Obama's Energy Czar: Socializing Paint Colors Throughout The Globe

The liberal lefty loonies have done it again in the U.S., and amazed that the state of our nation has now come to this.

According to Yahoo News and several other news sources, at a recent symposium held in London by 20 pre-eminent Nobel laureates and attended by the Prince of Wales, Barack Obama's new energy czar, Steven Chu, made his contribution to the global warming non-phenomena now sweeping the globe in order to "stimulate" the economies of the science and technology fields:

Mr. Chu recommends that all roofs be painted energy-reflective white.

In the article he further states that making roads and roofs a paler color would have the effect of taking every car off the road for 11 years.

I wonder if he ever worked for DuPont?

As a former Arizona resident, I can unequivocally state that painting roofs white might not be a bad idea given the sweltering summers in that desert climate. However, due to the desert dust storms and monsoons, those roofs would be brown, gray or even black within a few seasons. Not to mention the extra-strength prescription Ray-Bans you would need during the summer in order not to suffer the equivalent of snow blindness.

I wonder if these noted laureates took into consideration that with all those white roofs, would it not increase the heat also that would be reflected back toward the sun, potentially burning out that star well before its time and leaving this planet then in total darkness?

Maybe that topic is for the next global summit.

I wonder what the carbon footprints for those attending the meeting, and whether they flew by prop or British Airways non-stop jumbo jet? With the state of our technology as it is now, you would think twenty scientists could meet via telecom or satellite communications, and spare the rest of the world that excess carbon.

At least the White House and Capitol are in compliance, but it appears socializing exterior roofing is now also not even beyond the reach of these global politicians and world leaders at this point.

Lawyers Strike Back: Gore v. Bush Lawyers to Challenge California Ruling

As could be expected in the United States of America, a country with more lawyers in this nation than all of Europe and many other nations combined, the decision of the California Supreme Court upholding the Proposition 8 initiative passed by the residents of the State of California is now going to be challenged by two members of the American Bar Association in a "bipartisan" partnership.

And which two lawyers are seeking another 15 minutes of fame and the spotlight?

The two primary lawyers involved in the Bush v. Gore election challenge which was, in the end, settled again in a bipartisan manner after the United States Supreme Court justices failed to unravel the mystery of just exactly what happened in Florida those many years ago, with Mr. Gore relegated then to the global warming and book tours.

Strangely enough, the challenge "officially" is being brought on behalf of two gay couples who have been refused the "right" to marry in California by a recently formed legal organization, the American Foundation for Civil Rights.

Ever since the ACLU was successful in getting a federal law passed providing for the legal fees for plaintiffs or defendants involved in civil rights matters, a whole slew of challenges to our Constitution over religion and now marriage "rights," have been filed throughout the nation. All courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.

Most of these organizations are listed as 501(c)(3) foundations with claimed "educational" classes and seminars tied to them so that they also can receive federal grant monies as educational institutions. And most are headed and run by lawyers, the largest political group of contributors to both state and federal election campaigns as a whole than any other "industry."

And who also had a hand in writing some of these laws that consistently come up for challenge through their advisory capacities to members of Congress.

So as far as social welfare, the American Bar members are head and shoulders above the pack, and would appear just maybe this "new" organization may be one of the recipients of those federal stimulus monies.

After all, as advisors to Congress, they have the inside track on where all that funding was earmarked, and to which agencies.

As a community property state, and with domestic partnerships laws already in place, powers of attorney and wills available for ownership, health concerns or property distribution, I just wonder what "equal protection under the law" provisions that are denied to gay individuals given traditionally married couples in that state these attorneys will use for their court challenge, since there really is no protection anymore for individuals in marriage after "no fault" divorce laws were passed and California is one that has such provisions.

If it's the tax laws, then just what was that Head of Household option for anyway but to provide acknowledgement of support by the major wage earner of supporting children or elderly parents actually for?

Since marriage is an institution that is governed by the "common law" or "natural law" which has existed for thousands of years and which the founders referred to, I wonder what arguments will be used to justify such a challenge, since it appears the other four states in which these measures were passed didn't consult the Constitution or common law basis upon which our civil laws actually hinge when enacting their legislation or rendering their judicial opinions.

And I wonder just which industry will profit the most if this ban is lifted? It wouldn't be the legal industry for all those potential divorces, if only a third of them eventually wind up in the lawyer's offices, would it?

Isn't California having a claimed "budget crisis" as it is, wanting the rest of the nation to bail them out?

And I wonder just how many new judges from the legal industry will be needed in order to handle those cases at the taxpayer's expense? Seems that this challenge is more being brought as a job stimulus for the lawyers more than anything else, so I guess those stimulus or grant monies this organization most likely is or plans on receiving will be well spent providing more jobs for lawyers.

So citizens of California who worked and supported the ban and who poured all your energies and dollars into getting that measure on the ballot in recognition of the history and civil common law upon which our Constitution is based, the "bi-partisan" legal industry has spoken.

Equal protection under the law doesn't apply to you.

Nor our Constitution, apparently.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/27/same.sex.marriage.court/

Sonia Sotomayor: The Court Makes Policy?

Yesterday Barack Obama announced his selection for the vacating position of Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Obama as the ultimate "politician" used as his criteria for selection not merit, or published opinions balanced against the Constitutional basis or findings - but instead his views on balancing the Court with a member who was in his mind "politically" correct, and an activist in their interpretation of U.S. law.

In other words, one who would not rock the boat on his political agendas and policies, rather than one as an intended "check" on those policies in order to retain some semblance of our Constitution and intended form of government.

And who did he choose?

A member of the judiciary who identifies herself as a "Hispanic-American" woman, educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School (both rather "liberal" teaching institutions with respect to the law, which focuses more on judge made or case law than it does our Constitution or history, and questioning some of the U.S. Supreme Court's rather progressively unconstitutional decisions).

Princeton, Yale, Harvard and Stanford are the equivalent of Oxford in England, in teaching that the government is "sovereign," and diametrically opposed to the actual foundation and provisions within America's own Constitution, where it is the people and Constitution which are "sovereign" and the government at all levels beneath and limited by its express provisions and terms.

Look for Obama now to push for an illegal immigrant amnesty ala George Bush, no matter that the border state residents are now involved in an undeclared war of their own down on the border, and losing their homes and lives at an increasing rate due to the federal negligence in getting our southern borders secured now almost eight years post 9/11.

Mr. Obama is more concerned with "looking good," than doing the right thing, or following the law at any level.

And appears the Ivy League schools themselves just may need some political "balancing" in their teaching staff, so that the practice of law in this country returns to the profession it once was, and not the political industry it has become. And without any oversight other than by a British carryover and political organization, the American Bar Association.

It seems the "dumbing down" of America is nowhere more evident than at the graduate school level, if Mr. Obama and Ms. Sotomayor and their views of "the Law" are any indication.

California Screaming: Golden State Needs More Than Mamas and Papas

Recently on one of the major networks it was reported that the State of California is facing a massive budget deficit, with the citizens of California screaming.

It appears Governor Schwartzenegger's solution to the catastrophy, one which again has a great deal to do with the past and current administration's governmental excesses from all reports, is now to request that the citizens of the United States bail out California much like the AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts (and it appears, the Big Three auto manufacturers).

California, the home of such programs as "Californication," "Beverly Hills 90210," "The OC" and the like, is hardly an innocent victim in their predicament, but a state who has built it's own reputation on fantasy and excess.

