Saturday, October 27, 2007

Romney and the Christian Vote

In the ongoing Presidential race I find it astonishing that Evangelical Christians would even consider Mitt Romney as someone they would possibly vote for. Christianity and Mormonism are at complete odds with one another and I know that personally since I grew up Mormon. In fact, I would boldly say that Mormonism is an extremely Satanic religion, and here's why:

1)Mormons believe that Satan and Jesus are brothers. No I am not kidding! And this sort of belief is the highest of blasphemies ever uttered by a human being. BTW, this was the original lie that Satan told Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Lucifer has always wanted to be God-like, and equating himself with God through being brothers certainly elevates him into that position.

2)Mormons believe that they will become Gods. Again, I am not kidding. Of course your wife will always be your Goddess Wife, too, forever. A real bummer if you don't like your husband and want a divorce ;)

3)Mormons belief that the concept of the "Trinity" is Satanic. They utterly and completely deny the Christian concept of the Trinity, thus proving they are a cult and non-Christian.

4)Mormons believe that they are the only true church and every other church is Satanically evil. Only they will inherit the highest Heaven and Earth. This is their (foolish) belief.

5)Mormons hate the cross, they see it as a failure and they do not have crosses in any of their churches, nor do they wear them. Again, they hate the Cross of does Satan.

6)Mormonism was and still is extremely anti-women and anti-black. Although this is now shrouded within the church, it is still the truth and widely taught in Mormonism. They also secretly endorse polygamy and I am absolutely sure Romney will legalize it if he ever became President of the United States.

I plead with the Christian community to not endorse Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee. He recently won the Values Voters caucus but he should not even be considered by anyone who is a Christian. Mormonism is as Satanic cult, period. And I would know.....I am an ex-Mormon and now a born-again Evangelical Christian.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Revamping NASA

Okay, it's time to downsize NASA. In many ways this organization has performed very well, with the highlight of their efforts being the dramatic Moon landings in 1969-1972. Since then, NASA has completely rested on its laurells and saddling the American public with a multi-billion dollar series of boon-doggles called "Space Shuttles" which has had a 25% failure rate and killed 14 American Astronauts, the worst astronautic debacle in world history. However, NASA remained wedded to the Space Shuttle program instead of pursuing more logical, cost effective, and useful programs like constructing solar power satellites to feed Earth's energy needs or even more simple ideas like magnetic levitation launch instead of the horrifically expensive and dangerous chemical launches from Florida that NASA engineers and leaders seem to think is still "cutting edge". In fact, the only decent technology to come from NASA in the last 20 years was the Ion Engine, which only saw birth because most of the work didn't "challenge" funds for the Shuttle program.

Now is the time to boldly reshape NASA into the organization that it should be. Too hide-bound to actually produce significant results, this organization should be re-worked into a think tank only. A good example for this recommended change is the failure of adopting the "TransHab" by NASA leadership. A brilliant and innovative idea on getting large objects into space, NASA briefly funded the effort to put large inflatable Kevlar-like sections of the space station into space instead of using heavy metal frame objects. NASA killed the project in 2000 but a bright-eyed and innovative wealthy industrialist (by the name of Robert Bigelow) bought the rights to the TransHab and hired more than a dozen ex-NASA professionals to make it work. The rest is soon to be history.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Bigelow in many ways is the ideal guy to get the average American into space and make the use of space commercially viable. His efforts include building a hotel in space as well as microgravity labs in orbit, allowing scientists to do research for far less than the 100 billion dollar "International Space Station", and it will be done within 5 years. For a (cheap) fee of $12 million dollars you get to spend 4 weeks in orbit at his space hotel, built out of TransHab modules.

NASAs complete (and foolish) failure in utilizing TransHab, and Bigelows' showing them how it can be done, has proven the
ineffectiveness of overall NASA operations and leadership. Tom Clancy once said that NASA was an airline with 55,000 employees and 6 aircraft.....and he was right. NASA has become a complete waste of money and should be revamped.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Other very important efforts that should be pursued by NASA should be getting commercial solar power online, and abandoning the ridiculous and absurdly dangerous "trip to Mars" by humans (another 100 billion dollar boon-doggle). Robots can do the job of exploring our solar system just fine and in light of NASAs disastrous failures in the Space Shuttle program (and subsequent deaths) that organization should not be allowed to do manned missions until its safety record is significantly increased.

Finally, NASA should focus more on a more plausible and cost-effective program of building solar power collectors on the Moon. Americans are not going to continually fund NASA to the tune of tens of billions of dollars without seeing significant results from this group of scientists and leaders. Moon solar collectors are the real legacy that NASA can leave Mankind, and here's how:

The key to a prosperous world is clean, safe, low-cost electrical energy, according to University of Houston physicist David Criswell. And his idea for how to get it is literally out of this world. For more than 20 years, Criswell has been formulating the plans and the justification for building bases on the moon to collect solar energy and beam it through space for use by electricity-hungry Earthlings. Criswell estimates that by the year 2050, a prosperous population of 10 billion would require about 20 terawatts of power, or about three to five times the amount of commercial power currently produced.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

The moon receives more than 13,000 terawatts of solar power, and harnessing just one percent could satisfy Earth's power needs, he says. The challenge is to build a commercial system that can extract a tiny portion of the immense solar power available and deliver the energy to consumers on earth at a reasonable price. "A priority for me is getting people to realize that the lunar power system may be the only option for sustainable global prosperity," Criswell says.

Criswell's lunar-based system to supply solar power to Earth is based on building large banks of solar cells on the moon to collect sunlight and send it back to receivers on Earth via a microwave beam. Solar cells are electronic devices that gather sunlight and convert it into usable electricity. The microwave energy collected on Earth is then converted to electricity that can be fed into the local electric grid. Such a system could easily supply the 20 terawatts or more of electricity required by 10 billion people, Criswell says.

The system is environmentally friendly, safe to humans, and reliable since it is not affected by clouds or rain, either on the Earth or the moon, which essentially has no weather. The moon continuously receives sunlight, except once a year for about three hours during a full lunar eclipse, when stored energy could be used to maintain power on Earth, Criswell adds.

The system could be built on the moon from lunar materials and operated on the moon and Earth using existing technologies, he says, which would greatly reducing the cost of the operation. He estimates that a lunar solar power system could begin delivering commercial power about 10 years after program start-up. Technology under development at UH increases the options for successfully building a lunar power base. UH researchers at the Texas Center for Superconductivity and Advanced Materials (TcSAM) are developing nanotechnology techniques that could transform the lunar soil into solar cells.

