Socialism, Not Racism - Obama Abandons Founding Fathers Dream - Global Warming Lies Exposed With Greater Frequency - Insane Sunstein Offers Radical New Interpretation Of Constitution - Atomic Bombshell Iran Has Secret Nuclear Plant - The Rush To Pass Obama's Death Care Bill


What People Are Commenting

Tradition In Action



Socialism, Not Racism?


WhatPeopleAreSaying02_Cir_sm.jpg - 24011 Bytes



The crescendo of opposition against Mr. Obama has nothing to do with race. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that he was weaned on Marxist Socialism. He learned his lessons well, as evinced by his policies resulting in a litany of the most heinous legislation ever to come before a Congress. Such legislation is expressly designed to destroy America from within, turning it into a Communist state with Mr. Obama as dictator-in-chief over the rest of us, who will be controlled by a central government - to heck with the Constitution.

That is why Comrade Obama is being opposed.

We are talking about a man who shamelessly promotes the entirety of a culture-of-death and is opposed to the common good. A diabolic evil that has the country by the jugular, so extreme that he sees nothing wrong with killing babies inside their mothers' wombs or even outside of them!

We are talking about a man who is surrounded by the thick smoke of the accusation that he was never qualified to run for President in the first place. Given the army of lawyers that he has employed, Americans will never know the truth.

We are fighting WWIII. The frontlines are in our hometowns! We are all combatants in this most critical period of all of American history. Will God bless us or we deserve the damnation of the devil and his angels? The choice is ours! We must speak up now, or we will never have a chance to speak up again as the America of our founding fathers will no longer exist, due to the unchecked evil of Mr. Obama overcoming the country and, eventually, the world!

We vehemently, with every fiber of our being, oppose Mr. Obama because he is a Communist who is turning the American dream into an American nightmare by rendering the country unfit for our children, grandchildren, and future generations of Americans to live in. A country where authentic freedom to do what you ought is replaced by mandated orders to do what Mr. Obama wants under force of law!

We are not obliged to follow Obama to hell! Understand that all those who preposterously accuse us of racism for believing that God's Law takes priority over man's are wrong. We are not going to violate the First Commandment. We care about our eternity and realize we have the obligation to promote the common good, which leads ultimately to a supernatural good in a Kingdom not of this world as opposed to an earthly utopia which has been a lie since The Fall in Eden!

And with the help of God, we will prevail!

     Gary L. Morella







The Democratic Party's
dream of dictatorship

John F. Gaski asserts health-care issue is just subterfuge on way to real objective
--Investor's Business Daily

Health Reform Is Just Subterfuge; Dream Is Democratic Dictatorship


Posted 09/22/2009 05:55 PM ET


By now the realization should be taking hold that the Democrats' health care plan has been exposed as a hoax. And it was the Democrats themselves who discredited and exposed it, but in a very ironic way. Of course, you won't hear this bombshell news reported by Democrat partisans Katie Couric, Charles Gibson and Brian Williams.

As for the substance, remember the Democrats' original rationale for their national health care takeover scheme? They wanted all uninsured Americans to be covered, right? Remember?
But now they concede that their mega-upheaval of a plan would still leave about 15 million without medical insurance. Yet they still advocate the plan! Why?

First, a digression: Don't believe that "47 million uninsured" number. That canard is beyond a hoax. It is a fraud and a lie.

For example, it includes at least 10 million illegal aliens (yes, that is the right term for those who enter our country by violating American law) and an additional five million or so legal foreign residents. Those categories are not "uninsured Americans" because they are not Americans.

The notorious 47 million also includes millions of wealthy people who do not purchase medical insurance — rendering themselves self-insured, not uninsured.

The biggest deceptions of all may be counting a large cohort of the young and vigorous who make the rational cost/benefit decision not to buy medical insurance yet, and several million others who qualify for free insurance and just don't bother to sign up!

Bottom line, subtract out the un-uninsured and other inapplicable categories and the true number of Americans without health insurance is somewhere around 7 million, maybe 10 million conservatively (compared with 15 million after Democrat "reform"?). Google the issue for about 10 minutes to verify.

Another way the Democrats inadvertently reveal their own national health insurance dishonesty is through infidelity to a second objective — cost control.

Remember that one? They are hoping you don't, especially since the Congressional Budget Office has reported that the Obama-Democrat scheme would add $1 trillion to the national health tab over the next decade. Yet the Dems still want their plan.   Why?

Why, indeed? It must be something else, therefore. If their own action undermines their stated aims, and still they desperately favor the action, then the Democrats' real purpose must be something different, something they will not reveal. But what? Simple:

Have you noticed how the Washington Democrats like to take control of things, particularly big things in the economy such as the major banks and the auto industry, as well as health care?

(Obama has realized he doesn't have to literally own the banks to control them. He can, instead, achieve control through bank dependence on TARP money and through his own coercion and intimidation. Step out of line, that is, and a bank will be publicly vilified by Barney Frank and other operatives, and maybe even have its executives prosecuted.)

When American business, American jobs and the American people become totally dependent on Obama and the Democrats for money and credit, including student loans for good measure, how much power will that give the Obama Democrats over our country?

The portrait coming into focus is one of either totalitarian socialism or an unholy socialist hybrid with fascism. And when you are dependent on the decision of a Democrat bureaucrat for crucial medical treatment, how much power does that give the Democrats over you?

(Do you suppose party registration or political contributions might enter the bureaucrats' calculus? Recall how, in the GM reorganization, the Dems axed profitable dealers who were known to be Republican.)

When the Democrats achieve literal death-grip power over the lives of all our people, that is when they also achieve their long-cherished dream of absolute power and a Democrat dictatorship.

Dictatorship in a virtual one-party state is the correct forecast because our present rulers can never be voted out of national power after they grant amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens, who would promptly be registered as mostly Democrat voters by Acorn!

Now do you see what the real scheme is? Now does it all make sense? This is not your father's Democrat party. This is also not about health care, ultimately. It's about raw political power and the long-promised socialist takeover of the United States.

No public option, they now suggest? Don't believe it. They'll create a public option, soon to become the only option, by stealth — a kind of Fannie-Freddie co-op, because government control,
in this case medical dictatorship, is an article of theology for the lib Dems.

We do not have a health care crisis in this country — because everyone already gets health care. It is just that some rely on the emergency room as their private medical services provider, so the system is inefficient and definitely too expensive overall.

We do have a health insurance problem , and a health care cost crisis, but not a national health care crisis. And both real problems are readily manageable if the Dems would only allow it.

We need to permit and foster interstate insurance competition, medical savings accounts and tort reform to help reduce costs, and tax credits for health insurance purchase to expand coverage — from about 98% of the population, in reality, to closer to 100%. Those numbers also help punctuate, and puncture, the true nature of the liberal Democrats' health hoax.

Incidentally, or not, despite the Democrats' fumbling of this whole issue, the Republicans are succumbing to their opponents' red herring, straw man, jiu-jitsu diversionary misdirection on the "death panels" matter. It is not those prospective end-of-life counseling "services" that are the real death panels, although that is a fair term for them.

The real Democrat death panels would be the thousands of politically appointed bureaucrats wielding life-and-death power over our citizenry through their decisions concerning whether to bestow or withhold lifesaving treatment.

This is it, America. This isn't really about a health policy issue; it is about the survival, or takeover, of our nation. If the Dems succeed in cramming their bitter medicine, actually poison, down your throat, the country is finished. It is the town hall protestors who seem to sense this most clearly. I hope the preceding diagnosis and prognosis help, too.





Obama's competing Waterloos
David Limbaugh sees prez's foreign-policy moves as damaging to him as health care

David LimbaughDavid Limbaugh

Obama's competing Waterloos

Posted: September 25, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 


Sen. Jim DeMint predicted that Obamacare would be President Barack Obama's Waterloo. While that's certainly a strong possibility, Obama has other Waterloos in the wings competing for the prize, such as his monstrous deficits and his disastrous foreign policy.

