Obama Dead Wrong On Doctors’ Support – Obama’s Inner Circle Shaping Up Like A Scene From Star Wars - Teaching What To 9-Year-Olds? - Disaster Of Death Care Masquerading As Health Care Masks Who Pays The Bills - Ice Melt Lowest In 30 Years - New Controversy Over Pervert Safe Schools Czar - 'Make No Mistake; We're Now In The Middle Of A Bloodless Coup'‏




WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Obama 'dead wrong' on doctors' support http://www.wnd.com/images/breaking.gif
Investors Business Daily survey shows physicians against government 'fix'






Commies, Fascists and Perverts, Oh My!

Matt Barber

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Obama’s inner-circle is shaping-up like the bar scene from Star Wars. It’s a swollen throng of unaccountable czars and policy advisors comprised of some of the most bizarre fringe leftists imaginable. As mom always said, you’re known by the company you keep and Obama keeps some downright creepy company. 

Here’s a sampling: First, we have disgraced former green-jobs czar Van “tinfoil hat” Jones. Jones, a self avowed communist and 9-11 “truther,” was forced to resign after revelations of his extremism became public.

Then there’s science czar John Holdren, the unzipped Harvard professor who wants a “Planetary Regime” to control world population through compulsory sterilization and forced abortion.

And of course there’s the administration’s very own Dr. Dolittle: regulatory czar Cass Sunstien, who advocates that animals be allowed to sue people.  

But perhaps the creepiest of Obama’s advisers is “safe schools” chief Kevin Jennings. Jennings – an open homosexual activist – is former director of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), a highly controversial group of adult homosexual activists who promote sexual anarchy and tacitly work to normalize the criminal
practice of pederasty.  

GLSEN’s primary purpose is to push dangerous and even deadly homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors in our government schools on children as young as five. So bold is Jennings in his promotion of homosexual behavior among children that he even penned the foreword to a book entitled “Queering Elementary Education.” (I don’t know about you, but Jennings and his ilk will “queer” my elementary-age kids over my dead body.)   

A number of Jennings past activities disqualify him from holding any position relating to children; but a recently revealed scandal involving an exchange between him and a former tenth-grade student leaves no doubt that he’s unfit to serve in his current capacity. Jennings has admitted that while he was a teacher, a boy – whom he understood to be 15 years-old – shared that he had been sodomized by an “older man” who lured him home from a bus stop toilet.


Of course any reasonable teacher would have immediately called police and notified the student’s parents. But Kevin Jennings – an anti-Christian bigot who once said of Christians: “F – k ‘em! … Drop Dead!” – is anything but reasonable. Instead, he affirmed both the man-boy homosexual encounter and the boy’s “gayness,” flippantly telling him, “I hope you knew to use a condom.” (Jennings recently admitted that he “should have handled this situation differently” but, as of yet, has arrogantly refused to step-down or even apologize).

Still, Jennings’ cavalier attitude toward adult-child sex should really come as no surprise. In a1997 speech he voiced his admiration for Harry Hay, longtime advocate of the homosexual/pedophile group NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association.)

According to NAMBLA’s website, Hay made the following statement in a 1983 address: “I also would like to say at this point that it seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAMBLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need.”

Sickening, right? Shocking, no? Well, not to Kevin Jennings. His take? He gushed, “One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay.”   

But, again, this should come as no surprise. Homosexual/pedophile groups like NAMBLA and homosexual activist groups have long been brothers-in-arms. In many instances, members of both groups are one-in-the-same. According to the non-partisan homosexual activist watchdog organization
Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, NAMBLA marched alongside “gay” activist groups in “gay pride” parades for years until it became politically burdensome for homosexual activists to continue allowing them to do so. 

As with “gay” activist pioneer Harry Hay, legalizing adult-child sex has long been a goal of many homosexual activists (for years, overtly and today, covertly). Boys and teens utilized for homosex are referred to as “chicken” in “gay” lexicon. 

In fact, part of homosexual activists “1972 Gay Rights Platform” called for the repeal [of] all laws governing the age of sexual consent.” This should send a chill down the spine of any parent. Such a repeal would legally allow homosexuals and pedophiles to access your children and teens for their own predatory sexual gratification – so long as those children “consented” to having sex (like the boy who confided in Jennings).

To be sure, Jennings is no stranger to scandal. In a 2000 GLSEN sponsored event, adult homosexual activists were caught in an ACORN-style sting teaching children as young as 13 the horrific practice of “fisting.” (For a definition
click here, it’s not fit to print). Jennings’ response? He defended the event and even filed suit in an attempt to cover-up the scandal. 

But “cover-up” is at the very core of Jennings’ strategy. In 1995, while summarizing his political approach of manipulation and indoctrination, he warned fellow homosexual activists to hide their true motives and avoid using language about “promoting homosexuality.” Instead, he astutely observed that “the effective reframing of this issue” through the disingenuous use of propagandist euphemisms such as “safety” and “violence” was “the key to…success.”

It’s worked like a charm.

But rather than being appointed by Obama to such a position of power and prestige, both Kevin Jennings and GLSEN should be held liable for engaging in reckless educational malpractice. By promoting and facilitating homosexual behavior among children, they demonstrably place children at risk.

Multiple studies have established, for instance, that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one's health than a lifetime of chain smoking. 

One such study – conducted by pro-“gay” researchers in Canada – was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997.  (see the study here:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/657.pdf )

While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual’s life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of “gays” by an astounding “8 to 20 years” – more than twice that of smoking.

“[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions,” concluded the researchers, “gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. … [L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.” 


The risks associated with homosexual conduct are so drastic, in fact, that U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have had sex with MSM, from ever donating blood. (Yet Jennings and GLSEN encourage children to engage in the very behaviors that – for quantifiable health related reasons – would preclude them from giving blood … ever.)  

Consider that, according to the Food and Drug Administration, MSM, “have  an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.” 

Adults and children who engage in homosexual conduct – especially males – are also susceptible – at an astronomical rate – to nearly all other forms of sexually transmitted disease (STD).  For example, the Hepatitis B virus is about five to six times more prevalent among “gays,” and Hepatitis C is twice as common. 

Furthermore, a 2007 study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that, although homosexuals make-up only a fraction of the population (one to two percent), they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases. 