"The raw materials needed to make solar cells are present in the moon's regolith," says Alex Freundlich, research professor of physics, who has examined lunar material to determine whether it contains the necessary ingredients for making solar cells. He, research scientist Charles Horton, Alex Ignatiev, director of TcSAM, and a team of NASA-JSC and industry scientists also have used "simulated" moon soil to determine how to go about manufacturing
the solar cell devices on the moon.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

"Our plan is to use an autonomous lunar rover to move across the moon's surface, to melt the regolith into a very thin film of glass and then to deposit thin film solar cells on that lunar glass substrate. An array of such lunar solar cells could then be used as a giant solar energy converter generating electricity," Freundlich says.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Finally, solar power beamed from the Moon can also feed a potential NASA sponsored Mars expedition using solar sail driven craft, dramatically cutting down travel time to the Red Planet and fuel costs.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Hopefully someone in Washington, D.C. will wake up to that fact that NASA is failing and dramatically change the entire organization for the betterment of all Mankind, instead of letting it falter and move into the past as another man-lead group that eventually and ultimately failed in its' mandate.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

No Diversity Here by Gary

America’s college campuses pride themselves on being bastions of diversity. Yet a new survey of academia finds that there is very little diversity of thought in the halls of “higher learning.” Sociology professors from George Mason University and Harvard University recently conducted a study of the ideological beliefs of more than 1,400 full-time instructors at 927 colleges.

According to one report, the study was “arguably the best-designed survey of American faculty beliefs since the early 1970s.” Not surprisingly it found that most college professors were liberals. But the extent to which the Left dominated the “American professoriate” surprised even me. Here are some results:

• Only 9.2% of college instructors identified themselves as “conservatives.”
• Only 20.4% of college instructors voted for George W. Bush in 2004.
• 75% of college faculty members agree that “abortion should be legal if a woman wants it for any reason.”
• 80% agreed that: “President Bush misled the American people about the reasons to go to war with Iraq.”

I wasn’t the only one shocked by the results. Larry Summers, Harvard’s former president and a former Clinton Cabinet member, remarked, “It made me think that there is even less ideological diversity in the American university than I had imagined. There is an overwhelming tilt toward the progressive side. Compared to the underrepresentation of other groups whose underrepresentation is often stressed, the underrepresentation of conservatives appears to be rather substantially more, perhaps.” In other words, conservatives are the “disadvantaged minority” on our college campuses!

Summers, of course, knows a thing or two about the intolerance of university “progressives.” He lost his job for daring to suggest that men and women are different and was denied a speaking engagement at the University of California-Davis. A man who denies the Holocaust can speak at Columbia, but a former Harvard president and cabinet secretary who believes there are real differences between men and women cannot speak at UC-Davis.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Al Gore, Philadelphia vs the Boy Scouts, and Free Trade

Al Gore's Nine Lies
Well, Al Gore won the Noble Peace prize this week (yawn). Apparently "world peace" and being an environmentalist are the same thing. However, a British court found that nine substantial "facts" in his propaganda piece "
An Inconvenient Truth" were false. It took me some time to find these "Nine Little Lies", which were inconveniently left out of his "documentary". It seems that (shock) Gore made his claims up. And not little things, either. The court enumerated 9 discrete non-truths that Gore perpetrates in his celluloid screed against other people using energy.

• The Government’s expert was forced to concede that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro and Lake Chad drying up were not caused by global warming.

• The film claims that ice core evidence proves that rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes temperature increases. The Court found that the evidence showed the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

• The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute Hurricane Katrina, et al. to global warming.

• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. The study actually said that four polar bears drowned, but because of a particularly violent storm.

• The claim that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age was judged a scientific impossibility.

• Global warming causing specie loss and coral reef bleaching? The Government could not find any supporting evidence.

• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The court found the evidence clear that Greenland would not melt for millennia even under warming.

• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence is that it is in fact increasing.

• The film suggests sea levels could rise by 20+ feet, displacing millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise a matter of centimeters over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

• The film claims that global warming caused rising sea levels prompting the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government could not substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Philly punishes Scouts over 'gay' issue
Raises rent for building use by $199,999 a year

Prompted by opposition to the Boy Scouts' rule disqualifying homosexuals as troop leaders, Philadelphia has forced the city's local chapter to pay fair-market rent of $200,000 a year for its city-owned headquarters. As WND reported in June, Philadelphia's city council voted to renege on a 1928 ordinance allowing the Cradle of Liberty Council to have its headquarters in a building on a parcel of public land "in perpetuity" for $1 a year. Fairmount Park Commission president Robert N.C. Nix announced this week the Cradle of Liberty Council must pay the $200,000 rent if it wants to remain in the building after May 31.

Jeff Jubelirer, spokesman for the Cradle of Liberty Council, told the Associated Press the higher rent money "would have to come from programs. That's 30 new Cub Scout packs, or 800 needy kids going to our summer camp."

"It's disappointing, and it's certainly a threat," he said.

Homosexual organizations previously challenged the Scouts' policy, but lost at the U.S. Supreme Court level, where a 2000 ruling confirmed that as a private group, the Scouts could set restrictions for their leaders. The activist groups then turned their sights on property arrangements such as in Philadelphia, where the Scouts had been using a parcel of public property, only with some maintenance costs, for years. Former WND columnist Hans Zeiger, who wrote a book about the Scouts and their battles, "Get Off My Honor: The Assault on the Boy Scouts of America," said the Boy Scouts since 1911 have been reaching out to the disabled, racial and ethnic minorities, Native Americans and inner city children with the lessons of right and wrong.

"When it comes to a Scout troop, sexual orientation is an issue that goes beyond differences in skin color or economic status. It affects such matters as tenting arrangements and the development of pre-teenage masculinity in a close-knit group of boys and men," he wrote. "The BSA's position against homosexuality is not just an issue of moral principle in an effort to affirm the Scout Oath and Law, it is a serious safety effort to prevent cases of sexual abuse and harassment," he wrote. "So here's what I say to the radical Left in the city where the Declaration of Independence was signed", Take away the funding. Seize the 75-year-old headquarters building. The Scouts can survive without it," he wrote at the time.

ME: This sort of harassment is illegal. The US Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts and it is outrageous and un-American to try and attack them in this way. It is clear that radical homosexuals are trying to bankrupt the Boy Scouts by getting them involved in lawsuits that they cannot afford. A despicable effort by gay extremists.

