How Much Does Freedom Cost? Is It Worth It?

Our world seems to be more and more a place where we have to make decisions on what is important and what can be left till later - and it's not just about what we have to give up to drive our cars with the price of gas the way it is, it's what decisions we have to make today that will effect our immediate future and the future of the next generation. Important stuff.

The coming election will be a test of what we, as Americas, think of our country, what it's future should look like and what responsibilities we have to spread freedom to oppressed people around the world.

The result of our decisions now will be felt around the world. The world still looks to America as the only country left that has real freedom. The world masses look at us and wonder how nice it would be if they only get here so they could live out there dreams of personal fulfillment. The worlds people do not hate us, far from it.

But the leaders of some countries do not like us very much as we are a beacon of hope to their oppressed populations. For the tyrant to keep control, they would certainly like to see America relegated third world status.

A vote for the Marxist socialists, liberal Democrats, NSPP, would certainly hurry this situation along as this is exactly the same agenda that the socialists have in mind for us.

Keep your mind open to all aspects of the candidate's rhetoric as you keep the faith, your decisions will affect the outcome of the battle for freedom and Democracy in America and therefore, the world.

The cost of defeat (from the Heritage Foundation)

A new analysis by two prominent liberal economists finds that the war on terror, including the fight in Iraq, will cost taxpayers up to $5 trillion. But is this estimate right?

Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner explains that Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes “are making a political argument, not a serious economic study.” Their analysis, which makes the case for an immediate pullout from Iraq, is based on two false assumptions, Feulner argues.

First, they assume that “expenditures on the Iraq war have no benefits [for America].”

But as Feulner points out, “the war has allowed thousands of terrorists to meet their maker,” while tens of thousands more are in military custody. “That’s quite a few dangerous individuals no longer around to attack Americans,” he explains, citing data showing that global terrorism is waning. Not only that, he continues, Iraq now has a democratic constitution and its people enjoy more freedom than under Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime.

Second, they assume that the war in Iraq has been lost.

Wrong again, Feulner says: “The United States hasn’t lost. Not by a long shot. The ‘surge’ strategy has made major gains, opening the path to victory. And that’s helping us make gains elsewhere.”

“Yes, winning a war is expensive,” Feulner concludes. “But losing would be even more costly. And you can’t put a price tag on true victory.”

Lieberman/Warner Bill Will Crush American Taxpayers

There is a lot of important things happening this coming week in Washington and they all seem to be directed at cause harm rather than being helpful to the American population.

I never know what to think about the logic that our legislators use when deciding what is the best course of action when voting. The fact that this bill was even contemplated as make me think they have absolutely no common sense at all.

The Lieberman/Warner bill on global warming is based on a fraudulent information provided by individuals that have an agenda that doesn't include the well being of the American citizen. The information that they use is based on junk science, that is science without hard evidence found from legitimate real time research.

Did you ever wonder why Al Gore refuses to debat 'man made' global warming?

Take a few minutes and look how this bill will effect your state which means how it will effect your family now and in the future.

This is serious stuff and it is happening right now. It will effect you now, and It will effect everything you do or ever wanted to do.

Call your representative and ask them to vote this down. Now you know the battle is joined so you can keep the faith.


From the Heritage Foundation -
May 22, 2008

Effect of the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Legislation on States
by William W. Beach, Ben Lieberman, David Kreutzer, Ph.D. and Nick Loris
WebMemo #1930

The Senate's leading climate-change bill, while aiming to combat global warming by reducing carbon dioxide in the air, actually poses "extraordinary perils" for Americans and the economy, according to a new study from The Heritage Foundation.

The study, produced by Heritage's Center for Data Analysis (CDA), forecasts severe consequences—including crushing energy costs, millions of jobs lost and falling household income—if Congress enacts the so-called Lieberman-Warner bill.

What follows are 50 state-by-state breakouts of the impact the bill would have on jobs and the economy.

Alabama (chart)
Alaska (chart)
Missouri (chart)
Montana (chart)
Nebraska (chart)
Nevada (chart)
New Hampshire (chart)
New Jersey (chart)
New Mexico (chart)
New York (chart)
North Carolina (chart)
North Dakota (chart)
Ohio (chart)
Oklahoma (chart)
Oregon (chart)
Pennsylvania (chart)
Rhode Island (chart)
South Carolina (chart)
South Dakota (chart)
Tennessee (chart)
Texas (chart)
Utah (chart)
Vermont (chart)
Virginia (chart)
Washington (chart)
West Virginia (chart)
Wisconsin (chart)
Wyoming (chart)

Arizona (chart)
Arkansas (chart)
California (chart)
Colorado (chart)
Connecticut (chart)
Delaware (chart)
Florida (chart)
Georgia (chart)
Hawaii (chart)
Idaho (chart)
Illinois (chart)
Indiana (chart)
Iowa (chart)
Kansas (chart)
Kentucky (chart)
Louisiana (chart)
Maine (chart)
Maryland (chart)
Massachusetts (chart)
Michigan (chart)
Minnesota (chart)
Mississippi (chart)

How Lieberman-Warner Would Affect the Price of Gasoline (chart)

Obama - What did You Hear Rev. Wright Say?

I don't know who said this but it rings true for me -
" To whom we listen determines the course of our lives".

The Bible also can weigh in on this and I believe the Bible has the last say in this debate : Mark 4: 23, 24

"If any man has ears to hear, let him hear. Take care what you listen to"

Roads to Manufacturing Success Blocked by Iron Age Unions

I have always thought that when push came to shove in the auto industry, and else where, where hard times that threaten corporations, the unions would decide it was time to become part of the solution rather than continue to be part of the problem.

Look at what is happening with the auto industry in today's market. I have to admit I was wrong. They seem unable to give up past glories of absolute power and domination of this industry. And it isn't just the unions fault, I fault the industry as well because they let them get away with it for so long.

Now when unions and management have to come to grips with catastrophic problems of survival of the industry itself, the unions find it almost impossible to relinquish that past dominance. The newest contracts show some signs of change but I fear it is too little and too late.

This video shows just what industry is doing to move forward, that is, innovate to compete in a very competitive market. As you might guess, the unions are left out of the innovation - all the jobs that could have been for the American workers are now being done by someone else. Nonunion works - just who is cutting who's throat?

The socialist politicians will blame big industry for moving out of this country, 'just for profit', and the Marxist media will trumpet the news as 'more jobs lost as companies move overseas' but will leave out the root cause of the problem, union failures to come to grips with modern realities.

Remember the Marxist slogan from the old Soviet Union, 'a worker paradise'? Just why do the socialist politicians in this country think such a failed system will work here? This is proof that it can't.

Unions have to come to grips with reality; nothing is static, all things are dynamic; change with the times or be left behind to die on the vine of failure. The future holds no hope for obsolesces.

Work hard and innovate while keeping the faith, you will show others that the battle for success is joined!


The auto industry moves off shore for SUCCESS

The last sentence in the narration says it all. * **This is a video of a new Ford plant in Camacari, Brazil. One look at this and each of you will instantly be able to tell what is wrong with the manufacturing plants of the US car makers and why there will probably never be another one built in the US. It will also point out why more will go off shore.

http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189 *

You Want Better Health Care? - Demand Tort Reform

I know any time that a lawyer can be eliminated from a dispute, the out come usually is more equatable. This is not to say all lawyers are corrupt, but certainly many are, as the system is designed to aid them in their efforts to bilk the population as much as they can.

Did you ever wonder why so many laws favor trial lawyers? Did you ever wonder why so many politicians are lawyers? Little wonder state and federal law makers are lawyers - this is where the money, power and control is. And isn't this the life of a politician? A lawyer?

Wisconsin is probably the worst state in the country for tort law - just recently our liberal dominated state passed laws the make this state a magnet for trail lawyers, and little wonder, as the state supreme court, governor and state houses are all controlled by socialists.

There is no voice of reason in this state of chaos - Why does this state loses population every year. da

Yo, time to get up and call you know who so you can keep the faith - this will make sure you know the battle is joined!


