Middle America's Worldview

Tonight we watched Obama address the cadets of West Point and, over their shoulder, the American people. I kept asking myself: if I were in the audience did I hear anything worth risking my life for?

There is a lot in Afghanistan worth risking one's life for, but Obama sure didn't summon it.

Watching President Obama address the nation, the right probably recognized the incongruity of sending additional troops on a difficult mission and setting, at the same time, a very short timetable for their withdrawal. The right doubtless wondered why the Taliban won't just wait Obama out and move in after he leaves.

But the political cost of this speech will not come on the right. Obama will get the support of everyone who won't ever vote for him. But it is with his base on the left that he will be in trouble.

His volunteers, his backers, his donors have to have watched that speech and asked themselves "why did we win the election?" Obama sounded just like Bush. More articulate, perhaps, but substantively precisely the same.

His decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, an odd move for a peace candidate, his failure to close Guantanamo, our continued military presence in Iraq, and his failure to act on liberal priorities like gays in the military and immigration reform, are all sapping his support from those who voted for him.
For those with memories of Vietnam, the task of backing a corrupt regime summons the most unpleasant of comparisons.

Obama looked out of place giving a speech he didn't believe in. He seemed like he was reading a communiqué. His focus on pulling out, even as he was going in, reminded one of Bill Clinton defining what the meaning of 'is' is.

This speech will inflame the left and that is the real threat to Obama's base.

Even in the health care debate, the under 30 voters are learning that they are targeted -- just like the elderly -- for special punishment in Obama's health care bill. When they realize that they must spend $15,000 on average per family for health insurance or face a fine of 2.5% of their income or go to prison, the bill loses its appeal. And, when they find out how shallow the subsidies are (only after they spend 8% of their paychecks if their household income is $45,000 a year and 12% if it is $65,000), they begin to turn off both the bill and the president for whom they were once so enthusiastic.

Then he is losing popularity on issues that have nothing to do with ideology. It all begins with unemployment. While voters still believe by 50-42 (Rasmussen) that Bush is more at fault than Obama for the economy, Bush is not on the ballot. The high jobless rate nurtures a belief that Obama doesn't really know what he is doing. This discontent need not take the form of ideological opposition to the stimulus package or the deficit spending. It can merely be a sense that things aren't going right.

And then come the adjectives. Voters are increasingly complaining that Obama is weak, vacillates, does not keep his promises, spends too much time on other priorities than jobs, and seems egotistical.

All polls have Obama below 50 and some, like Harris, have him all the way down to 43% in job approval. These surveys mean that Obama, who won 52% of the vote, is now losing between one in ten and one in five of his voters.

This erosion of support makes the elections of 2010 look more and more like a rerun of 1994. It is now reasonable to predict -- and I do -- that the GOP will take both houses of Congress.

In the Senate, the Republicans are likely to hold all their vacant seats with the possible exception of New Hampshire. Incumbent Democrats Dodd (Ct), Specter (Pa), Lincoln (Ark), Reid (Nev), and Bennett (Col) are the low hanging fruit. Among the open seats, Delaware seems ripe for the Republicans. Add to these six seats, two more if Rudy Giuliani challenges Kristin Gillibrand in New York and if North Dakota governor Hoeven takes on Dorgan. Mark Kirk could the ninth pickup in Illinois. And, in a Republican sweep, you have to respect GOP chances in California and New Jersey.

A deluge swamps all boats.

On Capitol Hill, the Democrats seem to have almost abandoned the message war on health care. They are hunkering down and focused on keeping their troops in line. The appeals to party discipline are so strong that one senses that they are prepared to march, in lock-step, over the cliff together.

When one considers where Obama was only a year ago and where he is today, the fall is simply stunning. That he clings to the staff that helped him take it is amazing. This has to be the least successful White House since, well, Clinton's 1993-94 crowd. In fact, its many of the same people!

You can read all Dick Morris articles or signup for free email notifications at DickMorris.com.

I have long been a skeptic of manmade global warming. They lost me when we learned not only was Earth suppose to be warming but the entire solar system. Sun rays anyone?

Nevertheless, some information is now being leaked out confirming some suspicions.

Independent Examiner has a really good article on the subject.

I also recall the youtube videos showing those 'temp gauges' located in the most bizarre places. Unfortunately, i cannot recall the guy that was showing those false reading.

Some are calling for Obama to call off the Copenhagen for climate talk. I must say, I would at least take pause.

Consider this. There must be trillions if not billions of dollars invested in these studies. Now if the studies are false, then we are looking at a serious issue, both with the money as well as the credibility of the science groups. Those same science groups stating they dumped the raw data, does not help.

Either way, a open investigation needs to be taken immediately.

Wow, this one hit the head, yet was funny.

Not surprisingly the votes were in for proceeding with the health care debacle. They passed with 60, barely. All democrats voted yes, and all but one republican voted no (Voinovich (R-OH) did not vote).

You can see it here.

Some of the dem's are making such statements as

"Although I don't agree with everything in this bill, I have concluded that I believe it is more important that we begin this debate to improve our nation's health care system for all Americans rather than just simply drop the issue and walk away," Lincoln said just before 2:30 p.m. Saturday. "It is not what people sent us here to do."

It sounds good, but realistically she is just one vote in a room full of others. If Blanche Lincoln wanted to make a change, she would have voted a no, when it was her time to do so. imho

There is a growing group of people that are tired of statements, and are starting to really see how public officers are voting. Lincoln was one of the very few in the spot light. Her vote was being watched by all the political stations, as well as our constituents. I fear she made the wrong call.

Another quote from Lincoln, "First of all, it was very important to the people of Arkansas that we do take our time, and I respect that," Lincoln said in a Saturday interview. "After our town hall meetings, I really felt a real passion and a strength among Arkansans. They want us to do the right thing and taking our time and doing that and making sure that we're not rushing through these things."

Yes, seems Lincoln is still not on the same page with Arkansans regarding the 'right thing'.

With her poll numbers dropping

her approval rating back home has dropped 11 points and now stands at 43 percent, 1 percentage point above Obama’s in the state, according to a University of Arkansas poll released earlier this month. And by a 9-point margin, a clear plurality of voters in Arkansas opposes the public insurance option like the one included in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's plan, the poll found.

So, if the clear majority does not wish this type of insurance bill, why bring it on the floor at all? Why is she like all blue-dog dem's committing political suicide?

I have always been fascinated with Biblical prophecy. A myriad of books written more than 2000 years ago (at least ), with no prophecies being wrong so far. Albeit, the latter ones haven't occurred yet, but the season is definitely here.

With the 2012 movie out, there is a renewed interest in general prophecy. Most are focusing on the Mayan calendar, or Nostradamus. However, I would urge all to read up on biblical prophecy.

One of the biblical prophecies most agree with is the oncoming of a world goverment, with one world currency. The scene is the Antichrist having control of the world. One of these means is by having control of money/supplies.


"13:16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 13:17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name" (Revelation 13:16-17 KJV)

In order for the above to occur, you must have at least 2 things in place.
1) a currency all are utilizing
2) a means to store and identify every transaction

The mark is subject for another time. However, a simple individual chip would suffice having your identity. A central database would also be used.

The thing I am looking at here is the one world government with one world currency.
Remember, Revelation was written over 2000 years ago, on the island of Patmos.

