<br /><br />One of the oddest revelations -- in terms of liberal reaction -- was the Associated Press report that a female interrogator read "Harry Potter" books to a terrorist for hours. When a person reads books to a bed-ridden elderly patient, this is considered an act of kindness. But in "Liberal Land," reading the wildly-popular "Harry Potter" books to an inmate at Guantanamo Bay is now "torture."<br /><br />Similarly, US interrogators "tortured" prisoners by playing Celine Dion records ad nauseum. When the film "Titanic" was released, those who heard the theme song by Dion played a hundred times a day for months, may well be tempted to call this torture. But we should leave such analysis to the film critics.<br /><br />Some techniques which liberals claim was torture included yelling at the terrorist, using nasty words, lying to the terrorist about handing him over to the Mossad or the Saudis, leading a terrorist to believe that he might suffer bodily injury or be killed, or forcing a Muslim man to be in the same room with a woman.<br /><br />However unpleasant an act may be, perhaps if it is advertised on "Craigs List" as as a paid erotic service, maybe "torture" is not the right word for it. Disgusting, yes. Inappropriate... absolutely. But "torture?" Not quite. At Abu Ghraib, being in the same room with a woman, being half-naked, wearing kinky outfits, or even being spanked . possibly aren't "torture" if people pay real money for these same acts by kinky escorts through ads in the "City Paper."<br />One of the most curious techniques used, reading between the lines, was to take photographs of terrorists half-naked with a female soldier. Interrogators would then threaten to send the photographs to the terrorists' Islamic hometown. This was apparently done to blackmail terrorists into talking. This technique involves no actual harm whatsoever, especially if the threat is never carried out. On the other hand, blackmail certainly does seem under-handed and troubling. This might be unethical, but torture it is not.<br /><br />Nearly all the aggressive interrogation techniques were "old news," such as sleep deprivation. Prisoners were sometimes deprived of solid food. This brings to mind those TV ads for "Slim Fast" diet drinks. This author has fasted for a week with no food at all. Several pastors I know have fasted for 40 days without any food at all. This can be pure misery. Surely it would be uncomfortable, especially for a plump man like Khalikh Sheikh Mohammed who probably loves his food. But can we call it "torture" when we have diet companies selling liquid diets on television?<br /><br />Interrogators were authorized to keep a prisoner awake for no more than 180 hours (8 days). During this author's fraternity initiation "hell week" I stayed awake for just under one week. And that included going to classes in college, and functioning as a student despite having no sleep. Terrorist detainees just sat in their cells, kept awake. Calling what fraternity pledges do voluntarily torture is a bit of a stretch.<br /><br />Some inmates were kept naked. That is embarrassing, especially for a Muslim if women are around. But let's put things in perspective. Nudist colonies charge money for allowing a lifestyle of nakedness. It might not be everyone's taste. But if people pay money to walk around naked all day, can we really classify that as torture? Humiliating, yes. But "torture" is a different word.<br /><br />As described by the USA TODAY from a Justice Department release, some of the other methods approved for "aggressive interrogation" by the Bush Administration did also include some rougher treatment. But even these are being misrepresented.<br /><br />Perhaps the most disturbing technique was the practice of "walling" -- until we understand what it is. USA Today describes walling as: "A fake, flexible wall is built, and the suspect is pulled forward and 'then quickly and firmly' pushed against the wall. 'The idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is.'"<br /><br />But pay careful attention: An inmate is thrown into a FAKE wall, specially constructed for the purpose. This was a FLEXIBLE -- soft -- wall, designed to be HARMLESS. The idea is to make the terrorist believe he is going to be hurt... but in fact he is not hurt at all. This is a "Nerf wall!"<br />Another approved method that might trouble Americans includes stress positions: This included "kneeling on the floor while leaning back at a 45-degree angle" and "sitting on the floor with legs extended out in front of him with his arms raised above his head." This is one method that seems questionable and over the line, and might bother many people. Yet no actual injury is involved.<br /><br />There were a few approved methods more of what we expect in rough interrogation: Attention grasp: "Grasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the shirt collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion." Facial grasp: "Used to hold the head immobile. One open palm is placed on either side of the individual's face." Insult slap: "The purpose of the facial slap is to induce shock, surprise and/or humiliation."