The Heritage Foundation reports that Obama's budget would produce $13 trillion in deficits over the next decade, even more than the outrageous $9 trillion previously projected. This is nation-shattering stuff, folks, and Obama and his minions remain unflappable, intent on staying the bankrupting course, sporting Alfred E. Neuman, "What, me worry?" expressions. The fact that we know they can't be that oblivious is what makes us wonder whether something more sinister lurks in their motives.

But Obama's foreign policy is shaping up to be every bit as dangerous. Because he has lived in a relatively cloistered political world – surrounded and shielded by mostly fellow leftist radicals – he apparently doesn't realize just how repugnant his appeasement policies and mantra-like derision of this nation are to most Americans.

When I first heard that he was Mirandizing al-Qaida on the battlefield, I thought it was political satire. But it wasn't, any more than his scrapping of long-range missile defense or his apparent plan to unilaterally disarm us of our nuclear weapons.

Then there's Afghanistan, which Obama and his fellow Bush-hating Democratic machine exploited merely to bludgeon Bush on his Iraq policy. It was transparently obvious that this appeasement bunch wasn't serious when they said they wanted to ramp up our efforts in Afghanistan and evacuate Iraq because the former was supposedly part of the war on terror and the latter was not. The political strategy was simple: Let's vent our anti-war spleen on Iraq under cover of beating the war drums on Afghanistan.

Once elected, though, Obama had to fish or cut bait on Afghanistan. For a while, it looked as if he was going to fish, but recent events have vindicated my earlier suspicions about his and the liberal establishment's commitment to that war. Even though he is being urged by top brass to send 40,000 more troops – without which we may lose that war – he is vacillating, seeking the counsel of Ivy League doubters who'll tickle his liberal ears and justify a policy reversal. No matter which way he goes, it's plain to see now that his Afghanistan campaign rhetoric was mostly a lot of empty, opportunistic talk.

But we now know that one line of criticism Obama and his fellow "one-worlders" constantly leveled against President Bush truly was heartfelt – as unjustified as it was: Bush alienated the world with his "unilateralist, go-it-alone" approach. Obama clearly wasn't just spewing that bilge as a political weapon. He believes it, as evidenced by his reprehensible ongoing world apology tour and, most recently, his already infamous speech to the United Nations General Assembly.


If you had any doubt before, you cannot reasonably have it now: Obama believes America has been a very bad actor on the world stage and has much to atone for. Conversely, he sees little good in the unprecedented benevolence of this super-empire over the years. And some of you wonder why we think he's got a chip on his shoulder against the country he leads?

Within the first minute of his talk, he noted approvingly that when he took office, much of the world viewed America "with skepticism and distrust." While he implied some of this perception was unjustified, he said straightaway, "America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism." Oh, man.

He proceeded to tell those present, a good chunk of whom hail from thugocracies, that we share common interests. Well, speak for yourself, Mr. President.

Then he bragged that he had prohibited our use of torture and ordered Gitmo closed – thereby conceding to the world the disputed and, I believe, absurd proposition that we had indeed systematically tortured and abused enemy prisoners. Next, he boasted that he had begun to withdraw troops from Iraq, thus sending the unmistakable signal that we were wrong to have attacked Iraq in the first place. Again, speak for yourself, Mr. President.

Equally troubling is his intention to disarm the United States of its nuclear weapons in a time when rogue nations are irreversibly committed to acquiring them. He has to know his pledge is either a pipe dream or a prescription for America's national suicide.

Obama also spanked America for dragging its feet on environmental issues and promised that under his enlightened leadership, those days are over.

One thing is clear to me: Obama either has no clue how out of touch he is with mainstream America or simply doesn't care. But the more he opens his mouth on foreign policy issues the less secure Obamacare will be in the race among his various destructive agenda items to destroy his popularity and his presidency.




Obama abandons Founding Fathers' dream
Exclusive: Alan Keyes says U.N. speech proves president doesn't understand true liberty


Alan KeyesAlan Keyes

Obama abandons Founding Fathers' dream

Posted: September 25, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.'"

– (Mark 7:6)
But know this, that in the last days grievous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of self … holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof.
– (Timothy 3:1, 5)

Day by day the American people are learning from their experience of him that we cannot judge Obama by his words. Much of what he says is semi-fictional, like the book that purports to be his autobiography ("Dreams From My Father"). As I read the text of the speech he gave to the U.N. General Assembly this week, it occurred to me that it deserved a similar title, and a similar description of its content. The speech included the rhetorical equivalent of his deep bow to the Saudi monarch. Only this bow signaled subservience to the majority of U.N. member governments – a gaggle of socialist democracies, totalitarian tyrannies, dictatorships and absolute monarchies.


In a litany more appropriate to a prime minister of this illiberal majority than to any (even alleged) president of the United States, he dutifully reported on the long list of capitulations and betrayals of U.S. friends and interests that no have no doubt produced Libyan dictator Gadhafi's satisfied verdict: "We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as a president of the United States of America." Gadhafi knows that, if Obama's self-conscious destruction of U.S. military, economic and moral assets continues unchecked, the USA won't last much longer, at least not as the troublesome champion of human liberty that has caused his ilk so much heartburn.

In the key respect, the speech accurately mirrored the hollowing out of America the Obama faction is implementing at breakneck speed. The outward form of America's identity is being maintained, while its substance is being systematically demolished.

I was, of course, especially interested in the parts of the speech that purported to reflect America's respect for the principles of liberty:


… [W]e must champion those principles which ensure that governments reflect the will of the people. These principles cannot be afterthoughts – democracy and human rights are essential to achieving each of the goals that I've discussed today, because governments of the people and by the people are more likely to act in the broader interests of their own people, rather than narrow interests of those in power. The test of our leadership will not be measured by the ability to muzzle dissent, or to intimidate and harass political opponents at home. The people of the world want change. They will no longer tolerate those who are on the wrong side of history.


Who could miss the echo of Lincoln's famous description of republican government "of, by and for the people"? Of course Lincoln offered that formulation in the context of alluding to its basic premise, that we are "created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights." However, Obama offers it in a very different context, that of the judgment of history. Since history is made by human beings, its judgments reflect whatever happens in human affairs, not what should happen. Lincoln's premise refers instead to the standard in light of which history is to be judged, a standard based not on the outcomes human beings produce, but on the just will and intention that produced and takes account of human beings. This makes it possible for people who end up on the wrong side of history to battle on nonetheless, if the higher standard of justice implanted by God in the human heart and conscience assures them that they exercise a right that transcends history and the judgment of merely human powers.

Exploiting as he often does the false perception that he comes from and is especially familiar with the perspective of the black American struggle against injustice, Obama notes his "belief that no matter how dark the day may seem, transformative change can be forged by those who choose to side with justice." He purports to "pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights – for the student who seeks to learn; the voter who demands to be heard; the innocent who longs to be free; the oppressed who yearns to be equal." But those who truly understand the transcendent source of the human claim to dignity and rights cannot but note that his words ring hollow. They ask themselves "What of those who cannot stand, or seek – the ones thrust out by lies, or ignorance or self-serving power, who suffer beyond longing or yearning or any human confirmation of their dignity? What of the voiceless ones, whom God intends for speech; the helpless one who by the nature He nonetheless destined for helping and hope and joy?"

Obama's lips say, "There are basic principles that are universal." But his actions and policies thrust from the universe helpless children in the womb and helpless victims like Terri Schiavo. His lips say, "There are certain self-evident truths," but instead of life and liberty, he finally offers unwavering support only for the "right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny," which means in fact to accept whatever destiny they can perceive as their own, within the limits fabricated by the manipulators of historical perception, with no regard for the better destiny to which "nature and nature's God" entitle them.

