Sunday, February 17, 2008

Global Warming : Record Cold and Snow

Well, I wonder what the faithful will have to say about the weather this year and how it's all due to global warming - heh

When you belong to a religion, like the religion of Jim Jones, no matter what anyone says or thinks, they are wrong - global warming is all man made and we must destroy ourselves so we can start again and do it right the next time.

Extreem you say? Not at all - the followers of Jim Jones thaught nothing of killing themselves in the name of Jim Jones. The followers of the global warming faith are just a dedicated and just as uneffected by facts.

Global warming can not be defended by scientific facts and with good reason, there arn't any - a consensus of scientists has nothing to do with scientifc research.

I have always been told that you never discuss politics or religion in polite company - now with global warming you have both - agian it's about power over other people and using any means possible - as the saying goes about gaining power," power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

This is the ultimate goal of the global warming religion - the numbers of the faithful grow by the hour. Unthinking and unconcerned, willing to be lead to the edge and then blindly jumping into the abys.

But keep your coat handy and keep the faith, the battle is joined!
Posted by Picasa

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Europe Sill Loves Socialism

It's a sad day when after all of these years, the European community still can not come to grips with the fact that they have to defend themselves.

To this day, as witnessed in this NewsMax article, the European states that are associated with NATO refuse to believe that they are in danger for Islam, the Russians and the Chinese.

I guess it's their history that will destroy them in the end. I pray they won't take us down with them. But given the climate of liberalism in this country and Europe, our chances of surviving a socialist president don't look good.

But keep the faith, the battle is joined!


Editor's Note: Newsmax Publisher Christopher Ruddy joined Senator Joseph Lieberman and the U.S. Delegation to the Munich Conference on Security Policy last week in Germany. Please read his report below.

Munich Conference Reveals European Complacency
By: Christopher Ruddy

Last week I had the honor of joining the U.S. delegation to the Munich Conference on Security Policy, held in Munich, Germany.

The congressional delegation was headed by Sens. Joseph Lieberman and Lindsey Graham.
The Munich Conference — closely associated with the NATO alliance — has drawn headlines in recent years.

Last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin set off a firestorm with an acerbic speech that evoked fears of a new Cold War.
Story continues below . . .

“The United States has overstepped its borders in all spheres, economic, political and humanitarian, and has imposed itself on other states," Putin said. He stridently rapped the U.S. for its missile defense system plans, its desire for an independent Kosovo, and what Putin called the U.S.’ “hyper-inflated use of force" — a clear reference to Iraq.

This year, the talk was muted over U.S policies, perhaps owing to the fact the Bush administration is soon exiting. Europeans believe the next administration led by Democrats will be more sympathetic to their views.
Today, Europe appears to have a mindset of accommodation and complacency. Appeasement might be too strong of a word, since there is no Hitler-like figure marching through European capitals to acquiesce to.

A U.S. official with NATO told our delegation that throughout Europe, our allies are not making the connection between their own security and the alliance’s work to keep the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan.

In some countries where the mission has been explained well by their governments, such as in Britain and Denmark, support for the NATO effort remains strong.
It is important to remember that NATO was created as a defensive organization to protect the member states against attack. On Sept. 11, al-Qaida, which had found safe harbor and backing in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, attacked a member state.

Though NATO fully supported the U.S. effort to keep the Taliban and their al-Qaida allies from power in Kabul, that support is waning.

Even the French, who early on supported the Afghanistan mission, are having doubts.
"Military is only one element," Herve Morin, the French defense minister, said of the Afghanistan operation, suggesting the NATO alliance had ignored the "civilian element." In a somewhat contradictory statement, he castigated the U.S. for attempting to foster democracy in the region.

The failure of NATO to back the mission in Afghanistan drew a strong rebuke from U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who called Islamic terror a “cancer” that will “metastasize” if it isn’t aggressively attacked.