<br /><br />Similarly, there is cramped confinement: The suspect is placed in a confined space that "is usually dark." Some spaces allow a subject only to sit down. Such confinement "lasts for no more than two hours."<br /><br />Then there is Wall standing: Subjects are forced to lean with only their fingers for support against a wall 4 to 5 feet away from their bodies in a tactic "used to induce muscle fatigue."<br />And finally, of course, there is the now famous waterboarding: As described by the Justice Department release: "The subject is placed on a board with a cloth covering his nose and mouth. The cloth is saturated with water to simulate drowning. It creates "the perception of 'suffocation and incipient panic.' " The reason that the technique works is that terrorists do not know if the interrogator will go too far.<br /><br />Among the released memos is one from then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee emphasizing that waterboarding "will be stopped if deemed medically necessary to prevent severe mental or physical harm." Another memo makes clear that supervising physicians were empowered to stop interrogations "if in their professional judgment the detainee may suffer severe physical or mental pain or suffering.<br /><br />Despite the world-wide hysteria about waterboarding, the reality is a bit of a let-down. It should be well-known by now that US troops endure waterboarding as part of their training. The internet news outlet "Bleepin' Truth" held a live demonstration of waterboarding in Tampa, Florida. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.bleepintruth.com/show%20video.html">It was broadcast by Bay News 9 television news</a>.<br /><br />This demonstration was different from others in that an actual, trained military interrogator reproduced the technique accurately.<br />There is no question that the experience is very unpleasant. That is the whole point. But we see videos of hundreds of people who walk away afterwards, and talk normally to camera. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7RXTWMiBkg&NR=1">YouTube contains dozens of demonstrations</a>.<br /><br />To put this into context, we might do well to visit a Florida swimming pool and talk to rough-housing boys who regularly push each other under the water. If being submerged under water -- and held there -- with the sensation that one is about to drown is "waterboarding" then it is happening a hundred times a week somewhere in Florida's swimming pools by rough-housing boys.<br /><br />This author was diving in the Bahamas, 40 feet below the water, with no air, when our "Aquanut" air pump suddenly ran out of gas. It took several seconds to realize why it was suddenly so quiet, and then take a breath and find no air coming in. Struggling for the surface, my lungs were bursting, like a thousand pins all through my lungs. This was certainly unpleasant, but you could not call it torture. I was back down in the water again within ten minutes.<br /><br />In order to have meaningful decisions on national policies, we must have clear and unchanging definitions of key concepts. We must not allow this liberal scam of changing the meaning of words in order to hijack national policy. The definition of words can control the entire direction of a nation.US News and Views is the leaderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13360728280173174810noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6407615801324124173.post-29060639674889098632009-04-20T09:51:00.000-07:002009-04-20T09:52:42.103-07:00MSNBC Olbermann Attacks Tea PartiesKeith Olbermann, hosting his “Countdown” show on MSNBC on April 14, smeared the nation-wide movement Tea Parties by comparing it with a sexual act usually associated with homosexual culture. MSNBC generally and Olbermann in particular have been criticized for a continuing descent into becoming a biased propaganda arm for the radical far left.<br /><br />Readers should be warned that it is impossible to report Keith Olbermann’s grossly offensive reporting without discussing his offensive content. On April 15, Rush Limbaugh broadcast a similar discussion of the same smear made on-air by CNN’S Anderson Coooper without giving such a warning (which he normally gives), and Rush read from an urban dictionary to make his point.<br /><br />Invoking the historical example of the “Boston Tea Party” which helped spark the American Revolution, a tsunami of spontaneous grassroots protest has swept across the nation. Americans of many different political views are protesting against government’s over-spending, bailouts, and refusal to listen to the people on such issues as illegal immigration.<br /><br />The first modern “Boston Tea Party” was a spontaneous event in Seattle, Washington, on February 16, 2009. Then on February 19, financial reporter Rick Santelli gave his famous “rant heard round the world” on CNBC in which Santelli suggested holding a Chicago Tea Party in July and throwing tea into Lake Michigan. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA] To some extent, the enormous public opposition to the massive bank and corporate bailouts starting last Fall has evolved into the tea party movement. <br /><br />Public sentiment against both George Bush’s and Barack Obama’s bailouts of mind-numbing size, using borrowed money, have swamped the Congressional switchboard at several points since last Fall. One of the most poignant scenes of the tea parties is a very young girl holding up a sign “Sorry, Daddy, I don’t have a trillion dollars to loan you.”