Apparently, it is those hard working Midwesterners and farmers that those in the Golden State now wish to come to their rescue, in addition to the out of work steel and auto workers, and those now homeless due to many of the practices of a number of banks who make their home also in the Golden State.

My former home state, Arizona, is now full of the refugees from California who essentially have destroyed that state with their excesses, and are working on destroying my former home in leaps and bounds with their liberal agendas.

Governor Schwartenegger, here are some suggestions for restoring economic viability in California:

1. Reduce all governmental salaries by at least 25%, in recognition that you, and all public employees of that state, also have blue ribbon health, dental, and pension plans that a good 2/3's of the private sector employees in California do not have (with the exception of Beverly Hills, Hollywood, and Nobb Hill).

Place freezes on additonal new hires until the size of government in the state can actually bear relevance to need, i.e., since the cities and local governments are state actors of the State of California, both legally and by judicial interpretation, just maybe your bicameral legislature could be parred down to a unicameral one such as Nebraska has, which is actually more in accordance with the federal Constitution, since there are only three "legal" entities within it - the federal government, the states, and the people.

And Senators rarely represent the municipalites solely in state government, but usually also large corporate interests just as the House members now do although elected through supposedly "democratic" local elections. Although those candidates merely are representatives of political party and corporate interests, by and large, and many of which funded by out of district slush money.

The U.S. Senators were actually provided to represent "the states" with the U.S. House then representing the people. The 17th Amendment somehow changed all that and is why we now have Senators courted by foreign governments and corporate lobbyists, since if elected by the state legislatures as originally provided, they were accountable to the states themselves.

Such a change in California government would result in shorter legislative sessions, less bureaucracy, and less costs to the taxpayers with greater accessibility, and would also be a great idea for the other 48 states which have yet to recognize this "double whammy, double bureaucracy" excess. What a concept!

2. Institute gaming and gambling just like the State of Arizona and so many other states across the nation have rather recently done, and then in conjunction with the new social drinking taxes, have officers wait outside the casinos to pick up the low level DUIs after the casinos have plied them with alcohol. Either they lose the money in the casinos to the state, or just in the event they win or truly do not excessively imbibe, they lose it in the DUI fines and fees after leaving.

Then put them in the privatized county court system, so that the state, counties and cities can at least get their share of the fees and fines, and federal pork pie for those expenses and incarcerations which are factored according to arrests and conviction, and which are now made by juries who are becoming increasing comprised of primarily state or municipal employees. This, of course, has become the procedure in order to insure those conviction rates stay high and those dollars continue to flow in.

Or, as is also now spreading the country due to an errant unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling, remove those jury trials for those now criminal actions entirely, so that the city or county judge can simply act as the state revenue agent instead in the interests of claimed "budgetary needs," due to having now criminalized 2/3rds the population on a Friday or Saturday night.

Oh, and also install statewide those speeding cameras so that you can gain another several billions on those progressive fines and fees for speeding violations based upon those fallible machines. That should bring in billions!!!

Alas, though I see that the State Supreme Court is going to "review" the legality this week of Proposition 8, which passed recently under a citizen's initiative restricting marriages to two sex couples.

Overturn that "people determined" decision due to budgetary needs, and of course you can look forward to all those licenses fees, and the "for profit" court costs and fees for all those divorces sometime in the future. Not to mention all those added taxes that will be necessary in order to provide those courts for at least some of those divorces if only 1/3 of them end up in the courts eventually.

And also those future campaign contributions from the California Bar Association Domestic Relations Division due to the gold mine such an action would engender for their corporate interests in state permission and licensures of personal relationships, rather than simple recordations of these oral or written personal contracts.

The above should fix your budgetary woes, although with respect to California's total tax bill to the rest of the nation, does this take into consideration the effect and costs of those wildfires of yours due to the aging 60's hippie environmentalists and their offspring, nor the "global warming" scam supported by Hollywood in order to now tax the air we breathe.

I don't think Californians should be screaming, but the rest of the nation.

The Sky Rocketing Costs of Higher Education

Now that graduation season is upon us, higher education has been in the news quite a bit in the United States this past month.

Due to the economic conditions now claimed by most states in the United States due to the mortgage meltdown, bank bailouts, continuing conflict in the Middle East, automakers bailouts, health care crisis, and Wall Street's bear market (many of these situations, of course, are due to governmental negligence and precipitated crises) many of the major universities throughout the nation are now announcing increases for tuition rates for most of the public and private college universities.

Interestingly, these increases are now being announced even after there was considerable funding in the form of grants to a great many of these universities for infrastructure needs, and increases in federal grant monies for tuition costs included within that enormous simulus packaged passed by the Obama Administration several months ago.

As an example, the tuition rate increase announced for one of the major universities in my former home state, Arizona, will be the second increase within the past two years, and will place the average in-state resident tuition now at over $6,275 per semester for incoming new freshman for the 2009-2010 academic year at Arizona State University. Included will be new fees in the form of "surcharges" also tacked on to those tuition rates.

Although there is a provision within Arizona's own Constitution that provides the parameters for university tuition which can be charged state residents:

Admission of students of both sexes to state educational institutions; tuition; common school system

Section 6. The university and all other state educational institutions shall be open to students of both sexes, and the instruction furnished shall be as nearly free as possible.

The problem there as in most states is priority of expenditures, and using public funds for private and extra-Constitutional contracts in public/private partnerships and functions most of all.

This amount may sound reasonable when compared to the rate charged at most private universities, or even some of the public East or West coast universities; however, most tuition rates are set by Boards of Regents which are unaccountable to the taxpayers for those tuition rate increases, and simply apply to the state legislature through approvals given by these Board of Regents for their requests. And would dispute with respect to Arizona's clear Constitutional provisions, that $6,250 per semester is "as nearly free as possible."

As someone who grew up in that state, I compared the rates charged when I graduated from high school, to the new rates in comparison factoring in inflation according to the tables provided by an online inflation calculator source.

Since I also am aware of a recent backdoor tax levied and was subject to in the form of an added property tax prior to moving from that state for the expansion of that university and the construction costs for same at the municipal level (thus triple taxation at the municipal, state and federal levels in support of that university), and also aware of the sums in grant monies provided under the stimulus, I did not factor in any added "construction" costs which might also be included in the university's budgets.

Besides, more than 2/3rds the building within the Arizona State University campus are less than 20 years old.

In 1970 the rate for tuition for in state residents was $320.00 for 16 credit hours each semester. As referenced above, the rate for the 2009-2010 academic year will be $12,550.

What cost $320.00 in 1970 would cost $1755.48 in 2008.

Rate charged at ASU 2009-2010: $12,550 - more than eight times the amount of inflation.

And the standard of living (not to mention quality of life) was higher in 1970 even during that recessionary period, than it actually is today.

Also interesting and as a side note, the President of the University was also recently granted a salary increase bringing his salary as a public employee to over $750,000 not including state benefits such as health care, expense accounts, dental insurance and pension plan. That salary of three quarter of a million dollars exceeds the salary of the President of the United States.

His wife is also employed by the university at a salary of over $160,000 per year.

A transplant to that state from Colombia University, Michael Crow also thumbed has also thumbed his nose at the Arizona residents paying his lofty salary by setting aside sums for what he calls "special class international students" receive financial aid from his cache of private benefactors, enabling them to obtain in-state tuition adverse to the restrictions imposed by the citizens by voter approval of a proposition denying in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.

