When I began to read this "letter" I was skeptical that perhaps it was written by someone with an agenda to further diminish Jesus, God and Christmas in our lives - but in a sly and devious manner. But, by the time I reached the end of this "letter" I realized that if I truly believe in the power of Jesus, then I have little to fear. For who is more powerful than Him? Who could possibly erode His importance or obscure His message if it wasn't His will? And then I realized that my failure of faith had nothing to do with Jesus, or God, but was based on my own wishes - to selfishly want everyone to believe in those same things that I do. So, here's the letter. You decide what you think...
It has come to my attention that many of you are upset that folks are taking My name out of the season.
How I personally feel about this celebration can probably be most easily understood by those of you who have been blessed with children of your own. I don't care what you call the day. If you want to celebrate My birth, just GET ALONG AND LOVE ONE ANOTHER.
Now, having said that let Me go on. If it bothers you that the town in which you live doesn't allow a scene depicting My birth, then just get rid of a couple of Santas and snowmen and put in a small Nativity scene on your own front lawn. If all My followers did that there wouldn't be any need for such a scene on the town square because there would be many of them all around town.
Stop worrying about the fact that people are calling the tree a holiday tree, instead of a Christmas tree. It was I who made all trees. You can remember Me anytime you see any tree. Decorate a grape vine if you wish: I actually spoke of that one in a teaching, explaining who I am in relation to you and what each of our tasks were. If you have forgotten that one, look up John 15: 1 - 8.
If you want to give Me a present in remembrance of My birth here is my wish list. Choose something from it:
1. Instead of writing protest letters objecting to the way My birthday is being celebrated, write letters of love and hope to soldiers away from home. They are terribly afraid and lonely this time of year. I know, they tell Me all the time.
2. Visit someone in a nursing home. You don't have to know them personally. They just need to know that someone cares about them.
3. Instead of writing the President complaining about the wording on the cards his staff sent out this year, why don't you write and tell him that you'll be praying for him and his family this year. Then follow up... It will be nice hearing from you again.
4. Instead of giving your children a lot of gifts you can't afford and they don't need, spend time with them. Tell them the story of My birth, and why I came to live with you down here. Hold them in your arms and remind them that I love them.
5 Pick someone that has hurt you in the past and forgive him or her.
6. Did you know that someone in your town will attempt to take their own life this season because they feel so alone and hopeless? Since you don't know who that person is, try giving everyone you meet a warm smile; it could make the difference.
7. Instead of nit picking about what the retailer in your town calls the holiday, be patient with the people who work there. Give them a warm smile and a kind word. Even if they aren't allowed to wish you a "Merry Christmas" that doesn't keep you from wishing them one. Then stop shopping there on Sunday. If the store didn't make so much money on that day they'd close and let their employees spend the day at home with their families
8. If you really want to make a difference, support a missionary-- especially one who takes My love and Good News to those who have never heard My name.
9. Here's a good one. There are individuals and whole families in your town who not only will have no "Christmas" tree, but neither will they have any presents to give or receive. If you don't know them, buy some food and a few gifts and give them to the Salvation Army or some other charity which believes in Me and they will make the delivery for you.
10. Finally, if you want to make a statement about your belief in and loyalty to Me, then behave like a Christian. Don't do things in secret that you wouldn't do in My presence. Let people know by your actions that you are one of mine.
Don't forget; I am God and can take care of Myself. Just love Me and do what I have told you to do. I'll take care of all the rest. Check out the list above and get to work; time is short. I'll help you, but the ball is now in your court. And do have a most blessed Christmas with all those whom you love and remember :
I LOVE YOU,
JESUS
Wake Up America!
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Australia Leads The Way
Has anyone shown you any proof that the sun is not a major influence driving global temperatures? Not that I've heard. No one seems to be addressing the number and duration of sun spots, whether the sun has "seasons", some maybe lasting years, decades or longer, and some hotter than others, or other celestial effects that may contribute to temperature on earth. But yesterday, Australia became the first country to reject Cap & Trade legislation, voting against that initiative. And as more and more countries come to realize that a giant "climate change" hoax has been played on the world as a ruse to engineer the infrastructure for a "one-world utopia" (goverment, currency, bank, etc), let's hope that more countries follow suit. Let's hope that our Senators are not as blind as our Representatives were, and resoundly defeat this legislation when it comes to a vote later this year or early next year.
Wake Up America!
Wake Up America!
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Wipe Your Shoes Mr. Obama, Looks Like You Stepped In A Pile Of Camel Poop
Barack Obama spent the first 8 months of his presidency apologizing to anyone who would listen for the perceived offenses of America. To this day, he continues to hold dear to his heart the concept that "white America", for that is who founded us, must be punished for past grievances and sins - real or imagined. But Obama has come up against the "reality wall" in the middle east as described by Fouad Ajami, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution - and obviously of middle-eastern decent.
'He talks too much," a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America's 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory.
He is hardly alone, this academic. In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment. In the Arab-Islamic world, Barack Obama has come down to earth.
He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will, the Indians and Pakistanis have been told that the matter of Kashmir is theirs to resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same intractable clash of two irreconcilable nationalisms, and the theocrats in Iran have not "unclenched their fist," nor have they abandoned their nuclear quest.
There is little Mr. Obama can do about this disenchantment. He can't journey to Turkey to tell its Islamist leaders and political class that a decade of anti-American scapegoating is all forgiven and was the product of American policies—he has already done that. He can't journey to Cairo to tell the fabled "Arab street" that the Iraq war was a wasted war of choice, and that America earned the malice that came its way from Arab lands—he has already done that as well. He can't tell Muslims that America is not at war with Islam—he, like his predecessor, has said that time and again.
It was the norm for American liberalism during the Bush years to brandish the Pew Global Attitudes survey that told of America's decline in the eyes of foreign nations. Foreigners were saying what the liberals wanted said.
Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama. In the Palestinian territories, 15% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 82% have an unfavorable view. The Obama speech in Ankara didn't seem to help in Turkey, where the favorables are 14% and those unreconciled, 69%. In Egypt, a country that's reaped nearly 40 years of American aid, things stayed roughly the same: 27% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 70% do not. In Pakistan, a place of great consequence for American power, our standing has deteriorated: The unfavorables rose from 63% in 2008 to 68% this year.
Mr. Obama's election has not drained the swamps of anti-Americanism. That anti-Americanism is endemic to this region, an alibi and a scapegoat for nations, and their rulers, unwilling to break out of the grip of political autocracy and economic failure. It predated the presidency of George W. Bush and rages on during the Obama presidency.
We had once taken to the foreign world that quintessential American difference—the belief in liberty, a needed innocence to play off against the settled and complacent ways of older nations. The Obama approach is different.
Steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt, Mr. Obama and his lieutenants offered nothing less than a doctrine, and a policy, of American penance. No one told Mr. Obama that the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one's own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others.
The crowd may have applauded the cavalier way the new steward of American power referred to his predecessor, but in the privacy of their own language they doubtless wondered about his character and his fidelity. "My brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger," goes one of the Arab world's most honored maxims. The stranger who came into their midst and spoke badly of his own was destined to become an object of suspicion.
