Saturday, September 5, 2009

Florida Is Losing more ways than one!

This would probably be a good time to put in a plug for Alabama. Alabama is, to the best of my knowledge, the one and only place that treats retirees with the most respect in the way of taxes. What do I mean by that you ask? Heck, I'm retired and do not pay a single red-dirt cent in taxes! Kinda, the way it should be don't ya think? Ya work all yer life, and fer what? Move to Florida and pay more taxes? When ya'all are tired of dat der white stuff in the streets up north and don't want to pay the neighbor to plow yours out of the drive way, it's time to head south to Alabamy...besides they got great football here! ~ Norman E. Hooben

Florida Exodus:

Rising Taxes Drive Out Residents

There are many things public officials probably shouldn't do during a severe recession, but no one seems to have told the leaders in Florida about them. One thing, for instance, would be giving a dozen top aides hefty raises while urging a rise in property taxes, as the mayor of Miami-Dade County recently did. Or jacking up already exorbitant hurricane-insurance premiums, as Florida's government-run property insurer just did. Or sending an army of highly paid lobbyists to push for a steep hike in electricity rates, as South Florida's public utility is doing.

And you wonder why the Sunshine State is experiencing its first net emigration of people since World War II. (See pictures: "Florida's Paradise Lost.")

A few years ago, journalists - citing the chasm between Miami's high cost of living and its low level of income - began predicting that South Florida and its perpetual population-growth machine would soon face the unthinkable: a falling head count. Now it's official. The region - Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties - lost 27,400 residents between 2008 and 2009, while Florida as a whole lost 58,000. That's not exactly a mass exodus for a state of 18 million; but it's the first net outflow in 63 years for a state that considers itself the new California. "It's difficult for the working middle class to justify living here," Mike Jones, president of the Palm Beach County Economic Council, conceded to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. "As much as they may love the sunshine, as you squeeze them out, they may find it in their best interests to move."

Jones gets it, but residents are starting to question whether the rest of their leaders do. Homeowners, especially in Broward and Miami-Dade, have been falling out of their flip-flops in recent days as they open their preliminary property-tax notices to find increases of 15% or more. That's sizable in a low-income region where the median property-tax bill is already some $3,000, and it's doubly frustrating given that property values have slid by some 25% during Florida's housing bust. Residents have barely digested the recent news that their hurricane-insurance premiums, which can top $5,000 a year for most South Florida homes, will rise 10% a year for the next three years (vital, officials claim, for handling claims from the next big storm). And their public utility, Florida Power & Light (FPL), is lobbying the state for a 30% rate hike (vital, FPL execs insist, for upgrading infrastructure). "It all seems out of control to people here at the time when they can least absorb it," says Dr. Jose Valladares, president of the conservative Fair Property Tax for All in Miami-Dade. (Read about Florida's property-tax revolt.)

Granted, most local governments often have to raise taxes when they're staring at fiscal craters like the $427 million shortfall in Miami-Dade's proposed $7.83 billion budget. But the less than sunny mood in Miami-Dade is made darker by the feeling among most residents that their fiscal jam is not just a result of falling revenue, but also years of profligate mismanagement. The final determination on their property taxes will be made soon by the Miami-Dade County Commission - a feckless, corruption-tainted body, many of whose members ran up hundreds of thousands of dollars in police overtime costs recently by using cops as their personal chauffeurs. (None of the commissioners face any sanctions for it.)

Residents were further outraged last week when the Miami Herald reported that Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez, one of the few Miami politicians with a reputation for probity, had raised the salaries of his chief of staff and other top lieutenants this year as high as 15% while calling for a 5% pay cut for county workers. Alvarez spokesperson Victoria Mallette says the raises resulted from a 2007 referendum that gave Miami-Dade's mayor, until then a relatively weak post, broad new powers that in turn thrust heavier duties on his staff. She also notes that Alvarez actually cut his office's budget last year by almost 15% and that he helped build an $80 million reserve fund. Still, a Herald editorial called Alvarez's raises "irresponsible." Watchdogs like Valladares complain that Miami-Dade's bureaucracy, like so many local governments in this decade, got too bloated during the economic boom. The County Commission, for example, has a staff of more than 200 serving only 13 commissioners - and yet it still managed to screw up tasks like its oversight of Miami-Dade's scandal-plagued housing agency.

Many Americans find it hard to feel sorry for Valladares and all the other Floridians who pay no state income tax. Floridians are indeed guilty of an arrogant belief that living in "paradise" should be a birthright as cheap as gassing up an SUV. It was, until Florida's relentless and miserably planned growth spawned problems that the peninsula is struggling to handle, including skyrocketing property taxes and hurricane-insurance premiums. Governor Charlie Crist has tried in recent years to rein in those twin vampires, but together they can still exceed what folks in many other states pay for state income tax, local property tax and homeowner's insurance combined. And whereas high-cost states like New York, California and Illinois also have some of the country's highest median incomes, Florida's is in the bottom half.