"I am concerned that many people on this continent may not comprehend the magnitude of the direct threat to European security," he told the European leaders. Gates noted that numerous terror plots aimed at European targets had been thwarted, partly thanks to U.S. efforts to combat terror cells abroad.
Gates also suggested the stakes are extremely high.

"Imagine if Islamic terrorists had managed to strike your capitals on the same scale as they struck in New York," he said. "Imagine if they had laid their hands on weapons and materials with even greater destructive capability . . . We forget at our peril that the ambition of Islamic extremists is limited only by opportunity."

Lieberman Takes on Iran

Europe has been moving toward a similar accommodational approach to Iran, a nation that has been developing weapons of mass destruction. Though there is little doubt that Iran, unless stopped, will acquire nuclear weapons, NATO is unwilling to aggressively tackle the threat.

Iran already has the ballistic missile capability to strike Europe. And its leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called Israel a “disgraceful blot” that should be “wiped off the map,” adding menacingly that the Jewish state is “heading toward annihilation.”

Sen. Lieberman told the conference that Iran must be reckoned with "before it is too late." He pleaded with European and U.N. member states to use their economic leverage over Iran to stop its nuclear weapons plans.

"The dangers of a nuclear Iran cannot be denied, diminished, or dismissed. There is no room for complacency, and no excuse for inaction, about this threat," he warned.
Lieberman also clarified press reports suggesting that the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate found that Iran’s nuclear program was not a serious threat.

"The NIE itself expresses only 'moderate' confidence that Iran has not already done so,” Lieberman said, referring to Iran’s program to develop nuclear weapons. “And other respected national intelligence services believe that Iran already has restarted its nuclear weaponization program."

Concerted action today could prevent a worse solution, he suggested.
"Military action to destroy or deter Iran's nuclear arsenal is not an option we seek, but it is also not an option that we can eliminate," he said.

The Russia Bear: Follow the Money

Despite Russia’s numerous policy disagreements with the United States over Iran, missile defense, Kosovo and Iraq, a senior Russian diplomat told me, “We are partners with America.”
Russia today is confident and cocky. But it was just over 15 years ago that the U.S. was airlifting food supplies to Russia.

The economic situation there has improved dramatically. With skyrocketing oil and gas prices, Russia has developed a remarkable war chest.
One U.S. general told me the Pentagon has been suspicious of Russia because no one knows what the nation plans to do with its vast wealth.
He also noted that Russia is “unquestionably the nuclear superpower of the world,” noting the vast arsenal it has maintained after the end of the Cold War.

Russia’s deputy prime minister, Sergey Ivanov, bragged during his speech in Munich that in recent years Russia had acquired $500 billion in gold and cash reserves, with another $150 billion in a national welfare fund.

To understand the vastness of these $650 billion in reserves, consider that China has about double this amount. But Russia has less than one-tenth the population of China.
Ivanov said that Russia estimates it would need $1 trillion to rebuild his dilapidated country — for airports, roads, water projects, etc.

But then Ivanov made clear to the delegates that Russia had no plans to use these funds for infrastructure. Instead, Russia would rely on private investment for infrastructure projects.
He did say Russia would focus on supporting key industries, which Ivanov noted included “aircraft engineering and production, shipbuilding, atomic energy, missile and space technologies.” It is interesting that all these sectors are closely associated with Russia’s military.

But there’s no reason to worry, Ivanov assured the gathering, since his country’s “revival” was nothing more than a peaceful democracy seeking its place on the world economic stage, adding that Russia had no intention of “establishing military blocs or engaging in open confrontation with our partners.”

Ivanov’s comments would be reassuring if Russia was truly a democracy and partner of ours. The facts suggest otherwise.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Educating Ignorant Public Top Priority

David Walkers resignation is a shocker for sure - he has always shown to be steadfast in his efforts to keep our government under control, but now it looks like he will try to do it from the outside - good luck.

This article is from the '5 Minute Forcast' that outlines Walker's new tactics to educate the public to the dangers that will befall us if we don't reign in spending and controll entitlements.

