Ron Paul says buy Gold & Silver

Confused as to what silver to buy ?

	2009 MS 70 ANACS Silver American Eagle
	This is the most popular Numismatic Collector Coin in America! Perfect to the eye and perfect for your collection.  This 2009 ANACS MS70 Silver Eagle Dollar is flawless, making it an impeccable addition to your collection just about any way you look at it. Graded MS70 by ANACS - in Mint State condition with the highest possible grading of 70 Obverse (front) shows Lady Liberty striding forward in a flowing gown and wrapped by the American flag Reverse depicts a heraldic eagle Measures approx 1.6' in diameter Weighs approx. 1 oz. Contains approx. 1 oz. fine silver Encapsulated - for preservation and presentation
	$119.95 Quantity:

 Click here http://www.numisnetwork.com/goldbulls

Women's Viagra

A drug that failed to fight the blues could be the female answer to the little blue pill Viagra, the lead North American investigator analysing tests of the drug said.

Women who took the drug flibanserin when it was being tested as an anti-depressant said it didn't help them beat the glums, but did give them "an increase in libido that they liked," John Thorp told AFP.

Lack of desire is the most common sexual problem in women aged 30 to 60, just as erectile dysfunction, for which Viagra is one of a choice of treatments, is the most common sexual disorder among men in the same age bracket, Thorp said.

"Men remain interested but can't act or perform properly and women lose interest," said Thorp, one of the investigators analysing data from three clinical trials of the drug.

"So where Viagra and other erectile dysfunction medications work in the blood supply, flibanserin works in the brain," he said.

In light of the women's reactions to flibanserin, the German drug company that first tested the drug as a treatment for depression, Boehringer Ingelheim, several years ago began exploring the possibility of it being the female answer to Viagra.

Ironically, flibanserin and sildenafil, the active ingredient in Viagra, were both being tested as treatments for another condition when they were found to have their happy sexual side-effects.

Sildenafil was being tested by scientists at Pfizer Laboratories as a cardiovascular drug and for its ability to lower blood pressure.

But during the tests, researchers found that "people didn't want to give the medication back because of the side effect of having erections that were harder, firmer and lasted longer," Dr Brian Klee, senior medical director at Pfizer, told AFP.

Clinical trials to test flibanserin's efficacy in raising the level of sexual desire in women were held in Canada, Europe and the United States.

Nearly 2,000 pre-menopausal women were given flibanserin or a placebo for 24 weeks and asked to report back to researchers or make diary entries on six variables, including the number of satisfactory sexual encounters they had and their level of sexual desire.

The studies found that 100 milligrams a day of flibanserin resulted in "significant improvements" in the two variables.

Flibanserin is currently an investigational drug and is only available to women taking part in clinical trials, which may be depressing news for the up to 26 per cent of American women who report diminished sexual desire, according to Thorp.

Can a Flower Make You Smarter?

Dear Health Conscious Reader,

Doctors in Europe know about its miraculous IQ-boosting power and recommend it to millions. Yet in the U.S. it remains nothing more than a garden flower

I’m talking about the periwinkle - otherwise known as Vinca minor. It’s more than a source of beautiful blue in your garden - it’s the source of a miraculous brain-booster called vinpocetine.

Vinpocetine is high-octane fuel for your brain. It’s so effective against fading mental powers that it’s widely used in nearly 50 countries, including Hungary, Germany, Poland, Russia, and Japan.1

Doctors in the Americas don’t seem to know much about it. That’s a shame, because it’s a safe, natural brain booster.

Vinpocetine is one of Nature’s most potent antidotes to the forgetfulness, brain fog, and confusion we normally associate with aging.* You won’t have to worry about losing the mental power you’ve enjoyed your whole life.

It unleashes your full powers of attention, concentration, and memory and puts you in back in control of your mental function.*

Stop Starving Your Brain

The beauty of vinpocetine is that your brain knows exactly what to do with it. Start taking it and it goes to work right away.

That’s because in your early years, your brain makes it on its own. Think of it as your body’s “brain food.”

Once you hit early adulthood, though, you don’t make as much. You make even less as the years go by.

Starved of this key nutrient, your mental abilities begin to fade.

Start feeding your brain again, and they come roaring back.

This isn’t just about staying sharp. Vinpocetine is a healing force for both your brain and your body. Here’s what it will do for you:

• Help reduce senility and age-related dementia.2

• Boost blood flow to your brain.3

• Support nervous system health.4

• Lower your risk of brain health problems.5

• Keep your brain stocked with the “feel-good” compound dopamine, which helps you direct your thinking and behavior - and stay motivated.

To understand the key to vinpocetine’s power, you need to know just how much power your brain really needs.

Get Mental Energy Where It’s Needed Most

You already know that with each beat of your heart, blood pumps out through every vessel to all the organs of your body, delivering vital nutrients, fuel, and oxygen. This is the fire of living.

Believe it or not, your “gray matter” needs the most blood of any organ in your body, including your heart. Fully one seventh of the blood from every single heartbeat goes to the brain. It’s no wonder. As your body’s “command center,” it burns through a lot of energy.

Are you getting enough oxygen from blood flow alone to stay sharp, focused, and mentally agile? Chances are you’re not.

Depending on your age, diet, and overall health, you could be losing brain cells every minute. 

Unlike most other types of tissue—for instance, your muscle cells, which can keep on going pretty well even without fresh oxygen—your brain cells are completely incapable of “anaerobic metabolism.” In plain English, they die when they don’t get enough air.

Even a brief lack of oxygen to brain tissue can cause immediate brain damage.

Of course, as you age, blood flows less efficiently to your brain. You can sidestep this problem and get your brain cells revved up again with vinpocetine.

Vinpocetine works in three remarkable ways:

1. It boosts blood circulation in your brain. It zeros in on your brain’s tiny blood vessels so they can deliver oxygen more efficiently. It even helps your brain use oxygen better.

2. Since it keeps your brain cells charged up with high oxygen levels, it increases the amount of time your brain can go without fresh oxygen. That means it can keep your brain cells from dying.*

3. It helps your body preserve its energy for a robust brain and power for healthy living.* It preserves something called “adenosine triphosphate” or ATP—the fuel every cell of your body needs to function.

In Repeated Studies It Turns “Brain Fog” into Brainpower!

Researchers split people with chronic “brain fog” into two groups. One took 10 mg of vinpocetine every day for a month, then 5 mg for another two months.6The other group took a sugar pill.

A separate three-month trial confirmed that vinpocetine actually speeds up the rate of blood flow in your brain—even when you’re just sitting there. Of two groups, the one on vinpocetine got smarter, tested better, and appeared more steady and calm.7 

Another study published just last year in the prestigious Journal of Neurological Sciences found that in people suffering from limited stroke damage, it had an almost magical healing effect. It directed blood right to the affected areas.8

Thinking and overall brainpower got a significant boost from vinpocetine in another clinical trial involving a 12-week long oral treatment. “Psychometric” tests gauged levels of higher brain function, with additional monitoring of participants’ overall mental health. After three months, the increase of blood flow velocity while at rest was significantly higher in the vinpocetine group.

Start Ramping Up Your Brainpower Today

After years of research and testing, my vinpocetine formula has finally arrived in our offices. It took a while to find a source that met my standards for quality and purity.

Now you can have the same ironclad defense against fading mental powers that millions of people enjoy overseas… delivered right to your front door.

It meets my standards for quality and purity. And the advance reviews coming in from my patients have been outstanding.

They tell me they’re more productive in every area of their lives. They say they retain new information and knowledge more easily. Everyday tasks are a cinch. They remember things like stopping at the grocery store on the way home, calling a relative on their birthday. They even finish the Sunday crossword in record time.

As always, you get my NO-HASSLE, FULL PROTECTION Guarantee. That means you can try Vinpocetine with no risk or worries…

If it doesn’t work for you, that’s fine. Just let me know, and I’ll refund your credit card for the FULL amount. All it takes is a few “mouse clicks” at the computer.

You'll even get back the money you paid for shipping and handling. It doesn't get any better than that.

Now is the time to preserve and protect your mental power. To get started, just click on the links below. 

To Your Good Health,

Al Sears, MD

Gore Hoaxing

Citizen Gore

Gore’s Manipulation Allowed By Mainstream Media Climate Change Bias – Continues With CRU

 By Dr. Tim Ball    CanadaFreePress.com     11-23-9   

“It is a characteristic of all movements and crusades that the psychopathic element rises to the top.” Robert Lindner

How much longer will Al Gore get a pass from the mainstream media? A little bit longer if their failure to react to the devastating revelations of files hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia is a measure. Their behavior reflects how most, especially from the left, have abetted the scientists who deliberately perverted climate science.

We now know Gore’s errors are based on the global warming fraud orchestrated by a few scientists centered round Phil Jones, Director of the CRU. Emails between those climate scientists, identified by Professor Wegman as publishing together and peer reviewing each other’s work disclose the complete manipulation of climate science and the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Bishop Hill provides a useful summation of some of the outrageous comments and actions. What is missing is the nasty vindictive tone that permeates almost every item.

What are the mainstream media going to do? How can they ignore the biggest scandal in science history and then claim any credibility? We already have a strong indication because they either don’t cover it or claim, like Andrew Revkin of the New York Times, there is nothing of consequence. No surprise because he was in direct communication with the CRU gang. Other left wing outlets have similar reports such as the Guardian in England and Harrabin at the BBC. Delingpole at the Telegraph identifies some vapid responses.

Gore Gets a Pass

Gore appears on TV or radio programs, but with tight terms of engagement. He appears alone, will not debate and likely defines the pattern of questions. He has no qualifications in the subject, has never published any peer reviewed papers, yet is given total credibility. Indeed, he is not even asked about it. He has produced material on climate with multiple errors but made no attempt to correct them. He attacks with slurs and invective anyone who dares to question his claims or the errors. Who are the flat-earthers now? He is never asked about the money he has made exploiting the errors. He is never asked about funding, affiliations or sponsors. He is never asked about his unjustified condemnation of the lifestyle of citizens while his is more profligate than theirs (carbon footprint). When asked it is usually done to allow him to gloss over the facts. 

Despite this he obtains invitations to high-rated mainstream programs and is treated with deference and fawning attention by supposedly unbiased hard questioning media. He’s allowed to puff, preen and pontificate from a position of moral superiority. His recent appearance on Larry King’s program is a perfect example of unjustified pandering and lousy journalism.

Interviews are carefully selected to reduce any chance that he face people who know and understand the science. It’s easily controlled on radio or television, but meetings are a bigger problem. Keynote speeches are relatively easy because it’s normal to have no questions. Some groups are supposedly friendly and expect questions. Such was the case when Gore spoke to a recent meeting of Environmental Journalists. He expected only favorable questions. At the meeting Phelim McAleer, an independent documentary producer, confronted Gore about inaccuracies in “An Inconvenient Truth.” Gore dodged the question and McAleer’s microphone was disconnected when he pressed for an answer.

