Friday, July 11, 2008


Nothing calumnious about this...

If anyone thinks that for one second Obama is a patriot they haven't a clue as to his real identity. He is a highly trained scam artist that will tell you anything you like to hear as long as the ends justify the means (this IS NOT debatable!). Also, one reason he never apologizes for his lies is that there is no such thing as a lie in his Saul Alinsky soul. - Storm'n Norm'n July 11, 2008

Obama Seeks to Redefine Patriotism

The American people have a special regard for patriots; hence most people strive to be thought of as patriotic. This is especially true of those who hold or aspire to elective office. In the last few election cycles there has been a concerted effort to redefine patriotism.

The traditional “short” definition of patriot is “someone who loves and defends his or her country” (Webster). In the broadest sense, this definition is adequate. However to apply the term to an individual you must first define what is meant by the terms, “loves”, “defends” and “country”.

These are all general terms and must be narrowed considerably in order to be helpful in forming an opinion about what it means to be patriotic. To say someone loves their country does not tell you very much about the person’s feelings toward that country. Exactly what is it the person loves? The geography? The people? The climate? The customs? The government? The traditions? The culture? What?

When they talk about loving America are they talking about the America that exists today or an idealized picture of the America they would like to see exist in the future? When they talk about defending America, exactly what is it they want to defend? The government? The culture? The economic system? The political system? What?

In a speech Sunday given in Independence, Missouri, at the Harry Truman Library, Obama attempted to defend his own version of patriotism. In doing so, he vowed never to question the patriotism of others and added “I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.”

In our politically correct culture it is not considered proper to question someone’s patriotism. In fact, it has become fashionable when criticizing someone’s political position to preface the criticism with a statement disavowing any intention of questioning the patriotism of the person being criticized. Not being a fan of political correctness, I can say unequivocally, “I do not question the patriotism of Barack Obama, simply because, in my opinion, he has none, therefore there is nothing to question“.

To me, this is a demonstrative, provable fact. If he is patriotic, the object of that patriotism is not America as it exists today. Consider with me, for a moment, just what patriotism means. The word Patriot refers to someone who is patriotic. “Patriotic” is an adjective which according to Webster is a word used to describe or limit a noun. In order for the term “patriotic” to have real meaning it must have an object. In America, when we speak of someone being patriotic or a patriot, we mean they are a patriotic American. To be more specific, we are saying the object of their patriotic feelings, thoughts and actions, is America.

Which brings us to the question: What is America? A nation is defined by three characteristics; its culture, its economic system, and its government. The American culture is Judeo-Christian. That is to say, it draws its social values and moral standards from its Judeo-Christian heritage. You may wish to argue with that statement, but let’s save that for another day. Our economic system is free-market capitalism and our government is a constitutional republic.

An American patriot is someone who loves and is willing to defend, with their life if necessary, its culture, its economic system and its government. It goes without saying, if you are willing to defend a government with your life, it’s a good idea to understand just what that government is. George Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Dick Durbin is not the government. They are employees hired by the voters to administer the government, but they are not the government. Neither are the bureaucracies, courts, or other institutions responsible for the government’s functioning.

The American government has two essential elements, its form and its Constitution. The form of the American government is a republic. It is presided over by persons elected or appointed to represent the interests of the people for a specified period of time and who are subject to the will of the people and the rule of law. The Constitution is the first and supreme law of the land. All subsequent laws, in order to be valid, i.e., lawful, must be consistent with those contained in the Constitution.

While the laws contained in the Constitution are specific and easily understood by the populace, there are no specific penalties prescribed for their violation other than dismissal from positions of “trust or profit” within the government. An appointed official who violates the Constitution is subject to dismissal by their elected superiors. An elected official who violates the Constitution or fails to discipline subordinates who do is subject to being dismissed by the voters in the next election. In particularly egregious violations both are subject to impeachment and if in the process of violating the Constitution they also violated a statute they are subject to criminal prosecution in a court of law.

Every official in all levels of government within the United States, from the policeman on the beat to the President in the oval office, is sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. It is obvious that all officials do not take that oath seriously, considering it to be only a ceremonial requirement. The real defenders of the Constitution are the American people and those who fail to do so are not entitled to be called patriotic.

In Obama’s case, he does not support the Constitution, he does not support the government, he does not support the economy, and he does not support the culture. He believes they all need to be improved or changed to fit his concept of what America should be. In his speech Sunday he pleaded for acceptance of his version of patriotism this way. “…surely, we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America’s common spirit.” In the same speech he also said,” when we argue about patriotism, we are arguing about who we are as a country, and more importantly, who we should be.”

When Obama speaks of “change” he is speaking of changing our economic system from free-market capitalism to socialism, our form of government from a constitutional republic to a socialist democracy and our culture to a conglomeration of all the cultures of the world.

It has been said, the difference between a rebel and a patriot depends on who wins. That’s a true statement. Thomas Jefferson, who I believe to be one of America’s greatest patriots was not always so. Prior to July 4, 1776 he was an unpatriotic subject of the British Crown. On July 4, 1776 he officially became a revolutionary and remained one until the new Government was formed on November 15, 1777 under the Articles of Federation. On that date he became an American patriot and later changed his allegiance from the Federation to the Constitutional Republic founded in 1787 with the signing of the Constitution. To say he was a patriot before 1777 you have to identify the object of his patriotism. It could not have been the United States of America because they did not exist.

One cannot be a revolutionary and a patriot at he same time in regard to the same object. The terms are mutually exclusive. If you support your country including its government you are a patriot. If you seek to change your country and/or its government by unlawful means you are a revolutionary, not a patriot. Seeking to change our government through judicial fiat, congressional disregard for the Constitution, or by executive order of the President are all unconstitutional and unlawful and therefore revolutionary. Obama and all those who support his desire to change the government using any means other than constitutional amendments are revolutionaries and not patriots.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

An Open Letter To Lourdes Galvin

Letter follows Express News Article

Hispanic vets monument planned
Web Posted: 07/03/2008 11:14 PM CDT
Jeorge Zarazua

On the eve of today's Independence Day celebrations, community leaders gathered Thursday at Elmendorf Lake Park to unveil plans for a 130-foot-tall monument honoring Hispanic veterans.
“I could not think of a better location for this monument as we stand here today in the heart of the West Side, where many of our brave soldiers were born and raised,” said District 5 Councilwoman Lourdes Galvan in announcing what's billed as the state's first Hispanic Veterans Memorial.
“This monument will stand as a humble token of our appreciation and recognition for those who have been forgotten in our history books. We want to make sure we remember them.”
Galvan, with the help of state Rep. Joaquin Castro and numerous veterans groups, asked the public for help in raising both awareness of the proposed monument and the funds needed to build it.
“I welcome anyone that is interested in being part of a committee to see this project to fruition,” Galvan said. “It will take a while, but it can be done and will be done.”
Galvan said that although there are no exact figures, the estimated cost of the steel monument will be more than $1 million.
A small wooden model and an artist's rendition were on display at Thursday's event.
Sylvia Sanchez, commander of Veterans of Foreign Wars District 20, said Hispanics have always played, and will continue to play, an important role in the nation's military.
She said the country has 39 Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients, including three from San Antonio.
“This memorial will serve to tell all who visit of the dedication, loyalty and sacrifice made by the Hispanic men and women who serve,” Sanchez said.
Castro said the monument was “overdue.”
“Our neighborhood has given so much that this memorial is fitting,” he said.
Working on the monument will be local artist Jesse Treviño and noted architect Gabriel Velasquez.
Treviño said highlights of the monument include a collection of military dog tags hanging down its center, along with an image of the Virgin Mary on top.
Galvan said the first major fundraiser benefiting the memorial will be a concert Oct. 4 at Guadalupe Plaza featuring various musicians.
An Open Letter To Lourdes Galvin
The proposed monument honoring Hispanic veterans is a catalyst that promotes divisiveness instead of unity. It insults the integrity and spirit of our American heroes. They are not Hispanic veterans they are Americans…and the sooner you empty your racist heart of the vitriol it promotes, the sooner our country will be united. It is after all, the United States and not the Hispanic States. As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas once said, “I believe in a color blind Constitution.” You would serve a better cause if you heeded those words.
I don’t go running around shouting, “I’m half French.” or “I’m half Irish.” nor do I go around saying, “My children are half-Mexican.” or “Half Hispanic.” In fact none of the above enters my color blind brain because my heart and soul are all American.
Our history books have not forgotten our heroes; it the politicians and political activists who have degenerated them into something they’re not. Either they are American heroes who fought for our freedoms or they are foreigners who gave their assistance to the American cause.
If for one second you think you should get taxpayer funding for your foreigner’s monument, then may I suggest you go to Mexico and put in your request for Pesos…just leave my wallet alone.  ~ Norman E. Hooben

"We, my friends, are in deep brown stuff."

