German Assessment of Obama

Is it not interesting that the world sees what we do not. The blinders need to come off and we, as a republic must arise to foil the movement of the Obama administration.

German Assessment of Obama's Pacific Trip.....
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662822,00.html

Obama's Nice Guy Act Gets Him Nowhere on the World Stage
By Gabor Steingart

AP
US President Barack Obama is back in the US after an Asian trip that
produced few results.

When he entered office, US President Barack Obama promised to inject US
foreign policy with a new tone of respect and diplomacy. His recent trip to
Asia, however, showed that it's not working. A shift to Bush-style bluntness
may be coming.

There were only a few hours left before Air Force One was scheduled to
depart for the flight home. US President Barack Obama trip through Asia had
already seen him travel 24,000 kilometers, sit through a dozen state
banquets, climb the Great Wall of China and shake hands with Korean
children. It was high time to take stock of the trip.

Barack Obama looked tired on Thursday, as he stood in the Blue House in
Seoul, the official residence of the South Korean president. He also seemed
irritable and even slightly forlorn. The CNN cameras had already been set
up. But then Obama decided not to play along, and not to answer the question
he had already been asked several times on his trip: what did he plan to
take home with him? Instead, he simply said "thank you, guys," and
disappeared. David Axelrod, senior advisor to the president, fielded the
journalists' questions in the hallway of the Blue House instead, telling
them that the public's expectations had been "too high."

The mood in Obama's foreign policy team is tense following an extended Asia
trip that produced no palpable results. The "first Pacific president," as
Obama called himself, came as a friend and returned as a stranger. The
Asians smiled but made no concessions.

Lost Some Stature

Upon taking office, Obama said that he wanted to listen to the world,
promising respect instead of arrogance. But Obama's currency isn't as strong
as he had believed. Everyone wants respect, but hardly anyone is willing to
pay for it. Interests, not emotions, dominate the world of realpolitik. The
Asia trip revealed the limits of Washington's new foreign policy: Although
Obama did not lose face in China and Japan, he did appear to have lost some
of his initial stature.

In Tokyo, the new center-left government even pulled out of its
participation in a mission which saw the Japanese navy refueling US warships
in the Indian Ocean as part of the Afghanistan campaign. In Beijing, Obama
failed to achieve any important concessions whatsoever. There will be no
binding commitments from China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A
revaluation of the Chinese currency, which is kept artificially weak, has
been postponed. Sanctions against Iran? Not a chance. Nuclear disarmament?
Not an issue for the Chinese.

The White House did not even stand up for itself when it came to the
question of human rights in China. The president, who had said only a few
days earlier that freedom of expression is a universal right, was coerced
into attending a joint press conference with Chinese President Hu Jintao, at
which questions were forbidden. Former US President George W. Bush had
always managed to avoid such press conferences.

Relatively Unsuccessful

A look back in time reveals the differences. When former President Bill
Clinton went to China in June 1998, Beijing wanted to impress the Americans.
A press conference in the Great Hall of the People, broadcast on television
as a 70-minute live discussion, became a sensation the world over. Clinton
mentioned the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, when the government used tanks
against protestors. But then President Jiang Zemin defended the tough
approach taken by the Chinese Communists. At the end of the exchange, the
Chinese president praised the debate and said: "I believe this is
democracy!"

Obama visited a new China, an economic power that is now making its own
demands. America should clean up its government finances, and the weak
dollar is unacceptable, the head of the Chinese banking authority said, just
as Obama's plane was about to land.

Obama's new foreign policy has also been relatively unsuccessful elsewhere,
with even friends like Israel leaving him high and dry. For the government
of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, peace is only conceivable under
its terms. Netanyahu has rejected Obama's call for a complete moratorium on
the construction of settlements. As a result, Obama has nothing to offer the
Palestinians and the Syrians. "We thought we had some leverage," says Martin
Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel under the Clinton administration and
now an advisor to Obama. "But that proved to be an illusion."

Even the president seems to have lost his faith in a genial foreign policy.
The approach that was being used in Afghanistan this spring, with its strong
emphasis on civilian reconstruction, is already being changed. "We're
searching for an exit strategy," said a staff member with the National
Security Council on the sidelines of the Asia trip.