Why Doctors Are Heading for Texas
By JOSEPH NIXONMay 17, 2008
Houston

When Sam Houston was still hanging his hat in Tennessee in the 1830s, it wasn't uncommon for fellow Tennesseans who were packing up and moving south and west to hang a sign on their cabins that read "GTT" – Gone to Texas.

Today obstetricians, surgeons and other doctors might consider reviving the practice. Over the past three years, some 7,000 M.D.s have flooded into Texas, many from Tennessee.

Why? Two words: Tort reform.

In 2003 and in 2005, Texas enacted a series of reforms to the state's civil justice system. They are stunning in their success. Texas Medical Liability Trust, one of the largest malpractice insurance companies in the state, has slashed its premiums by 35%, saving doctors some $217 million over four years. There is also a competitive malpractice insurance industry in Texas, with over 30 companies competing for business. This is driving rates down.

The result is an influx of doctors so great that recently the State Board of Medical Examiners couldn't process all the new medical-license applications quickly enough. The board faced a backlog of 3,000 applications. To handle the extra workload, the legislature rushed through an emergency appropriation last year.

Now many of the newly arriving doctors are heading to rural or underserved parts of the state. Four new anesthesiologists have headed to Beaumont, for example. Meanwhile, San Antonio has experienced a 52% growth in the number of new doctors.

But if tort reform has been a boon – and it is likely one of the reasons the state's economy has thrived in recent years – it was not easy to enact.

In one particularly grueling fight in the legislature in 2003, an important piece of a reform bill went down to a narrow defeat in the state Senate after a single Republican switched his support to vote against it. Republican Gov. Rick Perry was so incensed that he bolted out of his office in the Capitol, sprinted into the Senate chamber, and vaulted a railing to come face to face with the defecting senator.That confrontation fizzled, however, and before long Texas succeeded at enacting two simple but effective reforms.

One capped medical malpractice awards for noneconomic damages at $250,000, changed the burden of proof for claiming injury for emergency room care from simple negligence to "willful and wanton neglect," and required that an independent medical expert file a report in support of the claimant.

This has allowed doctors and hospitals to cut costs and even increase the resources devoted to charity care. Take Christus Health, a nonprofit Catholic health system across the state. Thanks to tort reform, over the past four years Christus saved $100 million that it otherwise would have spent fending off bogus lawsuits or paying higher insurance premiums. Every dollar saved was reinvested in helping poor patients.

The second 2003 reform cleaned up much of the mess surrounding asbestos litigation by creating something called multidistrict litigation (MDL). This took every case in the state involving a common injury or complaint, like silicosis or asbestosis, and consolidated it for pretrial discovery in one court.

One judge now makes all pretrial discovery and evidence rulings, including the validity of expert doctor reports, for all cases. This creates legal consistency and virtually eliminates "venue shopping" – a process by which trial lawyers file briefs in districts that they know will be friendly to frivolous suits. Trials still occur in plaintiffs' home counties.

More change sailed through the legislature in 2005; tort reform had become popular with voters and lobbying against it was ineffectual. The 2005 reform created minimum medical standards to prove an injury in asbestos and silica cases. Now plaintiffs must show diminished lung capacity in addition to an X-ray indicating disease.

In sum, these reforms have worked wonders. There are about 85,000 asbestos plaintiffs in Texas. Under the old system, each would be advancing in the courts. But in the four years since the creation of MDLs, only 300 plaintiffs' cases have been certified ready for trial. And in each case the plaintiff is almost certainly sick with mesothelioma or cancer.

No one else claiming "asbestosis" has yet filed a pulmonology report showing diminished lung capacity. This means that only one-third of 1% of all those people who have filed suit claiming they were sick with asbestosis have actually had a qualified and impartial doctor agree that they have an asbestos-caused illness.

In the silica MDL, there are somewhere between 4,000 and 6,000 plaintiff cases. In the four years since the cases were consolidated under the MDL, 47 plaintiffs have filed a motion to proceed to trial based on a medical report indicating diminished pulmonary capacity. Of those 47, the court has certified 29 people as having diminished lung capacity. This, too, is less than 1% of all the "silicosis" claims made in Texas. No one has proven the real cause of his illness to be silica, as no case yet has been certified for trial.

Before the asbestos and silica MDLs were created, nonmalignancy plaintiffs settled with defendants for anywhere between $30,000 to $150,000 per case. No one knows how many bogus cases were settled in the state with large cash payments. Lawyers who specialized in defending those cases say there were tens of thousands.

The full costs of large settlements and runaway malpractice suits may never be known. But it is clear that the costs were paid for by consumers through the increased price of goods, by pensioners through diminished stock prices, and by workers through lost jobs.
Another group often overlooked is those who are priced out of health care, or who didn't receive charity care because doctors were squeezed by tort lawyers. Frivolous lawsuits hit the uninsured the hardest.

Texas recently became home to more Fortune 500 companies than New York and California. Things are trending well for the Lone Star State. Anecdotally, we can see that while doctors are moving in, trial lawyers are packing up and heading west. They're GTC -- Gone to California.

Mr. Nixon, a former member of the Texas House of Representatives, is a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Energy Production Not the Problem - More Taxes Is The Answer

Here we go again - our government is the problem and not the solution. If it isn't the president giving in to congressional socialists on social security and energy production, it's more congressional socialists kowtowing to the eco-fascists that want us all to live in tents and eat bark that has fallen off trees. No! No! - you can't eat bark right off the tree, that's bad for the environment you know.

The Democrats, now the New Socialist Progressives, including some Republicans, John McCain among them, want to control the markets with government mandates and regulator laws. This will not work. Nixon tried this back in the seventies with price controls on energy. The results were a disaster. The same thing will happen now only much worse as our economy has advanced to such a degree were we need more energy then ever before. Everything we do depends on energy production keeping pace with growth. We are falling behind as we speak.

This article helps explain how higher taxes and more controls over the market will make things worse and prolong our problems. The question that I have is why are they doing this? Why is congress actually trying to crush our economy or are they so lost in their political agenda they have don't care about consequences? Is it possible they are completely ignorant of how their actions or lack there of, will damage our prosperity? I strongly believe the answer is YES! Worse, maybe they really don't care as long as they get reelected.

Okay, get on the phones to your representatives - tell them we need to get some sanity back before we lose our country. Now keep the faith, when you call you will know the battle is joined!


Striking Out on Energy
By LAWRENCE KUDLOW
<http://www.newyorksun.com/lawrence-kudlow%3E
May 17, 2008

President Bush and Senator McCain went to bat on energy policy this week. And guess what? They both struck out.

Mr. Bush went hat in hand to the Saudis to ask for more oil production in order to bring down world prices. He whiffed. They said no for the second time this year.

The ExxonMobil chairman and CEO, Rex Tillerson, said it's "astonishing" that Mr. Bush keeps asking Saudi Arabia to pump more oil, rather than working harder for increased oil production at home. Mr. Tillerson called this "terribly upside down" and went on to say the president should be fighting to open American coastal waters to drilling and production on the outer continental shelf. He correctly wants to end the federal moratorium on such offshore drilling, where kajillions of barrels of oil and natural gas are being completely ignored.

Motorists are furious with oil at $125 a barrel and a $4 pump price for gas. And they seem to be taking it out on the GOP. That may not be fair, since Mr. Bush does favor a pro-production energy policy that includes offshore drilling, building refineries, clean-coal development, oil sands, natural gas, and nuclear power.

But Democrats in Congress stridently oppose these ideas, as does Hill-Bama on the campaign trail. They want an excess-profits tax. Brilliant Nonetheless, the longer the energy stalemate lasts, the angrier voters get. You can see it in consumer-confidence polls that are now hitting 25 year lows. What's to be done?

Mr. McCain weighed in with a cap-and-trade program that he alleges will solve our global climate and energy problem. It's a bad idea. It's really a cap-and-kill-the-economy plan, as well as an unlimited spend-and-tax-and-regulate plan. It's a huge government command-and-control operation that would make any old Soviet Gosplan bureaucrat smile.