Free Trade vs Fair Trade
More and more I am finding that I am totally against "free trade". Having strong Republican roots, I normally believe that the free market should dictate trade and that individuals and companies are far better at developing and regulating business than the federal government. However, recent trade "agreements" have literally gutted the United States workforce, seriously imperiled middle class jobs in this country, and made multi-national corporations that got their start here into extremely wealthy "global businesses" with little loyalty to the United States. The real problem are trade deals like CAFTA.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

CAFTA is a trade agreement that will not help the United States. While rhetoric from the White House says that it will open up those countries to increased goods and services from the United States, is there anyone with a whit of intelligence that thinks that poor and under educated residents of Central America will be able to afford any goods imported from the United States? I seriously doubt it.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

All CAFTA really does is allow US companies greater access to Central and South American markets; stopping the spread of "the evils of capitalism" is one pf the main reason why leftist Democrats in the US Congress are opposing it. Cheap agriculture from Central America will also gut American farmers here in this country, and US industrial jobs will also flee to these countries where they can produce their goods more cheaply. Again this will badly hurt US jobs. Below is a chart of industrial jobs (just the industrial ones) that have been lost thanks to Bill Clinton's illegal signing of the NAFTA treaty.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Republicans are foolishly supporting CAFTA in large numbers, showing that they are radically out of touch with the American people and their own base (see chart below).

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Or take a look at "free trade" with China. Before they received permanent trade status with the United States, trade with China was fairly steady and yet with the passage of Most Favored Trade status (in 1997) China began a massive trade dumping campaign that literally cost the US over $200 billion in trade deficits every year; a happy result for China (see charts below).

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Free trade really isn't "free", so I now propose "fair trade" instead. This policy would not focus on getting wealthy US companies greater market access around the world but would begin to protect the products that we make here, especially food production. The US is importing more and more food from overseas because it is cheaper to do so, gutting the average US farmer in the process. Will the USA one day be unable to feed itself because it gets most or all of its' food from overseas? Probably, and stupidly I might add.

My proposed "fair trade" would also make at least 50% of a product costing more than $50 to be made or assembled here, thus increasing industrial jobs within this country. Other nations do something similar, so adopting it in the United States isn't such a bad idea. Otherwise all the industrial jobs will go overseas, and all we will have left is "service industry" jobs. Are we all just going to "service" one another? I hope that the government begins to take a serious look at trade deficits in the United States. Even if we added a 50% tariff to all incoming goods, everyone world-wide would pay it because the US is the largest consumer nation on the planet and everyone wants to do business with us (like everyone wants to sells goods to Walmart). The US Congress should oppose CAFTA and repeal NAFTA as well.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Apparently We're All Nazis

Localities Struggle With Illegal Immigration
The federal government’s failure to address illegal immigration in a serious, meaningful way has forced many states and localities to take up the issue. Last night, there was a very contentious meeting in Prince William County, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C., as supervisors debated a resolution to limit taxpayer-funded services to illegal aliens. As many as 2,000 people turned up to protest the resolution outside the county building. At a hearing a couple of weeks ago, many demonstrators showed up with Mexican flags. This time there were more American flags, but the protestors were chanting in Spanish. A local newspaper report noted that one of the protestors, “Janice,” had set up a table with “Malcolm X and Che Guevara biographies, the Communist Manifesto, and a newspaper entitled The Militant.”

The meeting began at 2:30 in the afternoon and went on for 12 hours as hundreds of county residents spoke for and against the resolution. Twelve hours later, at 2:30 a.m., the supervisors voted 7-to-0 to pass the resolution, leaving the remaining demonstrators stunned by the bi-partisan, unanimous vote.

While this is only one county in one state, this scene is being repeated all over the country, and I am certain it expresses the heartfelt concerns of most Americans. Although a few cities are moving in the opposite direction, the momentum at the local level is in favor of enforcing the law, and the reason is simple and obvious. The American people are not anti-immigrant or anti-Mexican or anti-Hispanic. The American people do, however, expect our laws to be obeyed and upheld, and they do expect legal immigrants to assimilate and “Americanize.” The American people oppose illegal immigration, and they oppose folks protesting under foreign flags and in foreign languages.

I wish those who favor lax immigration policies would stop accusing their fellow countrymen of racism. It is not only a weak defense of their position, but it is grossly insulting to the common sense of hardworking, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens, many of whom, in the post-9/11 world, see illegal immigration as a national security threat.

“Bush Is Hitler” Theme Revisited
The Left is revisiting an old theme in disparaging President Bush, our troops and the war in Iraq. The “Bush is Hitler” theme reached a crescendo during the 2004 elections when aired two online ads comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler. In November of 2003, George Soros compared America to Nazi Germany in an interview with the Washington Post. I could go on, but I don’t have enough space here. But just when you think that obscenity has passed, the Left comes out with another broadside that assaults our intellect.

Sunday, New York Times columnist Frank Rich reprised the “Bush is Hitler” theme with a new twist: We’re all Nazis. In a column entitled “The ‘Good Germans’ Among Us,” Rich begins by noting, “It’s time to confront the darker reality that we are lying to ourselves.” Then he goes on to denounce the “Gestapo tactics in our war” and concluded his rant with a plea to Congress to “challenge administration policy every day” because, “The longer we stand idly by … the more we resemble those ‘good Germans’ who professed ignorance of their own Gestapo.” So, once again, the Left repeats its mantra that we are the “bad guys” in this war and that by allowing it to continue the American people are “good Germans” turning a blind eye to Bush’s fascism.

Needless to say, I completely disagree with Rich’s analysis. There is lying, but it is by the likes of Rich. Those on the Left who believe America is the problem are lying to themselves and to the rest of us about the nature of this war.

Those who believe our troops are the “bad guys” are lying to themselves about the enemy we are fighting. Those who rail against an “American empire” are strangely silent about the Muslim caliphate bin Laden aims to create. Those who denounce Bush as Hitler demonstrate more disdain for their own government than they do the Islamofascists who demand we “convert or die.” Those who lose sleep fretting about U.S. torture at Guantanamo Bay were blissfully ignorant about the torture manuals of Al Qaeda in Iraq or the enslavement of women under the Taliban. It’s time we confront political correctness and muster the courage to defend Western Civilization!

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Limbaugh Laughs Last
As you know, Rush Limbaugh has been battling outrageous charges lobbed by congressional liberals that he recently demeaned the patriotism and service of American soldiers. The Left tried mightily to distort comments Limbaugh made about “phony soldiers,” and 41 Democrat senators sent a letter to Mark Mays, CEO of the company that syndicates Rush’s talk show, demanding Mays denounce Limbaugh’s comments. Mays understood this was a politically contrived controversy and refused to condemn Limbaugh, citing his long history of staunch support for our troops. He also turned the letter over to Rush, who has brilliantly turned the tables on his critics.