Keep the faith, the battle is joined!

Dear 5 reader,
Wow. Big news. So big we couldn't wait until our next edition on Tuesday. So put the kids to bed. Here we go. it's a 5 Min. Forecast OVERTIME briefing:

David Walker Resigns as U.S. Comptroller General

"As comptroller general of the United States," says David Walker, the federal government’s top accountant, "there are real limitations on what I can do and say in connection with key public policy issues, especially issues that directly relate to GAO's client , the Congress."

You may recall, we've been traveling with David for more than a year documenting his efforts to educate the public on the fiscal issues challenging the country. Our film, I.O.U.S.A., featuring Mr. Walker among other luminaries, premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on January 19, 2008.

Despite the very difficult nature of Walker's decision, he has chosen to leave his post at the GAO to become the president and CEO of the newly founded Peter G. Peterson Foundation. He made the announcement to Congress today.

"While I love both my job as comptroller general and the GAO," said Walker, "I love my country more. And I believe that leading this foundation represents a unique opportunity and will be good for my country. My new position will provide me with the ability and resources to more aggressively address a range of current and emerging challenges facing our country, including advocating specific policy solutions and courses of action."

As the head of the Peterson Foundation, Walker will oversee the billion-dollar endowment of Pete Peterson , former Commerce Secretary, the founder of the Blackstone group, The Concord Coalition, and legendary advocate for government fiscal responsibility. Chief among Walker's duties at the Peterson Foundation will be the funding and advocating of projects that will enhance public awareness of fiscal imbalance, government deficits, and nuclear proliferation.

"We are at a make-or-break point in American history," Mr. Peterson said of his new foundation. "The entitlement monster is unfunded. We are dangerously dependent on foreign capital, our health care costs per capita are twice the level of the developed world. The goal is to integrate public policy and charitable giving and to answer this question: How do you educate a public that has become largely inert?"

It's now up to David Walker to answer that question. Walker's resignation, coupled with the launch of Peterson's fund, has broad implications for the future of fiscal responsibility in the United States, and more specifically, the development of our documentary, I.O.U.S.A.

"The foundation is also going to end up funding other related efforts," Walker told the Federal News Network in and interview this morning, "including potentially supporting one or more documentaries designed to get the message to millions of Americas' because they need to know in order to make more informed choices at the ballot box."

Interesting times. Stay tuned for further updates.
And as always, have a nice weekend,

Addison Wiggin - The 5 Min. Forecast

P.S. Here’s what the Congressional Quarterly said about Walker’s departure . And you can listen to his interview with the Federal News Network here .

Friday, February 15, 2008

How to Make a Strong Economy

The political scene that we have in this country is utter kaos - the major theme is which presidental candidate can promise the most new programs to crush American pride and productivity, and, most of these of course, are liberal Democrats.

They make no bones about what they want to do - it's about taking from the productive, you and me, and giving it those that have no intention of producing anything at all.

Socialism is alive and growing. Socialism is destructive and not productive. History has proved this over and over. It never works!!

Wake up America - this isn't a vedio game that you can just stop playing when you get tired of it, this is for our future and our childrens future.

This a great article - Keep the faith, the battle is joined!

*To Stimulate The Economy, Liberate It*

Yaron Brook 02.14.08

While some in Washington are quibbling about the details of the economic stimulus package, nearly everyone agrees with its basic idea: that our ailing economy needs Uncle Sam to play doctor and hand out some $150 billion in consumer spending money. But this sort of government intervention is not the cure for our economic troubles. It is the cause.

To understand why, we must first recognize that the key economic activity that causes growth is not consumer spending but production.

Economic growth means an increase in the amount of wealth that exists in a country--and all wealth must be produced. Houses, health care, air-conditioning and transportation do not come ready-made from nature. We have them only to the extent that individuals and businesses bring them into existence.The focus of today's stimulus packages on consumer spending is therefore completely backward.