Ironically, America has virtually the cleanest air of any country in the world. And market forces over the past 30 years have increased all manner of energy efficiency per unit of gross domestic product by more than 50 percent.

In fact, according to the editorial page of Investor's Business Daily, American carbon emissions grew by only 6.6% between 1997 and 2004, compared with 18% for the world and 21% for the nations that signed the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gasses. (Think Europe.)

Then there's a bunch of scientists who don't think we have a global-warming problem at all. And many who do acknowledge the threat link it to solar warming, or increased solar activity, rather than carbon. Cap-and-trade, in other words, may very well be unnecessary. Meanwhile, it will surely reduce economic growth in the years ahead.

The regulatory aspects are mind-boggling. All manner of American businesses - be they small pig farms, large power plants or the millions of companies in between - will be subjected to government rulemaking and standard-setting. EPA inspectors will literally have to visit 5 million American businesses in order to evaluate carbon emissions and figure out allowances for trading permits.

Think of it.

Some sort of federal cap-and-trade department will send out 100,000 inspectors to comb through American corporations and calculate their carbon stories. This is total insanity. The Congressional Budget Office guesses it will cost at least $1 trillion. And a lot of that cost comes from the government's willingness to give companies carbon allowances that then can be traded in some sort of after-market.

Later on, according to the McCain plan, the government will auction off these allowances, reaping a gigantic windfall. But so far there are no strictures on this revenue honey pot and the unprecedented federal spending it will fuel. Some global warmers simply want to tax carbon. That at least would reduce the Gosplan effect. Responsible people like Harvard's Greg Mankiw have even suggested taking the carbon-tax revenue and using it to cut income-tax rates. This is a much better idea -- that is, if you buy into global warming at all.

My friend Art Laffer tells me Vice President Gore wants a carbon tax, with the revenues being used to abolish the Social Security/Medicare payroll tax altogether. Mr. Laffer would prefer a big income-tax-rate reduction that would get us to a 13% flat tax. I agree. Either way, taxing carbon, when compared to cap-and-trade, is the lesser of two evils.To be fair, Mr. McCain does favor nuclear power. But he is opposed to Mr. Tillerson's idea of drilling offshore and Mr. Bush's idea of drilling in Alaska. That's not good.

And make no mistake about it, his cap-and-trade plan will vastly increase the cost of doing business everywhere, including gas prices at the pump. And when you cap something like power well before so-called alternative-energy technologies have been invented or commercialized, you put a cap on economic growth and prosperity. That's not going to make anybody happy.

God Bless Those That Gave Full Measure for Others

I can't help but have a feeling of great pride on this day, a day to honor our fallen military heros, when I think about how beautiful our country is and all of the possibilities that exist here for everyone that wants to take advantage of them.

We have it all, everything that the human spirit could possibly want - Freedom. Freedom to choose - freedom to rise above our station in life if we want or we can just take life as it comes and be happy. America guarantees freedom to have a good life.

All of this didn't just happen, of course, like anything that has value, it had to be bought and paid for. It this case, freedom, it was bought with blood. Sacrifice. Courage. A sense of duty to God, family and country.

I really don't know how to repay these men and women that have given up their very lives for me, starting all the way back from the beginning in 1776, or even earlier, when a small group of brave souls decided freedom to chose one's own destiny brought them here from distant lands, until now in Iraq and else where. Where do I start?

I pray each day for those that are in harms way in the fight against world wide terror but somehow it doesn't seem enough. God, I guess, will handle the details if we, as a nation, come together in support of our loved ones carrying the load and risking everything for us. It doesn't seem enough right now but maybe, if we stay the course and not grow weary of our responsibilities or lose sight of the ultimate goal of freedom for all peoples, it will be in the end.

The truth is 'We have no right to success, we only have a right not to chose failure.'

To fall asleep now, and not care about what happens tomorrow, if we chose to fail our duty as citizens of this greatest of nations, it will mean all those that sacrificed their lives and fortunes for the ideal of freedom and Democracy will have given it all up for nothing. Can we afford that? Do we want to be known as the generation that lost the fight to keep America safe?

Remember the saying, 'there is no free lunch' It's true today as it was for the last two centuries.

God bless America, land of the free and home of the brave! This is our country, our land of opportunity. Keep the faith, we know the battle is joined!

New Dogs are SO Cool

Here is what I was talking about in past posts on our kids - these guys are so much fun as they have no cares in the world except ' hey, is supper ready yet?' - they don't even know who Barack Obama is or couldn't care less - See how lucky they are!

Too cool by half - heh

Future Power Generation Demands Common Sense

I listened to some the interrogation of the oil company CEO's that the simpletons in congress put on display for all the world to see and hear. I was totally astounded by the complete lack of understanding of how our free markets work.

One congress woman from Califorina admitted that she was a socialist, Marxist, advocating a government take over of the oil companies. She acturally said this on national television!! Is this possible? She admits that she is a communist, a liberal Democrat, a New Socaialist Progressive.

The whole fiasco was designed to have this thing on television to prove that the congress was on top of the problem and the idiots running the show were smarter than the oil company executives. If that was their idea, and I just knows it was, they failed miserably except in one instance - the congressional panel came off as bumbling and confused simpletons. The responses that they got from the CEO's wasn't what they expected.

The oil executives responses tore them apart. I still can't believe these government hacks are this ignorant about our economy and be willing to show the world that they truly have no clue of what they are doing.

I firmly believe you could take just about anyone off the street, in any city and get as good a performance as we saw and heard from these, our elected leaders. Little wonder we are in the mess that we are in today.

Here is more news from the Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News Magazine, an excerpt, to shore up your arguments for a sane energy policy - It can't be done unless we all fight to make it happen - the alternative is a future that will resemble how we lived 50 years ago - in other words, no future at all for the next generation. Too dramatic you say, check you your electric bill and listen to what the environmentalists want for our country.

Let's all pull together and keep the faith, together we know the battle is joined!


Recipe for ReductionUtilities Eye Multi-ingredient Strategy To Cut CO2

Essential to plant life and making up just a fraction of 1 percent of Earth’s atmosphere, the gas carbon dioxide (CO2) is drawing the attention of public officials for the role it’s thought to have in warming the planet.

Human activity accounts for roughly 3.5 percent of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, with a bit more than a third of that percentage coming from burning fossil fuel to produce electricity. As a recognizable source, power generation is being targeted by lawmakers and regulators who believe cutting power-plant CO2 emissions will slow or reverse the 0.7 degree Celsius (1.2 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in global average temperatures measured over the past 160 years.
As providers of electric energy, electric cooperatives have a responsibility to make sure whatever restrictions policy makers choose to impose on the ways people produce and consume energy, they do not make it impossible for rural Americans to afford the electricity they need for agricultural production and lighting and heating their homes.

No Magic Bullet

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a non-profit, utility-sponsored consortium whose members include electric co-ops, is hopeful that carbon dioxide reductions can be accomplished without driving electricity prices beyond the reach of the American consumer. However, there is no single action that has any realistic chance of bringing about the total amount of prescribed reductions. Instead, EPRI has developed a multi-phased, technology-based framework to cut carbon dioxide emissions 45 percent over the next 22 years while continuing to meet the growing demand for electricity.

The plan essentially takes reductions sought in one of the more high-profile congressional approaches—getting to a level by the year 2030 that’s below the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by U.S. electric utilities in 1990—and applies an array of existing and developing technologies to hit that mark.

“Technology is what it’s all about,” notes Glenn English, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the Arlington, Va.-based service arm of the nation’s 900-plus consumer-owned electric co-ops. “It gives electric cooperatives the opportunity to address climate change and at the same time generate the amount of power we need to meet the needs of our members.”

Squeeze on Power, Costs

Even though demand for electricity is predicted to increase 18 percent over the next decade, capacity to generate electricity will increase by only 8.4 percent, according to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, a non-profit organization charged with monitoring America’s power system reliability. This means unless new power plants and transmission facilities are built to generate and move the power, Americans will face the almost unimaginable possibility of being uncertain whether electricity will be available when they most need it.

