Plumage — But at a Price

THIS is the stuff that should be getting all the news coverage rather than Michael Jackson. THIS is the kind of issue that affects our very future as a nation. Yet no one is covering Obama opening the gates to the Trojan horse. As Mr. Krauthammer says, it has not been treaties in the past that have caused Russia or any other unfriendly nation to halt its sinister ambitions. It has been the steadfast strength of our nation and a strong leader that have convinced the bad guys to stop what they’re doing. Obama is not only an idiot, a socialist, and a communist bent on the economic and ideological destruction of America, he is now THE most serious threat to America, for it is he who is destroying our ability to defend ourselves from outsiders. If we can not defend ourselves and control our borders, then all other issues are irrelevant. This fool must be stopped.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZmQ4NTFhNGM1NzQxMmUyMzdmMGZlODBmYjNkOWIzMmM=

Plumage — But at a Price

Not drift, but aggression, has caused the collapse of U.S.-Russian relations.

By Charles Krauthammer

The signing ceremony in Moscow was a grand affair. For Barack Obama, foreign-policy neophyte and “reset” man, the arms-reduction agreement had a Kissingerian air. A fine feather in his cap. And our president likes his plumage.

Unfortunately for the United States, the country Obama represents, the prospective treaty is useless at best, detrimental at worst.

Useless because the level of offensive nuclear weaponry, the subject of the U.S.-Russia “Joint Understanding,” is an irrelevance. We could today terminate all such negotiations, invite the Russians to build as many warheads as they want, and profitably watch them spend themselves into penury, as did their Soviet predecessors, stockpiling weapons that do nothing more than, as Churchill put it, make the rubble bounce.

Obama says that his START will be a great boon, setting an example to enable us to better pressure North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear programs. That a man of Obama’s intelligence can believe such nonsense is beyond comprehension. There is not a shred of evidence that cuts by the great powers — the INF treaty, START I, the Treaty of Moscow (2002) — induced the curtailment of anyone’s programs. Moammar Gaddafi gave up his nukes the week we pulled Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole. No treaty involved. The very notion that Kim Jong-Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will suddenly abjure nukes because of yet another U.S.-Russian treaty is comical.

The pursuit of such an offensive weapons treaty could nonetheless be detrimental to us. Why? Because Obama’s hunger for a diplomatic success, such as it is, allowed the Russians to exact a price: linkage between offensive and defensive nuclear weapons.

This is important for Russia because of the huge American technological advantage in defensive weaponry. We can reliably shoot down an intercontinental ballistic missile. They cannot. And since defensive weaponry will be the decisive strategic factor of the 21st century, Russia has striven mightily for a quarter-century to halt its development. Gorbachev tried to swindle Reagan out of the Strategic Defense Initiative at Reykjavik in 1986. Reagan refused. As did his successors — Bush I, Clinton, Bush II.

Obama, who seeks to banish nuclear weapons entirely, has little use for such prosaic contrivances. First, the Obama budget actually cuts spending on missile defense, at a time when federal spending is a riot of extravagance and trillion-dollar deficits. Then comes the “pause” (as Russia’s president appreciatively noted) in the planned establishment of a missile shield in Eastern Europe. And now the “Joint Understanding” commits us to a new treaty that includes “a provision on the interrelationship of strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms.” Obama further said that the East European missile shield “will be the subject of extensive negotiations” between the United States and Russia.

Obama doesn’t even seem to understand the ramifications of this concession. Poland and the Czech Republic thought they were regaining their independence when they joined NATO under the protection of the United States. They now see that the shield negotiated with us and subsequently ratified by all of NATO is in limbo. Russia and America will first have to “come to terms” on the issue, explained Pres. Dmitry Medvedev. This is precisely the kind of compromised sovereignty that Russia wants to impose on its ex-Soviet colonies — and that U.S. presidents of both parties for the last 20 years have resisted.

Resistance, however, is not part of Obama’s repertoire. Hence his eagerness for arcane negotiations over MIRV’d missiles, the perfect distraction from the major issue between the two countries: Vladimir Putin’s unapologetic and relentless drive to restore Moscow’s hegemony over the sovereign states that used to be Soviet satrapies.

That — not nukes — is the chief cause of the friction between the U.S. and Russia. You wouldn’t know it to hear Obama in Moscow pledging to halt the “drift” in U.S.-Russian relations. Drift? The decline in relations came from Putin’s desire to undo what he considers “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century — the collapse of the Soviet empire. Hence his squeezing Ukraine’s energy supplies; his overt threats against Poland and the Czech Republic for daring to make sovereign agreements with the United States; and finally, less than a year ago, his invading a small neighbor, detaching, and then effectively annexing two of Georgia’s provinces to Mother Russia.

That’s the cause of the collapse of our relations. Not drift, but aggression. Or, as the reset man referred to it with such delicacy in his Kremlin news conference: “our disagreements on Georgia’s borders.”