Check out these two videos from Fox News (Glenn Beck) having analyst speaking of the upcoming world government, and world currency.

Representive Rogers make a strong stance against the Obama Healthcare plan.



Glad to see someone has the gonad's to speak up about it.

Wow, too much going on regarding this new U.S. Administration.

Admin says other news outlets "Don't play with Fox".


White House to Isolate Fox News

I like many others before me struggle with the idea of moving off an existing platform onto a new one.

Although, I have utilized Blogger for a few years, I have made the decision to move onto a new website http://mcole.us

It will allow me to modify, add, ect. more than a simple blogging platform.

I request my 5 readers to follow me over. : )

Been quite awhile before I blogged. Been busy on a new SQL class, completed my Perl class (passed).

We are also busy with the kids sports. Daughters in Basketball and son with Soccer, busy busy.

I also been spending some time creating a new website for my platform. This will help me have a one stop launch to the other sites/apps, I use. I was on 3 games for facebook but cut back to only one. Amazing how much time is wasted on those games.

Here is the full length movie of the Obama Deception.

I ran across these videos while here in Texas. The initial site I found them on are Prison Planet.

The Oklahoma Highway Patrol officer not only stopped and assaulted the driver/EMT, but there is a patient in the vehicle during the altercation. No charges were applied on the officer after a Oklahoma Judge reviewed the incident.

Here is the 8 minute video taken from the police vehicle. Note the release of the video took some time and doing (according to the article).







Here is the phone coverage of the patients family member.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor Has History Of Flawed Legal Thinking
By TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty

May 28, 2009 – President Barack Hussein Obama’s pick to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court has a history of liberal judicial activism and poorly reasoned decisions.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a Yale Law School graduate and currently serves on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. She has been a federal judge, a district attorney and worked in private practice. She has authored or participated in thousands of court cases over the course of her legal career. For this very reason, there needs to be a proper vetting of her extensive record, which will take some time.

Much is being made of her being the first Hispanic woman being nominated to the Supreme Court, but what many in the media are not talking about is the nomination of Miguel Estrada who was picked by President Bush to be nominated to the D.C. Circuit.

Where were all these “let’s put a Hispanic on the court” cheerleaders back then?

Democrats stalled confirmation for more than two years. In fact, Democrat memos leaked by the Wall Street Journal in 2003, showed that their strategy was to smear him as “especially dangerous.”

One of the memos described Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) “as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."

Hispanic legislators like New York Democrat Nydia Velazquez who heads the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, opposed Estrada because of his judicial philosophy. Now, Democrats are pushing Sotomayor simply because she is Hispanic.

Estrada was well-qualified to serve on the Supreme Court – and his rags-to-riches story was as compelling as Sotomayor’s. He would have been the first Hispanic on the Court, but Democrats delayed his confirmation hearing for so long, he finally withdrew his name from the running. Apparently, he wasn’t the “right kind” of Hispanic.

Who Is Sotomayor?

Sotomayor has admitted that she views the role of a judge as an activist who makes policy decisions – a role that should be limited to the executive or legislative branches of government. On a panel at Duke University Law School in 2005, she said:
All of the Legal Defense Funds out there—they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is—Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t “make law,” I know. [Audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. . . . [Audience laughter]
Curt Levey with the Committee for Justice has said of Sotomayor’s taped admission:
In other words, Sotomayor believes that unelected judges like herself should be the nation’s policy-makers rather than sticking to interpretation of the law.
Wendy Long, Chief Counsel, Judicial Confirmation Network has expressed concern about Sotomayor’s legal views:
Comments yesterday by the White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and today by Senator Chuck Schumer, that statements made at Duke University by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in which she said appellate courts should ‘make policy’ were taken out of context are purposely misleading and outright misinformation designed to walk back an obvious vetting problem this White House has become known for. If Mr. Gibbs or Senator Schumer were to read other law review articles written by Judge Sotomayor, her own published word, it is clear and unequivocal that Judge Sotomayor has a long track record of advocating for using courts to make policy and laws. It is obvious that the reason the White House has churned up its spin machine on this is because countless polls consistently show that the American people to do not support judges making policy or law from the bench. The American people have spoken loudly and often on this subject, they want judges who interpret law as made through the people and their elected representatives, not through judges imposing their personal political views from the bench as Judge Sotomayor has consistently advocated.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) recommended Sonia Sotomayor to President Obama. He says she’s a moderate and has the most extensive record of anyone nominated to the Supreme Court in a long time. He also agrees that Republicans have every right to scrutinize her voluminous record of cases during the confirmation process.

Her legal decisions are frequently overturned by the Supreme Court.

Jeffrey Rosen, writing for the liberal New Republic has said this about Sotomayor:
Over the past few weeks, I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with [Sotomayor], nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats ... but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices."
Jonathan Turley, an equally liberal professor of law at George Washington University, reviewed Sotomayor's opinions and concluded:
[Her opinions] are notable in one thing, in that it's a lack of depth. There's nothing particularly profound in her past decisions. ... You can't say she's a natural choice for the Supreme Court. (MSNBC, May 26, 2009)
Badly-Reasoned Court Decisions

One of her decisions that is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court is Ricci v. DeStefano, which involves a reverse discrimination case involving firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut. The firefighters were denied promotion because they were not African American. One of them was Hispanic, the rest were white. Sotomayor and two other judges on the 2nd Circuit ruled in favor of the city.

In this firefighter case, Frank Ricci had scored well on a 2003 firefighters test for promotion to lieutenant and captain. He had studied eight to 13 hours a day to prepare for test and had spent more than $1,000 buying books for his homework. He paid an acquaintance to read them onto audiotapes because he is dyslexic. Ricci got one of the highest scores, but did not get promoted. Why? Because it was determined that not enough blacks had done well enough to be promoted. New Haven discarded the test results and did not promote anyone.

Ricci and 17 other firefighters – including an Hispanic – filed a lawsuit against the city for wrongful discrimination. He and his fellow firefighters were denied the American dream because of Sonia Sotomayor.

As National Journal reporter and lawyer Stuart Taylor reports:
… in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep the case quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both. ... The three-judge panel initially deep-sixed the firefighters' appeal in a cursory, unpublished order that disclosed virtually nothing about the nature of the ideologically explosive case.
Interesting, during her confirmation battle this summer, the current Supreme Court is likely to overturn this decision this July as it has done in past cases involving Sotomayor’s decisions.

Among those cases the Supreme Court has rejected from Sotomayor are: N.Y. Times Co., v.Tasini; Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko; Granholm v. Heald; Merrill Lynch v. Dabit; Entery Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. and others.

Anti-Gun Nominee

Judge Sotomayor could face serious problems from Second Amendment groups. As Curt Levey has explained:
Obama's choice of one of the few federal judges with a bad record on gun rights is particularly perplexing. Earlier this year, Sotomayor and two of her Second Circuit colleagues ruled that Americans have no individual Second Amendment rights in the face of state or local regulation of firearms -- that is, unless they happen to live in the District of Columbia. Even the liberal Ninth Circuit ruled the other way. Now every red and purple state Democratic senator who considers voting for Sotomayor will be forced to explain to his constituents why he's supporting a nominee who thinks those constituents don't have Second Amendment rights. Because they can send red state Democrats running for cover, gun owners are the one interest group that could completely change the political equation on judicial nominations if they're drawn into the debate. Obama's selection of Sotomayor makes that virtually certain.
As Ken Blackwell said yesterday:
"President Obama has nominated a radically anti-Second Amendment judge to be our newest Supreme Court justice. There are a number of pro-Second Amendment Democratic senators from deeply red states, including Mark Begich from Alaska, Jon Tester and Max Baucus from Montana, Ben Nelson from Nebraska, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad from North Dakota, and Tim Johnson from South Dakota. These senators will jeopardize their seats if they vote to support an anti-gun radical for the Supreme Court. ... [N]ever underestimate the political power of American gun owners."