Cross posted from

"...But we're talking about truly educated, discerning people here."

Wednesday, July 9, 2008


I've often said that our government schools are just miserable failures. For some time now I've been wondering if I'm not dead wrong about this. Over the last year or so I've been reading a book by John Taylor Gatto called "The Underground History of American Education." The book isn't cheap. Almost fifty bucks in paperback .. but the information is priceless. One reviewer of this book wrote:

"The major premise here is that American schooling has been dumbed down to provide mindless, loyal workers who cannot think for themselves. At least this is the schooling provided to the masses. This was a deliberate act with roots in 19th century industrialism. He shows how the Civil War demonstrated to industrialists and financiers how a standardized population trained to follow orders without significant thought could be made to function as a money tree. Moreover, the proper schooling could be used to strip the common population of its power to cause trouble. You see, our global power and corporate wealth is based on a third-rate educational system that actually works against developing men and women of true character and intellect. The mindless bureaucrat and worker who follows a system without thought or question is the pattern that our "efficient" system depends on. That is what schooling produces. One should never confuse schooling with true education- and definitely not with intelligence."

Now we're in an election cycle, and that line about " .. follow(ing) orders without significant thought ..." really rings true, especially when you consider the people out there fawning over The Messiah. Think about it: What has been Obama's campaign slogan since pretty much day one. You know ... "Change we can believe in." Now the truly educated person might say "Change? From what to what?" But we're talking about truly educated, discerning people here. For the rest ... for the government educated masses who "follow orders without significant thought", the picture isn't as pretty. Pollsters recently asked people for one-word descriptions of Obama. The word most chosen? Why, it was "change," of course. These people couldn't do anything better than to regurgitate the very word that had been force-fed them by Obamaologists .. the "C' word. Some real independent thinkers we have there.

An inordinate amount of time is spent on my show trying to explain some basic economic principles to listeners. It is shocking how many people don't understand the difference between a profit and a profit margin. Also, people just can't grasp the fact that historically tax cuts lead to increases in revenues to government. The idea that people will engage more strongly in economic behavior that is rewarded should be easy to understand. It isn't. Too many Americans react with disbelief when you tell them that the very same evil rich people so often denigrated by Democrats are the people who write their pay checks every month. Barack Obama can talk about raising taxes on rich people who earn over $250,000 a year, and most people don't understand that these are the small businessmen and women who account for 70% of all existing jobs and 80% of all new jobs in our economy. Then when you tell people that these small businessmen are going to cut back on business expenses if their taxes go up – and that the people they employ are business expenses – you just get glassy stares. Hey, they're rich. They should pay their fair share.

Tell me, can you see why a service station operator has to raise the price of every gallon of gasoline he has in the ground when he is notified that when the tanker shows up with another load the prices are going to go up? If you can't, perhaps you're part of the problem.

This problem (the dumb masses voting) isn't new. Thirty years ago I was conducting polls on my radio show ... who are you going to vote for and why? The most common answer to the "why" question? "Because he's the best man for the job." That's the best they could come up with ... just some bromide about so-and-so being the best man for the job. It sort of reminds you of the "change" word voters spew forth when asked about their vote for Obama. We, my friends, are in deep brown stuff.

Don't read that Gatto book. It will scare the hell out of you.



A few examples of the media fawning over Barack Obama.

Johnathan Rodgers is the president and CEO of TV One, which apparently is a black themed cable network. Rogers has recently surfaced in the news because he has decided that this network will run full coverage of the Democrat convention. Great. No other network wants to do that. Just too boring and predictable. But here's a twist ... his network will not run the Republican convention. Again, fine. That's their decision. But here's why I bring up the story. It's because of this quote from Johnathan Rodgers. He says, "African Americans have fallen in love with Barack Obama's family, his candidacy ... we will be covering the democratic convention all the time."

So that explains it ... black people are in love with Barack Obama. And you know what happens when you are in love? You get all those stars in your eyes. You wear those blinders that make it seem like nothing else matters in the world. You are just so darned wrapped up in the person that you aren't able to see any flaws ... you aren't able to look at the reality of the situation. And you know what the fun part really is? When you wake up one day and look over at the person lying next to you and think "How in the hell did I get here?" Only with Barack Obama it will be "where in the hell is all my money" or "the government is forcing me to do what?"


A man by the name of Dawud Walid wrote an column that appeared in the Detroit News. Dawud Walid happens to be the executive director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations. If you want to read more about how stellar this Walid character seems to be, here's a good article ... and while you're at it, keep in mind the fact that this guy is representing the largest civil rights group for Muslims in America.

Walid has officially proclaimed that John McCain and Barack Obama need to address how ALL bigotry, including Islamophobia, hurts America. He says that they need to address this because of the "spike in anti-Muslim rhetoric" during this presidential campaign. Okay, so what exactly does he mean by anti-Muslim rhetoric? First he quotes Mike Huckabee as saying that "We must defeat Islamofascism." Don't know about you, but I have no particular problem with that statement. It's true .. and this will be one of the most important, if not THE most important tasks before our next president. But according to CAIR, statements like this are considered bigoted and contribute to Islamophobia. I'll tell you what contributes to Islamophobia ... Muslims threatening our country, that's what. Muslims killing, Muslims terrorizing, Muslim countries building atomic weapons and threatening to wipe non-Mulsim countries off the face of the earth. All of this death and rhetoric, and there's nothing to be afraid of?

So what does Walid really want from the candidates? He says he wants, "Strong statements that Muslims are legitimate Americans with the right to full expression and that Islamophobia is counterproductive to our national interests ... Both major parties should use their upcoming national conventions to state clearly that Muslims and Islam are part of the diverse U.S. social mosaic."

The fact is, folks, that CAIR is just trying to flex its muscles. It just wants to see which presidential candidate will jump first at the chance to appease a segment of our population and inevitably gain votes .. or lose them. In the midst of all of this don't forget a few important facts about CAIR. The leaders of this outfit have strong ties to Islamic terrorist organizations; and, they have often stated their desire to see the United States under Sharia law.

Pay attention. This is important.

Wait .. I'm not through. Just remembered .. Newt Gingrich (the man who should be our next president) says that the American people are not going to take Islamic terrorism seriously until we lose an American city. I wonder what city it will be?


Now we know that Barack Obama is embarrassed that Americans can't speak more foreign languages.

A few points.

  • It is more important for the world to learn to speak English than it is for us to learn to speak their languages.
  • English is the official language of air traffic control – world wide.
  • You can drive 4,500 miles from Miami to Alaska and find English spoken every foot of the way. In Europe you often can't drive 450 miles without the language being spoken.

Now I'm not against learning foreign languages .. but the fact that Americans are not bilingual – we don't need to be – shouldn't embarrass our president.

By the way .. how about addressing the people in this country who can't speak English?


A national restaurant chain in Canada has issued an apology to a family of a girl with autism after they were asked to leave the restaurant. Sarah Seymour has a five-year-old daughter who was screaming and kicking because she was mad that her favorite food wasn't on the menu. Finally, a waiter told the family that other guests were refusing to pay for their food unless the family was removed from the restaurant.

The father, Mike Seymour, says that the staff should have handled the situation "with more sensitivity." He says that they should have first asked if there was anything they could do to help, rather than asking for the child to leave. Hey, Mike, it's your child not the restaurants. She's your responsibility.

The company has since issued an apology and ... get this ... is now going to raise money for autism research.


Congressional approval ratings have officially fallen into the single digits, according to the latest Rasmussen polls. Remember, Bush's approval rating is higher than that of the Congress.

