Monday, March 31, 2008

Immigration Laws : The Mexican Plan

This little video by Rush Limbaugh high lites the way we should run our boarders and enforce these laws like other countries do - why are we the bad guys for wanting to have secure boarders and a plan to protect the home land? Go figure -

Keep the faith, the battle is joined

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Cuba Bidding Oil Leases in The Gulf

The Cuban government is bidding oil leases off the coast of Florida - only it's our oil that he is leasing out. But of course we can't drill for it because we might damage the environment and we sure don't want to take that chance even if it means our way of life in this country is threatened by high gas prices for our cars and heating fuel for our homes.

This is a direct result of the Socialist Progressives, liberal Democrats, making deals with tyrants like Chevez and Castro and the environmental terrorists in this country. How is it possible that so few can control so many? Why do keep voting these people back into office? Why do we allow the environmental community to dictate the terms of our survival? Why???

This is really going to be a problem in the very near future, like in the next two years - go ahead and vote for the NSPP and watch what happens to energy costs.

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Wednesday, March 19, 2008

*Energy Policy:* Cuba invites bids to develop oil reserves 45 miles off the coast of South Florida that are as large as those in ANWR. So why are the United States and its Navy buying oil from a state sponsor of terror?------------------------------------------------------------------------Read More: *Energy <*" target=_BLANK>>* *Latin America & Caribbean <*" target=_BLANK>>*------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Heritage Foundation reports that when U.S. Navy and Marine personnel fill up at their local Navy Base Exchange, they're buying their gasoline from a company owned by Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Citgo has a $60-million-a-year contract to supply the Navy Exchange with gas through 2010.

Formerly an American company, Citgo was sold in 1990 and is now owned by PDV America Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. But don't expect to see its signs: After Chavez's September 2006 speech at the U.N., where he called President Bush "the devil," the Navy changed the signs to "NEX."

Venezuela is using money from its oil exports to the U.S. to buy $3.4 billion worth of Russian weaponry, including 100,000 AK-103 and AK-104 assault rifles, a dozen Mi-17 military helicopters and 24 SU-30MK fighter jets.

The irony is that it's also negotiating a multibillion-dollar, multiyear contract to buy four Kilo-class diesel submarines and four state-of-the-art Amur submarines. They're intended to confront the U.S. Navy in the Caribbean and try to sink the ships those sailors and Marines sail on.

As we have reported, Venezuela is a state sponsor of terror, although it hasn't been officially designated as such. A recently captured laptop belonging to Raul Reyes, second-in-command of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), showed a Venezuelan commitment of $300 million to the FARC — $50 million of which, the computer indicated, has been paid out.The FARC has been formally designated as a state sponsor of terror by Canada, the European Union and the Latin American Parliament. But it hasn't been by the U.S., at least not yet. The Bush administration has launched a preliminary legal inquiry into the obvious that could land Venezuela on the list.

Rhonda Shore, spokeswoman for the State Department's Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, says that in order to qualify, a government must have "repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism." That shouldn't be hard. Designating Venezuela as a state sponsor of terror would shut off its oil exports to the U.S., where its Citgo refineries are among the few in the world that can handle its heavy crude. This would make it hard for Chavez to export his tyranny and even stay in power.

Venezuela is the fourth-largest supplier of petroleum to the U.S., after Canada, Mexico and Saudi Arabia. The question is whether cutting it off would hurt us more than them. A better question is whether it makes sense to buy oil from this thug at $100 a barrel.I

f ever tapping our Strategic Petroleum Reserve made sense, this would be the occasion. At least it would be a bridge until we developed our own untapped oil reserves, a natural strategic oil reserve, if we had a mind to.

Soon there will be rigs 45 miles off the coast of Florida tapping into oil and gas reserves nearly as large as those contained in a tiny frozen part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But the rigs will belong to Hugo's friend and ally, the Cuba of Fidel and Raul Castro.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the North Cuban Basin contains as many as 9.3 billion barrels of oil (multiply by $100 plus) and almost 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.Thanks to an agreement negotiated by Jimmy Carter that splits the 90 miles of water between the U.S. and Cuba for economic purposes, it will not be exploited by us.

Since pools of oil do not respect international boundaries, Cuban rigs will be sucking dry oil that rightfully should be ours. With vast amounts of oil off our shores, why are we still buying oil from Hugo Chavez, and why is the U.S. Navy?

Why We Should Vote for McCain -

Even if you aren't a McCain supporter or even if you can't stand the man or his politics, I am one of those, it appears we don't have a choice. If the alternative is Hillary or Obama and their aggressive agenda of socialism on taxes, health care, immigration and just about everthing else that matters to the American citizenery, voting for McCain doesn't seem so cataclismic after all.

I still don't trust the man as I believe he will roll over on us on the war, pulling the troops out of Iraq in the first year of his presidency. Also, their is no question he will allow the mess on our boarders to eslcalate out of control and then collapse on giving amensty to twenty million illegals and millioms more that will pour across our boarders to get away from the nightmare that is Mexico.

So hold your nose and vote McCain in November - Keep the faith, the battle is joined!

The Conservative Case for McCain

By MARK SANFORDMarch 15, 2008

Last week, I asked David Walker, the U.S. comptroller general, why he is quitting his job to travel the country on a "fiscal wake-up tour." His answer: Because we have only five to 10 years to address the federal government's looming shortfalls before we're faced with a fiscal crisis.

In about a decade, the twin forces of demographics and compound interest will leave few options for solving the fiscal mess Washington has created. By then, our options will all be ugly. We could make draconian spending cuts, or impose large tax increases that will undermine our economy in the competitive global marketplace. Or we could debase the value of the dollar by printing a large amount of money. This would shrink the overall value of the federal government's debt. It would also wipe out the value of most Americans' savings.

Mr. Walker is right. And I join many others in saying that federal spending is now as significant an issue as the war on terror, federal judgeships and energy independence. The U.S. stands at a fiscal crossroads -- and the consequences of inaction, or wrongful action, will be real and severe. Fortunately, the presidential election offers us a real choice in how to address the fiscal mess. To use a football analogy, we're at halftime; and the question for conservatives is whether to get off the bench for the second half of the game.

I sat out the first half, not endorsing a candidate, occupied with my day job and four young boys at home. But I'm now stepping onto the field and going to work to help John McCain. It's important that conservatives do the same.

It's easy to get caught up in the pursuit of political perfection, and to assume that if a candidate doesn't agree with you 100% of the time, then he doesn't deserve your support. In fact, Mr. McCain is a lot closer to 100% than many conservatives realize. He has never voted for a tax increase in his 25 years in Congress. He holds an 83% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. He is listed as a taxpayer hero by Citizens Against Government Waste. And he is supported by noted conservatives Phil Gramm, Jack Kemp and others.

The process of iron sharpening iron is good for the GOP. But now, I believe, the time has passed for focusing on what divides us.There is a yawning gulf between the viewpoints of Mr. McCain and those of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Nowhere is this more evident than on the critical issue of the steady collapse of our government's financial house.

Since 2000, the federal budget has increased 72%, to $3.1 trillion from $1.8 trillion. The national debt is now $9 trillion -- more than the combined GDP of China, Japan and Canada. Add in Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security commitments, and as a nation we are staring at more than a $50 trillion hole -- an invisible mortgage of $450,000 for every American family.Hope alone won't carry us through the valley of the shadow of debt. The fact that neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama has made cost-cutting a part of their political vocabulary is a clear indication that they would increase spending.

In fact, Mrs. Clinton has already proven skillful at snagging pork. Over the past few years alone, she has attached some $2.2 billion in earmarks to federal spending bills. Mr. McCain has asked for exactly $0 in earmarks. And while Mr. Obama's oratorical skills have been inspiring, his proposals would entail roughly the same $800 billion in new government spending that Mrs. Clinton proposes.

To his credit, Mr. Obama admits that his spending proposals will take more than three clicks of his heels to fund. He would pay for his priorities with a bevy of tax increases which he hopes taxpayers won't notice. But taxpayers will notice. Mr. Obama plans to raise taxes on capital gains, dividends and corporate profits. He wants to hike estate taxes by 50%. And he wants to eliminate the cap on payroll taxes. These tax hikes would increase the burden borne by individuals and decrease the competitiveness of our economy.