Mr. Obama could not make up his mind: He was at one with "the people" and with the rulers who held them in subjugation. The people of Iran who took to the streets this past summer were betrayed by this hapless diplomacy—Mr. Obama was out to "engage" the terrible rulers that millions of Iranians were determined to be rid of.
On Nov. 4, on the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran, the embattled reformers, again in the streets, posed an embarrassing dilemma for American diplomacy: "Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them," they chanted. By not responding to these cries and continuing to "engage" Tehran's murderous regime, his choice was made clear. It wasn't one of American diplomacy's finest moments.
Mr. Obama has himself to blame for the disarray of his foreign policy. American arms had won a decent outcome in Iraq, but Mr. Obama would not claim it—it was his predecessor's war. Vigilance had kept the American homeland safe from terrorist attacks for seven long years under his predecessors, but he could never grant Bush policies the honor and credit they deserved. He had declared Afghanistan a war of necessity, but he seems to have his eye on the road out even as he is set to announce a troop increase in an address to be delivered tomorrow.
He was quick to assert, in the course of his exuberant campaign for president last year, that his diplomacy in South Asia would start with the standoff in Kashmir. In truth India had no interest in an international adjudication of Kashmir. What was settled during the partition in 1947 was there to stay. In recent days, Mr. Obama walked away from earlier ambitions. "Obviously, there are historic conflicts between India and Pakistan," he said. "It's not the place of the United States to try to, from the outside, resolve those conflicts."
Nor was he swayed by the fate of so many "peace plans" that have been floated over so many decades to resolve the fight between Arab and Jew over the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. Where George W. Bush offered the Palestinians the gift of clarity—statehood but only after the renunciation of terror and the break with maximalism—Mr. Obama signaled a return to the dead ways of the past: a peace process where America itself is broker and arbiter.
The Obama diplomacy had made a settlement freeze its starting point, when this was precisely the wrong place to begin. Israel has given up settlements before at the altar of peace—recall the historical accommodation with Egypt a quarter century ago. The right course would have set the question of settlements aside as it took up the broader challenge of radicalism in the region—the menace and swagger of Iran, the arsenal of Hamas and Hezbollah, the refusal of the Arab order of power to embrace in broad daylight the cause of peace with Israel.
The laws of gravity, the weight of history and of precedent, have caught up with the Obama presidency. We are beyond stirring speeches. The novelty of the Obama approach, and the Obama persona, has worn off. There is a whole American diplomatic tradition to draw upon—engagements made, wisdom acquired in the course of decades, and, yes, accounts to be settled with rogues and tyrannies. They might yet help this administration find its way out of a labyrinth of its own making.
President Obama is indeed a legend in his own mind. He is not up for the challenge of being the President of the United States, nevermind being the "leader" of the free world. His oratorical armor can no longer hide his naiveté - it has been woefully exposed for the world to see. North Korea and Iran recognized it almost immediately, and have discarded any pretense that they fear us in any way. What other countries, regimes, or terrorist organizations will follow suit? Obama, through his incompetent philosophy and policies, has made this a dangerously unstable world. In doing so, he has also increased the level of danger America faces. More and more, Americans (and people around the world) are realizing that a well-written speech does not equate to leadership skill or common sense policies, and are beginning to understand the damage this man can do to the world. Our best bet? Put handlers on him who will help to lessen that damage.
Wake Up America!
'He talks too much," a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America's 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory.
He is hardly alone, this academic. In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment. In the Arab-Islamic world, Barack Obama has come down to earth.
He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will, the Indians and Pakistanis have been told that the matter of Kashmir is theirs to resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same intractable clash of two irreconcilable nationalisms, and the theocrats in Iran have not "unclenched their fist," nor have they abandoned their nuclear quest.
There is little Mr. Obama can do about this disenchantment. He can't journey to Turkey to tell its Islamist leaders and political class that a decade of anti-American scapegoating is all forgiven and was the product of American policies—he has already done that. He can't journey to Cairo to tell the fabled "Arab street" that the Iraq war was a wasted war of choice, and that America earned the malice that came its way from Arab lands—he has already done that as well. He can't tell Muslims that America is not at war with Islam—he, like his predecessor, has said that time and again.
It was the norm for American liberalism during the Bush years to brandish the Pew Global Attitudes survey that told of America's decline in the eyes of foreign nations. Foreigners were saying what the liberals wanted said.
Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama. In the Palestinian territories, 15% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 82% have an unfavorable view. The Obama speech in Ankara didn't seem to help in Turkey, where the favorables are 14% and those unreconciled, 69%. In Egypt, a country that's reaped nearly 40 years of American aid, things stayed roughly the same: 27% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 70% do not. In Pakistan, a place of great consequence for American power, our standing has deteriorated: The unfavorables rose from 63% in 2008 to 68% this year.
Mr. Obama's election has not drained the swamps of anti-Americanism. That anti-Americanism is endemic to this region, an alibi and a scapegoat for nations, and their rulers, unwilling to break out of the grip of political autocracy and economic failure. It predated the presidency of George W. Bush and rages on during the Obama presidency.
We had once taken to the foreign world that quintessential American difference—the belief in liberty, a needed innocence to play off against the settled and complacent ways of older nations. The Obama approach is different.
Steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt, Mr. Obama and his lieutenants offered nothing less than a doctrine, and a policy, of American penance. No one told Mr. Obama that the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one's own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others.
The crowd may have applauded the cavalier way the new steward of American power referred to his predecessor, but in the privacy of their own language they doubtless wondered about his character and his fidelity. "My brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger," goes one of the Arab world's most honored maxims. The stranger who came into their midst and spoke badly of his own was destined to become an object of suspicion.
Mr. Obama could not make up his mind: He was at one with "the people" and with the rulers who held them in subjugation. The people of Iran who took to the streets this past summer were betrayed by this hapless diplomacy—Mr. Obama was out to "engage" the terrible rulers that millions of Iranians were determined to be rid of.
On Nov. 4, on the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran, the embattled reformers, again in the streets, posed an embarrassing dilemma for American diplomacy: "Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them," they chanted. By not responding to these cries and continuing to "engage" Tehran's murderous regime, his choice was made clear. It wasn't one of American diplomacy's finest moments.
Mr. Obama has himself to blame for the disarray of his foreign policy. American arms had won a decent outcome in Iraq, but Mr. Obama would not claim it—it was his predecessor's war. Vigilance had kept the American homeland safe from terrorist attacks for seven long years under his predecessors, but he could never grant Bush policies the honor and credit they deserved. He had declared Afghanistan a war of necessity, but he seems to have his eye on the road out even as he is set to announce a troop increase in an address to be delivered tomorrow.
He was quick to assert, in the course of his exuberant campaign for president last year, that his diplomacy in South Asia would start with the standoff in Kashmir. In truth India had no interest in an international adjudication of Kashmir. What was settled during the partition in 1947 was there to stay. In recent days, Mr. Obama walked away from earlier ambitions. "Obviously, there are historic conflicts between India and Pakistan," he said. "It's not the place of the United States to try to, from the outside, resolve those conflicts."