'A Lot Like Jimmy Carter'

An end to diplomacy is also taking shape in Washington's policy toward
Tehran. It is now up to Iran, Obama said, to convince the world that its
nuclear power is peaceful. While in Asia, Obama mentioned "consequences"
unless it followed his advice. This puts the president, in his tenth month
in office, where Bush began -- with threats. "Time is running out," Obama
said in Korea. It was the same phrase Bush used against former Iraqi
dictator Saddam Hussein, shortly before he sent in the bombers.

There are many indications that the man in charge at the White House will
take a tougher stance in the future. Obama's advisors fear a comparison with
former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, even more than with Bush.
Prominent Republicans have already tried to liken Obama to the humanitarian
from Georgia, who lost in his bid to win a second term, because voters felt
that he was too soft. "Carter tried weakness and the world got tougher and
tougher because the predators, the aggressors, the anti-Americans, the
dictators, when they sense weakness, they all start pushing ahead," Newt
Gingrich, the former Republican speaker in the House of Representatives,
recently said. And then he added: "This does look a lot like Jimmy Carter."

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

Lawyers?

The Problem Is Identified...

Johnny Carson nailed lawyers with one of his "how cold was it?" jokes!
"It was so cold that lawyers were running around with their hands in their
own pockets!!"

This is very interesting! I never thought about it this way. Perhaps this
is why so many physicians are conservatives or republicans.

The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers' Party.
Barack Obama is a lawyer.
Michelle Obama is a lawyer.
Hillary Clinton is a lawyer.
Bill Clinton is a lawyer.
John Edwards is a lawyer.
Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer.

Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did
not graduate).

Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd
Bentsen, went to law school.

Look at leaders of the Democrat Party in Congress:

Harry Reid is a lawyer.
Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer.

The Republican Party is different.
President Bush is a businessman.
Vice President Cheney is a businessman.
The leaders of the Republican Revolution:
Newt Gingrich was a history professor.
Tom Delay was an exterminator. Dick Armey was an economist.
House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer.
The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.

Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who
left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a
sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976. The Republican
Party is made up of real people doing real work, who are often the targets
of lawyers.

The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men
who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist,
or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.

The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and
services that people want, as the enemies of America . And, so we have
seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers' > Party, grow.

Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil

companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large

retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our
nation.

This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of
lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their
clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws
passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn
precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.

Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful
way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view
some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then
the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some
Americans become "adverse parties" of our very government. We are not all
litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a
republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts,
and from lawyers.

Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we
are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once
private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place
is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important
decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme
Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When
lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other
means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then
the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue
America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are
planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become
crushing.

We cannot expect the Lawyers' Party to provide real change, real reform or
real hope in America Most Americans know that a republic in which every
major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not
what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot
fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most
Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining
moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.

Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our
nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and
business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the
mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work.
Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power
will only make our problems worse.

The United States has 5% of the world's population and 66% of the world's
lawyers! Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress
several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in
ridiculous lawsuits such as "spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the
establishment that sold it to you" and also to limit punitive damages in
huge medical malpractice lawsuits. This legislation has continually been
blocked from even being voted on by the Democrat Party. When you see that
97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers
Association goes to the Democrat Party, then you realize who is
responsible for our medical and product costs being so high!

Please -- DO PASS THIS ON

Blunderer in chief

I believe many of us exmilitary guys will find this interesting.

Blunderer in Chief
Townhall.com ^
| November 24, 2009 | Michael McBride

Posted on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 9:18:20 AM by
Kaslin

I've read the dictionary definition of blunderer (2: to make a mistake
through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness), and I it believe it is
somewhat incomplete.

There is another aspect to blundering that is missing from this definition,
and it centers about ego and blind arrogance.

While I fully agree with the Webster definition, it seems that many blunders
are less chance events, and more driven by egocentric individuals, blinded
by their own will and arrogance.

Napoleon's and Hitler's invasions of Russia. Custer's final battle with the
Sioux. The United States' escalation in Vietnam.