In a state that worshipped condo-flippers as great entrepreneurs, it was all a house of cards waiting to be blown down when the housing bubble burst. Now that it has happened, those Floridians who haven't left the state had hoped their officials might change the way they do things - or at least not attend a Kentucky Derby party hosted by the same FPL honchos lobbying them for a rate hike, as a Florida Public Service Commission director has admitted to doing a few months ago. But if Miami and Florida officials can't get their acts together, they can probably expect even lower head counts in the years to come.

Hey, Ya wanna hear a good one?

Global Warming... Do I hear a liitle truth coming from the liars?

Source: Herald Sun

Is “mistake” another word for a warming lie?

Andrew Bolt

Just an honest mistake, which purely coincidentally scared people into thinking we really are heating the world to hell:

The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”

Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming. Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.

“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” he said.

Mistake? Leipold tries another form of weasel words:

We as a pressure group have to emotionalise issues.

I think the BBC reporter (and what a turnaround this is) is right:

Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present. [Clarification: Sackur was referring to the Greenland ice cap, within the Arctic ice area.] The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism.”

Standard operating procedure for warming alarmists actually, as Professor Steven Schneider once cheerfully conceded.

Amazing how green lies collapse once reporters actually do their job and subject them to scrutiny. But what hope that the ABC will do as the BBC at last has, given that its chief science broadcaster is Robyn “100 Metres” Williams?

But if Greenpeace now admits it was a “mistake” to claim the Artic would be ice-free in 30 years, what would you call a scare-claim at wild as this one:

Tim Flannery also warned ”this may be the Arctic’s first ice-free year

And this, from Al Gore:

the entire Arctic ice cap may totally disappear in summer in as little as five years...


And of course we all know where the real hot air comes from...


...a lot less seniors and other news from News Busters

Montel, Montel...Did you know your name rhymes with hell? I guess we now know where all your hatred comes from.

Source: News Busters
I don't know about the rest of you but I detect a whole lot of racial bias in Montel Williams's clear to me that he takes out of context the remarks by Rep. Michele Bachmann.
Why would anyone do this? For one thing there is no sound logic behind Obama's health care plan other than the desire to control by a far left zealot. So where do you come off with your idiotic statement Mr. Williams? ...showing a little racial favoritism if you ask me. ~ N.E. Hooben

Montel Williams to Rep. Michele Bachmann: Use the Knife to Kill Yourself

Perhaps he's auditioning for a part on MSNBC: The place for Michele Bachmann bashing.

Air America host Montel Williams stepped away from his mild-mannered World Series of Poker playing, Big Orange prescription drug bus driving and medicinal marijuana advocacy roles to fire a salvo at Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., encouraging her to stab herself on his Sept. 3 radio show (h/t Radio Equalizer Brian Maloney):

WILLIAMS (1:30:32): Michelle, slit your wrist.
Go ahead... or, do us all a better thing [sic].
Move that knife up about two feet.
Start right at the collarbone.

Bachmann has been a regular target of lefties in the media time and time again. MSNBC personalities have regularly attacked Bachmann and other conservative women on the network, with Chris Matthew once referring to Bachmann as a "Mata Hari." On MSNBC's Sept. 1 "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," host Keith Olbermann entertained the musings of Dan Savage, a syndicated sex columnist, author and gay-rights advocate, who suggest Bachmann and Fox News host Glenn Beck were trying to get Obama killed.

And Olbermann and the local liberal Minnesota press also went after Bachmann's son on Aug. 13. So, that only begs the question - where is Montel Williams getting his vitriol from?


Muslim Threat Index...a new way to look at it.

Source: PlancksConstant

Muslim Threat Index

By Bernie on 02 Sep 2009:

Muslim Threat

For the average infidel in the western world it is extremely difficult to determine which of the 48 Muslim Majority countries in the world represents the greatest danger to civilization. Afghanistan has the Taliban, Lebanon has Hezbollah, Egypt has Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Algeria has the 'the al-Qaeda Organization of the Islamic Maghreb,' Iran is looking to get nuclear weapons, Pakistan already has the bomb, which countries should we be worried about?

As a public service I have devised Planck's Islamic Threat Equation, a Muslim threat index to help government security agencies, NGOs, and others to quantify the danger of various Muslim majority countries and the likelihood that those countries may directly or indirectly support an attack against America or Europe. Also one should consider Islamic regimes that make their populace so miserable that they force huge numbers of Muslims to emigrate (which is a direct threat to the host countries) or make them so angry they turn to terrorism.