Nor was he swayed by the fate of so many "peace plans" that have been floated over so many decades to resolve the fight between Arab and Jew over the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. Where George W. Bush offered the Palestinians the gift of clarity—statehood but only after the renunciation of terror and the break with maximalism—Mr. Obama signaled a return to the dead ways of the past: a peace process where America itself is broker and arbiter.
The Obama diplomacy had made a settlement freeze its starting point, when this was precisely the wrong place to begin. Israel has given up settlements before at the altar of peace—recall the historical accommodation with Egypt a quarter century ago. The right course would have set the question of settlements aside as it took up the broader challenge of radicalism in the region—the menace and swagger of Iran, the arsenal of Hamas and Hezbollah, the refusal of the Arab order of power to embrace in broad daylight the cause of peace with Israel.
The laws of gravity, the weight of history and of precedent, have caught up with the Obama presidency. We are beyond stirring speeches. The novelty of the Obama approach, and the Obama persona, has worn off. There is a whole American diplomatic tradition to draw upon—engagements made, wisdom acquired in the course of decades, and, yes, accounts to be settled with rogues and tyrannies. They might yet help this administration find its way out of a labyrinth of its own making.
President Obama is indeed a legend in his own mind. He is not up for the challenge of being the President of the United States, nevermind being the "leader" of the free world. His oratorical armor can no longer hide his naiveté - it has been woefully exposed for the world to see. North Korea and Iran recognized it almost immediately, and have discarded any pretense that they fear us in any way. What other countries, regimes, or terrorist organizations will follow suit? Obama, through his incompetent philosophy and policies, has made this a dangerously unstable world. In doing so, he has also increased the level of danger America faces. More and more, Americans (and people around the world) are realizing that a well-written speech does not equate to leadership skill or common sense policies, and are beginning to understand the damage this man can do to the world. Our best bet? Put handlers on him who will help to lessen that damage.
Wake Up America!
To Honor ALL Our Fallen Military Who Have Died For Our Freedom - Do NOT Forget
And to send out a great big THANK YOU to all who serve today to protect our freedom and our Constitution. God Bless and Watch Over Each and Every One of You!
Wake Up America
Wake Up America
Monday, November 30, 2009
Keep Hiding Your Head In The Sand
You think you're full of integrity
You think your back is strong
You think your character will pull you through.
Man, you couldn't be more wrong
And you say you want to change the system
That you want to be part of the solution
But you just play Mr. Potato on the couch
And claim you're too tired for revolution
The government equals the two-party system
But those in each party, they're drunk on the power
Tax and Spend, with no regard for us
The national debt soaring higher by the hour
And you say you want to change the system
That you want to be part of the solution
But you just play Mr. Potato on the couch
And claim you're too tired for revolution
You think of yourself as a patriot, but
That ain't enough if you don't commit to act
Your country's gonna keep slipping away
That ain't no lie, that's fact
Wake Up America!
You think your back is strong
You think your character will pull you through.
Man, you couldn't be more wrong
And you say you want to change the system
That you want to be part of the solution
But you just play Mr. Potato on the couch
And claim you're too tired for revolution
The government equals the two-party system
But those in each party, they're drunk on the power
Tax and Spend, with no regard for us
The national debt soaring higher by the hour
And you say you want to change the system
That you want to be part of the solution
But you just play Mr. Potato on the couch
And claim you're too tired for revolution
You think of yourself as a patriot, but
That ain't enough if you don't commit to act
Your country's gonna keep slipping away
That ain't no lie, that's fact
Wake Up America!
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Does This Surprise You? I Trust It Doesn't
White House Science Czar Involved in Climategate
Friday, November 27, 2009 2:21 PM
By: L.D. Breen Article Font Size
You haven’t heard it from America’s mainstream media yet – even Fox News hasn’t covered it – but the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John P. Holdren, is a key player in the Climategate e-mails flap, which is shaping up as the biggest scandal in the history of modern science.
Holdren is an intractable global warming activist with no time for climate change skepticism. In a New York Times article, he contended that such questioning “has delayed – and continues to delay – the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge.”
He has also become something of a celebrity, rubbing shoulders with the Hollywood luminaries at President Obama’s state dinner Tuesday night honoring Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and repeatedly appearing as a guest on the David Letterman show.
But the Canada Free Press this week revealed that the former Harvard professor and Al Gore global warming adviser features prominently in the thousands of e-mails and other files made public after the hacking last week of a computer server used by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.
The most embarrassing item for the Obama Administration may be a 2003 exchange between Holdren and TCSDaily.com editor-in-chief Nick Schulz. Schulz challenged Holdren on whether downplaying the significance of the Medieval Warm Period required “what lawyers call the burden of proof.”
Holdren’s retort contained a remarkable assertion coming from a scientist: “In practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing – it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.”
Canada Free Press columnist and Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball says of the correspondence with Schulz that Holdren’s “entire defense and position devolves to a political position.”
The CRU documents also find Holdren disparaging solar physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, contrarians regarding surface temperatures over the past millennium, who were colleagues of Holdren at Harvard, and Ball wonders if Holdren may have intimidated the two scientists before they “suddenly and politely withdrew from the fray,” as Ball describes it.
As Newsmax has previously reported, Dr. Holdren has a history of alarmingly extremist views. He co-authored a 1977 book, “Ecoscience: Population Resources, Environment,” advocating compulsory abortion for purposes of population control, mass sterilization, government-dictated family size like China’s one-child policy, and a “planetary regime” to be policed by the United Nations.
Not long before the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion-on-demand throughout America, Holdren co-authored “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” which seems to argue that even years after birth a baby is not yet a human being.
“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth,” claims the book’s “Population Limitation” section, “and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”
Holdren’s “Human Ecology” warns of large-scale disaster that might require “involuntary fertility control” to stop population growth. “Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying,” the Holdren book suggests.
As a member of President Bill Clinton’s Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology, Holdren chaired a study providing the groundwork for U.S.-Russian cooperation on securing nuclear materials in the aftermath of post-Cold War disarmament.
Wake Up America!
Friday, November 27, 2009 2:21 PM
By: L.D. Breen Article Font Size
You haven’t heard it from America’s mainstream media yet – even Fox News hasn’t covered it – but the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John P. Holdren, is a key player in the Climategate e-mails flap, which is shaping up as the biggest scandal in the history of modern science.
Holdren is an intractable global warming activist with no time for climate change skepticism. In a New York Times article, he contended that such questioning “has delayed – and continues to delay – the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge.”
He has also become something of a celebrity, rubbing shoulders with the Hollywood luminaries at President Obama’s state dinner Tuesday night honoring Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and repeatedly appearing as a guest on the David Letterman show.
But the Canada Free Press this week revealed that the former Harvard professor and Al Gore global warming adviser features prominently in the thousands of e-mails and other files made public after the hacking last week of a computer server used by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.
