Where I come from...

The link to understanding...

http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/05/message-to-my-readers.html

In My In Box...message that's worth repeating.

The following is just one of thousands of e-mails I recieve weekly; this one is worth repeating.

Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 7:25:15 PM
Subject: VOTE???

MY OPINION WHAT WHAT IT'S WORTH IS: VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE WITH MORALS AND INTEGRITY NOT THE PARTY OR RACE.

Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun

It's an amazing time to be alive in America . We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America . But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."

Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes.. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois , he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood , and San Francis co values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war. Subject: Kind of scary, wouldn't you think Remember--God is good, and is in time, on time â?" every time

According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is:

The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??

I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet...do it! If you think I am crazy,. I'm sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the "unknown" candidate.

The Liberals Amongst Us...Out to desroy us...the U.S. !

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0896081036/africangenesis

Trilateral Commission:
World Shadow Government

---

The Trilateral Commission was established in 1973. Its founder and primary financial angel was international financier, David Rockefeller, longtime chairman of the Rockefeller family-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank and undisputed overlord of his family's global corporate empire.

Rockefeller's idea for establishing the commission emerged after he had read a book entitled Between Two Ages written by an Establishment scholar, Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski of Columbia University.

In his book Brzezinski proposed a vast alliance between North America, Western Europe and Japan. According to Brzezinski, changes in the modern world required it.

"Resist as it might," Brzezinski wrote elsewhere, "the American system is compelled gradually to accommodate itself to this emerging international context, with the U.S. government called upon to negotiate, to guarantee, and, to some extent, to protect the various arrangements that have been contrived even by private business."

In other words, it was necessary for the international upper class to band together to protect its interests, and to ensure, in the developed nations, that political leaders were brought to power who would ensure that the global financial interests (of the Rockefellers and the other ruling elites) would be protected over those of the hoi polloi.

POCANTICO HILLS CONFABS
Although the initial arrangements for the commission were laid out in a series of meetings held at the Rockefeller's famous Pocantico Hills estate outside New York City, Rockefeller first introduced the idea of the commission at an annual meeting of the Bilderberg group, this one held in Knokke, Belgium in the spring of 1972.

(The Bilderberg group is similar to the Trilateral Commission in that it is funded and heavily influenced by the Rockefeller empire, and composed of international financiers, industrialists, media magnates, union bosses, academics and political figures.

(However, the much older Bilderberg group's membership is strictly limited to participants from the United States, Canada and Western Europe: i.e. the NATO alliance. For more on the Bilderberg group, keep an eye out for future stories in this paper.

The Trilateral Commission was unique, though, in that it brought the Japanese ruling elite into the inner councils of the global power brokers, a recognition of Japan's growing influence in the world economic and political arena.

RULING CLASSES UNITE
"The Commission's purpose is to engineer an enduring partnership among the ruling classes of North America, Western Europe and Japan -- hence the term 'Trilateral' -- in order to safeguard the interests of Western capitalism in an explosive world. The private commission is attempting to mold public policy and construct a framework for international stability in the coming decades.

"To put it simply, Trilateralists are saying: The people, governments and economies of all nations must serve the needs of multinational banks and corporations.

"In short, Trilateralism is the current attempt by ruling elites to manage both dependence and democracy -- at home and abroad."

Another Trilateral critic, now-retired Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), views the commission as a Rockefeller family operation through and through. According to Goldwater:

"The Trilateral organization created by David Rockefeller was a surrogate -- the members selected by Rockefeller, its purposes defined by Rockefeiler, its funding supplied by Rockefeller. David Rockefeller screened and selected every individual who was invited to participate."

PICKING POLICYMAKERS
David Rockefeller and Brzezinski then began the process of selecting from among the "Trilateral" nations the several hundred elite power brokers who would be permitted to join in Trilateral policymaking in the coming years.

One of the commission's primary goals was to place a Trilateral-influenced president in the White House in 1976, and to achieve that goal it was necessary to groom an appropriate candidate who would be willing to cooperate with Trilateral aims. (Note: This selection process is still at work today...All three candidates Obama, Clinton, and McCain are approved by the Tri-Lateralists. See also: http://normanhooben.blogspot.com/2008/05/remenber-manifest-destiny-forget-it-its.html)

Rockefeller and Brzezinski selected a handful of well-known liberal Democrats and a scattering of Republicans (primarily of the liberal-internationalist) bent to serve on the commission. (A better description would be: "Liberal Internationalists bent to destroy the sovereignty of the United States of America." Look around you, It's happening right now!)

And in an effort to give regional balance to the commission Rockefeller invited the then-obscure one-term Democratic governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter, to join the commission.