All blunders and all purposefully driven by the egos of those involved.

Napoleon should have recognized that the sheer size of Russia made it
impossible to hold or subjugate, even if it could be have been conquered.

By many accounts Custer lacked an appreciation of the Sioux's battlefield
skills, and he is known for having over-inflated his own tactical abilities.
He
gave a demonstration of this lack of respect for the enemy by dividing his
forces and pursuing the offense in spite of many tactical clues that could
have
resulted in far less devastation to the 7th Cavalry at Little Big Horn.

Hitler should have learned from Napoleon, and he should have also considered
the items added by me above. He should have also been able to predict that
opening a second front, one that dwarfed the first front in its vastness,
would be problematic for many reasons, but it is well known that sound
strategy
and logic was rejected in favor of his egotism.

Collectively, the United States overestimated its post-World War Two
abilities and grossly underestimated the powerful nationalistic force that
drove the
North Vietnamese. Early we were only lightly engaged as advisors, but we
quickly and arrogantly turned it into a war infused with business like
calculations
and predictive results that centered only on our view of the world, our
calculations, and our massive military capability. We completely, and
arrogantly,
blundered into a war that would bog us down for more than a decade by
ignoring other inputs, such as the will and motivation of our adversary and
their
determination to defeat us. We were befuddled and mystified when they did.

Webster should find away to work the words, arrogance, blinded and ego into
their definition.

President Obama is lining up two make two of the largest blunders he could
make as a President, and both will cost American lives.

Not his health care rationing and economic redistribution plan. Not his
farcical "stimulus" program, which is nothing more than a higher form of
vote buying.
And not the Administration's fumbling of the H1N1 vaccine program.

I am talking about Obama's new role as Military-Tactician-in-Chief and his
adjunct role as Prosecutor-in-Chief.

Each of the Services has an operational planning school for senior captains.
In the Marine Corps this school is known as Amphibious Warfare School.
Graduates
leave the school with an in depth knowledge of operational planning and
staff planning for amphibious operations.

One of the techniques used to focus planning efforts is the development of
courses of action or "COAs." In COA development, captains are limited to
developing
only three possible plans. What becomes readily apparent after a couple of
these planning exercises, is that there are rarely three equally appealing
COAs
to choose from.

One COA typically stands out as being the best strategic choice based on
lessons learned from similar operations and a reasonable comparison to the
well
understood Principles of War.

The next COA is often appealing from an "outside-the-box" perspective,
because it is not typically the "textbook" solution. But COA number two
almost always
has more inherent risk.

COA three is usually a non-starter. It generally falls far from conventional
wisdom and experience, and it usually carries an inordinate amount of risk
compared to the other choices.

There is almost never an appealing fourth choice.

Yet the President has rejected our best military planners' options asking
them to go back to the table to develop CAO number five.

This is unheard of; not because military planners are stubborn as mules and
goats (Go Navy; beat Army), but because an elemental application of the
Principles
of War, the terrain, the enemy capabilities, lines of communication,
weaponry, communications and connectivity, and myriad of applicable factors
will necessarily
cull the number of realistic choices to a number below three. Certainly not
a number greater than or equal to, five.

The President's blind desire to please the left wing of his party will place
the strategic responsibility for Afghanistan solely at his feet as he has
rejected
the best advice his planners can give in favor of a choice that is no better
than fifth from a strategic point of view.

Mr. Obama is jeopardizing our troops' lives by fighting with an unwinnable
playbook and blundering into the abyss of Afghanistan with a strategy
ultimately
devised by the radicals of his party and the marionette grinner, Joe Biden.
Maybe Al Gore could chime in.

He blunders further by insisting that five murderous terrorists be given
habeas corpus rights and a public trial in New York City, and then
guaranteeing
the results of such a trial.

In his efforts to complete the demonization of the Gitmo detention facility
and the Bush Administration by trying these enemies in open court, he has
put
New Yorkers at great risk. He is committing the classic McNamara
underestimation. Terrorists will not appreciate the openness and
transparency of our judicial
system, but they will greatly appreciate that we have now given them a new
target at which to concentrate their aim.