The most embarrassing item for the Obama Administration may be a 2003 exchange between Holdren and TCSDaily.com editor-in-chief Nick Schulz. Schulz challenged Holdren on whether downplaying the significance of the Medieval Warm Period required “what lawyers call the burden of proof.”
Holdren’s retort contained a remarkable assertion coming from a scientist: “In practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing – it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.”
Canada Free Press columnist and Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball says of the correspondence with Schulz that Holdren’s “entire defense and position devolves to a political position.”
The CRU documents also find Holdren disparaging solar physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, contrarians regarding surface temperatures over the past millennium, who were colleagues of Holdren at Harvard, and Ball wonders if Holdren may have intimidated the two scientists before they “suddenly and politely withdrew from the fray,” as Ball describes it.
As Newsmax has previously reported, Dr. Holdren has a history of alarmingly extremist views. He co-authored a 1977 book, “Ecoscience: Population Resources, Environment,” advocating compulsory abortion for purposes of population control, mass sterilization, government-dictated family size like China’s one-child policy, and a “planetary regime” to be policed by the United Nations.
Not long before the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion-on-demand throughout America, Holdren co-authored “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” which seems to argue that even years after birth a baby is not yet a human being.
“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth,” claims the book’s “Population Limitation” section, “and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”
Holdren’s “Human Ecology” warns of large-scale disaster that might require “involuntary fertility control” to stop population growth. “Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying,” the Holdren book suggests.
As a member of President Bill Clinton’s Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology, Holdren chaired a study providing the groundwork for U.S.-Russian cooperation on securing nuclear materials in the aftermath of post-Cold War disarmament.
Wake Up America!
Friday, November 27, 2009
Imagine
I was a Beatles fan for much of my life beginning about the time I reached High School. In particular I loved the songs (music, lyrics, perspective) of John Lennon, specifically the song Imagine. But recent events have made me take another look at what could perhaps be categorized as his greatest work.
Given that those in power in America, and around the world, are products of the "60's" and "70's", and given that they are socialists and communists with a radical agenda, I asked myself this question. Is it possible that these people took the song "Imagine" and built an ideology around it? As their obsession with the concepts inherent in that song became stronger and their ideology began to take shape, many of them gave speeches that contained radical ideas related to population control, one-world government, radical "rights" for animals, and others. Now these same people are trying to take control of our lives through an unprecedented level of liberty infringing legislation and unparalleled power-grabs. Here are some facts...
"Imagine" is the official song of Amnesty International - Founded in 1961, AI has campaigned successfully in recent years for the International Criminal Court and a UN Torture Treaty.
In the Iranian left movement, the song usually relates to Mansoor Hekmat and his Worker-Communist Party of Iran. The WPI plays the song in all of its meetings and demonstrations and in its TV channel.
The song is played repeatedly throughout every episode of the Freedom from Religion Foundation's, Freethought Radio. The nonprofit Freedom From Religion Foundation works to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism (the rejection of any belief in a personal god or gods. It is in use in the fields of Christian apologetics and general liberal theology), and to promote the constitutional principle of separation between church and state. Since 1978, the Foundation has acted on countless violations of the separation of state and church, and has taken and won many significant complaints and important lawsuits to end state/church entanglements and challenge the “faith-based initiative.”
The song's lyrics, translated into Spanish, appear next to a statue of Lennon in a park in Havana, Cuba, referred to as John Lennon Park.
Here are the lyrics (minus the refrain). Think about what they conceptualize, and what has been happening in our country over the past 40 odd years. Think about the world-wide implications and the international push for one world government (nothing to kill or die for), no religion (only Muslim which is spreading virally around the globe), and "redistribution of wealth" ( a brotherhood of man). Then you decide...
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
Wake Up America!
Given that those in power in America, and around the world, are products of the "60's" and "70's", and given that they are socialists and communists with a radical agenda, I asked myself this question. Is it possible that these people took the song "Imagine" and built an ideology around it? As their obsession with the concepts inherent in that song became stronger and their ideology began to take shape, many of them gave speeches that contained radical ideas related to population control, one-world government, radical "rights" for animals, and others. Now these same people are trying to take control of our lives through an unprecedented level of liberty infringing legislation and unparalleled power-grabs. Here are some facts...
"Imagine" is the official song of Amnesty International - Founded in 1961, AI has campaigned successfully in recent years for the International Criminal Court and a UN Torture Treaty.
In the Iranian left movement, the song usually relates to Mansoor Hekmat and his Worker-Communist Party of Iran. The WPI plays the song in all of its meetings and demonstrations and in its TV channel.
The song is played repeatedly throughout every episode of the Freedom from Religion Foundation's, Freethought Radio. The nonprofit Freedom From Religion Foundation works to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism (the rejection of any belief in a personal god or gods. It is in use in the fields of Christian apologetics and general liberal theology), and to promote the constitutional principle of separation between church and state. Since 1978, the Foundation has acted on countless violations of the separation of state and church, and has taken and won many significant complaints and important lawsuits to end state/church entanglements and challenge the “faith-based initiative.”
The song's lyrics, translated into Spanish, appear next to a statue of Lennon in a park in Havana, Cuba, referred to as John Lennon Park.
Here are the lyrics (minus the refrain). Think about what they conceptualize, and what has been happening in our country over the past 40 odd years. Think about the world-wide implications and the international push for one world government (nothing to kill or die for), no religion (only Muslim which is spreading virally around the globe), and "redistribution of wealth" ( a brotherhood of man). Then you decide...
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
Wake Up America!
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Why Can't Every American See This Clearly?
This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaiifor his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causesall over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body,he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now.
As I understand it, he dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.
Dear President Obama,
My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.
I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.
One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man. So here goes.
I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish. I can't figure out what country you are the president of. You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:" We're no longer a Christian nation", " America is arrogant" - (Your wife even announced to the world,"America is mean-spirited." Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)
I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House. After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals." Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom. I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.
Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man. Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, & not to apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.
And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.
One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.
You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.
You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now. And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.
Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes
When a 95 year old hero of the "the Greatest Generation"stands up and speaks out like this, I think we owe it to him to send his words to as many Americans as we can. Sooooo, Please spread the word...
Wake Up America!
As I understand it, he dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.
Dear President Obama,
My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.
I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.
One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man. So here goes.
I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish. I can't figure out what country you are the president of. You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:" We're no longer a Christian nation", " America is arrogant" - (Your wife even announced to the world,"America is mean-spirited." Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)
I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House. After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals." Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom. I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.
Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man. Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, & not to apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.
And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.
One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.
You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.
You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now. And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.
Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes
When a 95 year old hero of the "the Greatest Generation"stands up and speaks out like this, I think we owe it to him to send his words to as many Americans as we can. Sooooo, Please spread the word...
Wake Up America!
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Remember This Thought This Christmas...
...And then try to carry it through the year.
You have not lived a perfect day, even though you have earned your money, until you have done something for someone who will never be able to repay you. - Anonymous
Wake Up America!