And climate change legislation could have a dramatic effect on power generation and electric bills. Along with federal lawmakers, state and local officials across the country are considering measures that would add expense to the production of energy.

EPRI’s analysis recognizes this reality and encourages aggressive new action in seven specific areas: boosting energy efficiency, improving the operating efficiency of advanced coal-fired power plants, investing in renewable energy, expanding nuclear power capacity, capturing carbon dioxide produced by coal-fired power plants and storing it deep underground, adding distributed generation resources, and putting plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on the road.

Good News - Bush Vetos Farm Bill

Congressmen gone crazy is the only way to describe this thing - with farm prices up and the market strong for food stuffs, half of the world is starving to death, read to much demand for ethanol, it was the right thing to do.

President Bush vetoed the bloated farm bill on Wednesday, arguing in part that the legislation “would needlessly expand the size and scope of government,” distort the market for farm goods and subsidize farmers with incomes up to $1.5 million.

The United Nations - Totally Corrupt

This is from the Heritage Foundation - what is happening at the UN is a complete travesty - it is clear to me that it is fundamentally corrupt. It's members are primarily from countries that harbor terrorists and mass killers - living at the UN is like a weekend picnic that never ends and it is paid for by someone else, mostly the US taxpayer. How do you feel now?

Read on and keep the faith, we have to join the battle to get rid of this despicable institution.

U.N. bureaucrat to investigate America


Doudou Diene, a United Nations bureaucrat, will tour eight American cities to investigate allegations of institutionalized racism—and his report may be compromised from the start. Heritage expert Nile Gardiner explained to CNN’s Glenn Beck that “in his mind he has probably already written the report.”

Worse, continues Gardiner, director of Heritage’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, the United States is helping pay for this charade. “I imagine the U.S. taxpayer will be footing a great deal of the bill,” he said.

Good News - Yucca Mountain Back on Track

Earlier this year I reported that the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility had it funds cut by congress by one fifth which meant they would not make the dead line for licensing and therefore would have to shut down completely.

Now, according to a report in cooperative new magazine, the project will make the June 30th dead line. The Department of Energy, DOE, according to the Las Vagas Review Journal, said the it had shifted priorities, reassigned personal and focused on crucial licensing activities, with the result that the application is back on track.

The DOE said the facility might be reorganized as a government chartered corporation like the Tennessee Valley Authority or the Bonneville Power administration.

Is this light in a darkness of political agendas? Can't say for sure, but it is for sure a step in the right direction. Now we need to hit the phones and e-mails to our representatives to move forward on licensing and building new nuclear power plants in all parts of the country.

Good news always makes me know that my faith is not misplaced and the battle is truly joined!

Why Food and Energy Shortages? - Too Much Government Intervention!

Everyone is angry with the high prices for gas and food these days and little wonder why - in just a few months the price of gas has risen almost two dollars a gallon and food is rising even faster.

This article by Walter Williams is spot on - Williams is fantastic with his clear and precise insight into the corruption of our government and how our leaders seem to have little or no common sense. Rush Limbaugh put his finger on the problem when he said something to the effect 'ignorance is the worst waste of money we have in government'. No one can disagree with this.

What is the solution? As always, call and write your representative and demand they open the market to energy exploration and development. Let the market take care of the ups and downs. We are years away from any relief from high gas prices as the liberal contingent in our government have sided with the environmentalist madmen to stop all energy development other than what they think is necessary.

Look around at what the congress and our courts have been up to in the last few years. No coal - No oil - No nuclear.

How did this happen - why did we allow this to happen? Both sides of the aisle are at fault here, even though the Democrats, NSPP, are the leaders of this economic suicide, as politics seems to be more important then the security of the country.

As long as we don't demand a good common sense energy policy from our elected representatives, we will pay more and more for everything in the foreseeable future. Is $5 dollars too much to pay for gas? Better yet, how about $6 dollars or more. If we don't care and sit on our collective butts, I can guarantee it will happen as everything you and I have ever wanted in this life is dependent on fossil fuels. Everything!

Time to take control of the situation - get on the phone now - make a difference for a future generation as it is probable too late for us - Keep the faith though, with you and I joining the battle, we can make a differenc!


The problems in the solutions
By Walter E. WilliamsMay 21, 2008

Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place. Politicians and much of the public lose sight of the unavoidable fact that for every created benefit, there's also a created cost or, as Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman said, "There's no free lunch."

The person who receives the benefit might not pay or even be aware of the cost, but as sure as night follows day a cost is borne by someone. Let's look at a couple of congressionally created problems.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, whose provisions were strengthened during the Clinton and Bush administrations, is a federal law that mandates or intimidates lenders to offer credit throughout their entire market and discourages them from restricting their credit services to high-income markets, a practice known as redlining.

The Community Reinvestment Act encouraged banks and thrifts to make so-called "no doc" and "liar" loans to customers who had no realistic ability to repay them. A decade of monetary expansion by the Federal Reserve Bank, contributing to the housing bubble, encouraged lending institutions to take risks they otherwise would not have taken.

Government actions created the subprime crisis and now government-proposed "solutions" , such as foreclosure holidays, bailouts and further regulation of financial institutions , to the problems they created will in turn create more problems.

Congress, doing the bidding of environmental extremists, created our energy supply problem. Oil and gas exploration in a tiny portion of the coastal plain of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would, according to a 2002 U.S. Geological Survey's estimate, increase our proven domestic oil reserves by about 50 percent.

The Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and eastern Gulf of Mexico offshore areas have enormous reserves of oil and natural gas. Congress has also placed these energy sources of oil off-limits. Because of onerous regulations, it has been 30-plus years since a new refinery has been built. Similar regulations also explain why the U.S. nuclear energy production is a fraction of what it might be.

Congress' solution to our energy supply problems is not to relax supply restrictions but to enact the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that mandates that oil companies mix more ethanol with their gasoline.

Anyone with an ounce of brains would have realized that diverting crops from food to fuel use would raise the prices of a host of corn-related foods, such as corn-fed meat and dairy products.

Wheat and soybeans prices have also risen as a result of fewer acres being planted in favor of corn. A Purdue University study found the ethanol program has cost consumers $15 billion in higher food costs in 2007 and that it will be considerably higher in 2008.

Higher food prices, as a result of the biofuels industry, have not only affected the U.S. consumer but have had international consequences as seen in food riots in Egypt, Haiti, Yemen, Bangladesh and elsewhere.

What's the congressional response? On May 1, Sen. Charles Schumer, New York Democrat and chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, convened a hearing on rising food prices saying, "The anxiety felt over higher food prices is going to be just as widespread, and will equal or surpass, the anger and frustrations so many Americans have about higher gas prices."

Congress' proposed "solutions" to the energy and food mess it created include a windfall profits tax on oil companies, a gasoline tax holiday for the summer, increases in the food stamp program and foreign food aid. These measures will not solve the problem but will create new problems.

Americans are rightfully angry about higher energy and food prices but their anger should be directed toward the true villains - the Congress and the White House.

Walter E. Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist and a professor of economics at George Mason University.

More Bad News : Congress Sits on Oil-Shale Development

Just when you thought things can't get any worse, they get worse - just when you thought congress was at the bottom of the pit on common sense, they found they can dig deeper.

What are these people using for brains? Are they totally clueless on what it takes to run our economy? Where have they been for the last twenty years?

Get on the phone and write your congressmen, woman, and let them know it's time to develop sound energy policy that reflect real time situations - da - $4/gal gas. Inform them if they think it is best that we need to suffer for the next ten years under the burden of crushing oil prices while they kowtow to the environmentalists nut jobs, they should seriously think about some other line of work. Vote them out!!!

The laughing is over - time to get serious about providing for our future -

Call and write now while keeping the faith, you will then know the battle is joined!


Senate panel retains oil-shale moratorium
By M.E. Sprengelmeyer
Rocky Mountain News Originally published 03:20 p.m., May 15, 2008 Updated 03:21 p.m., May 15, 2008Gov.