Consumption is a consequence of production. This fact is ignored by the Bush plan, which attempts to achieve prosperity through $100 billion in deficit-spending. Though this might bring the appearance of prosperity, in the same way that an unemployed man appears prosperous if he goes on a shopping spree with his credit cards, the reality will be the opposite.

The fact is that consumer spending is slowing because production is slowing. There have been massive misallocations of capital--witness, for instance, the housing market--which are now coming home to roost. The resulting financial losses, economic uncertainty and more tenuous job market are all contributing to the American consumer's inability or unwillingness to spend.

If the Bush spending plan can't productively stimulate the economy, what government economic plan can? None. Production does not need stimulation from the government; it needs liberation from the government. What a productive, dynamic economy requires of a government is that it restrict itself to protecting property rights from force and fraud, and refrain from interfering in free production and trade.

Now it is of course popular practice to blame economic problems, not on government intervention but on the free market. But observe that all of the most prominent problems today--problems with housing, financial markets, health care, oil--involve some of the least-free sectors of our economy, those with the most government intervention.

Consider the extent of government culpability in the current subprime meltdown. There is the Federal Reserve, which wrought havoc with the markets by manipulating interest rates, first setting them below the rate of inflation and then quintupling them.The Fed's initial policy convinced subprime borrowers that if they took out mortgages tied to Fed rates, they could afford homes that they ordinarily couldn't. The Fed's artificially low rates fueled a borrowing spree and housing bubble that were instrumental in the subprime meltdown.

Then there is the network of entities backed by the government, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were big champions of subprime lending and big propagandists for the idea that everyone needs to own a home to live the American Dream.

Finally, there is the government's long-standing policy of assuring large financial institutions that they are "too big to fail," which encourages short-range, high-risk investments. Given all these influences, is it any surprise that so many people with poor credit bought expensive homes, that so many financial institutions lent them the money and that all hell broke loose once the unsustainable could no longer be sustained? In an unhampered market, private lenders and borrowers don't behave this way. And this is just the tip of the iceberg of how our government today stifles economic productivity through its gargantuan regulatory and welfare state.

Try to project the impact on productive businesses of the vast burden of federal and state regulations--regulations that render off-limits a huge range of productive endeavors. For example: If a fast-growing software company needs to quickly import a dozen eager and talented Indian programmers, it can't, thanks to our immigration laws. If a company needs to fire a group of incompetent employees to make its workforce more productive, it risks a million-dollar lawsuit. If a developer seeks to offer low-cost housing in the vast, unused tracts of land in expensive California districts, too bad--that would go against environmentalist "open space" laws.

If a health insurance company tries to win more customers with deductibles, coverage and limits that will make insurance far more affordable, the idea is sunk; states dictate the terms of health insurance contracts. If a group of venture capitalists want to invest in new nuclear power, to supply cheap energy to a new market, it cannot--environmental regulations have prevented any new plants for decades, despite the technology's stellar safety record.

If the board of a struggling public company wants to hire a top-flight CEO to turn its company around, its job is much harder (and more expensive) thanks to the CEO-repelling climate created by Sarbanes-Oxley, whose vague laws and new criminal penalties make managing a firm much riskier. Even the simple project of building a larger facility to house a growing business can easily be held up for six months, while the owner must glad-hand zoning and permit bureaucrats.

And this is just the smallest indication of the regulatory strangulation that American businesses suffer. Imagine the economic stimulus, the explosion of productivity, that would occur if these regulatory nooses were removed. For that matter, consider how our government wreaks economic destruction by taxing the wealth of the productive and diverting it unproductively.

Americans pay trillions of dollars in taxes annually--the vast majority of which is not for the agencies that protect our rights (police, military and courts), but for regulations and for entitlement programs that transfer wealth from productive individuals who have earned it to those who haven't.

Over the years, these programs have prevented individuals from investing trillions of dollars in new ventures. It took a million dollars to start Google; if the government hadn't drained us of millions of dollars, picture what other amazing technologies, products and services we would be enjoying today.The economic stimulus that would result from drastically cutting government regulation and spending (and thus taxation) is almost unimaginable.