The city of New York will be racked by terrorist events large and small, and
it will be at the invitation of the Obama Administration. Justice could have
easily been served off-shore in a manner that did not invite undue attention
to our soil, but these trials, and New York itself, will become the new
bulls-eye
for terror activity. And there will be many taking aim.

Imagine the price Al Qaeda will pay the families of successful bombers if
they disrupt the trials, or cause the trials to be eventually moved. Imagine
the
loss of respect the United States will suffer and the boom in recruiting all
rogue terror groups will enjoy. Bringing these trials to New York is a
completely
unnecessary move that will, quite literally, blow up in the Obama
Administration's face.

In both cases, the Obama Administration is wandering far from common sense,
and they are trying to sell their silliness and irresponsibility with hollow
guarantees, clever buzzwords, and a promise of vacuous and immeasurable
results (hybrid strategy; transparent jurisprudence e.g.).

Make no mistake, while the Obama team is confusing itself with nonsensical
strategies and inane prosecutorial practices, Al Qaeda and the Taliban will
be
preparing to light up the scoreboard with American lives both in Afghanistan
and in NYC.

When the numbers of casualties go up in Afghanistan and a number of bombs go
off in New York, and the Obama Administration will dither at an even higher
frequency and they will wonder how it was they became the Best and the
Brightest, part two.

Ego and arrogance.

All hail, the Blunderer-in-Chief.

America, the last man standing

This, coupled with the message at the bottom should give you cause to stop and reconsider what you are doing for and to America/ Please read and know this is happening. This is not political, this is factual.

Jim, Brenda, Baxter the dog and Pat the cat

Jim Gamberton
330 NW 9th Street
High Springs, FL 32643
(H/F) 386-454-2624
(C) 352-328-5247

Blog: http://www.lynnoaksinformer.blogspot.com/
Obama....... .Psalm 109 : 8


This is what I have been saying right along but so many do not think it could ever happen.It is happening right now and Ft. Hood was a example of a homegrown Jihadist. He did not crack, he planned and executed and the Islamist population cheers either in public or behind closed doors.----- Original Message -----




Life with God is endless hope -without Him it is a hopeless end...







Pls read this "eye opener" we are in trouble in the free world.





This is hard for anyone to understand and comprehend....

Many of us have memories of Europe as we remember it 20 + years ago....

Will we understand this same change in the US?





THIS SPEECH CLEARLY SHOWS OUR SITUATION IN THE WORLD.....WELL WORTH READING!


Geert Wilders is a Dutch Member of Parliament.



America as the last man standing




'In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe?'

Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem.

Dear friends,
Thank you very much for inviting me.
I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam.
To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe you know is changing.
You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.

All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.

In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. (Hard to believe)

Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.

In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.
(Discrimination on the level of absurdity) (Seen in Saudia Arabia in 1974)

In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels,
because he was drinking during the Ramadan.

Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now.
Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.

The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority.
We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.

Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest.Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a danger greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe, American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so. We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.
Please take the time to read and understand what is written here, Please send it to every free person that you know, it is so very important.


After reading the above please watch the "you tube" presentation.

Please comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

Global warming?