I was elected to Congress in 1994 as part of a Republican Revolution that captured control of both the House and Senate. A number of us tried to apply the brakes to the Washington spending train. We didn't succeed. Six years later, I left Washington convinced that only a chief executive willing to use the presidential bully pulpit could bring spending under control.

Now, in John McCain, the GOP has a standard-bearer who would be willing to turn the power of the presidency toward controlling federal spending. Mr. McCain has one of the best spending records in Congress, and has never shied away from criticizing government pork-barrel spending.

The contrast between the two opposing teams is stark. It is time for the entire conservative squad to step onto the field. Who will join me in helping our team get the ball and move it down the field?

*Mr. Sanford, a Republican, is the governor of South Carolina.*

New Taxes Proposed : Can We Afford NSPP Democrats

This is old news but worth taking another look - George Bush can not say he held the line on spending as his record will show he didn't veto any spending bill in his first six years in office - something he can not be proud of -

On the other hand he did cut taxes that brought us out of a recession in 2001 after the collapse of the stock market bubble - remember the dotComs? They took nearly 3 1/2 trillion dollars away from us, that affected anyone that has a 401K or other savings funds that is invested in our market economy. Invested in the future of America.

Bush's tax cuts put a foundation in our market economy that has prevented another crash like that again - the slump that we are in now is nothing like what happened seven years ago. The slump we are in now is just that - a slump that will turn, as it always does, into a rising market for the next several years if the politicians don't screw up by letting the tax cuts expire in 2010.

Did the tax cuts benefit only the 1% rich that pay 39% of all taxes? Or did you and I get our share as well? Look around and be honest -

The following facts show the New Socialist Progressive Party, liberal Democrats, will do just that - if you ever thought about getting ahead, wanting a better life through hard work or just want to build a foundation for retirement, you can forget it - it won't happen.

The NSPP have an agenda - it's not a new one, just more of what they have done in the past only this time they what to make it all permanent - take from the productive and give to the unproductive. This applies to you and me, not to those NSPP's sitting the seats of power.

Do not vote-in the NSPP - America depends on free markets and freedom to chose one's own destiny.

Think before you vote and keep the faith, the battle is joined!

Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election:


MCCAIN 15% (no change)


How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, youwill pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirementand would like to down-size your home or move into a retirementcommunity, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes.This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on theincome from their homes as part of their retirement income.


MCCAIN15% (no change)


How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stockmarket, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirementaccounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now bepaying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama or Clintonbecome president. The experts predict that "Higher tax rates ondividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet doabsolutely nothing to cut the deficit"


MCCAIN(no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750

CLINTON (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750

How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straightforward.


MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA keep the inheritance tax
CLINTON keep the inheritance tax

How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses, farms andranches, and homes that have been in their families for generationsbecause they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing theirassets to loved ones will not only lose them to these taxes.

* New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 squarefeet
* New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already)
* New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water,electricity)
* New taxes on retirement accounts and last but not least....
* New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the samelevel of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

Can you afford Clinton or Obama?

Saturday, March 29, 2008

A Britisher on European Islamofascists - A Video

This little six minute video tells a complete round up of Western compliance to the demands of Islam - demands that if not meet will result in death to the nonbelievers - you and me and everyone everywhere.

Think not? Maybe, but who wants to let the mass killers get the upper hand so we will have the opportunity of finding out if they're joking. I believe they are serious and will do what ever it takes to control the Western world.

Again, it's past time to take a stand for America and all of Western civilization by keeping the faith - the battle is joined!

Friday, March 28, 2008

Politics of Global Warming - The Battle for Research Funds

As I have mention many times in the past in this space, global warming is a fantasy of those seeking ways to do less for more money - global warming is and has been a fraud and, as I have written here, is the related 'carbon credit' program that seeks as well to fleece the unsuspected of dollars in gross amounts to save the planet.

Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank as he owns much of the carbon credit banks and is, of course, the prime proponent of this scam. It is a win, win situation for him at our expense. How can the people of this country fall for such nonsense??

I live in the country and have been approach by these con men to sell my 'carbon credit' related to the land that I own - ? in return I have to not till my land for five years - what in the good name of God are they about? This unbelievable!

Sigh - we must fight this kind of environmental crime at every turn - keep the faith, the battle is joined!

(The following is by John Calborne)

At the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York March 2-4, I became aware of Wolfgang Kasper’s eloquent explanation of the politics and economics of the current climate change swindle. Dr Kasper’s chapter in the _Civil Society Report on Climate Change _is very readable and easy to understand. The explanation for so many scientists “selling out” when they know their claims are weak, can be summarized in terms of “rent seeking” and political ideology.

What we are seeing is an attempt by those who believe in centralized government to control our lives and restrict freedom by making energy very expensive. This is absolutely the wrong direction.

...Rent Seeking and Freedom (an excerpt)
By: Wolfgang Kasper -

Widespread rent seeking also explains the public’s cynicism about democratic government. An increasingly better-informed public knows instinctively that interventionism boils down to a gross violation of their fundamental freedoms, in particular their property rights and the freedom to use their assets as they see fit, as long as others are not harmed.

Pervasive rent seeking is counterproductive in economic terms, as well as profoundly unjust. To the extent that arguments about global warming are detected as just a new excuse for rent seeking, they will be treated with disdain and contempt – regardless of their scientific merit.

For a long time, it was assumed that scientists are above such political selfishness, interested only in finding and testing the truth about natural phenomena. They have developed a strong professional ethic and relied on accepted scientific methods – an image, which the scientific community has of course cultivated.

Now, we observe that not only politicians but also the practitioners of science are not above the opportunistic pursuit of advantage by political manipulation. In science, for example, political ends seem to justify shortcuts with accepted scientific methods, thereby skewing the published findings. The competition for research funding, much of which comes nowadays from politically manipulated budget resources, all too frequently acts as an inducement to rent seeking by means of not-quite-objective research. Scientific establishments are nowadays typically led by savvy political operators, who are more interested in promoting their organisations than the scientific truth.

Alas, scientists are, after all, as opportunistic as everyone else, if they can get away with it.

Such aspersions are of course greeted by scientists with dismay. When this was bluntly stated on the recent television programme /The Great Global Warming Swindle /(Durkin, 2007), it lead to widespread moral outrage among some climate scientists, but produced no substantive refutation. Meanwhile, the scientists interviewed in the programme treated the debate as purely scientific. Unfortunately, they too missed the public-choice point, namely that political demand for global warming theories is expressed by copious research funding and produces a ready supply of such theories by eager scientists.

A critical look at the current climate debate easily reveals particular self-interest and robust rent seeking. Scientists, who must rival with many other pressure groups for scarce tax dollars, often realise that nothing is a better attention-grabber than the announcement of a potential danger which their research can fix, if only it is funded generously. Some of the brightest scientific minds have cooperated to convince the public and politicians that more climate research is the way to save the world.

The vehemence and impatience with which the global-warming protagonists now try to railroad the public and politicians into accepting the need for massive and costly action seems in itself an indication of rent seeking. As so often is the case, subsidy seekers find willing rent- and subsidy-creators in politicians and bureaucrats, who see career opportunities and greater power in adopting the new cause. Political action mobilises financial resources for those scientists who help to convince the public that political subsidies and …

Baltimore Adds Truth to "The Wire" on HBO

I have not seen this show,"The Wire" but from people that I know that have say it is very intense to a point of distraction. What is amazing here is the use of a Baltimore ghetto for it's action. Baltimore in real time is the murder capital of the country? Worse than DC? New York?

As this author points out, truth is more exciting and damaging than fiction - Baltimore really is a hell hole and there apparently is no solution in sight. Even Obama has weighed in on the subject and as usual, has nothing constructive to add. What could he possibly say that would make a difference? 'Barack Shock' won't work on drug dealers.

I found this story line very interesting and informative - it gives sum insight into the problems that New York had and still has and crisis that Detroit, Washington DC faces right now.

Keep the faith - the battle is joined!

March 14, 2008

"I'm a big fan of 'The Wire,' " Barack Obama told US Weekly last week. "It's not a happy show, but it's addictive." His fellow liberal intellectuals apparently agree. Called "the best TV show ever broadcast in America" by Slate's editor in chief, Jacob Weisberg, and "astonishingly sophisticated" by NPR media reporter David Folkenflik, the HBO series, whose finale was shown on Saturday, is a cops-and-criminals saga that brings its genre to an entirely new level. "No other program has ever done anything remotely like what this one does, namely to portray the social, political and economic life of an American city with the scope, observational precision and moral vision of great literature," wrote Mr. Weisberg last year.