<br /><br />The idea of holding tea parties on tax day, April 15, emerged as too obvious to ignore. Following this example, hundreds of conservative organizations and tens of thousands of individuals seized on this very obvious opportunity to protest. With the internet and talk radio making the organization inexpensive and easy, hundreds of rallies were scheduled. Some of the tea parties are so spontaneous that conflicting rallies have been scheduled at the same time without coordination. Tea parties in Fairfax, Virginia, were scheduled for both the Merrifield Post Office and a nearby Reston shopping mall in conflict with each other. <br /><br />However, Keith Olbermann used every opportunity – on national cable television – to compare the tea parties to a sexual act most Americans would consider perversion. “Teabagging” is street jargon that is impossible to explain on these pages with the remotest level of decency. The term originated within the homosexual community.<br /><br />In fact, no one in the tea party movement has ever used the terms “teabagging” or “teabaggers.” Indeed, most of the modern tea parties have not involved any actual tea at all, and have not focused on either tea or tea bags. (The tea in the Boston Tea Party in 1773 was in crates.) The one defect of the modern tea parties is their distinct lack of any tea. (The EPA might object if tea were thrown into lakes or rivers these days.) Therefore, not only has the term never been used by the tea parties, but tea bags play little or no role in these re-enactment of a pivotal event in American history.<br /><br />Olbermann admitted that his many double entrendres were intentional. Olbermann laughed “That’s the only thing that wasn’t intentional in the last five minutes,” after his British guest expressed discomfort at being an Englishmen asked about tea parties. Later, Olbermman then again explicitly mentioned double entrendres about tea parties, such as “Dick Armey teabagging the nation" and asked if Howard Stern had invented the protests.<br /><br />His segment was aired over the titles: “GOP bones up on teabagging" and “Teabaggers’ seminal moment." Olbermann claimed that Republican talking heads like Newt Gingrich have pushed their own version of teabagging “down the throats of the original teabaggers.” He claimed that “Cincinnati teabaggers were down in the mouth about taxes.” He predicted that the teabagger movement would blow up in Fox’s face. According to Rush Limbaugh, CNN’s Cooper Anderson made a similar comment that “It is hard to speak while you’re teabagging.”<br /><br />Olbermann managed to get almost every fact wrong in his report, showing incompetence as a journalist. Olbermann claimed that the tea parties were started by libertarian supporters of Ron Paul. In fact, the initial promoters of tea parties, following Rick Santelli’s on-air rant, were Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, American Solutions, and Americans for Prosperity.<br /><br />The “Countdown” report falsely portrayed the movement as manufactured by corporate interests and the Republican National Committee. Most of Olbermann’s interview with British MSNBC analyst Richard Wolffe focused on fantasizing about what might happen if the tea parties were a flop because people don’t show up. <br /><br />He falsely portrayed the tea party movement as involving Republican officials such as John Boehner and Dick Armey. In fact, some tea parties have banned elected officials from participating. While it is true that many elected officials and political leader have tried to “run out in front of the parade” and become part of the action, a hallmark of the tea party movement has been disgust with every level of government regardless of party. Complaints include the fact that both Republicans and Democrats have been guilty of both massive over-spending borrowing money from our children and ignoring the voice of the people. Some are even discussing the creation of an independent political party based on the tea party rallies. Much will depend now on what happens on July 4, Independence Day, and whether the protest movement can again marshall a strong voice on July 4th.US News and Views is the leaderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13360728280173174810noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6407615801324124173.post-21005807282188402922009-04-09T11:57:00.000-07:002009-04-09T12:01:52.849-07:00Obama Apologies, While World Picks His PocketsPresident Obama's diplomatic tour through Europe, Turkey, and Iraq is being loudly trumpeted as a great success by the mainstream media. However, Obama's "success" came mainly from embarrassing America and surrendering American interests, to the great delight of America's opponents. Concessions to other countries and signs of American weakness were well-received by other countries, yet not rewarded.