Bill Ritter and Assistant Interior Secretary C. Stephen Allred testify today on oil-shale resources before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in Washington.

Associated Press

The Senate Appropriations Committee today narrowly defeated Sen. Wayne Allard's attempt to end a moratorium related to oil shale development in Colorado. It was a big day for Colorado energy issues on Capitol Hill as Gov. Bill Ritter testified before a senate committee asking lawmakers to move cautiously on oil-shale development until more is known about the environmental impact and other issues.

Meanwhile downstairs, the appropriations committee was considering a massive Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill. Allard, a member of the committee, attempted to insert an amendment that would reverse the moratorium that lawmakers approved late last year.

The moratorium prevents the Department of Interior from issuing regulations so that oil companies can move forward on oil-shale projects in Colorado and Utah. Allard said the moratorium has left uncertainties at a time when companies need to move forward and in the long term make the United States more energy independent.

"If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump, this is a vote that would make a difference in people's lives," Allard argued. But in a 14-15 vote, the committee spilt strictly on party lines and rejected the amendment.

One of the key votes was from Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who said Sen. Ken Salazar had urged her to reject the amendment even though she personally thinks the moratorium on oil-shale development is unjust. Landrieu vowed to try to lift the moratorium when the large appropriations bill reaches the floor of the U.S. Senate in coming weeks.

America's Energy Policy : No oil - No coal - No Nuclear

Why is it I have such a hard time believing our government has our best interests at heart? With the declaration of the Polar bear as an endangered item, we have set up yet another road block to energy independence. Why are they doing this? Everything that we have in this country is related to an adequate fossil fuels supply and will be this way for the foreseeable future.

The frustrating thing here is there is no threat to the polar bear - numerous studies have shown, in fact, the population of the polar bear has grown - why then has the Bush administration declared them endangered? What possible reason can they have to acquiescs to the demands of the eco-terrorists? What can they gain from stopping our exploration for oil that is the very bed rock of our economy?

I'm afraid you will find this article depressing in that it seems all common sense is gone from our leaders on both sides of the aisle - and it not just oil production they want stopped, it's coal fired electrical generating plants and all nuclear plants. Just how do they purpose to run the country with demand growing three times faster than supply?

Who are these people? Where in hell do they come from?

Sigh - please stay alert and write or call your representative demanding some common sense here. Meanwhile keep the faith, this way you will know the battle is joined.

Endangered energy acts*
Terence Corcoran, Financial Post
*Published: Thursday, May 15, 2008

Fresh assaults on the future of energy supplies land daily. The U. S. government yesterday declared polar bears to be a "threatened species," a move that does nothing for polar bears but poses a major risk to future energy development in Alaska and the North.

In Canada, a federal court threw a roadblock yesterday in front of Imperial Oil's $8-billion Kearl oilsands project in a case that has come to focus on carbon emissions. Neither the polar bear nor the Kearl decision alone has an immediate impact on the supply or price of oil. But both have wide ramifications, giving environmental activists fresh foundations from which to delay, freeze, stall and ultimately permanently halt oil and gas exploration and development projects. They come on top of dozens, even hundreds, of regulatory barricades and government-imposed obstacles to energy production that have been and are routinely erected by governments all over the world. No wonder oil is at US$130 barrel.

And why not start thinking of US$200 or US$300?The Bush administration's polar bear decision is a pathetic capitulation to activists whose real purpose was not to save the polar bears -- which are not endangered or even threatened --but to shut down energy exploration. The Interior Secretary's press release was a sad display of self-deception. The decision contains a rule that "will allow continuation of vital energy production in Alaska," it said, a sentiment nobody else was buying.

Green Web sites were jumping at the news. Andrew Wetzler, director of the Endangered Species Project with the Natural Resources Defense Council, was quoted on GreenTech as saying the "threatened" designation is as good as an "endangered" designation. "No government permits may be issued affecting the polar bear without all concerned government agencies having a say." Mr. Wetzler said it's not likely any of the oil industry's oil and gas exploration projects would be found to be legal by the courts.

If the Democrats take the White House, it's expected that "no move affecting the polar bears in Alaska will go without a court challenge."Much the same conclusion was reached by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a pro-energy development group and opponent of global warming theory.

Iain Murray, an energy fellow at the group, said the so-called rule protecting "vital energy production" has no legs. It "just delays the day when global warming activists will be able to impose their policy of energy suppression."Up in Alberta, activists see the same opportunity emerging out of the Kearl decision. With greenhouse gases now declared the equivalent of pollution, Simon Dyer, the Pembina Institute's "director of oilsands," sees a trend. "You're going to see more of these challenges until we get adequate mitigation that does actually result in real and absolute reductions in greenhouse gas pollutants."

Other energy sources for North America are also behind numerous and mounting barriers to new supplies. Liquid gas terminals are under attack and are being postponed or cancelled. Exploration of other parts of Alaska are stalled for reasons other than polar bears. Mexico's energy production, under incompetent control of the state, is faltering.

In the United States, moreover, a new energy bill -- the Consumer-First Energy Act -- is rumbling around Congress. It promises windfall profit taxes on major oil companies, including taxes on the foreign operations of U. S. oil companies. The result of such legislation would be to further curb the development of new energy sources by major U. S. corporations working abroad. It is absurd to attempt to punish market-owned U. S. energy giants for price increases that they are not responsible for. The companies --Exxon, for example--are among a dwindling group of competent private energy giants that are being driven out of power by governments.

Around the world, in fact, more than 80% of the oil industry is in the control of governments and state enterprises whose efficiency and competence is dubious at best. In Russia, state interference has led to the beginning of a decline in production, posing an immediate threat to world supplies. State control is curbing the supply of oil and gas on a global basis, driving up prices.

Exxon said recently that its production out of Africa had fallen 20% as high oil prices and contract stipulations forced it to hand over production to local governments. Many of these states also limit investment in new supplies. That's one reason Gold-man Sachs recently issued a US$200-a-barrel price warning.

"Key oil-exporting countries for the most part continue to restrict foreign investment, which will likely keep a lid on how fast supply can grow."Between environmentalists and state planners and controllers, plus animosity toward the energy industry, keeping a lid on supply is the name of the game in energy these days. Pathetically, the Bush administration's polar bear release hailed the government's wind and solar energy strategy as the alternative.

Military History - Alive and Well

In this era of anti-military, anti-America and anti-Democracy, it is truly good news to see that the military history publishing industry is turning out a bunch of great books - it is imparative that we never forget all of the heros that gave the full measure for us and how they did it.

The books listed here are only the tip of the berg to what is available - have a look.

Enjoy great reading knowing the battle is joined!

Oh, By the Way, No Worries: Academia’s Jihad Against Military History is not Succeeding
Posted by Lexington Green on May 5th, 2008



Looked at from the perspective of what the academics are doing, it sure looks bleak. But that is only part of the picture. I believe it is an increasingly irrelevant part of the picture. In fact, I don’t know how much good it would do to have the current population of academia teaching this history. They may well do more harm than good. I got a kick out of the story of the history professor who knew only two things about the American role in World War II - The internment of the Japanese and the atomic bombings, both of course presented as American crimes.


That would be funny if it were not nausea-inducing, and if my tax money weren’t paying for it. With friends like that, who needs enemies? Of course, academics are supposed to be a very superior breed of person, capable of appreciating subtlety and nuance and complexity and the tangled ambiguity of the world that poor stupid conservatives like me cannot grasp, yadda yadda — unless it is an opportunity to make the USA the villain of the drama. Then a boneheaded bit of simplistic propaganda will do the trick.


Cutting a few factual corners to make sure the students get the proper indoctrination is all to the good in that universe. But let us turn our backs on this sorry scene, and look to two specific areas that seem far more hopeful.

First, as Prof. Citino noted, military history is very popular with the public. The late Stephen Ambrose’s books fall into this category, to pick one obvious example. While not necessarily saturated profound new insights, his books are decent and may lead readers to more challenging works. Moreover, there are a huge number of high quality books of military history being published all the time. Clearly, someone is reading this stuff.