Conservatives such as National Review's Jack Dunphy and The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett laud the show too. But conservatives may see in it a lesson that liberal viewers are unlikely to take to heart.

Saturday's season finale of 'The Wire' portrayed yet another scene of crippling inner-city violence. Set, written and produced in Baltimore, "The Wire" aired 60 episodes, with each of its five seasons focused on a different subject -- drug trafficking, the port, local politics, public schools and the city's newspaper. From the series' opening sequences filmed in "The Towers" -- huge public housing projects whose courtyards serve as drug bazaars -- through its depiction of the continuing devastation of neighborhoods by violent crime and unemployment, the Baltimore of "The Wire" becomes the poster child for six decades of failed urban policy. Its crumbling, corrupt Baltimore is in virtual free fall while the city's caretakers -- including nearly all its politicians -- feed at the public trough, cavorting and partying as Baltimore burns and children die.

By season five, the city's fiscal situation is so dire that budget cuts cripple the already disheartened police department even further as police cars break down for lack of service. A look at some real-life statistics shows how accurate this picture is. Surpassed only by Detroit in CNN/Morgan Quinto's 2006 ranking of the country's most dangerous large cities, Baltimore has traded places over the past few years with Detroit and Washington as the country's urban murder capital. With 282 homicides last year and a population of about 641,000, Baltimore had a homicide rate six times that of New York and three times that of Los Angeles.

While crack usage faded in resurgent cities like New York, Boston and Chicago in the 1990s, it never lost its hold in many Baltimore neighborhoods, even as heroin became the new drug of choice. Addicts just used both. By 2000, the federal Drug Enforcement Agency said, Baltimore had the highest per-capita heroin consumption in the country.

Meanwhile the public schools deteriorated, graduating less than half their students. The Baltimore Housing Authority was put on HUD's troubled authority list and in the 1990s dynamited many of its high-rise projects.

Mr. Obama, like most of his fellow liberals, believes that poverty is at the heart of urban problems and that its eradication is a federal duty. "What's most overwhelming about urban poverty is that it's so difficult to escape -- it's isolating and it's everywhere," he commented as he released his plans last July to reinvest in impoverished neighborhoods. By this he means giving more public funding to after-school and job training programs, parental counseling, extended day care, and public-private business incubators. What Lyndon Johnson called "model cities" programs Mr. Obama refers to as "promise neighborhoods."

The idea is that, freed from poverty, people who are now dealing drugs would be living productive lives. But Mr. Obama's favorite show puts forth a very different message: It is the crime that causes the poverty, not the other way around. Just watch a few episodes and it becomes clear that brazen drug trafficking degrades everything it touches, seducing children with its lure of money and murderously punishing anyone who defies it. When the city blows up the federally funded housing projects whose density helped make drugs so profitable, trafficking becomes even more vicious as dealers war over the smaller territory that's left. Many favorite characters are murdered or set themselves on a clear path to death and disaster. Apparently no one is immune: Even "citizens" -- the cops' term for normal, law-abiding people -- are gunned down.

Crime prevents what little legal economic activity that exists from flourishing. The often overlooked second season of the show covers the port, its decline and deep corruption. One union boss who oversees the loading and unloading of cargo ships accepts bribes from corrupt importers to rename or "lose" containers in order to evade customs. He fools himself that by lining the pockets of his union brothers with this money he is protecting the mainly underemployed stevedores and their families. But as the port's decline worsens, the bribes are paid for increasingly brutal purposes -- such as human trafficking."The Wire" shows that there are other factors besides crime at the heart of Baltimore's problems (both real and fictional).

The breakdown of the family and the horrendous urban schools are more significant than poverty itself as the source of urban decay. You would never know it, though, to hear all of the Democrats' talk of the income-inequality gap. In one scene in "The Wire," a frail boy who was badly beaten in a street fight comes to Cutty, a former criminal, for boxing lessons and is pummeled in the ring by a smaller boy. When he cries bitterly that he's a failure "on the street," Cutty tries to comfort him, saying that the rules of the street aren't the same as those in the rest of the world. "But how do I get from here to the rest of the world?" asks the boy -- who has a missing father, a drug-using mother who ignores him, and a school that teaches him nothing.

Getting from teeming urban streets to the rest of the world has been the objective of generations of city dwellers -- and of urban policy. Yet the West Baltimore of "The Wire" may be more desperate, perilous and "isolating," to use Mr. Obama's word, than the worst of 19th-century slums. Those slum dwellers saw a way up and out. Characters on "The Wire" do not. Many are not even sure where "out" is, having never been beyond West Baltimore. Even the show's longshoremen are unsure of how to get from here to the rest of the world.

The days of well-paying industrial jobs are over, probably forever, the men's skills are limited, their futures dim. Their unions protected a few jobs at the cost of the overall economic health of the port, just as the public-school unions have favored teachers, including incompetent ones, over students.

The real lesson of "The Wire" is what New York's Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Police Commissioner Bill Bratton understood from day one: To restore a city and its neighborhoods, fight crime successfully and everything else will start to fall into place (though New York's public schools remain deplorable). And don't wait around for federal support. Take whatever money you can find.

Instead of advocating old-time Model Cities-type programs, Mr. Obama should propose The Wire Urban Agenda: Fight crime Bratton-style and resist the unions that stand in the way of prosperity. Now that would be true audacity of hope.

Ms. Vitullo-Martin is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Electrical Power Generation to Fall Short in Near Future

I just heard a commercial by the Serra Club on a meeting in Madison, WI., to help organize efforts of corporations and businesses of all sizes to comply with projected new carbon dioxide levels. They proclaimed that they want all coal fired electrical generation plants must to stopped.

I listened to see what they had in mind to replace these plants but there was only a soft woman voice speaking to a small child about how we must save the planet. I took it that the child represented the general public. Those of us that can't go south in the winter want to say warm in the winter and have power for lights and hot water heaters. How silly -

The church of global warming is a very real threat to our well being, make no mistake about this. The true believers will not listen to debate or common sense. They know they have the upper hand with The New Socialist Progressive Party on their side. Everyone seems to be filing into the church and even sitting in the front pew.

I have posted several times on this subject and I will continue to do so. As you will recall, nuclear power generation is not an option as well to the true believers. The only option is solar, wind, and bio. And with the price of food skyrocketing, ethanol is not the answer by any means.

I believe we all must do what we can to stop the reverend Al from creating a total collapse of our economy and therefore our way of life. We must demand common sense be the guide in electrical generation and not fantasies of times gone by. We can stop them and to do it all we have to is pay attention and get sucked into the wide eyed hysteria.

Here is just one small statistic on electrical generation in the future. By the year 2020, wind, solar and bio will constitute only 18% of the demand for power. Where will the other 82% come from? No nuclear, No coal, No oil. Think about that when you hear those in the pew next to you talk about shutting down all coal fired plants

Stay warm and keep the faith, the battle is joined!

Threat to capacity seen in Carbon Worries

(from the Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News)

A British newspaper is reporting that the adequacy of the us electric generation could be compromised within three years if utilities fears over the carbon dioxide regulations continue delaying construction of new power plants

The financial Times of Landon quoted Sempra Energy CFO Mark Snell last month saying , "Outside of natural gas investment in traditional fossil fuel power generation, especially coal, has almost come to a halt".

The Times said parts of the us are projected to fall below targeted capacity margins in two to three years if more generation isn't built, quoting Rick Sergel, head of the North American Electric Reliably Corporation.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Barack Obama : " We Are Qwed " ?

I believe we as a nation can not achieve the greatness that our forefathers dreamed of if we can not all have the same dream - if there are those that believe, and there are millions, we are a hate full nation and must be changed into a subservient, knelling and apologetic country to achieve true greatness, our foundation as a great nation will evaporate. All those that came before and died for the American dream died in vain.

The true vision of the New Socialist Progressive Party, NSPP, in this country has just such a vision for America. Sadly, John McCain's vision is not all that much different. I say John McCain without a party affiliation as I don't know what party agenda he holds.

This following story is very reviling and well written as it lays out black history as defined by old liberal Democrats, and we all can see how the new NSPP is taking advantage of that old loyalty.

Keep the faith, the battle is joined!

