Thursday, August 30, 2007

Ron Paul A Liberal-tarian, Not a Conservative

Written by JB Williams

©2007 USA

Ron Paul supporters are fast making a name for themselves on the web. Not because they are just web savvy, but because they have proven themselves to be the best at hacking on-line polls, invalidating conservative polling data on behalf of their candidate. It seems that even Democrat 527 is now onboard the Ron Paul anti-war train.

Despite the fact that presidential candidate Ron Paul can not score better than 3% in any legitimate national poll, his supporters claim he is “the conservative” candidate to beat in the 2008 Republican race for the White House. Despite his less than conservative voting record in congress and his Teddy Kennedy like position on the war on terror in Iraq, his supporters think he is the most “conservative” candidate in the race. How?

On the Issues:

Not strong on life

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

Not strong on traditional Marriage

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004 & Jul 2006)

Not strong on crime and punishment

Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)

Not strong on fighting the drug problem

Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)

Not strong on free religious speech or private schooling options

Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Rated 67% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education

Not strong on national security and sovereignty

Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
Military aggressiveness weakens our national defense. (May 2007)
Criticizes use of war on terror to curtail civil liberties. (Jan 2007)
Opposes Patriot Act & Iraq War. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)

Not strong on government reform and campaign transparency

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)

Not strong on Second Amendment Rights

Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gun makers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

Not strong in the war on terror

We're more threatened now by staying in Iraq. (Jun 2007)
We should have declared war in Iraq, or not gone in at all. (May 2007)
Ronald Reagan had the courage to turn tail & run in Lebanon. (May 2007)
Intervention abroad incites hatred & attacks like 9/11. (May 2007)
When we go to war carelessly, the wars don't end. (May 2007)
Voted against war because Iraq was not a national threat. (May 2007)
Opposes Iraq war and opposes path toward Iran war. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)

I can keep going, but you can go look for yourself if you need more information. I think this is more than enough to explain why liberal Democrats are supporting Ron Paul for President. He’s better aligned with their thinking than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

It’s true that he voted correctly several times throughout his lengthy political career too. But then, so has Hillary and Teddy. Paul is telling folks that he has never voted against Americans best interests, to paraphrase. Does that look true above?

The question is - why are some self-styled Republicans supporting him and why are they willing to adopt the liberal practice of manipulating on-line polls and trashing other conservative candidates in order to promote what is clearly not a conservative candidate?

In 1992, a similar set of events were underway, both liberal-tarian Republicans with an isolationist national security outlook and a desire to end all federal spending not aimed at benefiting them personally, worked together with liberal Democrats who shared those same “all about me” values to promote a third party candidate named Ross Perot. Together, they seated President Bill Clinton with less than 47% of the popular vote, against the will of more than 53% of voters.

A friend and fellow writer recently pointed out that libertarians are actually just social liberals who don’t want any of their money used to fund the natural consequences of a socially liberal society. They pretend to be conservatives, when all they really are is money conscious liberals with an isolationist view of the world they live in.

Ron Paul provides a perfect example. Like Ross Perot, the notion of ending all “unconstitutional” international spending and reducing taxes is appealing to both liberals and libertarians. Withdrawing from the world for monetary reasons might prove to be deadly, but it will result in temporary reduced spending and eventually lower taxes and that is the real goal.

Ron Paul claims to be Americas “constitutionalist.” I’m a constitutionalist, a strong supporter of the American ideals so carefully crafted by our founders more than 200 years ago. So, why am I at odds with Ron Paul?

First, he’s not a constitutionalist, except when it serves his political agenda which is that of an isolationist liberal-tarian, not a conservative. When he is playing constitutionalist, as in the case of the war on terror (specifically in Iraq), he is a foolish constitutionalist. He claims that the constitution somehow prevents us from protecting our national security interests abroad. He also fails to recognize that the national security threats are much different today, as compared to those present in 1776.

He has recently stated that America should have “declared war” before going into Iraq, and I agree. But in October of 2002, March of 2004 and June of 2006, he voted against such a notion. He has claimed that the Hussein regime posed no national security threat to America, despite the many efforts by the Hussein regime to specifically threaten America over the years. He also ignores the fact that congress has failed to “declare war” in ever military action since WWII, though they authorized military action in every case except Kosovo under Clinton.

Ron Paul uses the pieces of the constitution that serve his political agenda, while overlooking the fundamental concepts throughout our founding documents, a right to Life, Liberty, pursuit of Happiness, security, sovereignty, morality, public decency and personal freedom.

So again, why are some Republicans willing to use extreme tactics like poll manipulation and fellow conservative candidate bashing in order to promote such a liberal candidate?

It’s easy to figure out why liberal Democrats are supporting Ron Paul. He’s anti-war, pro- marijuana, pro- gay rights and abortion under the guise of “privacy”, pro- gun control, anti-trade and an isolationist who believes that America is the bad guy around the globe, rather than the generous beacon of freedom that has liberated more people than all other nations combined. He is a liberal of the blame America first, last and often sort. He is perfect for liberals who believe in all the same things… Only Cindy Sheehan or Jane Fonda can draw a bigger anti-war crowd.

Now try explaining why any Republicans support him? When you are through studying the views of his supporters, you will find that they have two common values, a strong anti-war isolationist view of world events and a deep love of their money.

At the end of the day, Ron Paul supporters on both sides of the political aisle are driven by only two beliefs and one motivating factor. They are anti-war because they are anti-tax. They do not look beyond the agenda to reduce or eliminate taxes to see the consequences of the decisions they make. They would bring the war on terror abroad right to our own doorstep to save a few tax dollars and that allows Ron Paul to appeal to anti-war voters from the far left and the far right.

Thankfully, he has never appealed to more than 3% in any legitimate national poll. Sadly, his supporters will continue attacking all real conservatives and manipulating all on-line polls to cause further confusion and divisions among conservative voters.

The DNC is working behind the scenes to make him the Ross Perot of 2008, because no Democrat candidate can win unless the conservative vote is divided. Hillary Clinton can not get 50% of the vote in a general election and Barack Obama can not get even 40%. Republicans must be divided for Democrats to win.

That’s what the Ron Paul campaign is all about… Just my opinion of course.

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

When dictators choose our President

This is not the first time that a dictator (or a Muslim terrorist) has piped up about who they think should run our country, believe me. But you know what? The really funny thing is that they have ALL uniformly chosen candidates that belong to the Democratic Party!

Hmmmmm. Makes you think, eh?

Castro's tip: Clinton-Obama the winning ticket

By Anthony Boadle

HAVANA (Reuters) - Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro is tipping Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up and win the U.S. presidential election.

Monday, August 27, 2007

Two Americas

“Democrats claim there are ‘two Americas.’ If they have their way, there will be two Latin Americas.

Liberals know they’re losing the demographic war. Christians have lots of children and adopt lots of children; liberals abort children and encourage the gay lifestyle in anyone with a flair for color. They can’t keep up.

Population expert Nick Eberstadt recently speculated in The Washington Post that a principal reason for America’s high fertility rate compared to Europe’s is its religiosity. Well, that leaves liberals out.

The Democratic Party is in the fight of its life against a conservative demographic trend. Its only hope is to gerrymander America to make the poorest half of Mexico a state. Only a massive influx of criminals, wards of the state and rioters can save them. This is why Democrats are obsessed with giving two groups the right to vote: illegal aliens and felons...

To liberals, building a wall across the Mexican border is a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Democrats are counting on illegal immigrants to be the future of their party, their border guards for the new socialist state.