You have not lived a perfect day, even though you have earned your money, until you have done something for someone who will never be able to repay you. - Anonymous
Wake Up America!
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The Pressure Of Political Correctness And Our Muslim Population
On 11/11/09 I posted an article called "The Leading Edge Of Shariah Law". Here's some more about Nonie Darwish... And what might very well be our future!
Free Speech Silenced at Columbia and Princeton
By Pamela Geller@ AmericanThinker.com
Nonie Darwish, the executive director of Former Muslims United and author of Cruel And Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law, was scheduled to speak at Columbia and Princeton Universities last week, but both events were canceled under pressure from Muslim groups on campus.
Remember, we are talking about Columbia University, where Ahmadinejad was welcomed like a returning king.
Just hours before Darwish was scheduled to speak at Columbia, the groups that had invited her to both universities, the Whig-Clio Student Debate Society and Tigers for Israel, succumbed to demands from student Muslim groups and canceled her speaking event. Tigers for Israel, my eye. Their name mocks them. The Whig-Clio Society is the oldest debating society in the U.S., founded by James Madison in 1765. These are the students who are supposed to be the leaders of the future. What a joke.
Look how the cancellation went down at Princeton. Look at the systematic bullying. This is the state of freedom of speech in the age of jihad. Arab Society president Sami Yabroudi and former president Sarah Mousa issued a joint statement, claiming: "Nonie Darwish is to Arabs and Muslims what Ku Klux Klan members, skinheads, and neo-Nazis are to other minorities, and we decided that the role of her talk in the logical, intellectual discourse espoused by Princeton University needed to be questioned."
KKK? Neo-Nazi? Nonie Darwish was scheduled to speak about Sharia law and Israel, about standing up for human rights against jihad.
But the sponsors of her talk immediately caved. Whig-Clio president Ben Weisman said: "Our decision to co-host the event was based on our belief that by extending an offer to speak to Ms. Darwish, members of TFI deemed her views a legitimate element of the mainstream discourse and in part agreed with her incendiary opinions. By rescinding their offer, TFI indicated their understanding that Darwish's views have no place in the campus community."
Tigers for Israel said in a statement:
On Tuesday evening Tigers for Israel and Whig-Clio rescinded our cosponsorship of today's Nonie Darwish Lecture. Tigers for Israel accepted the opportunity for her to speak based on a misconception about what she actually believes. After her anti-Islam position was brought to my attention on Tuesday afternoon by the Center for Jewish Life director Rabbi Julie Roth and the Muslim Chaplain Imam Sohaib Sultan, I conducted extensive research and discussed the issue with TFI and Whig-Clio leadership, and we decided to rescind our cosponsorship after concluding that Tigers for Israel disagrees with and does not condone Ms. Darwish and her beliefs on Islam. ... As President of TFI I take full responsibility for not vetting Ms. Darwish from the beginning, and I sincerely apologize for offending any person or group on campus, especially the Muslim community. Tigers for Israel deeply regrets the initial sponsorship and we do not in any way endorse her views.
Cowards. Pathetic cowards. Haven't these Ivy-League know-nothings done their homework? Have they studied Islam? Jihad? Have they read Dr. Andrew Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad and his Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism? Here is something they don't know: Sohaib Sultan, who helped get the Darwish lecture canceled, wrote the book The Koran for Dummies. In that book, he says that the medieval Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir is the "most referred to" authority on Islam "in the Muslim world today." Sultan says that Ibn Kathir offers "an excellent collection of historical analysis on the Koran and his mastery of Islamic law makes his insights especially interesting." Yet Ibn Kathir taught that Muslims should wage jihad against Jews and Christians and impose laws upon them that would make them "disgraced, humiliated and belittled." Ibn Kathir said that "Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah [Jews and Christians] or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated."
So who really resembles the KKK or neo-Nazis? A courageous woman standing up for human rights for Muslim women and ex-Muslims, or a Muslim imam who holds up as an authority someone who says that non-Muslims should be disgraced, humiliated, and belittled?
Darwish told me that she was shocked that just weeks after an Islamic attack on a military base on U.S. soil, the largest such attack in U.S. history, activists who speak the truth about Islam are being shut down and marginalized.
In another assault on free speech last week, students threw pies at a Robert Spencer event at NYU. What's next? Grenades?
For those of us who are chronicling the advancing Islamization of America, things have gotten decidedly worse since Obama took over. We have entered a dark age.
Wake Up America!
Free Speech Silenced at Columbia and Princeton
By Pamela Geller@ AmericanThinker.com
Nonie Darwish, the executive director of Former Muslims United and author of Cruel And Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law, was scheduled to speak at Columbia and Princeton Universities last week, but both events were canceled under pressure from Muslim groups on campus.
Remember, we are talking about Columbia University, where Ahmadinejad was welcomed like a returning king.
Just hours before Darwish was scheduled to speak at Columbia, the groups that had invited her to both universities, the Whig-Clio Student Debate Society and Tigers for Israel, succumbed to demands from student Muslim groups and canceled her speaking event. Tigers for Israel, my eye. Their name mocks them. The Whig-Clio Society is the oldest debating society in the U.S., founded by James Madison in 1765. These are the students who are supposed to be the leaders of the future. What a joke.
Look how the cancellation went down at Princeton. Look at the systematic bullying. This is the state of freedom of speech in the age of jihad. Arab Society president Sami Yabroudi and former president Sarah Mousa issued a joint statement, claiming: "Nonie Darwish is to Arabs and Muslims what Ku Klux Klan members, skinheads, and neo-Nazis are to other minorities, and we decided that the role of her talk in the logical, intellectual discourse espoused by Princeton University needed to be questioned."
KKK? Neo-Nazi? Nonie Darwish was scheduled to speak about Sharia law and Israel, about standing up for human rights against jihad.
But the sponsors of her talk immediately caved. Whig-Clio president Ben Weisman said: "Our decision to co-host the event was based on our belief that by extending an offer to speak to Ms. Darwish, members of TFI deemed her views a legitimate element of the mainstream discourse and in part agreed with her incendiary opinions. By rescinding their offer, TFI indicated their understanding that Darwish's views have no place in the campus community."
Tigers for Israel said in a statement:
On Tuesday evening Tigers for Israel and Whig-Clio rescinded our cosponsorship of today's Nonie Darwish Lecture. Tigers for Israel accepted the opportunity for her to speak based on a misconception about what she actually believes. After her anti-Islam position was brought to my attention on Tuesday afternoon by the Center for Jewish Life director Rabbi Julie Roth and the Muslim Chaplain Imam Sohaib Sultan, I conducted extensive research and discussed the issue with TFI and Whig-Clio leadership, and we decided to rescind our cosponsorship after concluding that Tigers for Israel disagrees with and does not condone Ms. Darwish and her beliefs on Islam. ... As President of TFI I take full responsibility for not vetting Ms. Darwish from the beginning, and I sincerely apologize for offending any person or group on campus, especially the Muslim community. Tigers for Israel deeply regrets the initial sponsorship and we do not in any way endorse her views.