IS GLOBAL WARMING A GIANT SCAM?
By Matt Gray, Editor News Viewpoint, New Jersey Newspapers
Former Vice President Al Gore says the science is settled and refuses
to debate anyone about global warming. Of course he can't debate anyone
on the issue, because he will be exposed for the charlatan that he is.
The Nobel Peace Prize and the Oscar was bestowed upon him by his liberal
cronies for his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth".
This is the same movie that is shown to our school children and
presented as gospel in order to indoctrinate them into the global warming
camp. It is also the same movie British High Court Judge, Mr. Justice
Barton ruled contained gross exaggerations and incorrect information and
could not be shown to students without an opposite view or a disclaimer.
Al Gore also dismisses the 31,000 scientists from around the world
who signed a petition rejecting the global warming alarmism. Mr. Gore's
crony in this scam is Dr. James Hansen of NASA. This is the same man who
30 years ago said the earth was cooling and we were headed for another
ice age!
Global warming is nothing more than a grand hoax, designed by the
environmental groups (the Natural Resources Defense Council and the
Environmental Defense Fund are the largest with over $173 million in
annual revenues and over $275 million in assets) to scare the world into
voluntarily giving up fossil fuels and to steal wealth from the most
prosperous nation on earth and redistribute it to those of their choice.
These groups have a huge influence in Washington, D.C. They give lip
service to "clean energy", but block all efforts by this nation to
retrieve its own natural resources. They block all efforts to drill for
gas and oil. They hate coal. They block access to federal lands for
drilling. They oppose the importation of tar sand oil from Canada and
they are opposed to the extraction of shale oil here in the USA.
They prevent us from building any new gas refineries and they are
even opposed to nuclear power, which releases zero carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere. They make and keep us dependent on foreign oil, while
trumpeting "green energy" sources like wind and solar power.
The environmental groups have also opposed or held up in court
several large-scale solar farms proposed for our western deserts because
of their concerns for the affected wildlife. In other words, they claim
to be for "clean energy", but in reality, they are for no energy at all.
Currently, we derive about 1 percent of our energy from wind and
solar power. Both forms of energy are highly inefficient and depend
heavily on taxpayer subsidies. A megawatt hour of wind power is now
subsidized at $23.37, while solar power is subsidized at $24.34. Compare
this to coal at 44 cents and natural gas at 25 cents.
The official White House estimate for the initial roll out of the cap
and trade system is $646 billion dollars over 8 years. But word leaked
out from a meeting between Senate staff and the deputy director of the
White House National Economic Council, Jason Furman, who stated that the
true cost of the cap and trade system would be two to three times the
initial projections. The Dow Jones reports that five people at this
meeting confirmed his statements.
If this is right, then the true costs will be in the trillions,
between $1.3 and $1.9 trillion dollars. No company is going to absorb
these cost and they will be passed on to the consumer, to the tune of
roughly $3,100 dollars per year. If people would have listened to Obama
during his run for the presidency, he told us, "Under my plan of a cap
and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket . . .
whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations.
That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."
He also said, "If they want to build coal-fired power plants they can,
but the cost to do so will bankrupt them."
This whole cap and trade system is nothing but a scam, designed to
pull money out of thin air. The government can then offset the costs for
Universal Health Care, college tuition for all, pre-kindergarten, welfare
and all of the other social programs which are designed to enslave
another sector of society and make them dependent on the liberals for
their very existence. The liberals know it's a scam themselves.
If Republicans convince voters that clean energy legislation amounts
to a new tax, Obama's plan is toast. They are trying to disguise their
true agenda. This is why they have stopped using the term "global
warming" and now call it "climate change." They now call it climate
change, because the earth has in fact been cooling for the last 10 years
and this past winter was one of the worst on record. People are becoming
very suspicious of their message and they know that their movement is
losing support.
As you become poorer, just remember, Al Gore's net worth in 2001 was
estimated to be between $1 and 2 million dollars. Today, his net worth
is over $100 million dollars. Of course he made some of this money from
his film, book deals and speaking engagements, but the majority of this
money was made through his private equity firm, Generation Investment
Management. He is heavily invested in "green" corporations and
technologies and he is also a large purchaser of "carbon credits." He
and all of his political cronies are set to reap a windfall from this
legislation, all while they burn more fossil fuel in one day than most of
us burn in one year.
This cap and trade system should be called a cap and tax scheme,
because that is all it is. A new way to scare you out of more of your
hard-earned money. Humans contribute less than 4 percent of the total
volume of carbon dioxide, which itself, makes up just 0.038 percent of
the atmosphere.
On April 1 of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the
Environmental Protection Agency had the authority to regulate the
emissions of carbon dioxide from automobiles. The head of the EPA, Carol
Browner, wasted no time deciding that the EPA would soon declare carbon
dioxide a danger to the public, which clears the way for regulations and
mandatory reductions in the emission of this gas. For those who do not
know Ms. Browner, she was one of 14 members who sat on the Socialist
International's commission for a Sustainable World Society. This group
calls for "global governance" and believes rich countries must shrink
their economies to address climate change.

__._,_.___