A bipartisan panel has determined that the president should be forced by law to consult Congress before going to war. Oh great – hand that decision off to 545 people.

Could Barack Obama really be this naïve when it comes to being Commander in Chief? My guess is yes.

Well maybe Barack Obama isn't the naïve one ... his supporters are.

Thomas Sowell has a great article on Barack Obama: "Many are for him for no more serious reasons than his mouth and his complexion." That's true, Mr. Sowell ... but are you a racist for saying so?

Barack Obama wants to visit Berlin in the coming weeks ... but this seems to be causing some stress among German diplomats.

Well John McCain seems to have one thing going for him ... he has a dog. Not just a dog, but lots of pets. That, by the way, is one reason not to trust Muslims. Don't trust anyone who doesn't like dogs.

Guess who is less than thrilled with Barack Obama ... the New York Times.

So where does the energy bill currently stand in Congress? We'll have Jamie Dupree give us more information today during the Information Overload hour.

Here's a great lesson on how onions can teach us a thing or two about blaming "speculators" for our oil situation.

We've posted this on Nealz Nuze before, but it's always good to have a bit of a reminder of how much money we would save if America didn't have fat people.

Finally somebody in California is getting upset over San Francisco's sanctuary city policies.

Well here's an interesting piece of news for all you global warmers ... higher levels of CO2 may actually be good for plants.

The United Arab Emirates is dedicated to creating an eco-oasis in the desert that will be entirely carbon neutral with no emissions and no waste.

Each year Grand Junction hosts a country music festival ... and each year immediately after the country music festival, the number of pregnancies increases.

A county commissioner in Texas got his boxers in a bunch when a fellow commissioner used the term "black hole" ... which is apparently racist.

A teenager in Canada is inventing an alarm for pet owners to sound when it gets too hot in their car for little Scruffy.

A Mexican comic book is stirring up controversy again after being sold at a Wal Mart in Houston.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

All Points Bulletin ! Arrest Nancy Pelosi and Jim McGovern !

Nancy Pelosi should never had been let back into the country after her fiasco in Damascus. Having done so, according to the law, she should have had an automatic jail sentence. Now the charges against her should be ten-fold for her dealings with terrorists and her complete disregard for the laws of the United States of America. I've long held the position that Pelosi clearly violated the Logan Act and the the law should be enforced...Where is the Attorney General on this?
The story below was cross-posted from Power Line and the author apparently agrees with the Logan Act.
Storm'n Norm'n
ps: On many occasions I've concluded my commentary with WAKE UP AMERICA !
I would now add,
Where's The Outrage?
With all the complaints about our government I don't see any citizens even making the smallest attempt to remove the scum that are causing ALL of our problems. They (and this includes Pelosi and McGovern) should be removed from office IMMEDIATELY...IT CAN BE DONE BUT WE GOT A BUNCH OF CANDY ASS CITIZENS OUT THERE WHO REFUSE TO WAKE UP! (EXCUSE THE LANGUAGE BUT I'M FED UP WITH ALL YOU SISSYS OUT THERE)
July 7, 2008
FARC You, Hostages Say

The three American hostages who were freed in Colombia last week had a party/press conference today in Texas. They were happy to be home, but also had harsh words for their captors, who held them prisoner in the jungle for more than five years. Marc Gonsalves spoke:

"I want to send a message to the FARC," Gonsalves said. "FARC, you guys are terrorists. You deny that you are, you say with words that you're not terrorists, but your words don't have any value."

He said a hostage with a chain around his neck would be forced to march while carrying a heavy backpack and a guerrilla armed with an automatic weapon held the other end of the chain "like a dog."

"They say that they want equality, they say that they just want to make Colombia a better place," Gonsalves said. "But it's all a lie."

He's right, of course. But some Americans seem remarkably oblivious to the evil that FARC, Hugo Chavez and other Latin American leftists represent. In today's Wall Street Journal, Mary O'Grady writes about the fact that some "human rights" organizations are in fact allies of, and fronts for, terrorist groups. That's a fair point, but I want to focus on the latter part of her column, in which she describes efforts by Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez to turn the hostages into "a public-relations coup that would give him and the FARC 'continental and world renown.'"

O'Grady's account is based on documents that were captured from a FARC laptop in a raid by the Colombian military that we wrote about here. Based on those documents, it appears that Chavez had a couple of schemes to set up prisoner exchanges involving the FARC hostages. This is the most interesting one:

That plan flopped, but Mr. Chavez had other cards up his sleeve. One involved Ms. Cordoba, who is currently under investigation by the Colombian attorney general for ties to the FARC. She figures prominently in the captured rebel documents, and is notoriously close to Mr. Chávez.

She met at the Venezuelan presidential palace with FARC leaders last fall. From that meeting the rebels reported that "Piedad [Cordoba] says that Chávez has Uribe going crazy. He doesn't know what to do. That Nancy Pelosi helps and is ready to help in the swap [hostages in exchange for captured guerrillas]. That she has designated [U.S. Congressman Jim] McGovern for this."

If the speaker of the House was working with Ms. Cordoba* in this scheme, her judgment was more than a little misguided. The rebels write that on a trip to Argentina Ms. Cordoba told them, "It doesn't matter to me the proposal that Sarkozy has made to free Ingrid. Above all, do not liberate Ingrid."

*Note from Storm'n Norm'n: If you don't understand the significance of this you're either too stupid or have been brainwashed by the anti-American Leftists...there's no in-between!

If this report is correct, Nancy Pelosi was carrying on her own foreign policy in opposition to that of the United States, trying to work with the socialist Hugo Chavez and the Communist FARC terrorists to undermine America's ally, Colombia. In normal times, this would be unthinkable. Given the crazed state of today's Democratic party, I'm not so sure.

Further, the statement that Pelosi designated the outrageously left-wing Jim McGovern to head up her mission to the terrorists is also interesting. It may tie in with this document, which, as reported by the Associated Press, apparently records an attempt by Democrats to encourage FARC to hold on until Barack Obama becomes President:

In a Dec. 11 message to the secretariat, Marquez [FARC's contact with Chavez, who lives in Venezuela] writes: "If you are in agreement, I can receive Jim and Tucker to hear the proposal of the gringos."

Writing two days before his death, Reyes [FARC's "foreign minister"] tells his comrades that "the gringos," working through Ecuador's government, are interested "in talking to us on various issues."

"They say the new president of their country will be (Barack) Obama," he writes, saying Obama rejects both the Bush administration's free trade agreement with Colombia and the current military aid program.

Was "Jim" Jim McGovern? And, if so, was he really the emissary of Nancy Pelosi to a gang of South American terrorists, urging them to hold on until Barack Obama can sell out America's ally and the terrorists' nemesis, Uribe, by withdrawing from the Colombia free trade agreement and cutting off aid to Colombia's government?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but one would think that at least one reporter would be willing to ask Pelosi why her name pops up in the communications of South American terrorists. As their ally.

UPDATE: A State Department officer writes:

Excellent post on Pelosi, Colombia, Cordoba, et al. It's an amazing story most noteworthy for the fact that our press seems not to care. Senator Cordoba is, to say the least, a disreputable person. She's spent as much time at Chavez's side lately as she has in her own country - she was (boisterously) in Caracas when Chavez was moving tanks to the Colombian border - and it is rumored that he pays for her lavish vacations in the Dominican Republic. Her clear goal is the toppling of the Uribe government, one of our most steadfast allies in South America. Another interesting factoid: just last week she was stopped by immigration at JFK and questioned for several hours because her name popped on the terrorism watch list (for good reason). In Colombia she is typically referred to as Mata Hari or Jane Fonda. If indeed Nancy Pelosi and her leftist friends are cavorting with Sen Cordoba, it is truly scandalous. Perhaps the Logan Act deserves updating to include collusion with transnational terrorist groups.

...accused as a criminal for the crime of reading...what next?

Crossed posted from the Wall Street Journal:

American Politics Aren't 'Post-Racial'

July 7, 2008; Page A13

The not-quite-concluded racial drama playing out at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI) in the last months can't be ranked with the embittering rape charge scandal at Duke that so recently mesmerized the nation. And as news it's not in the same league as the total war waged against Harvard president Lawrence Summers for having had the temerity to suggest that factors in addition to prejudice might have something to do with the underrepresentation of women in math and the sciences.