At least liberals have a clear mission and know what they’re fighting for. Their plan is to destroy America.” —Ann Coulter

Democratic National Convention Schedule of Events

  •  7:00 pm ~ Opening flag burning

  •  7:15 pm ~ Pledge of Allegiance to the U. N.

  •  7:20 pm ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

  •  7:25 pm ~ Nonreligious prayer and worship with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton

  •  7:45 pm ~ Ceremonial tree hugging

  •  7:55 pm ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

  •  8:00 pm ~ How I Invented the Internet - Al Gore

  •  8:15 pm ~ Gay Wedding Planning - Barney Frank presiding

  •  8:35 pm ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

  •  8:40 pm ~ Our Troops are War Criminals - John Kerry

  •  9.00 pm ~ Memorial service for Saddam and his sons - Cindy Sheehan & Susan Sarandon

  • 10:00 pm ~ Answering Machine Etiquette - Alec Baldwin

  • 11:00 pm ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

  • 11:05 pm ~ Collection for Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund - Barbra Streisand

  • 11:15 pm ~ Free the Freedom Fighters from Guantanamo Bay - Sean Penn

  • 11:30 pm ~ Oval Office Affairs - William Jefferson Clinton

  • 11:45 pm ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

  • 11:50 pm ~ How George Bush Brought Down the World Trade Towers - Howard Dean

  • 12:15 am ~ Truth in Broadcasting Award - Presented to Dan Rather by Michael Moore

  • 12:25 am ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

  • 12:30 am ~ Satellite address by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

  • 12:45 am ~ Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Nancy Pelosi

  •  1:00 am ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

  •  1:05 am ~ Coronation of Hillary Rodham Clinton

  •  1:30 am ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

  •  1:35 am ~ Bill Clinton asks Ted Kennedy to drive Hillary home

Sunday, August 26, 2007


Saturday, August 25, 2007

Clinton Lied and People Did Die

The Fifth Column Warner Todd Huston, Senior Writer
August 21, 2007

How the Left lies to themselves as well as the rest of us.

Anyone who is politically aware in this country, anyone who has taken the time to keep up on the news, can't help but to have run across one of the left's favorite bromides; "Bush lied, People Died." Not quite as well known, but as an adjunct to this doggerel, the left has also indulged in a bit of backward Clinton praising with the phrase "No one died when Clinton lied." This, however, is a lie in and of itself, and it's a perfect example of how the left lies to themselves and everyone around them.

One word best describes how the claim that Clinton's lies never hurt anyone is a blatant untruth. That one word is Kosovo. As Thomas E. Woods, Jr. reveals, Kosovo is the best-kept secret of the worst most murderous failure of the Clinton Administration.

In his new book 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed To AskWoods reveals some of the lies and destruction that was Clinton's decision to enter the civil war between the Serbs, Croats and Albanians in 1999.

Clinton's decision to enter the conflict was based on the lie that he was valiantly trying to stop the "genocide" of the Muslim population in Kosovo. There is no doubt that there was a lot of killing going on in that corner of the world at the time and that it was all a bad situation. But, genocide? Hardly.

In fact, Clinton purposefully ignored the proof against any substantiation of genocide and he allowed his Administration to wildly inflate the numbers of Albanians killed by warring Serbs to justify his ginning up of his war machine. To make matters worse, the slavishly pro-Clinton media failed to bother to investigate the Clinton Administration's claims and merely reported Clinton's lies as fact.

You are sure to remember that Clinton claimed in 1999 that the USA was on a humanitarian mission to stop the evil Serbs from ruthlessly killing hundreds of thousands of "innocent" Muslims. That is the story we all heard as Clinton blustered about his war plans. The number of Albanians killed that was bandied about prior to the intervention of US and NATO forces was something near 400,000 Albanians murdered by Serbian forces. Yet, it was revealed in 2006 that there were never any more than 7,000 people reported missing during the whole of the conflict. As Woods reports, "The lurid claims of war supporters typically proved unfounded." Since the action ended, we have seen proven false nearly every "fact" the Clinton Administration used to justify this war.

One such "lurid" claim was the supposed story of the Trepca mines being jammed to the rafters with Albanian bodies hidden there to prevent detection. The mines were claimed a veritable new age "Belsen, Auschwitz, and Treblinka," as the Brit paper Daily Mirror reported. It turns out later that there wasn't a single body discovered once western investigators were able to make it to the area. Another tale, that there were mass graves in the town of Ljubenic, later revealed 7 bodies instead of the supposed 350 that were supposed to be there.

Of the 400,000 Albanians Clinton claimed he went to Kosovo to avenge, even The Hague now only claims that only between 4,000 and 10,000 died during the troubles there. Yes, 10,000 is horrible, but it is far from any "genocide" and not much higher than many dozens of other conflicts world wide in the past 20 years. In the final analysis, the intervention of the US was unnecessary at the very least, disastrous at worst. The case the Clinton Administration made for war was filled with lies about why he went into Kosovo.

So where are the deaths we can attribute to Clinton's lies, then?

As we know, once Clinton announced his fraudulent campaign, he did, indeed bomb the area. This specious bombing killed over 2,000 people...and not just among the so-called enemy Serbs. People of all sides died. Worse, a humanitarian mess resulted from the bombing as hospitals, schools and the infrastructure was destroyed. Later, in contravention to Clinton's stated purpose, the Serbs redoubled their efforts to oust the Albanians proving that the bombing didn’t stop any "genocide” at all.

In fact, any so-called genocide was a result of Clinton's bombs as opposed to them having stopped such a crime against humanity. Far from helping the Albanians, Clinton's bombs made matters far worse for all parties -- including the US and the west.

Now, we all know that the Serbs eventually lost their battles due to Clinton's intervention and since then, radical Islamofascists have turned the tables on the Serbs. Far from ushering in an era of peace in Kosovo, Muslims have since killed and displaced far more Serbs and Croats than the Serbs ever hoped to kill of the Albanian population before 1999.

Also since then, the Islamofascists have discovered a place where they can raise recruits and find safe haven. So, far from helping innocent Muslims escape genocide, all Clinton did was give succor to our enemies in the various Islamofascist movements. Money for radical Madrassas has poured into the area from Saudi Arabia, spreading anti-western sentiment. Remember the Fort Dix Six? They were young Albanian Muslims radicalized by Clinton's failures.

In addition, the Muslims who have now taken power in the area have chased out hundreds of thousands of Gypsies, Christians, and other "undesirables" and have even gone so far as to obliterate centuries old Christian religious sites in the country.

Also, since the bombing stopped, the UN has taken control and that has been an even worse disaster on the infrastructure of the area than anything we have seen in Iraq. Many areas in Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina still don’t have reliable water, electric or roads and the economy is still completely destroyed there. More abhorrently, the UN has been caught keeping local teenaged girls as sex slaves in brothels for their UN "peacekeeping" employees.

The Clinton lies resulted in many thousands of deaths, a country laid waste and our enemies, the Islamofascists, have been given an area from which to recruit and have safe harbor. And hundreds of young girls have been reduced to sexual slavery just to survive day to day. Far from stopping genocide, it looks far more like Clinton has caused one.

So, now tell me that when "Clinton lied, no one died."

At least Bush's actions have been for a real humanitarian effort. Clinton's murderous acts were for...what? Pure self-aggrandizement and little else.