With the introduction (to me) of Facebook and Twitter, I haven't been blogging for quite some time. I must admit, having a known viewership allows me to post more mundane things day to day. Additionally, I don't feel I have to have a minimum of 3 paragraphs to write, in order to make it my while, unlike blogging.

----
The other day, I had a scary thought. After reviewing the 1950's in comparison to the 60's, you can really see the moral decline of America. It was a radical influx of ideas along with sexual promiscuity and drugs. I suspect these would-be world changers believed it was all for the better of America society. Many of them, moved onto positions in our society, having the impact in cultural change.

I am looking now at the diversity of our electronic and drug war, thinking I have now become the free thinker.

Taking a look at the software industry, you have two cultures battling it out. There's the open source community and the proprietary buisineses. Each claiming their ideaology of software is better.

Taking a look at the drug community, you have the holistic/natural community that is opposed by big pharmaceutical drug companies with patents.

Viewing each climate, whether it's software or drugs, there are two distinct sides. Interesting enough, both have many similiarities. One side wishes to contain and build wealth on restrictions. The other side, wishes to have a more open/availibility type of community.

I am finding myself directed to the open side. Free-thinker.

Alert: Members of a coalition organized to fight attacks on America's First Amendment rights in response to a multitude of developments under President Obama are expressing alarm at the United Kingdom's decision to ban popular U.S. talk radio host Michael Savage from its shores.

British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced that Savage was on a list of people who would be unwelcome in the island nation.

Roger Hedgecock, who recently was named as the chief of the new American Radio Free Speech Coalition, said the designation is a shot across the bow to American rights.

"The British government action barring Michael Savage is a frightening preview of what we can expect in our own country as the PC police shut down the voices of dissent," he said.

The coalition was launched under the Don't Touch My Dial slogan to defend free speech and First Amendment rights from a variety of attacks that have developed, including the current Washington demand for a return to some form of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be constitutionally questionable.

One effort is Washington's plan to assemble local "commissions" to provide "accountability" for radio station. Free speech advocates contends the groups would be no more than complaint boards for liberal interests to launch attacks on conservative talk radio.

Some found the U.K. move against Savage to be so outlandish they looked for further reasons behind it.

It's time to put up or shut up, America. Literally. Get the book that shows how to fight the assault on your freedom of speech!

One WND reader said, "[Homeland Security Secretary Janet] Napolitano has been releasing odd DHS lists about extremists, heavily criticized by Savage, and mysteriously he appears on England's watch list at the same time? Napolitano should be forced to resign over this and not just Smith."

Napolitano's recent "extremist" reports have targeted Americans who support Second Amendment rights, third party political candidates, homeschool and oppose abortion as "extremists" who would bear close watching.

Joseph Farah, founder, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily, wrote in a commentary that the U.K. ban wouldn't track logically, pointing out that Savage wasn't asking to travel there.

But he said if the ban is clothed in the backdrop of what's happening in Washington, it makes a little more sense.

"Barack Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress are conducting a scorched-earth war on the First Amendment. The Federal Communications Commission will soon be headed and controlled by an appointee who thinks government, not the free market, should control broadcast programming. The appointee to be regulatory czar for the administration has flirted with ideas like a 'Fairness Doctrine' for the Internet and mandatory 24-hour, cooling-off periods before sending angry e-mails. As we speak, local 'commissar commissions' are being established in every radio market to monitor programming and challenge broadcast licenses on the basis of content. Hate-crimes legislation has passed the House and is headed for the Senate a bill that would punish thoughts and speech and provide, for the first time, special protections to a new 'victim class' of pedophiles," he wrote.

"There is little question for any serious and objective observer that the new Washington power structure is targeting the most significant voice of dissent left in America talk radio," he continued. "I believe with near 100 percent certainty, though I admit I can't prove it, that the initiative for this symbolic effort to ban Michael Savage from a country he had no intention of visiting came not from London, but from Washington."

Savage's audience is the third-largest in the U.S., and he's been arguably the most critical of Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress.

"He was the perfect target for a pre-emptive and insidious attack on his character," Farah wrote.

The Don't Touch My Dial coalition said Smith's linking Savage with "terrorists and Neo-Nazi murderers" was a "disgraceful injustice."

Other members of the coalition include Lars Larson, Rusty Humphries, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Steve Gill, Joyce Kaufman and Steve Malzberg.

Kaufman wrote that she does not "subscribe to any of the many conspiracy theories designed to strike fear in the hearts of patriotic Americans."

But word of Savage's ban "sent a shudder down my spine."

"How did two great western civilizations, the U.K. and the U.S. find themselves challenging John Locke's ideals and the U.S. Constitution?" she asked.

"We cannot call ourselves a Judeo-Christian nation, we cannot speak without fear of national or even international censure and sanction, the fourth estate has become the president's cheerleaders rather than inquisitors, and when half a million patriots gather together in mock 'American Tea Parties,' they are ignored and marginalized by the very government they are attempting to petition for a redress of their grievances," she wrote.

Savage, she said, "is making his stand. He stands alone on the wall. He has fought these battles before, on the air, in the courts and in the court of public opinion. I say every patriot needs to join him on the wall this time. These are the times that separate the men from the boys and the women from the boys as well. When the Patrick Henrys and Molly Pitchers need to get off their butts and up on the wall."

One WND reader copied the news agency in on an e-mail to Smith:

"It is obvious you do not listen to his show on a daily basis and rely on others to tell you what Dr. Savage is all about. Let me briefly tell you what Dr. Michael Savage is all about. His manifesto is borders, language and culture. Something your country could definitely focus on as you continue to allow the hordes of illegal Muslim immigrants to come in your country and erode your borders, language and culture. "If you are going to put Savage on your black list, you better put me and millions of other listeners of Dr. Savage on that list as well."

The "Fairness Doctrine" at issue now in the U.S. was established in 1949 by the FCC to require broadcasters to provide "fair" programming, essentially demanding the broadcast of opposing views.

But the Supreme Court in 1969 ruled that while the policy did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, if the doctrine ever began to restrain free speech, its constitutionality should be reviewed. In 1974, the court said the doctrine "dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate."

Ten years later, the court found the rationale that debate was scarce and therefore the opposing viewpoints should be required was flawed, and in 1987 the plan was abolished.

At the Frugal-Café blog, Vicki McClure Davidson wrote, "It seems bizarre that a radio entertainer in one country can be banned from entry into another simply because of their opinions. Especially if those opinions aren't of the 'All capitalists must die like pigs' variety."