In a world where scientific advances every day confirm the emerging possibility of techniques that will allow the abusive manipulation even of human perception and consciousness, the denial of a standard for justice beyond what people can, at any given moment, determine for themselves leaves open the door to abuses of the human person more thorough and unscrupulous than history has ever known before. Slyly, with a careful eye upon the outward trappings of self-evident truth, Obama and those who ultimately help to craft his rhetoric (as Bill Ayers apparently helped to craft his semi-fictional autobiography) wean humanity from its hard won acknowledgment of the substantive authority for truth that arms conscience against the depredations of those who make the claims of knowledge (scientific and otherwise) the basis for a claim to unlimited power. Their excuse for the power grab is the good of mankind, but why should we believe their motive is any different than it has ever been for those with such ambitions – the arrogant self-worship that prides itself upon making the promise of good a successful mask for evil.

Introducing: Global governance
Exclusive: Henry Lamb explains how Obama gave away U.S. sovereignty at U.N.



Introducing: Global governance

Posted: September 25, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

If there were ever a question about Barack Obama's dedication to the concept of global governance, it has now been answered fully. His track record to date points toward his commitment to global governance; his speech to the United Nations removes all doubt.

In order to fully appreciate the effectiveness of Obama's pursuit, it is necessary to have an accurate picture of what global governance really is. The picture of global governance has been deliberately camouflaged by images of black helicopters and imagined blue-helmeted U.N. forces invading nations to enforce its mandates. This is the picture of global governance that its proponents want people to see so they will not see the real events that are constructing the actual global governance.

Global governance is a new procedure for creating and administering laws that govern all nations.


The United Nations consists of a General Assembly, the Security Council and more than 1,300 different agencies, councils and commissions. Each of these governmental bodies is staffed by individuals who perform administrative duties dictated by the administrative hierarchy. In theory, the policies that guide the administrative hierarchy are established by the delegates from the U.N.'s 192 member nations. Keep in mind that these delegates are appointed officials of their governments.

These delegates meet in luxurious facilities and mouth platitudes and indictments, and, more often than not, eventually approve whatever agenda the administrative staff has laid before them. This is most accurately described as the "Administrator" form of government. To be absolutely clear: Global governance is a system of rules and regulations, created by an administrative hierarchy, that dictate how individuals and organizations must behave. Each nation becomes an administrative unit responsible for implementation of U.N. rules and regulations.

This is the form of global governance first envisioned by Woodrow Wilson's alter-ego, Col. Mandell House, who shared his vision with the world in his book titled "Philip Dru: Administrator." Wilson's League of Nations was designed to bring global governance to the world, but the United States balked and rejected a global administrator.

Franklin Roosevelt, who served in Wilson's administration, surrounded himself with others from the Wilson years and began implementing an "Administrator" system of governance in the United States. With the help of a Democratic majority, Roosevelt pushed through Congress a laundry list of legislation that allowed the president, or administrator, if you will, to undertake many programs for which there is no constitutional authority. Eventually, the Supreme Court tightened the reins and slowed the transformation of U.S. Government – but not before Roosevelt reconstructed the League of Nations using a new name: the United Nations.

It is significant that Obama quoted Roosevelt in his speech to the U.N.: "We have learned to be citizens of the world," said Roosevelt. It is significant that Obama, campaigning in Berlin, told his audience: "I come to you as a citizen of the world." Since assuming office as president, he has acted like Philip Dru's administrator, campaigning for the position of administrator of the world.

Obama's actions in office are similar to Roosevelt's actions in office, except Obama appears to be on steroids. While relying on his teleprompter to mouth platitudes and indictments, Obama has ignored all constitutional constraints and surrounded himself with people who reek with Marxist ideology. With the help of a Democratic majority, he is pushing through Congress a laundry list of programs that will essentially change the American system of government – just as he promised in his campaign.

Now he has told the world that America has not only "re-engaged" the United Nations, but that America is adopting policies that accept and embrace the global governance pursued by Mandell House, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. While still a senator, Obama introduced legislation to comply with the U.N. request to increase America's contribution to international aid to 0.7 percent of GDP – to nearly $845 billion per year.

In his speech to the U.N., Obama promised the world that America will reduce its defense capability, effectively leaving U.S security in the hands of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He is apparently content to leave the bad behavior of rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea to whatever "consequences" the U.N. may choose to administer.

To achieve "peace and security" in the world, Obama threw Israel under the proverbial bus, demanding that Israel stop construction of their settlements, return to pre-1967 boundaries and provide "contiguous" territory for a Palestinian state. He forgets that Israel was quite happy with the pre-1967 borders until its neighbors invaded, a second time, in an all-out effort to push Israel into the sea. The additional land Israel captured when it kicked Palestinian butt was to provide a little more buffer between its sworn enemies and the sea.

Obama promised the world that America would bow to the U.N.'s global warming agenda and support the creation on a whole new set of administratively created rules and regulations to limit the behavior of individuals and organizations.

The final "pillar" of American sovereignty Obama promised to relinquish to the U.N. is the acceptance of a "… global economy that advances opportunity for all people." The global economy envisioned by Obama is not a free-market economy. It is a managed economy, managed by government administrators, when possible, and "approved" by either appointed delegates, or a willing Democratic majority when necessary.

When Obama promised to transform this government
, he wasn't kidding. Welcome, global governance.




Pelosi's willful amnesia
Exclusive: Jack Cashill offers evidence debunking speaker's tearful '70s remembrance

Pelosi's willful amnesia

Posted: September 25, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

Leftist politicians glide through their careers as though there were no Internet, no YouTube, no newspaper archives, no history books, no one worth knowing who does not agree with them.

Protected as they are by the media, they feel free to ignore the past as it happened and reconstruct it as it suits the purpose of the moment.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave remarkable witness to this willful amnesia with her hysterical – in both senses of the word – re-imagining of San Francisco in the '70s.

"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw, I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco," said a tearful Pelosi last Friday.

"This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening, and it created a climate in which we (sic), violence took place."

Pelosi was implying that the 1978 murder of Harvey Milk, the gay San Francisco supervisor, was spawned by the kind of right-wing rhetoric one hears at tea parties and the like.

In reality, Milk's murder had nothing to do with anything right-wing. Indeed, left-wing violence of all sorts, the worst of it abetted by the Democratic establishment, terrorized the Bay Area from one end of the decade to the other.

For starters, Milk's killer was a Democrat, former Supervisor Dan White. In November 1978, the emotionally troubled White abruptly resigned from the Board of Supervisors.

On Milk's advice, Mayor George Moscone refused to reinstate White when he petitioned to get back on. White snapped. He shot and killed them both and promptly turned himself in. This was no historic moment. This was routine workplace violence prompted by Milk's double dealing.

After an absurdly lenient verdict – only in psycho San Francisco would the "Twinkie" defense have worked – the anti-death penalty coalition organized a protest march. It quickly went south on them.

How far south? How about thousands of angry gay men marching down Market Street chanting "Kill Dan White" south – pretty rough rhetoric in anyone's book.

When the marchers reached City Hall, they broke windows, burned police cars and injured 61 cops. Our gay friends called their May 1979 escapade the "White Night Riot" – a cold-blooded pun on the recent Jonestown carnage.

Speaking of Jonestown, the atheist "religious leader" Jim Jones was the toast of liberal San Francisco throughout the 1970s. All the leading Democrats – George Moscone, Harvey Milk, Willie Brown, Jerry Brown – came a courting.

"In my later years," Jones reflected near the end, "there wasn't a person that attended any of my meetings that did not hear me say, at one time, that I was a communist."

In the People's Republic of San Francisco, that fact bothered no Democrat of consequence. A guy who could inspire suicide could certainly deliver votes and volunteers.

After moving his flock to Guyana, Jones oversaw their mass poisoning in November 1978. On the downside for Pelosi, he removed 918 current or future Democrats from the voter rolls. On the upside, he waited until after the mid-term elections to remove them.