Earlier this year, in the midst of a descending economy, Crow unveiled his ambitious plans for a massive construction project-a $185 million, seven-story science and technology building, scheduled to open in fall 2010. This after he somehow justified expanding ASU into the City of Phoenix with the Chamber of Commerce members and mayor thus triple taxing Phoenix residents in the process for the costs of this massive project. While ASU cannot keep its campuses full as it is, unless it is with illegal immigrants, foreigners and out-state residents while the state residents subsidize those true added costs.

None of the sums received in direct federal grant monies are included in the budgetary requests made at the state level in most states throughout the nation.

And in 1970, free tuition waivers and costs were given to the top 10% of all graduating seniors from Arizona state high schools in recognition of the "public" support of the Arizona citizens to that university.

Now the criteria for any and all tuition fee waivers requires graduating in the top 5%, and exceeding a state mandated AIMS (Arizona Instructional Measurement System) test which a good percentage of the high school faculty themselves had difficulty passing prior to its being given to the high school students. And which cost the Arizona taxpayers over 10 million to prepare, since the Iowa Test of Basic Skills or the SAT's themselves were not sufficient as testing methods for measuring instructional goals for outgoing seniors.

And did I mention that the revenue from the sales of tickets and memorabilia, network contracts, and local radio and television broadcast revenues received by the Arizona State University football program, and private alumni grant monies also go unreported in those budgetary requests?

While the selection committee focuses on primarily out state national merit scholars for name recognition, and illegal immigrant and foreigners for federal grant monies in order to also profit at the Arizona and American citizen's expenses.

If you would like to do a historic comparison for inflationary purposes on your state universities tuition increases throughout the past three decades, you can find the relevant table at:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Freedom of Religion: The Founders and Framers View

As a point of reference in interpreting what the founding fathers wished to avoid with respect to the language in the Constitution on religion as contained within the First Amendment, it might be informative to read the text of Ben Franklin's speech on the day it was ratified.

The failure to provide a "Bill of Rights" for the people of this nation against any abuse of the new government actually was what was responsible for holding up the Constitution's ratification, hence, Mr. Franklin's speech and the promise that the first work of this new government would be those first ten amendments.

And while freedom of religion was the intent in order to prevent what had occurred in England between the Catholics and the Protestants for centuries and then establishment of the state-wide Church of England, it is clear from the text of Mr. Franklin's speech that the provision was intended to protect the freedom of the states on this issue, and also so that no "sect" of the Christian faith was declared the "official" U.S. religion nationwide.

The provisions also with respect to the exclusion of "religious tests" for holding office were actually meant to protect religion also since the requirement of the British people to swear allegiance to the sovereign over the Pope or God was the cause of much of the religious strife in their homeland whose entire belief system was based on biblical foundations above man-made or "sovereign" law.

"Freedom of religion" is quite different than the ACLU definition which clearly is toward banning religion and religous reference from all public forums and squares.

Below is Franklin's pre-ratification speech:

"Mr. President,

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.

It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong.

But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right -

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution.

For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one throats.

Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die.

If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects; great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength; efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors.

I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress and confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.

On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument." (Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia)

And while the "separation of church and state" will continue to be debated and misconstrued, mostly by the ACLU and the atheists, what is lost is that the "separation" of church and state was actually given for the church's protection and to protect the freedom of Americans to worship at the church of their choosing, not to protect the government from the "interference" of the Christian faith at all.

The entire concept of providing for freedom of religion in this country as an individual right in and of itself as primarily Christian or deists themselves, but who abhorred the positions many were placed in during their lives in England having to swear allegiance to king and country when the sovereigns edicts were against their moral and religious principles and beliefs.

The government of the founder's acknowledged religion and religious beliefs and provided for it in our national culture, with the specific provision for its inclusion attempting merely to avoid the differences in the scriptural teachings with respect to the Protestant and Catholic sectarian differences having application at a governmental level nationwide, since the federal government actually was intended to have few and limited powers over the states and people over-all.

Historically in its origins, the Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim beliefs and their wars were primarily due to intolerance of other faiths, each desiring a "country" of their own where their faith was clearly "nationwide," while the Christian wars were fought over sectarian differences between Catholics and Protestants and the various denominations, scriptural interpretations, rituals and practices within them in their former country of England.

Thus this is what the founders were intending to avoid, and also placing the government as accountable to the people and not above it, so that religious tests and fealty to government over the "supreme" Nature's God's laws in the event of moral conflict when the federal government overstepped itself in any respect would then be lessened or avoided.

Tolerance of other religions practices and beliefs is actually uniquely Christian in it's origins in its scriptural provisions, as Christ himself taught in the Golden Rule and parable of the Good Samaritan in loving one's neighbor or enemy AS oneself, and doing unto another as you would have them do unto you - allowing them their freedom to worship God in the manner that you yourself enjoy, whether affiliated with a specific church or not, so long as it does not impinge upon the rights of other of his children to worship in the manner they see fit.

And "of" is not "from" except, perhaps, in a language other than English.

The Politics of the American Idol Finale

As has everything lately in the United States become, now has the finale of the latest crowning of the new American Idol.

It appears that the brouhaha surrounding the loss of Adam Lambert to Kris Allen on national television this past week is being blamed on religion, of all things, by many in the liberal mass media press.

Mr. Lambert has been represented as the poor maligned Jewish, questionably gay, loser due to the voting of the Christian religious right.

At first, this writer was actually too astounded to believe that such a ludicrous claim could be made for the upset.

But search the net and you will find article after article mainly from East and West coast writers laying the blame again on religion or "discrimination."

If any watched the last installment, it was fairly clear who came out on top. And also which performer had been consistently better able to vocally connect with the audience the past few weeks of the contest.

Also, which performer over-all was more talented and with more likelihood of having a far longer career in the music business.

While Adam Lambert has an incredible stage personae and vocal range, he is at best a novelty act unless and until he decides to mature and dump the theatrics.

Looking back in musical history, it is clear that Kiss, Alice Cooper, Queen and the rest of the shock rockers had their time in rock history, but their longevity was fairly limited insofar as drawing the crowds for performances.

Whereas Billy Joel, Stevie Wonder, Santana and others with broader range and additional song writing and musical talents have remained a force in the music industry today.

So based on that criteria, who do YOU think actually won?

I rest my case.

But fear not liberals. The controversy that is now surrounding the decision will guarantee Mr. Lambert's career and quite a bit of revenue for at least the next several years.

Where he can then retire to the golf course before 40, as was the case with Alice Cooper, a resident of my former home state of Arizona, and then eventually go on the nostalgia tours.

There is a lesson in there somewhere, Mr. Lambert, and now your career is in your hands.

And congratulations to Kris Allen, since I think we will be seeing you for years to come if your final last four weeks in that competition from all reports were any clue to your potential and future more broad range audience appeal.

And find a new argument, liberals, because the religion card is getting way too old for your sour grapes and political arguments.

Mixed Messages: Obama Speaks At Notre Dame, Protestors Escorted Out

Recently Barack Obama presented another one of his speeches to the graduating class of Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana - a private Catholic University.

Since the announcement of Mr. Obama's handpicked universities for his appearances, there had been much controversy and debate with respect to his choice of Notre Dame due to his clear advocacy and support for unrestricted access to abortions in this country, even going so far as to oppose an Illinois bill attempting to ban the heinous late term "partial birth" abortion practice within that state prior to his election to the Senate, which did come up during the election campaign a few times and which he never convincingly explained.

This practice has also been known due to its brutal method, to cause trauma and injury to the woman in the process, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld its ban due to both the timing and the method which is then used, and the risks to the mother.

The Catholic Church, of course, takes exception to this position as in violation of their church teachings on the sanctity of human life.