So, all of this begs the question: Why on God’s earth is this Kevin Jennings nut – whose entire life’s work has irrefutably placed children at risk – in charge of promoting “safe schools”? He’s even bragged in his personal memoirs about his own drug and alcohol abuse.   

Indeed, Obama’s Jennings appointment was a gold medal blunder among a litany of Olympic-sized missteps. If his administration seeks to salvage any modicum of rapidly waning credibility, the President must force Jennings to step down and denounce his reckless behavior.

Every day Jennings remains in place is another day he hurts Obama; but more importantly, it’s another day he hurts children.

The real scandal is that Jennings was ever appointed in the first place. He must go and he must go now.


J. Matt Barber is Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel and also serves as Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law.






Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Teaching what to 9-year-olds?

By Phyllis Schafly


Would you belong and pay dues to a foreign organization that is anti-morality and anti-marriage? If not, why do we allow the United States to use our taxpayers' money to pay dues for membership in UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization)?
One of President Ronald Reagan's many excellent decisions was his 1984 termination of U.S. membership in this United Nations affiliate because it was corrupt, anti-Western and a vehicle for far-left propaganda. We enjoyed a nearly 20-year splendid absence from UNESCO's expensive gatherings in Paris of foreign bureaucrats promoting globalist mischief.
President George W. Bush put us back in UNESCO in 2003 as part of his steady retreat from Reaganism and devotion to an undefined new world order. President Obama hasn't yet said anything about UNESCO, but as a self-proclaimed "citizen of the world," we can assume he is pro-UNESCO.
Riding on the word "educational" in its name, UNESCO has adopted the pretense that it is in charge of prescribing curriculum for schoolchildren all over the world. UNESCO has even been trying to position itself to influence U.S. school curriculum.
In 2004 in Paris, UNESCO signed a 26-page "Cooperation Agreement" with Microsoft Corp. to develop a "master curriculum (syllabus)" for teacher training in information technologies based on standards, guidelines, benchmarks and assessment techniques. This agreement states that the syllabus will "form the basis for deriving training content to be delivered to teachers," and "UNESCO will explore how to facilitate content development."
UNESCO's director general boasted that one of the goals is to foster "worldwide curricula reflecting UNESCO values." This fall, UNESCO has been busy writing guidelines for the teaching of sex education, supposedly in order to slow the spread of HIV-AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.
In these guidelines, UNESCO tells teachers in all countries to present abstinence until marriage as "only one of a range of choices available to young people" to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Other choices would surely be more fun.
The working draft of the guidelines calls for children ages 5 to 8 to be taught in school about masturbation (age 5 means starting in kindergarten). Children 5 to 8 years old would also be taught about same-sex couples and tolerance of different sexual orientations.
Schoolchildren ages 9 to 15 are to be given more detailed discussions about masturbation. New topics on the list for 9-year-olds include orgasm and abortion.
It's no surprise that the guidelines feature enthusiastic support of abortion. UNESCO's guidelines assert that teachers should discuss "advocacy to promote the right to and access to safe" abortion for students starting at age 12.
According to UNESCO, students should be taught that "legal abortion performed under sterile conditions by medically trained personnel is safe." Teachers should also discuss "emergency contraception" and how to get "access to safe abortion and post-abortion care."
After the news broke about what was actually in the guidelines, one of the key agencies that funded UNESCO's guidelines, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), asked that its name be removed. It's unclear whether UNFPA is critical of the guidelines, or of their explicit wording, or merely of the bad publicity generated by release of the working draft.
UNFPA's announced goal is "universal access to reproductive health services by 2015." UNFPA supports countries in using population data for policies and programs "to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV-AIDS."
The week after UNFPA pulled its name from the UNESCO guidelines, UNFPA held a conference in Berlin to train 400 activists to advocate for abortion around the world. At the end of the conference, UNFPA issued a statement urging all nations to provide taxpayer-financed abortions, to "eliminate parental ... and age restrictions" for young people to access "the full range of sexual and reproductive health information and services," and to increase funds for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) advocating abortion and other "reproductive health-care services."
Public reaction to the UNESCO sex-ed guidelines caused UNESCO to make several changes before presenting them at the UNESCO meeting in Birmingham, England, in September. However, there was no apology for the explicitness of the sex-ed curriculum – UNESCO asserted that its guidelines are "evidence-informed and rights-based."
Criticism was not universal. Time magazine went on the attack against what it called "the knee-jerk outrage of conservative pundits" and reminded Time's readers that the UNESCO guidelines will "undergo sober and thoughtful examination in more open-minded places ... like Ethiopia."




'Make no mistake. We're now in the middle of a bloodless coup'



Impeachment suggested to remove 'threats' to America By Bob Unruh A political activist who was behind the famous Willie Horton advertisement that left Gov. Michael Dukakis' candidacy for president floundering and was among the first to sound the alarm...

Read more »


Thursday, October 8, 2009

'Make no mistake. We're now in the middle of a bloodless coup'


Impeachment suggested to remove 'threats' to America

By Bob Unruh
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ro5C7JSleds/Ss2t1b1vycI/AAAAAAAAAJU/VA05Nq0_46c/s200/nobamausurper-281x300.jpgA political activist who was behind the famous Willie Horton advertisement that left Gov. Michael Dukakis' candidacy for president floundering and was among the first to sound the alarm on the need for Bill Clinton's impeachment says the United States is collapsing around its citizens right now, but there is a defense.

"Make no mistake. We're now in the middle of a bloodless coup – the takeover of an entire nation by the hate-America crowd – a cold-blooded gang that despises America's prosperity, our standing in the world, our trust in God and our generosity and goodness," says political activist Floyd Brown in a column in WND.

His suggested defense is nothing more or less than a strike at the emperor, plans which are detailed on the new Impeach Obama Campaign website.

"Like so many on the far-left before him, going all the way back to Karl Marx, he [Obama] believes that it's his mission to promote 'equality of outcome' over 'equality of opportunity' even if Americans must learn to live in chains to make it happen," Brown said. "That worldview makes Barack Hussein Obama a very dangerous man and one of the greatest threats to your personal liberty today."