Those who tell Kool-Aid jokes take note: 3-year-olds don't commit suicide. Authorities dumped the bodies of more than 250 of these children, all victims of left-wing violence, into a mass grave in Oakland's Evergreen Cemetery. There they lie to this day, unsung and un-mourned, as they serve no useful political purpose.

"Free at last, free at last," Jones would proselytize, "thank socialism almighty we're free at last." Socialism is exactly what these children had to thank for their final liberation.

Speaking of Oakland and left-wing violence, in November 1973, the Symbionese Liberation Army shot and killed black school Superintendent Marcus Foster in cold blood.

The S.L.A. had condemned him for his "fascist" plan to introduce identification cards into Oakland's chaotic public schools. In February 1974, the S.L.A. made the big time when its cadres kidnapped heiress Patty Hearst in neighboring Berkeley.

The S.L.A. fled to Southern California where they ended their days in a flaming shootout with the local constabularies. Another sad day for Pelosi – more future Democratic leaders lost.

Speaking of crime sprees, none in recent American history can match the grotesque and wanton murders perpetrated by the so-called "Zebra" killers in mid-'70s San Francisco and hushed up by a complicit media.

The self-described "Death Angels," a rogue auxiliary of Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, killed as many as 71 white Californians. Leadership gave extra points, literally, for the murder – often preceded by rape, torture and dismemberment – of white women and children. Look it up.

When San Francisco police finally arrested the culprits in 1974, local black leaders quickly denounced the arrests, claiming that they were racially motivated. Just like Skip Gates in Cambridge!

Speaking of the San Francisco police, the decade of left-wing violence began when some future Democratic leaders planted an anti-personnel bomb on the ledge of a police station, killing Sgt. Brian V. McDonnell.

The culprits? As WND recently reported, the evidence is "mounting" that Mrs. William Ayers, Weatherwoman Bernadine Dohrn, was responsible.

Pelosi was advancing her career in San Francisco Democratic politics throughout the entire decade. She was elected party chairwoman for Northern California in January 1977, the same year Milk was elected and Jones moved to Guyana.

If she were anything like her fellow Dems, Pelosi would have befriended Jones, ignored his communism, buried his crimes, suppressed all talk of the Zebra killings, sucked up to Farrakhan, criticized the police for "profiling" the Zebras, hung out with the radical cop-killers, marched with the White Night rioters and wept when the S.L.A. got smoked in L.A.

Then, at the end of the day, she would blame all this madness on a non-existent right wing, a claim unchallenged by an unwittingly comical major media.

For anyone who knows San Francisco history, Pelosi's verklempt reminisce suggests too much time on the bong, the early stages of Alzheimer's, or the chronic dissembling we have come to expect from our Democratic friends.

Pelosi gives proof to the adage that those who remember the '70s in San Francisco weren't there.














Study refutes connection of global warming, storm intensity
'We have to play by the rules of probability and the laws of random chance'
--South Carolina Radio Network 

Study refutes connection of global warming and storm intensity

by Tom Hayes on September 23, 2009

in Education, Environment & Conservation, News

Over the past 70 years, hurricane frequency in the Atlantic basin is up, but the strength of the storms have remained relatively constant. Those are the conclusions of a new study conducted by Clemson University researchers. Clemson Professor of Mathematical Sciences Robert Lund participated in the study that looked at changes in the tropical cycle record in the North Atlanticbetween 1851 and 2008. Lund  says he knows global warming is a hot button issue and many researchers have maintained that warming waters of the Atlantic are increasing the strengths of these storms. We do not see evidence for this at all, however we do find that the number of storms has recently increased.”

 ”We took a look at the record from 1851 to 2008 and we did find a lot of changes besides recent changes. For instance, we found that around 1935 the count radically increased and that was probably do to aircraft reconnaissance,  being able to fly out into the ocean and see these storms.”

Also participating in the study were Michael Robbins and Colin Gallagher of Clemson along with Mississippi State University Mathematics professor Dr. QIQi ( pronounced, chi-chi) Lu.

Lund says the increase in the frequency of hurricanes and some measurable increase in strength of the storms was first observed from data from the beginning of the 20th century. Lund attributes the observations from better and more sophisticated technological devices used to monitor the storms. “We saw them from about 1900 which makes sense because most of the data recorded before 1900 was guesstimated and not very consistent. We also found small changes in the strengthof the storms around 1960 which coincides with the onset of satellites.”

Lund says in a number of studies involving the analysis of years and years of data, the study of probabilities is best conducted by mathematicians.”We have to play by the rules of probability and the laws of random chance. As statisticians and probabilists, we are not allowed to distort the conclusion nor are we invested in any particular outcome or inference from the data. We’re just going to crunch the numbers as best we can with rigorous probability assessments and tell you what we find.”

Lund says the study he and his colleagues just concluded opens up avenues for more questions yet to answered. “Are the storms changing in terms of duration in terms of how long they last? Are they occurring in more northern latitudes? There are a lot of small issues that still need to be tied down, but we sort of felt that at least given the data that we’ve seen recently that this pretty much answers the question of are changes happening?”


The dog ate global warming?
Interpreting climate data can be hard enough – especially if key data fiddled
--National Review


The Dog Ate Global Warming
Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?

By Patrick J. Michaels

Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.

In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”

Putting together such a record isn’t at all easy. Weather stations weren’t really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.

So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech’s Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn’t have the data because he wasn’t an “academic.” So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.

Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all, saying that there were “confidentiality” agreements regarding the data between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre’s blog readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in very vague language.

It’s worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers demonstrating that the quality of land-based records is so poor that the warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we could compare those records to independent data from satellites) may have been overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU data, published studies linking changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have found otherwise).

Enter the dog that ate global warming.

Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

The statement about “data storage” is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the world’s surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.

If we are to believe Jones’s note to the younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster received some of the data this year. So the question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and why?

All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall — whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above.


Inhofe going to climate summit as 1-man truth squad
Global-warming skeptic pledges to present 'another view' in Copenhagen
--The Hill

Inhofe to travel to climate summit as 'one-man truth squad'

By Michael O'Brien - 09/23/09 11:54 AM ET

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said Wednesday he would travel to this fall's climate change summit in Copenhagen to serve as a "one-man truth squad."

A noted skeptic of global warming, Inhofe pledged to present "another view" on climate change during the December summit to hash out an international climate change agreement.

"I'm going to go ahead an announce now that I'm going to go to Copenhagen," Inhofe said on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" this morning. "I think somebody has to be there -- a one-man truth squad -- so let's see what happens there."

Inhofe noted that he attended a similar climate change summit in Milan, Italy in 2003, and he decided that the time has come for him to again present an alternative viewpoint to the delegates on global warming.

"I was the only voice there that was saying that there was another view on this," he said. "So I decided to do the same thing now. It's been six years; it's time to go back."

The Oklahoma Republican has long called global warming science a "hoax," and has repeatedly warned that regulatory schemes to abate carbon and other polluting emissions would be excessively harmful to the economy. He said Wednesday on C-SPAN that passing the current cap-and-trade bills before Congress would result in a tax and be a "ludicrous" idea.

Watch the video of Inhofe's comments below:





·  false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 alt="What's the Rush?" v:shapes="_x0000_i1052"> What's the Rush?McConnell on Dems' health care push

·  alt="'Don't Interrupt'" v:shapes="_x0000_i1053"> 'Don't Interrupt'Tempers flare at Senate health debate

·  false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 alt="Political Piracy?" v:shapes="_x0000_i1054"> Political Piracy?Boehner on health care debate






WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Democrats 'thumbing their nose' at Americans 
GOP's Vitter slams refusal to give public 72 hours to examine Senate bill




WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Sunstein: Fetuses 'use' women,
abortion limits 'troublesome'

Obama regulatory chief offers radical
new interpretation of Constitution



Sunstein: Fetuses 'use' women, abortion limits 'troublesome'
Obama regulatory chief offers radical new interpretation of Constitution

Posted: September 25, 2009
12:45 am Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Cass Sunstein

JERUSALEM – Restrictions on access to abortion would turn women's bodies into vessels to be "used" by fetuses, according to President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

"A restriction on access to abortion turns women's reproductive capacities into something to be used by fetuses. ... Legal and social control of women's sexual and reproductive capacities has been a principal historical source of sexual inequality," Sunstein wrote in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution."