Cowards. Pathetic cowards. Haven't these Ivy-League know-nothings done their homework? Have they studied Islam? Jihad? Have they read Dr. Andrew Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad and his Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism? Here is something they don't know: Sohaib Sultan, who helped get the Darwish lecture canceled, wrote the book The Koran for Dummies. In that book, he says that the medieval Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir is the "most referred to" authority on Islam "in the Muslim world today." Sultan says that Ibn Kathir offers "an excellent collection of historical analysis on the Koran and his mastery of Islamic law makes his insights especially interesting." Yet Ibn Kathir taught that Muslims should wage jihad against Jews and Christians and impose laws upon them that would make them "disgraced, humiliated and belittled." Ibn Kathir said that "Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah [Jews and Christians] or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated."
So who really resembles the KKK or neo-Nazis? A courageous woman standing up for human rights for Muslim women and ex-Muslims, or a Muslim imam who holds up as an authority someone who says that non-Muslims should be disgraced, humiliated, and belittled?
Darwish told me that she was shocked that just weeks after an Islamic attack on a military base on U.S. soil, the largest such attack in U.S. history, activists who speak the truth about Islam are being shut down and marginalized.
In another assault on free speech last week, students threw pies at a Robert Spencer event at NYU. What's next? Grenades?
For those of us who are chronicling the advancing Islamization of America, things have gotten decidedly worse since Obama took over. We have entered a dark age.
Wake Up America!
Are There ANY Libs Who Can Provide Me With An Answer?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is? What about if he said "I've been to every state but one, I think 57 altogether"?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 months -- so you'll have three years and two months to come up with an answer.
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is? What about if he said "I've been to every state but one, I think 57 altogether"?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 months -- so you'll have three years and two months to come up with an answer.
The 28th Ammendment - Let's Get Everyone On Board
When the people fear their government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. - Thomas Jefferson
Call Your Congressmen and get them to introduce and support this ammendment to our Constitution.
Amendment 28
Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.
Wake Up America!
Call Your Congressmen and get them to introduce and support this ammendment to our Constitution.
Amendment 28
Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.
Wake Up America!
Monday, November 23, 2009
The 2nd Louisiana Purchase
With little disguise for the exhorbitant bribe to Louisiana Senator Mary Landreau for her vote, the United States Goverment has once again purchased Louisiana. The first purchase, in 1803 cost American tax-payers $15 million dollars - a bargain because we secured the middle third of our country, opening up land for settlement in what became the fertile heartland, and creating great opportunity for development. At the time, the purchase doubled the size of America! That was government foresight - which makes some sense as it was Thomas Jefferson who made the initial decision to purchase the land.
The 2nd Louisiana Purchase is not such a bargain. It is a demonstration of government short-sightedness, and partisanship. It exposes government corruption and all it's taudriness for anyone caring to look. It's going to cost us $300 million up front, and will cost us ten times that before all is said and done through the passage of health care reform legislation currently being worked on in Congress, and will eventually be seen by the blind out there for what it is, the money pit! Sure hope all you blind people have deep pockets!
Wake Up America!
The 2nd Louisiana Purchase is not such a bargain. It is a demonstration of government short-sightedness, and partisanship. It exposes government corruption and all it's taudriness for anyone caring to look. It's going to cost us $300 million up front, and will cost us ten times that before all is said and done through the passage of health care reform legislation currently being worked on in Congress, and will eventually be seen by the blind out there for what it is, the money pit! Sure hope all you blind people have deep pockets!
Wake Up America!
Global Warming: Science Or Religion?
Global warming alarmists want Americans to believe that humans are killing the planet. But Not Evil Just Wrong, a new documentary by Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney, proves that the only threats to America (and the rest of the world) are the flawed science and sky-is-falling rhetoric of Al Gore and his allies in environmental extremism.
The film drives home the realities of that extremism. "Turn off your lights. Turn off your heat when you get cold. Turn off your air when you get hot," one man on the street says. "And then think about that."
Not Evil Just Wrong warns Americans that their jobs, modest lifestyles and dreams for their children are at stake. Industries that rely on fossil fuels will be crippled if the government imposes job-killing regulations on an economy already mired in recession. Small towns in the heartland, like Vevay, Ind., will become bastions of unemployment and poverty. Breadwinners like Tim McElhany in Vevay will lose their jobs -- and will have to start borrowing money again just to buy bread for their families.
The damage that would be wrought is unjustified by the science. Not Evil Just Wrong exposes the deceptions that experts, politicians, educators and the media have been force-feeding the public for years. Man-made pollution is not melting the polar icecaps. The ocean will not rise 20 feet in a flash. And the only polar bears dying because of man are the ones who try to eat men.
McAleer and McElhinney debunk what, for a time, was the environmental movement's most powerful weapon of disinformation, the infamous "hockey stick" graph that attributed a supposedly unique burst of warming in the 20th century to humans. They also shatter the myth that the hottest years in the United States were 1998 and 2006. The hottest year was 1934, and the hottest decade was the 1930s -- when there were half as many people and no SUVs or jumbo jets. - American Family Association
Wake Up America!
The film drives home the realities of that extremism. "Turn off your lights. Turn off your heat when you get cold. Turn off your air when you get hot," one man on the street says. "And then think about that."
Not Evil Just Wrong warns Americans that their jobs, modest lifestyles and dreams for their children are at stake. Industries that rely on fossil fuels will be crippled if the government imposes job-killing regulations on an economy already mired in recession. Small towns in the heartland, like Vevay, Ind., will become bastions of unemployment and poverty. Breadwinners like Tim McElhany in Vevay will lose their jobs -- and will have to start borrowing money again just to buy bread for their families.
The damage that would be wrought is unjustified by the science. Not Evil Just Wrong exposes the deceptions that experts, politicians, educators and the media have been force-feeding the public for years. Man-made pollution is not melting the polar icecaps. The ocean will not rise 20 feet in a flash. And the only polar bears dying because of man are the ones who try to eat men.
McAleer and McElhinney debunk what, for a time, was the environmental movement's most powerful weapon of disinformation, the infamous "hockey stick" graph that attributed a supposedly unique burst of warming in the 20th century to humans. They also shatter the myth that the hottest years in the United States were 1998 and 2006. The hottest year was 1934, and the hottest decade was the 1930s -- when there were half as many people and no SUVs or jumbo jets. - American Family Association
Wake Up America!
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Why Does Big Business Endorse The Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty That Obama Is Scheduled To Sign?
Coca-Cola spearheads 1-world climate tax
100 companies push '16 days left to seal deal' on $10 trillion treaty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 17, 2009 2:36 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily
Coca-Cola is spearheading a coalition of more than 100 companies pushing a United Nations climate treaty to bind the U.S. to cap-and-trade emissions regulation, commit the world's wealthiest nations to a potential $10 trillion in foreign aid and, possibly, form a proposed international "super-grid" for regulating and distributing electric power worldwide.