Here is the formula: MTI (Muslim Threat Index) = [ (100 * Atp * At)/M + (Pp*GDp) + MSp + MPp + SRp] * NC

where Atp is Active Troop points;
At is Number of troops;
M is the number of Muslims in the country

AtpAt=Number of active Troops

Pp is Population Points (too small and too big a population are both most dangerous)

15-49.9 million
250-99.9 million
40-4.9 million

MSp Is Main Sect Points (Where neither Sunni nor Shia predominate the more likely for sectarian instability)


MPp is Muslim Percentage Points (the greater the percentage the greater the intolerance of other religions)


SRp is State Religion Points

State Religion means Islam the official religion where Sharia courts may be used
Secular: Officially neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religion
None means that the country's status has not yet been declared - until resolved more dangerous than Secular
Islamic State means Strict Shariah Law


GDp is Gross Domestic Product per capita points


Pp*GDp is population points times (Gross Domestic Product per capita points)

One will notice that a very high GDP will drive high population numbers to 0 on the principle that the higher the GDP the less likely the populace is to engage in terrorism.

NC= Nuclear Capability

NC=1 no nukes
NC=2 Acquiring Nuclear Capability (Iran)
NC=4 Has Nukes (Pakistan)

Here are the results with the most dangerous countries at the top with the highest threat index.

CountryPop (mil)% MuslimMain SectGovt TypeActive TroopsGDP Per Capita US$Threat Level
Pakistan172.897.0SunniIslamic state528,0002,592180
Bangladesh162.289.0SunniState Religion120,0001,37867
Iran70.598.0Shi'aIslamic state545,00010,62452
Mauritania3.1100.0SunniIslamic state15,7502,00849
Comoros0.898.0SunniState religion01,12538
The Gambia1.790.0SunniSecular8001,32634
Maldives0.399.8SunniState religion1,0004,60426
Yemen23.099.0Sunni/Shi'Islamic state65,0002,33520
Somalia9.599.9SunniState religion10,00060018
Saudi Arabia27.6100.0SunniIslamic state199,50023,24317
Sierra Leone6.260.0SunniNone13,00069213
Afghanistan32.799.0SunniIslamic state70,00072412
Iraq28.297.0Shi'aState religion254,4183,60012
Egypt77.190.0SunniState religion450,0005,49111
Jordan5.595.0Sunnistate religion100,7004,88610
Kyrgyzstan5.375.0SunniSecular12,500- 9
Bahrain1.081.0Shi'aState religion11,20032,6048
Burkina Faso13.250.0SunniSecular6,0001,2538
Tunisia10.398.0SunniState religion35,0007,4738
Morocco33.799.0SunniState religion196,3004,0767
Algeria33.799.0SunniState religion127,5006,5387
Oman2.593.0IbadiState religion41,70023,9676
Libya6.197.0SunniState religion76,00012,2776
Qatar0.777.5SunniState religion12,40080,8705
Kuwait3.485.0SunniState religion15,50039,3054
Malaysia27.760.4SunniState religion110,00013,3154
United Arab Emirates5.476.0SunniState religion50,50037,2934
Brunei0.367.0SunniState religion7,00051,0053

I would like to point out that any Islamic country with a threat index of zero is not threat to anyone.

For more of my articles like this see

Ya know I believe in freedom of the press...but the Associated Press has got to go! They're not for America, they're the enemy!

AP picture of wounded Marine sparks debate

The AP distributed the picture despite personal pleas from Gates and the dead Marine's family in a case that illustrated the difficult decisions in reporting on a conflict where Americans have seen relatively few images of fallen U.S. troops over eight years.

The picture, by AP photographer Julie Jacobson, showed Lance Cpl. Joshua "Bernie" Bernard, 21, lying on the ground with severe leg injuries after being struck by a grenade in an ambush on Aug. 14, his fellow Marines tending to him. Bernard later died of his wounds.

Gates wrote a strongly worded letter to AP President and CEO Tom Curley on Thursday, saying it was a matter of "judgment and common decency" not to use the photo. A Pentagon spokesman said Gates followed up with a phone call "begging" Curley not to use it.

After the photo was published Friday, the Pentagon released its communications with the AP.

John Daniszewski, AP senior managing editor, said he respected Gates' view but that sometimes the government and press have different perspectives.

"We thought that the image told a story of sacrifice; it told a story of bravery," Daniszewski said. "We felt that the picture told a story that people needed to see and be aware of."