By Ed Kaitz

Back in the late 1980s I was on a plane flying out of New Orleans and sitting next to me was a rather interesting and, according to Barack Obama, unusual black man. Friendly, gregarious, and wise beyond his years, we immediately hit it off.

I had been working on Vietnamese commercial fishing boats for a few years based in southern Louisiana. The boats were owned by the recent wave of Vietnamese refugees who flooded into the familiar tropical environment after the war.

Floating in calm seas out in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, I would hear tearful songs and tales from ex-paratroopers about losing brothers, sisters, parents, children, lovers, and beautiful Vietnam itself to the communists.

In Bayou country I lived on boats and in doublewide trailers, and like the rest of the Vietnamese refugees, I shopped at Wal-Mart and ate a lot of rice. When they arrived in Louisiana the refugees had no money (the money that they had was used to bribe their way out of Vietnam and into refugee camps in Thailand), few friends, and a mostly unfriendly and suspicious local population.

They did however have strong families, a strong work ethic, and the "Audacity of Hope." Within a generation, with little or no knowledge of English, the Vietnamese had achieved dominance in the fishing industry there and their children were already achieving the top SAT scores in the state.

While I had been fishing, my new black friend had been working as a prison psychologist in Missouri, and he was pursuing a higher degree in psychology. He was interested in my story, and after about an hour getting to know each other I asked him point blank why these Vietnamese refugees, with no money, friends, or knowledge of the language could be, within a generation, so successful. I also asked him why it was so difficult to convince young black men to abandon the streets and take advantage of the same kinds of opportunities that the Vietnamese had recently embraced. His answer, only a few words, not only floored me but became sort of a razor that has allowed me ever since to slice through all of the rhetoric regarding race relations that Democrats shovel our way during election season:

"We're owed and they aren't." In short, he concluded, "they're hungry and we think we're owed. It's crushing us, and as long as we think we're owed we're going nowhere."

A good test case for this theory is "Katrina". Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and assorted white apologists continue to express anger and outrage over the federal response to the "Katrina"disaster. But where were the Vietnamese "leaders" expressing their "anger?" The Vietnamese comprise a substantial part of the New Orleans population, and yet are absent was any report claiming that the Vietnamese were "owed" anything. This is not to say that the federal response was an adequate one, but we need to take this as a sign that maybe the problem has very little to do with racism and a lot to with a mindset.

The mindset that one is "owed" something in life has not only affected black mobility in business but black mobility in education as well. Remember Ward Churchill? About fifteen years ago he was my boss. After leaving the fishing boats, I attended graduate school at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I managed to get a job on campus teaching expository writing to minority students who had been accepted provisionally into the university on an affirmative action program. And although I never met him, Ward Churchill, in addition to teaching in the ethnic studies department, helped to develop and organize the minority writing program.

The job paid most of my bills, but what I witnessed there was absolutely horrifying. The students were encouraged to write essays attacking the white establishment from every conceivable angle and in addition to defend affirmative action and other government programs.

Of the hundreds of papers that I read, there was not one original contribution to the problem of black mobility that strayed from the party line.

The irony of it all however is that the "white establishment" managed to get them into the college and pay their entire tuition. Instead of being encouraged to study international affairs, classical or modern languages, philosophy or art, most of these students became ethnic studies or sociology majors because it allowed them to remain in disciplines whose orientation justified their existence at the university.

In short, it became a vicious cycle.There was a student there I'll never forget. He was plucked out of the projects in Denver and given a free ride to the university. One day in my office he told me that his mother had said the following to him: "M.J., they owe you this. White people at that university owe you this." M.J.'s experience at the university was a glorious fulfillment of his mother's angst.

There were black student organizations and other clubs that "facilitated" the minority student's experience on the majority white and "racist" campus, in addition to a plethora of faculty members, both white and black, who encouraged the same animus toward the white establishment. While adding to their own bona fides as part of the trendy Left, these "facilitators" supplied M.J. with everything he needed to quench his and his mother's anger, but nothing in the way of advice about how to succeed in college. No one, in short, had told M.J. that he needed to study. But since he was "owed" everything, why put out any effort on his own?

In a fit of despair after failing most of his classes, M.J. wandered into my office one Friday afternoon in the middle of the semester and asked if I could help him out. I asked M.J. about his plans that evening, and he told me that he usually attended parties on Friday and Saturday nights. I told him that if he agreed to meet me in front of the university library at 6:00pm I would buy him dinner.

At 6pm M.J. showed up, and for the next twenty minutes we wandered silently through the stacks, lounges, and study areas of the library. When we arrived back at the entrance I asked M.J. if he noticed anything interesting. As we headed up the hill to a popular burger joint, M.J. turned to me and said: "They were all Asian. Everyone in there was Asian, and it was Friday night." Nothing I could do, say, or show him, however, could match the fire power of his support system favoring anger. I was sad to hear of M.J. dropping out of school the following semester.

During my time teaching in the writing program, I watched Asians get transformed via leftist doublespeak from "minorities" to "model minorities" to "they're not minorities" in precise rhythm to their fortunes in business and education. Asians were "minorities" when they were struggling in this country, but they became "model minorities" when they achieved success.

Keep in mind "model minority" did not mean what most of us think it means, i.e., something to emulate. "Model minority" meant that Asians had certain cultural advantages, such as a strong family tradition and a culture of scholarship that the black community lacked. To suggest that intact families and a philosophy of self-reliance could be the ticket to success would have undermined the entire angst establishment. Because of this it was improper to use Asian success as a model.

The contortions the left exercised in order to defend this ridiculous thesis helped to pave the way for the elimination of Asians altogether from the status of "minority." This whole process took only a few years.

Eric Hoffer said: " do not win the weak by sharing your wealth with them; it will but infect them with greed and resentment. You can win the weak only by sharing your pride, hope or hatred with them."

We now know that Barack Obama really has no interest in the "audacity of hope." With his race speech, Obama became a peddler of angst, resentment and despair. Too bad he doesn't direct that angst at the liberal establishment that has sold black people a bill of goods since the 1960s.

What Obama seems angry about is America itself and what it stands for; the same America that has provided fabulous opportunities for what my black friend called "hungry" minorities. Strong families, self-reliance, and a spirit of entrepreneurship should be held up as ideals for all races to emulate.

In the end, we should be very suspicious about Obama's anger and the recent frothings of his close friend Reverend Wright. Says Eric Hoffer: "The fact seems to be that we are least open to precise knowledge concerning the things we are most vehement about. Vehemence is the expression of a blind effort to support and uphold something that can never stand on its own."

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Heritage Foundation Explains Housing Bail-out

Did you ever wonder what was really going on with the economy? Did you find it almost impossible to believe that we were as bad off as the 'drive-by media' thinks we are? Then join our little band of believers in America and her free markets.

The Heritage Foundation has a great article on the housing situation that explains in fine language what the congress is proposing to fix the problem.

I don't think it is a problem as most of the people that bought over there heads will just walk away from there loans and the financial institutions will have to dig deep to stay in the game - Why is it the tax payers problem when the financial community screws up like with the cheap loans.

The two proposals before the congress now will only hurt the economy more than help as it will support, at tax payers expense, those buyers and financial institutions that were negligent while causing problems for ever one else in the market - a short term solution with long term problems.

Take a few minutes and read this as it will help explain where we need to go from here.

Hang on to your wallets and Keep the faith, the battle is joined!

Socialist Progressives Vote for Illgeals Benifits

Here is the post on the illegals and what they cost us every year. This is not a good situation and we as a nation must stand firm to adopt a policy that will address this before we become a third world nation. (I have another good article on the violence that is on going in Mexico)


Be sure to read the 14 reasons at the bottom. Social Security Change For 2008 The United States Senate voted to extend Social Security Benefits to Illegal Aliens beginning in 2008. The following are the senators w ho voted to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits. They are grouped by home state. If a state is not listed, there was no voting representative.
Alaska : Stevens (R)
Arizona : McCain (R)
Arkansas : Lincoln (D) Pryor (D)
California : Boxer (D) Feinstein (D)
Colorado : Salazar (D)
Connecticut : Dodd (D) Lieberman (D)
Delaware : Biden (D) Carper (D)
Florida : Martinez (R)
Hawaii : Akaka (D) Inouye (D)
Illinois : Durbin (D) Obama (D)
Indiana : Bayh (D) Lugar (R)
Iowa : Harkin (D)
Kansas : Brownback (R) Louisiana : Landrieu (D)
Maryland : Mikulski (D) Sarbanes (D)
Massachusetts : Kennedy (D) Kerry (D)
Montana : Baucus (D)
Nebraska : Hagel (R) Nevada : Reid (D)
New Jersey : Lautenberg (D) Menendez (D)
New Mexico : Bingaman (D) New York : Clinton (D) Schumer (D)
North Dakota : Dorgan (D)
Ohio : DeWine (R) Voinovich(R) Oregon : Wyden (D)
Pennsylvania : Specter (R)
Rhode Island : Chafee (R) Reed (D)
South Carolina : Graham (R)
South Dakota : Johnson (D)
Vermont : Jeffords (I) Leahy (D)
Washington : C antwel l (D) Murray (D)
West Virginia : Rockefeller (D), by Not Voting
Wisconsin : Feingold (D) Kohl (D)

I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of the following facts: ?