To get an idea of the volume and quality of this river of reading material, check out just the books the military itself reviews. I always look at the book review sections of the various military publications, such as Parameters <http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/%3E, Military Review <http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/english.asp%3E, Joint Forces Quarterly <http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/index.htm%3E, Air and Space Power Journal <http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apje.html%3E, Naval War College Review <http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/review/review.aspx%3E, Pointer: Journal of the Singapore Armed Forces <http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/publications/pointer/journals.html%3E, Canadian Military Journal <http://www.journal.dnd.ca/engraph/home_e.asp%3E, Australian Defense Journal <http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/dfj/index.htm%3E, and various others.There is a deluge of high-quality military history being produced, and the professional journal reviewers are only scratching the surface. The “books received” sections are always far, far longer than the books reviewed.The reviewers in these journals are selecting books that will have relevance and value for a demanding, professional audience. A good review in one of these sources is a solid sign that the book is worth reading.

So, despite the academic opposition, these books are being produced, in quantity, and are at least reaching a military audience.Similarly, if you look at any issue of The Journal of Military History <http://www.smh-hq.org/jmh/index.html%3E there is a huge number of book reviews in each issue. (It is worth joining the Society of Military History just to get the four journals published annually, primarily for the book reviews.)

Several publishers specialize in producing very good works of military history. I will mention only one here, since I have so many books from them: The University Press of Kansas <http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/printbysubject.html%3E. which publishes, /inter alia/ books by Col. David M. Glantz, the foremost expert on the Soviet war effort in World War II..There is nothing wrong with the supply side. Furthermore, the military has recommended reading lists composed of high quality books. The U.S. Army Chief of Staff’s Professional Reading List <http://www.history.army.mil/reference/csalist/csalist.htm%3E, The U.S. Marine Corps Professional Reading Program <http://www.mcu.usmc.mil/ProDev/ProfReadingPgm.htm%3E, U.S. Air force Professional Reading Program <http://www.af.mil/library/csafreading_archive.asp%3E, U.S. Navy Professional Reading Program <http://www.navyreading.navy.mil/%3E. The Australian Chief of the Army has a very interesting list <http://www.hawkeye7.livejournal.com/162509.html%3E (the official link is not working). There is also the unofficial list on theSmall Wars Journal site <http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/reading-list/%3E.

The point here is that the real, warfighting military takes professional reading seriously, and most of it is composed of military history. The current academic pose may be that “lessons from history” are illusory. People who have to go in harms way know better. Sometimes the only way to see through the fog of war is to know what happened in the past under similar circumstances. It is a Hell of a lot better than nothing. Furthermore, the web is saturated with military history sites for interested non-professionals, i.e. neither soldiers nor academics. One example of this is the excellent World War One site of the Western Front Association, which has a very good book review <" target=_BLANK>http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/thegreatwar/wfalibrary.php?cat=REVIEW&layout=paragraphs> section. There are many more like this, covering all possible areas of military history. Many of them are very well done.

The state of military history, thankfully, does not rest exclusively or even primarily on the academic community. The demand for high-quality military history from the professional military community, and interested civilians, is so great that it can survive with only the grudging interest that the academic community currently gives it. Given the state of the academy in this year of grace 2008, this area of study is probably better off keeping some distance from the intellectual corruption which is unfortunately so pervasive.

Military history is too important to be wholly taken over entirely by the current crop of academics.The downside is that students don’t get exposed to it in a classroom setting. But anyone with any interest in these issues whatsoever has a treasure trove of material easily available.In other words, things aren’t so bad, really.UPDATE: this is the working link <http://www.defence.gov.au/Army/lwsc/docs/SP_313.pdf%3E for the Australian Army reading list. It is a long document, with commentary. Very interesting list, as well as comments.

Will Democrats, NSPP, Defend America? Maybe - Maybe Not

The question that arises now, after reading this great article, do we have the stomach to protect our own interests in the middle east and those of our friends, or will we decide to just hope for the best outcome and live with the result?

If the liberal Democrats, Socialist Progressives, NSPP, are able to gain the White House and control the congress, the outlook is grim for any problem that arises that requires risks to political power in this country.

Historically, the NSPP have a track record of moral and physical cowardness. If Obama or Clinton wins the White House, and makes good on their promises to with draw
America's military from world hot spots, and rely on dialogue to solve porblems with terrorists, rest assured the problems that we face today will only get worse.

I am always amazed at the ignorance of the voting public - why would they vote for their problems to get worse? The NSPP has no intention of solving our problem of security or taking a stand against those that want us dead. Or worse, will the NSPP stand by our friends in the time of need.

Obama, with his Muslin background, stand against other Muslims? Clinton risk war that would put her power in jeopardy? Remember what happened in Vietnam - the Democrats cut off funding to the South Vietnamese to fight their own war and the result was the waste of 60,000 America lives and 2.8 million in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.

Again, you say it can't happen again? Wrong - it can and will if the NSPP get into power. Stop them now is our best chance at avoiding another Vietnam, only worse as our very existence depends on aggressively attacking the terrorists where they live.

Time to wake up, listen and watch what is going on and make decisions based on common sense. What is best for our country and our families - as long as America is strong, we will be able to check those that what to control our lives with terror - if we fail now, our children will suffer the consequences.

Keep the faith, you know the battle is joined!


ENABLING HEZBOLLAH
By RALPH PETERS
May 14, 2008/ --

AS Hezbollah's terror army dismantles Lebanon, the world whistles "Ain't That a Shame."With its heavily funded proxies marching through an Arab democracy's ruins, Iran has arrived on the Mediterranean, outflanking Israel.

Syria's surrogates punish Beirut. Lebanon's crippled government cringes at the whims of Hassan Nasrullah, Hezbollah's strongman. Terror rules. And not one civilized country lifts a finger.This doesn't mean that war will be avoided at the "negligible" cost of Lebanese lives and freedom. It just means that the inevitable showdown with Hezbollah will be a bloodier mess when it finally comes.

When will we face reality? Hezbollah can't be appeased. Hezbollah can't be integrated into a democratic government and domesticated. And Hezbollah, whose cadres believe that death is a promotion, can't be deterred by wagging fingers and flyovers. Hezbollah, our mortal enemy, must be destroyed. But we - Israel, the United States, Europe - lack the will. And will is one thing Hezbollah and its backers in Iran and Syria don't lack: They'll kill anyone and destroy anything to win.We won't.

We still think we can talk our way out of a hit job. Not only are we reluctant to kill those bent on killing us - we don't even want to offend them. Hezbollah's shocking defeat of Israel in 2006 (when will Western leaders learn that you can't measure out war in teaspoons?) highlighted the key military question of our time: How can humane, law-abiding states defeat merciless postnational organizations that obey only the "laws" of bloodthirsty gods?

The answer, as Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught us, is that you have to gut the organization and kill the hardcore cadres. (Exactly how many al Qaeda members have we converted to secular humanism?).

Entranced by the military vogue of the season, we don't even get our terminology right. Defeating Hezbollah has nothing to do with counterinsurgency warfare - the situation's gone far beyond that. We're facing a new form of "non-state state" built around a fanatical killing machine that rejects all of our constraints.

No one is going to win Hezbollah's hearts and minds.

Its fighters, and their families, have already shifted into full-speed fanaticism, and there's no reverse gear. Hezbollah has to be destroyed. But we're not going to do it. And Israel's not going to do it. We both lack the vision, the guts, the strength of will. Hezbollah has all three. In spades.

As for Europe stepping in, it's got just enough UN peacekeepers in Lebanon to serve as hostages, but not enough to set up a convincing roadblock. (All the United Nations has done has been to direct traffic for Hezbollah arms smugglers.) And Europeans won't fight to protect Jews. Even now, Europeans, high and low, wish they could find an excuse to pile on against Israel.

The continent's shamelessly anti-Israeli media is doing all it can to give its audiences that excuse - witness the pro-Hezbollah propaganda reported as ground truth in 2006 - but Europe's still a bit too embarrassed by its recent past to actively aid in Israel's destruction.