Faced with recession, therefore, we should be asking not, "What can the government do to stimulate the economy?" but "What can it stop doing?" Washington should be debating which disastrous programs to phase out first: Sarbanes-Oxley, or the constellation of agencies that distort the housing market, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Politicians should be committing to drastically cutting government spending, so that Americans can have real and lasting tax relief.

What our economy needs is not a stimulation package, but a liberation package.

Yaron Brook is managing director of BH Equity Research and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. /

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Wisconsin's Hungry Looms Large

This is really a hoot - my church, here in Wisconsin, the Lutherans, have become so secular I am forced to leave and find another church. Not just another building but another Christian church like the Baptists.

I am Lutheran but they have crossed the line with me when they decided, that is voted at convention, to join the left wing liberal establishment and condemned Israel for their security wall but never mentioned the Palestinian suicide bombers that have killed thousands innocent people in Israel.

I don't attend that church anymore but I still contribute to some of their charities such as their mission churchs around the state which they do great things in new areas. This means that I am still on their mailing list and consequently receive the weekly bulletin.

Don't get me wrong, the church, as individual units, do good things in the community - I will always believe this as the Christian faith, built on the teaching of Jesus Christ, will be a force for good where ever it is established.

But this week I read in the bulletin, one of the pastors, and they have many, just returned from New Orleans and proclaimed that area to be a mess and in need of much more work - it's great that they want to stay involved, but now thay are indicating that our own state has it's own problems as well and they are no small ones. Hunger is ranpent. What? In a liberal state? That damn Bush!!

Our pastor has stated that in southwestern Wisconsin alone we may have more than 103,000 people that may go to bed hungry. 39,000 could be childern. They don't know for sure but what the heck, bad is bad, right?

Give this some thought, with a population of 5.4 million, as of the last census in 2000, and having that many hungry in just one part of the state, how many are there in the whole state? - 4 times that many? 400,000 that go hungry? More? ( see my past post on Wisconsin population decline)

Whether it's the church or some other liberal organization, it's always best to have a dieaster looming to fire up the troops - telling the truth is a thing of the past even for the church - only fools need to believe in positive outcomes for they are hard to control - the liberal intellectual elite must filter the truth out of the facts to protect us and control the outcome. The modern church is being transformed into a secular arm of this new thinking.

Peter and Paul would not known this new church.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Wisconsin losing Population Share

Here is a great website for any of us that lives in Wisconsin - it informs us about how we are losing people and why, and how due to this fact we are losing representation in Washington becasuse of declining population.

This is a must read for a Wisconsin resident - You don't have to wonder why we are losing people, all you have to do is live here under the liberal control of the Democrats - it will be the same no matter were you go if the state is controlled by Democrats - more taxes, more regulation, more social programs that help no one, they just cost more and more. Get the picture?


http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/bb/03bb/103-106.pdf

Immigration Progress by The People

Just when you thought all was lost, the people of this nation stand up and demand that our politicans actually do their job of representation - go figure.

This is only in Arziona but it is a start and maybe, just maybe, other states will find the back bone to follow suit - it would be a beautiful thing for sure.

I just love it when a plan comes together - keep the faith, the battle is joined!

*THE IMMIGRATION ANSWER*
Feb 13, 2008
By KRIS W. KOBACH February 13, 2008 -

ON Jan. 1, Arizona became the first state to require all employers to confirm workers' legal status via the federal "E-Verify" system. Having survived a federal court challenge last Thursday, the law promises to transform the immigration crisis in America.

After just six weeks, Arizona's system is already working: Newspapers in the state report that illegals are self-deporting by the thousands. Apartment complexes in Phoenix and Tucson confirm that thousands of tenants have skipped town. Many are returning across the border to Mexico.This success is proof that attrition through enforcement works.