New Media Journal

Warner Todd Huston is a senior writer for The New Media Journal. He also serves as an NMJ Radio Headline News Roundtable Editor, a free lance writer, graphic designer and works in Desktop Publishing. Like every man when young, Mr. Huston was sure that Conservatives were inhumane, ignorant of history and greedy...then he grew up.

Vicks Rub et. al.

Friday, August 24, 2007

Ron Paul—The libertarian Republican

If there is one man who elicits a strong response across the gamut of GOP constituencies, it is Texas Republican congressman and presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul. Because he is a genuine libertarian, Paul has been a gadfly to liberals and conservatives alike since his first election in Texas to the U.S. House in 1976, and his long-time presence in the GOP is an anomaly that deserves attention.

Ron Paul, a ten-term congressman, small-town doctor, retired Air Force officer and great-grandfather is, indisputably, a gentleman. In a legislative body where integrity seems an increasingly rare quality, Paul’s is unquestioned. Not content merely to condemn unconstitutional taxes and expenditures, every year Dr. Paul returns a portion of his congressional office budget to the U.S. Treasury. In his medical practice, Paul refused to accept Medicare payments on principle. Recently dubbed “the most radical congressman in America” by a New York Times Magazine feature article, Ron Paul’s “radicalism,” clearly, is made of different stuff.

Contrary to Congress’ dreams of ever-increasing power, Dr. Paul’s congressional career is laced with legislation that seeks to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. During his first stint in the House (1976-1984), Paul served on the House Banking Committee, where he was an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve policies of the era. From that time forward he has sponsored bills and voted to reduce and eliminate federal taxes, as well as federal spending and regulation.

Paul has never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted to raise congressional pay, never voted for gun-ownership restrictions, and has voted against regulating the Internet. He is consistently pro family and pro life. In his own words, Paul “never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.” Notably, Paul was one of only four congressmen to endorse the presidential candidacy of Ronald Reagan in 1976.

Where do I, an old-school Reagan Republican, find myself on the issue of Ron Paul? How should other Reagan Republicans see this genuine maverick presidential candidate for the GOP?

The key is the difference between the meanings of “libertarian” and “conservative.” As for Ron Paul’s status among Reagan Republicans, this is the only question that matters.

When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, conservatives and libertarians have often divergent and incompatible perspectives on the Constitution. For the libertarian, the government that governs best is the one that governs least. For the conservative (and by “conservative” I always mean “constitutional conservative”), the government that governs best is not necessarily the one that governs least, but the one that governs according to the letter of the Constitution.

Here we might also consider the differences between libertarianism and liberalism. Libertarians believe in maximal individual liberty—the absolute maximum of individual liberty that a society can tolerate without anarchy. In this vision, government should be as small as possible, so as not to interfere with the liberty of the individual. Paul cemented himself in this camp in 1988, when he accepted the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. At the other end of the spectrum, liberals pursue the advancement of maximal corporate liberty, which is accomplished (in their thinking) by ensuring the rights of groups. A big government with expansive jurisdictions and prerogatives, then, is a necessary feature of the leftist vision for society. More often than not, though, ensuring group rights means trampling individual rights.

Ultimately, libertarians and liberals stand at opposite ends of the age-old problem of “the one and the many.” Whereas libertarians champion the nearly unfettered rights of individuals (the many) at the expense of society, liberals demand rights for society (the one) to the detriment of society’s individuals.

Unlike libertarianism or liberalism, conservatism seeks to reconcile the one and the many by means of a singular bedrock principle: government limited by the law. In American government, this commitment takes the form of constitutional constructionism—the doctrine that the jurisdiction of the federal government is limited to those things explicitly set aside for it in the Constitution.

In our federal system, all other rights and responsibilities are left to the discretion of individuals and the states (the 9th and 10th Amendments). Federalism, then, is the hallmark of constitutionally limited government in our system. Under such a system, the federal government should actually be strong where it has a constitutional mandate to govern (contra libertarianism); this same strong government should be nonexistent where no constitutional mandate exists (contra liberalism).

Regrettably, there is little room for federalism among libertarians or liberals. The strange fact of the matter is that libertarians are becoming increasingly dissimilar to conservatives across a whole range of issues, and increasingly similar to liberals.

Nowhere is this truer for Ron Paul than with national-security issues—the one area where the Constitution couldn’t be more clear about the role of the federal government. One month after 9/11, Paul was one of three Republicans to vote against the Patriot Act. He was the lone member of either party to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act (412-1) to inhibit the financing of terrorist groups, and he has been the most vocal of all anti-war Republicans when it comes to the Iraq war, which he repeatedly derides as an exercise in “empire building” and cavalierly dismisses as a war “sold to us with false information.” While never actually embracing any of the conspiracy theories of the Iraq war, Paul’s criticism repeatedly lends them credence.

This disagreement with Dr. Paul trumps all others and is why Paul will not be Commander in Chief. The only way to preserve American liberty is to defend it vigorously from hostile regimes, and the constitutional obligation of the federal government to do so is beyond dispute. To be sure, we want to defend American sovereignty without an expansion of the state, but Paul’s view of Iraq as a “war of choice” conjured up by war profiteers and “a dozen or two neocons who got control of our foreign policy,” is more than most conservatives can bear. We loved ye, Ron Paul, but we never knew ye.


Thursday, August 23, 2007

Let the ethnic cleansing begin!

This is the ghost haunting the anti-war left, and the left shudders and screams whenever it floats into the room. All those millions of Cambodians didn't have to die, and all those Boat People didn't have to sail into death or exile. The Kennedys didn't have to topple Diem any more than Senators Levin and Clinton have to work to force the toppling the Maliki. And the Democratic Congress elected in 1974 didn't have to abandon South Vietnam to North Vietnam.

America's Vietnam policy of intervention, manipulation, and then withdrawal represented a series of choices. The Democrats of those years, urged on by a hard left anti-war front, finally made a choice to leave, a choice with awful consequences.

This is the crucial point: The Democratic Party and their supporters made that choice, cheered on by the anti-war left. They own the consequences.

Now we are watching a replay of that debate of 30 years ago, but this time no one is even bothering to deny that American withdrawal at this point would lead to a bloodbath. It is a strange time, because the "screw 'em" school of cut-and-run advocates includes many folks arguing for doing something for Darfur just as we did in Kosovo. It is as though the prospective slaughter of Arabs just doesn't rank with them.

Read the whole thing

The Ghosts of Anbar

Al Qaeda has a management style—doing drugs, laying up sloppy drunk, raping women and boys, and cutting off heads, all while imposing strict morality laws on the locals—that makes it clear that they have one set of principles for themselves, and another for every one else.
Read more

Get Smart - Iran develops 900-kg ‘smart bomb’

Guided bomb developed by specialists within Islamic Republic’s Defense Ministry and is now operational, IRNA news agency reports, adding it could be dropped from F-4 and F-5 jets...

Read more

"...the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear."

On Dec. 11, 1979, Mother Teresa, the "Saint of the Gutters," went to Oslo. Dressed in her signature blue-bordered sari and shod in sandals despite below-zero temperatures, the former Agnes Bojaxhiu received that ultimate worldly accolade, the Nobel Peace Prize. In her acceptance lecture, Teresa, whose Missionaries of Charity had grown from a one-woman folly in Calcutta in 1948 into a global beacon of self-abnegating care, delivered the kind of message the world had come to expect from her. "It is not enough for us to say, 'I love God, but I do not love my neighbor,'" she said, since in dying on the Cross, God had "[made] himself the hungry one — the naked one — the homeless one." Jesus' hunger, she said, is what "you and I must find" and alleviate. She condemned abortion and bemoaned youthful drug addiction in the West. Finally, she suggested that the upcoming Christmas holiday should remind the world "that radiating joy is real" because Christ is everywhere — "Christ in our hearts, Christ in the poor we meet, Christ in the smile we give and in the smile that we receive."