Brown said that view also explains why Obama "has already gobbled-up major banks and why the government now controls more and more of our money – yours and mine. And if you wake up one day to discover you're broke, don't be surprised. Barack Hussein Obama is Bernie Madoff with the political power of the presidency at his disposal."

"That dangerous worldview explains why his attorney general, Eric Holder, despises the 2nd Amendment… And that dangerous worldview explains why Obama intends to take away your freedom to choose your own doctor …. Your own treatment," he said.

Brown said the only one solution to the problem he described as a "monomaniac."

"Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: 'The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'"

Brown told WND that first and foremost, "people need to believe that it's possible."

He recalls the campaign to impeach Bill Clinton was begun back in the 1990s when Congress was controlled by the Democrat Party and there was virtually no obvious support for the concept.

"But we were patient and we kept at it, and he was impeached," he said.

"We believe he [Obama] is not qualified to be president, he should have never been allowed to be president, and [impeachment] is the best process for resolving this situation," he said.

Brown said most people remember him for being behind the Horton ad, which highlighted the subsequent crimes of a felon released from prison under Dukakis' watch. He also was among the first to sound the alarm on the Clinton Whitewater scandal as well as the mysterious circumstances of the apparent suicide of White House Counsel Vince Foster.

In a WorldNetDaily column, Floyd and Mary Beth Brown write that the idea already is mushrooming among conservatives, such as those in the discussions on the Expose Obama website where Floyd Brown is a moderator.

"Radio-personality, Tammy Bruce may have captured these activists beliefs about Obama best: '... ultimately, it comes down to... the fact that he seems to have, it seems to me, some malevolence toward this country, which is unabated,'" she said, according to the Browns.

They argue Obama already is guilty of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" for which the U.S. Constitution provides impeachment as a penalty.

"Our Founding Fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the president for actions which include: gross incompetence, negligence, and distasteful behavior," they wrote.

According to the Impeach Obama Campaign, Obama already has:


·         Lied to the American people when he said people could keep private insurance, knowing full well that his legislation would inevitably drive private insurers out of business.

·         Vindictively fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, who investigated Kevin Johnson, a buddy of the president, for misuse of funds from an AmeriCorps grant.

·         Supervised the effective takeover by government of banks, the largest insurance company (AIG), and General Motors (GM) and Chrysler... the bulk of the U.S. auto industry, thus depriving bondholders, shareholders, and others of their property.

·         Pursued cap-and-trade legislation. It would in a manner of speaking tax the very air people exhale and give the government unprecedented control over the economy and American businesses.

·         Added a trillion dollars to the national debt in just a handful of weeks.

·         Appointed "Czars" to oversee everything from the closing of Guantanamo to the nation's food.

·         And finally, Obama has consistently refused to approve the release of his actual birth certificate, college transcripts and his medical records.


Since impeachment proceedings are handled by no one but Congress, Brown writes that it is important now for people to realize the impact of their votes in 2010, because that will determine the makeup of Congress, and very probably whether any impeachment against Obama could proceed.

Brown cited a key opinion from former President Gerald Ford, who while serving in the House of Representatives, said an impeachable offense was, "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

"Impeachment, as written in the Constitution, was tailor-made for Barack Hussein Obama and our Founders placed it in our Constitution for such a time as this," Brown said.

Brown cited his concerns over Obama's attitudes and behaviors, including:


·         When Obama said America is not a Christian nation.

·         When, in his book, Obama wrote of Muslims, "I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

·         When the White House insisted the name of Jesus be covered before Obama could speak at Georgetown University.

·         When in 2009 Obama said, "You might say that America is a Muslim nation."

·         When he treated the Queen of England with casual familiarity, but bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, where Muslims won't permit Christian worship under penalty of death.


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."
Some of the lawsuits 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.

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums probably exceeding $1 million to avoid releasing an original long-form state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.

WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.




Is it time to whisper
the word 'impeachment'?

Exclusive: Floyd and Mary Beth Brown see
groundswell of calls for president's ouster

--WND - Whisper, heck, how about shouting it from the rooftops re Comrade Obama who is destroying the country from within by continuously foreswearing his oath of office!


Is it time to whisper the word 'impeachment'?

Posted: October 08, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
© 2009 


At the tea party in Washington, D.C., a popular sign read simply, "Impeach Obama."

As a moderator of discussion on the blog
www.exposeobama.com, Floyd has observed the discussion of impeachment is mushrooming amongst conservative activists.

personality Tammy Bruce may have captured these activists' beliefs about Obama best: "Uultimately, it comes down to ... the fact that he seems to have, it seems to me, some malevolence toward this country, which is unabated."

But has Barack Obama committed an impeachable offense? What exactly constitutes an impeachable offense? Former President Gerald Ford, while serving in the House of Representatives, said an impeachable offense was "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The key phrase here is "high crimes and misdemeanors," a concept in English common
law well-known to our Founding Fathers, but grossly misunderstood in this day and age. "High crimes and misdemeanors" essentially means bad behavior.

Here's a passage from C-Span.org that succinctly summarizes the historical significance surrounding the inclusion of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution: "'High crimes and misdemeanors' entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment – treason and bribery – were not enough. He worried that other "great and dangerous offenses" might not be covered ... so Mason then proposed 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th-century language, a 'misdemeanor' meant 'mis-demeanor,' or bad behavior."

In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not refer to a criminal act. Our Founding Fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the president for actions which include: gross incompetence, negligence and distasteful behavior.

For those who mistakenly hold the illusion that impeaching Barack Hussein Obama would be a simple matter of "playing politics," the founders fully intended that the impeachment of a sitting president be a political act.

As C-Span.org notes: "The Congress decides the definition [of impeachable offenses]: by majority vote in the
House for impeachment, and by two-thirds vote in the Senate for conviction. The Framers of the Constitution deliberately put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment."

Impeachment is no more or less than the recall of an elected official who isn't up to the job. Obama deserves recall much more than Gov. Gray Davis, and he was replaced by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a special recall election Oct. 7, 2003, in California.

America is a monument to the triumph of freedom. When Barack Obama thinks about freedom, he sees a world in which some people, due to personal initiative and good fortune, will do better than others. In that regard, he is right. But Barack Obama sees that as unfair. Where you see freedom, liberty and the opportunity for any American to be all that he or she can be, Obama sees greed and bigotry.