The media clip of the event played everywhere but apparently did Gore little harm among mainstream media. They also avoided the real story that Gore clearly assumed he would not be challenged. This is an absolute condemnation of the journalistic integrity of Environmental Journalists – punctuated by shutting down the microphone. McAleer appears naïve about the behavior of the mainstream media despite having witnessed the machinations within the science. He said, “What I am surprised at is at the conference of environmental journalists, the reactions of the journalists was to shut down the journalists and protect the politician.”

Errors Remain Uncorrected

Gore is back on the circuit pushing his latest book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis. Apparently designed for Copenhagen, it offers solutions to the non-existent problem Gore falsely promoted. In all interviews Gore is at his arrogant best, an attitude reflected in a quote on a page at the start of his book. He quotes the Bible, Deuteronomy Chapter 30, Verse 19,  “I’m offering you the choice of life or death. You can choose either blessings or curses.” Clearly Gore sees himself as the one offering you the choice. This is not surprising as Shakespeare said, “Even the Devil can quote the scriptures in his arguments.” In one interview about his book, “He points to pages on the spiritual dimension of climate change, the idea that God gave man stewardship over the earth, and that preserving it for future generations is a sacred obligation.” But God also told us to tell the truth. Not only does Gore not tell the truth but he denies the truth. In a Newsweek interview he said, “Facts are not enough.”

The definition of delusional is, “An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument.” You decide.

Unequal Treatment

People with views opposing Gore’s are rigidly held to the truth, required to produce accurate facts and are quickly attacked for even the slightest error. Martin Durkin’s documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle had one small error in the first release. It was immediately and viciously attacked. Durkin withheld the DVD version until that was corrected. Gore’s errors are still uncorrected and he is still training apostles to show the movie and push his false message.
Opponents are rarely invited to mainstream media programs. When they are invited, their qualifications are immediately questioned. The nature of their participation in climate and publications are challenged. They’re asked about errors they’ve reportedly made or been accused of making. Funding and income are prime targets.  Guilt by association with individuals and groups are targeted.

Why isn’t Gore challenged in a similar fashion? Have people confused the person with the office? He’s no longer Vice President or a politician, yet he seems to get the privileges of the former and allowed laxity with the truth of the latter. He was given a free pass when he appeared before the Senate and Congress. He asked for an unprecedented 30 minutes and then violated the rules completely by submitting his testimony just 1 minute before his House appearance and a few hours before the Senate hearing instead of the required 48 hours.

Gore’s Turn For the Hot Seat

It’s time he was forced to answer questions. He is a private citizen and should be treated in the same way by the mainstream media. A court case would confront him with questions on which he cannot prevaricate. He’d probably decline to answer, but then he is exposed. A fraud charge is probably the best because he is acknowledged through his Oscar and Nobel Prize as the most renowned messenger of the scientific falsehoods. He, more than anyone, has perpetuated the myth that CO2 is causing climate change and falsely labeled it a pollutant. He was involved in a meeting at the White House in 1998 with Bill Clinton, Lord Brown of BP and Ken Lay of Enron, apparently laid out the strategy for carbon credits. He then, by all accounts, has profited as much as anyone from the carbon credit market.

Mr. Gore quotes the Bible, he should consider a public view of his actions in light of the following; “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.” Matthew 7:15 (American Standard Bible).

 
“Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.  Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.”

Dr. Ball can be reached at: Letters@canadafreepress.com

Lying Global Warming Advocates

Pompous advocates of global warming hysteria, are liars, and/or gullable fools

Knocking Down the Global Warming “House of Cards”

 By Jim O'Neill    CamadaFreePress.com   11-23-9

Today we’re seeing that climate change is about more than a few unseasonably mild winters or hot summers. It’s about the chain of natural catastrophes and devastating weather patterns that global warming is beginning to set off around the world…the frequency and intensity of which are breaking records thousands of years old.—Barack Hussein Obama

What does the recent release of documents surrounding “Climategate” mean?  It means that the “deniers” who have been claiming that the global warming Chicken Littles are wrong—are right. 

It means that the pompous advocates of global warming hysteria, are liars, and/or gullable fools. 

The increasingly irrelevant LSM (Lame Stream Media) are in full “damage control” mode.  They are doing an admirable job of trying to ignore the stink, but even the New York Times has had to break down, and say something.

They begin an article on the subject by noting that “Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics….” 

“Causing a stir among global warming skeptics.”  As if only politically incorrect “deniers,” would bother to be interested in such things—the rest of you sheeple can go back to grazing.

The “documents hacked from a computer server at a (ho-hum) British University,” refer to files downloaded from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia, England. 

Why are these files important?

Because the CRU has supplied much of the data that the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has based its erroneous conclusions on.  And it is largely the IPCC’s conclusions, that Al Gore has used to justify his claims about global warming.  And it is Al Gore’s claims about global warming, that have so effectively fueled the ongoing Marxist/Communist attempt to take over the world under the auspices of the UN. 

That’s why.

The emails and files downloaded from the CRU, show that there has been a blatant, long-term effort to, in Dr. Tim Ball’s words, “pervert science in the service of social and political causes.” 

The “scientists” at the East Anglia CRU, are not valid scientists at all.  They are political ideologues, who distorted and manipulated data, withheld information, and knowingly promoted false findings—in collusion with others, outside of the CRU.  All of them are wolves in (new) sheep’s clothing.

Fraudulent global warming hysteria

Because of the billions of dollars that taxpayers worldwide have been bilked for, due to the fraudulent global warming hysteria, it seems to me that somebody (or several somebodys) ought to be going to jail.

The IPCC is also directly related to the UN’s FCCC (Framework Convention on Climate Change).

According to Wikipedia, “A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UNFCCC, an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change.”

UN’s Agenda 21, and its “sustainable development” doctrines, that are responsible for the plight of the farmers in California

In 1992, at the UN’s “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, President Bush Sr. signed the U.S. on board for the FCCC treaty.  This has led directly to the UN’s Agenda 21 protocols being implemented throughout America’s government—top to bottom.

It is the UN’s Agenda 21, and its “sustainable development” doctrines, that are responsible for the plight of the farmers in California, and the fishermen along the Gulf Coast, among many other damaging perversions of common sense. 

Let me say that I am all for being ecologically responsible.  That we should be good stewards of the planet, is something that I take as a given.  But I do not confuse Agenda 21, with good stewardship of “spaceship earth.”

Agenda 21 is designed to wipe out America’s middle-class, cripple our food producing capacity, control our waterways, minimize our industrial output, diminish our energy grid, and take away our freedom.  Agenda 21 has been at work for some time, and is nearing its final stages of completion.

When I say that Agenda 21 is designed to wipe out America’s middle-class and take away our freedom, I mean that almost all Americans will be (by our current standards) poor, and controlled by a planetary police state, run by a small, wealthy, Global Elite.

Oh it’s coming, trust me.  Been enjoying the force-feeding of Obama-Care down America’s throat?  Well, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Don’t let these lying weasels slink away from the revelations coming out of the CRU.  Don’t let them downplay this scandal, or slip away into “climate change,” or some other vague, vaporous generality. 

We need to hold their feet to the fire on this one.  We need to hit them with the truth.  Hit them in earnest, hit them hard, and hit them often. 

The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, conservative talk radio, and blogs, need to wake up any Americans who are still unaware of what’s barreling down on us.

By unceasingly shining the light of truth on the lies coming out of the East Anglia CRU—with a bit of luck, and God’s grace, the whole evil “house of cards” may well come tumbling down.

Laus Deo.

P.S. How’s that swine flu “world-wide pandemic,” “national emergency” going?

Born in June of 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Jim O’Neill proudly served in the U.S. Navy from 1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team Two.  A member of MENSA, he worked as a commercial diver in the waters off Scotland, India, and the United States. In 1998 while attending the University of South Florida as a journalism student, O’Neill won “First Place” in the “Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in Journalism Ethics Award.  The annual contest was set up by Carol Burnett with the money she won from successfully suing the National Enquirer for libel. 

Jim can be reached at: Letters@canadafreepress.com

Climategate: Global Warming Hoax

The hoax has its roots in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Global Warming Meltdown: Climategate!

 By Alan Caruba   CanadaFreePress.com   11-23-9  

For those of us “skeptics” and “deniers” who have been jumping up and down, pointing at the Sun, and saying, “See, it’s the Sun that determines how warm or cool the Earth is. See it? Up there in the sky?” The truth about some of the scientists behind the global warming hoax has finally arrived.

The hoax has its roots in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an instrument of the United Nations Environmental Program, for whom global warming was the open sesame to achieving a one-world-government by scaring nations into signing a treaty that would control their use of energy, the means of producing it, and require vast billions to be sent to less developed nations in exchange for “emitting” greenhouse gases.

Energy is called “the master resource” because, if you have lots of it, you can call your own shots. If you don’t, you are condemned to live in the dark and keeping people in the dark about the global warming hoax was essential.

For years the IPCC has been controlled by a handful of the worst liars in the world, utterly devoted to taking actual climate data and twisting it to confirm the assertion that the Earth was not only warming dramatically, but that humanity was in peril of rising oceans, melting glaciers and polar ice caps, more hurricanes, the die-off of countless animal species, and every other calamity that could possibly be attributed to “global warming”, including acne.

So, around November 20, when some enterprising individual hacked into the computers of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), making off with thousands of emails and documents that demonstrate the level of collusion and deception being practiced by its scientists.

It’s a climate hoax expose that some are calling the revelations a “little blue dress” while others are comparing it to the Pentagon Papers. It has also been dubbed “climategate.”

As James Delingpole wrote in the Telegraph, one of England’s leading newspapers, “Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more” was revealed in the 61 megabites of confidential files released on the Internet for anyone to read.

The conspirators had a visceral hatred for scientists who challenged their phony statistics and climate data, but they also agonized over the difficulties of hiding a long established climate cycle such as the Medieval Warm Period. At one point it was left out of a graph that famously became known as “the hockey stick” because it depicted a ludicrous sudden rise in warming, ignoring the previous natural cycle.

At the heart of the revelations were the intense efforts to ensure that no legitimate scientist, particularly those dissenting from the various IPCC reports, would be allowed to participate in the peer review process. Peer review is an essential element in science as it permits other scientists to examine and test the data being put forth to substantiate a new interpretation or discovery.

The IPCC reports were the basis by which popular media such as National Geographic, Time and Newsweek magazines could spread the lies about a dramatic “global warming”, passing them off to an unsuspecting and scientifically illiterate general public. At the same time, the lies were integrated them into school curriculums and maintained by Hollywood celebrities, politicians and others, duped or deliberately ignorant.

To this day, otherwise legitimate news media outlets continue to trumpet and repeat absolute nonsense about “global warming” like brain-dead parrots.

Now that Hadley CRU and its conspirators have been exposed, there truly is no need to hold a December UN climate change conference in Copenhagen; one in which nations would be required to put limits on “greenhouse gas emissions” even though such gases, primarily carbon dioxide, have nothing to do with altering the Earth’s climate.