Yet less than three months earlier, in a letter to a spiritual confidant, the Rev. Michael van der Peet, that is only now being made public, she wrote with weary familiarity of a different Christ, an absent one. "Jesus has a very special love for you," she assured Van der Peet. "[But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see, — Listen and do not hear — the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak ... I want you to pray for me — that I let Him have [a] free hand."

The two statements, 11 weeks apart, are extravagantly dissonant. The first is typical of the woman the world thought it knew. The second sounds as though it had wandered in from some 1950s existentialist drama. Together they suggest a startling portrait in self-contradiction — that one of the great human icons of the past 100 years, whose remarkable deeds seemed inextricably connected to her closeness to God and who was routinely observed in silent and seemingly peaceful prayer by her associates as well as the television camera, was living out a very different spiritual reality privately, an arid landscape from which the deity had disappeared.

Mother Teresa's Crisis of Faith

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Free corn

Student teaches a lesson to his teacher:

Several years ago I was supervising a beginning teacher in a city school system. One day during our end-of-the-day feedback conference, the young man gave a facial grimace and began to rub his back. I asked him if he had strained his back in the school lab. After a long period of silence, he sat down at his desk and explained that he had immigrated to the United States because of political problems in his native country. The discomfort in his back was caused by a bullet wound he had received while fighting the Communists who were trying to take over his country's government. He was then a member of the underground nationalist force.

Then he asked me a surprising question: "Professor, do you know how to catch a wild hog?" The question was completely out of context regarding the day's classroom and lab teaching. I replied, "I'm not sure what you are talking about. Tell me."

"First," he said, "you find out where the wild hogs are roaming and feeding and then you put some corn out in the field. Soon they will come to eat the corn. You keep putting out the free corn. More wild hogs keep coming to eat the corn."

"So what?" I said. "That's normal for any animal."

He said, "After the hogs get used to your free corn, you put up a length of fence along one side of the feeding area. The hogs get used to it. You keep giving them the corn. Then you put up another section of fence at right angles to the first. You keep giving them the corn. The hogs get used to the second fence. Then you put up another length of fence at right angles to the second section. You now have a U-shaped fenced area. The hogs get used to that section of the fence. You keep giving them free corn.

Then you put another section of fence with a gate in it, making a closed area except for the gate. You keep giving them corn. Now, the hogs no longer are out in the fields, working to find their own food. They keep coming into the area to eat the free corn. They get used to the fenced area with the open gate. Then, one day you slam shut the gate when the hogs are inside the fenced area. The wild hogs are caught - they are your prisoners."

I understood then that the wild hogs were really the people of his native country and that the free corn was the enticements that the Communists were giving to the people.

"That's correct," the young man said. "Now, the hogs will not get anything to eat unless you give them food. You are in control. They depend on you to feed them, or they will starve. They can't get out into the fields and forests anymore to find their own food. They have probably forgotten how, as it is. They are your servants, your prisoners. They must obey you. Or else they starve."

"The hogs," he said, "were so accustomed to having the free corn, that they ignored the building of the fences that would eventually trap them. When the gate slammed shut, it was too late for them to realize what they had been blind to. The free corn was enticing, so effortless to obtain, but eventually the cause of their loss of freedom. The fence had been built; the gate had been shut."

At this point in our conversation, the young teacher loudly exclaimed, "This is what I see happening in America today! People are being offered free corn by the government. People are being blind to the fences being built around them by the liberals - the socialists - and that is what frightens me! Just like it was happening in my homeland. The American people do not learn from history. And history shows that socialism/communism does not work. Take note of Russia. Has socialism been the best thing that ever happened to that country? Absolutely not! But socialism is what the American people are being fed, and they don't realize it. All they can focus on is the 'free corn.' They want more and more of the free corn. And this free corn is being fed to us little by little, and soon the gate will slam shut. I am very frightened, and also amazed, that the American people don't see what is being fed us, and for what purpose."

With that said, the young man sat down at his desk and continued to rub his painful back. And I was silent in my chair. For I could visualize the supposedly "free corn" being fed to our nation's people and our growing addiction to the "free corn". And I could see the gate being slammed shut.

We, the people of the United States of America, because of our ignorance of history, because of our addiction to the supposedly "free corn," could soon be these prisoners.

Before Bush, CIA failed in run-up to 9/11

WASHINGTON: George Tenet, the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, recognized the danger posed by Al Qaeda well before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but failed to adequately prepare the CIA to meet the threat, according to an internal agency report that was released in summary form Tuesday.
CIA criticizes former chief over terror readiness

WASHINGTON (AP) - The CIA's top leaders failed to use their available powers, never developed a comprehensive plan to stop al-Qaida and missed crucial opportunities to thwart two hijackers in the run-up to Sept. 11, the agency's own watchdog concluded in a bruising report released Tuesday.
CIA Missed Chances to Thwart al-Qaida

Monday, August 20, 2007

Your crystal ball

More Funnies

Friday, August 17, 2007

Hey, what about breathing?

Gore’s Zero Emissions Makes Zero Sense

It is the nature of civilization to use energy and it’s the nature of liberalism to feel bad about it. That’s my conclusion after finally sitting down to watch “An Inconvenient Truth,” the Oscar-winning documentary that has turned Al Gore into a rock star (and rock music promoter). Here’s my review: it is an overly simplistic look at a complex problem and it concludes with one of the single stupidest statements ever put on film. Yes, that’s harsh criticism. But it’s the right one, given that just before the final credits, in a segment addressing what individuals can do about global warming, the following line appears onscreen: “In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero.”

This statement is so blatantly absurd that I am still stunned, weeks after watching Gore’s movie, that none of the dozens of smart people involved in the production of the movie – including, particularly, Gore himself – paused to wonder aloud something to the effect of, “Hey, what about breathing? Don’t we produce carbon dioxide through respiration?”

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

U.S. troops in Afghanistan are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians."

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama came under fire Tuesday for saying that U.S. troops in Afghanistan are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians." The junior senator from Illinois made the comment Monday at a campaign stop in Nashua, New Hampshire.

"We've got to get the job done there," he said of Afghanistan. "And that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

The comment drew a rebuke Tuesday from the campaign of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

"That is a very troubling remark on so many levels," said Romney spokesman Kevin Madden. "Most importantly, it's emblematic of Senator Obama's lack of experience for the job of commander-in-chief. But it's also an entirely inaccurate condemnation of the efforts of the men and women of the United States military who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan."

A spokesman for Obama, who will speak at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Missouri next week, did not immediately respond to Madden's criticism.

Read the whole thing

Who controls you?

“A substantial number of Americans, perhaps a majority, believe that government should dictate where people live, what their housing structures should look like, and how they should be constructed. They believe it is right for government to dictate what curriculum children should study in school. They believe it is right for government to dictate which land should be cultivated, and which land should not be touched by humans. They believe it is right for government to dictate the kind of automobiles that are available for people to purchase. Simply put, a substantial number of Americans believe it is right for government to dictate how people should live. They believe that government should ‘engineer’ society.