<br /><br />In what conservatives are calling his "Apologizing for America Tour," Obama took an astonishing 500 White House staffers and security personnel on a European tour. Obama traveled to London to attend the "G-20" summit of the 20 largest economies, seeking to develop a global, coordinated response to the economic crisis. Expanded from the previous G-7 series of summits, the G-20 summit was the largest meeting of heads of state since World War II.<br /><br />The G-20 produced agreement on massive government spending, but also vast, new regulations. A new international board will have authority to intervene in U.S. corporations, including approving or disapproving business management decisions and executive salaries. There were vague promises for reform of the International Monetary Fund. However, the G-20 floated plans to turn the IMF into a one-world government "national" bank similar to the Federal Reserve Bank in the United States. The IMF has agreed to sell gold to finance stimulus loans. Some actions could led to a global currency.<br /><br />Obama announced to the world's leaders in Strasbourg that the United States has been arrogant. Obama confessed that America has had a "failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world" and a failure to "celebrate" the European Union and partner with the EU. Obama refused to visit the graves of U.S. soldiers who liberated Europe in World War II, to avoid upsetting the Germans. By contrast, no other world leader apologized for his or her country. <br />In fact, Europe's refusal to take on any leadership role has dominated world affairs. America's attempts to work together with Europe have been met with frustration. The USA has had to shoulder the burden of crises inside and near Europe chronically ignored by European leaders, such as Yugoslavia, Liberia, Sierre Leone, the Sudan, Darfur, and Afghanistan. During the Cold War, the U.S.A. spent trillions of dollars extending its military umbrella over Europe, allowing Europe to freeload and develop their civilian economies at America's expense. <br /><br />In Turkey, Obama declared that the United States is not a Christian nation and does not consider itself a Christian nation. Obama declared that the US is not at war with Islam. Obama again apologized to Turkey for America's attitude.<br /><br />During the Coalition invasion of Iraq, Turkey agreed to allow US troops to unload in Turkish ports and cross into Iraq. Then Turkey changed its mind in the middle of the operation, throwing U.S. war plans into chaos. Half of America's invasion force had to climb back onto ships, steam the long way around to Kuwait, and get in line behind other troops entering from the South. Weapons depots in the North were left unprotected, and fell into the hands of terrorists and insurgents. The North was not secured as planned. As a direct result of Turkey's betrayal, the war lasted years longer than it should have and thousands of US soldiers died. The original plan would have kept massive ammunition dumps out of the hands of the Jihadists and would have quickly controlled the North.<br /><br />At the G-20, Obama bowed reverently to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JGK-xbXxMw&feature=related]. This reinforced suspicions of Obama critics that he retains his religious training as a Muslim from his youth. By contrast, Obama did not bow to Queen Elizabeth of England, other than to simply look down from his greater height. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLuLEfVNow&feature=related] <br />Diplomatically, the summit placed the heads of state on an equal footing. Therefore, President Obama's sign of subservience and allegiance to the king of Saudi Arabia was both shocking and diplomatically wrong. Saudi's king was obliged to treat the President of the United States with the same respect as Obama gave. Of course, Saudi Arabia is the guardian of the Muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina, making King Abdullah very important and revered among Muslims. Meanwhile, most of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 in 2001 were Saudis. Saudi Arabia has pretended to be America's friend, but Al Qaeda and anti-American terrorists are primarily funded by Saudi oil princes. <br /><br />As a student in Indonesia, Obama was enrolled by his then-father Lolo Sotero in religious training as a Muslim, according to school transcripts. Doubts have persisted whether Obama has entirely left behind his Muslim roots. Since Muslims honor Jesus as a prophet -- just not as a Savior or as God in human form -- Obama's attendance at Rev. Wright's church is compatible with a continuing Islamic faith. Wright's Chicago church focused mainly on politics, and rarely if ever preach Jesus as being God or the Savior. (During the election, Obama claimed he had campaigned in 57 of the 58 States. There are 57 States in the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Obama seemed more familiar with the world's Islamic States than the United States.)<br /><br />At the G-20, Obama's overtures were not rewarded. Europe refused to share the responsibility of rebuilding and securing Afghanistan. (Europe's shocking neglect of Afghanistan's crisis in the 1990's led to its domination by Al Qaeda and the Taliban.)