Meanwhile, Israel's bumbling Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his government remain focused on the chaos in Gaza generated by Hamas - another Iranian tool - while trying to ignore the existential threat metastasizing on its northern border. The "world community" wrings its hands about Tehran's nuclear ambitions, but does nothing - as Iran methodically sets the stage to launch volleys of medium-range missiles into Israel when the hour of reckoning comes.

The extremists running Iran today would destroy Israel. No matter the cost. And Hezbollah's happy to help.Until that day comes, Tehran and Damascus are convinced that no one will stand up for Lebanon. They're savvier strategically than we are.

Before Israel squandered its credibility in the 2006 war, it briefly looked as though its Sunni Arab neighbors might rouse themselves to action to help thwart Tehran's ambitions. Those hopes have dissolved. Meanwhile, Jordan's rulers seem blithely unaware that they're next: Once Lebanon is under Hezbollah's thumb, Iran and Syria's next step will be to destabilize Jordan, surrounding Israel with active enemies.

Is there a good solution? No. Is there any solution? Yes. Backed by US air and naval power, Israel must strike remorselessly, destroying Hezbollah without compromise and ignoring the global save-the-terrorists outcry. It's not going to happen. We lack the strength of will to do this right.Israel or even the United States may feel compelled to intervene at some point. But we'll do too little too late and stop too soon.

Hezbollah would sacrifice women and children by the thousands to win. We rely on that fatal narcotic, diplomacy, as Lebanon shatters and our enemies pick up the pieces.

We're not Hezbollah's enemies. We're its enablers.

Ralph Peters' new book, "Looking For Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World," comes out July 4.

Liberals - NSPP - Deny Truth on Taxes

We here every day how the rich are the bad guys but who pays the most taxes - if the liberal Democrats have their way, you and I will pay most of the taxes -

And, if this isn't enough for you, why not ask who the rich are - 60% of the really rich are Democrats - if we tax them more they will just pass the increase on to us - we will pay on the front end and on the back end - hmmmm

Hold on to your wallets people - the NSPP is coming for you - keep the faith, but know the battle is joined! deny


Source: IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin, Winter 2008

Comparing 1995 to 2005, here are some conclusions we can draw:

First, the rich are increasing their share of the country’s total income. For example, from 1995 to 2005, the top 5% of taxpayers increased their share of the total income of all taxpayers from 28.8% to 35.8%.

Second, the rich are paying a growing share of the country’s total income taxes. For example, from 1995 to 2005, the top 5% of taxpayers increased their share of the country’s total income taxes paid from 48.9% to 59.7%.

Third, the rich pay a proportionately higher percentage of their income in taxes. For example, in 2005, the top 1% of taxpayers accounted for 21.2% of the total income and they paid 39.4% of the country’s total income taxes. By contrast, the bottom 50% of all taxpayers accounted for 12.8% of the total income and they paid 3.1% of the country’s total income taxes.

The data shows the progressive nature of our tax system in which wealthier people pay a proportionately higher percentage of their income in taxes. With this being an election year, the country’s tax policies will likely be a key debate item. As a result, don’t be surprised to see some changes over the next four years.

Radical Environmentalism WILL Crush our Ecomony

Hello!!! Remember what I said no so long ago? The ecofascists will crush us into economic ruin and we, as a members of the greatest nation on earth, will not have a clue as to what happen until it's too late.

Our worst nightmare is happening right now - wake up and turn off the 6 o'clock news, go to Heritage's web site and get started on the path to knowledge.

Keep the faith, Heritage has joined the battle!

How much will it cost you?
Imagine this nightmare economic scenario playing out over the next two decades:

$1.7 to $4.8 trillion-cumulative losses to economic output by 2030.

$155 billion to $500 billion-potential single-year losses to economic output.

500,000 to 1,000,000-annual job losses before 2030.

$100 billion-cost of new government permits mandated for energy users by 2020. This could exceed $300 billion by 2030.

$467-average additional cost per household each year for natural gas and electricity. That means that the average household will spend an additional $8,870 to purchase household energy over the period 2012 through 2030.
(All financial figures are in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars.)

But this is no fantasy. This is the impact on our economy of climate change legislation now before lawmakers, according to a careful and thorough new analysis by The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis.

The legislation, principally sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.), would impose emissions caps on six greenhouse gasses. Those who produce such gasses would have to purchase a government permit, or “allowance,” for the amount they emit. This will drive up energy costs and cause real problems for the economy.

“In addition to taking a bite out of consumers’ pocketbooks, the high energy prices throw a monkey wrench into the production side of the economy,” explain Heritage experts Bill Beach, David Kreutzer, Ben Lieberman and Nick Loris.

Economic growth, output and employment would all be reduced, despite liberal claims that such a program would result in economy-boosting “green investment” coupled with “green-collar” job creation.

What’s more, “the increase in energy costs creates correspondingly large transfers of income from private energy consumers to special interests.” (emphasis is mine)

Here is a chart that estimates how the environment will change if this insane bill passes - if you aren't frightened, you should be.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/images/CDA08-02_chart1.gif

Farm Bill Is Outside of Common Sense

It would seem we have lost what little common sense we have accumulated over our short life spans by even proposing such a farm bill.

Does it seem that when congressmen and women get into seats of power they take leave of their senses? Read on and keep the faith, we have to believe the battle is joined!

(from the Heritage Foundation)
Entitlements. Instead of paring back the $25 billion annual taxpayer subsidy to multimillionaire farmers-many of whom are seeing incomes surge with high food prices-Congress is actually expanding the wasteful and counterproductive program. “President George W. Bush and reform-minded lawmakers should flat-out reject this farm bill that would cost taxpayers billions of dollars every year, distort food prices, and subsidize millionaires,” Heritage budget expert Brian Riedl writes. He outlines the proposal’s seven principal flaws and urges a Presidential veto.

The Truth be Known

A Dog is Truly Man's Best Friend


A scientific study was recently conducted and it has proven that with out a doubt a dog is "Man's best Friend".

After locking his dog and his wife in the trunk of his car for 30 minutes, guess which one was happy to see him?

Hugo Chavez's Venezuela Sponsors Terrorists in Columbia

After reading this article, the first question that comes to mind is what would the New Socialist Progressives Party, NSPP do, if elected, to stop the spread of terror in Latin America? Send Jimmy Carter to kiss Hugo Chavez's ass as he has done since throwing the election in Venezuela to get Chavez elected in the first place, and then again pronounced the recall attempt fair and legitimate while the whole world watched in disbelief as Hugo stole the election with intimidation and violence.

You must understand, Jimmy Carter is not the only Marxist among the NSPP. Even though Clinton and Obama pronounce themselves protectors of the American dream, the reality is far from anything that even remotely resembles historic American freedoms and constitutional guarantees. They have never said, at any time or any place, that America is the last great hope for free peoples to find their dreams and destines. They have stated they will make sure anyone with any dream to succeed in this country will be made to suffer failure.

There is no part of the NSPP agenda that incorporates constitutional freedoms for all Americans and others seeking to be free. The NSPP is about enslavement of mind and soul to big government. Taking from the productive and give to the unproductive, surrender all pride and productivity to the will of the few in power while bowing to tyrants and mass killers to gain their acceptance of our place among the failed states of the world.

America must be brought down and changed to more reflect the degenerates and despots that now sponsor terror around the world. This who and what the new liberal progressives are.

Make no mistake, whether it's Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Taiwan or all of Latin America, the NSPP will not lift a finger to defend them even if it means America would be destroyed as we know it today. It would just be a means to get total control of America for decades to come.

Stop and think about what you will do in November - what or who will defend our way of life or who will surrender it - Keep the faith, you know the battle is joined!

Oily Chavez Oozes Beyond Venezuela
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Friday, May 09, 2008

Oil spiked $4 Friday on new evidence of Venezuela's deep involvement in terrorism. There's no glossing over such news: Hugo Chavez intends to destabilize the region. The U.S. will need to take action

After poring over some of the 10,000 documents captured from the computer of dead FARC terrorist Raul Reyes, killed in a raid on March 1, U.S. intelligence officials are convinced that Chavez's involvement is deeper than anyone realized, according to a front-page story by the Wall Street Journal. "There is complete agreement in the intelligence community that these documents are what they purport to be," a U.S. official told the Journal.