Jacobson and reporter Alfred de Montesquiou were embedded with Bernard's unit and had followed them on patrol in Dahaneh, Afghanistan. She took her pictures from a distance using a long lens. The AP on Thursday ran a package of photos from that day and others that showed his life in uniform and his memorial service. The AP also distributed a detailed story, accompanied by the photographer's journal and an article explaining why the photo was used.

Gates' plea came after the story and photo were sent on the wire but before the time set for releasing the package for publication. The AP had sent the photo as part of its package of stories and photographs under this "embargo" to give editors and producers time to consider whether to use the photo of the fallen Marine, the organization said.

Gates wrote that use of the photo of a wounded Bernard would mark an "unconscionable departure" from the restraint that most journalists have shown in covering the military since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The AP did not change its decision.

"Why your organization would purposely defy the family's wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me," Gates wrote. "Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple newspapers is appalling."

A check on Friday found the story had been used on at least 20 newspaper front pages. None used the picture of a mortally wounded Bernard on the front page, although it was used inside newspapers and on Web sites like the Huffington Post.

The Newark, N.J., Star-Ledger ran a picture of Bernard's memorial service on its front page and the ambush picture inside. Editor Jim Willse said it was "not a difficult decision for us," and said it would have run the ambush picture out front "if the story had been presented differently."

The Wheeling, W.Va., Intelligencer ran the photo inside and an editorial explaining why it did "after hours of debate."

"Too often, we fear, some Americans see only the statistics, the casualty counts released by the Department of Defense," the newspaper wrote. "We believe it is important for all of us to understand that behind the numbers are real men and women, sometimes making the ultimate sacrifice, for us."

Not all of its readers agreed: One woman, having seen the picture in the Intelligencer, made an angry, emotional phone call to AP spokesman Paul Colford to protest it.

The Portland (Me.) Press-Herald ran an editor's note with the story saying it had received the photo but believed it would be in "poor taste" to publish it. Bernard was raised in New Portland, Me.

While the story was being written, an AP reporter visited the home of John and Sharon Bernard to learn more about their son. The couple was shown Jacobson's pictures, and requested that they not be used. In a later fact-checking phone call, John Bernard asked in stronger terms that the photos not be used, Daniszewski said.

Although the family was shown the pictures ahead of time as a courtesy, "we did not ask permission" to use them, Daniszewski said.

"There was no question that the photo had news value," he said. "But we also were very aware the family wished for the picture not to be seen. That created a difficult choice between our job to document the war and our respect for the suffering of the corporal's family."

During lengthy internal discussions, the family issue was the most difficult, he said. Ultimately, the AP concluded that "the photo itself is a part of the war we needed to cover and convey."

The AP had received dozens of e-mails and phone calls about its decision by mid-Friday, many of them critical, Colford said. It was a topic on Twitter, with one tweet saying: "as the wife of a retired Marine, and the mother of a soldier who is now in Afghanistan, I find the AP's `choice' to be a disgusting one."

The Huffington Post put the picture on its front page Friday under the headline, "Snapshot of an Unseen War." It provoked a vigorous debate among its readers. One wrote: "This just isn't right. The man is dead. Not injured. Dead. Just wrong."

The AP received an e-mail from some former military supporting its decision. Dan Cahalan, an Afghanistan veteran, wrote that "this is one of the realest accounts from a journalist I have ever read and just wanted to thank (Jacobson) for her honest reporting of the war."

Jorge Ruiz of Glendale, Ariz., said he and other ex-Marines had often talked about the sanitation of war and the social implications of a lack of images showing what war is really like.

"Death and the ugliness of war is not something we look forward to but a necessity to put the war in its proper context," said Ruiz, who also wrote the AP. "A picture is worth a thousand words. I applaud your courage to distribute the photo and the story of the death of Lance Cpl. Bernard." ___

Associated Press Writer Pauline Jelinek in Washington contributed to this report.


Friday, September 4, 2009

Echos from the past... Where have I heard this story before?

HitlerITB.jpg (35974 bytes)

In the Beginning there was the Word

It is unfair to depict all these attacks on Hitler without showing the way that he was seen in Nazi propaganda for the German people. The postcard above is almost Biblical in nature and shows an early Hitler preaching to the faithful of the fledgling Nazi Party. The title of the portrait puts Hitler in the position of God since the Bible says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” With constant propaganda telling the German people that their leader was no less than a God, it is easy to see why many became such fervent believers.


A little off topic...If you're not surfing the net, you should be surfing here!

Years ago I went surfing...but I never found this place!


There are any number of reasons why I don't T-E-X-T can include this in that number!

Warning before viewing ...aah never mind, you would view it anyway!