Still, what happened at IUPUI is a pungent reminder of all that's possible now in the rarefied ideological atmosphere on our college campuses – and in this presidential election year, not perhaps only on our campuses.

[American Politics Aren't 'Post-Racial']
Ryan Inzana

The story began prosaically enough. Keith Sampson, a student employee on the janitorial staff earning his way toward a degree, was in the habit of reading during work breaks. Last October he was immersed in "Notre Dame Vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan."

Mr. Sampson was in short order visited by his union representative, who informed him he must not bring this book to the break room, and that he could be fired. Taking the book to the campus, Mr. Sampson says he was told, was "like bringing pornography to work." That it was a history of the battle students waged against the Klan in the 1920s in no way impressed the union rep.

The assistant affirmative action officer who next summoned the student was similarly unimpressed. Indeed she was, Mr. Sampson says, irate at his explanation that he was, after all, reading a scholarly book. "The Klan still rules Indiana," Marguerite Watkins told him – didn't he know that? Mr. Sampson, by now dazed, pointed out that this book was carried in the university library. Yes, she retorted, you can get Klan propaganda in the library.

The university has allowed no interviews with Ms. Watkins or any other university official involved in the case. Still, there can be no disputing the contents of the official letter that set forth the university's case.

Mr. Sampson stood accused of "openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence of your Black co-workers." The statement, signed by chief affirmative action officer Lillian Charleston, asserted that her office had completed its investigation of the charges brought by Ms. Nakea William, his co-worker – that Mr. Sampson had continued, despite complaints, to read a book on this "inflammatory topic." "We conclude," the letter informed him, "that your conduct constitutes racial harassment. . . ." A very serious matter, with serious consequences, it went on to point out.

That was in November. Months later, in February of this year, Mr. Sampson received – from the same source – a letter with an astonishingly transformed version of his offense. And there could be no mystery as to the cause of this change.

After the official judgment against him, Mr. Sampson turned to the Indiana state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, whose office contacted university attorneys. Worse, the case got some sharp local press coverage that threatened to get wider.

Ludicrous harassment cases are not rare at our institutions of higher learning. But there was undeniably something special – something pure, and glorious – in the clarity of this picture. A university had brought a case against a student on grounds of a book he had been reading.

And so the new letter to Mr. Sampson by affirmative action officer Charleston brought word that she wished to clarify her previous letter, and to say it was "permissible for him to read scholarly books or other materials on break time." About the essential and only theme of the first letter – the "racially abhorrent" subject of the book – or the warnings that any "future substantiated conduct of a similar nature could mean serious disciplinary action" – there was not a word. She had meant in that first letter, she said, only to address "conduct" that caused concern among his co-workers.

What that conduct was, the affirmative action officer did not reveal – but she had delivered the message rewriting the history of the case. Absolutely and for certain there had been no problem about any book he had been reading.

This, indeed, was now the official story – as any journalist asking about the case would learn instantly from the university's media relations representatives. It would take a heart of stone not to be moved – if not much – by the extraordinary efforts of these tormented agents trying to explain that the first letter was all wrong: No reading of any book had anything to do with the charges against Mr. Sampson. This means, I asked one, that Mr. Sampson could have been reading about the adventures of Jack and Jill and he still would have been charged? Yes. What, then, was the offense? "Harassing behavior." While reading the book? The question led to careful explanations hopeless in tone – for good reason – and well removed from all semblance of reason. What the behavior was, one learned, could never be revealed.

There was, of course, no other offensive behavior; had there been any it would surely have appeared in the first letter's gusher of accusation. Like those prosecutors who invent new charges when the first ones fail in court, the administrators threw in the mysterious harassment count. Such were the operations of the university's guardians of equity and justice.

In April – having been pressed by the potent national watchdog group FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) as well as the ACLU – University Chancellor Charles R. Bantz finally sent them a letter expressing regret over this affair, and testifying to his profound commitment to freedom of expression. So far as can be ascertained, the university has extended no such expressions of regret to Keith Sampson.

This case and all its kind are worth bearing in mind for anyone pondering the hypersensitivity surrounding the issue of race today. The mindset that produces those harassment courts, those super-heated capacities for perceiving insult, is not limited to college campuses.

Its presence is evident in this election campaign, which has seen more than a touch of readiness to impute some form of racism to all tough criticisms of Barack Obama. The deranged response that greeted Bill Clinton's remark that certain of Sen. Obama's claims were "a fairy tale," told the story. No need to go into the now famous catalogue of accusations about the Clintons' "sly racist" tactics.

There will be much more ahead, directed to the Republicans and their candidate. Some more, no doubt, about the Willie Horton ad of 1988, whose status as a quintessential piece of racism is – except for a few rare voices of reason – accepted throughout our media as revealed truth. To be sure, the Willie Horton charge has for some time been overshadowed by ominous predictions of all the Swiftboating Republicans are supposed to be readying.

And Mr. Obama himself, the candidate of racial transcendence, has now taken a plunge of sorts to old-style race politics. In a pre-emptive dismissal of future criticism, he warned a Florida audience on June 20 of the racist tactics the Republicans planned. "We know the strategy," he said. Republicans planned to make people afraid of him. They'd say "he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

All this may be far from the world of the universities. But to those aforementioned campus ideologues, the thinking is familiar.

Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.

From MY In-Box (cut and pasted from an e-mail)

A hat-tip to Rick and Barbara...

Letter written by a Blue Star mom...

This is not directed at any one person. It's just my thoughts of what I see wrong with our country! Before I even start to write anything, please know I am NOTanother Cindy Sheehan. I am a military mom who supports my son, our troops,and my president. I love my country! I'm a proud American!

I'm angry at you, the American citizen. Those who choose to turn your head and do nothing. Those who say, "I support our Troops, but not this War!" Please tell me how that is possible when the troops are the ones fighting this war? And by the way, how do you actually support our troops? Just saying the words do not count.

I'm angry at our government for not having proper mental health care programs in place to help our returning troops who are dealing with tremendous issues. It breaks my heart that young men and women are coming home and they feel like no one cares. I just received word that a young Louisiana man tried to commit suicide. He had asked for help, but received none. He felt no one cared. This should not be happening. This is America for God Sake! We save the whales, the birds, hell everything, but we can't save or help those who fight for our freedom?

I'm angry that people are allowed to protest at soldier’s funerals and their families are subjected to such hatred after they gave everything for this country. I don't care if it's their first amendment. It is not right and WE should not let it happen.

I'm angry that a young husband/father goes off to war and it putshis family in poverty. This doesn't make you angry, but our statelegislation giving themselves a raise does? A lot of our militaryfamilies are on public assistance. Yet, we'll pay athletes millionsof dollars to play sports. What's wrong with this picture? Ourmilitary should be one of the highest paid professions ever.

I'm angry that we host a luncheon once a year for parents who havelost their children and only 1% of our elected officials donate tohelp cover the cost. The percentage is even less for big businessesin our area.I'm angry that I sent out a request to numerous businesses and dayspas in Baton Rouge and asked them to help me host a "wives day out"for 10...yes 10 wives. You're probably asking what makes these wivesso special. Well, most of them have watched their husband go off towar, not once, twice, but three times. Don't you think they deserveto be treated to one special day of pampering? Not one spa respondedand only one restaurant responded saying they don't serve lunch atthe time requested. How about doing something special for someonewho has given up so much so you can do business freely in thiscountry?

I'm angry when a soldier is killed and the streets are not linedwith people showing the family they mourn with them for their loss.I'm angry because there is such a thing as a "homeless veteran" inour country. How can we allow this when these people volunteered toprotect our rights and freedoms? We help every other country andgive illegal immigrants more assistance than people who fought forus. This simply is not right.

I'm angry that the media doesn't report the whole story. And that theyare so bias, they can't report the good things our troops aredoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. How about telling both sides of the story?Maybe more people would support our troops then.I'm angry that a young military widow moved her children fromWashington state to Arizona after her husband's death and she is notallowed to receive state benefits because they were not residents ofthat state prior to his death. She's not asking for much...educationbenefits so she can continue her education and give her two childrena better life and a license plate. Is that asking for too much?After all, her husband didn't die for just Louisiana, Washington, orArizona. He died for the United States of America and she should beallowed to move anywhere she pleases and be treated fairly andreceive whatever benefits are available.