Like so many on the far-left before him, going all the way back to Karl Marx, he believes that it's his mission to promote "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity." This worldview makes Barack Hussein Obama a very dangerous man, and a threat to your personal liberty.

Worldview explains why he has gobbled-up major banks and why the
government now controls more and more of our money. And if you wake up one day to discover you're broke, don't be surprised. Barack Hussein Obama is Bernie Madoff with the political power of the presidency at his disposal.

Worldview explains why Obama intends to take away your freedom to choose your own
doctor and your own treatment. Wherever government controls health care, bureaucrats decide who gets treatments, transplants, dialysis and costly medication.


The groundswell of calls for the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama is growing.



WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Congressman slams 'un-American' insurance mandates http://www.wnd.com/images/breaking.gif
GOP's Shadegg: 'It's almost so shocking you can't believe it'



Shocker! Ice melt lowest in 30 years http://www.wnd.com/images/breaking.gif
NASA downplays Antarctic snow record, blames ozone depletion, ocean dynamics

Shocker! Ice melt lowest in 30 years
NASA downplays Antarctic snow record, blames ozone depletion, ocean dynamics

Posted: October 08, 2009
12:25 am Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily



Ice melt on the world's coldest continent was the lowest in 30 years during the 2008-2009 melt season, according to new research.

The finding was published in the journal
Geophysical Research Letters last month by Marco Tedesco, a research scientist at the Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology, cooperatively managed by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center; and Andrew Monaghan, National Center for Atmospheric Research scientist.

"A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne
microwave observations for 1980-2009," their abstract states. "Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season."

World Climate Report posted the following line graph to illustrate the Antarctic snow melt index (October-January) from 1980-2009:


The report included a list of NASA stories that highlight record high amounts of ice melting across Greenland. In recent years, NASA has written extensively on increasing snow melt and published findings by scientist Marco Tedesco.

A May 2007 NASA report declared, "In 2006, Greenland experienced more days of melting snow and at higher altitudes than average over the past 18 years, according to a new NASA-funded project using
satellite observations."

On Sept. 25, 2007, NASA reported once again that Greenland snow melt hit record highs.

NASA also reported extensive snowmelt in Antarctica in 2007 and 2008.

"On the world's coldest continent of Antarctica, the landscape is so vast and varied that only satellites can fully capture the extent of changes in the snow melting across its valleys, mountains, glaciers and ice
shelves," NASA reported. "In a new NASA study, researchers using 20 years of data from space-based sensors have confirmed that Antarctic snow is melting farther inland from the coast over time, melting at higher altitudes than ever and increasingly melting on Antarctica's largest ice shelf."

NASA warns that "Antarctica contains 90 percent of Earth's fresh
water, making it the largest potential source of sea level rise."

In March 2008, NASA reported the Wilkins Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula disintegrated, something it said was "an indication of warming temperatures in the region."

But now that Tadesco and Monaghan confirm a 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record, NASA has published research from scientists who claim increasing sea ice could be due to ozone depletion, changing ocean dynamics or the flooding of sea ice.

"Since the ozone hole began developing, researchers believe the Antarctic stratosphere has cooled between 2°C and 6°C (3.6°F and 10.8°F)," NASA reports. "Such cooling changes the dynamics between the stratosphere and lower layers of the atmosphere and strengthens Antarctica's already fierce winds."
The fierce winds are said to produce sustained periods of freezing temperatures unlike any other place in the world.

new model suggests that colder, stormier, and faster winds are rushing over the waters encircling Antarctic – especially the Ross Sea, where ice growth has been the most rapid," NASA wrote in a September report. "The winds create areas of open water near the coast – known as polynyas – that promote sea ice production."

According to the NASA report, changes in ocean circulation may also play a role.

"If global air temperatures warm, the model indicates that the amount of rain and snowfall could increase, and surface waters could freshen," it states. "Since fresh water is less dense and less apt to mix with the heavier, saltier, and warmer water below, the layer at the ocean's surface could become more stratified and mix less. This, in turn, would reduce the amount of heat flowing upward, allowing surface ice to expand."

Another possibility, according to NASA, could be that accumulating snow is pressing down on the sea ice until it's nearly submerged.

"When that happens, waves cause ocean water to spill on top of the ice and into the snow, forming a layer that eventually freezes and becomes 'snow ice,'" NASA reported.

Climate Report questioned why NASA wouldn't report specifically on Tedesco and Monaghan's findings concerning a 30-year record low for ice melt.

"[T]his time around, nothing, nada, zippo from NASA when their ice melt go-to guy Marco Tedesco reports that Antarctica has set a record for the lack of surface ice melt (even more interestingly coming on the heels of a near-record low ice-melt year last summer)," World Climate Report states. "So, seriously, NASA, what gives? If ice melt is an important enough topic to warrant annual updates of the goings-on across Greenland, it is not important enough to elucidate the history and recent behavior across Antarctica?"



GOP Pans Health Bill After Cost Report

GOP Pans Senate Health Bill After Cost Analysis

Non-partisan Congressional Budget Office report said Senate committee's health care reform package will not add to the national deficit and save $81 billion over the next 10 years


Thursday, October 08, 2009





Oct. 1: Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. , holds up notes for photographers, on Capitol Hill in Washington before the start of the afternoon session of the committee's continuing hearing on health care reform legislation (AP).


Congressional budget experts gave a boost Wednesday to a Senate version of President Obama's proposed overhaul of the health care system, concluding that the bill pending in the Finance Committee would cost $829 billion over the next 10 years -- under the $900 billion target set by Obama.

The preliminary report, released Wednesday by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, also said the committee's health care reform package will not add to the national deficit -- and will save $81 billion over the next 10 years compared to current federal health care spending.

But the political battle over how to interpret the CBO's report may have only begun.

"Our balanced approach to health reform has paid off yet again with the news today that the America's Healthy Future Act remains fully paid for, begins to reduce the federal deficit within 10 years and makes significant reductions in federal debt over the next several decades," said Sen. Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee the key negotiator behind the legislation.

Republicans -- with the exception of Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe -- panned the Finance effort.