"I didn't see Michael Moore or Al Franken on the list, nor Janeane Garofalo or Keith Olbermann or Sandra Bernhard for their hate speech. What about William Ayres or Rev. Jeremiah Wright or Al Sharpton? They may not have asked to be allowed to enter the U.K. Or they could all be on the longer, unpublished list, right up there with 'who knows who.' Would it be reasonable to assume that Howard Stern would also be on the U.K. list for his outrageous behavior?" she wrote.

"I'm curious. Does the ban in Britain work both ways? If so, does this mean the U.K. won't be hypocritical and will deport their own left-wing extremist comedian Russell Brand for his 'undesirable behavior'? Yeah, thought not," she wrote.

Brian Myrick of the Seattle Examiner said, "The idea that his [Savage's] views might pose a threat to the United Kingdom or its citizens as do other persons who made it on the list is preposterous. "If Britain is a teeming pool of volatile hate, only waiting for someone to walk along and toss a match, that is a societal problem for the British to tackle as a nation."

Note: Concerned individuals may contact Britain's Home Office Secretary Jacqui Smith by e-mail, call 011 44 20 7035 4848 or fax 011 44 20 7035 4745. (WND)

I wonder if there is really anything to this conspiracy of Illimunati?

Conspiracy

Fascinating. I will start to follow this YOUTUBE. The undercover video clearly shows Plan Parenthood clinics are providing abortions to underage girls, without (lawfully) informing the authorities on supposed adult partners. However, the organization will simply say it's due to the workers, not the organization itself.

In the day of transparency, why would one of America's leading soda company's refuse to have this type of resolution?

PepsiCo, is opposing a shareholder resolution that requires it provide more information concerning its charitable contributions. The resolution will be voted on at the shareholders meeting May 6. The resolution reads:

"Resolved: That the shareholders request the Company to provide a semiannual report...disclosing: the Company's standards for choosing which organizations receive the Company's assets in the form of charitable contributions; business rationale and purpose for each of the charitable contributions; personnel who participated in making the decisions to contribute; the benefits to the Company and beneficiaries produced by Company contributions; and a follow-up confirming that the organization actually used the contributions for the purpose stated."

Quick to take credit for the hostage rescue, but now we learn why it was dragged out over four days.


Source

1. BHO wouldn’t authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn’t do anything unless the hostage’s life was in “imminent” danger
3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction
4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.
5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams
6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies
7. BHO immediately claims credit for his “daring and decisive” behaviour. As usual with him, it’s BS.

Thanks to Stop the ACLU for sharing.

This movie looks interesting.




The film was created by a family on low budget. Home schoolers on top of it all.

I am disappointed in this flip/flop of a mentality.

California mega-church pastor and author of The Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren says he apologized to his homosexual friends for making comments in support of California's Proposition 8, and now claims he "never once even gave an endorsement" of the marriage amendment.

Monday night on CNN's Larry King Live, Pastor Rick Warren apologized for his support of Prop. 8, California's voter-approved marriage protection amendment, saying he has "never been and never will be" an "anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist."

"During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never -- never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop. 8 was going," Warren claimed.

However, just two weeks before the November 4 Prop. 8 vote, Pastor Warren issued a clear endorsement of the marriage amendment while speaking to church members. "We support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8," he said.

The following is a complete transcript of Warren's comments just weeks before the Prop. 8 election:

"The election's coming just in a couple of weeks, and I hope you're praying about your vote. One of the propositions, of course, that I want to mention is Proposition 8, which is the proposition that had to be instituted because the courts threw out the will of the people. And a court of four guys actually voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for 5,000 years.

"Now let me say this really clearly: we support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear.

"This is one thing, friends, that all politicians tend to agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain, I flat-out asked both of them: what is your definition of marriage? And they both said the same thing -- it is the traditional, historic, universal definition of marriage: one man and one woman, for life. And every culture for 5,000 years, and every religion for 5,000 years, has said the definition of marriage is between one man and a woman.

"Now here's an interesting thing. There are about two percent of Americans [who] are homosexual or gay/lesbian people. We should not let two percent of the population determine to change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.

"This is not even just a Christian issue -- it's a humanitarian and human issue that God created marriage for the purpose of family, love, and procreation.

"So I urge you to support Proposition 8, and pass that word on. I'm going to be sending out a note to pastors on what I believe about this. But everybody knows what I believe about it. They heard me at the Civil Forum when I asked both Obama and McCain on their views."

During his CNN interview on Monday, Warren expressed regret for backing Prop. 8. "There were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends -- the leaders that I knew -- and actually apologized to them. That never got out," he admitted.

Additionally, Pastor Warren said he did not want to comment on or criticize the Iowa Supreme Court's decision last week to legalize same-sex "marriage" because it was "not his agenda."

So he was for Prop 8 before, now since Iowa's court passed Gay Marriage, he is against Prop 8? Doesn't make sense. Either your for or against gay marriage.

Bryan Fischer with the Idaho Values Alliance says Warren is abdicating his biblical role as a pastor. "For Pastor Warren to say that shoring up marriage is not something that's on his agenda is just something that's hard to believe for somebody who believes the Bible is our rule for faith and practice," Fischer notes.

Dr. Jim Garlow, the senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in the San Diego suburb of La Mesa, helped spearhead the Prop. 8 effort in California. Garlow admits he is confused and troubled by Pastor Warren's decision to apologize for supporting Prop. 8.

"Historically when institutions and individuals back away from convictional biblical truth, it is driven primarily by one single factor -- and that is the respectability of other people. In other words, much more caring about what other people think about them than what God thinks about them," he concludes.

I agree with both guys on this one. Seems Warren is straddling the fence on this one, for some reason. This sending mix messages, only confuse the listener and devalues his support or non-support on items of interest.

Crazy end of last week and weekend of violence, as two gunmen fired upon people (separately and in total different locations).


3 officers shot in Stanton

A gunman wearing a bulletproof vest and "lying in wait" opened fire on officers responding to a domestic disturbance call Saturday, killing three of them and turning a quiet Pittsburgh street into a battlefield, police said.

Police Chief Nate Harper said the motive for the shooting isn't clear, but friends said the gunman recently had been upset about losing his job and feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.

This guy laid in wait with a bulletproof vest. When two cops answered, bang bang. Both where immediately shot in the head. Crazy. Now 3 of our policemen are dead, and this guy only has wounds to the legs. This supposed fear of the Obama Admin to take away his guns (IMHO), is bull.

Most likely now, the Obama Admin will use his actions as an excuse to restrict gun ownernship.

------

Next on the list this occured.

FOX news reports that an "Asian" male (not the UK Asian?), 20's, entered the building, a civic center, and started shooting. Number of dead is unknown, at least 4 shot, 41 people have been taken hostage. The American Civic Association "assists immigrants and refugees with immigration and personal counseling, resettlement, citizenship, family reunification, interpreters, and translators. Fosters cross cultural understanding for the entire community". A center dedicated to assimilation into America.

Story here
This guy thought ahead. He blocked the back door, came in the front blazing.

Five people with gunshot wounds were being treated at Wilson Medical Center in Johnson City, according to hospital spokeswoman Christina Boyd.

The wounded ranged in age from 20 to their mid-50s, and their conditions ranged from stable to critical, she said.

Sounds like this guy just went in, firing on any and everyone. He killed himself afterwards. We probably will never know the real reason (in his mind) on the 'WHY'.

Gee, I wonder if someone had the ability to have a concealed weapon in New York and in the building to assist, if there would had been less senseless deaths.