<br /><br />North Korea delivered Obama a slap in the face by launching a test missile across Japanese territory toward Alaska. Though claimed to be a satellite launch, the rocket was plainly a prototype for an intercontinental missile capable of dropping a nuclear bomb on the United States. North Korea has already developed and tested nuclear weapons. Obama's apologies for America and diplomatic efforts were met with embarrasment.<br /><br />Russia immediately sabotaged Obama, rather than rewarding Obama's olive branch, by announcing that Iran poses no threat to the United States. This diplomatic bomb seriously prejudices upcoming talks, as Obama prepares to meet with Iran's President Ahmadinejad to negotiate. Russia has already declared that the U.S. has no legitimate interest to pursue in the talks. Thus, Obama's outreach to the world has been a dismal failure. Rather than earning respect, world powers have seized on his weakness to sabotage U.S. goals.<br /><br />Muslim pirates from Somalia hijacked a U.S.-run ship for the first time, indicating that appeasement and apologies do not incresae respect for U.S. interests. The Arab League announced solidarity with the Sudanese government engaging in genocide in Darfur and the Sudan.<br /><br />Since the world's nations mostly want to take advantage at the USA's expense, if they are completely happy, something is wrong. Major nations have their own goals, aims, pressures, and desires. There will inevitably be tensions and clashes of interests. Therefore, if other nations are thrilled with the American President, he is failing to stand up for America's interests. Even married couples and friends must compromise on what movie to see or what restaurant to eat at tonight. Obama came across as the friend who never has any opinion of his own, and does whatever he is told.<br /><br />If giving away the store, or preparing to, is success, then Obama very effectively displayed America's weakness and lack of resolve and invited other countries to trample on American interests.<br /><br />America's enemies and "frenemies" (enemies who pretend to be friends) applauded Obama's performance. One would expect when America's President is emptying out his pockets, bowing down, and giving away America's glbal interests, the world will be pleased.US News and Views is the leaderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13360728280173174810noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6407615801324124173.post-58984221876375439682009-04-08T08:45:00.000-07:002009-04-08T08:48:19.528-07:00"TEA PARTY" Protestors Couldn't Wait For Tax DayTaxpayers couldn't wait to protest for April 15 to arrive here in Wilmington, North Carolina. Catching the growing "tax day" revolt, approximately 700 angry citizens rallied at the Federal Building in Wilmington on April 7. Across the nation, almost 2,000 modern "Boston Tea Parties" are now expected on April 15. The intensity and number of events suggests a massive groundswell continuing to build. Leaders are urging Americans to "Party like it's 1776," to take back America.<br /><br />The favorite chant of the crowd on the steps of Wilmington's Federal building was "Throw the bums out," along with "Who do you work for? WE THE PEOPLE!" The crowd was filled with yellow Colonial flags -- large and small -- proclaiming "Don't Tread on Me" along with many American flags. A gentleman dressed as a Colonial officer of the Revolutionary War waved an enormous Red, White, and Blue flag. <br /><br />Hundreds of home-made signs attacked out-of-control spending, socialism, taxes, bail-outs and Obama policies. One sign simply said "NYET !" over the hammer-and-sickle sign of the Soviet Union (Russian for "No"). Many signs are becoming standard tea party items, such as one saying "Obama Motors" crossed through and another spelling out "OBAMA" as an acronym for "One Big A** Mistake America." Others decried the burden of debt imposed on children and grandchildren. Another proclaimed "If you like socialism, move to Europe."<br /><br />However, a major theme of the protest here in Wilmington and nationwide is the arrogance of elected officials who simply don't listen to the voters. More than any particular issue, the crowd was infuriated by the general attitude of Washington and local politicians in seizing people's rights and money without caring what the voters want. This anger is directed at all levels of government: Federal, State, and local.<br /><br />In Wilmington, the crowd marched from the Federal building to the City Council building, where they accidentally caught the Mayor, Bill Saffo, walking out the front entrance. The surprised Mayor, looking like a deer caught in headlights, was forced to cheerfully acknowledge the angry, yelling voters before racing back inside. Then their chants on the front steps could be clearly heard by the City Council meeting going on inside. The crowd broke out singing "God Bless America," after being informed that the City Council could hear them. Chants of "Throw the bums out" then resumed.<br /><br />Dozens of organizations are calling for a national day of protest on April 15 -- the deadline for filing Federal tax returns. The protests invoke the memory of the famous tax protest of the Massachussetts Colony against the British as a key moment in American history. In 1773, Colonists fed up with the many taxes imposed by the English King, threw British tea into Boston harbor, rather than pay the tax on the tea. (The protestors disguised their identities by dressing as Indians, but announced that they were in fact Masschusetts Colonialists.)