How different is this modern attitude from the belief system that led Americans into war to defeat the Nazis’ efforts to engineer society. How different is this modern attitude from the belief system that led our founders to declare that the Creator, not government, endowed people with equal rights to ‘, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ How different is this modern attitude from the notion that legitimate government is empowered only by the consent of the governed.

Society has been successfully engineered to believe that the goal is no longer freedom, but the control of government, which means the control of society, to fit the agenda of the controlling party. The idea of entering public service as an elected official in order to limit the power of government, and maximize the freedom of individual citizens, is an obsolete concept.” —Henry Lamb

Real Life

“Today’s young people have the ability to experience excitement more than any generation in history.
Outside of school, excitement is available almost 24/7. MTV is exciting (MTV has done far more damage to this generation than has the tobacco industry); video games are exciting... The list of exciting things many children experience is as long as there are hours in the day.
But all this excitement is actually inhibiting our children’s ability to enjoy life and therefore be happy. All this excitement renders young people jaded, not happy... All this excitement in their lives bodes poorly for the future happiness of millions of American children. Real life, let alone daily life, will seem so boring to them that they will not be able to enjoy it. And more than a few of them will opt for lives of constant excitement, often in ways destructive to themselves and others.
The solutions are as simple to offer as they may be difficult to enforce. Limit the amount of excitement in your children’s lives: the amount of video games, the amount of non-serious television, the amount of music whose only aim is to excite. If they are bored, they will have to remedy that boredom by playing with friends, finding a hobby, talking to a family member, walking the dog, doing chores, reading a book or magazine, learning a musical instrument or foreign language, memorizing state capitals, writing a story or just their thoughts, exercising or playing a sport, or just thinking. The younger the age from which children are deprived of superficial excitement, the longer they will remain innocent—i.e., not jaded—and capable of real happiness.”
—Dennis Prager

Monday, August 13, 2007

The green alligator strikes again

The mantra that “there is no political progress in Iraq” is rapidly becoming the “surge” equivalent of a green alligator: when enough people repeat something that sounds plausible, but also happens to be false, it becomes accepted as fact. The more often it is repeated—and the larger the number of people repeating it—the harder it is to convince anyone of the truth: alligators are not green, and Iraqis are making plenty of political progress.

Dems read and weep

Illegal Aliens with Prior Charges Murder 15 year old Texas Girl

(Story Quarantined by news wires to prevent national exposure)

August 13, 2007

CONTACT: ALIPAC,, (866) 329-3999,

Court documents are shedding more light on the rape and murder of Dani Countryman, a 15 year old American girl from Texas, who was murdered in an apartment in Milwaukee, Oregon on July 28. Authorities have charged two illegal alien cousins with aggravated murder.

Alejandro Emeterio "Alex" Rivera Gamboa, 24, and Gilberto Javier Arellano-Gamboa, 23 have admitted to being in the US illegally, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Rivera Gamboa was issued an Oregon ID card and avoided deportation even though he has been arrested for drunk driving four times since 2000!

Rivera has admitted to placing his foot with force down on Countryman's neck, while his cousin Gilberto struggled with her during the rape. Authorities have matched a bloody shoe print on the body to Rivera's shoe.

"Dani Countryman is dead because our government failed to secure our borders and enforce our existing immigration laws," says William Gheen of ALIPAC. "The suspects in this case were shown, by our state and federal governments, that they could break many American laws without any serious penalties. Hell, the state of Oregon even aided them by giving them an ID! It is no wonder that many illegal aliens escalate their crimes into the realms of rape and murder. How many more Americans must suffer or die before our nation takes action"?

On the date of this release, this story has been confined to the New Media of talk radio and the Internet, with only newspapers in the states of Oregon and Texas reporting. We believe that the Associated Press has confined the story to those two states. This information can be verified by doing Google News searches, which reveal the quarantine of the story. No mention of the story exists at all on Reuters. No major networks have picked up this case yet.

ALIPAC volunteers across America are being asked to forward this story to break through the Associated Press quarantine on this story, as it is clearly of national interest, considering the high profile case of the execution style murders by illegal aliens in Newark, NJ. All help getting this preventable and horrific story of national interest out to the public is appreciated.

Dani Countryman is dead due to the immigration policy failures in the US.

For more information, please visit

Letter to the editor: Which side are you on?

I was just re-reading a letter that a friend had written to The Daily News (Los Angeles) on 12-27-06 entitled "Make Up Your Mind."

Here it is, with timeless advice for any generation:
Re: "Two wars, yet two hopes for peace" (Their Opinions, Dec. 25):

Rich Lowry quotes a Dec. 23, 1944, prayer: "Sir, this is (Gen. George) Patton talking. ... You have just got to make up your mind whose side you're on." The next day I was crossing the English Channel with the 66th Black Panther Infantry Division when one of our ships was hit by a German torpedo and more than 800 lives were lost.

I landed in Cherbourg on Christmas Day expecting to get into the Battle of the Bulge, but luckily for our division that did not happen. Unfortunately, there were approximately 80,000 casualties in that one battle among troops who were not as lucky. We are now in the most important war in our history, a war against an evil enemy whose goal is to kill all "infidels." The time has arrived when the media, politicians and the rest of us must decide whose side we are on.

Bill Zelenka
Granada Hills

Sunday, August 12, 2007

Bush, Hillary, Michael Moore said to greatly exaggerate stats on health care

© 2007

President Bush, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore and much of the mainstream media are incorrect when they claim the number of Americans without health insurance to be 40 to 50 million, with the actual number possibly under 10 million.

So says the Business and Media Institute, a Virginia-based division of the Media Research Center, a nonprofit watchdog organization designed to bring balance and responsibility to the media.

"The actual total is open to debate," says BMI analyst Julia Seymour. "But there are millions of people who should be excluded from that [high] tally, including: those who aren't American citizens, people who can afford their own insurance, and people who already qualify for government coverage but haven't signed up."

She notes government statistics also show 45 percent of people without insurance are not completely in dire straits, as they'll have coverage again within four months after switching jobs.

"Accounting for all those factors, one prominent study places the total for the long-term uninsured as low as 8.2 million – a very different reality than the media and national health care advocates claim," said Seymour.

The BMI report notes the number of the uninsured who are not U.S. citizens is nearly 10 million on its own, invalidating all the claims of 40-plus million "Americans" without health insurance.

In a May 31 speech, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said: "It's really indefensible that we now have more than 45 million uninsured Americans, 9 million of whom are children, and the vast majority of whom are from working families."

ABC News medical expert Dr. Tim Johnson cited the incorrect data as he praised a "bold" and "politically brilliant" universal health-coverage plan on the April 26 edition of "Good Morning America."

"It's bold because it does propose to cover all Americans, including the 47 million now who are uninsured, within five years," said Johnson.

Seymour also labeled Michael Moore's new film "SiCKO" as a "propagandumentary" and pointed out the director's website claims a very high number of uninsured: "There are nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance."

She says subtracting non-citizens and those who can afford their own insurance but choose not to purchase it, about 20 million people are left – less than 7 percent of the population.

"Many Americans are uninsured by choice," wrote Dr. David Gratzer in his book, "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care." Gratzer cited a study of the "nonpoor uninsured" from the California Healthcare Foundation.

"Why the lack of insurance [among people who own homes and computers]? One clue is that 60 percent reported being in excellent health or very good health," explained Gratzer.