There was much build up reported in the mainstream media in this country, with some in the academic community vocalizing their objections, and others apparently more interested in the press that such a visit would entail for the university who attempted to downplay the conflict.

Its hard to fault some at the school, since they were in a "no win" political situation. Although if ever there was a time for the head of the university to take a stand for his Church's teachings, you would think this would have been one of them in order to set that example for those graduating seniors. But does appear that there was some force preventing him from doing so.

Perhaps this was the point all along.

It truly was interesting in light of Mr. Obama's positions that he would choose Notre Dame to begin with, and sort of makes one wonder what his true agenda actually was all about.

There are literally thousands of college campuses in this country, and it did appear there was a method to his madness in that of the three universities selected - Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona; Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana; and the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland - one was a public university, another a private religious institution, and the third a military academy.

According to the local South Bend newspaper, the final event was pulled off without a hitch. The reason being, of course, that as soon as some of the more vocal members of the student body decided to use their freedom of speech, they were summarily escorted from the auditorium by the security detail assigned for the event.

Interestingly, the piece from the local paper also summarized the gist of the message Mr. Obama had chosen for those graduating seniors. The final paragraph of which quoted Mr. Obama's final instruction and message:

"In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated," he said. "Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse."

Based upon the treatment of those in the audience who were "unafraid to speak their minds when their values were at stake," and their subsequent ejection from the event, I hope I'm not the only one that caught the hypocricy there.

Although Notre Dame is a private university, it receives much in the way of public funding in grant monies from the American taxpayers, and is not at all truly privately funded at all. And most of those private funds also come from members of the Catholic community.

I wonder who spoke at Mr. Obama's graduation ceremony from Harvard as one who was schooled and would gather passed his Constitutional law classes?

Mikhail Gorbechev?

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090518/News01/905189969/1011/News

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/16/obama.notre.dame/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

What's Wrong With Roe vs. Wade?

In light of the recent demonstrations at Notre Dame University with respect to Barack Obama's commencement appearance due to his pro-abortion stances, below is a copy of an article I published about a year ago with respect to this hot button issue for any interested.

What's Wrong With Roe vs. Wade?
And Why The Liberals Don't Get It

Even thirty years after this controversial decision, the jury is still out on Roe v. Wade.

Decided in the early 70's, I remember well when the case was decided, as I had just completed high school.

For many, it was one of those days embedded in your brain due to it's reach and "precedent," along the lines of the day Kennedy was assassinated. A monumental moment in history, and now even in the 21st Century, the controversy still reigns.

When the decision was reached, it turned our country quite upside down and polarized.

Interestingly, historians and others who bring Roe to the forefront in political discussions and discourse, and of course at election time, fail to also mention that at the time Roe was decided, the Pill and other rather reliable methods of birth control were becoming more and more available.

Planned Parenthood had just opened it's doors to "free birth control" during this "free love" era, and AIDS was nothing more than someone's assistant. At the time it was decided, there were many states which did allow early abortions, since this also was the time when the "globalists" had started their scares about overpopulation, and the destruction of our planet.

It is now, of course, being resurrected by many of those former hippies, and capitalists types as the new scheme in which to become a millionaire before 35.

Seems out in California there is now a blend of "hippie capitalists." They don't mind being that dirty word "capitalists" so long as they are making their fortunes along environmentally friendly lines, and saving the planet from overpopulation is one of them.

Many of these left wing pro-choice activists believe in unrestricted access to abortion, such as third trimester partial birth abortions, including from all accounts the Democratic nominee. The defense has been with respect to that Illinois bill a fear that in supporting the partial birth ban it might overturn Roe v. Wade, and was worded incorrectly.

My understanding is that was what the Committees in the state legislatures were for, writing and reviewing laws for Constitutionality prior to bringing them to the floor, and Roe actually only addressed and upheld the right to first term abortions since those were already allowed in most of the states, for rape, health of the mother, and had been expanded for teen pregnancies so long as there was parental consent.

Hey, it's for the good of the planet, and expands the "free market" for the abortion clinics in the process.

For all the scare tactics the libs like to throw out every election about the "threat" of Roe being overturned if, horror of horrors, a conservative should get into office and further stack the Supreme Court, I have just one thing to say.......don't you think it's about time that decision was reviewed, and in the 21st Century now?

At this point throughout the country, we now have even the "Morning After" pill, for heaven sakes. Birth control pills now in many areas of the country can be obtained by even teens without their parent's consent, and due to the AIDS and other STDs epidemic, the use of contraceptives between committed or uncommitted couples has never been higher.

Isn't it about time we pulled the plug, at least, on second and third trimester abortions nationwide, except in the event of health risk to the mother or child in continuing the pregnancy?

Just what are you liberals afraid of, that in so doing we will go back to the dark ages, where abortions were performed in dark alleys with unsterilized equipment, when now there is even a pill that can abort during the first trimester?

I believe abortion should be restricted to the first trimester at this point in our history, and not simply for moral reasons but legal ones.

This was never a "right to privacy" issue to begin with, it was always a "right to life" issue, since if the founder's were not concerned with "life" they certainly wouldn't have based an entire document in order to secure "life, liberty and happiness" for "us and our posterity" if they were unconcerned with just what the "Creator" would think.

And it's pretty clear there is 10 Commandment law behind that Constitution, whether the atheists in this country wish to believe it or not. Those rights referred to as unalienable are acknowledged as "endowed by the Creator." A Creator they clearly acknowledged.

Religious tolerance is actually a Christian doctrine, it is not a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist doctrine, and the freedom of religion provision was also provided in order to prevent a NATION-WIDE or "State" religion, such as they had experienced in England with the decades long fighting between the Catholics and the Protestants.

"Loving thy neighbor," and the story of the Good Samaritan are examples of the scriptural basis upon which the "freedom of religion" provisions were meant to flesh out in our "new" government which had been denied them in England under the Church of England's dominance during the 18th Century.

Read Ben Franklin's speech when the Constitution was ratified, and he specifically alludes to the problems they were attempting to avoid by recognizing each individuals right to worship God according to their own understanding, and in their own way, without "nationalizing" a state religion such as in Britain and the Church of England, and in more recent history, Israel.

It does seem the founder's knew what they were doing, since even today those countries with "national" religions do seem to be engaged in much more strife, both internal and external, than others.

The problem that I do have with the far, far right wing evangelical Christians is their rather rigid interpretation of when life begins, since Jesus never truly addressed it.

Most pastors and members of the evangelical churches relate to the biblical passage of God "knowing you in your mother's womb." The problem I have with that is that adultery was a criminal matter in Jesus's time, and the punishment under the 10 Commandment law at the time was death by stoning.

If life truly begins at conception rather than viability, then God allowed innocent fetuses to be killed along with their mothers since I'm sure a great many of those adulteresses were pregnant.

It is also biblically clear that the first life God created, Adam, he did so by "breathing" life into dust, and that in then creating Eve, he clearly then gave them, not he, the gift of procreation by directing them to "go forth and multiply."

And it's also pretty darn clear that he intended children to be raised in two sex households optimally, since he didn't give us the ability to recreate independently of the other sex.

What is truly amazing to me is that for all the bravado of the "pro-choice" movement and those mostly liberals who even today with medical knowledge and technology the way it is, still cling to this decision as a benchmark of a candidates worthiness.