Limbaugh posted the letter on e-bay and promised to donate the proceeds of the winning bid to charity. The charity he chose is The Marine Corps -- Law Enforcement Foundation, an outstanding organization that provides financial assistance to the children of America’s fallen heroes. Since 1995, it has distributed nearly $30,000,000 in aid. (By the way, Limbaugh is a proud member of the Foundation’s board of directors.) But Limbaugh upped the ante, challenging his critics in Congress to “put up or shut up.” In addition to donating the entire winning bid to The Marine Corp – Law Enforcement Foundation, Rush challenged the 41 senators who signed the letter condemning him for insulting our troops to match the bid, which currently stands at $51,100, with their own donation to the Foundation. If these senators “put their money where their mouth is,” Limbaugh could raise in excess of $2 million for this great charity!

Since liberals are far more generous with other people’s money, I doubt the kids will ever see a dime from Rush’s detractors, but I would love to be proven wrong.

In the meantime, there is something you can do. The Left is determined to silence conservative talk radio by bringing back the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” Conservatives in the House, led by Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, who was once the host of a talk radio show, have introduced legislation to protect the free market of ideas with the Broadcaster Freedom Act. Not surprisingly, liberals who control the House are refusing to give the bill a vote. Please call Capitol Hill and urge your representative to sign the discharge petition for the Broadcaster Freedom Act. If 218 representatives sign this petition, the bill will get a vote on the House floor.

Ticket to Anywhere
Every American soldier going to Iraq or Afghanistan gets 15 days leave in the middle of a 12 month tour (18 days if it’s a 15 month tour). The army provides free round trip travel from Iraq (Kuwait, actually) to anywhere in the world.

Recently, as troops are in a second or third tour, they realize that they would relax more if they didn’t go home. Now, between ten and twenty percent of those taking the leave, are going somewhere else. Australia and Europe are favorite destinations. Sometimes the troops arrange to meet the family, or a girlfriend, at the alternate destination. The problem with going home, as many discover, is that the family is often not on vacation with them, and the “vacation” turns into a grind, as domestic matters are tended to, and visits to, or from, many kin, eliminate a lot of opportunity for relaxation.

What troops really want to do on these R&R (rest and recreation) trips is, well, just rest, and maybe recreate a bit. More are doing just that, as the percentage of those going somewhere besides home heads for 20 percent, mainly among the half of the troops that are not married.

Singapore Seeks India
Singapore has made a deal with India that will enable Singaporean military units to train in India. Earlier this year, a similar deal was made with Indonesia, although that one recently fell apart.

Singapore has a population of only 4.5 million, crammed onto only 704 square kilometers. There's no space for military training areas, and Singaporean forces travel as far as North America to train. While Indonesia is a neighbor, India is the regional superpower. It’s not called the Indian Ocean for nothing. But for India, Singapore is the regional financial superpower, with an enormous concentration of banks and financial institutions. Singapore, along with Malaysia and Indonesia, also sit astride the vital Straits of Malacca, through which most of the world’s oil exports pass. India has an interest in seeing the Malacca Straits remaining in friendly hands. Malaysia and Indonesia are both predominantly Moslem, and predominantly Hindu India is the target for many Islamic radical groups. So Singapore (largely Buddhist, Taoist and Christian) is seen as a natural ally. Singapore also is a democracy with a thriving economy, a combination that India shares.

Singapore is also becoming more defense conscious. It recently increased its defense budget from $6.5 billion, to $6.8 billion a year. That’s for an armed forces of 60,000 troops. On a per-capita basis, Singapore spends more on the military, and has more people in uniform, than the United States. The Singapore military is one of the best equipped, trained and led in the region. Singapore has the best educated and most affluent population in the region. With so much worth defending, Singapore is ready to take on any hostile neighbors (mainly Malaysia, which Singapore used to be part of.)

Friday, October 12, 2007

Terrorists support Hillary, want Giuliani Dead

Who do they guys in the caves do not want in the White House? Rudy Giuliani, thats who. Saying Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani "doesn't deserve to live," Palestinian terror leaders are threatening to harm the former New York mayor.

Multiple leaders of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades had harsh words for Giuliani, who in 1995 famously booted Arafat from an invitation-only concert at New York's Lincoln Center celebrating the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. Arafat attempted to crash the event, and when Giuliani saw the PLO leader and his entourage making their way to a private box seat near the stage, the mayor immediately ordered Arafat off the premises, calling him a murderer and a terrorist. Ala Senakreh, chief of the Brigades in the West Bank, stated that Giuliani "doesn't deserve to live or even to be mentioned."

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Giuliani explained his antipathy toward Arafat went back to his days as a federal prosecutor when he investigated several terrorist incidents to which the PLO was linked, including the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship. "Arafat has never been held to answer for the murders that he was implicated in," Giuliani said at a 1995 news conference.

With presidential primaries approaching and the race for the White House heating up, Muslim terrorist leaders in the Middle East have offered their endorsement for America's highest office, stating in a new book they hope Sen. Hillary Clinton is victorious in 2008. "I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq," stated Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group.

"The Iraqi resistance is succeeding," stated Hamed. "Hillary and the Democrats call for withdrawal. Her popularity shows that the resistance is winning and that the occupation is losing. We just hope that she will go until the end and change the American policy, which is based on oppressing poor and innocent people." Nasser Abu Aziz, the West Bank deputy commander of the Al Aqsa Brigades, declared it is "very good" there are "voices like Hillary and others who are now attacking the Iraq invasion."

"All Americans must vote Democrat," stated Jihad Jaara, an exiled member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

ME: Looking at the above quotes, I know who I'm gonna vote for.

The conservative faction within the Republican party appears to be unable to stomach a Guiliani Presidency, even if it means allowing Hillary to win the White House in 2008. This “Rudyphobia” ignores three key factors: Giuliani’s pro-family/anti-abortion ideas, his socially conservative mayoral record, and his popularity among churchgoing Republicans.

While Giuliani accepts a woman’s right to an abortion, he told Iowa voters on August 7: “By working together to promote personal responsibility and a culture of life, Americans can limit abortions and increase adoptions.” Among Giuliani’s proposals to achieve this end:

“My administration will streamline the adoption process by removing the heartbreaking bureaucratic delays that burden the current process.” Giuliani notes that sclerotic court schedules, exhausted social workers, and tangled red tape trap some 115,000 boys and girls in foster care and prevent moms and dads from adopting them.