"Proponents of universal health care often use the 46-million figure – without context or qualification. It creates the false impression that a huge percentage of the population has fallen through the cracks," Gratzer told BMI. "Again, that's not to suggest that there is no problem, but it's very different than the universal-care crowd describes."

The Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit group often quoted in news reports, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 8.2 million and 13.9 million, far less than the mantra of 40 to 50 million.

....[M]edia outlets incorrectly claimed the number of uninsured to be 40 to 50 million Americans. The actual total is open to debate. But there are millions of people who should be excluded from that tally, including: those who aren't American citizens, people who can afford their own insurance, and people who already qualify for government coverage but haven't signed up.

Government statistics also show 45 percent of those without insurance will have insurance again within four months after job transitions.

Accounting for all those factors, one prominent study places the total for the long-term uninsured as low as 8.2 million -- a very different reality than the media and national health care advocates claim.

The number of the uninsured who aren't citizens is nearly 10 million on its own, invalidating all the claims of 40+ million "Americans" without health insurance....

However, the Census Bureau report "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005," puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.

A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are "not a citizen." Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million....

Many of the same people pushing the incorrect numbers of uninsured Americans also claim that these people cannot "afford" insurance....

Katie Couric echoed those sentiment on the CBS "Evening News" May 23.

"The number of Americans with no health insurance is continuing to grow as more and more employers say they can't afford to offer group insurance…People who try to buy insurance on their own often find the price beyond their reach," said Couric as she introduced a two-part "investigation of the health insurance industry."

But according to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That's roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to "afford" health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326....

Subtracting non-citizens and those who can afford their own insurance but choose not to purchase it, about 20 million people are left -- less than 7 percent of the population.

"Many Americans are uninsured by choice," wrote Dr. David Gratzer in his book "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care." Gratzer cited a study of the "nonpoor uninsured" from the California Healthcare Foundation.

"Why the lack of insurance [among people who own homes and computers]? One clue is that 60 percent reported being in excellent health or very good health," explained Gratzer.... So what is the true extent of the uninsured "crisis?" The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million. That is a much smaller figure than the media report.

Kaiser's 8.2 million figure for the chronically uninsured only includes those uninsured for two years or more. It is also worth noting, that, 45 percent of uninsured people will be uninsured for less than four months according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The Comedy of Global Warming

by Mark Steyn

Something rather odd happened the other day. If you go to NASA's Web site and look at the "U.S. surface air temperature" rankings for the lower 48 states, you might notice that something has changed.

Then again, you might not. They're not issuing any press releases about it. But they have quietly revised their All-Time Hit Parade for U.S. temperatures. The "hottest year on record" is no longer 1998, but 1934. Another alleged swelterer, the year 2001, has now dropped out of the Top 10 altogether, and most of the rest of the 21st century – 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 – plummeted even lower down the Hot 100. In fact, every supposedly hot year from the Nineties and this decade has had its temperature rating reduced. Four of America's Top 10 hottest years turn out to be from the 1930s, that notorious decade when we all drove around in huge SUVs with the air-conditioning on full-blast. If climate change is, as Al Gore says, the most important issue anyone's ever faced in the history of anything ever, then Franklin Roosevelt didn't have a word to say about it.

And yet we survived.

So why is 1998 no longer America's record-breaker? Because a very diligent fellow named Steve McIntyre of labored long and hard to prove there was a bug in NASA's handling of the raw data. He then notified the scientists responsible and received an acknowledgment that the mistake was an "oversight" that would be corrected in the next "data refresh." The reply was almost as cool as the revised chart listings.

Who is this man who understands American climate data so much better than NASA? Well, he's not even American: He's Canadian. Just another immigrant doing the jobs Americans won't do, even when they're federal public servants with unlimited budgets? No. Mr. McIntyre lives in Toronto. But the data smelled wrong to him, he found the error, and NASA has now corrected its findings – albeit without the fanfare that accompanied the hottest-year-on-record hysteria of almost a decade ago. Sunlight may be the best disinfectant, but, when it comes to global warming, the experts prefer to stick the thermometer where the sun don't shine.

One is tempted to explain the error with old the computer expert's cry: That's not a bug, it's a feature. To maintain public hysteria, it's necessary for the warm-mongers to be able to demonstrate that something is happening now. Or as the Fort Worth Star-Telegram put it at the end of 1998:

"It's December, and you're still mowing the lawn. You can't put up the Christmas lights because you're afraid the sweat pouring off your face will short out the connections. Your honeysuckle vines are blooming. Mosquitoes are hovering at your back door.

"Hot enough for you?"

It's not the same if you replace "Hot enough for you?" with "Yes, it's time to relive sepia-hued memories from grandpa's Dust Bowl childhood."

Yet the fakery wouldn't be so effective if there weren't so many takers for it. Why is that?

In my book, still available at all good bookstores (you can find it propping up the wonky rear leg of the display table for Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"), I try to answer this question by way of some celebrated remarks by the acclaimed British novelist Margaret Drabble, speaking just after the liberation of Iraq. Ms Drabble said:

"I detest Coca-Cola, I detest burgers, I detest sentimental and violent Hollywood movies that tell lies about history. I detest American imperialism, American infantilism, and American triumphalism about victories it didn't even win."

That's an interesting list of grievances. If you lived in Poland in the 1930s, you weren't worried about the Soviets' taste in soft drinks or sentimental Third Reich pop culture. If Washington were a conventional great power, the intellectual class would be arguing that the United States is a threat to France or India or Chad or some such. But because it's the world's first nonimperial superpower the world has had to concoct a thesis that America is a threat not merely to this or that nation state but to the entire planet, and not because of conventional great-power designs but because – even scarier – of its "consumption," its very way of life. Those Cokes and cheeseburgers detested by discriminating London novelists are devastating the planet in ways that straightforward genocidal conquerors like Hitler and Stalin could only have dreamed of. The construct of this fantasy is very revealing about how unthreatening America is.

And, when the cheeseburger imperialists are roused to real if somewhat fitful warmongering, that's no reason for the self-loathing to stop. The New Republic recently published a "Baghdad Diary" by one "Scott Thomas," who turned out to be Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp. It featured three anecdotes of American soldiering: the deliberate killing of domestic dogs by the driver of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle; a child's skull worn by a U.S. serviceman as a fashion accessory; and the public abuse of a woman to her face, a half-melted face disfigured by an IED. In that last anecdote, the abusive soldier was the author himself, citing it as evidence of how the Iraq war has degraded and dehumanized everyone.

According to the Weekly Standard, army investigators say Pvt. Beauchamp has now signed a statement recanting his lurid anecdotes. And even the New Republic's editors concede the IED-victim mockery took place in Kuwait, before Pvt. Beauchamp ever got to Iraq.

They don't seem to realize this destroys the entire premise of the piece, which is meant to be about the dehumanization of soldiers in combat. Pvt. Beauchamp came pre-dehumanized. Indeed, he was writing Iraq atrocity fantasies on his blog back in Germany. It might be truer to say he was "dehumanized" by American media coverage. In this, he joins an ever lengthening list of peddlers of fake atrocities, such as Jesse MacBeth, an Army Ranger who claimed to have slaughtered hundreds of civilians in a mosque. He turned out to be neither an Army Ranger nor a mass murderer.

There are many honorable reasons to oppose the Iraq war, but believing that our troops are sick monsters is not one of them. The sickness is the willingness of so many citizens of the most benign hegemon in history to believe they must be.