ROCKEFELLER CENTER SOUTH
Rockefeller had longtime ties to the local Atlanta political and economic Establishment. In fact, much of Rockefeller's personal investment portfolio is in Atlanta real estate. (According to David Horowitz, co-author of The Rockefellers, "Atlanta is Rockefeller Center South.")

And Rockefeller himself had once even invited Carter to dine with him at the Chase Manhattan Bank several years before, as early as 1971, the year Carter began serving as governor.

Carter very definitely impressed Rockefeller and Brzezinski, more so than another Southern Democrat, Florida Gov. Reuben Askew, also selected to serve on the commission and viewed, like Carter, as a possible Trilateral candidate.

In fact, according to Brzezinski, "It was a close thing between Carter and Askew, but we were impressed that Carter had opened up trade offices for the state of Georgia in Brussels and Tokyo. That seemed to fit perfectly into the concept of the Trilateral."

Carter, in fact, like Askew, did announce for the 1976 Democratic presidential nomination, but because of Rockefeller's interest, Carter had the inside shot.

So much so that in a speech at the commission's first annual meeting in Kyoto, Japan in May of 1975, Rockefeller's man Brzezinski promoted the then-still obscure Carter to his fellow Trilateralists as an ideal presidential candidate.

CUT AND DRIED
From that point on, it was all cut and dried. According to Goldwater: "Rockefeller and Brzezinski found Carter to be their ideal candidate. They helped him win the Democratic nomination and the presidency.

"To accomplish this purpose they mobilized the money-power of the Wall Street bankers, the intellectual influence of the academic community -- which is subservient to the wealth of the great tax-free foundations -- and the media controllers represented in the membership of the CFR and the Trilateralists."

(The aforementioned Council on Foreign Relations -- is another Rockefeller-financed foreign policy pressure group similar to the Trilateralists and the Bilderberg group, although the CFR is composed solely of American citizens.)

(In his book The Carter Presidency and Beyond, published in 1980 by the Ramparts Press, Prof. Laurence H. Shoup devotes an entire chapter to demonstrating how the Trilateral-linked and Trilateral-controlled Establishment media promoted the presidential candidacy in 1976 of the then-obscure Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter.)

Carter, of course, campaigned as a "populist" -- as a "man of the people" -- as an "outsider" with no ties to the Establishment. The fact is, however, Carter, who said he'd never lie, was an elitist, an insider, the Trilateral Commission's "man on the white horse."

And with the power of the commission and the Rockefeller empire and its media influence behind him, Carter made his way to the presidency, establishing the first full-fledged Trilateral administration, appointing numerous Trilateralists to key policymaking positions and carrying out the Trilateral agenda to the hilt

WAKE UP AMERICA !

It's not that complex...

I Sing of Toilet Seats...Journalism Explained

May 26, 2008

I want my money back.

I recently bought The Complex, by Nick Turse. It purports to deal with the militarization of American society, its economy, education, and so on. I can think of no more important topic. The militarization is happening. Huge sums go for weapons we don’t need to fight enemies we don’t have. Much of this waste is hidden in plain sight: What the press ignores doesn’t exist. The militarization now segues into the establishment of a full-blown national-security state, with further huge sums going to Homeland Security et al. The subject is ripe for a grown-up book.

But no. The Complex reads like a compendium of Google searches intended for a high-school newspaper. I spent thirty years covering the military and constantly saw the same appalling ignorance of weaponry, tactics, technology, history, the same missing of the important to concentrate on absurdities, the borderline dishonesty, the almost willful journalistic incompetence. Turse is par.

The $640 toilet seat. Oh god. There it was, page 83. It rose from the page like the stench from some fetid bog. Practically forever I had to hear about that seat from crusading twelve-year-olds at the Washington Post. It has probably given me PTSD.

You’ve heard this? The Navy was supposed to have bought a toilet seat for $640 for one of its aircraft. Cartoons by editorial idiots showed the Secretary of Defense with a toilet seat hanging around his neck. You could get one at Home Depot for $9, was the implication, yet the Navy paid $640. Bad old Navy.

The airplane in question was a PC3 Orion, a Lockheed Electra modified for long flights over the ocean in search of submarines. Such a plane needs a toiler for the substantial crew operating the avionics. You don’t put a heavy porcelain toilet in an airplane, perhaps in a wooden shack with a moon on the door. Do the toilets on airliners look like the ones in your home? The “toilet seat” in question was a complex injection-molded device with the plumbing in it, constituting most of the toilet. It was not remotely what one thinks of as a toilet seat. Yet Turse, like almost all of the reporters at the time, wants you to think it was. It makes a better story.