"A celebration of the deficit effects masks who pays the bills," Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, said. "This package includes hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes and fees. Most Americans with health insurance will see their premiums increase."

And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Finance Committee bill wasn't viable anyway and "will never see the Senate floor."

Snowe, a member of the Finance Committee, told reporters she needs time to review the latest estimates. That the overall cost of the plan is lower than an earlier version is positive, she said.
The CBO report estimated that the bill would reduce rolls of uninsured by 29 million over the next 10 years -- ensuring that 94 percent of Americans will be covered.

The report paves the way for the Senate Finance Committee to vote as early as Friday on the legislation, which is largely in line with President Obama's call for the most sweeping overhaul of the nation's health care system in a half-century.

Congressional tax experts say the proposed legislation would require health care industries to pay $121 billion in taxes over 10 years -- about $29 billion more than originally thought.

Finance Committee Republicans have been arguing the measure contains too many new taxes.

Grassley blasted the bill on Wednesday, saying, "It's going to be a very costly bill."
"If you take the years 2013 through 2023, you'll find that it's a very very expensive bill," he said.

The committee's proposal, which calls for co-ops instead of a so-called "public option," has to be blended with the version approved by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, which does include the public option. Only then can it be considered by the full Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will face a difficult task in merging the two bills into one -- and presumably one that includes the government-run insurance plan that he and other liberal Democrats have steadfastly backed.

The Finance committee voted last week to strike two amendments that would establish a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurance coverage. But the bill created in July by the Health Committee includes a public option and requires employers to offer insurance to their employees. 

The question over whether Reid will push for a government-run insurance plan in the final legislation remains to be answered. Reid has said a public option is essential to reform, and other leading Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have stressed its importance in expanding coverage to the millions of uninsured.

"Today’s news from the Congressional Budget Office on the Finance Committee's bill is another important step down the road toward enacting comprehensive health insurance reform," Reid said.  "I look forward to the Finance Committee completing its work as soon as possible. After the committee acts, we must begin the important work of merging their proposal with the HELP Committee legislation. We'll work with the White House and the chairmen of the HELP and Finance Committees to craft a bill that can garner 60 votes." 

The final Senate bill will then go up against the House version, which includes a government-run insurance option to compete with private insurers.

Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said he intends to submit the House health care reform bill to the CBO by Friday. 

House Democrats are expected to discuss potential "pay-fors" in their health care reform bill on Thursday, congressional aides told FOX News.

"Everything will be done by tomorrow," Rangel said.



Republican leaders argue that congressional analysis of Senate bill's effect on deficit 'masks who pays the bills'
U.S. Budget Deficit Hit Record $1.4 Trillion in 2009


U.S. Budget Deficit Hit Record $1.4 Trillion in 2009

The previous record deficit was $459 billion and was set just last year.


Wednesday, October 07, 2009


WASHINGTON -- The federal budget deficit tripled to a record $1.4 trillion for the 2009 fiscal year that ended last week, congressional analysts said Wednesday.

The Congressional Budget Office estimate, while expected, is bad news for the White House and its allies in Congress as they press ahead with health care overhaul legislation that could cost $900 billion over the next decade.

The unprecedented flood of red ink flows from several factors, including a big drop in tax revenues due to the recession, $245 billion in emergency spending on the Wall Street bailout and the takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Then there is almost $200 billion in costs from President Obama's economic stimulus bill, as well as increases in programs such as unemployment benefits and food stamps.

The previous record deficit was $459 billion and was set just last year.

The Obama health plan would be "paid for" with new revenues and curbs in spending. But the overhaul effort would eat up tax increases and spending cuts that could be used to bring the deficit down.

Obama has attributed the nation's dismal fiscal situation to the financial and economic crises he inherited. White House Budget Director Peter Orzsag is overseeing the administration's efforts to tackle the soaring deficit next year.

"As part of the fiscal 2011 budget, we will be putting forward proposals that return us to a fiscally sustainable path and that have lower deficits in the out-years," Orszag said in a recent Associated Press interview.

The huge deficits have raised worries about the willingness of foreigners to keep purchasing Treasury debt. The administration promises that once the recession is over and the financial system is stabilized, it will move forcefully to get the deficits under control.

Economists worry that the deficits could place upward pressure on interest rates in future years as the government has to offer higher rates to attract investors.

Republicans pounced on the bad news.

"This new CBO data makes it clear that our children and grandchildren will end up buried under a mountain of debt if we continue taxing, spending and borrowing at these dangerous levels," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said. "How many alarm bells have to be set off before Washington Democrats get serious about tackling dangerous budget deficits?"
Economists say the best measure of the deficit is to compare it with the size of the economy. On those terms, the 2009 deficit reached almost 10 percent of gross domestic product, a level not witnessed since World War II.

The White House says it wants deficits in the next few years to stabilize at or below 3 percent of GDP. But by the White House's own estimates released in August -- which predicted deficits averaging about 4 percent through the rest of the decade -- it would take several hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes or spending curbs to just get the deficit down to 3 percent of GDP.

Those steps would easily exceed the efforts under way now to pay for Obama's health care plan. For example, bringing the 2014 deficit back in line with Obama's goals would require about $240 billion in deficit-closing steps in that year alone -- near the amount of revenue that would flow from the expiration of former President George W. Bush's tax cuts.

Such steps would almost certainly force Obama to break his promise to limit tax increases to the wealthy.
Other budget experts predict higher deficits that would require even more painful steps.


New controversy over safe schools 'czar'http://www.foxnews.com/i/new/vid_icon.gif






Boehner on health care, transparencyhttp://www.foxnews.com/i/new/vid_icon.gif




Thursday, October 8, 2009

Weak Himself, Obama Draws Strength From Bush


by Michael Barone In trying to understand what is happening in the nation and world, we all employ narratives -- story lines that indicate where things are going and what is likely to happen next. We can check the validity of these narratives by observing...

Read more »





ACORN: Congress can't hurt us


By MICHAEL FALCONE Any successful efforts by Congress to cut off federal funding to scandal-plagued ACORN would have little effect on the community organizing group’s overall operations, its chief executive officer said on Tuesday. “We didn’t have...