In the book, obtained and reviewed by WND, Sunstein sets forth a radical new interpretation of the Constitution. In one chapter, titled "Pornography, abortion, surrogacy," Sunstein argued against restrictions on abortion and pornography.

"Restrictions on abortion, surrogacy and free availability of pornography are troublesome," he wrote.

"I do not mean to oppose equality to liberty. ... Liberty does not entail respect for all 'choices,'" he maintained.
Sunstein's views on fetuses are not limited to his 1993 book.

WND reported earlier this month that in a 2003 book review, Sunstein argued there is no moral concern regarding cloning human beings since human embryos, which develop into a baby, are "only a handful of cells."

In addition to Sunstein's moral disregard for human embryos, WND reported the Obama czar several times has quoted approvingly from an author who likened animals to slaves and argued an adult dog or a horse is more rational than a human infant and should, therefore, be granted similar rights.

A brief video on YouTube captures Sunstein at a 2002 event using the writings of Jeremy Bentham, a 19th century social reformer and animal-rights pioneer.

"You've heard a reference to Bentham, so let's listen to him, shall we," he begins in the video.

He then quotes from Bentham's 1789 primer, "Introduction to Principals of Morals and Legislation," written just after slaves had been freed by the French but were still held captive in the British dominions:

"The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor," Sunstein states, quoting Bentham.

Sunstein continues quoting the author: "A full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise."

The rest of Bentham's sentence, not captured in the video, continued, "what would it avail? The question is not, can they (animals) reason or can they talk? But, can they suffer?"

While the YouTube video offers only a brief sound bite with no context, a WND review of Sunstein's academic writings find he used the same verses from Bentham to push for animal rights.

In the footnotes to a 2002 academic paper for Harvard University, "The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer," Sunstein expresses his approval of Bentham's arguments:

"I suggest that Bentham and Mill were not wrong to offer an analogy between current uses of animals and human slavery," he wrote.

Several other works by Sunstein, including his books, quote approvingly of Bentham's statements comparing adult dogs and horses to human infants.

In the Harvard paper, Sunstein even suggests animals could be granted the right to sue humans in court.

"We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are in some general sense 'persons,' or that they are not property," he wrote.

The Senate two weeks ago confirmed Sunstein as Obama's administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, overcoming months of delay due to Republican concerns that he would push a radical animal-rights agenda.


WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Holdren: Sterilize welfare recipients
Obama boss suggested ways to save planet, said fetus not a person
--WND Exclusive



Hunt begins for records on ACORN's fed funds  
'Obama needs to come clean about relationship with disgraced organization'


WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Defense fund launched for Hannah Giles 
Sued for exposing ACORN's suggestions for prostitution, tax fraud


Kevin McCullough  


 - September 24, 2009

His Classroom's Marchin' On!

Those at the B.Bernice Elementary School in Burlington Township, New Jersey, may be unable to overcome their sycophantic Obama obsessions, but the children of America should not be required to chant his name, raise their hands, and repeat dogma that may not be exactly based in reality.

By now you've heard the consistent crooning from a bit of video making its way across the talk radio airwaves, television screens and, of course, the Web and's "Strategy Room."


The presentation being replayed again and again is of a classroom of students in Burlington, New Jersey at B. Bernice Elementary school. The video of the children singing the melody of a lilting rendition of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" has shocked parents across the school district and the nation. 

Several personal phone calls to the school's administrative office this morning have produced the following results.


1. The school refuses to acknowledge that the events on the tape even occurred.
2. They refuse to admit whether or not information concerning the activity, and the right of a family or child to opt out of it, was made available.
3. They refuse to admit whether or not the children were offered other options, as opposed to being forced to memorize the words, "Hello, Mr. President, we honor you today! For all your great accomplishments we all do say "hooray!" Hooray, Mr. President, you're number one! 
4. But the spokesperson I talked with at B. Bernice Elementary school did say the school was aware of, and considering taking actions against, the persons "who illegally taped and distributed a video recording of a private class activity."

Message to the genius public educators at B.Bernice Elementary school in Burlington Township, New Jersey: devise a better public relations strategy.

You might also be mindful of the fact that as a public school, your accountability is to the people of your district.

Obviously no conspiracy is at work here. The source of the video recording is easy to narrow down -- this isn't an ACORN style sting operation. This was likely made by a parent, someone either proud or concerned, who taped the children singing. They were most likely in plain sight of the teacher and the children in attendance. This is their right as a tax-paying parent.

But to the geniuses at B. Bernice elementary school, I want to further add that you might also be mindful that parents do have a say in what you do or do not expose their children to in your attempt to "educate" them. In fact it might be more helpful for everyone if you would stick to teaching 4-6 year olds that "2+2=4," that "A-n-d is "and'," and that "yellow and blue make green."

There is a reason we do not allow kindergarteners in this nation to cast votes in elections. Political philosopohy, worldview, and worship of dieties are something they have not yet quite gotten a handle on.

Raising hands of praise to President Obama's "accomplishments" is not just inappropriate it's entirely premature. 

Those at the B.Bernice Elementary School in Burlington Township, New Jersey, may be unable to overcome their sycophantic Obama obsessions, but the children of America should not be required to chant his name, raise their hands, and repeat dogma that may not be exactly based in reality.

But what do I know? After all, I'm just a tax-paying parent.


Friday 25th September 2009


Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA): Threatens Christians & Business Owners

ENDA Based On False Premise - Gay Incomes Don’t Justify ENDA

Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA): Threatens Christians & Business Owners

ENDA Based On False Premise - Gay Incomes Don’t Justify ENDA

Louis P Sheldon


ENDA is designed to get homosexuals, bisexuals, cross-dressers, and transsexuals added to the list of federally-protected minorities. If this is accomplished, the LGBT agenda will be imposed on businesses, local, state and federal governments, including public schools, Christian day care centers and camps, plus many other Christian entities, including religious broadcasters, etc. It will affect any business with more than 15 employees.

ENDA Based On False Premise

Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA): Threatens Christians & Business OwnersThe Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ENDA (H.R. 3017) asserts in the “purposes” section of the bill that employment discrimination against gays, bisexuals and transgendered individuals is so serious in America that federal legislation must be passed to protect their right to employment.

ENDA is yet another piece of pro-LGBT legislation that is being rammed down the throats of Americans -- based on a falsehood. The falsehood is that gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders are victims of workplace discrimination.

False claims were also made to justify passage of the federal hate crimes bill. 

Statistics used to get companies to market their products to LGBT consumers, show that LGBT individuals are wealthy and travel frequently. Gay and gay-friendly web sites prove that there is no widespread or systematic discrimination against LGBT individuals.
Note these statistics:

·                  The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce notes that LGBT individuals were likely to spend $800 more on business and leisure travel during the summer of 2009 than their heterosexual counterparts.

·                  The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce claims there are 1.2 million LGBT business owners in the U.S.

·                  An estimated 85% of Fortune 500 companies already have sexual orientation policies in place. (Human Rights Campaign web site)

·                  Market researchers state that the LGBT consumers have “deep pockets” and their buying power “is growing.”

·                                  In 2006, lesbian and gay travelers took a projected total of 53.2 million leisure trips, spending an estimated $40 billion.   Another GLBT travel study says that the GLBT population is 5% and its estimated travel market is $65 billion annually. 

·                                  In short, gays & lesbians are spending between $40-$65 billion year on travel. (, 2007 & ASTAnetwork, Summer 2007)

·                                  Gay Wired Media claims that gay adults are 6-7% of the population with total buying power of $723 billion.