ATTENTION ALL PARENTS...know how your children are being indoctrinated...beware Septmeber 8th, 2009

Attention All American Teachers And Students

Click on picture to enlarge.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

"Internet Kill Switch"...I hope not!

There has been some publicity lately about the Dictator and his Czars taking over the control of the Internet...and believe it people, if he could, he would! (Senate Cybersecurity Act of 2009 Could Shut Down the Internet) Of course one of the main reasons he would like to control the Internet would be to stifle the truth about him and his henchman. The other objective is that which is not too highly publicized, and that is the United Nations. (I won't get into that here but you can find a few stories on the Internet such as this one "Don't give UN control over Internet" that will give you a little insight into the matter.) But along comes a story out of the Kansas State Collegian that gives me a little hope that the Internet itself may be complicated enough to stifle the thugs-in-charge. I hope you're right Professor! ~ Norman E. Hooben
Professors: Total Internet control by Obama impossible

By Karen Ingram

Published/Updated: Thursday, September 3, 2009

The regrettable phrase "Internet kill switch," which has been linked to a recent cybersecurity bill introduced in the Senate, has begun circulating the Internet, causing confusion and angst.

Many people began to believe that President Barack Obama had his finger on a magic button that would take the Internet away from everyone – something that computer experts here on campus assure is highly improbable.

"It would certainly be difficult to accomplish completely, given the number of potential paths across the world," said Daniel Andresen, associate professor in computing and information sciences.

There has been confusion over the proposed bill that Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, proposed in April regarding cybersecurity. The confusion came from the wording used in the original version of the bill, which states:

1.) The president "may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network," and

2.) The president "may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security."

Simon Ou, assistant professor in computing and information sciences, said the president did not have the capability to do this, due to the structure of the Web.

"The Internet is composed of a large number of small networks, both in the U.S. and abroad, that are interconnected through various networking protocols," Ou said. "I don't think any one nation has the authority or capability to 'shut down' the Internet."

The revised bill has not been made public, but information was made available in an Aug. 31 article by The bill still grants the president the power to declare a cybersecurity emergency, but the article makes no mention of limiting or shutting down Internet traffic. Instead, the president can "direct the national response to the cyber threat" with "relevant industry sectors." The article speaks only of public and private networks, and omits any specific references to the Internet.

Changes were made to the wording of the bill in response to the many attacks made by critics who questioned the amount of control the president should have, particularly with regard to telling private networks when they may turn their networks back on after a cybersecurity emergency.

In spite of all the controversy, many still feel that cybersecurity is a critical issue that must be addressed.

"The nature of cyber attacks is that once a victim is captured by an attacker, it can be turned into weapons to attack other systems," Ou said.

For example, if hackers were to hijack computers in K-State's network, they could be used to attack other computer networks anywhere in the country, like those used in the U.S. power grid or in a nuclear reactor.

"In such situations, it may become necessary to isolate K-State campus network to stop the spread of attacks, or isolate the power companies' networks to prevent them from being attacked," Ou said.

The cybersecurity bill is still in the early stages, and more revisions are expected.


Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Ted Kennedy continued...Ted in bed with the KGB...not literally, but a good friend just the same.

I was aware of this letter for some time and when the leadership of the Democratic party never expressed their views on it I suspected then and there that they were part and parcel to the demise of the United States along with Walter Cronkite (must see video below), Henry Kissinger, and others that I would describe as treasonous individuals. These people will scheme well into the darkness of night to attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people by using their gift of gab and perceived trust. That last one, 'trust' was the label they convinced many Americans was an attribute of Walter Cronkite, "The most trusted man in America." Of course we found out later that wasn't true...just part of the scheme of things. And for Kennedy to get away with this treasonous activity described in the KGB letter was akin to his getting away with murder at Chappaquiddick. ~ Norman E. Hooben

Special Importance
Committee on State Security of the USSR
14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV

Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov
Comrade Y.V. Andropov
On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.
Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.
According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the "success of Reaganomics."
Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.
The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.
However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.
Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:
1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues.
If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit.
Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.)
2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.