I'm angry that I am a military mom and I feel this way and I haveto write these things about my fellow American citizens. Wake upAmerica! Show your support. Hang your America flags outside yourhomes, adopt a soldier from www.anysoldier. com who doesn't receivecare packages from home, let a military family know you supportthem. Tie a yellow ribbon around your tree or mailbox. Thank aveteran! Do something nice for the young wife and her children left behind.If you don't have a someone serving in the military, you can'teven begin to imagine what's it's like. Every minute of every day isspent worrying about them and their safety. You wonder if every carturning in your driveway is coming to tell you the unthinkable. You wonder if the phone call from an unrecognizable number is calling to tell you your child has been hurt. You wake up at night, that's if you can sleep, and start to pray just because. You check your emailat all times of the day and night hoping for a quick note from yourchild and just for that minute you know they are okay. The American Flag, National Anthem, and TAPS take on a whole newmeaning once your child has served in the military...especially during a war. You now know what it means to truly give all for your country.

I'm not saying no one supports our troops. There are a small percentage of people who truly care and to those I say THANK YOU. Iam so grateful for your support and I truly appreciate everything you have done in supporting our troops and our families. You all know who you are and you know in your heart if you have done all you can to support our military.

I'm embarrassed that our country treated our Vietnam Veterans sobadly. I wish I could take away their pain. I believe if we are not careful we will have another generation of veterans who are treated the same way. We cannot let this happen again. Please, please showyour support, please do more to show you care. Please reach out toour troops and get behind them. I realize money is tight for everyone, but that's not all that is needed. Flying your flag outside your home cost nothing. Putting a sign of support in yourwindow cost nothing. Attending public events honoring our veterans cost nothing. Remembering our troops in your prayers cost nothing, but means so much!

Thank you for taking the time to read this and please pass along to others who might need a reminder that we are at war and young men and women are dying everyday.
May God Bless our Troops and May He Bless America!

Janet Broussard Proud Military Mom

Monday, July 7, 2008

It's Time To Start Bad-Mouthing Islam...more importantly, IT'S TIME TO START BAD-MOUTHING THE UNITED NATIONS

The United Nations serves no useful purpose and is the most corrupt organization in the history of mankind...try and prove me wrong ! Just try !

Monday, July 7, 2008
Well the way it's looking now, the O.I.C. (Organization of the islamic Conference) is pushing forward in that travesty called the United Nations, a referendum for "Religious Defamation." In other words, trying to make it an international crime to speak badly about Islam. The thing is, they are also trying to make it an international crime for anyone to convert FROM islam.

Add to that, they are trying to amend the International Human Rights Treaty to be subject to Sharia Law. Essentially, to make it worldly acceptable to start executing infidels. That being you and me. Is anyone else besides me seeing something wrong with this picture?

The OIC which is comprised of about 56+ nations around the globe, on every continent, is trying to make it perfectly legal to kill anyone who;

A: Defames islam in any way. (No more Fitna, Obsessed or mohammed cartoons.)
B: Leaves islam, (especially if they convert to Christianity.)
C: Refuses to submit to Sharia Law. (Dhimmitude isn't even an option in this push.)

Or better understood as, Convert to islam or die. Sucks to be us it would seem.

So, in the spirit of good ol' American sportsmanship, and the pure "will to survive," the ACLJ (Click here for petition form: American Center for Law and Justice,) has started a petition today, calling on the U.N. to deny the amendment, whilst also detailing the parameters of the latest jihadi march there in the U.N.

Here is the text of their petition page;

End Anti-Christian Bigotry!

Around the world, Christians are being increasingly targeted, and even persecuted, for their religious beliefs. Now, one of the largest organizations in the United Nations is pushing to make a bad situation even worse by promoting anti-Christian bigotry wrapped in the guise of a U.N. resolution called “Combating Defamation of Religions.” We must put an immediate end to this most recent, dangerous attack on faith. Please read the form below carefully and declare your membership with the ACLJ by adding your name to our PETITION OPPOSING THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ISLAMIC CONFERENCE.


To: The United Nations’ High Commissioner of Human Rights

I stand with the American Center for Law and Justice and Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow in grave opposition to the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s resolution entitled “Combating Defamation of Religions.” I recognize this measure as anti-Christian in nature and fully believe it stands in stark contrast to the concept of religious freedom outlined in the International Bill of Human Rights.

As a person of faith, I respectfully call on you to exercise keen judgment and act in swift opposition to this resolution. Our focus should remain on improving existing international law to protect the religious rights and free practice thereof for all individuals.

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you like, the more the merrier.

Something is wrong with this picture

Normally I wouldn't bother cross-posting this

article but they refused to publish my comments

so therefor this:

What struck me initially was the photograph depicting and Iranian missile site and of course the the subject in the title 'Satellite Photos'. Heck if you can get ground level photos like this who needs a satellite!

Now my comments included the fact that I am retired from the United States Air Force and more importantly, the Air Force Base that I retired from looks a lot like that in the picture. Now a careful eye would agree that definetly looks like the Pacific Ocean along the California coastline. And if you were to examine the coastline of Iran you might not see those nice green can actually follow the entire coastline of Iran with Google Maps. So if someone were to ask me, "Where was that photograph taken?" I would say, "Most definetly at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California."

My second comment was in reply to a previous comment about WMD's (see 1. Johann Botha below). I simply asked, "What about the 1.77 metric tons removed from Iraq by the IAEA in conjunction with the US Army and the US Department of Energy who released a press release on that very same subject in June or July of 2004. The mainstream media did not report on this and now this refuses to publicize the matter (After I posted my comments I got the message that comments are moderated and will be published within 24 hours. The 24 hours have gone by and my comments were removed. Looks very suspicious at dbtechno...they seem to have a fear of the facts.)

Storm'n Norm'n

Satellite Photos Reveals

Iran’s Secret Missile Launch Site

April 14, 2008

According to reports, new satellite photos have revealed Iran's secret long-range ballistic missile launch site.  It has been suspected for quite some time that Iran has been developing these missiles, which will be able to hit far-reaching targets throughout Europe.Washington (dbTechno) - According to reports, new satellite photos have revealed Iran’s secret long-range ballistic missile launch site. It has been suspected for quite some time that Iran has been developing these missiles, which will be able to hit far-reaching targets throughout Europe.

The photos were taken by the Digital Globe QuickBird satellite on February 8, and were compared to information from a launch four days earlier.

Many have been analyzing the photos after realizing this is the same location Iran used to launch their Kavoshgar 1 rocket back on February 4. Iran stated this rocket launch was a part of their space program.

Analysis has found that the site is a possible location for their long-range missile program. The facility is very similar to that of which has been seen in Taepodong, North Korea.

It has been stated that space center technology is very similar to that needed for long-range ballistic missiles.

The site could be where Iran is trying to achieve that capability though. This builds on concerns from the U.S. and Israel that North Korea is helping Iran as well as Syria develop these missile capabilities. The long-range ballistic missiles can hit targets 4,000 miles away.


7 Responses to “Satellite Photos Reveals Iran’s Secret Missile Launch Site”

  1. Johann Botha on April 14th, 2008 7:57 am

    Are they like the photos of the “Weapons of mass destruction” seen in IRAQ before the invasion 5 years ago?

  2. payam jaan on April 14th, 2008 8:32 am

    pathetic array of scary buzz words, not journalism.

  3. Siramoni on April 14th, 2008 8:42 am

    What’s wrong if Iran makes long distance ballistic missiles? when Iran’s enemies are always threatening it with many different threat it should have the deterrent abilities including nuclear arsenal. personally I am against any nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. but at the same time we cannot have a world in which certain powers would dominate the world with their military superiority. In order for an equilibrium we need Iran and other nations to have the capabilities to successfully defend themselves from continuos foreign threat.