·                  14% of gay and lesbian adults are planning overseas travel compared to only 7% of heterosexual adults (, 2007)

·                  Annual household income for gays and lesbians for 2007-2008 is $80,000. (


Gay Incomes Don’t Justify ENDA

Compare the household income of gays and lesbians of $80,000 a year to the median income of blacks, Asians and Hispanics. U.S. Census statistics for 2008 (published on September 11, 2009) show that the median income for blacks was $34,218; for Hispanics it was $37,913; for Asians it was $65,637. Median income for non-Hispanic white households was $55,530.

Based on these figures from gay and pro-gay sources, it doesn’t appear that LGBT individuals are suffering any widespread or systematic discriminatory treatment as employees. They appear to be doing far better than their heterosexual counterparts as far as income and leisure travel.

Clearly, the stated purpose of ENDA is based on a falsehood about widespread discrimination against LGBT individuals.

ENDA Is A Liability For Every Employer

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is designed to make homosexuals, bisexuals, drag queens, cross-dressers and transsexuals into federally-protected minority groups.


·                  ENDA will force businesses, as well as local, state, and federal governments, including public schools to hire gays, lesbians and transgenders

·                  Christian-owned businesses will have to accommodate gay, lesbian, bisexual and even transgendered individuals (individuals with a Gender Identity Disorder) who believe they are the opposite sex. 

·                  ENDA forbids any employer from refusing to hire or promote a person because of his “sexual orientation” or his “gender identity” (cross-dressers, transsexuals, drag queens). A transgender who is turned down for a job or promotion can claim discrimination as a member of a federally-protected minority – and the employer can be prosecuted by the federal government. Every business owner will be liable for criminal prosecution if he or she fails to hire or promote a transgender person.  Under ENDA, a business will face an army of federal lawyers to fight claims of discrimination from gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgenders. This will be a litigation nightmare for businesses, schools, and religious entities. 

·                  By making “gender identity” a federally-protected class under the law, this normalizes what are mental illnesses, known as a Gender Identity Disorder and/or Transvestic Fetishism. It elevates what a person “thinks” he is over what he actually is.

·                  ENDA defines “sexual orientation” as heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality. Sexual orientation (desires), however, will be easily expanded to include other bizarre sexual behaviors, including the more than 30 + sexual orientations (paraphilias) listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

·                  ENDA includes a weak religious exemption in Section 6. It does not protect Christian businesses or Christian camps, religious broadcasters and other religious entities! An independent Christian camp with 15 or more employees would be covered by ENDA. This camp would be in violation of the law for not hiring homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals or cross-dressers.

·                  ENDA enforcement will be handled by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. President Obama has nominated lesbian activist lawyer Chai Feldblum to serve a 5-year term on the EEOC. She wrote ENDA! If confirmed, she will be ruthless in her enforcement and will expand ENDA to make it mean whatever she wants it to mean.


Incrementalism  -- The Strategy To Silence Christians

Feldblum and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, are both advocates of incrementalism in pushing the LGBT agenda. They’re willing to get part of what they want, so they can go back later and change the law to complete their objective.

Feldblum is a longtime advocate of this tactic. Rep. Pelosi also recommends incrementalism. During the 2007 debates over ENDA, she wrote: “While many supporters are disappointed the bill is not fully-inclusive [does not include transgenders], they recognize it is a significant achievement.  Many supporters are disappointed that the bill is not broader – by not also prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity.  However, they recognize that progress in civil rights has always been incremental and that this legislation is a critical step forward.”  

Incrementalism is the strategy that will be used to impose the LGBT agenda not only on secular businesses, but Christian and other religious business owners who object to homosexuality and transgenderism.

LGBT activists are admitting that they are willing to violate First Amendment freedoms to impose their agenda on Americans. They have claimed on several LGBT web sites that “Deeply held beliefs are no excuse for discrimination of any stripe.” In other words, it doesn’t matter what the First Amendment says about religious freedom – the LGBT political agenda trumps the U.S. Constitution.

What is it that the LGBT community wants?  Just take a look at the previous versions of ENDA. That will explain their end goal. The LGBT community wants to use ENDA to force churches, Boy Scouts, Christian schools, Armed Services, religious broadcasters, and all aspects of American culture to comply with their demands for affirmation and forced acceptance.

They will want quotas, training programs, shared shower and dressing facilities, gay marriage, married couple benefits, data collection to ensure compliance with their demands, jail time for non-compliance, and attorney fees for lawsuits.

What LGBT activists don’t get with this version of ENDA, they’ll get next year in a new law or a revision of ENDA. It’s all part of their incrementalism strategy to impose their agenda on all Americans.
TAKE ACTION:  Write a letter to your Representative about ENDA.

Additional Resources: Click Here for Additional Information on ENDA




10 years later: Media bury Jesse Dirkhising

As the 10th anniversary of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising’s tragic murder and rape by two homosexuals approaches, the young boy remains victim of a second burial – by the American media.

10 years later: Media bury Jesse Dirkhising

Press focuses on Shepard death, ignores homosexuals’ brutal murder of boy

Web News WorldNetDaily

As the 10th anniversary of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising’s tragic murder and rape by two homosexuals approaches, the young boy remains victim of a second burial – by the American media.

The press is still buzzing about the murder of Matthew Shepard – an adult homosexual brutally murdered in Wyoming by heterosexuals – and his mother’s newly released memoir, "The Meaning of Matthew: My Son’s Murder in Laramie, and a World Transformed" describing the gory details of her son’s murder in a descriptive narrative. Shepherd’s parents have been lobbying for a hate-crimes bill since the murder.

USA Today reported "The Laramie Project – 10 Years Later" will debut in more than 100 theaters in all 50 states and seven countries Oct. 12, the 11th anniversary of Shepard’s death, in an effort to raise awareness about "hate crimes." NBC aired a drama, "The Matthew Shepard Story," in June 2006.

But, even on the anniversary of his death, another boy’s horrific murder continues to be largely ignored – with no plays, books or TV dramas to honor his memory. No local memorials have been held since Dirkhising’s brutal death at the hands of two homosexual predators who confessed to using the boy as a sex toy while torturing him to death.

And even though the case received a flurry of publicity after first being brought to the attention of the nation in WorldNetDaily, the number of articles written pale in comparison to those written about the murder of Matthew Shepherd.

Allyson Smith detailed Jesse’s tragic story in a WND report.

Dirkhising was found by police unconscious on the floor of a Prairie Grove, Ark. residence around 5 a.m. Sept. 26, 1999. The boy had suffocated to death during the early morning hours, after being bound, drugged, gagged and brutally sodomized by Davis Don Carpenter, then 38, and Joshua Macabe Brown, then 22, at the men’s apartment in Rogers, Ark.

Police determined Dirkhising had been repeatedly raped over a period of hours, including with foreign objects, by Brown and Carpenter.

Police also said Dirkhising had been blindfolded and tied to a mattress in the residence, and also had possibly been drugged during the ordeal. And authorities said after the last rape he was left bound and gagged while his attackers ate a sandwich. He died of suffocation, a coroner’s report found.

Carpenter, whom police say orchestrated the attack, pleaded guilty and received a sentence of life in prison. Prosecutors had sought the death penalty in the case. As WND reported in Sept. 2003, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld a 25-year sentence for Brown.

News of the Dirkhising case was surprisingly muted throughout the country, perhaps because it involved a homosexual crime, said WND readers, who voted it one of the most spiked stories of 1999.

A Google News search for the month of September 2009 alone shows more than 100 stories for Shepard and only one brief mention of the anniversary Jesse’s death.

Remembering Jesse Dirkhising
Exclusive: Joseph Farah marks 10 years since brutal homosexual rape, killing of teen


WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Obama to Congress: Forget it! 
President 'disregards' missile defense mandate



Obama to Congress: Forget it!
President 'disregards' missile defense mandate

Posted: September 25, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Editor's Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND. Subscriptions are $99 a year or, for monthly trials, just $9.95 per month for credit card users, and provide instant access for the complete reports.