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year.

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. ?

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here
illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare and Social Services by the American taxpayers.

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. htt p://

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two-and-a-half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report.

12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period." f

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.

14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States ". Total cost is a whooping... $338.3 BILLION A YEAR!!!

Social Securty Doomed by Socialist Progressives

I hope everyone is aware of the dire saturation that social security is in and if we don't do something about it now, the roof will cave in on those that will follow in a short generation.

And it's not just social security, it's Medicare and Medicaid that are sucking up more and more tax dollars every year. It is estimated that by the year 2020, the big three will take nearly 30% of the yearly budget - and after the national debt that won't leave much for anything else. (I will post next a neat article on how much illegals are sucking from our national budget as well)

The bottom line here is who will take lead to actually fix this stuff or who will take the blame when it all goes wrong? I know and you know in your heart of hearts it will never be those that caused the problem to get out of hand in the first place. The old party Democrats.

I know the New Socialist Progressive Party, NSPP, liberal Democrats, won't as it is a major voting block for them, the "seasoned citizens". All the NSPP has to do is howl that to change now will 'disenfranchise' all those poor people that didn't save a dime and rely on government for everything.

Their is a ton of information just for the asking that explains this in detail, but fear of the unknown will always work to keep the uninformed from taking any independent action. I believe that at least 50% or more of the population has no clue what is going on in this country no matter the subject. All they have to rely on is the major media and they are in the tank with the NSPP. The NSPP knows this as well and they use it every time a question comes up concerning government handouts.

What can be done to get this started? Vote out the 'old party Democrats' and do not vote for the NSPP to take their place. Will the Republicans do the job right, I don't know but at least they tried and were shot done a few years ago, 2004 and early 2005.

Maybe if we demand that action be taken, like we must on the boarder fence and a comprehensive energy policy, yeah, maybe we will get something done. Remember it worked on that stupid immigration bill that our leaders tried to sneak through.

So let's vow to get started and always keep the faith, the battle is joined!


Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society.

They felt they should have a special plan for themselves So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.. For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.

This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.
Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA... ZILCH... ZERO!!!

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds; "OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK "!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer). We can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.
That change would be to: Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen.

Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us Then sit back... And see how fast they would fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.
How many people CAN you send this to?

Better yet How many people WILL you send this to?

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Obama Is Lost in His Own Rhetoric

With the media falling all over themselves with anything that Obama says, it's refreshing to read some straight talk from someone that has his finger on the pulse of America.

This is short and to the point and only Krauthammer can do it - he is believable and honest.

Keep the faith, the battle is joined!

The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud

By Charles KrauthammerFriday, March 21, 2008; Page A17

The beauty of a speech is that you don't just give the answers, you provide your own questions. "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." So said Barack Obama, in his Philadelphia speech about his pastor, friend, mentor and spiritual adviser of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.

An interesting, if belated, admission. But the more important question is: which"controversial" remarks?

Wright's assertion from the pulpit that the U.S. government invented HIV "as a means of genocide against people of color"? Wright's claim that America was morally responsible for Sept. 11 -- "chickens coming home to roost" -- because of, among other crimes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (Obama says he missed church that day. Had he never heard about it?) What about the charge that the U.S. government (of Franklin Roosevelt, mind you) knew about Pearl Harbor, but lied about it? Or that the government gives drugs to black people, presumably to enslave and imprison them?

Obama condemns such statements as wrong and divisive, then frames the next question: "There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?"
But that is not the question.

The question is why didn't he leave that church? Why didn't he leave -- why doesn't he leave even today -- a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) "God damn America"? Obama's 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction.

His defense rests on two central propositions: (a) moral equivalence and (b) white guilt.
(a) Moral equivalence. Sure, says Obama, there's Wright, but at the other "end of the spectrum" there's Geraldine Ferraro, opponents of affirmative action and his own white grandmother, "who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." But did she shout them in a crowded theater to incite, enrage and poison others?

"I can no more disown [Wright] than I can my white grandmother." What exactly was Grandma's offense? Jesse Jackson himself once admitted to the fear he feels from the footsteps of black men on the street. And Harry Truman was known to use epithets for blacks and Jews in private, yet is revered for desegregating the armed forces and recognizing the first Jewish state since Jesus's time. He never spread racial hatred. Nor did Grandma. Yet Obama compares her to Wright.

Does he not see the moral difference between the occasional private expression of the prejudices of one's time and the use of a public stage to spread racial lies and race hatred?
(b) White guilt.

Obama's purpose in the speech was to put Wright's outrages in context. By context, Obama means history. And by history, he means the history of white racism. Obama says, "We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country," and then he proceeds to do precisely that. What lies at the end of his recital of the long train of white racial assaults from slavery to employment discrimination? Jeremiah Wright, of course.

This contextual analysis of Wright's venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It's the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance. That's why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination.

But Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign. Then answer this, Senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero.

It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?

Sunday, March 23, 2008

On a Liter Note - -

Is it any wonder a small warm puppy can warm a heart and start your day off on the right foot -
Posted by Picasa

Friday, March 21, 2008

How Safe are Computers from Hacking? National Security Risk

I have always felt we really didn't have good control of what we import from outside the country, not just computers, but everything. The early signs of this is the pet food industry importing food from China. What else shouold we be concerned about? Drugs? Food?

What it comes down to, we have to watch what is going on world wide and take an active role in weeding out those items that will effect us directly. Bottom line,

Counterfeit Chips Raise Big Hacking, Terror Threats, Experts Say (april 2008)

As more computer chips are made overseas, the risk of hardware tampering increases, from stealing consumer data to crashing government networks. But how real is the threat?

By Glenn Derene and Joe Pappalardo

This past January, two brothers from Texas, Michael and Robert Edman, appeared in court to face federal charges of selling counterfeit computer equipment to, among others, the Air Force, Marine Corps, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Energy, numerous universities and defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin.

According to prosecutors, the pair, working largely out of Michael Edman's house in the rural town of Richmond, bought cheap network cards from a supplier in China. They also purchased labels and boxes carrying the logo of Cisco Systems, the U.S.-based hardware giant. Until a source in China tipped off the FBI, no one could tell that the parts were Cisco knockoffs rather than the real thing.

An attorney for the Edmans says that they, too, were victims—duped by overseas suppliers. But one thing is clear: The case is about a lot more than trademark infringement. Security experts warn that as supply chains become more global and more opaque, no one can be sure what parts are going into the computers that run, well, everything—from air traffic control towers to banks to weapons systems. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff raised the issue recently at a briefing attended by /Popular Mechanics/ and others <

"Increasingly when you buy computers they have components that originate ... all around the world," he said. "We need to look at ... how we assure that people are not embedding in very small components ... that can be triggered remotely."Software vulnerabilities and online scams receive plenty of public attention. Viruses, Trojan horses, spyware, phishing schemes that trick people into providing financial data—all have made headlines in recent years. The emerging hardware threat is different.

Imagine buying a computer, printer, monitor, router or other device in which malevolent instructions, or at least security loopholes, are etched permanently into the silicon. Individuals, companies and federal agencies could all be at risk from foreign governments or criminal enterprises. A computer chip built with a subtle error might allow an identity-theft ring to hack past the encryption used to connect customers with their banks. Flash memory hidden inside a corporation's networked printers could save an image file of every document it printed, then send out the information.

In a disturbing national-security scenario, overseas agents might be able to hard-wire instructions to bring down a Department of Defense system on a predetermined date or in response to an external trigger. In the time it took to bring the systems back online, a military assault could be underway.