<br /><br />Today, the massive tea party movement is being "organized" by almost every conservative or libertarian political group imaginable, of every kind. There are so many unrelated organizations involved that essentially no one is actually organizing this movement. The idea materalized after a now-famous, impromptu "rant" by CNBC reporter Rick Santelli [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k] on February 19, when he called for a Chicago Tea Party throwing tea into Lake Michigan.<br /><br />At first, a coalition led by Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union staged tea parties in February. They were tracking plans for 170 more on April 15. Then Don Wildmon's American Family Association upped the ante by promising to organize 1,000 more. Soon afterward, almost every organization that exists jumped on board the movement. Organizations that normally never talk to each other, or don't even know the other exists, were suddenly working together to set up tax-day tea parties. Now, tracking of events suggests the total will approach 2,000 events on April 15.<br /><br />The Wilmington event was sponsored by half-a-dozen groups, including Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Fair Taxation (Fairtax.org). However, local talk show host Curtis Wright turned out many listeners not connected with any organization. Such spontaneous involvement by citizens is often hoped for, but rarely achieved. This time, the movement appears to be a chain reaction exploding nation-wide. Even beyond April 15, tea parties are already being discussed for tea party rallies on July 4 -- Independence Day.US News and Views is the leaderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13360728280173174810noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6407615801324124173.post-72795719867139321932009-03-31T08:53:00.000-07:002009-04-08T09:14:36.248-07:00Survey Reveals Republicans Expect Obama Plans To FailEchoing criticism by conservative leaders like Rush Limbaugh, most Republicans expect Barack Obama's policies to fail at fixing the economy. A new survey finds that Republicans and Democrats have dramatically different expectations about America's economic future. Among Democrats, 57.44% answer that they are "optimistic about the economy" while only 25.36% of Republicans express that same optimism.<br /><br />It appears that Democrats trust their choice for President to fix the economy, yet Republicans do not expect Obama to succeed. The optimism of Democrats, however, also suggests they agree with Obama's assumptions that government spending of borrowed money will somehow stimulate the economy.<br /><br />Meanwhile, favorable opinions of President Barack Obama dropped 20% from January 21 to March 9. Since inauguration day, Obama's favorable rating fell to 55.8%. Only 37.43% of Americans support "the trillion-dollar bailout" which "President Obama signed into law."<br />The fact that Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to expect economic recovery indicates faith that President Obama's plans will succeed. Many Republicans doubt that Obama's programs will help the economy.<br /><br />Among Barack Obama's supporters, 63.88% support Obama's trillion dollar bailout. Only 5.65% of Obama opponents support the bailout. (The survey attempted to distinguish Obama's own program from President Bush's earlier bailout last Fall.) However, concerns about losing their job are equal regardless of political beliefs.<br /><br />Among those with a favorable opinion of President Obama, 54.53% were "optimistic about the economy" compared with only 18.07% of those unfavorable to Obama. However, those worried about America's economy would probably be less satisfied with the President in any event. An unfavorable opinion of Obama may simply reflect economic worry. Yet the clear difference between Democrats and Republicans shows that supporters of the President believe his strategy for the economy will succeed.<br /><br />On other topics, the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" was a loser across the board, with only 34.34% of Obama supporters and 15.41% of Obama opponents agreeing. The "Fairness Doctrine" would require balanced content in radio and TV broadcasts, which conservatives say would indirectly destroy conservative talk radio by requiring content listeners don't want, already available in the mainstream media.<br /><br />Furthermore, 80.22% of those with an unfavorable opinion of Barack Obama support US efforts in Iraq, compared with 38.06% among Obama supporters. Among Obama opponents, 92.5% identified themselves as "anti-tax" while 78.5% of Obama supporters agreed. Traditional marriage won the support of 88.51% of Obama opponents and 50.50% of even Obama supporters.