  4. corky on April 14th, 2008 9:50 am

    Siramoni, you aparently are an iranian.

    nuclear weapons aren’t tactical, they aren’t used to defend, they are only for attacking large areas. large areas typically occupied by civilians. if your going to attack a military establishment a nuclear missile is overkill. the surrounding area would be decimated. this move isn’t a move to provide self protection, this is a scare tactic.

    this is a move to scare people into trusting them. kinda like hitler and the appeasement plan. allowing them to continue developing nuclear power (the easiest and most cost effective, main source of weapons grade nuclear material.
    this is in no way in the best interests of anyone.

  5. JohnDoe on April 14th, 2008 10:25 am

    First of all. If it was acknowledged before as being the location of a previous missile launch, the how is it a secret?

    Secondly. What is to say there is actually a long-range ballistic missile program and not just a space program as the Iranians say? Is there any concrete evidence to support this speculation(as that is all it is)?

    Where and when did North Korea come into the equation? Besides ‘chatter’ is there any evidence to support this?

    A poor attempt at journalism, no backing up of any claims, just spreading the same rumours of others.

    Who wrote this anyway?

  6. JohnDoe on April 14th, 2008 10:26 am

    cork, dont be simple.

    America has many many nuclear weapons. Should we take this as a sign they will attack us all tomorrow?

    Same can be said for many other nations.

  7. Doe John on April 14th, 2008 11:24 am

    I agree with JohnDoe. This is probably just another atempt of the US government to make Iran look like the bad guy.

    Iraq was done the same way. The weapons of mass destruction were never found, but gave the govenment a reason to invade.

    This is all it is. The US Government is looking for a reason to enter Iran.

Sunday, July 6, 2008

War Stories

It never ceases to amaze me how others take so long to figure these things out. If my memory serves me right, this was the item of discussion by that little unknown guy down there in Alabama...almost two years ago! Aaahh, would that be little ole me by chance? You betcha! Oh there's others in the various groups that brought it up; that's use a Bill Clinton expression...some of us are just a little bit smarter. At least smarter than the mainstream media (careful now, that's not saying much).
So meanwhile pay attention to Mr. Dieckmann, he's got a lot of it figured out and his predictions are what I would call, "fairly accurate".
For more comments on the upcoming war check here:

ps: Don't forget to note that so often mentioned and yet unheeded "Bilderberg Group"...see now, you're getting smarter already.

From Oil To Armageddon
by JR Dieckmann

What if oil prices continue to rise with no end in sight? Even now with gas at $4.50 a gallon on the west coast, it’s becoming difficult for many people to fill up their gas tanks. What’s going to happen when it goes to $5.00, $6.00, $7.00 a gallon, or even higher? This will have an effect on all levels of society - from the poor, all the way to the White House. The entire economy of the country and the free world may be at stake. It could lead to war.

I’m not saying this is going to happen, but it could. It is just as likely that gas prices will start to decline by the end of the year. We are already seeing a small drop in consumption and demand, but no drop in prices as the price of a barrel of oil continues to climb. Some investment professionals are calling it an “oil bubble” that is soon to burst. I don’t see it that way at all.

Let’s explore the consequences of continued gas price hikes and what it will mean for our country. People who are now having trouble paying for gas are going to get angry. Their anger will soon turn to rage and they’ll be looking for someone to blame.

It will start on a small scale with people stealing gas from SUVs. That much has already begun. When gas goes over $5 a gallon, they will start angrily, and mistakenly, attacking gas stations with vandalism and possibly fire bombings.

These are the people who believe that gas stations and American oil companies are responsible for the high price of gas because that is what they‘ve been told by most everyone on the left. It must be difficult living in the world of liberal illusions.

They’ve heard politicians talk about the “windfall profits” of “Big Oil,” and think this means that the oil company that is providing gas to their local station is screwing them while getting rich in the process. They have no idea that the profits are going to millions of people across the country to pay dividends on their retirement investments. They don’t understand that most of the real culprits are not even Americans. They just pick the easiest explanation and the easiest target for their frustration.

They don’t realize that Shell, Exxon-Mobil, Conoco Phillips, and other American oil companies are just small oil companies with only 3% of the oil market. They have no influence on world oil prices when competing against the real “Big Oil” - the national oil companies of OPEC. Still, the media has convinced them that American oil companies are responsible for the price at the pump and need to be targeted.

As gas reaches $6 a gallon and food prices rise accordingly, riots will break out. People will be screaming “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.” They will attack any business that has been forced to raise their prices as a direct result of the rising oil prices and our misguided attempts to process our food into fuel. Yet these are the same people who support making ethanol from corn, and believe the high prices are the result of a vast right wing conspiracy against the poor and middle class.

As gas reaches $7 a gallon, people will be killed fighting over gas that only the wealthy can now comfortably afford. Word of civil unrest will eventually reach the government through the media, and Congress will debate for the rest of the year about what to do about it. Nothing will get done as usual, because Congress can’t control the price of oil on the world market any more than Shell, Conoco-Philips, or Exxon-Mobile can.

If there is any intelligent life left in Washington, they will defy the special interests of the greenfreaks and pass legislation to allow for oil drilling in ANWR and offshore. If Congress won’t do it, then the president should do it with an executive order. It won’t be quite that simple, he will still need some cooperation from Congress to enforce it.

As gas goes to $8 a gallon, the president may have to declare martial law to try to contain the rioting and looting that continues to break out across the country. By now, he is beginning to realize that things are getting serious and he has a big problem to deal with. His economic advisors are briefing him on the inevitable collapse of the economy if something isn’t done soon. He knows from recent history that federal price controls will only result in gas shortages and long lines at the gas pump, and that domestic oil companies and gas suppliers will be forced to try to operate at a negative income level. It could shut down the domestic oil industry altogether.

The State Dept. will begin to talk in stronger and stronger terms with the leaders of OPEC countries. They will try to convince them of the damage they are doing to the U.S. economy and the need to lower oil prices. There will be little response or cooperation. If India and China are willing to pay it, then why not the U.S.? Anyway, damage to America seems to be what some people, including some Americans, want.

In his


, Lindsey Williams places the blame directly on the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (ie; the Bilderberg group), who supply the money to pay OPEC for their oil. Williams contends that it is the World Bank and the IMF who, on a daily basis, tell OPEC how much to charge for their oil. If the World Bank and the IMF are willing to pay it on behalf of oil speculators, OPEC is willing to take it.

Unable to influence OPEC and the World Bank, our government will begin to realize that this has become a threat to our economy and national security. The government will turn to sanctions against OPEC countries. This will also fail, as sanctions usually do, because the rest of the world needs their oil as much as we do. Their primary source of income and trade will continue to be available. Sanctions will have no effect and embargos would be impossible if they are to continue providing oil.

With gas at $9 a gallon, the U.S. could then fight fire with fire as a last resort, and offer Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries a bushel of grain for a barrel of oil or threaten to cut off their food supplies from the U.S. altogether if they don’t significantly lower their oil prices.

The Arabs will likely respond by turning to other countries for grain and food stuffs, if they can find them, and retaliate by raising oil prices even more. Our “good friends” in the Mideast will cease being our “good friends,” as we realize that they are holding America hostage at the gas pump. To prevent our economy and country from completely collapsing, the president will have to take stronger action.

When gas is breaking $10 a gallon, and depending on who the president is at that time, he will have just two courses of action. If he’s a Democrat, he will raise taxes on the American people to attempt an increase in production of ethanol and biofuels, adding to the financial burden already being imposed on the people. This, of course, will have no effect on the price of gas for decades to come. It will only exacerbate the problem but will be consistent with the Democrats’ solution to everything - raise taxes.

If he’s a Republican, then he may address the American people and explain that our country has been attacked economically and this attack has done more damage to our country than the attacks of 911. He will be right. We were willing to pay a fair price for Mideastern oil but we can no longer allow the American people to be held hostage to unreasonably inflated oil prices. He will explain that he has no other choice but to send military forces into Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Mideast to secure the oil fields that we discovered and developed. But it's more likely that he will promote other reasons to launch an attack that doesn't mention oil.

This will not be ignored by other Islamic countries which will join forces with the Saudis in retaliation against America. Iran and Syria will find reason to become involved if they aren't already. This will be real war with Islam over oil, and yes, winner takes all. Our survival as a nation will depend on it.

There is just one problem - we don’t have a big enough army. What we lack in manpower, we will have to make up for with technology and advanced weaponry. No war was ever won by overwhelming the enemy with compassion. Wars are only won with overwhelming force. Israel will be attacked by Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, and the march to Armageddon will have begun.