Read more »



ACORN tossed out Republican voter registrations


by Pamela Geller ACORN wants people to register to vote – as long as they’re Democrats. Republican registrations go into the trash. Here is a first-hand account of how it happens. In February 2008, Fathiyyah Muhammad of Jacksonville, Florida, heard...

Read more »





Sunstein: Americans too racist for socialism

Defends communism, welfare state but says 'white majority' oppose programs aiding blacks, Hispanics By Aaron Klein The U.S. should move in the direction of socialism but the country's "white majority" opposes welfare since such programs largely would...

Read more »


Sunstein: Americans too racist for socialism


Defends communism, welfare state but says 'white majority' oppose programs aiding blacks, Hispanics

Aaron Klein

The U.S. should move in the direction of socialism but the country's "white majority" opposes welfare since such programs largely would benefit minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics, argued President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

"The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics)," wrote Sunstein.

The Obama czar's controversial comments were made in his 2004 book "The Second Bill of Rights," which was obtained and reviewed by WND.

In the book, Sunstein openly argues for bringing socialism to the U.S. and even lends support to communism.

"During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care, and a social minimum."

Continued Sunstein: "I think this debate was unhelpful; it is most plausible to see the two sets of rights as mutually reinforcing, not antagonistic."

Sunstein claims the "socialist movement" did not take hold in the U.S. in part because of a "smaller and weaker political left or lack of enthusiasm for redistributive programs."

He laments, "In a variety of ways, subtle and less subtle, public and private actions have made it most difficult for socialism to have any traction in the United States."

Sunstein wants to spread America's wealth

WND first reported Sunstein penned a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper in which he debated whether America should pay "justice" to the world by entering into a compensation agreement that would be a net financial loss for the U.S. He argues it is "desirable" to redistribute America's wealth to poorer nations.

A prominent theme throughout Sunstein's 39-page paper, entitled "Climate Change Justice" and reviewed by WND, maintains U.S. wealth should be redistributed to poorer nations. He uses terms such as "distributive justice" several times. The paper was written with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner.

"It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid," wrote Sunstein.

He posited: "We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.

"If the United States agrees to participate in a climate change agreement on terms that are not in the nation's interest, but that help the world as a whole, there would be no reason for complaint, certainly if such participation is more helpful to poor nations than conventional foreign-aid alternatives," he wrote.
Sunstein maintains: "If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses."

Sunstein proposed 'socialist' bill of rights

In "The Second Bill of Rights,"
WND also reported, Sunstein proposed a new "bill of rights" in which he advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state. Among his mandates:


·         The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

·         The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

·         The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

·         The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

·         The right of every family to a decent home;

·         The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

·         The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

·         The right to a good education.


On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."

Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments."

WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled "The Constitution in 2020," which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.

Sunstein has been a main participant in the movement, which openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020. It also suggests strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.

Just before his appearance at the conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."





Forced Inoculations? Sebelius: Americans must get swine flu vaccination


Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius appealed anew Wednesday for widespread inoculation against a surging swine flu threat, calling the vaccine "safe and secure." Sebelius unconditionally vouched for the safety of the vaccine, saying...

Read more »




Is the Federal Reserve a Secret Society?


by Sharon Hughes While the White House claims an urgency to pass healthcare reform, and while Christina Romer, chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, tries to convince the American people that the $787 billion stimulus plan is working...

Read more »




Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Traditional Values Coalition Strongly Urges Two Vetoes, With or Without a Water Deal


Despite Governor’s Threat to Veto All Bills Without a Water Deal, Two Bills Deserve Immediate Vetoes October 8th — Anaheim, California —“With only 3 days left to take action, Traditional Values Coalition is urging in the strongest terms that Governor...

Read more »


Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Traditional Values Coalition Strongly Urges Two Vetoes, With or Without a Water Deal


Despite Governor’s Threat to Veto All Bills Without a Water Deal, Two Bills Deserve Immediate Vetoes

October 8th — Anaheim, California —“With only 3 days left to take action, Traditional Values Coalition is urging in the strongest terms that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger immediately veto
Senate Bill 54 and Senate Bill 572, water deal or not,” said Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman and founder of Traditional Values Coalition (TVC). “SB 54 will pave the way for continued legal challenges to Prop 8’s constitutional standing and SB 572 will open the floodgates for the glorification of controversial homosexual leaders in all California schools. Both of these bills are unacceptable and warrant immediate vetoes.”

Several recent news reports revealed that Governor Schwarzenegger threatened legislative leaders that all bills on his desk pending action would be vetoed if no satisfactory water deal was agreed to. TVC announced today that it supports the Governor’s potential action. While TVC does not support the objectives of many of the bills on the governor’s desk, such as those bills that would allow for increases in the car tax anywhere from $1 to upwards of $10, and those implementing additional regulations on businesses, allowing for early prisoner release, restricting the right of the people to qualify ballot initiatives and creating more unnecessary commissions (such as the proposed Blueberry Commission), it is SB 54 and SB 572 that is of extreme caution and concern for TVC’s constituency in the state, concerned parents, individuals, pastors and churches.

SB 54 and SB 572, both authored by Senator Mark Leno of San Francisco, are two of the approximately 700-plus bills awaiting action by the governor. SB 54 would allow for all homosexual marriages performed in other states prior to Prop 8’s passing in 2008 to be valid and recognized here in California. SB 572 would create a “Harvey Milk Day” throughout California schools each May 22 of every year, whereby schools would be encouraged to conduct undefined “commemorative exercises” about the homosexual life and political career of Harvey Milk, a San Franciscan who was active in the homosexual movement.

“Gov. Schwarzenegger needs to be consistent when it comes to the same-sex marriage bill on his desk,” Sheldon said. “He said he would not go against the will of the voters when he vetoed Leno’s previous homosexual marriage bills. He must now follow his own lead and logic yet again and soundly reject SB 54. Over 7 million Californians said no to homosexual marriage when they passed Prop 8. Why then should he sign a bill into law that allows for more homosexual marriages to be valid and would give legal footing to those couples from out of state that would seek to undermine Prop 8 in court yet again!!”
TVC’s chief legislative analyst and advocate Benjamin Lopez said this regarding SB 572:

“SB 572 is just like Assembly Bill 2567 from 2008. It is the same bill requiring the same veto. Even the governor’s Secretary of Education issued a letter agreeing with the Governor’s veto of last year’s Harvey Milk Day bill. They said ‘Since the bill is nearly identical, the veto message [from last year] remains applicable [today].’ Nothing has changed since 2008. The governor should not be duped into thinking otherwise. No movie or medal of freedom makes one a national figure worthy of a day of recognition. Especially when more deserving Californians, who were actually known beyond one city and have more accomplishments, such as Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Walt Disney, William Randolph Hearst, are overlooked. Harvey Milk has a long line to wait in before he is even justifiably considered for a day of his own.”