<br /><br />Males and females showed no differences in their expections, once party affiliation was set aside. The survey of 50,000 households across the U.S. mainland was conducted on March 9, 2009, by ccAdvertising based in Herndon, Virginia, and released March 20, 2009. The households were randomly selected from a database of 120 million records balanced by regional population density, with a 70% completion rate.US News and Views is the leaderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13360728280173174810noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6407615801324124173.post-36248574722707695242009-03-29T08:50:00.000-07:002009-04-08T09:12:14.363-07:00Success In Creating Synthetic Gasoline Claimed By CWTA pilot plant in Pennyslvania claims to be now successfully converting various wastes and trash into gasoline and diesel equivalents. Changing World Technologies[http://www.changingworldtech.com/] says that its pilot plant near Philadelphia is now creating fuel that can power any ordinary diesel or gasoline engine.<br /><br />Brian Appel's company CWT uses a process called thermal depolymerization to turn almost any kind of organic waste, tires, etc. into gasoline and diesel fuel. Reducing imports of foreign oil from nations hostile to U.S. interests could strengthen America's national security and reduce the drain on the American economy from sending U.S. funds overseas.<br /><br />Such technology dates back to World War II, when the German war machine was short on oil. German scientists began to experiment with techniques for creating synethetic gasoline (syngas) and oil. This German research included coal gassification. However, practical success has always eluded researchers. Contrary to populist calls for research into alternative fuels and alternative energy sources, America's government and private industry have already invested many tens of billions of dollars into alternative energy.<br /><br />Despite frequent announcements for decades about promising results and breakthroughs, practical applications have always remained out of reach. Estimates of commercial availability always remain at about the same timeframe in the future.<br /><br />Yet CWT claims to have now succeeded in the private sector where government pronouncements have not. The CWT process[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWf9nYbm3ac] uses a great deal of water, then pressure cooks the waste, and removes the water after the process is complete. Combustible vapors left over from the process provide fuel to power the entire plant.<br /><br />CWT sees great potential for producing fuel in this way. America discards 10 billion tons each year. The nation's dump trucks require 323 million trips to carry all that trash.<br />As a result, CWT has just built a $20 million plant in Carthage, Missouri to convert 200 tons of waste from a turkey processing plant each day into fuel oil.US News and Views is the leaderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13360728280173174810noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6407615801324124173.post-53201433499227754732008-04-08T08:11:00.000-07:002009-04-08T08:29:46.959-07:00Jon Moseley<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8RTKHVUhDB8/Sdy-_d94_yI/AAAAAAAAAA4/p3Rpxf4-QXE/s1600-h/JohnMoseleysmall.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5322338857230335778" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 141px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8RTKHVUhDB8/Sdy-_d94_yI/AAAAAAAAAA4/p3Rpxf4-QXE/s200/JohnMoseleysmall.JPG" border="0" /></a><br />Jonathon Moseley has served in many areas of politics and public affairs. He is currently Executive Director of American Border Control (formerly the U.S. Seaport Commission) which works for 100% American control of ports of entry, including ending Chinese control of Pier J in Long Beach.<br /><br />Mr. Moseley founded Shale Oil Now [http://www.ShaleOilNow.com] to promote energy independence, and is the author of a series on energy solutions. He was previously Executive Director of the Legal Affairs Council. In the 1980's, Mr. Moseley worked for a strong national defense and against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan at General Graham's High Frontier and the Heritage Foundation's Center for Peace and Freedom, after interning in Congress.<br /><br />For several years he was an elected, voting member of the Arlington County Republican Committee and the Loudoun County Republican Committee. Moseley has worked on many Congressional and State campaigns, including Christine O'Donnell's Senatorial bid against Joe Biden in Delaware, and once ran for office in Virginia. He spent five years in the U.S. Department of Education, including in the Center for Choice in Education. Moseley also helped start a church as a missionary in Latvia and taught business in Eastern Europe as part of International Trendsetters.<br /><br />After law school, he worked as a lawyer at Larry Klayman's Judicial Watch, working on the "File Gate" case involving Republican FBI files improperly accessed by the Clinton Administration. He is the author of a novel about post-Soviet Russia Cold Peace. Mr. Moseley studied Physics at Hampshire College, then earned a degree in Finance from the University of Florida, where he was also a columnist for the university newspaper, and a law degree from George Mason University.US News and Views is the leaderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13360728280173174810noreply@blogger.com