Shadowy Threat

When a software problem is detected, thousands or millions of computers can be fixed within hours with a software patch. Discover a malevolent hardware component, however, and machines need to be fixed one by one by one. On a large network it could take months—if the problem were detected at all."There are a whole bunch of functions inside each chip that you have no direct access to," says Stephen Kent, chief information security scientist for BBN Technologies and a member of the Intelligence Science Board, which advises U.S. intelligence agencies. "We passed the point a long time ago when you could combinatorially test all the possible inputs for a complex chip. If somebody hid a function that, given the right inputs, could cause the chip to do something surprising, it's not clear how you could test for that."Such tampering wouldn't have to occur in a factory where computer components were built.

In fact, repair businesses and subcontractors may pose a greater danger. "A skilled and capable adversary could replace a chip on a circuit board with a very similar one," says John Pironti, a security expert for information technology consulting firm Getronics. "But this chip would have malicious instructions added to the programming." The strategy wouldn't be practical for running a broad identity-theft operation, but it might allow spies to focus an attack on a valuable corporate or government target—gaining access to equipment, then doctoring it with hidden functions.

However, not all experts agree that the risk is severe. After all, there's never been a report of a foreign country or criminal outfit using such technology to steal information or commit sabotage. (The United States did successfully conduct such a mission against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.)"It's certainly possible for the world's major espionage services to secretly plant vulnerabilities in our microprocessors, but the threat is overblown," says Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer of the data security company BT Counterpane. "Why would anyone go through the effort and take the risk, when there are thousands of vulnerabilities in our computers, networks and operating systems waiting to be discovered with only a few hours' work?"The National Security Agency and Defense Department aren't convinced.

There's no way to know if they are reacting to an imminent danger or simply swinging at shadows, but security professionals are scrambling to guard their electronics supply chains.

Building Chips in ChinaIn September 2007,

Intel broke ground on "Fab 68," a silicon-wafer fabricating plant in Dalian, China. The plant is Intel's first chip manufacturing facility in China, but the company already operates facilities for testing, as well as research and development, all over the world, from India to Costa Rica to Russia. Rival AMD is planning to build a fab in India. Several other American chipmakers, including Applied Materials and National Semiconductor, have facilities in China. In all, less than 25 percent of the world's chipmaking capacity is still located within the United States.

The companies that move offshore are trying to stay competitive in commercial markets. As a side effect of globalization, however, the Defense Department is finding itself with fewer domestic sources of the specialized chips—often outdated by Best Buy standards—that help run weapons platforms that range from advanced aircraft to missile guidance systems. These are the electronic components that might pose the most inviting target for a foreign power.

The NSA is trying to counter the threat with a program called Trusted Foundry Access that accredits companies that supply specialized electronics to government agencies. Ten companies have joined the program since 2004—the inaugural deal, with IBM, cost the government a reported $600 million. To participate, manufacturers need to take measures such as obtaining security clearances for staff members and quarantining computer design tools from the Internet. Further, "The facilities must be on-shore or in a closely allied country," says a Defense Department official involved with the program.

One potential flaw in the program is that it covers "just a slice of the life cycle," says Jim Gosler, a Sandia National Laboratories researcher who has spent time probing U.S. electronics systems to identify vulnerabilities. "You have to make sure the component stays trusted—they get out and about" once the equipment leaves the factory and goes into service.

More critically, even well-funded initiatives can't permanently withstand the forces pushing microchip production offshore. Ultimately, trying too hard to isolate American chip-making might simply help foreign-owned chip manufacturers challenge U.S. dominance in the field. "It's a pretty hairy situation to look out 10 or 15 years and have to ask, ‘Where are we going to get our technology?'" the Defense official says.

DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, does have another plan. Through a new initiative called Trust in ICs (microchips are also called integrated circuits or ICs), the agency has contracted with Raytheon, MIT, Johns Hopkins University and others to find ways to protect chips from tampering and to detect vulnerabilities if they do occur. Ultimately, though, chips may be too complex to secure completely. "Even if you found something, you could never be confident you found "everything"," Gosler says. "That's the awful nature of this business."

How Hillary Loves Bill Defined - a.k.a. Slick Willie

Okay , sit back and turn right for some smiles - this will explain why Hillary will always be playing 'catch-up ball' with bubba. Oh brother, if only the truth be known - heh

When Bill and Hillary first got married Bill said, 'I am putting a box under the bed. You must promise never to look in it'.

In all their 30 years of marriage, Hillary never looked. On the afternoon of their 30th anniversary, curiosity got the best of her and she lifted the lid and peeked inside. In the box was 3 empty beer cans and $81,874.25 in cash. She closed the box and put it back under the bed.

Now that she knew what was in the box, she was doubly curious as to why there even was such a box with such contents. That evening, they were out for a special Anniversary dinner. After dinner, Hillary could no longer contain her curiosity and she confessed, saying, 'I am so sorry, Bill. For all these years, I kept my promise and never looked into the box under our bed. However, today the temptation was too much and I gave in. But now I need to know, why do you keep the 3 beer cans in the box?'

Bill thought for a while and said, 'I guess after all these years you deserve to know the truth. Whenever I was unfaithful to you, I put an empty beer can in the box under the bed to remind myself not to do it again'.

Hillary was shocked, but said, 'Hmmm, Jennifer, Paula and Monica. I am very disappointed and saddened by your behavior. However, since you are addicted to sex I guess it does happen and I guess 3 times is not that bad considering your problem.'

Bill thanked her for being so understanding. They hugged and made their peace. A little while later Hillary asked Bill, 'So why do you have all that money in the box?'Bill answered: 'Well, whenever the box filled up with empty cans, I took them to the recycling center and redeemed them for cash.'

Thursday, March 20, 2008

The Real Clinton Legacy - Deception and Fraud

Bill and Hillary will leave a legacy that will be remembered as matched in history. Here are two people that are still loved and adored by millions even after they have proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, deplorable.

They have proven themselves to be totally contemptible, displayed a totally lack of patriotism while in the White House and flogged our Constitution like it was a piece of toilet paper. Yet Bill Clinton can demand millions for speeches in this country as well as abroad. How can this be? Who are these people that will pay exurbanite amounts of money to listen to a pathological lier and applaud him with enthusiasm.

The author of this narrative on Bill's legacy is unknown, but I am old enough to remember most of these occupancies and they bring back that old sick feeling that I had back in the nineties when Bill was trying to destroy the country.

It is imperative that we do not allow Hillary and Bill anywhere near the White House again.

Keep the faith, the battle is joined

Dear Mr. Ex-President Clinton : I recently saw a bumper sticker that said, "Thank me, I voted for Clinton-Gore." So, I sat down and reflected on that, and I am sending my "Thank you" for what you have done, specifically:

1. Thank you for introducing us to Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky , Dolly Kyle Browning, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broderick. Did I leave anyone out?

2. Thank you for teaching my 8 year old about oral sex. I had really planned to wait until he was a little older to discuss it with him, but now he knows more about it than I did as a senior in college.

3. Thank you for showing us that sexual harassment in the work place (especially the White House) and on the job is OK, and all you have to know is what the meaning of "sex" is. It really is great to know that certain sexual acts are not sex, and one person may have sex while the other one does NOT have sex.

4. Thank you for reintroducing the concept of impeachment to a new generation and demonstrating that the ridiculous plot of the movie "Wag the Dog" could be plausible after all.

5. Thanks for making Jimmy Carter look competent, Gerald Ford look graceful, Richard Nixon look honest, Lyndon Johnson look truthful, and John Kennedy look moral.

6. Thank you for the 73 House and Senate witnesses who have pled the 5th Amendment and 17 witnesses who have fled the country to avoid testifying about Democratic campaign fund raising.

7. Thank you, for the 19 charges, 8 convictions, and 4 imprisonment's from the Whitewater "mess" and the 55 criminal charges and 32 criminal convictions (so far) in the other " Clinton " scandals.

8. Thanks also for reducing our military by half, "gutting" much of our foreign policy, and flying all over the world on "vacations" carefully disguised as necessary trips.

9 Thank you, also, for "finding" millions of dollars (I really didn't need it in the first place, and I can't think of a more deserving group of recipients for my hard-earned tax dollars) for all of your globe-trotting. I understand you, the family and your cronies have logged in more time aboard Air Force One than any other administration.