Lopez, who testified against SB 572 at every legislative hearing, added: “Harvey Milk died in a political, workplace disagreement that had nothing to do with homosexuality. He is no martyr and no school kid should have to listen to stories about his involvement in the homosexual movement or about his sexual affairs with young men. Milk and his lifestyle have no place in California’s schools. Harvey Milk is not the pride of the Golden State; rather, he is an embarrassment.”

TVC is encouraging concerned individuals to contact the governor to ask that he veto these bills. He can be sent an electronic message at:
http://gov.ca.gov/interact#email. Schwarzenegger has until October 11th to take action or all bills automatically become law if no action is taken.



Ayers 'confesses' he wrote Obama's 'Dreams' http://www.wnd.com/images/breaking.gif
Was ex-Weatherman terrorist merely mocking reporters or leaking the truth?


WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Cambridge cancels Savage debate
'Difficult decision': British society cites 'legal issues' days before event



Liberal lies about national health care, Part 7
Ann Coulter: 'Life doesn't last longer in socialist countries, it just feels like it'


Where's the birth certificate?
Exclusive: Joseph Farah takes Rep. Bachmann to task for pooh-poohing eligibility issue



Outrage on planet Washington
Exclusive: Jane Chastain flays lawmakers for shamelessly pumping up own budgets


A nation of pigs
Exclusive: Erik Rush urges citizens to fight cultural degradation as they have political




A nation of pigs

Posted: October 08, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

Sometimes these columns practically write themselves.

As many of my readers are aware, those who are dedicated to the wholesale destabilization of America work on two primary fronts, these being the political and the cultural. A couple of items that have gained media attention over the past couple of weeks speak volumes to the
degradation of American culture; while they have proven disturbing to many Americans, I believe that some elucidation is in order regarding the big picture.

On Sept. 26, 2009, film director Roman Polanski was arrested by Swiss
police in Zürich, Switzerland, while trying to enter that country. The arrest was in connection with an outstanding warrant from the U.S. that dated back to 1978; Polanski had fled the U.S. that year to avoid prosecution for the rape of 13-year-old Samantha Geimer, in every way imaginable by most people. He stayed abroad, avoiding prosecution for 30 years.

Authorities in California (where the crime occurred) hoped to have Polanski extradited to the U.S., but there were a couple of hitches: One was that there was no guarantee of cooperation from Swiss authorities.

The other was probably a bit less expected. On Sept. 28, over 100 individuals, including several top Hollywood directors and a host of other entertainment industry celebrities, signed a petition protesting Polanski's arrest and detention by the Swiss. Among them was the
stepdaughter-seducing comic director Woody Allen. Given the high profiles of these parties, of course, the story of their solidarity with the fugitive director, now 76, became as big as that of his arrest.

Then, on Oct. 1, during a taping of CBS' "Late Show with David Letterman," the late-night host publicly admitted that he had engaged in sexual affairs with female staffers. The impetus for this confession lay in a recent blackmail threat relating to these liaisons. On Oct. 5, Letterman publicly apologized to his wife for these indiscretions, again, during the taping of that night's show.

Some Americans, and much of the establishment press, have lauded Letterman's confession and apology as extraordinarily honorable and praiseworthy.


So, Letterman's stinginess overcame his pride. Big deal. The man is obviously not stupid; he knew that progressives (like the majority of his audience) don't kick their own to the curb for that sort of thing; they exalt them. Whether he outed himself, or was betrayed by the blackmailer, it was a win-win situation for the late-night icon.

In the case of Polanski, the concept of a klatsch of contemptible, insular libertines pleading the case of a pedophiliac rapist is simply beyond despicable; it reveals what depraved, loathsome creatures these people are, and illustrates in magnificent detail why their value system ought not only be eschewed by Americans at large, but demonstrably derided.

While the political left has been busy neutralizing our liberties and compromising the U.S. abroad, progressives in
government, the press and the entertainment media are transforming us into a nation of pigs – and altogether too many of us are not yet aware of it. Anything prurient goes, and the degree to which Americans' morality has already been undermined will likely take decades to repair as it is.
A few cases in point:

  1. Just this week, WND reported on a high school in Virginia that is dispensing profoundly disturbing, sexually-deviant media of various types to its students.
  2. Cable TV's ABC Family Channel (the appropriateness of this name depends upon what one's particular meaning of the word "family" happens to be) features the popular show "The Secret Life of the American Teenager." This insidious fare showcases the shallowest troupe of middle-class, sex-obsessed high-schoolers one could dream up. Episodes of this program employ the words "sex" or the phrase "have sex" an average of 48 times. I counted.
  3. As recently showcased in the non-establishment press, President Obama's new director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools is a radical homosexual.

Think of these examples like cockroaches; for every one that you see, there are hundreds more that you do not see.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment I, Constitution of the United States of America

The left's convoluted logic and specious contentions vis-a-vis First Amendment provisions for free speech can no longer be allowed to stand. If Congress shall make no law, and has made no law, no one's rights have been violated. Whatever measures the populace takes to curtail the actions of dissolute entertainers and public servants are also protected, so long as they are nonviolent.

And it is time that those measures be taken. Americans must begin to act toward the preservation of a reasonably decent, moral environment, in similar fashion as they have begun to act toward the preservation of their liberties.







An Unacknowledged War in Latin America
Obama administration endangers U.S. troops in Colombia


International Affairs

Tradition In Action


An Unacknowledged War in Latin America

Toby Westerman


The United States is at war in Latin America - or more properly - nations and guerrilla armies are at war with the United States. Although under attack, and our citizens have been killed, there has been no acknowledgement by the U.S. government or media that this nation is involved in a full-scale war. America has already lost lives in this war, and now the U.S. government seems set to again commit an error which led to the deaths of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans in Vietnam.