It is interesting that while the radical liberal element protest over global warming and how it is affecting the whales, polar bears, and other Arctic creatures, they were nowhere to be seen when Teri Schiavo was judicially literally starved and dehydrated to death for almost 14 days while she clung to life, breathing on her own, before dehydration of her vital organs caused her body to literally feed upon itself until her execution.

She was also a practicing Catholic, and nowhere in the court documents does it appear her civil rights, and individual religious beliefs were even given any consideration during that entire multi-year fight over the removal of her feeding and hydration tubes.

The most painful type of death any human can experience ending in progressive organ shutdown, and a judge in this country so ordered it.

Her "right to life" without clearly artificial life support in its termination by fiat was nothing more than judicially sanctioned murder.

Better watch out, liberals, since your definition of "pro-choice" and "freedom" sounds more like Germany, circa World War II.

House Passes "New and Improved" Hate Crimes Legislation

On April 29, 2009 the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League was victorious again in complicating unnecessarily civil rights actions in this country with respect to criminal tort actions, and the House passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2009.

The Bill was passed by a vote of 248-175, with 18 Democrats voting against the Bill, and 17 Republicans voting for. Which, in and of itself, demonstrates that there was much politicking and backroom wheeling and dealing with members of the House concerned about their re-elections affecting some of those votes. The Bill now goes on to the Senate.

This piece of legislation expands the Hate Crimes legislation passed several years ago to include crimes connected with gender and other biases. It also affords the ACLU and other civil rights legal organizations an "economic stimulus" and bigger pool of clients for their taxpayer paid legal fees for civil rights cases.

And also increases the tax burden in expanding government in order to provide the sums in order to enforce this new law at the local level in providing for a surveillance detail to the tune of 10 million over the course of the next two years.

Since there is already provisions for equality in criminal actions based upon the actual crime committed, such as stalking, harassment, assault, and bodily injury or property damage, it does appear that our Congress continues to expand its reach even though it appears with the current U.S. economy and ongoing war it has more than enough on its plate already.

Since there are grant monies involved, it will also strain local law enforcement personnel, even with the added sums, and take them away from pursing the property and violent crimes that are actually committed and increasing in most states across the nation. Local law enforcement and the states actually know what crimes their particular states and local communities actually have the most trouble with, and each state's needs inherently different in that respect. Now we again will have political arrests for state budgetary needs and revenue, and the also more federally funded actions for outrageous fee awards and lawyers welfare needs potentially for any and all crimes against ever increasing protected classes when all taken together in total are now the majority of Americans.

The crimes which most often occur in the border states, for example, in drug related crimes and property theft will once again be shoved aside - since we all know that all federal grant monies come with strings and performance standards attached. Such as the now low level DUI and social drinking enforcement actions.

Since there are already state and local laws for each and every criminal action which occurs irrespective of race, sex, gender, etc., shouldn't the motivation for any such crimes be left for a jury to decide as a fact matter, and the punishment for provable intentional biased-based criminal activities be up to them depending on the evidence presented at the actual trial?

Why is the federal government involved in handing out and dictating the punishments now for state criminal actions, in direct violation of our Constitution and outside their jurisdiction?

Now the federal government is involved in dictating local police actions and priorities. Just when will it end?

What will be next, a law providing extra penalties for telling blonde jokes at the water cooler, or male menopause jokes at the local gym?

I don't mean to make light of this, but it does appear that Congress does have greater priorities at this time, and also the fact that these laws simply seem redundant and really should be left to state and local authorities, and the jurors as "crimes against the state."

The power of the jury and voice of the people continues to be whittled away due to a great many of these recent interferences by federal officials in what the founders provided were state and local criminal matters under both Bush with the social drinking taxs and laws, and now Obama in state and local civil and criminal matters at an ever-increasing rate.

Boycotting Discretionary Air Travel: Are Random Strip Searches Next?

Recently an article was published in CNN Money quoting the Air Transport Association, an association of executives from the airline industry, predicting there would be approximately 7% fewer airline passengers this summer due to the economic conditions now in the United States.

I would state as a former primarily vacation airline passenger that the reduction in Americans traveling during the summer months has declined for discretionary travel steadily since 9/11.

Not out of fear, but due to the fact now that traveling to vacation destinations for many Americans is more hassle free driving than flying anymore. Driving to California from Arizona takes six hours by car, but now can take just as long or longer by air.

It isn't simply the expense involved, it is the invasive security procedures now conducted for domestic travel in the United States that is primarily to blame, in this writer's view.

It has gotten to the point where the surveillance industry in this country is one of the fastest growing industries, and largest stakeholders in government contracts.

So lucrative has this industry become and vital to the U.S. government domestic surveillance program that the Department of Homeland Security is now purchasing, with stimulus monies, full body scanners for major domestic airports, to be used primarily against its own citizens due to the free entry and exit passes awarded international travelers during and prior to the Bush Administration.

Since most of the incidents which have compromised American citizen's security have been from foreigners as demonstrated by 9/11 and the shoe bomber incident, the focus on domestic travel rather than international security does seem backward, since "foreigners" actually travel from outside the U.S. in order to get here in the first place, or breach the U.S. borders and enter illegally through our borders with Canada and Mexico.

At the present time it take no less than two full hours prior to flight time in order to undergo the security checks for both passengers and baggage. And though it was a British citizen responsible for the shoe bombing incident, all domestic travelers in the U.S. are now required to remove even their shoes before boarding.

That doesn't take into consideration the amount of time that is also lost waiting on the tarmacks for flights to depart or arrive due to the amount of both domestic and international flights, many of which are less than half full.

Deregulation of our national airports has actually resulted in more pollution, and higher costs in the long run. And crowded airports that have made most vacations anything but relaxing.

In fact, since my last experience flying to a funeral for a relative on the East Coast from my home in the West that took more than twelve hours to complete with the new "shoe removal" requirements, I haven't flown in four years.

The American people were not the cause of 9/11, yet it is the American people who are now being strip searched and monitored in ever increasing degrees domestically, while the international airport procedures are becoming less and less secure with each passing year.

I guess so that at least the next potential international terrorist is not denied the opportunity to visit Disneyland, or attend the next global corporate board meeting.

Expect to now be charged more and more fees in order to take your baggage with you. It appears banking practices have now infiltrated the airline industry.

Soon, I'm sure, there will be additional fees instituted for those bag lunches, and the privilege of those xrays prior to boarding at the security checks. Also charges for the upgrades for the shoe removal procedures in order to now track your carbon footprints.

We wouldn't want to interfere with our "free trade," agreements, or the "free market" competitive airline industry and their profit margins in order to effectively reduce that non-existent excess carbon instead in perhaps restricting U.S. international ports of entry and flights, now would we?

Apparently not if it affects the lucrative gadget industry stakeholders and their economic growth at the cost of the American taxpayers obviously.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/15/news/economy/summer_air_travel/index.htm

New York Times Reports Mexican Migration Plummeting

Recently in an article in the New York Times it was reported that the rate of migration of Mexican citizens has "plummeted" in light of the current U.S. economy according to recent Mexican census figures.

As with polls and other statistical data, this information must be taken with a grain of salt.

The total population in Mexico has actually increased apparently based on the last census figures. But that certainly doesn't in any way point to a reduction of the influx of Mexicans, legal or otherwise, into this country.

As a former 45 year border resident, from what I have heard from many in the border states, you could have fooled them.

In fact, due to the current economy the hiring of illegal immigrants has never been higher. Employers are cutting back on expenditures in favor of amassing as much profit as possible, and hiring cheaper labor is one area that has seen a boom no matter what the U.S. economy brings.