President Obama's decision to cancel a plan to deploy defensive missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic may have put him at odds with a 10-year-old requirement from Congress "to deploy as soon as technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense,"according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

Instead of the land-based system as proposed by the former Bush administration, the Obama administration envisions "stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies."

The Bush administration sought to deploy ground-based interceptors in Poland and early warning radars in the Czech Republic, a plan meant to save billions of dollars in missile defense spending. At the same time, it was designed not only to guard U.S. forces and allies overseas, but also the U.S. homeland, which was mandated by Congress.

The goal of the Bush administration missile defense system was to "defend (U.S.) allies and deployed forces in Europe from limited Iranian long-range threats and expand protection of (the) U.S. homeland," according to a February 2009 Congressional Budget Office report entitled, "Options for Deploying Missile Defenses in Europe."

In doing its analysis of various missile defense options, the CBO looked at three approaches in addition to the Bush administration's proposal.

The alternatives included the sea-based system which the Obama administration now has selected, mobile missile defenses located in Germany and Turkey and forward-positioned Kinetic Energy Interceptors also located in Germany and Turkey.

The CBO concluded the Bush administration proposal was preferable to the three alternative solutions. In fact, the Kinetic Energy Interceptors weren't even an option during the latest round of consideration since it was cut from the Pentagon's missile defense budget earlier this year.

"(The Missile Defense Agency's) proposed system would complement the coverage already available from U.S.-based interceptors by providing redundant defense from a third interceptor site for all of the continental United States," the CBO report said. "None of the alternatives considered by CBO provide as much additional defense of the United States.

"Deploying Kinetic Energy Interceptors would add defense from a third redundant interceptor site for about 75 percent of the U.S. population in range of ICBMs from Iran. Deploying land-based or sea-based Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA interceptors would provide additional defense for about one-half or less of the U.S. population," the report added.

In effect, the proposed Obama administration sea-based approach offered the least protection as compared to the Bush administration proposal, and it was more expensive, since there would be added costs for specially equipped ships. In addition, it will take more time to deploy.


Seasonal flu shot may increase H1N1 risk

Last Updated: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 | 10:03 PM ET CBC News

Across Canada, public health authorities are fiercely debating the idea of shortening, delaying or scrapping their seasonal flu vaccination campaign in favour of mass inoculation against H1N1.Across Canada, public health authorities are fiercely debating the idea of shortening, delaying or scrapping their seasonal flu vaccination campaign in favour of mass inoculation against H1N1. (Greg Baker/Associated Press) Preliminary research suggests the seasonal flu shot may put people at greater risk for getting swine flu, CBC News has learned.

"This is some evidence that has been floated. It hasn't been validated yet, it's very preliminary," cautioned Dr. Don Low, microbiologist-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto.

"This is obviously important data to help guide policy decisions. How can we best protect people against influenza?"

It's important to validate the information, which has not been peer reviewed, to make sure it's not just a fluke, and that the observation is confirmed elsewhere such as in the Southern Hemisphere, which just completed its seasonal flu season, or in the U.S. and UK.

Four Canadian studies involved about 2,000 people, health officials told CBC News. Researchers found people who had received the seasonal flu vaccine in the past were more likely to get sick with the H1N1 virus.

Researchers know that, theoretically, when people are exposed to bacteria or a virus, it can stimulate the immune system to create antibodies that facilitate the entry of another strain of the virus or disease. Dengue fever is one example, Low said.


No seasonal flu shot?


The latest finding raises questions about the order in which to get flu shots.

Across Canada, public health authorities are debating the idea of shortening, delaying or scrapping their seasonal flu vaccination campaign in favour of mass inoculation against H1N1.

The main reason is that H1N1 may be the dominant strain of influenza circulating when the fall flu season hits, meaning it could be a waste of time and resources to mount a seasonal flu vaccine campaign.

Health authorities in Quebec are considering cancelling or postponing seasonal flu shots for some groups, such as healthy, younger adults.

The Public Health Agency of Canada says it's up to provinces and territories to decide on when to roll out flu shots.

"We don't know with this year's flu shot how it interacts with the pandemic flu shot, so it's a worry," said Dr. Michael Gardam, director of infectious diseases prevention and control at the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion.

"It makes the decision-making a lot more complex," Dr. Perry Kendall, B.C.'s provincial health officer, said in Victoria. "It would be very nice to have information cut and dried, and very clear in advance in plenty of time to make the decisions. But that isn't unfortunately the world that we're living in."

In Thornhill, Ont., Melissa Cass, who usually gets an annual flu shot to protect herself, had been planning to get one this year for her one-year-old daughter, Aliya, as well.

"You have a baby, you sort of want to protect them from everything possible. So if you can protect them from some things, why not?" Cass said.

But this year, she may not get any shots.

"If I knew that it was a risk to get H1N1, I wouldn't get any of them," she told CBC News. "I would just be as I am and just, you know, take all the precautions I possibly can for flus, and that's it."
Rare earths are vital,
China owns them all
Without access to unique elements, much
of modern economy will plain shut down


In fact, neodymium is the only element that can create strong permanent magnets, although engineers have tried to find a substitute, King said.

And it's a little-known fact, he added, that strong magnets "are critical to the guidance systems of every missile in the U.S. defense inventory."
TARP inspector: Transparency 'attitude' on bailout frustrating
'Taxpayers ... will not be told the full details of how their money is being invested'
--The Hill

Tylenol recalls kids' liquid medicines
20-plus products yanked due to concerns over 1 inactive ingredient
--Palm Beach Post
Wile E. Obama vs.
Road Runner Beck

Exclusive: Robert Ringer sees Fox host
capable of bringing down BHO in 2012

Life in the Oink Sector
Exclusive: Ilana Mercer offers jaw-dropping stats on earnings of gov't workers

Life in the Oink Sector

Posted: September 25, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

Be it the "public option" (that'll eliminate all other options), the co-opting "co-op," or the make-believe market that is the "insurance exchange" – if implemented, these euphemisms for centrally planned medicine will mean many more bureaucracies manned by plenty of government workers.


workers may not always be genial to the public that pays them, but they are generous to a fault with their own. In the course of providing the stellar service for which the United States Postal Service has become famous, they pay themselves sizeable salaries and bountiful benefits, and retire years before the stiffs who support them can afford to.

For the benefit of the philistine forces that religiously pray for the creation of more such bloated behemoths – Rachel Maddow does so nightly on MSNBC – here are some sobering statistics about the price of the parasitical class. They come courtesy of The Free Enterprise Nation and Business Wire:


·                  On average, the federal civilian wage in 2008 was $79,197, almost 50 percent greater than that of the average private-sector employee's wages of $49,935.

·                  Pay growth in the public sector has been much higher than growth in the private sector over the years, too. Between 2000 and 2008, wages for federal civilian workers climbed by 53.7 percent, while wages in the private sector went up 28.5 percent over the same time period.

·                  The average state and local government employee earns 29 percent more than the average private sector employee.

·                  When wages and benefits are combined, federal civilian workers averaged $119,982 in 2008, twice the average compensation of $59,909 for private sector workers. This places the value of benefits for federal civilian workers at an average of $40,000 a year, four times the value of benefits that the average private-sector employee receives.

·                  The majority of state workers have pension plans that allow them to retire 10 to 25 years earlier than members of the productive sector, and that provide benefits many times the retirement payout that Social Security would provide.


While gathering the data, The Free Enterprise Nation sampled (in the statistical sense) life in the Oink Sector:

·                  A driver's education teacher in Illinois gets a $170,000 annual salary and $120,000 annual pension.

·                  In New York, some city workers amass more than $100,000 in overtime during their last year before retirement to create a monthly pension higher than their salary.

·                  420 of Illinois's physical education teachers, 332 English teachers and 94 driver's education teachers make more than $100,000 a year, with salaries for each position topping out at more than $160,000 a year.