After the pro-Marxist government of Rafael Correa government expelled the U.S. from its base in Manta, Ecuador, the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama committed the U.S. military to operate out of at least seven Colombian military bases. Manta was an important center for the U.S. campaign against the illegal drug trade in the region.

FARC in Colombia

American troops face FARC well-trained and well-equipped guerillas - protected by neighboring countries

While the intent is to replace the anti-drug facility at Manta, the Obama administration has committed U.S. military personnel to an anti-drug campaign inside a nation which is fighting an ongoing 40-year civil war. American advisors have assisted the Colombian military for years, but the projected increase of U.S. personnel raises the possibility of larger scale engagements between American and enemy combatants.

Unfortunately for U.S. troops, the enemy are not merely for profit drug traffickers, but are ideologically committed revolutionaries attempting to overthrow the Colombian government. The link between drug trafficking and revolutionary ideology is seldom, if ever, mentioned in the Centralized Media.

In addition to the perilous situation U.S. troops will be facing in the struggle with the Colombian drug traffickers-revolutionaries, the Obama administration is placing political restrictions on how the military is to conduct its operations.

A Vietnam error repeated?

According to a recent
Spanish language report, the U.S. ambassador to Colombia, William Brownfield, stated that U.S. forces will not approach or cross any border into any of Colombia's neighbors without a prior bilateral agreement.

As a result of this policy, U.S. military personnel may be in hot pursuit of a narco-terror gang, but once the enemy approaches the border of one of Colombia's neighbors, the Americans will be forced to break off the chase.

Map of Colombia

A new agreement stops Americans from pursuing enemies across Colombian borders

Brownfield's declaration was meant to counter charges from several Latin American nations that the U.S. will use Colombia as a base for military expansion in the region, but it will also cost American lives.

A similar restriction during the Vietnam war frustrated attempts by the U.S. military to eliminate guerrilla formations operating in border regions. The result was unnecessary casualties and a lowering of troop morale.

U.S. restrictions on military personnel will probably have a similar result in Colombia, because cross border raids and counter-raids have been an essential factor in the recent history of Colombia and its neighbors, and the pattern is very likely to continue.

In Colombia, the largest guerrilla force - and the one involved in drug trafficking - is known by the initials FARC-EP, the Spanish initials for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia - Popular Army, usually abbreviated simply as FARC.

The FARC controls most of the drug trade in Colombia, and the profits fund the FARC's war against the government of Colombia. The FARC also acquires money through kidnapping and extortion. While the FARC methods of funding their activities are criminal, and the rebel group itself is sometimes dismissed as simply an outlaw organization, the FARC energetically espouses Marxist ideology.

A link between drugs and Marxist Revolution

The sale of illegal drugs is an old method of raising money for Communist guerrilla groups. Over 70 years ago Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong needed a source of income to replace aid from the Soviet Union, which dried up during the early days of WWII.

Mao Tse Tung - Mao Zedong

Mao Zedong used illegal drug traffic to raise money for Communist guerillas

Mao chose the illegal drug trade to keep money flowing to his revolution. The FARC is following Mao's example, as is the Shining Path (Spanish, Sendero Luminoso) in Peru. The Shining Path is a Maoist revolutionary group. It has turned to the illicit drug trade to fund its remnant force, while offering generous cash inducements to join the revolution.

The FARC is allied or sympathetic with various Communist movements in the region, especially the "21st Century Socialism" of Hugo Chavez, the Marxist president of Venezuela. Although he publically asked the FARC to lay down its arms in 2008, Chavez continues to provided assistance and asylum for FARC guerrillas, as he has done since becoming Venezuelan president in 1999.

In 2004, Chavez's proclaimed neutrality in the Colombian civil war received a rude shock when the FARC's reputed "Foreign Minister," Rodrigo Granda, was abducted by anti-FARC operatives in Venezuela's capital city, Caracas, and taken to Colombia.Granda's imprisonment was relatively short, however, since he was exchanged for prisoners held by the FARC.

Chavez has been
consistently connected with the FARC's drug trade, especially exports to Europe via Africa.

FARC guerrillas also have operated out of Ecuador. A high ranking FARC leader, known as Simon Trinidad, was captured in Ecuador in 2004 while a pro-American government was in power.

Slightly more than a year after the election of Marxist Rafael Correa, Colombian forces raided a FARC base in March 2008 about one mile into Ecuadorian territory. The FARC second-in-command, known as Raul Reyes, was killed, but far more importantly,
Reyes' laptop computer, storage discs and travel drives were captured.

The information gained from the captured computer files and verified by Interpol indicated a wide net of FARC contacts across Latin America and Europe. The raid remains a sore point between Colombia and Ecuador.

Americans killed

Americans attempting to fight the drug trade in Colombia have already been tortured and killed by the FARC. One of the more widely known incidents involved four American contractors and their Colombian pilot. The five individuals were on an anti-drug surveillance flight over FARC controlled territory in February 2003 when their plane crashed.

Americans prisoners of FARC

American prisoners during their capture (below) and after their release today (above)

U.S. citizen Thomas John Janis and the plane's pilot, Colombian soldier Luis Alcides Cruz, were killed by FARC guerrillas. The remaining three, Marc Gonsalves, Thomas Howes and Keith Stansell, were captured. They remained prisoners of the FARC for more than five years, until a daring ruse in July 2008 by Colombian forces freed the Americans, as well as one-time Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, and 11 others. The three Americans wrote a book about their experiences, Out of Captivity: Surviving 1,967 Days in the Colombian Jungle.

There may be a sense of closure to this particular incident. The hard-fighting military of Colombia recently captured a FARC guerrilla fighter, known as "Bronco," and identified him as the killer of Janis and Cruz.

Like most aspects involving the FARC and the Latin American Marxist war against the United States, the centralized media are giving little attention to the arrest of the apparent killer "Bronco" or to his comrades still in the field.

America's actions in Colombia must be well informed and clearly thought out. At this point, the American people have not been fully or accurately informed about the situation on the ground in Colombia, and American policy appears to be drifting toward another disaster born of confusion.