If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.
Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.
Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutal understandings between peoples.
The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.
Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.
We await instructions.
President of the committee
V. Chebrikov
I had previously posted this explanation of the story a few days ago and I might add here that Ronald Reagan and Ted Kennedy were not good friends. Kennedy was a habitual liar and would feign anything to accomplish his goals.
Kennedy's Secret Soviet Overture Against Reagan
Saturday, August 29, 2009

President Ronald Reagan and Sen. Ted Kennedy were good friends, according to Nancy Reagan. But that didn't stop Kennedy from trying to undercut Reagan ... with a little help from the Soviet Union.
According to Peter Robinson, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a former White House speechwriter, Kennedy offered to make a deal with then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov in 1983.
Robinson, writing for, says Kennedy sent his close friend, former California state Sen. John Tunney, to Moscow with a secret message to Andropov: Help the Democrats battle Reagan in the 1984 presidential election, and in return Kennedy would help Andropov in dealing with Reagan.
Robinson recounts that Victor Chebrikov, a top KGB official, recorded the details of Kennedy's offer in a memo that was uncovered in Soviet archives in 1991.
Kennedy promised to:
Visit Moscow and prep the Soviets on effective propaganda. "The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA," states the Soviet memo.
Help Andropov get on U.S. television. "A direct appeal ... to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country," states the memo. "If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. ... The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side."
According to the memo, Kennedy also had told Tunney that he planned to run for president in 1988.
Robinson writes that there is no evidence to prove that Andropov, who died eight months later, ever took any action regarding Kennedy's offer.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
You cannot make bad people good by saying nice things about them...
they will be just as bad, only they'll smile while they play their back-stabbing games.
Ted Kennedy was one such person...Obama is another!

The days of promising good governance but delivering graft, corruption, and self serving sinecures are over.

----- Original Message -----

From: link removed

To: link removed

Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 8:45 PM

Subject: The Reclamation of Independence


Tuesday 09-01-2009 4:31pm MT

WHEN IN THE GENERATIONS SUCCEEDING the one that pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to usher in the birth of the world’s only truly free nation, Liberty’s Progeny incrementally ceded their birthright to the government conceived and designed to serve a free people, and not be its servant, this generation is awakening to the terrible mistake that we, and our ancestors allowed to happen. Charged with the terrible knowledge that comes with opened eyes, we now take up the long abdicated duty to rouse our fellow citizens and actively wrest the power and the liberties that have been progressively talked, cajoled, threatened, wheedled, and extorted from us, not only by those who ostensibly served us, but by their supporters and enablers who, by accident or design, saw fit to usurp and disdain such freedoms, that they might be withheld, and where impossible to withhold, might be condemned, until a corrosive contempt for these liberties, wrapped in velvet gloves, might so suffocate the circulation of them that this nation, conceived in liberty and the providence of a wise and benevolent creator, might indeed perish from the earth, plunging the rightful heirs of a proud and noble heritage in the the darkened waters of chaos, despair, and evil that surround them, a dank deluge that even today, other human beings actively seek to escape from in the inspiring embrace of this blessed and free country.

We, the awakened and aware, freely accept the charge that the architects of this republic passed on to us over two centuries before, in the hope that all who partook in the blessings made possible by nation they created would somberly undertake the duties of citizens, and so appropriately train themselves in virtue, and educate themselves in the workings of the precepts and ideals set forth in their foundational documents that they would possess enough wisdom to recognize that not all threats to our freedom would come from without our ranks, the knowledge to recognize that not every chain and shackle menacing us will immediately appear to be what it actually is, and the humilitynot to assume that the ingenuity and innovation that has been the hallmark of American success has been the product of man alone.

To this end, we hereby identify and reclaim our independence from the tools used to slowly enslave a free people and usurp the freedoms that we could not be persuaded to freely give up, or voluntarily suppress the free exercise of on our own:

1. We reclaim our independence from the tyranny of ‘Political Correctness’.

The Constitution does not now, nor has it ever guaranteed a right to be free from being offended. Early successes in causing the disruption of free speech by insisting on the use of words or terms stripped of their meaning or altered by redefinition and deliberate use of ephemism, in order to avoid offending more delicate sensibilities lead to its use to deliberately avoid, delay, or prevent the free exchange and communication of ideas because we allowed ourselves to be more afraid of offending someone or being branded with a label chosen to imply that there was a problem with the offending speaker, rather than the intended recipient.

No more.

Words have meaning and names have power. But truth overcomes, when it is given the opportunity to exist unfettered by the artificial restraints that those who fear it would place upon it. The Founding Fathers knew this, which is why they favored the “marketplace of ideas” approach. And we now ratify and affirm this concept, having borne witness to the damage and impaired decision making that results when we remain silent and let others avoid any real discussion of topics, events, and ideas out of the fear that we might offend someone.

2. We reclaim our independence from your victimhood.

For too long, we have stood by silently, and allowed some to increasingly balkanize this country with sob stories of how one thing or another makes them a victim, and therefore they deserve some special deference, special preference, and recognition that they are special. We watched for too long, with growing alarm, as the hyphenated-Americans increasingly failed to take it upon themselves to overcome their victim status, yet continually expect to be rewarded for it as they brandished their victimhood like a cudgel, ready to bludgeon any who dared to question their entitlements and almost rapacious appetites to expand them.

No more.