You gotta be kidding me. I guess it shouldn't come to any surprise.

April 1, 2009 – Harold Koh, the former dean of the Yale Law School has been picked by President Barack Hussein Obama to be the legal adviser to the Department of State. Koh will represent America at the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.

Koh is an outrageous transnationalist lawyer who believes that American law should be interpreted according to international “norms” instead of our U.S. Constitution.

In 2007, at a speech before the Yale Club in Greenwich, he claimed that he didn’t see why Shariah law couldn’t be applied to govern cases in the United States. Shariah law is a ruthless Islamic legal system that calls for stoning of women who are victims of rape; for cutting off heads and hands of adulterers; and death for anyone who leaves Islam for another religion.

As TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty has stated: “Shariah is counter-Constitutional, based on Islamic principles which favor Muslims over non-Muslims and men over women and children. Rights are dispensed unequally according to religion and gender.”

Koh also wants American law to be subjugated to international law and to the International Criminal Court. He suggests pushing a “transnational legal process” in the U.S. that will “generate legal interpretations that can in turn be internalized into the domestic law of even resistant nation-states.”

TVC warned about Koh back in November when he was being touted as a possible Supreme Court nominee. At that time, Lafferty described him as a “committed pro-abortionist who views the Constitution as an etch-a-sketch tablet. Koh thinks that the meaning of the Constitution is whatever a judge of U.N. resolution says it means.” Koh is clearly willing to give away our national sovereignty.

He wants “human rights advocates” to litigate in domestic courts as well as international courts to bring out rulings that will subvert American constitutional government.

Wow, you need to check this out.

This is a very interesting article. Long, but worth the read.

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily



U.S. Rep. Bill Posey

A new member of Congress arrived in Washington to a flood of questions from his constituency about Barack Obama's eligibility to be president: Was he really born in the United States, and was he qualified under the Constitution's requirement that the office be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen?

So U.S. Rep. Bill Posey did what most congressmen would do regarding a subject of grave concern to their voters: He proposed a bill that would require future presidential candidates to document their eligibility. And that has earned him scorn and ridicule.

"What you should do is stop embarrassing yourself and take the Reynolds Wrap off your head," MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann suggested to Posey.

U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, has gone so far as to suggest that Posey's judgment is skewed.


"It's one thing to try to be responsive to your constituents, no matter how marginal," Abercrombie told the St. Petersburg Times. "I understand that. But to take it to the point of putting it into a bill -- you open yourself up, then, to having your judgment questioned."

Abercrombie said legislation generally is to "address common issues or concerns."

"The citizenship of someone who has reached the point of running for president of the United States is not really an issue," Abercrombie said.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 340,000 others and sign up now!

Some of the legal challenges question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii, critics point out the documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

"Why'd I do this?" Posey wrote on his blog. "Well, for a number of reasons and the more and more I get called names by leftwing activists, partisan hacks and political operatives for doing it, the more and more I think I did the right thing."

He said, "I've been called some pretty nasty things. That's fine. But none of these tolerant people actually want to discuss the issue at hand … whether or not a presidential candidate should have to file these documents with the government.

"I could easily fill up a page listing all the activities an American needs to show their ID for … everything from playing youth soccer to getting a drivers license, buying cigarettes and alcohol, to opening bank accounts and even playing little league. So I was pretty surprised to find out that to run for president, despite the constitutional requirement and the media scrubbing that goes on, it's not required for a candidate to file these documents when they submit their statement of candidacy with the FEC," he said.

Posey comes from a background of reforming elections. In Florida after the 2000 recounts and lawsuits, he worked to offer solutions. So when he arrived in Washington, the questions raised by voters and his investigation of the constitutional demands led him to his suggestion.

"I thought I could offer a solution to this question on eligibility," he wrote. "There's nothing anyone can do about changing past elections… the president won. All the lawsuits in the world are not going to change that. But if what some folks are worried about – that presidential candidates don't have to submit to the same documentation that average folks have to submit to – well, then we can change that for the next election."

Posey cited an AOL poll that found three-quarters of Americans participating in the survey agreed.

"I'm willing to discuss this issue with anyone who wants to talk in a rational manner, but I WILL NOT engage in name calling, smear campaigns, or any other venomous activity," Posey wrote. "For one thing, it's childish. But on another level, we're supposed to be able to have a civil debate on the issues in this country."

Posey's spokesman, George Cecala, told WND the congressman has no plans to withdraw the proposal, even though it may not get a lot of support.

Abercrombie told the Times Posey's suggestion is " the kind of sick politics that permeates a certain portion of the electorate."

But Posey said he would have made the proposal even if a Republican had won the White House.

WND reported Posey's H.R. 1503, an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, would "require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of president to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

Hawaiian officials have confirmed they have a birth certificate on file for Obama, but it cannot be released without his permission, and they have not revealed the information it contains.

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.

Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."

Officials for the Obama campaign repeatedly have refused to comment on the questions, relenting only once to call the concerns "garbage."

Other members of Congress have been reading from what appears to be a prepared script in response to queries about Obama's eligibility:

Among the statements from members of Congress:


Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.: "Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate. You have to be born in America to be president." Shelby later backed off, saying he was confident Obama is a U.S. citizen.


Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: "Thank you for your recent e-mail. Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by Snopes.com, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors."


Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.: "Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party's nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama's birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president."


Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio: "President Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United States citizens. In addition, the Hawaii State Health Department recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate."


U.S. Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J.: "The claim that President Obama was born outside of the United States, thus rendering him ineligible for the presidency, is part of a larger number of pernicious and factually baseless claims that were circulated about then-Senator Obama during his presidential campaign. President Obama was born in Hawaii." The response provided no documentation.


U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla.: "The claim that Barack Obama is not a citizen of the U.S. is false. This rumor is simply election year politics." She referred questioners to Snopes for documentation.


U.S. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich.: He cited the U.S. Supreme Court's constitutional authority to rule on the dispute and the fact that the court refused to hear evidence in at least four cases brought before the justices. "Rest assured, however, I will well remember your concerns regarding this issue during the 111th Congress."


Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas: "As we enter the 111th Congress, our nation faces many challenges. We are in the midst of tough economic times, and the federal government must stand on the side of taxpayers and small businesses. Now more than ever, we need fiscal discipline in Washington. I welcome President-elect Obama's commitment to reform the federal budget process and rein in wasteful government spending, and I will hold the President-elect accountable as Congress works to quickly identify and eliminate inefficient, ineffective, and outdated federal programs." He didn't respond to the eligibility issue.


Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.: "The courts have held that President Obama is a natural-born American citizen. Moreover, in December 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit challenging Mr. Obama's eligibility to serve as president, concurring with three other federal courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Washington. The courts have confirmed the determination of state officials in Hawaii that health department records prove that Barack Obama was born a U.S. citizen in Honolulu."


Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.: "President Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961."


U.S. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla.: He noted the dispute is under court review. "I will carefully monitor the progress of this case. However, as a Representative in Congress, my opportunity to intervene in resolving this question is limited. As further court and judicial action is taken, please be assured I will continue to raise the questions and concerns we both share."


U.S. Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas: "Now that the election is over and the campaigns have ended, I think it is important that the politicians and the citizens of our nation put the fierce partisan rhetoric aside so that we can work together to come up with real solutions to our country's challenges."

Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa.: "I am confident that Mr. Obama meets all the constitutional requirements to be our 44th president. Mr. Obama has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his campaign website and submitted an additional copy to the independent website FactCheck.org. The birth certificate demonstrates that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961, thereby making him a natural-born citizen eligible to be president."


U.S. Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.: "As you know, some questions were raised about whether President Obama is a natural born citizen. There was a recent lawsuit arguing that he is not eligible for the Presidency for this reason. I understand that the Supreme Court considered hearing this lawsuit, but it ultimately turned down the request to have the case considered before the full court. I further understand that the director of Hawaii's Department of Health recently confirmed that President Obama was born in Honolulu and has personally verified that her agency has his original birth certificate on record. As you know, the U.S. Congress certified his election on January 8, and he was sworn into office on January 20, 2009. While I may disagree with President Obama on a multitude of issues, he has been elected as President of the United States through a fair process and has shown sufficient documentation, via a state birth certificate, that has been verified as being authentic. In short, therefore, I do not believe sufficient evidence was brought to light to conclude that President Obama was ineligible for the office."


U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H.: "President Obama publicly posted his birth certificate on his campaign website which confirms that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. This birth certificate confirms that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, above the age of 35, and is therefore qualified to be President of the United States of America. If you would like to view President Obama's birth certificate, I encourage you to go to the website http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate."


"Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, "The Constitution and federal law require that, among other things, only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both American citizens) may be President of the United States. In President Obama's case, some individuals have filed lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging that he has not proven that he is an American citizen, but each of those lawsuits have been dismissed. This includes a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court to not review an "application for emergency stay" filed by a New Jersey resident claiming that the President is not a natural born citizen because his father was born in Kenya. Furthermore, both the Director of Hawaii's Department of Health and the state's Registrar of Vital Statistics recently confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and, as such, meets the constitutional citizenship requirements for the presidency. If contrary documentation is produced and verified, this matter will necessarily be resolved by the judicial branch of our government under the Constitution."


"Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.: "On June 13, 2008, the Obama campaign released a copy of his birth certificate after numerous claims were made about his eligibility to hold the office of President. The released copy created additional questions, because it contained a blacked out department file number and was apparently missing a seal, and it was impossible to detect raised text, a common characteristic of official documents. There were satisfactory answers to such questions, however: the department file number had been blacked out to prevent hackers from breaking into the Health Department's system, and the State places the seal on the back of the certificate. The website Factcheck.org investigated the matter and provided high-resolution photos taken at multiple angles that revealed the raised text and the seal on the back of the document. ... Accordingly, it has been concluded that President Obama has met the constitutional qualifications to be President of the United States."


U.S. Rep Vic Snyder, D-Ark.: "According to State of Hawai'i officials, the Hawai'i State Department of Health has President-elect Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with that state's policies and procedures.
Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.


Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.


Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.


In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.


Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.


In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.


In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

I absolutely love this series.

Ever notice when you start that sought after movie, or think you acquire that time to do something special and behold something comes up. Distractions.

You plan an event, perhaps down to a T. Boom, something comes up. Distractions.

You try to read or watch that tv show that's been in the DVR for a week already. Someone calls to discuss frivoulous things. Distractions.

My dad always tells me, "Best laid plans of mice and men". I am sure he heard it somewhere as well. But it's true. No matter how much planning or thinking something might occur, Murphy's Law tends to intervene.

This holds true of the important things of life, as well as the small stuff.

Telling your wife you will do something, but things seems to intervene. This causes frustration on her part, and friction between the two. Distractions.

If a soldier is given a task to complete, will he be distracted on the battlefield? I guess it depends on the soldier and his/her dedication.

I think on these things randomly. I, personally, get distracted easy. Call it a short attention span. However, perhaps I can kill some of these distractions by restricting my viewing/activities.

Back in early 2008, I already posted my thoughts on the 2009 elections, calling Obama a socialist. This was before our downward spiral of the economy, stock market and massive spending bailouts.
Depressed yet?

This current President, I find, is the most deceitful one thus far. There's a difference of being mis-interpreted or mis-construed then a flat out lie.

American Thinker points out some of the most blatant lies presented by Obama, from the campaign trail.

Here's an interested vid on the subject.




The Coffee Shop also makes note of this.


Although the above seems to be a rant, I am merely pointing out what others are finally catching up with. Also, I wanted to point out the character of this person.

Now after Trillions of dollars thrown into United States, they are looking to thow more money globally, for the global market. Seriously?

Personally IMHO, the operation in hand is to create a global market utilizing one form of currency. You have to deconstruct the current United States system first (which he is doing well for his first 6 weeks of Presidency), then tell the flock, we need to all work together, IE Globally.

Bible readers shouldn't be surprised of this movement. Readers of Revelation have been waiting for it since 1948 (Israel's rebirth, Ezekiel 38:8). Revelation speaks of the end times where no-one can buy or sell without the mark. In order for this to occur, you need a means to keep track of all buying and selling, IE a Global currency.

Do I believe Obama is the Anti-Christ? No.

Do I believe he will push us further to the end of this age? Absolutely.

I'm getting to the point of thought, to have the ability of concealed weapon for all.

I understand to have spies for war. But within our own country against each other? Sigh. I guess this is part of the new administrations 'transparency' promise.

March 4, 2009 – After unprecedented access to Bush Administration documents, dirty trickster Shauna Daly has left the White House Counsel’s office to go to work for the Democratic National Committee.

Daly, 29, had no legal experience when hired to work for White House Counsel Greg Craig, but she had earned a reputation as a dirt-digger against Republican candidates. She formerly worked for the DNC as a dirty trickster.

According to Democrats, Daly’s short stay in the White House gave her unprecedented access to all sorts of documents from the Bush Administration – documents that can be used against Bush officials by Sen. Patrick Leahy and by Rep. John Conyers – who has long sought to impeach Bush and staffers over our nation’s war on Islamic terrorism.

The American Spectator reports that Daly had documents related to the firings of U.S. Attorneys, the use of the Patriot Act, FISA, and the Scooter Libby and Karl Rove investigations.

According to a DNC staffer: “She realized that she could do more with all the material she saw outside of the building than inside, where she'd be bound by the rules and legalities of the White House Counsel's Office. Now she isn't. She's good at what she does; her time at the White House means we've got a mother load of material that will have Republicans scrambling. At least that's what we hope.”

So, her sole purpose for being in the White House Counsel’s office was to do data mining for the DNC to use against Republicans and the Bush Administration in future Stalinist show trial hearings during the next four years. This is clearly an abuse of this office.

Daly should be investigated to find out what she took from the White House Counsel’s office and if she violated any federal laws on the handling of government documents. She should be forced to testify under oath about her activities.

This is an outrageous abuse of power and Republicans should raise a major stink over this. Of course, what kind of justice can we expect with Obamunist Eric Holder as U.S. Attorney General.

Obama has just released numerous Bush Administration documents that will be used by Sen. Patrick Leahy and Rep. John Conyers to pursue the prosecution of Bush officials over alleged war crimes!

Additional articles on this subject.

Outside the Beltway

I absolutely love this song and meaning. The little choices we make each day leading us on a particular path.

A warning on these videos. Don't play them if your easily offended.
We know Obama said himself, he smoked pot and done cocaine. Now we learn he may be bi-sexual?