And that is why you are going to hear more about “climate change” and far less about “global warming.” Hidden in such discussions, intended to justify legislation and regulation, is that the Earth’s climate has always and will always change.

It is, for example, shameful and deceitful for the EPA to claim carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” that should be regulated. The same applies to “cap-and-trade” legislation with the same purpose.

Billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on studies of global warming and poured into agencies such as NASA that have lent credence to the global warming hoax.

“The U.S. taxpayer has much exposure here in the joint projects and collaborations which operated in reliance upon what the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit was doing,” says Christopher C. Horner, a longtime global warming skeptic. “There are U.S. taxpayer-funded offices and individuals involved in the machinations addressed in the emails, and in the emails themselves.”

Horner, the author of “Red Hot Lies”, said that the initial revelations “give the appearance of a conspiracy to defraud, by parties working in taxpayer funded agencies collaborating on ways to misrepresent material on which an awful lot of taxpayer money rides.”

The climate, defined as long term trends, and the weather has nothing whatever to do with human activity and suggesting it does reveals the depth of contempt that people like Al Gore and his ilk have for humanity and those fleeced by purchasing “carbon credits” or paying more for electricity when their utility does.

The East Anglia CRU charlatans have been exposed. Most certainly, the United Nations IPCC should be disbanded in disgrace. It belongs in a museum of hoaxes right beside the Piltdown Man and the Loch Ness Monster.

Alan has a daily blog called Warning Signs. His latest book is Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy.  

Alan can be reached at acaruba@aol.com

Global Warming Hoax

The great 'global warming' hoax

Roger Hedgecock   WorldNetDaily.com   11-23-9

While all eyes focus on the unfolding drama of the "health-care reform–health-insurance reform–jobs bill," another critical part of the "Change America" plan just took a torpedo midships.

Some 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents from the Climate Research Unit at the U.K.'s University of East Anglia (where the "world's leading climate scientists work") have been leaked. The blogosphere is on fire – cover-up, falsified studies, intimidation of skeptics. It's all there.

The Cap and Trade bill to lower our standard of living and subject our consumer choices to government diktat is based on the public agreeing that what we once called "progress" threatens the planet with destruction and we must stop it. It is a matter of accepted dogma among the collectivist lemmings of the Left that the Earth is warming because of our insatiable appetite for food, clothing and shelter – and cars, big-screen TVs and a zillion gadgets run by electricity.

The industries producing these things produce "greenhouse gas emissions," threatening mass starvation, drought and hurricanes – a slow motion "2012" that must be stopped by decreasing "greenhouse gas emissions." Cows will belch less if we stop eating them, that sort of thing.

The collectivist Left in academia, media and politics got away with imprinting this dogma on the popular mind only because generations of government-school graduates have been successfully stripped of knowledge of history, geology or climate science. There was a time when "science" was a rigorous search for truth that required an open skeptical mind, double-blind studies, multiple repeated experiments, peer-reviewed published data and a strong belief that if you are proven wrong, someone else got it right and the world will benefit. This approach was good enough for Pasteur, Newton and Ben Franklin, but not for today's crowd.

Earlier generations knew that the Earth's climate was constantly changing, affected by numerous influences, some known (sunspots, Earth axis wobble, El Nino), some presumed still to be discovered. Historians knew that European history was influenced by periods of warming and cooling. The Vikings didn't call it "Greenland" because it was covered (as now) with ice. Geologists knew that, in geologic time, the Sahara Desert was a tropical rainforest, glaciers covered Chicago and numerous other wonders.

While people could certainly affect the environment around them to their benefit by agriculture, animal husbandry and industry (this used to be thought of as an indication of intelligence), our grandfathers would have thought the idea that puny mankind could affect the climate of the whole planet absurd.

Whatever change did occur in what was then called "the weather" would require mankind to adapt – a trait of our species that our ancestors celebrated. How times have changed.

Today, Al Gore leads the pack asserting the truth of anthropogenic global warming. Complicated computer models spewed forth Gore's PowerPoint presentation, which begat Oscar and Nobel. And it came to pass that the Prophet Gore gave stirring lectures to masses of the adoring initiated, traveling from place to place in a private jet, from hotel to speech in a caravan of SUVs whose motors were kept running to warm (or cool as the season required) while Gore lectured the world on the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions.

Neither the computer models nor Gore could explain the fact that from 1998 to 2008 (the last full year of surface temperature readings), the Earth did not keep warming (as the models had predicted). It actually cooled. Neither the computer models nor Gore could explain the dramatic drop in the number and severity of Atlantic hurricanes when both the models and Gore had predicted ever more Katrinas every year.

Now this. The final nail in the "climate change" dogma's coffin?

The CRU e-mails expose a priesthood in inquisition mode, masquerading as scientists and protecting their preconceived conclusions from any contradictory data or the questioning of skeptical scientists. For example, the leaked (or hacked) e-mail correspondence includes fundamental challenges to the validity of Siberian tree-ring studies that helped "prove" anthropogenic global warming, and supported the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report – a report that Gore has waved everywhere like a bloody shirt, saying the debate on global warming "is over."

While the blogosphere buzzed all weekend with the contents of these e-mails (see for example powerlineblog.com) and analyzed what many began calling the biggest scientific scandal of all time, the Old Media went into protection mode. This scandal threatens the whole scientific rationale underpinning the campaign for world government, higher taxes and a decreased standard of living for all (except the Chinese). You'd never know it in the Old Media. The New York Times reported it as a third-rate e-mail burglary "causing a stir among global warming skeptics."

Move on, nothing to see here.

The Washington Post ("Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center") quotes the "researchers" at the CRU saying "that the e-mails have been taken out of context." No analysis of the "context" is provided.

The BBC assured its listeners that "the police have been informed" of the break-in. Just another hacker story. Ho hum. Just as the scientific method has suffered a reversion to dogma in the climate-change campaign, so too the "journalism" of the Old Media has degenerated into laughable propaganda.

The real story here cannot be so easily buried. Climate-change prophets threaten millions with poverty if their schemes become law. A preview can be seen in the "man-made dust bowl" of Central California where water has been cut off to one of the most fertile and productive agricultural areas on Earth to "protect" a small fish that one judge thinks might be harmed if the water was used to grow food.

Roger Hedgecock is the longtime top-rated radio talk host in San Diego, Calif., on KOGO and, more recently, a nationally syndicated daily radio host heard already in 75+ markets and on XM Satellite. His show streams live on WND from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Eastern and then again in the following three hours on tape. Listeners may also tune in to his show at Radio America. He is the author of "The 2008 Conservative Voters Field Guide," a series of books on 2008 issues. Guide No. 1-Immigration and No. 2-The War are available at the WorldNetDaily store. Learn more about Roger at www.rogerreport.com.

Global Warming Fraud

The global warming fraud exposed

Vox Day   WorldNetDaily.com   11-23-9

I have an old T-shirt that I used to wear from time to time during my techno days with Psykosonik. Eric Bloodaxe of the Legion of Doom created it in honor of the "Hacking for Jesus" tour, complete with a listing of ISP addresses that were supposedly hacked during the LOD's Internet World Tour of 1991. But last week, an anonymous hacker achieved a feat that will long be lionized by computer pirates, libertarians and genuine scientists alike, as he broke into the Climate Research Unit's computers, copied 172 megs of data, and then released it into the digital wild.

Information wants to be free. And this information desperately needed to be freed.

Upon perusing the searchable archive of the online data, most of which consists of e-mails being exchanged between a small coterie of climate-change charlatans who presume to call themselves "scientists," it soon becomes very clear why the anthropogenic global warming–climate-change industry has been so deeply and unscientifically secretive about the data they have used to reach their conclusions of imminent climate-based apocalypse. First, the data simply does not support their conclusions. Second, they know the data doesn't support their conclusions. Consider this amazing admission by Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of the 2001 and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Scientific Assessment of Climate Change:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong."

The degree of intellectual and scientific malfeasance is simply astounding, and will shock even those who have been anthropogenic global warming–climate-change skeptics from the beginning. Jay Currie has chronicled how the e-mails offer substantive evidence of the following:

1. the suppression of data

2. the destruction of data subject to FOI requests

3. the organized subversion of the peer-review process

4. the blacklisting of a scientific journal for political reasons

Even worse, it is clear that the fundamental reason underlying their Chicken Little approach to the matter is not scientific at all, but ideological. As John Hindraker of Powerline points out, what these "scientists" are doing is politics, not science, as they are cherry-picking a few useful facts to reach a predetermined conclusion instead of simply collecting the observable evidence, examining all of it, and only then reaching conclusions. By their own admission, their science is "mission-oriented." But what is that mission? Another e-mail provides the answer:

"One particular thing you said – and we agreed – was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalization agenda driven by organizations like the WTO."

As climate skeptics such as Ian Wishart, author of "Air Con," have warned, the hacked e-mails indicate that the climate-change industry is merely the pseudoscientific tool of the international fascists presently ensconced in various national governments who are seeking to evade the limits of national sovereignty by creating a post-democratic system of global governance. The fake science is supposed to provide an emergency which will justify the establishment of a system of global taxation and regulation, which will provide the means for the transfer of power from the sovereign nations to supranational organizations which have been formed to regulate economic and political activity in the name of saving the planet.

Ein Klima, ein Reich, ein Führer

Even if the science behind the climate-change industry had been legitimate, it defies all reason and human history to attempt to argue that the only way to save the planet is to convert mankind into the hapless slaves of a global dictatorship. And since, as the Climate Research Unit correspondence shows, the science is rife with fraud and fiction, there is simply no excuse for viewing "climate change" as anything but the shameless propaganda arm of those who wish to crown themselves the kings of Gaia.

Ship Pollution

How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world

• By Fred Pearce   DailyMail.co.uk   11-23-9

Eco expert: Fred Pearce is an environmental consultant to New Scientist magazine

Last week it was revealed that 54 oil tankers are anchored off the coast of Britain, refusing to unload their fuel until prices have risen.

But that is not the only scandal in the shipping world. Today award-winning science writer Fred Pearce – environmental consultant to New Scientist and author of Confessions Of An Eco Sinner – reveals that the super-ships that keep the West in everything from Christmas gifts to computers pump out killer chemicals linked to thousands of deaths because of the filthy fuel they use.

We've all noticed it. The filthy black smoke kicked out by funnels on cross-Channel ferries, cruise liners, container ships, oil tankers and even tugboats.

It looks foul, and leaves a brown haze across ports and shipping lanes. But what hasn’t been clear until now is that it is also a major killer, probably causing thousands of deaths in Britain alone.

As ships get bigger, the pollution is getting worse. The most staggering statistic of all is that just 16 of the world’s largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur pollution as all the world’s cars.

Because of their colossal engines, each as heavy as a small ship, these super-vessels use as much fuel as small power stations.

But, unlike power stations or cars, they can burn the cheapest, filthiest, high-sulphur fuel: the thick residues left behind in refineries after the lighter liquids have been taken. The stuff nobody on land is allowed to use.