Many of the Iraq war veterans in Arizona have come home to find their jobs have been outsourced to illegal immigrants.

Its the bottom line costs that those Chamber of Commerce members are concerned with, and contract illegal labor is cheaper than U.S. labor due simply to the taxes and other costs involved in "buying American."

In fact, recently the legislators from Sonora visited the Mayor of Tucson due to the shortage of labor for some of their area residents. It has hit the border towns more so than the major metropolitan cities due to the shear fact of the number of Mexican residents that live in the border towns who then seek employment in the U.S.

In fact, the census figures show a boom in growth particularly in the Mexican border towns.

Instead of going to Mexico's government, these legislators chose to present their grievances to the Mayor of Tucson.

And it doesn't appear that the drug cartels business has in any way been affected, in fact it is booming due to all those customers they created selling their wares in front of local high schools and middle schools in the border states during the 80's and 90's.

Their profits are so high that recently it was disclosed in the Mexican newspapers that the chief drug czar for the Mexican government was accused of accepting over $450,000 per month for his assistance in marketing their wares.

It appears the Mexican media must mirror our own.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15immig.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw

The Downside To Government Provided Health Care: Not Just More Taxes

Last week Barack Obama called leaders of the insurance industry, pharmaceutical companies and labor organizations for a pow-wow regarding one of his fundamental quests as stated during his campaign: health care reform.

Although these three industries are not in any way directly tied to patient care and delivery, it appears Mr. Obama is playing diplomat with this issue and appeaser with these industry leeches in order that they don't lose a piece of their pie under any anticipated governmental program.

Under Obama's plan, it is estimated that approximately 119 million Americans would shift from private insurance to the governmental plan, putting America on the path toward a completely government run socialized health care system. This, of course, would not sit well with the private insurance carriers who would stand to not only lose business, but their very shirts and the jobs of many who are currently hawking those policies to private businesses and individuals.

The pharmaceutical industry, of course, is quite concerned because under any government plan generics and other effective lower cost drugs (think penicillin and cheaper antibiotics) on which there isn't as much profit would most likely be the preferred and "authorized" treatment with Uncle Sam picking up the tab.

Many of those drug company representatives peddling their "new and improved" wares to doctors would also lose their jobs in the process, and a few of those free bonus trips, and the physicans and health care providers a few holiday gifts.

The unions earned their seat at the appeasement table due to the fact that any government plan would impact Big Labor and their own health care plans which have their administrative mark ups also built in which would, most likely, be negotiated away during the next collective bargaining session.

Mr. Obama during his campaigns assured the American people that the governmental plan he was proposing would simply be an "alternate," with Americans then able to make a choice between the government plan or retaining their own private carriers.

What was left unsaid, however, is that most private insurance is not bought by individuals in this country, but by their Big Business employers. Employers who have shareholders to answer to, and are now facing economic woes of their own throughout many major industries due to this Washington precipitated economic meltdown.

Just how long do you think those employers will keep those group plans once the government plan undercuts them?

What also was left unsaid is that the Obama plan also intends to parent America's children and youth, and mandate that parents must insure their children and themselves, and also feed Washington in providing fines and fees for non-compliance.

In other words, another non-consensual tax in the making that, if Medicare and Medicaid are any indication, will be used for other "discretionary" purposes and be an unaccountable bottomless pit of taxation.

I look for this scenario to go one of two ways:

(1) Mr. Obama will continue in his role as appeaser to all with the exception of Joe Citizen, and will attempt to placate the union bosses and fat cat pharmaceutical executives and insurers by cutting back his legislation to be a bare bones "emergency treatment" policy, with the intent not to totally "socialize" health care in this country but afford Americans then to visit their local insurance agent and sign up for supplemental coverage.

Sort of like Plan A or B supplements for the seniors, only privately obtained. And those supplemental plans will be also subject to increasing costs based upon claims as with the plans now offered, with the government plan as "primary," which will not kick in unless and until you have used the government benefits first, with the insurance industry then able to use the government as the scapegoat for denied treatments.

(2) Or Mr. Obama and Congress in the fine print of the bill will enter into public/private partnerships with the major insurance carriers in this country, and Big Labor privileges of adding in their profit and cut into the government contracts to the amounts which will be required to be withheld from employee/union member paychecks as "administration" fees, with the pharmaceutical industry perhaps being afforded longer patent rights for new medications retroactively and sums for promised grants for future research costs, especially since the embryonic stem cell bill now has been accorded them for their future profits also.

(NOTE: the patent for the original outrageously expensive drugs for AIDS which are used by and large still today expire in 2017, since litigation over ownership rights for the drugs began almost immediately after its "discovery" and have extended the patents on them already an additional 10 years since the patents don't begin until ownership is established, with two companies now sharing those profits since the case was subsequently settled in the early 90's).

The lives of Americans, and especially the large baby boomer generation, are now being bargained for between the insurers, pharmaceutical industries, and big labor.

And I wonder just what recourse will be included for citizens if denied treatment, or if there are any delays or negligence in the care received by government employed physicians and hospitals? What kind of shell game then might Americans face in attempting to redress those grievances between the bureaucrats, insurers, big labor and pharmaceutical companies playing "Whose on first?"

Another take:

http://www.getbetterhealth.com/tag/galen-institute

Gee, I wonder if in this instance as in others whether following our Constitution might be a better idea, and break up the "associations" of these large industries in order to facilitate a truly free market once again, and get Big Labor out of the insurance and health care business which they had no right to enter into in the first place.

Maybe simply beginning to perform their Constitutional function in regulating and overseeing both the type of plans sold at either federal or state levels depending on carrier customer base and home office location.

For accountability, then funding a centralized complaint department for the American citizens to utilize which might be a better useage of those stimulus monies instead of what is going to become another Lawyers Employment Act in its violation of citizens privacy rights with that concocted national health care database for citizens medical information for the feeder industries and states nefarious purposes in the interest of "public unsafety."

I foresee such a bureaucratic administrative nightmare in the end will result in eventually putting small business physicians and software providers out of work, and ultimately increase costs due to government fees and costs which will be tacked on to the patients bills in order utilize that huge mistake-in-the-making system to store and transfer patient records, even if the correct records get transferred. Just imagine the potential lawsuits for unauthorized, misused or incorrect information.

Maybe what we need to do here is step back a moment and look at the legal and "long view."

What a novel idea.

Obama To Speak At ASU, Notre Dame and U.S. Naval Academy

It was announced recently that Barack Obama has scheduled appearances within the next two weeks at three major U.S. universities in order to speak at their commencement exercises. Arizona State University, a large Southwestern public college; Notre Dame, a private Catholic university; and the U.S. Naval Academy, a military academy.

Let's examine the three universities hand picked and selected out of the literally thousands of graduations which will occur this month throughout the nation:

Arizona State University is located in Tempe, Arizona and is the largest public university in the nation. It also just so happens to be a state that is and has been facing severe economic crisis due to both the housing and foreclosure crisis, and also the illegal immigrant situation and drug cartel wars which have erupted on the American Southwestern border.

It has been announced that despite the fact that over 74% of the American people are opposed to any amnesty of the estimated over 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, primarily from Mexico, that Mr. Obama, Ms. Pelosi and Congress are geared up to push and pass such legislation over the American citizens objections.

And in spite of the failure of the Bush Administration in the last McCain/Kennedy amnesty attempt in 2006 in a move to extend such privileges to foreigners who entered this country illegally, for which as in its provisions again as "undocumented," and here using counterfeit IDs, includes no really viable method of screening these individuals for any prior criminal activity either in this country or their former country of origin.