We're not officially a communist country yet,but this is a bit much already.

The Oklahoma City Police Department admits one of its officers made a mistake in pulling over a man last week for carrying an anti-President Obama sign in his car.

According to The Oklahoman newspaper, an officer pulled over Chip Harrison last week because he had in his car a sign that said, "Abort Obama, not the unborn."

The officer confiscated the sign and handed Harrison a slip telling him he was under investigation, even though Harrison argued that the sign only meant he wanted Obama removed from office.

The officer thought Harrison was threatening to kill the president, according to the article. But the department later explained that the officer misinterpreted the sign.

That didn't stop Harrison from getting a visit from the Secret Service. They interviewed him at his house and determined he was not a threat to the president, according to the report.

Click on the picture to enlarge it enough to read the sign.

The mother of a 12-year-old girl whose pro-life speech has become a hit YouTube video says her daughter's passion for the unborn is genuine.



Lia is a preteen from Canada who decided to speak out against abortion in her school's speech contest, despite teachers and school officials who encouraged her to pick a different topic.

"What if I told you that right now someone was choosing if you were going to live or die? What if I told you that this choice wasn't based on what you could or couldn't do, what you had done in the past, or what you would do in the future? And what if I told you [that] you could nothing about it? Fellow students and teachers, thousands of children are right now in that very situation," she says in her speech.

Kimberly, Lia's mother, says Lia was told by school officials that if she chose the topic of abortion, she would not be allowed to participate in the speech contest. But both were surprised when Lia's pro-choice teacher had a change of heart.

"Her teacher was really impressed by this speech and perhaps moved by it, and therefore her teacher kind of was a real supporter of [Lia] winning for the class," Kimberly notes. "And she had to go through a couple of hoops and get clearance from a couple of other teachers before she could be declared winner of the class."

Another controversy erupted when the panel of judges had a supposed big disagreement and one stepped down. Initially Lia was disqualified, but later the panel declared her the winner. She was asked to take out this portion of her speech: "[F]etuses are definitely humans knit together in their mother's womb by their wonderful Creator who knows them all by name."

Kimberly says after Lia was told to remove that portion of her speech, she took time to think about her decision and ultimately decided to leave it in. Lia also competed in a regional speech competition but did not win. However, her speech has been viewed by over 200,000 people on YouTube.

Here is the video embedded below.

As you 3-5 viewers might have guessed now, my job has me in front of a PC all day. I guess you can call it a desk job. If I am not in a conference call, viewing a webex, or simply working on projects, I monitor interfaces. Many times, all at the same time. Irregardless, I am in front of my PC all day long.

Last Christmas,I was given a pedometer. Out of curiosity, I wondered how many steps I really took each day.

Before I show my number of steps, check this out.

How many steps per day are enough? Dr. Catrine Tudor-Locke has been studying pedometer walking and released a new opinion in the January, 2004 issue of "Sports Medicine."

10,000 Steps a Magic Number?

A goal of 10,000 steps per day has become common, based on promotion in Japan by pedometer companies and its adoption by walking clubs. But there was no body of research to back up that number. Numbers as low as 6000 steps a day were shown to be correlated with a lower death rate in men in the Harvard Study.

Many people view 10,000 steps a day as too few for children, yet not achievable by many who are aged, sedentary, or who have chronic diseases. Some suggest instead of using a blanket 10,000 steps per day that instead the goal be based on the individual's baseline plus an increment of steps. For example, a woman who wears a pedometer in her ordinary activities notes that she logs 4000 steps per day. Her goal should be to add the equivalent of a half hour of walking to her day, for example 2000-3000 more steps per day.

They say average number of steps is 3000 per day.

So here are my steps. I noticed the higher ones are those days, I had extra activities (errands) in the evenings. I didn't "try" to walk any more. I just did my normal routine.

Mon- 3391
Tue- 2360
Wed- 2124
Thur- 773
Fri- 147
Sat- 5351
Sun- 6540

Total all week, 20686.

So, if I took the 10,000 rule, only 2 days of walking done in a full week.
Wow.

My wife informed me, I am posting too much boring political stuff. So here is a bit of an personal update.

Our Sunday School class took on the 'Love Dare' challenge between spouses. I totally loved the move FIREPROOF and thought this was actually a good idea.

I knew it would be difficult, but after day 5 it's a bit harder than I even knew it would be. The Love Dare puts a light (sometimes an uncomfortable one) on your own flaws. As I read this daily, aspects really stand out and personally hits me.

Here are some random snippets that stood out to me.

Day 1 "Love is built on two pillars that best define what it is. Those pillars are patience and kindness."

Day 2 "A kind husband ends thousands of potential arguments by his willingness to listen first rather than demand his way."

Day 3 "Why do we have such low standards for ourselves but high expectations for our mate? The answer is a painful pill to swallow. We are selfish."

Day 4 "Men for example, tend to think in headlines adn say exactly what they mean. Not much is needed to understand the message. His words are more literal and shouldn't be over analyzed. But women think and speak between the lines. They tend to hint. A man often has to listen for what is implied if he wants to get the full meaning."

Day 5 "There are two main reasons why people are rude: ignorance and selfishness.

So I am up to day 5 today and have already learned alot. Even though I have only begun reading this, I do recommened it to all couples, especially those married.

You can check out Fire Proof my Marriage for additional information.

There is also a free online 40 day Love Dare for those wishing to take the dare!

Have we finally entered the Twilight Zone? Yesterday I heard the prior Soviet Union leader told USA new Administration, 'what your attempting does not work' (paraphrase). This modified communist approach is the same reason the Soviet Union failed.

This new United States administration is making radical changes. So much so, the freaking stock market/dow is dropping faster than the biggest loser weight.

Check out the new press release yesterday(below).

"One idea Waxman's committee staff is looking at is a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations to have in place 'advisory boards' that would act as watchdogs to ensure 'community needs and opinions' are given fair treatment. ... Waxman and the FCC staff are also said to be looking at ways to ease the 'consumer complaint' process, which could also be used along with the advisory boards."

-The American Spectator

Just in case you were thinking that attempts by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi to institute the so-called Fairness Doctrine were simply about shutting-down Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk-radio... THINK AGAIN.

It's actually much worse than we initially thought!

Now, according to the above report by The American Spectator, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, under the leadership of far-left Congressman Henry Waxman is talking about Congressional mandated advisory boards of community watchdogs for conservative talk-radio!

Sound familiar?

It should. The Soviet Union used to call them commissars... political officers... politruk!

To put it another way, can you actually envision ACORN-like "advisory boards" acting as "community watchdogs" over Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham... telling them, through the station owners that carry their shows, what they can or cannot say?

And just in case you're thinking that such a scenario sounds a little far-fetched, remember that our present economic crisis can be directly traced back to liberals in Congress giving the green light to so-called community-based organizations like ACORN - that utilized draconian and potentially fraudulent strong-arm tactics - to force banks into giving out tons of bad loans!

And for those of us with short memories, let us not forget that liberals tried to pull Rush from Armed Forces Radio two years ago.

Now with Obama in the White House, why stop with Armed Forces Radio? The sky is the limit!

Does that upset you?

If so, TOUGH!

To quote The American Spectator again:

"Waxman and the FCC staff are also said to be looking at ways to ease the 'consumer complaint' process, which could also be used along with the advisory boards."