As Pogo said, way back in the 1971 Earth Day edition of a then-famous comic strip, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." Even when we don't do anything: In the post-imperial age, powerful nations no longer have to invade and kill. Simply by driving a Chevy Suburban, we can make the oceans rise and wipe the distant Maldive Islands off the face of the Earth. This is a kind of malignant narcissism so ingrained it's now taught in our grade schools. Which may be why, even when the New Republic's diarist goes to Iraq and meets the real enemy, he still assumes it's us.

The one difference between the Far Right and the Far Left

First Rant

I think sometimes that I send mixed messages to some people. Because I have long hair and a beard, some people assume that I'm some left-wing Socialistic liberal. I'm not. I'm actually a middle of the road Llibertarian/Conservative who happens to be a Republican. However, just because I'm conservative, I don't succumb to the ideology of the Religious Right either.

Both the Marxist Left and the Religious Right are dangerous. The one difference between the Far Right and the Far Left, however, is that the Far Right is not out to destroy American sovereignty, and sell us out for the benefit of the Socialist Elites.

The Far Left is embroiled in a love affair with Marxism, both economic and cultural. They have never forgiven Ronald Reagan for bringing down the Soviet Union. They hate George Bush, because he stands in the way of the implementation of their plan for a Marxist Utopian society with them ruling the world; the Dictatorship of the Intellectuals. Bringing down America and turning it into a Totalitarian Socialist country is the ultimate revenge prize.

The events that are transpiring throughout the world today, are not new. Go back to 1848 with Marx and Engels, the 1880s with the Fabians, the early 1900s with the Anarchist and Marxist movements in Europe as well as America, the 16th and 17th Amendments to the US Constitution and the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the Wobblies in the 1920s, the New Deal in 1933, the Cold War, the Great Society social programs that almost destroyed Black America, Vietnam and the Communist antiwar movement, the rise of Islamofascism, Transnationalism, Multiculturalism, and the alliance between Marxism and Islamofascism with their shared goal of taking down the Western World.

We need to wake up and realize that there is a very strong "Fifth Column" alive and well here in America, that is bound and determined to tear us down for their collective elitist benefit at our expense. It transcends both political parties, and needs to be dealt with before these bastards get more of a stranglehold on our American way of life. We are the greatest country in the world, and I would like for us to remain that way. We do not need Socialism in America, and we don't need to become good global citizens under the control of a United Nations one world government.

Printing Money – Clarified

by Dick McDonald

My article this morning, “When in Trouble – Just Print More Money”, confused more people than it informed. I skipped over some basics – as I am known to do – and I need to repent and describe why Central Banks had to inject funds into the financial markets today to maintain “liquidity”.

1. This morning I used the term “Printing Money” as a metaphor. The amount of physical currency in circulation is just a tiny fraction of our “money supply”.

2. Our “Money Supply” is the total stock of money in the economy - currency held by the public plus money in accounts in banks.

3. Who determines what and how much our money supply is – the Federal Reserve Bank - a semi-governmental agency set up to independently increase or decrease the money supply among other things.

4. What is the purpose of a money supply? We need money as a medium of exchange. We can’t barter everything. Two chickens for a gallon of milk is too inefficient. and impractical.

5. What is the total money supply as it relates to the value of all assets that could be bought or sold? The broad definition of Money supply, M2, stood at $7, 244 Billion or just over $7 Trillion as of June 2007. I believe all the saleable assets of the country amount to more than $400 Trillion. Now real quick cash available for purchasing and normal business M1 only amounted to $1.4 Trillion.

6. Why do we care what the actual dollar amount of the money supply is? As we have to buy and sell things the volume of those transactions needs plenty of money in play to open and close those transactions.

7. Having a money supply is great but what if there isn’t enough to cover the transactions people decide to make. For example if something fantastic came along and everyone wanted to buy $10 Trillion of it? Well the offset would be the accounts of the sellers – their accounts would go up while the accounts of the buyers would go down - there would not be a credit crunch.

8. Then what is the big problem today when the German Central Bank had to pump $130 Billion into their market to avoid a liquidity crunch and our Fed had to follow suit with a much smaller amount. Well what happens is there maybe a huge money supply out there but that doesn’t mean that those holding the supply are going to give that money away if a segment of the market is in a crash and burn mode. They are going to keep a tight hold on their money and cause a “liquidity” crisis,

9. Well what segment of the market caused that problem - well the companies in the sub-prime mortgage lending business. They did a bad thing and lent money to many who couldn’t afford the homes they were buying. These corporations didn’t care – money was cheap – and tomorrow a day away. Well tomorrow came, the borrowers defaulted and there was no money to buy the stock of neither the careless corporations nor the CMOs –the Collateralized Mortgage Obligations.

10. What in tar nation is a CMO? It is a new “security” developed by Wall Street to monetize mortgages – “monetizing” meaning packaging a bunch of mortgages together and selling them as a bundle (one security) to the public. Many banks were instrumental in this arena – Wells Fargo for example. They put together many sub-prime operations, created CMOs and had Wall Street sell them to the public. Wells Fargo is now out of the business as they made their money and the investors are left holding the bag and suffering a liquidity problem. Like a man with the plague no one wants to buy those securities and the investors are screaming for the President to bail them out of their bad investment. Today [8/11/07] he said no. The Fed bought up some US Securities so banks had some extra cash to finance fire sales (the cash infusion to avoid the liquidity crisis)

11. So the Fed increased the money supply in the hands of the public – it bought back billions in US Treasury bonds thus increasing the cash (money supply) in the bank accounts of the sellers. As the sellers keep their money in banks, the banks had more dollars to use to fund fire sale purchases. Ergo the liquidity crisis is averted.

You see in America it is buyer beware. We go by the rules of the jungle in business –survive or perish. Our process is called “creative destruction” – when you fail you are removed from the game. Buying sub-prime mortgages may have seemed like a good bet if you had no knowledge of the boom and bust cycles of real estate – if you were aware of the greed of those delivering the cheap mortgage money to the unschooled, you didn’t buy CMOs.

Money, its Value and Its Home

Money is a commodity just like pork bellies and corn. It is traded on the commodity market and users and speculators on the exchanges set its value on a daily basis. The country issuing the money has a Central Bank that administers the total amount issued and supports the its value from time-to-time by entering the market and either buying or selling its own bonds

The country can institute policies that greatly affect the value of its currency. For example, Brazil had a 1 million to 1 devaluation of its dollar (the cruziero to crusado) twice in the eighties. A country can issue more of its currency and increase its money supply and thus reduce the value of its unit of currency.

If you ever wondered why the US Dollar these days is only worth 75 cent in foreign currencies it is because we increased the money supply to avoid a depression. The Fed reduced the interest rate dramatically and issued credits (money) to banks at a below-market rates thus increasing the supply of money, Many buyers were allowed to buy homes they couldn’t afford at normal interest rates. The Fed was issuing cheap money for banks to lend. So when the Fed tries to move rates up to a normal level we have these defaults and we have to reduce the inflated price of homes. This is the normal cycle we always go through in real estate.

When the Fed manages the supply of money it does the following:

To increase the money supply:
-It buys back US Treasuries thus flowing cash back into banks.
-It loans out money to banks at low rates increasing cash they can lend

To decrease the money supply :
-It sells US Treasuries to take money out of circulation.
-It raises rates charged to banks thus discouraging borrowing from the Fed

Liquidity of markets

To add liquidity to commodity markets, speculators who are neither producers nor users of a commodity are encouraged to speculate on the direction of the market. The money of speculators - both long and short - make getting in and out of market much easier for the producers and users. So when you hear about a liquidity crisis - a dysfunction exists in the market and the market will correct it. President Bush made a good call this morning. Let the market correct the problem.