10. Now that you've left the White House, thanks for the 140 pardons of convicted felons and indicted felons-in-exile. We will love to have them rejoin society. (Not to mention the scores you pardoned while Governor of Arkansas)

11. Thanks also for removing the White House silverware. I'm sure that Laura Bush didn't like the pattern anyway. Also, enjoy the housewarming gifts you've received from your "friends."

12. Thanks to you and your staff in the West Wing of the White House for vandalizing and destroying government property on the way out. I also appreciate removing all of that excess weight (China , silverware, linen, towels, ash trays, soap, pens, magnetic compass, flight manuals, etc.) out of Air Force 1. The weight savings means burning less fuel, thus less tax dollars spent on jet fuel. Thank you!

13 And finally, please ensure that Hillary enjoys the $8 million dollar advance for her "tell-all" book and you, Bill, the $10 million advance for your memoirs. Who says crime doesn't pay!

14. The last and most important point - thank you for forcing Israel to let Mohammed Atta go free. Terrorist pilot Mohammed Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners". However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton , and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher , "insisted" that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammed Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center.

This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports. Why shouldn't Americans know the real truth? What a guy!! If you agree that the American public must be made aware of these facts, pass this on. God bless America and THANK YOU (once again) for spending my taxes so wisely and frugally. SINCERELY, A U.S. Citizen

- - AND NOW FOR THE REST OF THE STORY -- Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a New York U.S. Senator, now comes under the "Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan," which means that even if she never gets re-elected, she STILL receives her Congressional salary until she dies. (Would it not be nice if all Americans were pension eligible after only 4 years?)

If Bill outlives her , he then inherits HER salary until HE dies. He is already getting his Presidential salary until he dies. If Hillary outlives Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies. Guess who pays for that? WE DO! It's common knowledge that in order for her to establish NY residency, they purchased a million dollar-plus house in upscale Chappaqua , New York. Makes sense. They are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense.

Here is where it becomes interesting. Their mortgage payments hover at around $10,000 per month. BUT, an extra residence HAD to be built within the acreage to house the Secret Service agents. The Clintons charge the Federal government $10,000 monthly rent for the use of that extra residence, which is just about equal to their mortgage payment. This means that we, the taxpayers, are paying the Clinton's salary, mortgage, transportation, safety and security, as well as t he salaries for their 12-man staff -- and, this is all perfectly legal! When she runs for President, will you vote for her? How many people can YOU send this to?

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Who or What is Barack Obama?

The question that is rising to the surface these past few days is who is Barack Obama, really? As with most of us, I have my opinion of him and it isn't pretty - but more on that later -

This article asks the right questions about Barack and his wife - where did they come from and how did they wind up running for president of the United States. I believe these are legitimate questions we all must answer before November.

This is must read for all of our sakes - Keep the faith, the battle is joined!

WASHINGTON — Thursday, March 13, 2008 ay, March 13, 2008
The passion fueling the Democrats' history-making presidential campaign is putting two of the party's most important constituencies — women and African-Americans — on what could be a collision course.What /could/ be...? USA Today is wrong.And Glenn Reynolds <> offered the following post, reproduced here word for word:MARK PENN: Obama "really can't win the general." <> Yes he can. Glenn Reynolds is wrong.

However they surfaced -- which was inevitable despite The Anchoress's uncharacteristically irrelevant concern with how they surfaced -- the video excerpts from the sermons of Jeremiah Wright are the only significant revelation that occurred this week. (Ferraro's faux-pas will be as insignificant as she is in two weeks time.) They are also fatal to Obama's chances of winning the presidency. They are probably equally fatal to Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the presidency.

It's up to the Democrat Party to figure out how to deal with the catastrophe, but catastrophe it is, and there are multiple reasons why. Everyone has been bending over backwards to give Obama the benefit of every doubt, including all Democrats, the fawning MSM, and the many many conservatives who would also like to enter a post-racial era of politics. That's the prime reason for The Anchoress's rare lapse of good judgment.

Citizens in the electorate who perceive, emotionally or intellectually, that they are conceived of as "the enemy" by a presidential candidate can't be accused of "not making any sense" if they suddenly become intensely skeptical of that candidate. They have every right -- an infinitely greater right, in fact, than any candidate for the highest office in the land has to an unlimited benefit of the doubt about the sincerity of his rhetoric. The candidate's prime mission is to convince voters that he (or she) is not serving some narrow slice of the electorate at the expense of all others. If he fails to do this, he has not earned the office. Period.

For a variety of reasons, we all know very little about Barack Obama. His life has been much like his campaign persona, featuring some point of contact for all people. If you're poor and black, he at least is black. If you're white and highly educated, he at least is highly educated. If you're a struggling single mother, he at least was raised by a single mother. If you're a Catholic or a Methodist or a Presbyterian or a Baptist, he at least belongs to a nominally Christian church. If you're anybody who believes in the American Dream, he is at least, regardless of policy differences, a living embodiment of the American Dream. He has a finger in every pie. His speeches have been analogous. He wants things to be better. He wants less rancorous partisanship. He wants less conflict between America and the rest of the world. And he asserts his confidence, ever so believably, that all these utopian goals can be achieved because */he is all of us/*, in one way or another.

But we don't know very much about him because the part of him to which any of us can relate is only a sliver. Hardly any of us had a white American college professor for a mother and a Kenyan muslim for a father. Hardly any of us spent large chunks of our youth living in non-European foreign countries. Hardly any of us went to the Harvard Law School. Hardly anyone in American history has been propelled to the summit of national politics with such frighteningly scant experience. He is the promising stranger who seems too good to be true. But he is a stranger, even to the 91 percent of genuine African-Americans who support him knowing that he shares none of their ancestry of slavery. And he is too good to be true.

The truth is, he is /none/ of us. Which is absolutely fine for any individual citizen of the United States. But not for someone who aspires to be president of the United States. Ultimately, we all require some connection that goes beyond lofty phrases in speeches read off a teleprompter. The damage that will simmer and ultimately explode out of the Jeremiah Wright association is that Obama is a phony, no matter how he chooses to respond. Whether he defends his racist, anti-American pastor of 20 years or repudiates him with extreme prejudice. In his heart of hearts Obama understands nothing and no one, because he has never belonged anywhere or truly participated in anything. Which is why he has consistently gone overboard in trying to belong everywhere he's ever been.

In the process, he has initiated a chain reaction that will do in his party, his rivals, the people he claims to want to serve, and himself. He seems to present a forest of contradictions. His classmates at Harvard Law School, including his close associates at the Harvard Law Review, seem to remember him as a great guy, tolerant, friendly, and fair. Yet he chooses to be a member of a church that foments a continuous and deeply counter-productive racial rage. He forms a friendship with an over-privileged Vietnam-era radical terrorist whose knowledge of how to play "the system" is so advanced that he can cop a plea for bombing the U.S. Capitol and emerge from prison into a professorship without ever expressing a moment's remorse.

Yet he marries a middle-class African-American woman who has had every conceivable advantage and who now, on the verge of becoming First Lady of the nation, publicly voices a churlish disrespect not only for her country but for white people, men in generally, and even the husband who has opened up the golden path to power. He prospers politically through a murky relationship with a Chicago operator who has relationships with multiple dubious moneymen from the Wahabbi middle east that have benefited him politcally and personally. Yet he slams his female presidential rival for releasing a photo of him in muslim dress and objects to the speaking out loud of his own middle name.Who is Barack Obama?

There is only one thread of consistency in all these contradictions -- his distance from everyone in his life, save possibly the mother he chose to ignore in an autobiography focused on his distant, abandoning father. Barack Obama is whoever he happens to be around, whoever the emotionally strong people in his life choose to surround him with, whoever it serves him to be at the moment.

The argument is being made that Obama must hate America because he went to Jeremiah Wright's church, got married there, had his children baptized there, and contributed $20K to it in 2006. That's wrong, too. It's Michelle Obama who hates America, who believes the vile propaganda of yet anothe rich, phony, one-church Pope, who wanted to be married in a Farrakhan-esque cult denomination, and have her children baptized there. Obama was just reflecting her wishes because she was authentic African-American and he was merely determined to belong. /She/ knows this. That's why she can barely conceal her contempt for him.