So if you don't like the new regime of talk-radio... SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!

Has anyone else heard this one?

1/6/2009--Introduced. Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.

Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.

Prohibits:
1. Transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions;
2. Licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act;
3. Failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours;
4. Failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days;
5. Keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act. Directs the Attorney General to:
1. Establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse;
2. Conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and
3. Collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer. Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.

Like all other threats against our freedoms, we must rise and defeat this bill, slap it down hard.

From:
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

12500 NE Tenth Place
Dept Code 2110
Bellevue, Washington 98004

Is California really becoming the un-hinged?

An Oakland, California, pastor could face jail time for expressing his pro-life views.



Pastor Walter Hoye ran into trouble with an abortion clinic while doing an informational picket. Dennis Howard, leader of The Movement for a Better America, believes Hoye is innocent.

"His approach was simply to carry a sign that said 'Jesus Loves You. Can We Help?' and offering those who wanted it some information about alternatives to abortion," Howard explains.

A complaint was filed and Hoye was found guilty in spite of proof to the contrary. "There was a video taken of him doing this, and it shows that he was not harassing anybody," Howard points out. "In fact, he was being harassed by escorts from the abortion clinic."

Pastor Hoye faces up to two years in jail and a $4,000 fine. Howard is calling Christians into action. "We feel that pro-life organizations around the country ought to take up this man's cause and pray and fast between now and February 19," he concludes.

That is when Hoye is due to be sentenced.

The American Family Association (AFA), a pro-family group based in Mississippi, has encountered resistance in its attempts to air a television special called Speechless: Silencing the Christians.


According to the website SilencingChristians.com, the majority of Americans get their information about the homosexual movement from Hollywood and the secular news media -- outlets that deliver what AFA says is a message "tainted by pro-homosexual propaganda." That is why the pro-family group produced the 14-episode Speechless series that initially aired on the INSP Network, and then put together a one-hour special based on the series.

AFA is now buying prime-time slots on the nation's television stations to present that special to provide factual, Christian-based information on the topic. But the pro-family group reports it has run up against blatant "silencing" of that message. "There's a real threat to our First Amendment and free-speech rights because Christians are being shut down and shut out and shut up by the very people who say they champion freedom of speech," asserts AFA president Tim Wildmon.

For example, WSXY in Columbus, Ohio, has refused the air the program. WSPA in Greenville, South Carolina, aired it, but then ran an apology from the station manager. And in Grand Rapids, Michigan, WOOD-TV agreed initially to air the show Monday evening, then bumped it to Wednesday, then proposed to run it on Saturday afternoon -- and now has cancelled it entirely.

WOOD-TV general manager Diane Kniowski told The Grand Rapids Press that the station made a "fair offer" to AFA, but received no response regarding the Saturday airing.

"Our station is being bombarded with calls and messages, and we find ourselves in the middle of someone else's fight," Kniowski stated. "Ours was a fair offer and we are removing ourselves from this matter."


Wildmon sees outright irony in what is happening. "It's ironic that the very issue we're bringing up -- that Christians are being rendered speechless when they talk about this issue -- is actually happening to us when it comes to the program itself," he observes.

Why are stations responding that way? According to Wildmon, they are reacting to complaints from homosexual activists about airing Speechless. "[The stations are] just giving us the runaround," he says. "They've heard from a few of the homosexual, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered supporters out there -- and so they haven't heard massively from our folks yet."

But the AFA president predicts they will. He argues that the TV special simply tells the truth -- and he urges people to visit SilencingChristians.com, where segments of the show can be viewed. Wildmon also encourages people in cities where the show is scheduled to contact their local TV station and voice their support for airing it.

You can quickly go to the TV schedule here.

Interesting. I would think they could at least narrow down subjects due to their geographical activity.

Cybercriminals Try Phishing With Fliers
By Thomas Claburn
Read the Original Article at InformationWeek

The link advertised leads to malicious hacking script that attempts to establish a connection to a Web site that Symantec said has been associated with malware.
As part of their ongoing effort to convince people to visit malicious Web sites, cybercriminals are experimenting with a new medium: phony advertisement fliers.

In a post on the SANS Internet Storm Center blog, security consultant Lenny Zeltser describes a scheme to drive traffic to a malicious Web site using pamphlets left on cars.

A few days ago, yellow fliers appeared on cars in Grand Forks, N.D., Zeltser reports. They purported to be parking violation notices and advised recipients to go to a specific Web site "to view pictures with information about your parking preferences." (If you've never heard of parking preferences, you're not alone.)

At the specified Web site, visitors found snapshots of cars at area parking lots, along with the instructions, "To view pictures of your vehicle from Grand Forks, North Dakota download here," followed by a link to a file called PictureSearchToolbar.exe.

Once installed, that program downloaded a malicious DLL and attempted to establish a connection to a Web site that Symantec said has been associated with malware.

"The initial program installed itself as a browser helper object for Internet Explorer that downloaded a component from childhe.com and attempted to trick the victim into installing a fake anti-virus scanner from bestantispyware securityscan.com and protectionsoft warecheck.com," Zeltser explains in his post. "Attackers continue to come up with creative ways of tricking potential victims into installing malicious software. Merging physical and virtual worlds via objects that point to Web sites is one way to do this. I imagine we'll be seeing such approaches more often."

Don't worry too much, though. The sentence construction in the fake Windows security alert rather ruins the scam. The alert reads like a transcription of the Russian-inflected English uttered by Chekov on the original Star Trek series: "Your system requires immediate anti viruses check!"

An interesting article on the fallacy of RFID security for our passports, and building access. Rather than the RFID company suing Chris, they should hire him as a consultant to beef up their holes in security.

But that would make too much sense.

Hacker clones passports in drive-by RFID heist

White hat demonstrates security vulnerabilities in radio technology

A British hacker has shown how easy it is to clone US passport cards that use Radio Frequency ID chips by conducting a drive-by test on the streets of San Francisco.

Chris Paget, director of research and development at Seattle-based IOActive, used a $250 Motorola RFID reader and an antenna mounted in a car's side window and drove for 20 minutes around San Francisco, with a colleague videoing the demonstration.

Paget picked up the details of two US passport cards, which are fitted with RFID chips and can be used instead of traditional passports for travel to Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.

"I believe that RFID is very unsuitable for tagging people," he said. "I do not believe we should have any kind of identity document with RFID tags in them. My ultimate goal would be to see the entire Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative scrapped."

Paget claimed that it would be relatively simple to make cloned passport cards from the information he had gathered.

Genuine passport cards support a 'kill code' which can wipe the card's data, and a 'lock code' that prevents the tag's data being changed. But Paget believes that these protections are not being used and that, even if they were, the radio interrogation is done in plain text so is relatively easy for a hacker to collect and analyse.

The ease with which the passport cards were picked up is even more worrying considering that fewer than a million have been issued to date.

Paget is a renowned 'white hat' ethical hacker, and has made the study of the security failings of RFID something of a speciality.

In 2007 he was due to present a paper on the subject at the Black Hat security conference in Washington, but was forced to abandon the plans after an RFID company threatened him with legal action.

Paget points out that RFID tags are increasingly being used in physical security systems such as building access cards, and that the technology needs significant extra security before it can be considered safe for commercial use.