Thanks to decisions taken in London by the body that polices world shipping, this pollution could kill as many as a million more people in the coming decade – even though a simple change in the rules could stop it.

There are now an estimated 100,000 ships on the seas, and the fleet is growing fast as goods are ferried in vast quantities from Asian industrial powerhouses to consumers in Europe and North America.

The recession has barely dented the trade. This Christmas, most of our presents will have come by super-ship from the Far East; ships such as the Emma Maersk and her seven sisters Evelyn, Eugen, Estelle, Ebba, Eleonora, Elly and Edith Maersk.

Each is a quarter of a mile long and can carry up to 14,000 full-size containers on their regular routes from China to Europe. 

Waiting game: Tankers moored off Devon waiting for oil prices to rise even further

Emma – dubbed SS Santa by the media – brought Christmas presents to Europe in October and is now en route from Algeciras in Spain to Yantian in southern China, carrying containers full of our waste paper, plastic and electronics for recycling.

But it burns marine heavy fuel, or ‘bunker fuel’, which leaves behind a trail of potentially lethal chemicals: sulphur and smoke that have been linked to breathing problems, inflammation, cancer and heart disease.

James Corbett, of the University of Delaware, is an authority on ship emissions. He calculates a worldwide death toll of about 64,000 a year, of which 27,000 are in Europe. Britain is one of the worst-hit countries, with about 2,000 deaths from funnel fumes. Corbett predicts the global figure will rise to 87,000 deaths a year by 2012.

Part of the blame for this international scandal lies close to home.

In London, on the south bank of the Thames looking across at the Houses of Parliament, is the International Maritime Organisation, the UN body that polices the world’s shipping.

For decades, the IMO has rebuffed calls to clean up ship pollution. As a result, while it has long since been illegal to belch black, sulphur-laden smoke from power-station chimneys or lorry exhausts, shipping has kept its licence to pollute.

For 31 years, the IMO has operated a policy agreed by the 169 governments that make up the organisation which allows most ships to burn bunker fuel. 

Christian Eyde Moller, boss of the DK shipping company in Rotterdam, recently described this as ‘just waste oil, basically what is left over after all the cleaner fuels have been extracted from crude oil. It’s tar, the same as asphalt. It’s the cheapest and dirtiest fuel in the world’.

Bunker fuel is also thick with sulphur. IMO rules allow ships to burn fuel containing up to 4.5 per cent sulphur. That is 4,500 times more than is allowed in car fuel in
the European Union. The sulphur comes out of ship funnels as tiny particles, and it is these that get deep into lungs.

Thanks to the IMO’s rules, the largest ships can each emit as much as 5,000 tons of sulphur in a year – the same as 50million typical cars, each emitting an average of 100 grams of sulphur a year.

With an estimated 800million cars driving around the planet, that means 16 super-ships can emit as much sulphur as the world fleet of cars.

A year ago, the IMO belatedly decided to clean up its act. It said shipping fuel should not contain more than 3.5 per cent sulphur by 2012 and eventually must come down to 0.5 per cent. This lower figure could halve the deaths, says Corbett.

It should not be hard to do. There is no reason ship engines cannot run on clean fuel, like cars. But, away from a handful of low-sulphur zones, including the English Channel and North Sea, the IMO gave shipping lines a staggering 12 years to make the switch. And, even then, it will depend on a final ‘feasibility review’ in 2018.

In the meantime, according to Corbett’s figures, nearly one million more people will die.

Smoke and sulphur are not the only threats from ships’ funnels. Every year they are also belching out almost one billion tons of carbon dioxide. Ships are as big a contributor to global warming as aircraft – but have had much less attention from environmentalists.

Both international shipping and aviation are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol rules on cutting carbon emissions. But green pressure is having its effect on airlines. Ahead of next month’s Copenhagen climate talks, airlines have promised to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050.

But shipping companies are keeping their heads down. A meeting of the IMO in July threw out proposals from the British Chamber of Shipping, among others, to set up a
carbon-trading scheme to encourage emissions reductions.

Amazingly, they pleaded poverty. Two-thirds of the world’s ships are registered in developing countries such as Panama. These are just flags of convenience, to evade tougher rules on safety and pay for sailors.

But at the IMO, governments successfully argued that ships from developing countries should not have to cut carbon emissions. IMO secretary-general Efthimios Mitropoulos insisted: ‘We are heavily and consistently engaged in the fight to protect and preserve our environment.’ Yet without limits, carbon emissions from shipping could triple by 2050.

The failure brought calls for the IMO to be stripped of its powers to control the world’s ships. Colin Whybrow, of Greenwave, a British charity set up to campaign for cleaner shipping, says: ‘The IMO is drinking in the last-chance saloon.’

Burning low-sulphur fuel won’t cut carbon emissions from ships. But there are other ways. More efficient engines could reduce emissions by 30 per cent, according to British marine consultant Robin Meech.

Cutting speed could reduce emissions by as much again. And there are even wackier ways, such as putting up giant kites to harness the wind as in the days of sailing ships.

However you look at it, the super-ships are rogues on the high seas, operating under pollution standards long since banished on land; warming the planet and killing its inhabitants. Santa’s sleigh, they are not.

• Robert Pedersen, of Maersk, said: ‘The sulphur content varies according to where you get your fuel. Our average sulphur content is, I believe, 2.5 per cent. It’s rather rare you get anything close to 4.5 per cent.’ He added that ‘the sulphur issue is one for the whole industry’ and that there would be a ‘huge cost implication’ to switch to cleaner fuel

GOOOH (GET OUT OF OUR HOUSE)

GET OUT OF OUR HOUSE (GOOOH)

by Tom DeWeese   NewsWithViews.com   11-24-9

A Disinfectant on Congress?

There is a lot of talk across the nation about how to replace sitting members of Congress and restore the Republic as established by the Founders. The conversations usually end in frustration as 95% of incumbents continue to be re-elected, seemingly untouchable inside a system designed to keep them in office.

Most polls indicate that well over 80% of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing, yet 95% of incumbents get re-elected every election. Why? Because the process for selecting our representatives is broken. A recent Rasmussen poll said that only 25% of voters insist the election process for Congress should remain the same. Yet, to bring about significant change – indeed to replace a majority of Congress would take a ton of money and organization.

I recently came across a bold yet simple plan to replace all 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives- and do it as early as 2010. It’s called GOOOH (pronounced like “go”), or Get Out Of Our House, and is a non-partisan national movement that is rapidly gaining momentum. It could very well be the solution to address the disarray in Washington.

Discouraged by the out-of-control federal deficit (now at $11.5 trillion), the complexity of the tax code (67,000 pages), an education system that fails almost 30% of our children (worse than when the Department of Education was formed in 1972), borders that leak like a sieve, and dozens of other failed government programs, GOOOH Founder Tim Cox walked away from a lucrative career in the high tech world to build this system.

According to Cox, “GOOOH is not just another political party. It is a system that will allow you and your neighbors to choose, among yourselves, the person who can best represent your district.” The system allows the people to select their representatives – not just choose between a Republican and a Democrat.

Here’s how his GOOOH plan works:

First, concerned Americans are asked to visit the GOOOH website (www.goooh.com) and sign on as a member – there is no cost to join. Once signed in, members are asked to complete an extensive 100 question survey. Basically, by completing the form, members are creating their own personal platform – their vision of how they want the nation to be. Members must vote “for” or “against” each question. The goal is to have at least 500,000 Americans take this step.

Examples of questions include:

1) Will you vote for or against the Line Item veto?
2) Will you vote for or against a Balanced Budget Amendment?
3) Will you vote for or against the Fair Tax?
4) Will you vote for or against the creation of a National Health Care system?

To become a candidate for Congress through the GOOOH System, one must first become a GOOOH member and complete the Questionnaire. Then they must pass a screening exam to ensure they meet all the requirements for holding office, including citizenship, age, etc.

Then, candidates are asked to sign a “Commitment Letter” confirming, if elected, they will vote according to their questionnaire answers and that they will not accept special interest money should they be elected to Congress.

The final step for candidates before the election process begins, will be to lock in their Questionnaire answers and register for a “Candidate Selection Session” in their own congressional district. As they lock in those answers they are certifying that, if elected to Congress, they will vote on legislation according to those answers. In fact, they will sign a legally binding agreement to that fact. They also pledge not to take special interest money if elected – and if they do – will resign from office within 72 hours. This is the heart of the process.

The goal is to reach at least 500,000 participating members in GOOOH. Once that is accomplished, several actions kick in.

First, after the 500,000 number is reached, members will be asked to contribute a minimum of $100. No money will be requested until that 500,000 threshold is reached. Once collected, however, that money will be sufficient to fund the campaigns of all GOOOH candidates. There will be no need for candidates to raise money. Second, that money will be used to assure the GOOOH candidates are on the ballot in each of the 50 states. And it will be used to finance the candidate selection process.

Finally, after the 500,000 members are signed on the candidate selection process will begin.

Members will be randomly sorted into pools of ten within their district. The pools will meet around the nation simultaneously at predetermined locations on consecutive Saturday mornings. Each pool of ten will select two congressional candidates to advance to the next round. Those selections will be made mainly by assessing the Candidate Questionnaires to determine their positions on the issues – no room for campaign double speak.

Advancing candidates will be randomly assigned into a new pool within their district. With 500,000 members there would be 50,000 pools of ten, all meeting on the same day sometime after March, 2010 in round one of the process. The pool selection process will be repeated four or five times until one person is ultimately chosen in the final round – that person will become the GOOOH candidate for the congressional district. The process will be repeated in all 435 Congressional Districts across the nation. And those candidates will run on the ballot against the incumbents and party choices, supplied with sufficient funds and a network of volunteers to help their campaigns.

By allowing participants to choose who can best represent them, true “citizen” representatives, rather than career politicians, will be selected, just as our Founding Fathers intended. By allowing participants to define their own platform they will not be bound to a political party that will tell them how to vote. The legally binding agreement that each candidate signs before they are selected will put accountability back into the system.

According to Cox, GOOOH has been created to allow the modern day incarnations of Madison, Franklin, and Jefferson to step forward and return our nation to greatness. It seeks men and women with honor and integrity who will lead the effort. GOOOH is a revolutionary plan for selecting our representatives. It takes the money out of politics. It puts an end to partisan behavior and will eliminate block-voting along party lines. It will replace the career politicians.

It’s an interesting idea in a sea of frustration. I recommend you take a few minutes to check out www.GOOOH.com and learn why 25,000 patriots already have signed on to the plan. The request is simple at this time: become a member of the system, which takes nothing more than an email address. Then, you are asked to recruit your family and friends to join the cause. The project is completely funded by Tim Cox and he is quick to point out they do not need funding at this time. Their goal is to first get to 500,000 members.