The premise is straightforward: The way to solve our illegal-immigration problem is to ratchet up enforcement while making it more difficult for employers to hire illegals. Illegal aliens are rational people. If their chance of being able to work illegally goes down, while the chance of getting detained goes up, at some point the only sensible thing to do is go home.

E-Verify is free and easy to use. The employer simply types in the employee's name, date of birth and Social Security number (or other work-authorization number). He gets an answer back from the government in seconds.More than 20,000 businesses nationwide were using E-Verify voluntarily before Jan. 1. Now Arizona's 145,000 businesses are obliged to join their ranks.

Illegals know that E-Verify makes it impossible for them to fabricate Social Security numbers and use fade IDs to obtain jobs. And when the jobs dry up, they leave. But Arizona isn't the only compelling proof that attrition through enforcement works.

We have another case study: the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System.The US Justice Department implemented the program back in 2002-03, in the wake of 9/11. It required all aliens from al Qaeda-associated countries to report to INS offices to provide fingerprints and register. The non-compliant faced stiff penalties. Of the nations concerned, Pakistan had the largest number of nationals in the US. NSEERS led directly to the deportation of some 1,500 illegal-alien Pakistanis - and also prompted about 15,000 illegals to self-deport.

All this debunks the common claim that America has only two choices - either round up all illegals and send them home; or unjustly grant amnesty to millions of lawbreakers (thereby virtually begging millions more to break the law in the future).

We now know that there's a third option - attrition through enforcement: Give illegals little choice but to self-deport.This strategy demands no government sweeps or snooping; we need only require employers nationwide to use E-Verify and increase the enforcement of current laws. Again, Arizona is a case in point. Illegals began pouring out of the state on Jan. 1 - even though no county attorney there will take any enforcement action until after March 1. No government official has yet lifted a finger - a credible threat of enforcement is all it took.

Attrition by enforcement has never been tried at the national level. Instead, the strategy for the last decade has been "triage": Deport or incarcerate alien criminals, and shut down smugglers - but rarely enforce the law against garden-variety illegals.That approach, combined with the fact that America has only a few thousand immigration-enforcement agents to cover our nation's entire vast interior, means that most illegals know their chances of being able to work are very high.

Attrition through enforcement would change the behavior of millions of illegal aliens. Even under today's relatively lax enforcement, nearly 200,000 illegals are estimated to exit each year - while more than a million enter. Attrition through enforcement could reverse those numbers. To have any hope of reducing the number of illegals in this country, our next president must aim for attrition via enforcement. By requiring every US employer in the country to use E-Verify, and significantly ratcheting up enforcement (against all illegals), it is possible solve America's illegal-immigration problem.

Kris W. Kobach teaches law at the University of Missouri (Kansas City). In 2001-03, he served as counsel to the US attorney general and was the architect of the NSEERS program. He is also a member of the legal team that defended Arizona's new law in court.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

The Liberal Media Agenda is Misinformation

Chech out these figures and then ask yourself why these statistics have never been seen or heard anywhere in our media - ever -

Check out the source of the facts as well so you won't think someone made them up - you know the media people havc researched them because they know them to be true, and therefore can't print them or present them on the six o'clock news. Anything that is good for America is good news and there by not printable.

Think about what you read and hear - subject it to common sense and what you know to be true. I always know that if the story is by the Associated Press, it is mostly misinformation - Knight Ridder is no better -

I don't know who compiled these figures but they sure tell a story that is differnet from our socialist friends in the media

Keep the faith, the battle is joined!


MILITARY DEATHS FOR TWENTY YEARS

Ever wonder why you hear only part of the story.In this election year We need to be demanding to hear all of the story if they want to discuss an issue.

Bet you didn't know the following! I surely did not..

These are some rather eye-opening facts:
Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan , the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost over 3000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents (accidents that happen also in stateside training, traffic, etc.).