Giuliani proposes that the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives promote organizations that help women choose adoption over abortion.

He would make permanent the $10,000 adoption tax credit.

Giuliani also would encourage states and cities to report timely and complete statistics to measure progress in abortion reduction.

This is no sudden conversion on the road to Washington. As mayor, Giuliani did nothing to advance abortion. That helps explains why, on his watch, total abortions fell 13 percent across America, but slid 17 percent in New York.

More significant, between 1993 and 2001, Gotham’s tax-funded Medicaid abortions plunged 23 percent.

Compared to the eight Democratic years before he arrived, adoptions under Giuliani soared 133 percent. Fiscal years 1987 to 1994 saw 11,287 adoptions; this grew to 27,561 between FY 1995 and FY 2002.

In another pro-family policy, Giuliani divested 78 percent of City Hall’s vast portfolio of confiscated, property-tax-delinquent homes. These were privatized and sold to families and individuals.

Giuliani proposed eliminating the city’s $2,000 marriage penalty. (As individuals, a husband and wife each would enjoy a $7,500 standard deduction, but only write off $13,000 if they jointly filed taxes.) He chopped it to just $400, letting joint-filers share a $14,600 deduction.

Giuliani also opposed gay marriage in 1989, long before it shot onto the radar. “My definition of family is what it is,” Giuliani told Newsday 18 years ago. “It does not include gay marriage as part of that definition.”

On Day 24 of his mayoralty, Giuliani jettisoned New York’s minority and women-owned business set-aside program. He later explained: “The whole idea of quotas to me perpetuates discrimination.” During the 12-year “Republican Revolution,” Congress deserted the fight for colorblindness.

Giuliani sliced or scrapped 23 taxes totaling $9.8 billion and shrank Gotham’s tax burden by 17 percent. This left parents more money for children’s healthcare, private-school tuition, etc.

On education, Giuliani launched a $10 million fund to support 17 new charter schools. Zero existed before he arrived.

Giuliani also ended tenure for principals, fought for vouchers, and torpedoed City University’s open admissions and social-promotion policies.

“I took a city that was also known as the pornography capitol of this country,” Giuliani told New Hampshire voters last June. “I got through a ground-breaking re-zoning that was challenged in the courts. We won. And now, if you go to New York City, you don’t have to be bombarded with pornography. And the city has grown dramatically — economically, physically, and spiritually.”

Having kept or exceeded his mayoral promises on taxes, spending, crime, welfare, and quality of life, why would he break his presidential promises on such a signature GOP issue? What kind of bait and switch do Giuliani’s foes truly worry he will attempt?

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Doctors Become State Spys Under Government Regulation

Universal Health Care
They’re watching you right now. They counted every beer you drank during last night’s Red Sox game. They see you sneaking out to the garage for a smoke. They know if you’ve got a gun, and where you keep it. They’re your kids, and they’re the National Security Agency of the Nanny State. I found this out after my 13-year-old daughter’s annual checkup. Her pediatrician grilled her about alcohol and drug abuse. Not my daughter’s boozing. Mine.

“The doctor wanted to know how much you and mom drink, and if I think it’s too much,” my daughter told us afterward, rolling her eyes in that exasperated 13-year-old way. “She asked if you two did drugs, or if there are drugs in the house.”

“What!” I yelped. “Who told her about my stash, I mean, ‘It’s an outrage!’ ”

I turned to my wife. “You took her to the doctor. Why didn’t you say something?” She couldn’t, she told me, because she knew nothing about it. All these questions were asked in private, without my wife’s knowledge or consent.

“The doctor wanted to know how we get along,” my daughter continued. Then she paused. “And if, well, Daddy, if you made me feel uncomfortable.” Great. I send my daughter to the pediatrician to find out if she’s fit to play lacrosse, and the doctor spends her time trying to find out if her mom and I are drunk, drug-addicted sex criminals. We’re not alone, either. Thanks to guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and supported by the commonwealth, doctors across Massachusetts are interrogating our kids about mom and dad’s “bad” behavior. We used to be proud parents. Now, thanks to the AAP, we’re “persons of interest.”

The paranoia over parents is so strong that the AAP encourages doctors to ignore “legal barriers and deference to parental involvement” and shake the children down for all the inside information they can get. And that information doesn’t stay with the doctor, either. Debbie is a mom from Uxbridge who was in the examination room when the pediatrician asked her 5-year-old, “Does Daddy own a gun?” When the little girl said yes, the doctor began grilling her and her mom about the number and type of guns, how they are stored, etc. If the incident had ended there, it would have merely been annoying. But when a friend in law enforcement let Debbie know that her doctor had filed a report with the police about her family’s (entirely legal) gun ownership, she got mad. She also got a new doctor.

In fact, the problem of anti-gun advocacy in the examining room has become so widespread that some states are considering legislation to stop it. Last year, my 7-year-old was asked about my guns during his physical examination. He promptly announced to the doctor that his father is the proud owner of a laser sighted plasma rifle perfect for destroying Throggs. At least as of this writing, no police report has been filed. “I still like my previous pediatrician,” Debbie told me. “She seemed embarrassed to ask the gun questions and apologized afterward. But she didn’t seem to have a choice.”

Of course doctors have a choice. They could choose, for example, to ask me about my drunken revels, and not my children. They could choose not to put my children in this terrible position. They could choose, even here in Massachusetts, to leave their politics out of the office. But the doctors aren’t asking us parents.

They’re asking our kids. Worst of all, they’re asking all kids about sexual abuse without any provocation or probable cause. The American Academy of Pediatrics has declared all parents guilty until proven innocent. And then they wonder why we drink.

Me: Mass is one of the systems much praise by the liberal left as a method for the nation to take up. In it parents are criminals that need to be monitored by government agents and the Doctors have become those agents. They target the young and unknowing in a attempt to get information on you. Information that they will use if they the state feels you are bad. This is what happened under the Nazi's and the Communist and it is a system the Liberals want to install nation wide.

Code Pink attack Military Recuitment Office... Iraq War
While the protest that you staged in front of my office on Wednesday, Sept. 26th, was an exercise of your constitutional rights, the messages that you left behind were insulting, untrue, and ultimately misdirected. Additionally, from the comments quoted in the Berkeley Daily Planet article, it is clear that you have no idea what it is that I do here. Given that I was unaware of your planned protest, I was unable to contest your claims in person, so I will therefore address them here. First, a little bit about who I am: I am a Marine captain with over eight years of service as a commissioned officer. I flew transport helicopters for most of my time in the Marine Corps before requesting orders to come here. Currently, I am the officer selection officer for the northern Bay Area. My job is to recruit, interview, screen, and evaluate college students and college graduates that show an interest in becoming officers in the Marine Corps. Once they’ve committed to pursuing this program, I help them apply, and if selected, I help them prepare for the rigors of Officer Candidate School and for the challenges of life as a Marine officer. To be eligible for my programs, you have to be either a full-time college student or a college graduate. I don’t pull anyone out of school, and high school students are not eligible.