One of the many unique blessings that this country has to offer is the presence of second and third and fourth chances. Others know this, and rather than think that the good things available to those who work for them were something that they were simply entitled to by virtue of their sob story, real or imagined, they decided to man up, and overcome. That doesn’t happen through accepting help and deciding to continually demand more. We are a generous people, but there are limits. Decide of your own accord to know the satisfaction of making your own destiny, rather than subsistence on the labor of others. You might be surprised at what you accomplish, or how that might come to benefit your fellow citizen in ways that you cannot even imagine.

3. We reclaim our independence from the myth of a compelling interest in diversity at the cost of excellence.

The latest affront to the ‘American Exceptionalism’ that our current President feels the need to apologize for in foreign capitols is the recent notion of a “compelling interest in diversity in our government, our institutions, and our culture”. This is the bastard child of Political Correctness and victimhood, which would not have been possible without the misapprehension of the concept of equality as enshrined in our law, the correct interpretation being that citizens of this country have equality of opportunity and equality in stature in the eyes of the laws that govern us. Once the “right” of offense took hold and started keeping company with victimhood, those benefiting from the employment of both decided that equality really meant that everyone had a right to be to be surrounded in all walks of life by people who looked just like them, whether those people were qualified to fulfill those roles or not.

No more.

Americans rose to prominence in the world in no small part due to the idea of merit and the pursuit of excellence. This was embodied in our government and institutions as much as in the private sector. Civil Service exams for public sector jobs ensured not only that people could do the work required of them, but that the best qualified were hired to do the job. Now, the standard in many fire departments, police departments, government agencies, and university staffs is not excellence, but the color of skin, gender, or sexual preference. The identity has eclipsed ability and we are all the poorer for it. Prepare for a change.

4. We reclaim our independence from the contempt of our citizenship.

For too long, we have silently permitted others to use the appeal of emotion to exact our acquiescence in their actively allowing people who have violated our laws to come here to live and work among us without asking permission to do so, or obeying our laws in doing so. We have allowed others to cajole us into allowing these persons to use our resources, and take benefits intended for citizens, without them being required to become citizens or apply for residence. We have been too long silent as others continually advocate for the application of the protections that are conferred upon us as our birthright to those who are not citizens and have tried to kill citizens, or have expressed a deep-seated desire to do so.

No more.

No sane person so despises something of value that is theirs by virtue of “the accident of birth” that they simply would give it away to others who want it and yet show contempt for those who have it by stealing it from them. Likewise, no sane person so dishonors a gift purchased with the blood of others that they will give it to those who only desire to kill or enslave them. No longer will we be silent as others confer all the benefits and protections of citizenship upon those who disrespect it, or would steal such benefits and protections without assuming the responsibility to pay for them, or worse yet, murder us because we have them.

5. We reclaim our independence from the “Freedom from religion” that has erroneously been read into the Constitution.

From the institution of Thanksgiving, to the architecture of our public buildings and monuments, the opening of government proceedings, down to the acknowledgement on our currency, this country has very deep and undeniable judeo-christian roots, and has been governed by leaders who unashamedly proclaimed their according personal beliefs while in office. It has influenced our laws and been the bedrock of every ideal that has allowed this nation to grow and prosper. This heritage has been the target of a decades long campaign to shove God out of the public square and exile him from congress with our elected officials by people who have refused the notion of a higher authority, because their own beliefs and desires are in contravention to those expressed by that higher authority.

No more.

Assaulting our national heritage with such dubious legal notions such as a separation of church and state that forbids any mention of God or expression of religion on or in state-owned property, and dismantling existing law with the fallacious statement “You can’t legislate morality” does violence to our history and demonstrates weak logic and understanding of what law is. The Founding Fathers’ intent with the Establishment Clause was the prevention of any one church gaining the favor and sanction of the Federal Government. A ban on ANY expression of religion or belief in God was never their intention, and the evidence of that is still surrounding us to this day. The current state of the law is based on a false premise that can be easily dismissed by a simple walk around the monuments and buildings in the District of Columbia, and taking out you wallet to pay for an ice cream cone. As for the “You can’t legislate morality” canard, this is also false. The law is, in its most simple essence, an expression of morality, codified. The question that then arises is whose morality should be expressed in the law? Those of people who can point to no particular belief system that has certain valuable virtues at its core, or those that can?