Together with the SAP and Siemens corporations, Coca-Cola launched a website called Hopenhagen, leading up to the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, which opens on Dec. 7. The website invites the citizens of the world to sign a petition demanding world leaders draft binding agreements on climate change and advertises, as of today, "16 days left to seal the deal."
Other "friends" of Hopenhagen include media outlets Newsweek, Discovery Channel, Huffington Post, Cosmopolitan, Seventeen, The Wall Street Journal and Clear Channel, among others, Internet giants Yahoo, Google and AOL and dozens of other companies and organizations.
As WND reported, however, Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, asserts the real purpose of the U.N.'s meeting in Copenhagen is to use concern over "global warming" as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world government.
He has warned the proposed Copenhagen agreement would cede U.S. sovereignty, mandate a massive wealth transfer from the United States to pay reparations for "climate debt" to Third World countries and create a new "world government" to enforce the treaty's provisions.
And even if Monckton is merely fanning the flames of fear in those suspicious of the U.N., Coca-Cola's "Hopenhagen" project isn't doing anything to put out the fire:
"We're all citizens of Hopenhagen," boasts the website, adding, "Hopenhagen: Population 6.8 billion."
"Sign the Climate Petition and become a citizen of Hopenhagen," the website encourages.
Specifically, the petition states: "We the peoples of the world urge political leaders to:
"Seal the Deal at COP 15 on a climate agreement that is definitive, equitable and effective".
"Set binding targets to cut greenhouse gases by 2020.
"Establish a framework that will bolster the climate resilience of vulnerable countries and protect lives and livelihoods
"Support developing countries' adaptation efforts and secure climate justice for all."
"We also believe that anything is possible if we work together," states Coca-Cola on the Hopenhagen site. "That's why we're collaborating with governments, NGOs, other businesses and our consumers, to help tackle global challenges like climate change."
A closer look at the "deal" Hopenhagen is hoping to "seal," however, reveals a call to unprecedented levels of international regulation and wealth redistribution and includes many of the measures Monckton decries as an effort to "impose a communist world government on the world."
"The world needs a Green New Deal," declares a pocket guide to Hopenhagen's "new climate deal."
The guide is produced by the World Wide Fund for Nature, or WWF. It argues that the current economic crisis pales in comparison to our "climate debt" crisis and that the consequences are dire:
"The world is on course to see entire island nations disappear as sea levels rise," it warns. "Unchecked climate change will cut global food production by up to 40 percent by 2100."
Indeed, unless something is done soon, the guide predicts, we could all be facing "the collapse of planetary life support systems."
Get "The Sky's Not Falling! Why it's OK to chill on global warming"
The guide praises the last major international attempt at combating climate change, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol touting the "legal force" behind requiring industrialized countries to reduce emissions and the establishment of a cap-and-trade system of selling "carbon credits."
At the same time, the WWF laments, "The protocol's sanctions against backsliders have had little effect."
The guide warns that Kyoto expires at the end of 2012 and that we must now create "something more ambitious and broader in scope" for the future.
That broader scope of the Green New Deal includes not only additional and more stringent emissions reduction standards, agreed upon and binding on member nations, but also a host of new cap-and-trade measures.
"We create a system in which you need a permit to emit [carbon dioxide] or other greenhouse gases," the guide explains.
Governments could then grant permits to various industries or sell them at auction, either to raise funds or to punish polluters within their borders.
The Green New Deal also includes a similar, international system that issues "emissions rights to nations according to their population." Poor nations would have spare permits, so they could profit by selling to "rich industrialized nations that needed more."
The WWF further suggests creation of an international "super-grid" connecting the nations of the world to one, common electricity supply. It argues the super-grid would enable nations with unique abilities to produce power – such as France's prolific nuclear program or Saudi Arabia's potential for solar energy – to ship and trade electricity abroad.
The WWF does warn, however, "Such a grid requires strong and harmonized cross-border management to tap and deliver the right amount of renewable power at the right time to those who need it."
Finally, the Green New Deal includes a new, global climate change fund that manages monies paid by wealthy nations for "green" improvements in poorer nations. The WWF proposes a couple of possible plans for exacting payment, either an international tax on all carbon emissions or "a simple charge on rich countries," estimated at up to 1 percent of gross domestic product.
"The problem lies with rich countries such as the United States of America and Germany," the guide explains, "who stick with coal-power projects when they have many other options."
Of the poorer nations, the guide states, "They will simply – and not unreasonably – say to the rich world, 'You created this problem; YOU solve it.'"
Who pays to make the world "green"?
One of the most contentious points in U.N. climate change negotiations has been the question of who will pay to switch the world's energy use from fossil fuels and other carbon-intensive power sources to means deemed more environmentally friendly.
To that end, the guide to the Green New Deal argues the "polluter-pays principle" should decide.
"The planetary imperative can be reconciled with basic fairness if rich nations pay for the extra costs," it states. "It is, after all, only necessary because developed countries have warmed the planet and taken up most of the atmospheric 'space' for greenhouse gases."
The guide continues, "Developed countries have an obligation to fund adaptation among poor nations that are victims of climate change. International law, based on the well-established 'polluter-pays' principle, suggests there is a legal duty on major carbon dioxide emitters to protect such countries."
But how much will the rich nations pay?
"Notwithstanding the cost of necessary lifestyle changes and some more expensive technologies," the guide estimates, "the total worldwide cost for most of the technologies and actions investigated would be in the region of 200-350 billion Euros annually for the next two decades."
At today's exchange rate, that amounts to a total bill over the next 20 years of between $6 trillion and roughly $10.5 trillion.
Additionally, the WWF insists industrialized countries should quickly – this year – release $2 billion into a fund to help developing nations as a good-faith gesture to the international community meeting in Copenhagen.
However, it was reported earlier this week that a treaty may not be ready by December's U.N. meeting in Copenhagen, as some leaders – including President Obama – are favoring political agreements only, delaying a legally binding treaty.
Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, is still pushing for agreements on emissions cuts by each developed country and has said he favors at most a six-month delay before making a new climate deal binding, until a meeting in Bonn in mid-2010. That would give time for the U.S. Senate to pass carbon-capping laws, he said.
"It's like metal, you've got to beat it when it's hot," he told Reuters. "If we get clarity on (emission) targets, developing country engagement and finance in Copenhagen, which I'm confident we will, then you can nail that down in a treaty form six months later."
Then, too, came revelations that some e-mails from a prominent climate change research center indicate that the global warming campaign may even be largely a fraud.
According to the Australian Investigate magazine, a file of documents from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit was hacked into, and revealed that scientists discussed a "trick" that would "hide the decline" of global temperatures.
Author James Delingpole wrote in a London Telegraph column the most damaging revelations indicate climate-change scientists may have "manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause."
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate," said one e-mail.
Further, an e-mail exchange suggested the suppression of information: "Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis."
Wake Up America!
100 companies push '16 days left to seal deal' on $10 trillion treaty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 17, 2009 2:36 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily
Coca-Cola is spearheading a coalition of more than 100 companies pushing a United Nations climate treaty to bind the U.S. to cap-and-trade emissions regulation, commit the world's wealthiest nations to a potential $10 trillion in foreign aid and, possibly, form a proposed international "super-grid" for regulating and distributing electric power worldwide.