I moved my office to Berkeley in December of last year. Previously, it was located in an old federal building in Alameda. That building was due to be torn down and I had to find a new location. I choose our new site because of its proximity to UC Berkeley and to the BART station. Most of the candidates in my program either go to Cal or to one of the schools in San Francisco, the East Bay, or the North Bay. Logistically, the Shattuck Square location was the most convenient for them. Next, you claim that I lie. I have never, and will never, lie to any individual that shows an interest in my programs. I am upfront with everything that is involved at every step of the way and I go out of my way to ensure that they know what to expect when they apply. I tell them that this is not an easy path. I tell them that leading Marines requires a great deal of self-sacrifice. I tell them that, should they succeed in their quest to become a Marine officer, they will almost certainly go to Iraq. In the future, if you plan to attack my integrity, please have the courtesy to explain to me specifically the instances in which you think that I lied. Next, scrawled across the doorway to my office, you wrote, “Recruiters are Traitors.” Please explain this one. How exactly am I a traitor? Was I a traitor when I joined the Marine Corps all those years ago? Is every Marine, therefore, a traitor? Was I a traitor during my two stints in Iraq? Was I a traitor when I was delivering humanitarian aid to the victims of the tsunami in Sumatra? Or do you only consider me a traitor while I am on this job? The fact is, recruitment is and always has been a part of maintaining any military organization. In fact, recruitment is a necessity of any large organization. Large corporations have employees that recruit full-time. Even you, I’m sure, must expend some effort to recruit for Code Pink. So what, exactly, is it that makes me a traitor?

The fact is this: any independent nation must maintain a military (or be allied with those who do) to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. Regardless of what your opinions are of the current administration or the current conflict in Iraq, the U.S. military will be needed again in the future. If your counter-recruitment efforts are ultimately successful, who will defend us if we are directly attacked again as we were at Pearl Harbor? Who would respond if a future terrorist attack targets the Golden Gate Bridge, the BART system, or the UC Berkeley clock tower? And, to address the most hypocritical stance that your organization takes on its website, where would the peace keeping force come from that you advocate sending to Darfur? Finally, I believe that your efforts in protesting my office are misdirected. I agree that your stated goals of peace and social justice are worthy ones. War is a terrible thing that should only be undertaken in the most dire, extreme, and necessary of circumstances. However, war is made by politicians. The conflict in Iraq was ordered by the president and authorized by Congress. They are the ones who have the power to change the policy in Iraq, not members of the military. We execute policy to the best of our ability and to the best of our human capacity.

Protesting in front of my office may be an easy way to get your organization in the headlines of local papers, but it doesn’t further any of your stated goals. To conclude, I don’t consider myself a “recruiter.” I am a Marine who happens to be on recruiting duty. As such, I conduct myself in accordance with our core values of honor, courage, and commitment. I will never sacrifice my honor by lying to anyone that walks into my office. I will never forsake the courage that it takes to restrain myself in the face of insulting and libelous labels like liar and traitor. And, most importantly, I will never waver from my commitment to helping individuals who desire to serve their country as officers in the Marine Corps. Captain Richard Lund is the United States Marine Corps’ officer selection officer for the northern Bay Area

Me: This is the Anti War group at it's best, they want to silence those they are against, defame the hard work of others. This is the crowd the Democrats have been courting and they wonder why they are see, as weak on defense.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Islamic Court Endorses Abduction of Girls
MAIDUGURI, Nigeria, October 9
It has been more than a year since Allabe Kaku Chibok lost his three daughters because he became a Christian – paradoxically, he lost custody of them only after his ex-wife died. An Islamic court in this city in the northern state of Borno granted custody to Chibok’s wife’s Muslim relatives after a chain of events that began in November 2004, when he allowed his daughters to attend the funeral service of their mother; she had divorced him when he left Islam. The girls stayed for a week with Muslim relatives at his former wife’s house, but when Chibok arrived there to take them to school, he found that a retired female police officer, Hajiya Maryam Aliyu, had helped his ex-wife’s Muslim relatives abduct them. Not knowing the whereabouts of his Christian daughters, Chibok on December 8, 2004 petitioned the Borno State police commissioner, asking that his three daughters be found and rescued from Aliyu.

Chibok, now 50, had kept custody of the children after Malama Botul Grema divorced him in 1996, and when she remarried in 2000 he had maintained custody of Zara, now 14, Fati, now 12, and 11-year-old Aisha. A member of the Church of Christ in Nigeria in the Gambaru area of Maiduguri, Chibok told the police commissioner that his efforts to rescue the girls had met with the blunt assertion that he was no longer capable of being their father because he had become a Christian. Police did not recover his daughters, and after four months Chibok on March 9 again reminded the commissioner of the urgent need act, asserting that Aliyu “be ready to face the wrath of law in order to serve as a deterrence to others who may because of sentimental reasons indulge in such acts again.”

Maiduguri Muslims had threatened to visit harm on Christians should Chibok not back down from his demand for the return of his daughters. “I am in this critical circumstance calling upon your humble self to urgently act before any ugly situation that is capable of creating chaos, anarchy or any break-down of law and order that ensues,” Chibok wrote. “Frankly, I have done all that is required of a law-abiding citizen in this circumstance.”

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Sharia Rule
Sensing danger, the Rev. Joshua Adamu, chairman of the Borno State chapter of the Christian Association of Nigeria, quickly sent an urgent letter to the police commissioner decrying the threat against Christians. Police still did not act, Chibok told Compass. “The police commissioner told me that the case of the abduction of my daughters is a family matter and cannot therefore be handled by the police,” Chibok said. “The refusal of the police to intervene is just because the police commissioner is a Muslim too.”

Aliyu and the family of his former wife then summoned Chibok to appear before a sharia (Islamic) court, Borno Upper Sharia Court, to rescind his claims for custody. Aliyu and two Muslim relatives of his former wife, Hajiya Asabe and Muhammed Grema, filed claims against Chibok asking for custody of the girls.