As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics:

The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
1980 .......... 2,392
1981 ......... 2,380
1984 .......... 1,999
1988 .......... 1,819
1989 ......... 1,636
Stateside mostly
1990 ......... 1,508
1991 .......... 1,787
1992 .......... 1,293
1993 ........ ..1,213
1994 . .........1,075
1995 ...........2,465
1996 ......... 2,318 8 Clinton years @13,417 deaths
1997 .......... 817
1998 ......... 2,252
1999 .......... 1,984
2000 .......... 1,983
2001 ......... 890
2002 .......... 1,007 7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
2003 .......... 1,410
2004 .......... 1,887
2005 ......... 919
2006 .......... 920

If you are confused when you look at these figures...so was I.
Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton 's presidency when America wasn't even involved in a war?

And, I was even more confused when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities!

These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth.

Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?

Our Mainstream Print and TV media, and many Politicians like to slant that these brave men and women, who are losing their lives in Iraq , are mostly minorities! Wrong AGAIN--- just one more media lie! The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:
European (White) ............... 69.12%
Hispanic ................................ 12.5%
Black..................................... 12.3% (about the same % as in our population)Asian ...................................... 3.7%
Native American ................... 1.0%
Other ...................................... 2.6%

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:
European descent (white) .....74.31%
Hispanic .................................10.74%
Black ........................................9.67%
Asian .........................................1.81%
Native American ..................... 1.09%
Other .........................................3.30%

These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf (Please look at this report site if you have the chance.) Now ask yourself these two questions:

1. 'Why do the mainstream Print and TV Media never provide these statistics?'
2. 'Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?'

You do the Math! These figures don't lie... but, Media-liars figure...and they sway public opinion!

Monday, February 11, 2008

The Truth About Vietnam's Tet Offensive

As any student of the war in Vietnam will tell you, we were winning the war on the ground, but the media, as today in Iraq and else where, is invested in America's defeat - they want us to be a third rate nation so they can, as the controlling elite, feel good about their personal good fortune. They will scrafice anyone and anything to maintain this fantasy.

As moral and physical cowards, this is the easiest way for the media journalists, read these people as urban terrorists, to keep control of their power - a power based on deception and misinformation. The scary part is that this is found in almost all print media, including most magazines of any type, and, of course, nearly all television save Fox.

Just think of the years before talk radio and Fox News that he liberal socialists control everything we saw and read -

Be alert to what you read - think about what you know or don't know about the truth - and keep the faith, the battle is joined!


*The Lies of Tet*

By ARTHUR HERMAN

February 6, 2008; Page A19 WSJ


On January 30, 1968, more than a quarter million North Vietnamese soldiers and 100,000 Viet Cong irregulars launched a massive attack on South Vietnam. But the public didn't hear about who had won this most decisive battle of the Vietnam War, the so-called Tet offensive, until much too late.


Media misreporting of Tet passed into our collective memory. That picture gave antiwar activism an unwarranted credibility that persists today in Congress, and in the media reaction to the war in Iraq. The Tet experience provides a narrative model for those who wish to see all U.S. military successes -- such as the Petraeus surge -- minimized and glossed over.


In truth, the war in Vietnam was lost on the propaganda front, in great measure due to the press's pervasive misreporting of the clear U.S. victory at Tet as a defeat. Forty years is long past time to set the historical record straight.


The Tet offensive came at the end of a long string of communist setbacks. By 1967 their insurgent army in the South, the Viet Cong, had proved increasingly ineffective, both as a military and political force. Once American combat troops began arriving in the summer of 1965, the communists were mauled in one battle after another, despite massive Hanoi support for the southern insurgency with soldiers and arms.

By 1967 the VC had lost control over areas like the Mekong Delta -- ironically, the very place where reporters David Halberstam and Neil Sheehan had first diagnosed a Vietnam "quagmire" that never existed.The Tet offensive was Hanoi's desperate throw of the dice to seize South Vietnam's northern provinces using conventional armies, while simultaneously triggering a popular uprising in support of the Viet Cong. Both failed.