·                  A citizen of Houston, Texas, pondering the curious, concomitant rise in crime and taxes, would find that the number of police officers serving the community has remained the same for six years running, despite a 40 percent budget increase to cover higher salaries, pension and health-care benefits.

·                  A small business receiving an IOU in California might be surprised to learn that in 2008, 40 percent of Vallejo's 613 employees had salaries greater than $100,000 a year, the same year the city filed for bankruptcy.

·                  In Fort Worth, Texas, one police chief recently retired at age 55 with a guaranteed annual pension of $188,692. His successor retired at age 52 with an annual pension of $113,614. Another unremarkable State of California retiree gets an annual pension of $500,000. He was outsmarted by two University of Connecticut professors who are currently collecting six-figure pensions while simultaneously collecting similar salaries.


In another state, Free Enterprise Nation researchers discover that teachers retired at over $100,000 a year after 30 years of employment, with a guaranteed 3-percent increase per annum. "Only 12 percent of retirees from the private sector have defined benefit pensions to supplement their Social Security." The average annual pension of a private-enterprise employee is $13,083.


These serfs of the state are not eligible for full Social Security benefits until their late 60s.

Early this year, still in the midst of an economic depression, the federal government awarded a 2.9 percent raise to every federal worker and a 5.9 percent raise to every retiree.

The average worker in the U.S. pays $10,000 in income taxes; enough to keep one federal worker in style for one month! There are upward of 20 million of these pampered pigs, hogging 87,000 different institutions in government and public education, where the payrolls are always lard-laden in comparison to private-economy paysheets.

The number of government workers is increasing and is projected to continue on this trajectory.

As invasive as the Kudzu vine, government added over half a million workers in the second quarter of 2009, as the private sector shed more than a million. Servant of the State Ms. Maddow will have to bear with Barack's baby steps. Yes, Bush set an ambitious pace for the growth of government, but before she knows it – and well before his term is over – Obama will have bumped up the current federal workforce considerably.

Over and above these mind-numbing numbers, it's crucial to comprehend the underlying principles that permit in one sphere (the public sector) what they prohibit in the other (the private sector).

In the private sector, a worker is to be paid for his productivity. If he were overpaid – in other words, remunerated more than he produces – the proprietor would go belly up. No business means no jobs.

Set aside the question of whether productivity – output per unit of labor – is the appropriate gauge in an enterprise – government – that confiscates and distributes wealth, but produces nothing.

Understand this: Backed by the power of the State, the sponger sector has unlimited access to income not its own – it has the power to tax, borrow and mint money out of thin air. With such usurped authority, why would public debt that runs to the trillions deter the ongoing orgy?

By the standards of honest, if unorthodox, accounting, government workers, moreover, don't pay taxes, but are paid out of taxes. In other words, they pay taxes out of money confiscated from taxpayers, who, in turn, pay taxes twice: on their own income and on the income of members of the bureaucracy.

At the very least, this should disqualify state workers from voting.

In any event, if you are a private-sector sucker plumping for a panoply of new government programs, consider the following: The more of them there are, the fewer of you there will be. Think zero-sum, or parasite vs. host. The first is sucking the lifeblood of the second. The larger the parasite gets, the weaker the host will grow.


Our 'Jericho' Future
Chuck Baldwin on hyperinflation and nuclear war.


It Is Going To Be a Rocky Road

by Chuck Baldwin
by Chuck Baldwin
Recently by Chuck Baldwin: Why Are Internment Camps Being Built?

Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article  Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article  


false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 v:shapes="_x0000_i1079">

Let's face it: most Americans live in a world of false security. This is somewhat understandable, given the fact that the majority of the U.S. population was born after 1945. Few remember the dangers and hardships of World War II; fewer still remember the Great Depression. Few Americans know what it's like to not have some sort of "supercenter" nearby with shelves stocked with every kind of food imaginable, twenty-four hours a day. Few know what life was like before there were restaurants of all sizes and types on virtually every street corner in America. And only a handful remembers when most roads were unpaved, or when sports were truly a pastime and not a megabuck obsession.

Modern living within the world's only "superpower" has created a giant unsuspecting, soft, lackadaisical, and lethargic society. We expect the government to keep our streets safe, our roads paved, our stores stocked, our jobs secure, and our enemies at bay. However, in the desire to make government the panacea for all our problems, we have sold not only our independence, but also our virtue.

Where the federal government was contracted (via the U.S. Constitution) to accept limited power for the overall good of both states and people, it has become a monster of gargantuan proportions, claiming authority over virtually every liberty and right known to man. And in the process, it decided it didn't need God, either.

It is no hyperbole to say that the U.S. federal government has been on a "Ban God" bandwagon for the past 50 years. Whether it kicks prayer and Bible reading out of school, bars military chaplains from praying in Jesus' name, burns Bibles in Iraq, removes state supreme court chief justices from their positions for posting the Ten Commandments, or threatens high school principals with jail for asking the blessing, the federal government has invoked the judgment of Heaven upon our country as surely as did Old Testament Israel.

Although the comfortable, sports-crazed, TV addicts probably aren't paying attention, this country is on the verge of an implosion like you cannot believe. For anyone who cares to notice, the signs are everywhere.

First of all, Israel and Iran are on the verge of war. And right now, I'm not concentrating on the "why" or "who's right or wrong" of the equation. I'm simply telling you, war between Israel and Iran could break out at any time. And when it does, the chances that it will not become nuclear and not become global are miniscule. Yes, I am saying it: the prospects for nuclear war have never been greater. The CBS-canceled TV show, JERICHO, could become a reality in these United States in the very near future. (I strongly urge readers to purchase both seasons of JERICHO and watch them, because this could be our future.)

Secondly, America is on the verge of total financial collapse. By the end of this year, America's budget deficit will stand at around $2 trillion. The debt gap is many trillions more than that. But the nail in the coffin for America's fiscal health will be the decision by China to dump the U.S. dollar. Ladies and gentlemen, this will be the death knell for our financial stability (and a painful lesson in sowing and reaping).

It is estimated that China owns around one-third of all U.S. debt. If and when China dumps the U.S. dollar, there would be nothing left to stabilize it, and Weimar Republic/Zimbabwe-style inflation will ensue. America will be thrust into financial chaos. (If one doubts that China is planning to dump the dollar, consider that China is currently purchasing and stockpiling gold at an unprecedented level. This is why gold has suddenly surged to over $1,000 per ounce and why it will continue to rise.)

Third, the paranoia regarding the Swine Flu being demonstrated by both government and media spokesmen begs a giant push for some type of "government solution." If they keep hyping this "pandemic," mass hysteria and fear (created by the government and its lackeys in the media) will result. This would, no doubt, necessitate some form of forced vaccination, quarantine (maybe this is what all those internment camps will be used for), and martial law.

Exactly how and when all of the above will actually materialize is yet to be seen. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that within the next few months, the world that we know today is going to vanish. And most Americans are totally unprepared for what's coming.
If you are able to get out of debt, do it. If you need to scale down your lifestyle in order to be better prepared for difficult days, do it. If you don't have guns and ammo, buy them. If you have not prepared some sort of preserved food pantry, do it. If you don't have some kind of survival plan in place for you and your family, get one. If you are not physically fit, get in shape. If you are able to move to a more secure, out-of-harm's-way location, do it. (During any kind of financial or societal meltdown, urban areas will quickly turn into war zones. Can anyone say, "New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina"?) In other words, get your nose out of the boob tube, get your bottom off the easy chair, and get busy.

Am I worried or discouraged? Absolutely not! (But I am preparing.) The potential good that may result from all of the above is that perhaps God will protect and raise up a remnant of people who would be willing to rebuild a place where Natural Law is respected, constitutional government is revered, and where a ubiquitous, loathsome, overbearing federal government is far, far away. You know, like America's Founding Fathers did 233 years ago.

In the meantime, get ready. It's going to be a rocky road.