Friday, August 10, 2007

Make the Poor Rich and America Wealthier

by Dick McDonald

I may have made a mistake putting “Make the Poor Rich” in the title of my book. Most poor people don’t consider themselves poor; most consider it a temporary condition. Those that pretend to care about the poor are generally more interested in the political power attached to their advocacy. In Los Angeles the City Council considers the poverty line at $56,000 a year. Yet only people making less than $20,000 a year in Los Angeles consider themselves poor.

I have authored the Rise Up Theory of Economics to rescue not only the poor but the middle class from the indignities of never having enough income during their working life to build independent wealth to retire on. To do that I had to build a theoretical economic engine that would power that vehicle. I found that repealing entitlements like Social Security and Medicare and replacing them with personal investment accounts was the best way to do it. The plan is simple.

Take the 15.3% of our income that is sent to the government by or for us as withheld payroll taxes and put them in our own personal account and invest them weekly in the capital markets (indexed Stock and Bond funds). We chose indexed funds for security and growth. We involuntarily invest each week during our working life and we end up with a million dollar nest egg when we retire. Even a poor man making a minimum wage of $7.25 a hour (no overtime)for 40 years will end up with a $1.2 Million nest egg that throws off $10,000 a month retirement check.

The personal account is a simple solution. It has not escaped the attention of politicians in Congress – each of them already has a personal account even though many tell their constituents that personal accounts will destroy Social Security and Medicare. No, politicians know all about personal accounts and their desirability; they all are presently enjoying the benefits they deny us.
Many people have been fooled into believing that personal accounts are too risky, too costly and the transition to that method would bankrupt us. Were any of that the case why has the Congressional plan worked so well. It not only covers Congressmen but also 3.3 million Federal workers. It has been operated for almost 20 years and it has proven that personal accounts like Rise Up proposes are not too risky, not too costly and appreciate into million dollar nest eggs.
The Rise Up Theory is a wealth creation tool. It is better than Trickle Down as it invites the poor and middle class as well as the rich to the party. In addition it annually pours 15% of the personal income of all working Americans into the capital markets which will fuel a geometric rise in America’s wealth thereby vastly improving our quality of life. In today's consumer-driven marketplace Americans spend all of their income and pour nothing into the capital markets.
If you are interested in Making the Poor Rich and America Wealthier visit You can get a free e-book there that explains the whole plan replete with graphs and tables to prove the mathematics; but don’t be fooled into believing that making the poor rich is some religious or social exercise. Rise Up is just the means to make America immensely wealthier, its culture fairer and free market capitalism more appealing to the rest of the world’s population.
Read about it here

The REAL "West Wing": White House Porn

"There were things that said 'teen,'" the White House computer expert said. "There was gay and bestiality stuff too."

Bestiality? "Donkeys, goats, dogs," explained the source, who later accessed some of the raunchier sites. "It's embarrassing."

Upon the discovery of the heavy XXX-rated traffic, White House security specialists undertook a "forensics" effort to ID the White House network users who were downloading -- and watching -- the videos on government computers and time.

Investigators, including White House Security Officer Charles Easley, looked at a number of variables to separate the habitual from the accidental Web-porn surfers. They scanned firewall logs over several weeks so they could see the repeat offenders. They also zeroed in on the large-byte files.

What they found was shocking.
"There were some significant names. I can say, yes, West Wing," said one White House source familiar with the investigation. "There were women too."

Many of the offenders also officed out of the Old Executive Office Building, including presidential personnel, sources say. One was in national security.
One of the worst offenders, however, was a senior White House computer-systems manager, who was reprimanded but allowed to stay in the White House after being treated for an "addiction" to porn. Sources say the porn abuser is so sensitive to the possibility of public exposure that he would likely take his own life if his name were disclosed here.

West Wingers downloaded gay, bestial, teen sex videos, jamming firewall system

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Hillary can't make up her mind about nukes, but criticizes Obama anyway!

NEW YORK (AP) - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago.

"I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in April 2006.


Washington Post

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Bad Gym

Democrats doing the work of the people:

Read it

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

REAL-TIME illegal immigration statistics is dedicated to people who are concerned with how their borders and immigration laws are being managed. It shows the realities of illegal immigration, while challenging popular myths.

Be prepared to be shocked.

Monday, August 06, 2007

Beyond UFO Secrecy (2nd revised & expanded edition)

[NOTE: The first edition from September, 2002 is currently available on starting at $50.00 -- this new one is only $17.96 !!!]

It is with great pleasure to announce "Beyond UFO Secrecy" (2nd revised and expanded edition) to be shipped in September.

Order your copy today, and receive 10% off the cover price!

Pre-order your copy of "Beyond UFO Secrecy" today and be the first in line to receive the book when it ships in September PLUS get 10% off the cover price!

Starting when he was just fifteen years old, John Greenewald, Jr. began researching UFOs and as a consequence of that work, the secrecy of the U.S. Government when it comes to unexplained aerial phenomena. Beyond UFO Secrecy is the result of that research. Through chapter after chapter, Greenewald presents jaw-dropping, real government documents that he has been able to obtain through the Freedom of Information Act. Here is undeniable proof that the government of the United States of America has been covering up UFO sightings and encounters for decades.

To order, visit:

Sorry Obama, we're not going to invade Pakistan.

“Let me be clear about one thing: Obama is full of it. This country is never—never—going to stage a major military action against Pakistan. Pakistan is a nation of 170 million people that has nuclear weapons and whose admittedly problematic and troublesome regime has, to some extent, cooperated with the United States in the war against Al Qaeda both in ways we know and ways we have no idea about. The concern that this strategically vital county might become an Islamic fundamentalist state is, should be, and will be paramount in every and all discussions about how to conduct the fight against Al Qaeda. What’s more, every serious person knows the United States won’t invade Pakistan, even with Special Forces—since the reason we cancelled the proposed action against Al Qaeda in 2005 is that it was going to take many hundreds of American troops to do it. This isn’t 15 people dropping like ninjas in the darkness. It’s an invasion, with helicopters and supply lines and routes of ingress and escape. It would have had unforseen and unforeseeable consequences, but it would have been reasonable to assume the Pakistanis would have turned violently against the United States and hurtled toward Islamic fundamentalist control. If the evil Bushitler Cheney Rumsfeld Monster wouldn’t do it, nobody will do it. And you can bet there isn’t a single person in line to run a Democratic State Department or Democratic Defense Department who would give the idea three seconds of thought. Obama is using Pakistan to talk tough, in the full knowledge that he will never actually pull the trigger. He is trying to put one over on the American people, which is certainly using the ‘audacity of hope’ in an entirely new way.” —John Podhoretz

Friday, August 03, 2007

Your Black Muslim Bakery

Whew! Att. Gen. Jerry Brown got out of being Mayor of Oakland just in time!!!

Oakland Post Editor Mr. Chauncey Bailey, 57, was shot several times at close range on Thursday morning at a busy intersection near the Alameda County courthouse here. He had been working on an article for the newspaper about possible links between the bakery and several killings in the area, said Walter Riley, a lawyer for the newspaper’s publisher, Paul Cobb.
7 Arrested in Death of Oakland Newspaper Editor

Just dhone piss off dhose muslims.