These workers have displaced literally thousands of U.S. workers, many legal Mexican-Americans, in both the construction and tourism industry in the border states, states which rely heavily on those industries and are facing increasing joblessness and homelessness as a result.

Iraq war veterans working on the reconstruction in Iraq are returning home now to find many of their jobs also now "outsourced" to foreign workers. Some of those same students graduating in the technology fields will find even limited success due to the degree of outsourcing in the technology fields which have occurred progressively under the Bush and prior administrations.

Arizona also has the highest property theft and drug related crime rate in the nation due to the continuing open border situation from both the auto theft rings, and drug cartel operations which have impacted both the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas substantially since the first Reagan amnesty back in the 1980's.

The second college selection, the University of Notre Dame, also appears politically motivated. As a Catholic university which teaches also religion classes, Mr. Obama's positions on both abortion and stem cell research resulted in petitions being circulated at the university requesting that the "invitation" be withdrawn and was signed by over 11,000 students.

Although as a Catholic university, the Pope and church also have come out in support of Mr. Obama's illegal immigrant positions due to the fact that the majority of those illegal immigrants are of the Catholic faith.

In fact, the Pope in his last visit to this country used the opportunity to address the situation with his Church members with respect to Catholic church teachings, although with respect to border security, a separate but somewhat related issue due to the negative impact it has had on border residents, the Pope himself has a fortress surrounding Vatican City separating his country from Italy.

Border fencing and true security for those living in the border states, however, are not part and parcel of the intended legislation from all reports now coming out of Washington. Increased domestic screenings on American citizens, however, have increased at unprecedent levels instead rather than securing and limiting U.S. international ports of entry in placing global commerce and Big Business concerns over the lawful citizens rights to basic domestic and national security.

Due to this Constitutional federal negligence, the borders states are now hardest hit but the ramifications of which has been spreading at a rapid pace throughout the country due directly to those open borders.

With increasing American unrest with the progression and increases in troop levels for the Middle East war in direct opposition to Mr. Obama's stated positions while running as a candidate, the choice of the U.S. Naval Academy as the third selected university also appears to be a public relations appearance in order to gain further support from those graduates for the ongoing conflicts which are now occurring and continuing with increases and shuffling of troop levels.

The Anti-Bush appears to be needing some future military support, and the Naval Academy graduates will most likely be involved in the continuing conflict and eventually stationed within the Middle East who are obligated to serve in the military in some capacity upon their graduations.

And to this writer using America's children for governmental agendas due to the political climate with many Americans now questioning some of Mr. Obama's policies since gaining office in the war, stimulus, bailouts and his positions on illegal immigration and border security in spite of a lack of genuine citizen support for any of those recent measures or stated intentions, appears to be the lowest of the low in political posturing and public relations propaganda.

FBI Hiring Candidates To Fight Right Wing "Extremism"

An announcement appeared in the local Phoenix, Arizona newspapers that announced that although the FBI has significantly increased the number of agents since 9/11, they are now on a push to hire more under monies gained from the stimulus. It appears that since now over 3/4's the citizens are on the "watch list," the number of agents isn't equal to the task.

As one of those identified potential terrorists on the list as a 45 year former resident of Arizona and three time victim of illegal immigrant crimes, who has been actively involved in addressing through the state and federal levels the open borders situation still existing now seven years post 9/11 with decades of border state resident victims preceding even that tragedy at the hands of foreigners, I wrote another "Letter To The Editor" and plan on sending a copy to the local Phoenix FBI office, and state and federal officials:

"It definitely seems that 9/11 has been the greatest "economic stimulus" for increasing government and the surveillance industries ever - not to mention the military budgets.

It does seem that the only real new jobs being created are in the surveillance and gadget industries. And spying on Americans and those dreaded right wing extremists.

I do wonder how they train agents to scope out and identify a potential Catholic anti-abortion extremist? Or an illegal immigrant victim/extremist?

What physical descriptions and profile do they use?

Someone wearing a crucifix?

Someone who avoids Mexican restaurants, and puts a May Day sign out the week of Cinco de Mayo?

Those that watch their state college football game rather than the Army/Navy game?

Those that don't stand up with their hands over their hearts for the Pledge of Allegiance for which the words "liberty" and "justice" have not been their experiences as of late or fly their flags upside down?

Those that write "letters to the editor" on the political corruption and broken promises?

Those that speak out or confront the hypocricy of politicians who arrange for photo ops at local soup kitchens or when speaking to disabled veterans groups putting in their two or three hours in order to assauge some of their guilt against their fellow countrymen?"

Just how many agents has the Department of Homeland Security budgeted for this now monumental task?
http://faddaeart.blogspot.com/

An Inconvenient Truth: Global Warming Scientist Banned From Hearings

As if a tanked economy, ongoing foreign engagement, potential war in the not so distant future at our Southwestern borders, and exploding costs of government were not enough, the Washington theatrics and political power moves at the citzens' expense continue.

It was reported in several lesser known news sources that Margaret Thatcher's former science advisor, global warming expert and skeptic Lord Christopher Monckton, was prevented from testifying at the widely publicized hearings conducted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee held recently during which Al Gore ("An Inconvenient Truth") was also slated to testify.

Apparently, House Global Socialists (this time from the Democratic side of the aisle) were concerned that Mr. Gore might be upstaged by Lord Monckton's expertise with the issue.

As an American citizen I can understand, perhaps, disallowing Lord Monckton's testimony as a British and not American citizen.

However, since the subject matter was GLOBAL warming and Mr. Gore, although an enthusiastic activist, is without scientific credentials insofar as the long view on this issue, such a move smacks of a staged hearing and not a fact gathering session.

Certainly there are positives to even the worst case scenario which might occur. Development of new species in the arctic regions, for example.

Isn't it statistically more probable that the earth could be hit by a large asteroid at some point? Then this entire global warming argument won't matter one hoot, nor will Mr. Gore's Nobel Peace Prize or his contributions to this scientific debate be remembered.

Leave it to the global socialists to use the world community and earth's survival or destruction in order to up their profits, the ultimate terrorism weapon. And the one's with the largest carbon footprints by far due to their globe hopping for their various causes.

Working toward world peace and solving world hunger are not big enough bites of the apple. Now it is saving the world and all humanity, animal and plant life from ultimate destruction.

Whether apparently such fears or concerns have any factual basis or are truly warranted or not doesn't seem to be the issue.

It seems only these fortune tellers have the answer to solve that age old question: Just how long will the earth exist and/or be habitable?

At least most accredited scientists will give the most obvious answer: Only God knows.

What the science community knows is the history of climatic progressions, and it would appear we've been on a somewhat warming cycle naturally since the Ice Age. Our class, genus and species most likely would not exist now but for that warming cycle.

After all, environmentalists and their vehement advocacy has, in the past, resulted in more harm than good on more than one occasion.

The current and past serial wildfires in the West and Southwest is one which quickly comes to mind due to what is now occurring in and near Santa Barbara.

Drought conditions with only moderate to non-existent wind factors have leveled literally thousands of acres of forested land due to the density of some of our state and federal forests and parks.

"Saving the trees" end result is we have now lost more mature trees than the lumber mills and their needs for construction and other durable goods did, and also has devastated and made homeless more and more Americans with each passing year. Not to mention hit countless others in increased bank mandated home and property insurance due to the costs to cover all those disaster claims.

Except, unlike the hurricanes of the Gulf and Southeastern states, some of those disasters just might have been prevented with better stewardship rather than misguided claimed "conservation."