6. We reclaim independence from the cynical attempts to use shame to stop us from speaking out.

We have all felt this. The accusations that we are poor Christians because we refuse to give the government power not granted to it in the Constitution and go along with the currently contemplated healthcare reform bill. The charges that we hate the Earth and our children, because we oppose the highest single tax increase ever, combined with the deleterious effect on American jobs that would result in the passage of the Cap and Tax bill, which owes its existence to the myth of man-made global warming and the fact that it feeds the Federal Government its two favorite entrees: money and power. The charges that we are bad, greedy, selfish people for not supporting the idea that government and welfare entitlements are the way to improve the lives of Americans who are struggling, whatever the reason. The charges of “Racism” whenever we raise a provocative question or level a criticism at a person, policy, or idea that might happen to involve a person or persons who are not Caucasian.

No more.

Charges like “racist” and “racism” made without objective, quantitative support, and only the subjective justification of emotion will be ignored. The race card is maxed out, and the bank is no longer willing to extend the credit line. As for attacking our faith, or our practice thereof, we will no longer be held to account by people who do not understand the faith they would use as a weapon against believers, when the wielder subscribes to no belief system at all. Those who rely only on themselves for the regulation of their conduct and ethics no longer get to condemn those who answer to a higher authority. Not any more. We reclaim control of the shame that you have opted out of, and we will no longer allow you to use it to make us answer to you.

7. We reclaim independence from the notion that the Federal Government is the solution to every problem and the answer to every question.

For too long, we stood by and allowed debate and action on all matters, predicated upon on a destructive and dangerous idea: That the Federal Government is the only way to meet a need, fix a problem, or prevent a problem. In time it became a security blanket, and we became a nation of thumbsuckers, eager to give the federal Government more power and more money, if only it would keep us safe from life and the living of it as free people, until we no longer looked to it for protection from others who would have our liberties or destroy them; we looked to it for protection from the consequences of our own actions.

No more.

We were so fixated in seeking the federal government’s assistance with every aspect of our daily lives, no one within or without the Federal Government ever exercised restraint and said “No. The Consitution does not give the Federal Government the authority to do that.” And now that people are alert to the fact that the Federal Government is poised on the cusp of the largest power grab it has ever made with the healh care bill, some of us are finally saying “No. You do not have the authority.” The stakes have never been more obvious. Met with the anger of constituents who are actually paying attention, elected officials are employing various means to intimidate these citizens who are expressing their disgust and anger that a government that serves them would ever feel so entitled to our money and our data in the passage of something so clearly opposed by those who wold have to live under it, these servants have resorted to insulting their constituents, calling them shills in the pay of their political opponents, calling them stupid and saying that they simply did not understand the printed words on the pages of the bill, brazenly lying to them outright about what they have proposed and are considering, and filling audiences at public meetings with rent-a-mobs from the SEIU, ACORN, and others, so that they will face a friendly audience that is also hostile to the voters opposed to this latest demonstration of government off its leash. The days of promising good governance but delivering graft, corruption, and self serving sinecures are over. We do not care about your party; both have proven themselves reckless and dishonest. We demand that you act responsibly, that you do the people’s business, not your own, and we demand that you act within the confines of the Constitution. No more will we simply accept legislation that exceeds the authority strictly enumerated in the Constitution. No more will we accept interpretations of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause that are so tortured and stretched beyond reason or recognition as to be unrecognizable to anyone who has read the Constitution. No longer will we accept legislation from the bench that relies not on interpretation of the Constitution, but mystical divination of mysterious penumbras that only a few ‘right-minded’ jurists can see. Those days are over, and you can return usurped powers to the states and the individual citizens in whom the Constitution rightfully places them, or you can have them stripped from you.

We, those who have come together in virtual congress to reclaim our independence from those who have by various means obtained it from us, realize that this probably wasn’t the HOPE! and CHANGE! that those persons had in mind, but nevertheless, the time has come.

I Know I'm Not The Only American Left Who Thinks This Is Important

I can picture myself (not almost) in Glenn shoes saying all these things...not that I've used his exact words, but that I've said the exact same thing now for... For how long, I don't know anymore...but if Americans don't soon wake up you can kiss your country good bye...and it won't be sweet! Recall my previous prediction of anarchy and violence, it's coming (still sticking to my 2010 timeline mentioned in previous posts).
And Glenn, you know in your heart that this sorry piece of you-know-what that's occupying the White House will never give you a straight answer. A straight answer would reveal his ultimate goal of destroying the United States of America. Think NWO (Clinton still does. He was just up in Montreal, Canada spreading his agenda. Obama, doesn't matter, they're all in this together.) ~ Norman E. Hooben

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

We the people... I'm not sure anymore. We now have a gangster run government.

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE...I know a few people who need to brush up in this area.

----- Original Message -----
From: link removed
To: link removed
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 8:21 PM


1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." T.Jefferson

2. "Those who trade liberty for security have neither." ~ John Adams

3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

9. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?

15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.

16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.