The two parties have convinced most Americans that they are in control. They use scare tactics to convince voters that supporting independent candidates will only result in putting the “other” party in power. They have successfully used fear to scare people into how they must vote. The results speak for themselves. Now, there is an alternative. Will America be brave enough to take this unusual opportunity to fight this battle and truly change the system? Only time will tell.

Tom DeWeese is president of the American Policy Center and Editor of The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia.
(540) 341-8911

E-Mail: ampolicycenter@hotmail.com

Website: www.americanpolicy.org

Obama’s Socialism

Bejamin Franklin: “We must all hang together, or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

 By Darla Dawald   CanadaFreePress.com   11-22-9

Day in and day out the conservative is assaulted by the demeaning, demonizing, Saul Alinsky Chicago thuggery tactics and legislation that is a direct violation of our Constitution of the United States by the radical liberal leftists. While on this past tour with the Tea Party Express some individuals asked me how I am able to come out and speak and remain so motivated in the face of defeat and denigrating tactics. That’s a great question and so I decided I would write a response for all of you.

When the House voted in favor of the deplorable Health Care bill after everyone worked so hard to convince them to cast a NO vote it was by all means a blow to my state of being. That night we arrived in our hotel room after a long day with 3 rally stops. When I arrived in my room I immediately turned on C-Span to find the House had just tallied the votes 215 No to 220 Yes. I was so angry, frustrated, emotional, and momentarily defeated. I couldn’t sleep that night, I tossed and turned and finally prayed myself to sleep.

The things that ran through my mind as a leader were “How do I face them all now?” “Now what do I say to keep them motivated?” (Especially when you aren’t feeling motivated yourself). I awoke the next morning refreshed, mad, but refreshed. Our next rally would be hard I thought with so many people upset by the vote. When we arrived it was a large crowd and I was pleased and excited that so many came out for a Sunday morning rally. Normally I would be speaking near the end, however, Joe asked me to go near the beginning. He said, “they need to get motivated and you can do that with your speech”. I knew he was right and I was determined to do just that.

When it was my turn I decided I needed to have them admit their anger and basically use that or harness that into action. Of course they were mad, all of us were and still are! By the end of my speech they were yelling Flip this House and Yes We Will! By the time I finished even I felt more motivated. See, we need each other to keep us focused and motivated. Our action is what helps to motivate us and others. Inaction is what took us down this road. We have to act to continue the fight to bring OUR America back to the People!

I have been home for a week now and I miss the rallies for sure as they have a way of keeping us all focused and on task. When I really miss it I turn on one of the entertainers songs like Rivoli Review’s Big Fat No or Lloyd Marcus’s Tea Party Anthem or 2010 and I am immediately transported back to one of those rallies and draw upon that energy or I remember the 9/12 march on Washington and the sea of people singing the Star Spangled Banner…..all of one mind and heart as we gazed upon the flag free flowing in the breeze upon Our Capitol’s Dome that is the reminder of why we stand united and fight.

So this last Saturday night another vote, a vote of cloture to take this bill in the senate to embark upon debate of the bill. The vote was a complete shut out this time with 60 Yes all Dems and 39 No all Repubs. This does not mean the health care bill passed it means they will debate it and run a fine tooth comb over it and both sides will have opportunity to introduce changes or deletions to the bill before a final bill is voted upon.

So Patriots, here we are again. I know many are ready to give up. Many feel battle weary and burnt out. I know the feeling. But again I must ask you to draw upon what you know in your heart is right. We must fight this bill every step of the way. We cannot walk away or throw in the towel. We must draw upon the strength of our founding Fathers. We must draw upon the strength of our Tea Parties and rallies. We must encourage one another to keep moving and stay alert. We cannot resort to violence. We must remain vigilant in this fight and continue our efforts to vote these people out. Everyone of them that vote for the healthcare bill are a target for removing them from Congress.

I know some of you are saying the paper war is over. I say it is not over. I say that if we resort to any other means we will most certainly blow our chances of creating real change. I say we must Unite and continue the fight. We must hit them hard when they return and one way to do that is to send them personal stories about how the health care bill will impact your life and family. Draw upon past illness and time lines. I myself have a story that with national health care I most certainly would have died prior to receiving the care I needed when diagnosed with breast cancer. The senators need to hear from you in a powerful compelling way. They need to hear real life stories that will cause them to feel something.

I signed up to become a PC in my precinct. Truly that is where there is power in the 2010 elections. Some of the primaries are as early as Feb so there is a great deal of work to be done. Are you willing to sacrifice to accomplish our task? Go Here if you are and get involved: Take Back the GOP

Please remember that we must pray and ask for strength just as our founding Fathers did. We must be renewed daily by the almighty God. Without him we have nothing to draw upon. Then we must unite and stand firm and encourage one another. We cannot fight this battle alone. I am here standing with each and every one of you. I will continue to do all I can to remain motivated and vigilant. I am only one but with all of you we are a mighty force.

Freedom is never Free!

In God We Trust!
Darla Dawald, National Cordinator
www.resistnet.com The Patriotic Resistance!

Obama’s Anti-Christians

OBAMA APPOINTS "ANTI-JESUS" JURIST

By Jon Christian Ryter   NewsWithViews.com   11-25-9

On a 59 to 39 vote, the US Senate confirmed the nomination of US District Court Judge David Hamilton of the US District Court of Southern Indiana to the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, Nov. 19, 2009. Earlier that week the far-left controlled US Senate Judiciary Committee rejected a move by Sen. Jeff Sessions [R-AL] to block the consideration of Hamilton for the appellate court seat. Hamilton is a nephew of former Congressman Lee Hamilton [D-IN]. Lee Hamilton served as vice-Chairman of the 9-11 Commission.

David Hamilton, who interned as a law clerk for Judge Richard Cuhahy of the 7th Circuit in 1983-84 after graduating from Yale Law School in 1983, became an associate at the law firm of Barnes & Thornburg until 1994. With absolutely no judicial experience, then President Bill Clinton appointed Hamilton to the federal bench. Hamilton is now known as the anti-Jesus judge. In 2005 Hamilton ruled that the Indiana legislature could not begin its sessions with prayer in which Christian invocations that used the name "Jesus Christ" or even sectarian terms like "Savior" were used. However, prayers which use the words "Allah," "Gott," "Theos" or "Elohim," were acceptable. In other words, only the name "Jesus Christ" was banned. In his decision, Hamilton wrote: "All are free to pray as they wish in their own houses of worship or in other settings. Those who wish to participate in the practice of official prayer must be willing to stay within constitutional bounds."

Too bad Judge Hamilton didn't. The Constitution of the United States is written in simple, straight-forward words that anyone who can read a third grade primer can legally understand. In words even a lawyer should be able to understand, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution says: "hands off!" The Founding Fathers carefully crafted into the Constitution an amendment that specifically denies the States or the federal government any power to reinterpret what it says, or to make any laws or edicts that in any way interfere with the inherent rights of people—particularly Christian people—to worship as they please, when they please, and where they please without interference from those who disagree with their religious beliefs, or from local, county, State or federal governments or courts. The 1st Amendment is so sacrosanct that it is the only amendment which states that no governing body may alter it.

While the 1st Amendment specifies "Congress," law is also "written" by the courts which spent 90% of their time changing the meaning and intent of existing law. When the decisions of the federal court system are rendered and upheld, new law is being written on the bench. The 1st Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Sixteen words don't require a legal scholar to interpret them. The 1st Amendment begins with a declaration meant for all time. Our right to practice our religious faith is sacrosanct. So is our right of free speech. When Hamilton rendered his decision in 2005, the Republican-controlled House and Senate should have impeached him and removed him from the bench for arrogantly violating the prohibition clause of the 1st Amendment.

Judge Hamilton's father, Richard Hamilton, was pastor of St. Luke's United Methodist Church in Indianapolis for many years. Was he a "Jesus-thumper" at home? Only David Hamilton can answer that question. What is most strange about Hamilton's judicial philosophy is that some of his other judicial decisions on the District Court were very moral and ethical—not the type of judicial decision you would expect from a judge who could so blatantly violate the Constitution's prohibition against violating the religious rights of the citizens of the United States. In American Amusement Association v Coffey, Hamilton held that the 1st Amendment did not prevent the City of Indianapolis from requiring parental consent for children to gain access to video games containing explicit sexual content or extreme violence. (His decision was overturned by the 7th Circuit Court.) In another case, upheld by the 7th Circuit, Hamilton sentenced a child pornographer to 100 years in prison.

Aside from the Holy Bible, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the most unique documents ever written. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights provides the American people with rights possessed by no other people in no other nation on Earth. As long as this document, and the Bill of Rights, exists, tyrants are hard-pressed to steal our liberty. If we continue to allow petty congressional tyrants to steal liberty, one bite at a time, we will awaken one morning and find we are serfs, chained to the whims of the Utopians who are very close to achieving their one world order.

On Oct. 12, 2004, then National Rifle Association Vice President Wayne LaPierre debated the George Soros-funded International Action Network of Small Arms CEO Rebecca Peters, England's leading advocate of global disarmament. In his opening statement, LaPierre told Peters, "If you can't bring yourself to respect the Bill of Rights, at least keep your hands off it. The Bill of Rights is what makes America the freest nation on Earth."

With respect to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Peters replied that she "...favors global standards." She quoted George Orwell's "Animal Farm," citing a phrase in the book which says "...all animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Mr. LaPierre," she said, "would say that Americans are created even more equal. No. Americans are people just like everyone else on Earth. They should abide by the same rules as everyone else...American citizens should not be exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of the world." Peters concluded that the Bill of Rights should be repealed because, she said, Americans should not have rights not possessed by everyone else in the world.

I mentioned Peters remark because it is part of a global strategy to dilute the Constitution and, specifically, the Bill of Rights by getting federal and State court judges to incorporate international court decisions into their decisions, thereby codifying international law into the US Code by merging the the 1st Amendment with Articles 13 and 14 of the UN International Covenant on Human Rights. It is this coupling with a UN decree that now makes judges think they now have the authority to abrogate Christian rights if they offend non-Christians because Article 13 of the Covenant on Human Rights decrees: "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations that are prescribed by law." Since Muslims and Jews object to references of Jesus Christ, the federal judiciary simply erased the use of Jesus' name as a right protected by the 1st Amendment even though the 1st Amendment says no one can infringe on that right.

By the way, British citizen Rebecca Peters, who led the attacks in England and Australia that resulted in the gun bans in those countries, is now part of the Obama Administration. Peters and Gun Czar John Podesta head Obama's efforts to repeal the 2nd Amendment—or sidestep it, or simply ignore the 2nd Amendment and legislate guns out of existence by attacking not the gun owner but the manufacturers and sellers of firearms. Once the American people are disarmed, world government will happen within 90 days.

Judicial appointments like 'anti-Jesus" jurists like David Hamilton to an appellate level US federal court, or the hiring of a George Soros-funded British citizen as a presidential advisor on outlawing guns in America are warning flag that this nation is in serious danger. The people of the United States need to get off their butts, stay off their butts, get politically-involved and take their country back. Congress and the White House are full of watermelons. We need to start clearing the watermelon fields in order to plant the types of crops that grow America, not empower the progressives who attempting to steal the nation and the world.

Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.

Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, www.jonchristianryter.com has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website.

E-Mail: BAFFauthor@aol.com

Obama Sickness Care State Slam

Obamacare Prepares to Slam the States – by Dick Morris

Posted by Dick Morris   FrontPageMag.com   11-24-9

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

Anxious to avoid raising taxes too much to pay for their health care proposals, the Obama administration and its congressional allies hit on a great new idea: Make the states raise their taxes to fund the program, instead.

Both the House and the Senate bills require that states cover a larger percentage of their people under Medicaid — a joint state and federally funded program. The idea was to force states to raise their taxes to cover a big part of the health care bill for treating poor people. Since the Feds can simply charge any increase in spending to their already overdrawn bank account, but the states have to balance their budgets, the increased state spending for Medicaid will cause sharp increases in state taxes. And the governors will get the blame, not Obama and not the Congress.

The House bill requires states to give Medicaid to those whose incomes are less than 150 percent of the poverty level, while the Senate will settle for only 125 percent. For most states, this is a hefty increase.

In some states, like New York, where Medicaid covers everyone making 150 percent of the poverty level already, there will not be any extra required spending.

But not so in California, which only covers 100 percent of the poverty level. Were the House bill to pass, the already fiscally beleaguered state would have to increase its Medicaid spending on poor people by 50 percent, at least an extra $2 billion a year and perhaps more.

In many Southern states, the Medicaid program only covers a portion of those living below the poverty level. For these states, the requirement to cover all those in poverty and then 50 percent more will cause enormous increases in taxes. In Arkansas and Louisiana, where swing-Senators Pryor, Lincoln and Landrieu come from, the cost could exceed $1 billion for each state each year.

Unfunded mandates for state spending imposed from on high in Washington have always rankled governors.

The senators and congressmen in Washington get the credit for spreading largesse, but the governors in the states get the blame for the taxes that are needed to pay for it.

Since Democrats currently control the vast majority of governorships, this process of making their own party members take the rap for raising taxes is politically self-destructive in the extreme. But Obama is so desperate to pass his health care legislation that he doesn’t care what havoc in his party he reaps in the process.

The question now is whether the governors of the 50 states, particularly the Democrats, are going to sit idly by and let their budgets be destroyed by the health care bill.

When the Republicans in Congress insisted on tacking big cuts in aid to legal immigrant benefits for disability and other areas onto the welfare reform bill, it was the Republican governors who forced them to repeal the pernicious cuts the very next year. They did not want to have to raise taxes to make up for the withdrawal of federal funding.

Now, the Democratic governors face the same situation. If Obamacare passes with its expansion of Medicaid benefits — but with no federal funding of the extra spending — it is these Democrats and their legislatures that will have to bite the bullet and pass new taxes to pay for it.

Since states are already facing mammoth financial problems as a result of dwindling revenues and swelling expenditures in the recession, these additional burdens could be politically fatal. Unless Democratic governors want to avoid the fate of one of their late brethren, former Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey, whose political career was ended in a blaze of new taxes, they might want to call their buddies in Congress and ask them to lay off the unfunded mandates, particularly during this recession.

ObamaCare Disaster

Disaster in the Making – by Jacob Laksin

Posted by Jacob Laksin  FrontPageMag.com   11-23-9  

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

Jacob Laksin is managing editor of Frontpage Magazine. He is co-author, with David Horowitz, of One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America's Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy. His work has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Philadelphia Inquirer, The Weekly Standard, City Journal, Policy Review, as well as other publications. Email him at jlaksin@gmail.com.

With the Senate’s vote this Saturday to begin debate on health care legislation, the most contentious of the Obama administration’s domestic policy initiatives is back in the national spotlight. And with the Senate bill set to follow in the footsteps of its House predecessor by dramatically increasing the government’s role in health care, David Gratzer’s new pamphlet, “Why Obama’s Government Takeover of Health Care Will Be a Disaster,” the first in a series from Encounter Books, could not be timelier.

As a Canadian, Gratzer, now a physician and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, well understands what he calls the “government temptation.” Since youth, he writes, he was taught to believe that Canada’s government-run system was the envy of the world. He learned differently when he attended medical school. Where the Canadian system’s supporters saw success, Gratzer saw rationed care and long waits for important medical procedures.

Not much has changed. In 2006, for instance, Ontario woman Sylvia de Vries had to travel to the United States to have a 40-pound tumor removed by an American surgeon. Although she was within weeks of dying, she was still on a waiting list to see a specialist in Canada. Government-run health care, it turns out, doesn’t live up to its billing.

All the more incongruous, then, that the Obama administration, abetted by Congressional Democrats, has taken health care systems in which government plays a large role as the model for its reforms. Gratzer makes a compelling case that this model is fundamentally flawed. Not only is it wrong in its core assumption that an expanded role for the federal government will improve health care, he writes, but the actual experience of the countries that the administration hopes to emulate argues against any attempt to follow their example.

The Canadian case is instructive. Arguably, Canada does boast the more egalitarian health care system. But that is mostly because treatment options for all Canadians, regardless of economic status, are equally poor. Thus, Gratzer reports that in Alberta, Canada’s wealthiest province, 50 percent of outpatients waited more than 41 days for an MRI in 2008. In Nova Scotia, 50 percent of hip replacement patients waited over 201 days “or longer” for surgery. So limited is access to healthcare that small towns hold lotteries for a dear prize: a visit to a family doctor. For many Canadians, socialized medicine literally is a gamble with their lives.

Defenders of ObamaCare might point out that European systems have done more to inspire the Democrats’ legislation than Canada’s troubled example. But do European systems achieve better results? Not necessarily. In any number of comparisons with European countries, American health care more than holds its own. For instance, Americans are more likely to be treated for chronic illnesses than their European counterparts. They are also more likely to survive diseases like cancer. A 2007 Lancet Oncology study of survival rates for 16 different types of cancer found that American men had five-year survival rates of 66 percent, compared to 47 percent for European men. For women, the numbers were 63 percent for American women and 56 percent for European women.

Nor is it true that the United States spends more on health care than Europe only to get inferior results. Gratzer finds that the costs of health care in France, Canada, Ireland, and Britain are rising at roughly the same rate as in the U.S.

That is not to say that there aren’t real problems with the American system. Most notably, health care has become less affordable. Health insurance premiums have almost doubled since 2000, Gratzer notes, even as American workers have seen their wages stagnate. Unfortunately, the Democrats’ proposals are likely to add to the costs of health care while diminishing its quality and availability.

One way this could happen is through mandates on private insurers to provide specified types of coverage. Such mandates already distort the insurance market. For instance, insurers in Washington and Minnesota must require coverage for “port wine stain elimination”; 12 different states force insurers to cover acupuncture; another 15 states force them to cover in vitro fertilization. For their part, the insurance companies pass on the costs to consumers in the form of higher premiums. Wisconsin has 34 mandates, while New York has 51. As a consequence, a basic plan that would cost around $3,000 in Wisconsin sells for $12,000 in New York.

Another bad idea that risks becoming policy is the government insurance option, versions of which appear in both the House and the Senate bills. Designed to keep private insurers “honest,” the public option would stack the deck in favor of a government-run plan. The House health care bill, for instance, would exempt the government plan from state taxes and regulations; private insurers would enjoy no such advantage. That would allow the government plan to keep premiums artificially low, crowding out private insurers and ultimately driving consumers into the government program. Little wonder than the Lewin group estimates that some 114 million people would shift from private to government coverage if the public option were implemented.

The broader problem with these measures is that they fail to address the high costs that plague the current health care system. Indeed, none of the administration’s reforms addresses the real reason that American health care is so expensive: a tax code that distorts the price of health care. Thanks to a tax break for employer-provided health care, Americans are far removed from the actual costs of health care, paying only 13 cents to the dollar. As Nelson Sabatini, Maryland’s former secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene, puts it: “Using health care is like shopping with someone else’s credit card.”

There are better solutions. Gratzer calls for a national insurance market that would allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines and drive down costs through competition. He also wants health plans to promote healthier choices. As an example, he cites the grocery chain Safeway, which created a so-called “healthy measures” program that offers workers cash incentives for improving their health, whether by not smoking, reducing their salt intake, exercising more and eating better. Thanks to the pilot program, Safeway has seen no rise in net health insurance costs even as other companies have seen costs soar by as much as 40 percent.

Some of Gratzer’s proposals are bound to be controversial. Even many Republicans are likely to balk at his call to privatize Medicare. But given the unsustainable costs of the program – Medicare has some $89 trillion in future liabilities – its indisputable that eventually something will have to be done.

For now, though, there is the Democrats’ plan to contend with. Gratzer’s final verdict on their efforts is that they have “tried to do too much, too quickly and with too much government.” The good news is that Americans by and large agree. Nearly half of the American public now opposes the Democrats’ reforms, with many believing that the quality of care will deteriorate under the “reformed” system.

The bad news is that Democrats and the Obama administration still seem determined to pass their legislation within the next few months. Gratzer’s pamphlet serves as a bracing reminder of just what that could mean for the country.

Obama’s SNL Scorching

'SNL' scorches Obama policies

NBC comedy show ruthless in satire of president's plans

By Joe Kovacs   WorldNetDaily.com   11-22-9

"Saturday Night Live" opened its show last night with a comedy sketch that scorched President Obama over his economic policies including health care, "Cash for Clunkers" and borrowing billions of dollars from China.

The NBC program featured comic Fred Armisen portraying the commander in chief at a news conference with Chinese President Hu Jintao, played by Will Forte, who spoke through an interpreter, comic Nasim Pedrad.

Hu began by asking Obama about the success of his economic stimulus.

"I'm curious. How many jobs has it created?" asked the Chinese leader.

"None," answered Obama. "But our health-care reform plan, we're confident, is going to lead to enormous savings."

Learn Obama's strategy for destroying America as we've known it. Read "The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values"

"How exactly is extending health-care coverage to 30 million people going to save you money?" Hu asked.

"I don't know," admitted Obama.

The foreign leader also ridiculed Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" car-incentive program, and issued a warning about the money the U.S. owes to China: "Just so there is no misunderstanding, you are not allowed to pay us back in clunkers."

"I assure you. You're going to get your money," stressed Obama.

Sensing he was being lied to, Hu through his interpreter asked a similar question three times, including: "Do I look like Mrs. Obama? Then why are you trying to do sex to me like I was Mrs. Obama? Just do it. Get it over with."

Just a year ago during the presidential campaign, the prime target of "Saturday Night Live" was then–Alaska governor Sarah Palin who was not only spoofed by Tina Fey, but also featured in a controversial skit where New York Times reporters sought to probe the possibility Palin's husband, Todd, was having sex with the couple's own daughters.

One WND reader commented: "I did have a problem with 'SNL' lampooning Palin last year. I've got to change my mind now that they demonstrated they're Equal Opportunity Lampooners. The recent skit was funnier 'n hell."