And Mr. Gore, after all, as a "global warming" proponent has made quite a hefty sum off his Nobel prize winning book, and his travel costs and expenses for his global speaking engagements.

Yet as an activist has left quite a carbon footprint of his own traversing the globe now publicizing both his book, and his carbon tax solution. A year ago about this time he was in Rome appearing on Italian television and conducting his lectures.

Power plays, again, at the expense of the American people since apparently Lord Monckton has also offered to debate Mr. Gore on this issue, even to his favored audience, internationally, but as of yet Mr. Gore has not responded.

I guess there hasn't been an opening yet in his travel and speaking engagement schedule.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing

http://faddaeart.blogspot.com/

Food Safety Legislation Threatens Small Farmers, Citizen Consumers

“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people” - Henry Kissinger

In wake of the recent health "threats" due to the peanut/salmonella scare, Mexican tomato/salmonella scare and swine flu scares, Congress has been gearing up in order to supposedly "protect" the American citizens and consumers with two bills now in committee.

The first, HR 875 or The Food Safety Modernization Act, is an attempt by Congress to appoint an agri-business connected "Food Czar" over the enforcement of regulatory standards mainly directed toward America's small business farmers, placing complicated governmental hoops for small farmers to jump through that in its provisions basically strips them of their rights to farm their own land.

The penalties for non-compliance of this Food Safety Czar's edicts or any of the provisions of this Act can result in forfeiture of their lands and property.

One provision of this Act, the National Animal ID System, requires small farmers to immediately tag and identify all animals born on their farms with expensive identifying equipment within a mere 48 hours of birth. The penalty for non-compliance is a fine in the amount of $500,000, ten years imprisonment and/or forfeiture of their property.

Interestingly, for large corporate agri-businesses the same provisions only require identification of one number in every 800,00 animals.

Another provision requires small farmers to create easements on their lands for warrantless governmental inspection and entry at will. It would also eliminate allowance of "seed banking" by small farmers for future crops.

This bill was introduced by Rosa Deloro whose husband has Monsanto as a client, and who herself has received over $180,000 in agri-business donations.

In its provisions, it is a blatant attempt by the large agri-businesses and Congress to seize control of our food supply, and force us to consume their products rather than those of less expensive and locally grown produce from small area farmers.

Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto employee, is lobbying now for a position in the Obama Administration as the Food Safety Czar in furtherance of the large agri-business communities agendas of total control of our food production and delivery.

Since large agri-businesses rarely simply sell in local markets, it actually will eventually more than likely result in greater contamination and diseases which now occur during transportation and processing to large industrialized out state processing plants, and will place significant barriers on also organically grown food supplies.

The second bill, HR-759 or FDA Globalization Act of 2009 will vastly expand the FDA's authority over our food supply by granting full authority to define and enforce science based standards for the production and harvesting of plant sources in the global market place.

Our economy wasn't enough, now our food sources and supplies are going under global control and dominion through our own FDA.

The definition of "science based" of course is left totally open so that it can be defined in any manner this regulatory body determines is in the interest of "science," and again as with many federal regulatory bodies including and especially our IRS, without direct Congressional oversight in any manner whatsoever.

Most likely those in charge of these regulatory standards will have agri-business backgrounds, and who's to say that certain organically based food sources would not meet their definitions of "science based."

It also places the small farmer under the same requirements as it does the large industrial agri-businesses, and would require all farms to register with the FDA (of course for an annual fee), create extensive written food safety plans, keep copious electronic records and MANDATE certification in so-called "good agricultural practices."

This bill also seems intended to feed the "science" and "technology" fields Mr. Obama and the globalists in the federal govenment are so enmored with, and who also make rather large campaign contributions to federal legislators' campaign chests.

Local small farmers are already metriculous in their practices due to the very fact that they depend on word of mouth and a strong reputation in order to stay in business.

The USDA already has unilateral authority to shut down any farm that is not in compliance with existing standards and seize any and all contaminated products.

What is missing is better screening of those products that enter this country from the global markets at the point of entry, and also the large agri-businesses and their transport methods to large national or foreign processing plants which can contaminate bulk food sources on a more massive and national scale.

The bulk of small business farmers' products are sold locally, as opposed to the larger agri-businesses, so it appears the attacks on the small business farmers are an attempt to seize total control of our food sources and market, and expand their farms and fields through forefeitures, and not simply in order to insure the safety of the quality of food sold at your local grocery.

Below are the bills, and they are now in Committee most likely to be heard prior to Memorial Day.

Please contact your Senators and House members in order to preserve freedom over our own food sources in this country, and protect those small farmers who are the backbone of this nation:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-759
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h759/show
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/officials/congress

Cap-And-Trade: Costs To Average Americans

Barack Obama is holding closed door meetings this week in order to push one of his major initiatives in order to fight "global warming."

The "Cap-and-Trade" legislation he hopes to pass as soon as possible.

The George Marshall Institute studied the proposals as now outlined by House Democrats supporting Mr. Obama's agenda. Below are the taxes which would most likely result if this legislation comes to fruition.

Don't forget, this was one of the two candidates served up to the American people last election that held himself out as one who was concerned with the tax burdens now on the average "Joe the Plumber" Americans:

"The authors find that the constraints posed by the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade approach is equivalent to a constant (in percentage terms) consumption decrease of about 1% each year, continuing to 2050. Put another way, the cap-and-trade approach is the equivalent of a permanent tax increase for the average American household, which was estimated to be $1,100 in 2008, would rise to $1,437 by 2015, to $1,979 in 2030, and $2,979 in 2050.

Reviewing a host of recent studies, Buckley and Mityakov show that estimates of job losses attributable to cap-and-trade range in the hundreds of thousands. The price for energy paid by the American consumer also will rise. The studies reviewed showed electricity prices jumping 5-15% by 2015, natural gas prices up 12-50% by 2015, and gasoline prices up 9-145% by 2015. As an illustration, gasoline would suffer a 16 cent price increase per gallon at the low end of the estimates to a $2.58 penalty at the high end (using the January 2009 reported retail price of $1.78 per gallon)."

So, again, as with the mortgage and financial crisis, we are not addressing the problems in a positive or meaningful way, simply either throwing money at the problems at the taxpayers expense, or passing the costs of corporate America's freewheeling ways on to the American public and socializing both the debts, and the "fines," in the way of new taxes on the public in general.

CNN and the mainstream media have been also promoting these measures for several weeks.

CNN is owned by General Electric, which would stand to gain enormous profits if such taxes were instituted both indirectly and directly.

These taxes would erase the recent reduction in the income tax rates for Americans making less than $250,000 per year.

It would also hit the average farmer in the Midwest, agricultural and mining communities the hardest. Rural America.

Why not simply give tax incentives and protections for those corporations that invest a portion of their profits in clean energy alternatives instead? Especially those investing in nuclear, wind and solar power.

These measures are so broad that farmers in the Midwest already under outrageous EPA particulate standards, now will also be slammed with fines and fees for greenhouse gases from their equipment in addition during both planting and harvesting time. It hamstrings our entire agricultural industry base in its provisions.

Only liberal Democrat-Globalists would find a way in order to actually tax now the air we breathe.

Maybe Mr. Obama, Ms. Clinton, Pelosi and Napolitano could start setting good examples by retiring Air Force One and cut their personal and business travel now in this high tech age of faxes, computers and satellite communications. Just how many trips are necessary in order to evaluate the Southwestern border issue?

Those steps would reduce the greenhouse gases emitted currently from Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska all combined.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=636