Russia will side with Iran and Syria as war spreads throughout the Mideast. China will also be dragged into it. Nuclear weapons may be involved, although I don’t believe they would be exchanged between the U.S., Russia and China, assuring mutual destruction. Bible prophesies may predict otherwise.

This scenario is, of course, highly speculative, but entirely possible if we don’t take action now to avoid it. We have two choices. We can find some way of bringing down the price of oil on the world market (unlikely), or we can begin to end our dependence on foreign oil by using all of the domestic resources we have available. This alone will encourage foreign oil producers to lower their prices.

We will have to reduce our consumption of oil until such time that America is able to produce all of the oil we require. Petroleum products must be reserved exclusively for transportation fuel and synthetic products such as plastics and rubber. All factories now using oil should convert to natural gas, electric, or other sources of energy.

All production of electricity must be expanded by any and all means available. This includes wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, and new technologies in nuclear fusion currently being developed. Clean coal technology should be expanded and used extensively, even if it does make Harry Reid and the Democrats sick. Yucca Mountain in Nevada should be impounded by the federal government under “eminent domain laws” and declared the official nuclear waste depository over the objections of Reid.

But we cannot sacrifice our food supplies for energy. We need affordable food as much as we need affordable energy. Ethanol production must be ended and the greenfreaks must be defeated if we are to save our country. Ethanol works in Brazil because they have the climate for growing vast quantities of sugar cane; we don’t. Sugar cane makes for practical and efficient ethanol without disrupting food sources; corn doesn’t. As Raymond S. Kraft points out in his recent article,

Ending Our Oil Addiction: Reality Check

, compliance with recent ethanol mandates by Congress would be disastrous and impractical for the country.

As the world's largest consumer of foreign oil, just beginning a “moon shot” program toward oil independence will scare OPEC enough to begin lowering the price of oil in an attempt to persuade us to give it up. We played that game before and it worked, OPEC dropped their price so low that our efforts were cancelled. This time there must be no stopping, no matter how much oil prices drop.

I don’t expect the scenario I have described actually to happen, but it could. I suspect we will find more peaceful ways of dealing with the problem in time. Gas is already selling for $10 a gallon in Europe. In Europe, cars are smaller, less powerful, and use less gas. Much of the European lifestyle revolves around bicycles and motor scooters. Some are suggesting that we should be more like the Europeans.

We are Americans, not Europeans. We have our own American lifestyle and we don’t want to exchange it for a European lifestyle, no matter how much a tank of gas costs. $10 a gallon gas is going to hit us a lot harder than it hits Europeans because we depend on oil more than they do. Much of Europe is still living in the dark ages. That's fine for Europe, it's not fine for America.

The problem of our transportation costs are not going to be solved with “green” energy. Even if effective alternative fuels were developed and available today, the cars being sold today will still need gasoline for the next 20 years. Trucks, ships, and trains will need diesel fuel; aircraft will need aviation fuel, and homes will need home heating oil.

The only solution is to get serious about providing our own supply of oil to meet our national needs. This must be our first priority next to national security, before it becomes a national security issue.

A terrorist attack may destroy a city. This economic attack through oil and energy will destroy the country if it isn’t stopped. We have the ability to stop it if we do it now. Congress must be made to listen to the American people - their bosses. If they won’t listen, then we must fire those who are standing in the way when their terms expire. The consequences of not doing so could lead to the collapse of our country, or to Armageddon over oil if the present trend continues.

Another Warning Repeated, ho hum, who cares, ho hum...

Just a reminder...Bill Clinton's plan is still a going concern...
Re-read these words and mark my word, Barrack Husein Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress will destroy our sovereignty with their Globalist/Socialist Agenda.

Speech prepared for delivery to Christian Coalition's Road to Victory
Washington, D.C. — September 18, 1998
Some people think that President Bill Clinton is only interested in power and women. That's not true. He has a very definite and specific global agenda.

Bill Clinton made a major address to the United Nations General Assembly in September 1997. He spoke with gusto about what he called "this new global era" and "the emerging international system." Then he used an amazing metaphor: he said he is taking America into a "web of institutions and arrangements" to set "the international ground rules for the 21st century." He identified the treaties that will take us into this web: the World Trade Organization, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the NATO Expansion Treaty, and the Global Warming Treaty.

Clinton said that "the forces of global integration are a great tide, inexorably wearing away the established order of things." Then he described our troops lost in a crash of a UN helicopter in Bosnia as "citizens of the world." Those men signed up to serve in the American armed forces. Who made them "citizens of the world"?

The following month, Bill Clinton went to Argentina, where he said: I'm trying to promote a "reorganization of the world" into a "global system." He said he wants "to build a global system" by merging "integrated economies and integrated democracies."

The American people do not want our economy integrated with corrupt, bankrupt regimes where people work for wages of 25 or 50 cents an hour. We do not want to integrate our U.S. democracy with countries built on totalitarianism and terror, without any constitutional rights. Americans absolutely do not want to be integrated into a global system.

When Bill Clinton became President, he surrounded himself with people who seek to reorganize America into a global system. His chief foreign policy adviser is Strobe Talbott, who was Clinton's Rhodes scholar roommate and fellow draft dodger. Talbott wrote in Time Magazine that "national sovereignty wasn't such a great idea." He rejoiced in the coming "birth of the Global Nation" where "nationhood as we know it will be obsolete, all states will recognize a single, global authority."

Bill Clinton knows that, if he proposed world government, the American people would reject it out of hand. So he is trying to tie us into world government incrementally, one step at a time. It's like the story about the frog. If you drop him in boiling water, he will jump right out. But if you put him in cold water and then bring the pot to a boil, you will have cooked frog.

Bill Clinton, Strobe Talbott, and Madeleine Albright are moving us incrementally into a network of global organizations, each of which will exercise control over Americans in a different area: (1) human behavior, (2) our economic life, (3) our private property, and (4) our armed services. The mechanisms to accomplish this global network are treaties, international conferences, executive orders, executive-branch power over federal agencies, and assignment of our armed services.

Two treaties that were written to regulate human behavior were rejected by Presidents Reagan and Bush, but have become pet projects of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright.

The United Nations Treaty on the Rights of the Child would set up a broad array of children's rights against their parents. The treaty would give children the right to "rest and leisure." Does that mean that, when you tell Billy to clean up his room and carry out the garbage, he can say, "I have my UN right to rest and leisure"? Does this treaty mean that, when you tell Sally to turn off the television and do her homework, she can say, "Oh, no, I have my UN right to get information from the media of my choice"? Article 43 sets up a Committee on the Rights of the Child consisting of ten "experts" to monitor compliance. Do you want UN "experts" monitoring the way you raise your children?

The United Nations Treaty on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women purports to govern political, economic, social, cultural, and civil areas, plus "customs and practices," "social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women." This treaty would require us to follow UN dictates about "family education" and feminist dictates about revision of textbooks.

Clinton called a news conference to announce that he is "embarrassed" that the U.S. has never ratified this UN treaty. This is the same man who is not embarrassed by Paula or Monica.

However, the Clinton Administration is trying to implement this unratified treaty anyway through the UN World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995. Hillary Clinton was the star speaker and Madeleine Albright was the chairman of the U.S. delegation. Soon after the feminists returned from China in 1995, Madeleine Albright spelled out the goals in a document called "Bring Beijing Home." That is a plan to implement the pro-abortion feminist agenda through a federal entity composed of high-level representatives from 30 federal agencies, writing on White House letterhead.

A third treaty to regulate human behavior is the International Criminal Court Treaty adopted this year in Rome. This court will have power to try individuals, including Americans, in foreign courts where there is no due process or trial by jury. Even though the United States didn't sign or ratify this treaty, it's a direct threat to all our service personnel stationed overseas.

The most important of the Clinton's treaties designed to regulate our nation's economic life is the Global Warming Treaty agreed to by Al Gore in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. This treaty would bind the United States to reduce our energy emissions to 7% below our 1990 levels.

Energy is the basis of our high standard of living. Such a reduction would cost us a million jobs and massive disruptions in the American economy. These drastic cutbacks would be enforced by big tax increases on gasoline, home fuel, and electricity.