Note: The contact link for NBC is here.

MUSLIMS IN 21ST CENTURY AMERICA: JIHAD THE CORE OF ISLAM

By Frosty Wooldridge   NewsWithViews.com   11-23-9
 

Part 5: Jihad in America, Muslim prime directive 

Islam grows so powerful in Europe; few dare expose its underbelly, its provocative actions, its arcane rituals and its final obsession: submission of all people to Islamic precepts. Why? They could get killed in their own country by core Islamic extremists living in Europe.

Peter Wagner wrote, “When talking about "The Religion of Peace," detractors will point to other verses in the Koran that contradict the hateful ones. What most people are unaware of is that in Islam there is the "law of abrogation.”

“Basically, when Mohamed or Allah have said something contradictory, and there are lots of those, the last command takes precedence over the earlier command and renders the earlier command null and void. Since the books of the Koran are not in chronological order one needs to know which command came last. Much of the "kill the infidel" stuff is the more recent commands.

“Part of the problem with "peaceful Muslims" is that none will repudiate the "kill the infidels" commands of their god and prophet because to do so would make one worse than an infidel with another command by Allah to put the apostate to death. In fact, "Radical Islamists" are nothing more than true believers doing exactly what Mohammed and Allah are telling them to do. The "peaceful Muslims" are actually the unbelievers and the Jihadists are the true believers. Check the ‘murtadd’; it also explains why "peaceful Muslims" won't condemn the Jihad at Fort Hood. If you want personal proof, when talking to a Muslim, ask them to condemn and repudiate the grossly hateful and kill-the-infidel stuff in the Koran. You will get some interesting answers.”

Whereas true Christians "turn the other cheek, love their enemies, do unto others..." etc. True Muslims kill the infidels. Both are just doing what their god and prophet told them to do.

From two years ago, the six Fort Dix terrorists followed their progression of jihad on America. They followed the tenets of fundamentalist Islam. As their numbers grow in America, more fundamentalist Muslims force their way into every sector, every level and every aspect of American society. Whether by legal means, or violent— they continue on a quest that may take decades.

Muslims, if anything, prove clever. Those now in the U.S. know their power grows in numbers, and also aware that they are "in competition" with the burgeoning Hispanic-Latino population. Muslims, therefore, reproduce at a rate that is much higher than other groups in the U.S.

Their methods in the U.S. -- use our Constitution to their advantage. Once they gain outright population power, they intend to revert to Sharia Law.

Fundamental to the obligations of every Muslim are the Five Pillars of Islam.

The "Muslim Nation" works the implementation of Sharia law in France at this moment— where the French have given up on whole city sections in Paris. They're working it in Holland. They tried it in Australia, but officials rebuked them. They will keep pressing until success.

France elected their first non-socialist president in a long time. The nation of France prepares for an internal war— an insurrection.

More than three hundred thousand Muslims immigrate (legally and illegally) into the United States annually, now numbering eight million— brought to us by an "Open-Borders" Congress that supports the injection of jihad into this nation. Most arrive as naturalized citizens, sponsored by relatives already here. Meanwhile, each Muslim works double-time to increase the Muslim birth-rate in the U.S.

Former President Bush, in 2008, signed a bill ("immigration waiver exception") to accept 25,000 Iraqi Sunni refugees into America. President Obama signed another $20.3 million bill to bring in more Muslims from Palestine. I'll bet they're going to make a happy bunch of campers on American soil!

Ignorance in the U.S. electorate is NOT bliss

No one stops them; precious few understand what is going on; no one speaks out. Given enough time, every American faces jihad within his or her own community.

In 1908, President Teddy Roosevelt said,

"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing as a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."

It will prove interesting when the Muslims spreading from East to West across America meet the reconquista La Raza Mexicans spreading west to east. Both groups maintain a mission of conquest. Both sustain a resolve to make America their own.

The Fort Dix Six— signs of things to come.

How can we stop Islam's conquest of America? Simple: Stop all immigration from Middle Eastern and African countries immediately. Anything less equals national suicide.

TOTAL moratorium on all immigration for ten years

On the other hand, if you are one of the tens of millions of Americans that remain oblivious— trusting in the proverbial tooth-fairy— you invite national suicide— right along with the entire Open Borders advocates.

We rush toward an insurrection in the U.S. as the Muslim and Catholic (Hispanic-Latino) powers finalize their plans to confront one another. My guess; this mess will explode in 2011--2015, after the U.S. Congress district boundaries are thrown into chaos as a result of the 2010 census.

What we choose not to know or deny can hurt us— in fact, kill us.

To turn this mess around, we need urgent and radical actions;

1. Take total control of our borders, using the U.S.M.C. for seven years.
2. Construct a world-class PHYSICAL security-fence along our southern border.
3. Implement a total immigration moratorium, for ten years.
4. Investigate, prosecute, and punish the criminals who entice and employ foreign-nationals.
5. Investigate, prosecute, and punish the 630,000 criminal-aliens who have absconded, ignoring lawful orders to submit to deportation.
6. Investigate, prosecute, and punish the criminals who entice and employ foreign-nationals (the root-cause).
7. Temporarily double the size and staff of the U.S. District Courts, U.S. Immigration Courts, and the U.S Attorney Offices—and build temporary tent-city jails-prisons along our southern border, with built-in courtroom facilities.
8. Reinvent the DHS.
9. Put the U.S. Marshal Service and DOJ-FBI in charge of the DHS-ICE function in the interim.
10. Carefully and thoroughly (10-finger prints and iris scan) add each illegal alien to our NCIC-IAFIS date base as they voluntarily repatriate, and leave the U.S.
11. Put a benevolent leader in the new post of U.S. Immigration Czar.

12. Author a world-class U.S. Immigration Strategic Plan that includes a “U.S. Sustainable Immigration Policy of 100,000 or less annually” after a 10 year moratorium.
13. Aggressively (this is a major, gigantic new-paradigm effort) train & educate U.S. children-- "grow-our-own"-- to work the high-tech, manufacturing, and agricultural jobs as we emerge from the current "immigration chaos."

Our nation stands in the cross hairs of cultural and national suicide. If we continue on our current path, we're finished as a nation of laws, as a cohesive people, as a language and as a peaceful civilization.

Part 6: treatment of Muslim women by Muslim men, total domination, arranged marriages.

Listen to Frosty Wooldridge on Wednesdays as he interviews top national leaders on his radio show "Connecting the Dots" at www.themicroeffect.com at 6:00 PM Mountain Time. Adjust tuning in to your time zone.

Frosty Wooldridge possesses a unique view of the world, cultures and families in that he has bicycled around the globe 100,000 miles, on six continents and six times across the United States in the past 30 years. His published books include: "HANDBOOK FOR TOURING BICYCLISTS" ; “STRIKE THREE! TAKE YOUR BASE”; “IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION: DEADLY CONSEQUENCES”; “MOTORCYCLE ADVENTURE TO ALASKA: INTO THE WIND—A TEEN NOVEL”; “BICYCLING AROUND THE WORLD: TIRE TRACKS FOR YOUR IMAGINATION”; “AN EXTREME ENCOUNTER: ANTARCTICA.” His next book: “TILTING THE STATUE OF LIBERTY INTO A SWAMP.” He lives in Denver, Colorado.

His latest book. ‘IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION—DEADLY CONSEQUENCES.’

Website: www.FrostyWooldridge.com

E:Mail: frostyw@juno.com

"While the media wonders...why he did it...the fact is his behavior comports well with certain Islamic doctrines"

JihadWatch.com   11-24-9

Our old friend Raymond Ibrahim explains the Islamic doctrines in play in Nidal Hasan's jihad at Fort Hood, and the cost of ignoring them. "Nidal Hasan and Fort Hood: A Study in Muslim Doctrine," by Raymond Ibrahim for Pajamas Media via Middle East Forum, November 18:

One of the difficulties in discussing Islam's more troubling doctrines is that they have an anachronistic, even otherworldly, feel to them; that is, unless actively and openly upheld by Muslims, non-Muslims, particularly of the Western variety, tend to see them as abstract theory, not standard practice for today. In fact, some Westerners have difficulties acknowledging even those problematic doctrines that are openly upheld by Muslims -- such as jihad. How much more when the doctrines in question are subtle, or stealthy, in nature?

Enter Nidal Malik Hasan, the psychiatrist, U.S. Army major, and "observant Muslim who prayed daily," who recently went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans (including a pregnant woman). While the media wonders in exasperation why he did it, offering the same old tired and trite reasons -- he was "picked on," he was "mentally unbalanced" -- the fact is his behavior comports well with certain Islamic doctrines. As such, it behooves Americans to take a moment and familiarize themselves with the esotericisms of Islam.

Note: Any number of ulema (Muslim scholars) have expounded the following doctrines. However, since jihadi icon and theoretician Ayman Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's number two, has also addressed many of these doctrines in his treatises, including by quoting several authoritative ulema, I will primarily rely on excerpts from The Al Qaeda Reader (AQR), for those readers who wish to source, and read in context, the following quotes in one volume.

Wala' wa Bara'

Perhaps best translated as "loyalty and enmity," this doctrine requires Muslims to maintain absolute loyalty to Islam and one another, while disavowing, even hating (e.g., Koran 60:4), all things un-Islamic -- including persons (a.k.a. "infidels"). This theme has ample support in the Koran, hadith, and rulings of the ulema, that is, usul al-fiqh (roots of Muslim jurisprudence). In fact, Zawahiri has written a fifty-page treatise entitled "Loyalty and Enmity" (AQR, p. 63-115).

One of the many Koranic verses on which he relies warns Muslims against "taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies ... whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them" (Koran 5:51), i.e., he becomes an infidel. The plain meaning of this verse alone -- other verses, such as 3:28, 4:144, and 6:40 follow this theme -- and its implications for today can hardly be clearer. According to one of the most authoritative Muslim exegetes, al-Tabari (838-923), Koran 5:51 means that the Muslim who "allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community" (AQR, p. 71).

Sheikh al-Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328), takes the concept of loyalty one step further when he tells Muslims that they are "obligated to befriend a believer -- even if he is oppressive and violent towards you and must be hostile to the infidel, even if he is liberal and kind to you" (AQR, p. 84).

In ways, Hasan's life was a testimony to loyalty and enmity. According to his colleague, Dr. Finnell, Hasan "was very vocal about the war, very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second." If his being "vocal about the war" is not enough to demonstrate unwavering loyalty to Islam, his insistence that he is first and foremost a Muslim is. Other evidence indicates that the primary factor that threw him "over the edge" was that he was being deployed to a Muslim country (Afghanistan) -- his "worst nightmare."

According to a fellow Muslim convenience store owner who often spoke with Hasan, the thought that he might injure or kill Muslims "weighed heavily on him." Hasan also counseled a fellow Muslim not to join the U.S. Army, since "Muslims shouldn't kill Muslims," again, showing where his loyalty lies. Tabari's exegesis comes to mind: the Muslim who "allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community," i.e., he too becomes an infidel (AQR, p. 71).