Americans and South Vietnamese soon put down the attacks, which began under cover of a cease-fire to celebrate the Tet lunar new year. By March 2, when U.S. Marines crushed the last North Vietnamese pockets of resistance in the northern city of Hue, the VC had lost 80,000-100,000 killed or wounded without capturing a single province.


Tet was a particularly crushing defeat for the VC. It had not only failed to trigger any uprising but also cost them "our best people," as former Viet Cong doctor Duong Quyunh Hoa later admitted to reporter Stanley Karnow. Yet the very fact of the U.S. military victory -- "The North Vietnamese," noted National Security official William Bundy at the time, "fought to the last Viet Cong" -- was spun otherwise by most of the U.S. press.


As the Washington Post's Saigon bureau chief Peter Braestrup documented in his 1977 book, "The Big Story," the desperate fury of the communist attacks including on Saigon, where most reporters lived and worked, caught the press by surprise. (Not the military: It had been expecting an attack and had been on full alert since Jan. 24.) It also put many reporters in physical danger for the first time. Braestrup, a former Marine, calculated that only 40 of 354 print and TV journalists covering the war at the time had seen any real fighting. Their own panic deeply colored their reportage, suggesting that the communist assault had flung Vietnam into chaos.Their editors at home, like CBS's Walter Cronkite, seized on the distorted reporting to discredit the military's version of events.


The Viet Cong insurgency was in its death throes, just as U.S. military officials assured the American people at the time. Yet the press version painted a different picture. To quote Braestrup, "the media tended to leave the shock and confusion of early February, as then perceived, fixed as the final impression of Tet" and of Vietnam generally. "Drama was perpetuated at the expense of information," and "the negative trend" of media reporting "added to the distortion of the real situation on the ground in Vietnam."The North Vietnamese were delighted.


On the heels of their devastating defeat, Hanoi increasingly shifted its propaganda efforts toward the media and the antiwar movement. Causing American (not South Vietnamese) casualties, even at heavy cost, became a battlefield objective in order to reinforce the American media's narrative of a failing policy in Vietnam.Yet thanks to the success of Tet, the numbers of Americans dying in Vietnam steadily declined -- from almost 15,000 in 1968 to 9,414 in 1969 and 4,221 in 1970 -- by which time the Viet Cong had ceased to exist as a viable fighting force.


One Vietnamese province after another witnessed new peace and stability. By the end of 1969 over 70% of South Vietnam's population was under government control, compared to 42% at the beginning of 1968. In 1970 and 1971, American ambassador Ellsworth Bunker estimated that 90% of Vietnamese lived in zones under government control.


However, all this went unnoticed because misreporting about Tet had left the image of Vietnam as a botched counterinsurgency -- an image nearly half a decade out of date. The failure of the North's next massive invasion over Easter 1972, which cost the North Vietnamese army another 100,000 men and half their tanks and artillery, finally forced it to sign the peace accords in Paris and formally to recognize the Republic of South Vietnam.


By August 1972 there were no U.S. combat forces left in Vietnam, precisely because, contrary to the overwhelming mass of press reports, American policy there had been a success.To Congress and the public, however, the war had been nothing but a debacle. And by withdrawing American troops, President Nixon gave up any U.S. political or military leverage on Vietnam's future. With U.S. military might out of the equation, the North quickly cheated on the Paris accords. When its re-equipped army launched a massive attack in 1975, Congress refused to redeem Nixon's pledges of military support for the South. Instead, President Gerald Ford bowed to what the media had convinced the American public was inevitable: the fall of Vietnam.The collapse of South Vietnam's neighbor, Cambodia, soon followed.


Southeast Asia entered the era of the "killing fields," exterminating in a brief few years an estimated two million people -- 30% of the Cambodian population. American military policy has borne the scars of Vietnam ever since. It had all been preventable -- but for the lies of Tet.

Mr. Herman is the author of "Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age," to be published by Bantam Dell in April.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Good Advice

"People may doubt what you say, but they will always believe what you do."