Meanwhile, China, India, Mexico, and 100 other developing nations would have no limitations at all. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that U.S. fossil-fuel-burning plants would move out of the United States to countries where there are no such restrictions. And, of course, that's the purpose: to distribute our wealth to the Third World.

This devastating reduction in our standard of living would take place on the basis of "global warming" predictions that are no more reliable than the weatherman's guess of how much snow will fall in the next 30 years. The only warming that is taking place comes out of the mouths of the politicians, such as Clinton's State of the Union Message, which is why we call this the Hot Air Treaty.

Another treaty designed to control our economic life, the Law of the Sea Treaty was emphatically rejected by President Reagan in the 1980s. This is a scheme to force American businesses to sink billions of investment dollars down on the ocean floor, and then turn the seabed's riches over to a global commission. All decisions would be made by Third World countries, which contributed nothing to the tremendous investment necessary to bring those riches to the surface.

The treaties designed to take over the management of large areas of American land and drastically reduce our property rights usually masquerade under the pretense of protecting the environment. The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio produced the Biodiversity Treaty, which planned to set aside buffer zones and corridors connecting habitat areas where human use by Americans would be severely restricted. It would subject U.S. property owners to international review and regulation.

President Bush refused to sign the Biodiversity Treaty. However, Al Gore persuaded Bill Clinton to sign it, and they tried to ram it through the Senate in 1994. The good news is that, due to the action of alert patriots, the Senate rejected it. The bad news is that the Clinton Administration is implementing it anyway in three ways, claiming that we must "fulfill existing international obligations." But we don't have any international obligations because the Senate never ratified.

First, the Clinton Administration has already put 47 large areas of land, called "Biosphere Reserves," under control of the UN and prohibited development in these areas. The area involved is larger than the state of Colorado.

Second, Clinton issued an Executive Order called the American Heritage Rivers Initiative under which he took over 10 rivers this year, putting hundreds of thousands of acres along the banks of the rivers under control of federal regulators with full authority. This Rivers project is a direct threat to our private property rights guaranteed in the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th Amendments.

Third, Clinton is also trying to implement the unratified Biodiversity Treaty through the President's Council on Sustainable Development. It is busy developing curriculum for the schools.

The World Heritage Treaty of 1972 granted special powers to the corrupt UN agency called UNESCO to designate selected American treasures as World Heritage sites and develop regulations and policies concerning their use. The United States doesn't even belong to UNESCO because Ronald Reagan pulled us out of it. Nevertheless, 20 World Heritage Sites have already been claimed and marked by UNESCO, including Yosemite National Park, Yellowstone National Park, the Grand Canyon, and even the Statue of Liberty and Independence Hall. I visited Independence Hall and saw the big bronze UNESCO plaque impudently asserting that this sacred site -- where the Declaration of Independence was signed and our Constitution was written -- belongs to "the common inheritance of all mankind."

Other UN conferences have been thinking up other ways to coopt American wealth for global purposes. The 1995 UN World Summit for Social Development, held in Copenhagen, Denmark, discussed imposing a global tax to give the UN its own flow of money independent of Congressional appropriations. The UN wants a global tax on all international financial transactions, international airline tickets, aviation freight, cruises, aviation fuel, communications satellites, and international postal items.

Clinton is planning on submitting an ABM Expansion Treaty, which would lock us forever into the policy of never building the Strategic Defense Initiative that Ronald Reagan advocated and which is so necessary to protect our people from missile attacks. Communist China has 13 ICBMs targeted on U.S. cities today, and who knows what North Korea, Iraq and Iran will do.

The Clinton Administration is also pursuing its global goals by putting our national security, including our armed services, under global control so that the United States will be locked into a perpetual interventionist policy under which American servicemen and women will be sent to faraway places to fight never-ending foreign wars disguised as "peacekeeping" operations.

In May 1994, Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive, PDD 25, the most unconstitutional transfer of power in American history. In PDD 25, Clinton asserted his authority "to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign commander" and under the United Nations rules of engagement.

In 1995, the Clinton Administration ordered American troops to go on a so-called "peacekeeping" expedition to Macedonia wearing the United Nations uniform. When Army Specialist Michael New protested that this order was illegal because it conflicted with his oath to the U.S. Constitution, he was court-martialed. His conviction was a watershed event on the way to transferring control over our armed services to global command.

When American soldiers were killed over Iraq, Vice President Al Gore told their widows and orphans that "they died in the service of the United Nations." That wasn't a slip of the tongue; his words reveal the Clinton Administration's plan to use our armed forces as UN mercenaries all over the world at the whim of UN bureaucrats. We do not want American service personnel serving in UN uniforms under UN or NATO commanders.

The Ronald Reagan vision of military strategy was firmly grounded in the principle of "peace through strength," that is, America should have more weapons than any possible enemy so that no bad guys would dare to attack us. It worked -- Reagan ended the Cold War without firing a shot!

The Clinton policy is just the opposite; Clinton wants to be involved in foreign conflicts. Time Magazine described Madeleine Albright as having a "passion for American activism." Colin Powell wrote in his autobiography that, when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Madeleine Albright told him, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

Clinton persuaded the Senate this year to ratify the NATO Expansion Treaty. It commits America to defend borders in Eastern Europe that people have been fighting over for hundreds of years.

Bosnia is the perfect example of the future the Clinton globalists have in store for us. Clinton has no exit strategy for Bosnia because he has no plans ever to exit. Clinton's goal is permanent intervention in foreign conflicts, using Bosnia as the model and NATO as the mechanism to preempt Congress. Why? Because Clinton and his advisers all believe in U.S. interventionism in foreign, particularly European, conflicts as a permanent feature of U.S. policy.

If you want to know more about Clinton's global goals, you should see Eagle Forum's remarkable new video called "Global Governance: The Quiet War Against American Independence." I hope this video will help us to find leaders who will stand up for the independence and sovereignty of the United States of America.

Global treaties and conferences are a direct threat to every American citizen. They are an assault on our right to raise and educate our children as we see fit. They are an attack on our energy consumption, our private property, and our national treasures. They are an attack on our pocketbooks because, if the UN ever gets taxing power, there is no limit to how much power and money it can grab. They are an attack on our standard of living because their goal is to steal American wealth and transfer it to the rest of the world.

Global treaties and conferences are an assault on the soul and sovereignty of America because they mean that young American men and women will be sent around the world, again and again, on phony "peacekeeping" expeditions. Clinton is determined to keep America on an interventionist course despite the opposition of the American people. It's called "global leadership," which means that our armed services will serve as global policemen and global social workers, while the U.S. taxpayers will play global sugar daddy.

The Senate should reject all UN treaties out of hand. Every single one would reduce our rights, freedom and sovereignty. That goes for treaties on the child, women, an international court, the sea, trade, biodiversity, global warming, and heritage sites. Americans are not willing to be ruled by Bill Clinton's global web, or by Strobe Talbott's "global nation," or by any United Nations treaties or conferences.

We all know that the Kingdom of God will prevail some day. But there is no evidence that, when the Lord says "seek first the Kingdom of God," he's really telling us to look for it in the United Nations.

Our Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution are the fountainhead of the freedom and prosperity Americans enjoy. We Americans have a constitutional republic so unique, so precious, so successful that it would be total folly to put our necks in a yoke with any other nation. St. Paul warns us (II Cor 6.14): "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?" The principles of life, liberty and property must not be joined with the principles of genocide, totalitarianism, socialism, and religious persecution. We cannot trust agreements or treaties with infidels.

The remarkable group of men who founded the United States of America talked about our Constitution as a miracle. They believed that God's hand was on us, leading us to victory in the war that established our independence and helping them to set up a framework of government under which freedom, religion and prosperity could flourish. God's people must not allow ourselves to become yoked with unbelievers. This rule applies to nations as well as individuals. Our great American principles of life, liberty and property must not be compromised by being put under foreign bureaucracies where the majority of nations reject God, self-government, and commit the most grievous persecution of all religions.

George Washington warned us in his Farewell Address: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." It's time to heed his warning and to adopt his words at the original Constitutional Convention: "Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the event is in the hands of God."

A note to all you globalist enthuiasts: Hitler tried it, look where it got him!