Appearing before the court, Chibok recalled how the girls were taken from him. “I don’t know whether the children are alive or not,” Chibok testified. Aliyu admitted to the court that she abducted the girls in accordance with their mother’s death-bed wishes. In the hospital, Botul Grema had asked Aliyu that the Christian girls be taken away from their father so they would be raised as Muslims. Aliyu also told the court that the Muslim community authorized her to take the girls into her custody, saying Islamic leaders “authorized me to come with the children to my house, and that they would come and receive them from me,” Aliyu testified.

Islamic lawyers called for Aliyu and the Muslim relatives of Chibok’s ex-wife to obtain custody of the three girls, as under Islamic law the girls were now Muslims and could not be allowed to live with their Christian father. On August 4, 2006, Borno Upper Sharia Court I ruled that under Islamic law a non-Muslim father cannot be a custodian to his children if the mother of his children is Muslim – or, in this case, if the deceased mother’s relatives are Muslim. “Based on the principles of Islam, the father has no right to keep the children,” ruled Alkali Usman Gambo. “The father cannot be the custody [sic] of his children until it becomes [clear that there is] nobody from the mother’s relative[s] before the burden will be shifted on the father.”

Facing the bitter contradiction that he had retained custody of the children at divorce but lost them at his wife’s death, Chibok told Compass that he is hoping Christians and the Nigerian government will help him recover his daughters. “I appeal to my Christian brethren to assist in rescuing my daughters,” he said. “I also appeal that those who can influence the Nigerian government to secure the release of my daughters should please do so.”

Me: This is yet another way Islamic states oppress the Christian population, and the world turns a blind eye to it.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Important (and Positive) Changes on how the US President is Elected

The series of Presidential primary elections and caucuses is one of the first steps in the long, complex process of electing the President of the United States of America. The primary elections are run by state and local governments in the states which do not have caucuses instead. A state primary election usually determines which candidates for president will be supported by that state at the national convention of each political party.

Iowa and New Hampshire set the tone for the campaign—and allow an outsider to topple the favorite. In recent elections, the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary have garnered over half the national and international media attention paid to the entire selection process. New Hampshire jealously guards its first-in-the-nation status, (although it is being challenged in 2008).

Great attention is paid to the results of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary; however, critics, such as Mississippi secretary of state Eric Clark, and Tennessee Senator William Brock, point out that these states are not representative of the United States as a whole: they are overwhelmingly white, more rural, and wealthier than the national average, and neither is in the fast-growing West or South. For example, New Jersey and Montana, which are the last states to have their primaries, usually end up having no say in who the presidential candidate will be.

* January 14—Iowa Caucus
* January 15—Michigan Primary
* January 19—Democratic Nevada Caucus / Republican South Carolina Primary
* January 22—New Hampshire Primary This is a tentative date; by state law it must be changed to be first in the nation.
* January 29—Florida Primary
* February 5―West Virginia Republican Presidential Convention / California Primary / Arizona Primary
* February 7―Republican Nevada Caucus
* February 12—Pennsylvania Primary
* February 19―Washington State Primary

Think about this: two highly unrepresentative, presumptive small states (Iowa and New Hampshire) have the lion's share of power in picking a Presidential nominee for both parties, one of whom will control the White House and likely owe them to a greater degree than the other 98.6% of America's population in the other 48 states.

You may enjoy this state of affairs if you are form the Buckeye State or the Granite State but if you are from any other state in the union you probably
understand the unfairness of this tilted system--an imbalance that has its roots in the Constitution's total absence of guidance on political parties and presidential selection.

Michigan's primary change this week change was supported by large majorities in the state House and Senate and backed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm and it was a significant move into fairer democracy. Four Democratic candidates have withdrawn from Michigan's Jan. 15 presidential primary, leaving what amounts to a beauty contest for front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and a handful of lesser-knowns. Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson filed paperwork Tuesday, the deadline to withdraw from the ballot, said Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State's office. A fourth candidate, Joe Biden, said in a statement that he was bypassing the primary.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Florida, which moved its primary to Jan. 29 -- also in violation of national Democratic Party rules -- was sanctioned last week with the loss of all its delegates. But longtime political observers say it's an empty threat that the delegates wouldn't vote or count at the national convention.

Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, predicted that no matter what the national party threatens, the votes of Michigan and Florida Democrats will count at the national convention. The states have too many delegates to ignore, he said.

"I think it's all a bluff," he said. "They realize this system is insane, but they don't have the clout to do it."

What politicians need to realize is that most people in the USA today realize the "system" isn't working, that America's political system is unresponsive and fairly un-democratic, and is tradition-bound to the past. Think about it: why would all the local politicians move their primaries and ignore "national rules", and are threatened by the national political leadership of both parties? Because the local politicians are far more responsive to the American people and are acting appropriately. And I am all for this sort of positive change. Iowa and New Hampshire should not run the show to elect the most important office in the United States, the President.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Some Random Quotes
There is no passion like that of a functionary for his function. - Georges Clemenceau

The world is round; it has no point. - Adrienne E. Gusoff

The cat could very well be man's best friend but would never stoop to admitting it. - Doug Larson

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is stoned to death. - Joan D. Vinge

Sunday, October 07, 2007

Matthew Shepard: No Hero

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Were Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, the two "homophobic" desperados that killed a helpless gay Wyoming University student (Matthew Shepard) in a fit of "gay panic", actually the brutal calculating killers that the media portrayed them to be? No, they weren't, and here is the evidence that the mainstream media (MSM) continually suppresses:

The best evidence now suggests that McKinney, the actual killer, had previously expressed no homophobic sentiments. One good reason why is that he was an active bisexual himself. Apparently, he and Shepard, who had a known drug problem, had done meth together a number of times.

On the night in question, McKinney went on a meth-fueled rampage. He pistol-whipped the vulnerable Shepard for drug money, drove into town to rob Shepard's apartment, and then pistol whipped a stranger who got in his way, fracturing his skull in the process.

Matthew Shepard died just four weeks before the 1998 mid-term elections. For the next four weeks, much to their own surprise, the killers were presented to America as poster children for the religious right and one more reason not to vote Republican.

Of course, McKinney and Henderson were not products of Christian culture, but of its antithesis: a crude, soulless, fatherless, sexually libertine, drug-addled, pop culture. Those who controlled the narrative, however, could shape it as they saw fit.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Also, the fact that Matthew Shepard was HIV+ positive is rarely spoken of deeply concerns me, and that fact that if he had unprotected sex with anyone they would eventually die a brutal and agonizing death years later is never discussed. In fact, the female police officer who was first on the scene and tried to help Shepard received cuts on her hands and after mingling with the blood of Matthew she must now have HIV tests for the next few years, possibly the rest of her life, to make sure she doesn't get AIDS. It is these sorts of facts that get conveniently left out by the media which disturb me so much, and why the MSM cannot be trusted anymore.