The oil market understood the implications of this: The U.S. probably would be forced to declare Venezuela a state sponsor of terror and then end Venezuela's role as a top oil supplier, as required for other rogue states such as Iran.

With global oil supplies scarce, and Venezuela accounting for 12% of U.S. oil imports, the U.S. economy would feel the effects.Yet the alternative of doing nothing probably is worse.The new documents show Venezuelan complicity in the FARC's war on Colombia well beyond any past estimates. Chavez offered the drug-dealing Marxist terrorists rocket-propelled grenades and ground-to-air missiles to shoot down U.S. and Colombian aircraft.Such rockets, remember, enabled ragtag Afghan tribesmen to chase out invading Soviet troops in 1989.

Chavez also offered port access for Russian arms shipments in Maracaibo to FARC's jungle bases. He offered FARC rest and recreational bases, along with state medical care. To cap it, he offered the terrorists a $250 million "loan," payable upon the overthrow of Colombia's government.

This is astonishing support for some of the worst terrorists on Earth. FARC is reviled by average Colombians. It should be dead or disarmed at this point because President Alvaro Uribe's courageous efforts to confront FARC have been relentless. Yet he hasn't won yet, thanks to FARC's clandestine support from Venezuela.

It's hard enough to win an asymmetrical war like this, harder still if the insurgents are stoked from other states. Chavez not only supports these jungle thugs, he's urging the West to take these killers off international terror lists, so they can openly raise more funds.So long as America buys Venezuelan oil, Chavez will have the money to help FARC eventually destroy Colombia. He won't stop on his own, and the clandestine nature of his aid suggests he'll seek new ways to do it on the sly.

It's part of Chavez's strategy to use his petrodollars to take over the hemisphere — or at least become its main power broker.Thus far, the open side of Chavez's quest is clear. Using democratic elections, Chavez seeks to get Latin leaders elected who will be his vassals.

He does so by secretly buying off leftist political parties, and manipulating elections and the minds of poor voters. He has helped put socialist cronies in power in Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua. Now, he has his eyes on his next prize: U.S. ally El Salvador.

Bad as that is, the new FARC computer documents show an even darker side: Any nation that resists his charms, anti-U.S. rhetoric and oil cash, gets destabilized. Colombia may be the scariest example of Chavez's destabilization efforts, but others are threatened, too — including Mexico and Peru, two stalwarts who have no interest in being Chavez's puppet states. It's significant that Mexico's and Peru's ambassadors were recently seen with President Bush at the Council of the Americas Wednesday pleading to Congress for free trade for their neighbor Colombia, whose economic success is as vital to them as their own.

All three nations are under fire from Chavez, and need vibrant economies to withstand him.

Peru is fighting Chavista infiltration through the dictator's newly formed "Houses of Alba" and has seen a resurgence of the Shining Path Marxist guerrillas it stomped out a decade ago.Mexico's fighting a terrible war against drug-dealing criminals whose prime support from abroad is FARC terrorists. Last Thursday the chief of Mexico's national police was gunned down by these thugs in Mexico City, striking into the heart of the Mexican state.

Meanwhile, the raid that killed Reyes also revealed the presence of Mexican operatives in Colombia believed to be in training to destroy Mexico's oil pipelines, which supply much of America's oil.

It's an ugly picture for the U.S. We must either de-fang Chavez soon, or watch democratic neighbors collapse to his vast dictatorship. If that happens, oil prices will rise as high as his ambition.

Obama's Tax Increase Is Socialists Agenda

The simple truth is the New Socialist Progressive Party, NSPP, Obama's party, will let the tax cut expire but the result is not just more taxes for the rich, they will just pass this increase on to us, the middle class will pay more taxes as well and we will pay higher prices for everything with less income.

Does this effect inflation? Of course it does along with the tax increases on us we will have less discretionary income to spend on improving our lives, it means more money channeled into entitlements, health care for everyone that someone else pays for and the bottom line is we will have less control over or personal lives.

This is how socialism works - we give up our personal freedom to make our own decisions to someone in government that is smarter then us. When has the government ever done anything that wasn't designed to take money and freedom from us?

You say it can't happen here? Guess again! Watch what the candidates have to say and apply common sense, then you decide what is right for your family and the country.

Keep the faith by reading this great article so you know the battle is joined!

Obama's Faulty Tax Argument*
By ANDREW G. BIGGSMay 9, 2008

As the presidential campaign heats up, a key issue is whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts, which expire in 2011.

John McCain wants to make the tax cuts permanent.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want to let the rates rise.

Opponents of the tax cuts point to spending programs that could be financed by the extra revenues. Chief among these is Social Security. Sen. Obama's Web site, for example, argues that "extending the Bush tax cuts will cost three times as much as what is needed to fix Social Security's solvency over the next 75 years."Such statements imply that if we return to the seemingly modest tax rates of the 1990s, we could fund the $4.3 trillion Social Security deficit, and so much more. As Mr. Obama recently told Fox News, "I would roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans back to the level they were under Bill Clinton, when I don't remember rich people feeling oppressed."This argument seems compelling, but it is misguided.

In reality, repealing the tax cuts would raise taxes far above Clinton-era levels. Due to quirks in the tax code, average taxes would be almost 25% higher than during the 1990s.Mr. Obama's claim that the lost revenue from the income-tax cuts exceeds the Social Security shortfall derives from an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The Center's conclusions have been widely cited, but rely on dubious assumptions.

The basic methodology is simple: Compare the income-tax revenues if the tax cuts expire to revenues if the tax cuts are extended. The Center measures the difference in revenue 10 years from now – to match the government's 10-year budget measurement period – then extends the difference over 75 years to make it comparable to the 75-year Social Security shortfall.

To account for the effects of inflation and economic growth, analysts compare tax revenues to the size of the economy. The Congressional Budget Office projects that if the tax cuts expire, income-tax receipts in 2018 will be 1.5% higher relative to gross domestic product than if the cuts are made permanent. By comparison, Social Security's 75-year shortfall is just 0.6% of GDP. So Social Security is a costly problem, but the tax cuts cost much more. Open and shut case, right? Not exactly.

Tax revenues would skyrocket if the tax cuts expire, due to "bracket creep." Average incomes are higher today than in the 1990s, but income-tax brackets aren't adjusted for the growth of earnings. As a result, Americans will shift into higher tax brackets and pay a greater share of their incomes in taxes.

Going back to the tax rates of the 1990s doesn't mean that households will pay 1990s taxes. Because the tax brackets haven't risen along with incomes, average taxes would be significantly higher, and grow each year.

If the tax cuts expire, income-tax revenues by 2018 will rise to 10.8% of the total economy from 8.7% today – an increase of 24%. Compared to the average over the last 50 years, allowing the rates to rise would increase tax revenues by 32%.

Believe it or not, income taxes will rise even if the tax cuts remain in place, because the revenue-increasing effects of bracket creep more than offset the lower rates. With the lower rates, total income-tax revenues will increase to 9.3% of GDP by 2018. This level is 7% higher than today, and 13% above the 1957-2007 average. Thus even with the tax cuts, revenues will increase by more than enough to fix Social Security.

So even if the tax cuts are made permanent, future Americans will pay a greater share of their incomes to the government than in the past. But for some in Washington, that's not enough. Not surprisingly, neither party highlights these rising tax receipts. They undercut liberal arguments that the government is starved of revenue. And they render conservative claims for the tax cuts unimpressive. ("Vote GOP: A smaller tax increase than the other guys!")

The next president will face difficult choices regarding how much to collect in taxes, and how much to spend on entitlements like Social Security. Future citizens may decide that paying higher taxes is worthwhile. But in any event, the misleading tax cuts vs. Social Security argument should not guide policy makers on this issue.

Mr. Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., is the former principal deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration.*