I remember that someone went to various makers of complex plastic things and asked for bids. They came in close to what the Navy paid.

On and on goes this drivel. Turse speaks also of the $7600 “coffee maker” bought by the Air Force. One thinks of course of the glass-and-plastic thing on the kitchen counter. Seven thousand green ones for that? Bad old Air Force.

Actually it was a massive stainless-steel appliance to make coffee for people aboard a C-5, a very large transport aircraft. Short of getting the specs and hiring an aircraft engineer and an industrial cost estimator, I have no way of knowing what it should have cost—probably $7600—but the thing bore no faint resemblance to what one thinks of as a coffee maker. But then, Turse bears no faint resemblance to what one thinks of as a reporter. Conservation of symmetry.

As a reporter myself I tracked down dozens of these horror stories, and they were almost always nonsense. There was the $17 (or was it $27?) bolt the Navy bought. The implication in the press invariably was that it should have cost twelve cents in your local hardware store. The actuality:

The Navy had an attack plane, the A3, which, like probably all aircraft, used some nonstandard parts. One of these was a bolt for the nose gear. When the Navy, or an airline, buys a plane, it assumes a certain useful life. After all, aircraft don’t last forever. In this case it may have been twenty years. The Navy bought sufficient bolts to last that period.

Then Congress slepped the bird. (A verb from Service Life Extension Program.) The A3 would remain in service for a few more years, three I think. The Navy had run out of bolts and needed a few more.

Now, if you need, say, 29 unusual bolts, you have two ways of buying them. You can order 10,000, in which case mass production will keep the cost to $1.20 each, but then you pay 10,000 times $1.20. (Aircraft quality bolts cost more than the ones you have in your washing machine. Probably a good idea.) Or you can have a machine shop make them more or less by hand as a special order. They then cost $17 each times 29. The latter is far cheaper, but the price per bolt is much higher. This happened. Much too difficult for reporters, and it would never occur to them to ask.

I made the foregoing numbers up, and this many years later won’t swear by the details, but they illustrate the principle. This, for my thirty years in the trade, was the level of reporting. No research, no understanding, and no thought of asking the military for its side.

Why does this happen? Logically, either Turse knows his stories are phony—i.e., he’s lying—or he doesn’t know his subject and didn’t bother to find out. I scent the latter. Never suspect mendacity, I say, when overwrought bafflement is a plausible explanation. Reporters are easily fooled, intellectually lazy, and combative. It’s a dangerous combination.

The usual result is that they become wildly partisan and attack rather than cover. Turse fits the pattern. He has a whole chapter on the “lavish” life of the military, which lives “high on the hog.” What? The military doesn’t live high on the hog. I’ve been on more military bases than Turse has IQ points—this means, I’ll guess, at least thirty bases. In fact I spent my high school years on a base (Dahlgren Naval Proving Ground, as it was then called.) Comfortable middle class, except when in the field.

Has this thunderstorm of righteousness ever spent a week in a tank in the Korean winter, when ice is hard as steel and frigid wind howls by like something that wants to bite? It didn’t strike me as very high on the hog, but perhaps the Army has a low hog.

Maybe I’m boring the reader. Sorry. But I weary of child reporters aflame with indignant confusion. When there is so much that could be written of the Pentagon’s domestic imperialism, so many good questions to be asked, and instead I get the fable of the toilet seat, it annoys me. I want my money back.

crossed posted from http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

U. N. Get the h--- off of U. .S. soil and soil us no more!

U.N. bureaucrat to investigate America

Doudou Diene, a United Nations bureaucrat, will tour eight American cities to investigate allegations of institutionalized racism—and his report may be compromised from the start. Heritage expert Nile Gardiner explained to CNN’s Glenn Beck that “in his mind he has probably already written the report.”

Worse, continues Gardiner, director of Heritage’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, the United States is helping pay for this charade. “I imagine the U.S. taxpayer will be footing a great deal of the bill,” he said.

“It is hard to take the U.N. seriously when its peacekeepers are actively engaged in raping refugees in the Congo and even arming rebel groups, or when it turns a blind eye to the man-made starvation of millions in southern Africa,” Gardiner writes on National Review Online.

“In the arena of human rights, the United Nations has become an emperor with no clothes,” he concludes, “a morally bankrupt institution that wallows in its double standards and appeasement of evil. Doudou Diene’s investigation of the United States should be seen for what it is: a desperate piece of political theater that underscores the U.N.’s growing irrelevance.”

WAKE UP AMERICA !

Listen to the doo-doo (see video below)

For more on the UN go here: http://screwtheun.blogspot.com/2008/05/uns-zero-tolerance-policy-on-child.html