Another source who spoke with Hasan notes that "in the Koran, you're not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christian or others, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell."

At any rate, surely none of this should come as a surprise. In April 2005, another Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, Hasan Akbar, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait. According to the AP, "he launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq."...

Free speech suppressed at Columbia, Princeton

Nonie Darwish   WorldNetDaily.com   11-24-9

On Nov. 17 and 18, I was to speak at Columbia and Princeton Universities on "Shariah Law and Perspectives on Israel" – but hours before I was to speak, the events were abruptly canceled.

According to the daily Princetonian, Princeton Imam Sohaib Sultan said he played a role in changing the sponsor's opinion of me. Sultan said, "Darwish's appearance on campus could offend the Muslim community," adding, "I have a very good relationship with the [Center for Jewish Life.]" The imam, Muslim Students Association and Arab Society all said that, to Muslims, I am akin to the Ku Klux Klan, skinheads and neo-Nazis. According to Shariah, their claim could be right in the sense that Muslim blasphemy and apostasy laws regard those who question Islam as enemies of the state, a crime punishable by death.

I understand why Jewish groups disinvited me after Muslim pressure, since they are the ones who must live daily with Muslim groups who can make life unpleasant. Jewish groups are trying to make friends with Muslims to show the world "it can happen." They are trying to accomplish in the small world of campus life what Israel has failed to accomplish for generations. Sadly, they cannot see that appeasement has already been tried and failed in real life. For centuries, Jews, Copts, Assyrians, Kurds, Lebanese Christians and others had to live under Shariah where they could not have equal rights under the law with Muslims. Those who attempted to live under self-rule were crushed. Minorities have left and are leaving the Middle East to escape forced Islamization and Arabization. Women are still being stoned, and apostate and honor killers are getting away with murder.

What would the world look like under Shariah law? Find out in Nonie Darwish's "Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law"

The terrifying global implications of Shariah are irrelevant to some Muslims at Princeton. Did the good imam ever write to El-Azhar University demanding a change in the definition of jihad in Muslim scriptures, which state "jihad is to war with non-Muslims to establish the religion." Did he ever send an open letter to imams across the Middle East demanding an end to characterizing Jews as "apes, pigs and enemies of Allah"? Did he ever campaign against honor and apostate killings? Does he denounce outright lies about Jews such as "Jews are behind 9/11 and the death of Arafat"? Does he condemn imams who recite the Hadith commanding Muslims to kill Jews wherever they find them? Do imams on Arab TV appall him when they promote terrorism against Jews worldwide? Does he think Hamas and Hezbollah are terror groups? Does he agree with the recent fatwa of death for apostasy that El-Azhar and 5,000 mosques in Egypt issued against Egyptian intellectual and reformist Sayed El Qemany?

Instead, the imam stifled inquiry of the above atrocities and characterized those who question as personal attackers of all Muslims. In the process he created a hostile environment where his friendships are determined by compliance. Blasphemy Shariah laws are now creeping into many institutions of higher learning in the U.S.

I lived for 30 years in the Middle East under the tyranny of Shariah where victims were forbidden to cry for help. The last thing Muslim apologists can tolerate are former Muslim speakers who spill the beans. Even Hadiths that condemn a whole group of people, the Jews, to being illegal to exist cannot be questioned. I, myself, used to be a Jew hater, and only by questioning did I find reality.

My speech at Princeton was going to start this way: "I want to stress that I am not here to offend the good and peace-loving Muslims. Most people, including myself, don't want or care to criticize religion, in the sense that it is a personal relationship with God. But if a religion, any religion, expands itself to the point of a one-party political and legal system while condemning those who question to death, then it makes perfect sense that such a religion has put itself in the realm of criticism. No religion or ideology can be beyond questioning when human rights are at stake. Religious or secular, we all must question obstacles to freedom and peace. The rights of any one religion must never supersede human rights or the rights of other religions to flourish. Tolerating intolerance is not a virtue; it is gross negligence."

By stifling free speech, shaming speakers of the truth and calling them names, we allow tyranny to win. Fear tactics has worked for centuries in the Muslim world; now it is spreading like cancer in U.S. institutions of higher learning.

ACLU’s Terrorists

The ACLU’s Terror Lobby

Posted By Andrew Walden On November 24, 2009 @ 12:03 am In FrontPage | 7 Comments

Andrew Walden   FrontPageMag.com   11-24-9

Earlier this month, the Obama administration moved to transfer alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed from the military justice system at Guantanamo Bay to the jurisdiction of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Behind this move away from the ^[1] military tribunal system, which delivered justice so effectively at Nuremburg ^[2], is an $8.5 million lobbying effort by the so-called “John Adams Project ^[3]” launched in April, 2008 by the American Civil Liberties Union ^[4].

With the endorsement of Clinton Attorney General Janice Reno ^[5], former boss of Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder, as well as former President Jimmy Carter, FBI and CIA chief William Webster, and others from both Republican and Democratic administrations, the ACLU‘s victory on behalf of the man sometimes described ^[6] as “al Qaeda’s CEO ^[7]” is also a defeat in the U.S.-led war on terror. Thanks to the ACLU, a terrorist like KSM will now enjoy the constitutional rights reserved for American citizens.

The civilian trial of a leading terrorist is the culmination of a years-long campaign by the ACLU to handicap U.S. efforts in the war on terror. The ACLU responded to the 9/11 attacks with the formation of its so-called National Security Project ^[8]. Under the leadership of the ACLU and its ideological affiliate, the so-called Center for Constitutional Rights ^[9], hundreds of lawyers ^[10] from top law firms ^[11] have worked without pay to “serve the caged prisoners ^[12],” as they call the terrorist detainees in American custody. Their assault on the courts, combined with Democratic electoral gains in 2006 and 2008, has seriously undermined the military commission system.

With the ACLU and CCR lawyers having long claimed that the failure to provide constitutional rights to terrorist captives is a crisis for the United States, the Obama administration has stepped in to “solve” it by transferring Mohammed and the four others to civilian courts. But, to the ALCU and its liberal allies, the al-Qaeda defendants are merely pawns in a larger game aimed at shackling the American and international forces who have been fighting al-Qaeda since 9/11.

Many of the ACLU’s campaigns have taken place under the “National Security Project.” Led by its CAIR-affiliated ^[13] director ^[14], Jameel Jaffer ^[15], it reveals a broader picture of ACLU’s ongoing sabotage of American national security.

• In AAR v. Chertoff and ASA v. Chertoff, the ACLU is fighting US denial ^[8] of a visa application to Muslim Brotherhood propagandist Oxford professor Tariq Ramadan ^[16] and South African Professor Adam Habib, accused of “engaging in terrorist activities ^[17].”
• On behalf of three al Qaeda operatives, the ACLU ^[18] is suing Jeppesen Dataplan ^[19], a Boeing airplane leasing subsidiary, based on allegations ^[20] that its planes were used to transport illegal enemy combatants. The target is a single company, but in conjunction with the other facets of the ACLU plan, the objective is to use the threat of civil liability and the broad-brush accusation of “torture” to deny the US Department of Defense the use of private contractors upon which it depends for many essential functions.
• In Kind Hearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development, Inc. v. Paulson et al. the ACLU seeks to protect an Islamist “charity” shut down in 2006 by the US Treasury Department ^[21] for funneling money to Hamas ^[22]. “Kind Hearts” is the successor to the shuttered Hamas ^[23] fundraiser “Holy Land Foundation ^[24]”. The objective is to prevent the US Treasury Department from halting suspected terrorist financiers and freezing their assets—even though ordinary drug dealers are subject to seizure and forfeiture ^[25] on a daily basis.
• ACLU v. DOD –the ACLU seeks to force exposure of WOT-related US government documents which may be used by US and foreign prosecutors to go after individual US and international military and intelligence personnel — and after defense contractors if the right kind of precedent is created in Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc ^[26] .  John Adams Project operatives are also photographing CIA agents ^[27] and giving the photos to Guantanamo detainees in order to generate torture allegations.
• In Amnesty v. McConnell, the ACLU seeks to eliminate the right of the US government to spy without warrant on international telecommunication traffic. This is a right exercised by Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush ^[28] and ^[29] now ^[30] by ^[31] Obama ^[32]–as well as many Presidents before them. An ACLU victory in this case could subject numerous US military and intelligence personnel telephone companies and military contractors to criminal or civil prosecution by or on behalf of jihadists in US or foreign courts.
• ACLU attorneys worked to defend Lynne Stewart ^[33], convicted in 2005 after being videotaped helping the “blind sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman communicate from prison with his Egyptian terrorist comrades of Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, responsible for the 1997 Luxor massacre ^[34] of 58 Japanese and European tourists.  

In each of these cases the ACLU is seeking to extend constitutional rights to hostile foreign nationals living outside the US and to protect armed activities conducted partly or wholly outside the US. As the KSM trials suggest, it also has a sympathetic ear in the Obama administration.

For instance, Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder was a senior partner in ^[35] the Covington & Burling law firm, which currently represents 16 Guantanamo detainees ^[36]. Holder’s C&B law partner David Remes stripped to his underwear ^[37] at a July 14, 2008 Yemeni news conference to demonstrate the strip-searches he claims are the most serious “torture” inflicted on detainees. Strip searches are a daily standard procedure in US and international prisons housing common criminals. But in the eyes of Holder’s former partner, this procedure is too debasing to be applied to jihadists. Remes soon left the firm ^[38] to work on so-called “human rights” cases full time.

Another of Holder’s former C&B law partners, Marc Falkoff, edited “Poems from Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak.” ^[39] Falkoff described ^[40] the detainee-poets—among them Abdullah Salih al Ajmi—as “gentle, thoughtful young men ^[41]” in a 2006 nationally broadcast college teach-in. After the “gentle, thoughtful” al Ajmi was released ^[42] from Guantanamo, he travelled to Mosul, Iraq. On Easter Sunday, March 23, 2008 ^[40], after making an al-Qaeda suicide video, al-Ajmi drove a 5,000 to 10,000 lb truck bomb into an Iraqi army barracks and detonated himself, killing 13 Iraqi soldiers and wounding 31 more.

To be sure, the administration is not entirely in agreement with the ACLU. As Attorney General, Holder now takes pains ^[43] to portray KSM as a special case and emphasizes that other Guantanamo detainees will still face military tribunals, not civilian courts.

But the ACLU has other ideas. It wants to see all the Guantanamo detainees given civilian trials. The ACLU strategy has the potential to create a web of interlocking decisions and precedents that would serve to establish a basis for criminal prosecutions and more civil lawsuits by al Qaeda members against the US military personnel, contractors, Bush administration officials, and intelligence officers who have pursued them since 9/11.

If the ACLU is even partially successful, Americans and foreign allies who have risked their lives to pursue al Qaeda may find themselves in court answering to charges brought by the jihadists. With the civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the ACLU is one step closer to that destructive goal.