There/ is/ no Barack Obama. Everyone who meets him makes up their own version of him. He is an outstanding orator becaue he has learned to read the desire of those around him about who they want him to be and then to reflect and fulfill that desire. It has worked for him every step of the way until now. Be the ball? He/ is/ the words he says. When he says them. That's his whole identity, the wave of affirmation that flows back from the crowd when he has been a clear enough mirror.He has been too many things to too many different people. But all those people expect to see what they're expecting to see every time, and it's no longer possible in the simultaneous pressures of a presidential campaign. Even he doesn't know how different he is from venue to venue and person to person. That's why he doesn't know how to recognize the urgency of repudiating Jeremiah Wright in absolute and unforgiving terms. There's a part of him that believes in the AIDS conspiracy, just as there's a part of him that believes in the fundamental decency of all the guilty liberals who admired and promoted him at the Harvard Business School.

All of this could possibly be overcome if he had any feel for the deep diversity of the American electorate. But he doesn't. From first to last, he's always been an outsider. He doesn't understand at all -- and neither does USA Today's eager young reporter -- that African-Americans have been on a deadly collision course with feminists since the mid-seventies. These two apparent and frequently avowed allies have been competing for the same finite pool of extra privileges all along, and because there are more women and more of the women are white, it is the feminists who have done more to slow the de-racialization of America than any other force.

The feminists' anti-male propaganda has inevitably done far more damage to African-American males and their role in families than it has done to white men. The feminists' gradual achievement of female hegemony over child ownership, child-rearing, and abortion decisions has done more to destroy the black family and promote the epidemic of children born out of wedlock than any conspiracy Jeremiah Wright could ever dream up. The resistance -- in the virulent form of hip-hop hatred of women -- has made racism and sexism into the two supposedly allied causes that were destined to go finally and horribly to war with one another.

Regardless of how the campaign war turns out, both sides have been crippled. Obama cannot win because there is no one inside the gauzy, unreal image to battle through the contradictions to a mandate based on character rather than a mosaic of sliver identities. His white vote will shrivel as ordinary Americans discover they can't determine where his allegiance lies, unless it's to himself only. Women will sit on their hands because they've seen enough of the slick young operator who waltzes in at the last moment and swipes the opportunity from the deserving veteran female (and being half-white doesn't help him in this respect).

But Hillary can't win, either, because of the one-drop rule. Even though Obama is not and never was an African-American, he has always been black enough to benefit from the superannuated slave culture that forgives every corruption and hypocrisy in those who have any claim on being black. If Hillary is the nominee, African-Americans will stay home in significant numbers. Unlike Jeremiah Wright, John McCain is the irascible uncle we'd go to for help in a pinch, not hide from because of the revolver he keeps in a cigar box.

At the end of the day, Reverend Wright is a self-fulfilling prophecy, the poison in the well. Like Moses, he can never accompany his chosen ones to the promised land. When his people finally learn to stop following his like, they will find what they seek, as if by magic. But for now, the horse he groomed for them is scratched at the gate. If you think we're wrong, you do not yet understand the power of YouTube. It will "never stop, never stop, never stop..."

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Worshippers of Death - The New World of Islamofacism

This is the article that I mentioned in the previous post - it's a new world that we live in today and to survive we must change to meet the new criteria - our very existence depends on it.

If we can't make the change to meet the new challenges to our freedoms, then we will have to accept the fact that we no longer deserve to be free to choose our own destiny. I hope I never see that day come when we believe it is better to live with a boot on our necks rather than risking everything to live free.

This country was founded on casting off the boot of oppression. Can we turn our collective backs on all that history?

Stand up now, look around, make a difference and keep the faith, the battle is joined!

Worshippers of Death By Alan M. Dershowitz

Zahra Maladan is an educated woman who edits a women’s magazine in Lebanon. She is also a mother, who undoubtedly loves her son. She has ambitions for him, but they are different from those of most mothers in the West. She wants her son to become a suicide bomber.

At the recent funeral for the assassinated Hezbollah terrorist Imad Moughnaya—the mass murderer responsible for killing 241 marines in 1983 and more than 100 women, children and men in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994—Ms. Maladan was quoted in the New York Times giving the following warning to her son: ‘if you’re not going to follow the steps of the Islamic resistance martyrs, then I don’t want you.’

Zahra Maladan represents a dramatic shift in the way we must fight to protect our citizens against enemies who are sworn to kill them by killing themselves. The traditional paradigm was that mothers who love their children want them to live in peace, marry and produce grandchildren.

Women in general, and mothers in particular, were seen as a counterweight to male belligerence. The picture of the mother weeping as her son is led off to battle—even a just battle—has been a constant and powerful image. Now there is a new image of mothers urging their children to die, and then celebrating the martyrdom of the suicidal sons and daughters by distributing sweets and singing wedding songs.

More and more young women—some married with infant children—are strapping bombs to their (sometimes pregnant) bellies, because they have been taught to love death rather than life. Look at what is being preached by some influential Islamic leaders: ‘We are going to win, because they love life and we love death,’ said Hassan Nasarallah, the leader of Hezbollah.

He has also said: ‘[E]ach of us lives his days and nights hoping more than anything to be killed for the sake of Allah.’ Shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden told a reporter: ‘We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us.’‘The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death,’ explained Afghani al Qaeda operative Maulana Inyadullah.

Sheik Feiz Mohammed, leader of the Global Islamic Youth Center in Sydney, Australia, preached: ‘We want to have children and use them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid.’ Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a speech: ‘It is the zenith of honor for a man, a young person, boy or girl to be prepared to sacrifice his life in order to serve the interests of his nation and his religion.’How should Western democracies fight against an enemy whose leaders preach a preference for death?

The two basic premises of conventional warfare have long been that soldiers and civilians prefer living to dying and can thus be deterred from killing by the fear of being killed; and that combatants (soldiers) can easily be distinguished from noncombatants (women, children, the elderly, the infirm and other ordinary citizens). These premises are being challenged by women like Zahra Maladan. Neither she nor her son—if he listens to his mother—can be deterred from killing by the fear of being killed.

They must be prevented from succeeding in their ghoulish quest for martyrdom. Prevention, however, carries a high risk of error. The woman walking toward the group of soldiers or civilians might well be an innocent civilian. A moment’s hesitation may cost innocent lives. But a failure to hesitate may also have a price.

Late last month, a young female bomber was shot as she approached some shops in central Baghdad. The Iraqi soldier who drew his gun hesitated as the bomber, hands raised, insisted the she wasn’t armed. The soldier and a shop owner finally opened fire as she dashed for the stores; she was knocked to the ground but still managed to detonate the bomb, killing three and wounding eight. Had the soldier and other bystanders not called out a warning to others—and had they not shot her before she could enter the shops—the death toll certainly would have been higher. Had he not hesitated, it might have been lower.

As more women and children are recruited by their mothers and their religious leaders to become suicide bombers, more women and children will be shot at—some mistakenly. That too is part of the grand plan of our enemies. They want us to kill their civilians, who they also consider martyrs, because when we accidentally kill a civilian, they win in the court of public opinion.

One Western diplomat called this the ‘the harsh arithmetic of pain,’ whereby civilian casualties /on both sides /‘play in their favor. Democracies lose, both politically and emotionally, when they kill civilians, even inadvertently. As Golda Meir once put it: ‘We can perhaps someday forgive you for killing our children, but we cannot forgive you for making us kill your children.’

Civilian casualties also increase when terrorists operate from within civilian enclaves and hide behind human shields. This relatively new phenomenon undercuts the second basic premise of conventional warfare: Combatants can easily be distinguished from noncombatants. Has Zahra Maladan become a combatant by urging her son to blow himself up? Have the religious leaders who preach a culture of death lost their status as noncombatants? What about ‘civilians’ who willingly allow themselves to be used as human shields? Or their homes as launching pads for terrorist rockets?

The traditional sharp distinction between soldiers in uniform and civilians in nonmilitary garb has given way to a continuum. At the more civilian end are babies and true noncombatants; at the more military end are the religious leaders who incite mass murder; in the middle are ordinary citizens who facilitate, finance or encourage terrorism.

There are no hard and fast lines of demarcation, and mistakes are inevitable—as the terrorists well understand. We need new rules, strategies and tactics to deal effectively and fairly with these dangerous new realities. We cannot simply wait until the son of Zahra Maladan—and the sons and daughters of hundreds of others like her—decide to follow his mother’s demand. We must stop them before they export their sick and dangerous culture of death to our shores.”(*) /The Wall Street Journal, /OpEd page, March 3, 2008Mr. Dershowitz teaches law at Harvard University, and is the author of “Finding Jefferson” (Wiley, 2007)