Finally, the thing that really bothers me is that my aunt was murdered in Rock Springs, Wyoming and the killer only got 5 years in prison for her death. BTW, she was killed in front of her own two minor children! So if you kill a woman and mother you get 5 years, but if you kill a gay person you get life in prison?! This is outrageous! Also, the gay community has ruthlessly and disturbingly used the death of Matthew Shepard to try and pass nation-wide "hate crimes" legislation. I deeply oppose such laws because it takes the concept of "equality under the law" and throws it right out the window. When we as a nation say that when you get the death penalty or more substantial jail time because you kill people of a certain ethnic or social background, then there is no equality. I despise the efforts of the radical left that says somehow the death of a gay man is more important than that of my aunt, a defenseless woman and mother. This is injustice, pure and simple.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Random (and good) Quotes from the Web

Rules. Hmmmm...Who likes rules the best? Who likes rules and perfect conformity to rules the best? Lessee. Liberals? Conservatives? All them other guys? Oh, I know. Fascists. Fascists love rules and conformity and uniformity Especially. Lockstep. Oddly, fascism is both the ultimate form of civilization and the deadend of any civilization. A healthy civilization is a dynamic equilibrium between fascism and anarchy. Flying the flag is a favorite fascistic entertainment.
Breaking the rules is a favorite anarchistic entertainment. I'd say that Mr. Andres, by doing both, is a healthy and applaudable individual. May his spirit prosper. As GBW once said, "The reasonable person tries to adapt himself to his circumstances. The unreasonable person tries to adapt his circumstances to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable person." Bravo, everyone.

On why global warming is religion on the left
Because we can't prove them wrong for a thousand years, and I think the other thing about it is, it goes back to Chesterton’s statement: that when people stop believing in God, the problem isn't that they believe in nothing, it's that they'll believe anything. And that's what you constantly see with people who don't believe in God: They're always imitating the most ridiculous, primitive religions. And it is like a primitive religion, thinking if we just change these lightbulbs, we can change the temperature of the ocean. It's the craziest thing! Even primitive people wouldn't believe something that silly.

It's just amazing. Simply amazing. Never in American history has there been an actual, home-grown movement literally dedicated to sabotaging American war efforts and seeing American troops fail and die, since the Nazi 5th Column movement of World War 2. And that doesn't seem too far from what we have now, in the bodies of such politicos as Carl Levin, John Conyers, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a number of RINOs. At least, back in the old days (WW2), if we caught them, they were arrested, tried and convicted. Now, they've actually acquired political power, and have a base of idiots to keep them there (like Murtha, who is constantly re-elected, in spite of a long history of deception and corruption).

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." --Norman Thomas in 1969, former U.S. Socialist Party Presidential Candidate

*Fascism is any government system or government policy that you don't like! And a fascist is a leader or politician you don't like. It makes perfect sense, no?

*The thing that gets me about yutz's like this is when pressed to say exactly how we are a fascist state they come up with DU/Kos talking points. I then ask "so if we are such a fascist state then why are people allowed to write/publish against the government?"

"This country is in a moral free-fall. For over two generations, the public school system has taught in a moral vacuum, expelling God from the school and from the government, replacing him with evolution, where the strong kill the weak, without moral consequences and life has no inherent value. "We teach there are no absolutes, no right or wrong. And I assure you the murder of innocent children is always wrong, including by abortion. Abortion has diminished the value of children. "Suicide has become an acceptable action and has further emboldened these criminals. And we are seeing an epidemic increase in murder-suicide attacks on our children. Brian Rohrbough, son of Dan who was killed at Columbine

If Congressional Approval Falls Below 10%, Do We Get to Have Another Revolution?
The latest Zogby poll shows that only 11 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing. This is contrasted with Bush’s underwhelming 29% approval rating. These polls show that Americans of all political stripes are losing faith in their government. Congress’ all time low (prior to this poll) is 18% approval. Do we get to disband the government and write a new Constitution if it falls below 10%? For comparison, most foreign governments suffer a coup at these approval ratings.

The partisans on both sides will likely use this poll to show how the other party is ruining America. That’s what they do and most people have adopted this approach.

It doesn’t matter who has the most coherent policy, it just matters how you can spin things to show the other party as a moral evil. This line of thinking misses the point.

The poll shows that the average American and the average politician are simply disconnected. The concerns of the average American aren’t represented inside the Beltway and it shows that what’s huge news on the cable news channels and in the latest partisan shouting matches isn’t what matters most to Americans. And America is fed up.

It’s not about a single issue, it’s about the sum total of all the issues that America cares about that go ignored or are actively worked against by our politicians. Our candidates are pre-selected by party insiders where people who aren’t “team players” (i.e. party hacks) are actively discouraged from running. Sure, they’ll take your money but they want yes men in office.

We have representatives from every corner of this country in D.C. Yet all issues are effectively nationalized. How does a representative vote on a particular bill? With his caucus, not with the intentions of his constituents. There are rare exceptions, some of those are honest principled men, many are just media whores who like the press image of being a “maverick”. And America is fed up.

This poll shows a population that is conditioned to think that the government will fix the big problems. The sub-prime mortgage fallout (which hasn’t begun fully to set in) is a great example. Sure, we had banks with overly liberal lending habits that gave money away to people not likely to repay it. They should know better considering most every economic crisis in history was started by bad lending practices. However, the people taking out those loans aren’t even on the radar. People don’t think that the average citizen should be responsible for making bad economic decisions, it’s the government’s job to bail them out. Yet, the government consistently fails at doing so.

Katrina is another great example. Governmental failures abounded at every layer of government. The mayor did not use all the assets he had to protect his people.

Over two-thirds of the police department walked off the job (and got free vacations to Vegas). Gov. Blanco and the Louisiana state government were more interested in embezzling disaster money than buying the equipment they needed. When it all came to a head because the governor and mayor did everything wrong, FEMA wasn’t up to the task to clean up after them. The government told the people they would protect them, but it was the people who took care of themselves who came out of Katrina unscathed.

In every direction one looks, one can find a promise of government to help and that promise being broken. Corruption is rampant in both parties and the talking points that one party is more corrupt than another are simply absurd. Looking at the field of 2008 presidential contenders, it looks like it’ll be more of the same. How much lower do approval ratings need to fall until Americans insist that things change?

Community rule of thumb says: when everybody owns it, nobody takes care of it.