Together with the SAP and Siemens corporations, Coca-Cola launched a website called Hopenhagen, leading up to the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, which opens on Dec. 7. The website invites the citizens of the world to sign a petition demanding world leaders draft binding agreements on climate change and advertises, as of today, "16 days left to seal the deal."
Other "friends" of Hopenhagen include media outlets Newsweek, Discovery Channel, Huffington Post, Cosmopolitan, Seventeen, The Wall Street Journal and Clear Channel, among others, Internet giants Yahoo, Google and AOL and dozens of other companies and organizations.
As WND reported, however, Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, asserts the real purpose of the U.N.'s meeting in Copenhagen is to use concern over "global warming" as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world government.
He has warned the proposed Copenhagen agreement would cede U.S. sovereignty, mandate a massive wealth transfer from the United States to pay reparations for "climate debt" to Third World countries and create a new "world government" to enforce the treaty's provisions.
And even if Monckton is merely fanning the flames of fear in those suspicious of the U.N., Coca-Cola's "Hopenhagen" project isn't doing anything to put out the fire:
"We're all citizens of Hopenhagen," boasts the website, adding, "Hopenhagen: Population 6.8 billion."
"Sign the Climate Petition and become a citizen of Hopenhagen," the website encourages.
Specifically, the petition states: "We the peoples of the world urge political leaders to:
"Seal the Deal at COP 15 on a climate agreement that is definitive, equitable and effective".
"Set binding targets to cut greenhouse gases by 2020.
"Establish a framework that will bolster the climate resilience of vulnerable countries and protect lives and livelihoods
"Support developing countries' adaptation efforts and secure climate justice for all."
"We also believe that anything is possible if we work together," states Coca-Cola on the Hopenhagen site. "That's why we're collaborating with governments, NGOs, other businesses and our consumers, to help tackle global challenges like climate change."
A closer look at the "deal" Hopenhagen is hoping to "seal," however, reveals a call to unprecedented levels of international regulation and wealth redistribution and includes many of the measures Monckton decries as an effort to "impose a communist world government on the world."
"The world needs a Green New Deal," declares a pocket guide to Hopenhagen's "new climate deal."
The guide is produced by the World Wide Fund for Nature, or WWF. It argues that the current economic crisis pales in comparison to our "climate debt" crisis and that the consequences are dire:
"The world is on course to see entire island nations disappear as sea levels rise," it warns. "Unchecked climate change will cut global food production by up to 40 percent by 2100."
Indeed, unless something is done soon, the guide predicts, we could all be facing "the collapse of planetary life support systems."
Get "The Sky's Not Falling! Why it's OK to chill on global warming"
The guide praises the last major international attempt at combating climate change, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol touting the "legal force" behind requiring industrialized countries to reduce emissions and the establishment of a cap-and-trade system of selling "carbon credits."
At the same time, the WWF laments, "The protocol's sanctions against backsliders have had little effect."
The guide warns that Kyoto expires at the end of 2012 and that we must now create "something more ambitious and broader in scope" for the future.
That broader scope of the Green New Deal includes not only additional and more stringent emissions reduction standards, agreed upon and binding on member nations, but also a host of new cap-and-trade measures.
"We create a system in which you need a permit to emit [carbon dioxide] or other greenhouse gases," the guide explains.
Governments could then grant permits to various industries or sell them at auction, either to raise funds or to punish polluters within their borders.
The Green New Deal also includes a similar, international system that issues "emissions rights to nations according to their population." Poor nations would have spare permits, so they could profit by selling to "rich industrialized nations that needed more."
The WWF further suggests creation of an international "super-grid" connecting the nations of the world to one, common electricity supply. It argues the super-grid would enable nations with unique abilities to produce power – such as France's prolific nuclear program or Saudi Arabia's potential for solar energy – to ship and trade electricity abroad.
The WWF does warn, however, "Such a grid requires strong and harmonized cross-border management to tap and deliver the right amount of renewable power at the right time to those who need it."
Finally, the Green New Deal includes a new, global climate change fund that manages monies paid by wealthy nations for "green" improvements in poorer nations. The WWF proposes a couple of possible plans for exacting payment, either an international tax on all carbon emissions or "a simple charge on rich countries," estimated at up to 1 percent of gross domestic product.
"The problem lies with rich countries such as the United States of America and Germany," the guide explains, "who stick with coal-power projects when they have many other options."
Of the poorer nations, the guide states, "They will simply – and not unreasonably – say to the rich world, 'You created this problem; YOU solve it.'"
Who pays to make the world "green"?
One of the most contentious points in U.N. climate change negotiations has been the question of who will pay to switch the world's energy use from fossil fuels and other carbon-intensive power sources to means deemed more environmentally friendly.
To that end, the guide to the Green New Deal argues the "polluter-pays principle" should decide.
"The planetary imperative can be reconciled with basic fairness if rich nations pay for the extra costs," it states. "It is, after all, only necessary because developed countries have warmed the planet and taken up most of the atmospheric 'space' for greenhouse gases."
The guide continues, "Developed countries have an obligation to fund adaptation among poor nations that are victims of climate change. International law, based on the well-established 'polluter-pays' principle, suggests there is a legal duty on major carbon dioxide emitters to protect such countries."
But how much will the rich nations pay?
"Notwithstanding the cost of necessary lifestyle changes and some more expensive technologies," the guide estimates, "the total worldwide cost for most of the technologies and actions investigated would be in the region of 200-350 billion Euros annually for the next two decades."
At today's exchange rate, that amounts to a total bill over the next 20 years of between $6 trillion and roughly $10.5 trillion.
Additionally, the WWF insists industrialized countries should quickly – this year – release $2 billion into a fund to help developing nations as a good-faith gesture to the international community meeting in Copenhagen.
However, it was reported earlier this week that a treaty may not be ready by December's U.N. meeting in Copenhagen, as some leaders – including President Obama – are favoring political agreements only, delaying a legally binding treaty.
Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, is still pushing for agreements on emissions cuts by each developed country and has said he favors at most a six-month delay before making a new climate deal binding, until a meeting in Bonn in mid-2010. That would give time for the U.S. Senate to pass carbon-capping laws, he said.
"It's like metal, you've got to beat it when it's hot," he told Reuters. "If we get clarity on (emission) targets, developing country engagement and finance in Copenhagen, which I'm confident we will, then you can nail that down in a treaty form six months later."
Then, too, came revelations that some e-mails from a prominent climate change research center indicate that the global warming campaign may even be largely a fraud.
According to the Australian Investigate magazine, a file of documents from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit was hacked into, and revealed that scientists discussed a "trick" that would "hide the decline" of global temperatures.
Author James Delingpole wrote in a London Telegraph column the most damaging revelations indicate climate-change scientists may have "manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause."
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate," said one e-mail.
Further, an e-mail exchange suggested the suppression of information: "Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis."
Wake Up America!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)