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2009, The Washington Post Writers Group

Tour de Lance Update

Some of you may be saying that I made a mistake, and it should be “Tour de France.” To that I say “poppycock!” Regardless of whether or not Lance Armstrong wins again this year or not, HE WON IT SEVEN TIMES IN A ROW! When a Frenchman wins it seven times in a row, France can have it back!


http://www.versus.com/tdf/standings/standings.php?ss=standings&t=ITG&e=9999

After 8 stages of racing, Lance Armstrong is only 8 seconds out of the lead in third place. Sounds like he has a pretty strong team this year as well. Stay tuned…

A Cowboy’s View on Terrorism

GIDDYUP!


A Cowboy’s View on Terrorism

Buck Lynn, a west texas working cowboy was being interviewed on a local radio station about an upcoming ranch rodeo when the radio host asked him what thought about the allegations of torture of suspected terrorists.

His reply prompted a standing ovation from those in the audience with
numerous people calling in to agree.

HIS STATEMENT:

‘If hooking up one rag-head terrorist prisoner’s testicles to a car battery to get the truth out of the lying little camelshagger will save just one American life, then I have only three things to say,’

“Red is positive, Black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet.”

Michael Jackson/Nancy Pelosi Share Plastic Surgeon

Did Princess Pelosi have plastic surgery? How much Bondo is there on Princess Pelosi’s face? Look at the gallery below to make your own decision. That is, if you can look at all those images without throwing up. After looking at Pelosi’s photos, heterosexual men will need to see their wives naked (married guys), or see a photo of the woman of your dreams (single guys) to give you one last positive mental image to hold on to before you gouge out your eyes with red hot pokers.

Whoever did the surgery pulled her scalp a little too tight. Now Nancy can’t seem to blink here eyes. She looks like (is) a vacuous deer caught in the headlights.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-26/who-did-nancy-pelosis-new-face/#

Who Did Nancy Pelosi’s New Face?

by Sandra McElwaine

The speaker of the House turns 69 today—not that you’d know it, with her dewy eyes and seamless features. Sandra McElwaine on D.C.’s hottest hush-hush habit: eye lifts, Botox, and more.

It’s no secret in Washington that many politicians look a bit more “refreshed” (the latest buzzword for plastic surgery) these days. But of course no one wants to talk about it. One of the most visible members of Congress—the glamorous grandma—Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is turning 69 today, yet everybody is still whispering about her dewy eyes and seamless features.

“If some politician had a bad job and suddenly looks better, I’m probably the guy who did it,” says Dr. Unger. Joe Biden? “You’ll have to ask Mr. Biden,” he responds crisply.

In the gossipy world of political plastics, there’s Joe Biden’s hair and smooth cheeks, Hillary’s firm jawline, and Arnold’s granite-like brow—all subject to “refreshed” speculation. No pol wants an “Oh, my God, do I look like that?” moment, especially not in the glare of high-def TV, never mind the onslaught of new, young administration types. Bob and Elizabeth Dole had major lifts several years ago—he began sprucing up when he made those Viagra ads. (The president and Michelle are too young to go under the knife, but that didn’t stop several leading surgeons from telling me they’d love to pin back his ears!)

When I called to discuss all of this with a number of top doctors, I got the same reaction as when I did a story for the New York Times magazine on psychiatry in Washington in the ’80s. The scalpel was taboo. It remains deep in the closet. And while all were willing to talk about various procedures, they stressed confidentiality and froze when asked to name names or go on the record. What to make of Nancy’s look? Classic anonymous response: “She’s so cosmetically surgeon-ed, I wish she didn’t look so good. It would be more natural,” sniffs one well-known D.C. practitioner.

But D.C. cosmetic surgeon Barry J. Cohen ventured where no other M.D. would: “I would guess she had a neck lift some time ago, although is certainly ready for another,” he wrote to me by email. “It would appear that she had the fat removed from around her eyes, but has a substantial amount of excess skin on the lower lids. She has not a line on her forehead, likely indicating a date with a vial of Botox, yet has remaining lines at her crow’s feet (it wore off or was untreated). Her nasolabial folds could benefit from a filler, to soften her creases, and she would likely benefit from a peel or laser abrasion…She has her share of lines and wrinkles. Likely from all the time spent at high altitudes in her (our) private jet.”

Pelosi is Poster Child for Fraud, Waste, and Abuse of Taxpayer Money

It seems that our beloved liberals who are in charge of spending your money just can’t quit wasting it. The porkulus bill was loaded with pork and earmarks, and the health care bill that the democrats are “transparently” keeping secret is also loaded with pork and earmarks that have nothing to do with stimulus or health care. As an individual, if I waste money like congress and the senate do, I go to the poor house. In business, if I waste money like congress and the senate do, I get fired and perhaps go to jail. In the congress and senate, when I waste billions or trillions of the “American Corporation’s” money, I simply vote myself a pay raise, raise taxes, and go on spending.

IT’S TIME TO FIRE THESE AMORAL/IMMORAL PRICKS! They think that we are slaves to them, AND WE ARE LETTING THEM GET AWAY WITH IT!


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/10/gop-hits-pelosi-for-mouse-funds/print/

GOP hits Pelosi for mouse funds

S.A. Miller (Contact)

The tiny mouse that became a hotly disputed symbol of wasteful spending in the $787 billion economic stimulus bill has returned to pester House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The Obama administration revealed last week that as much as $16.1 million from the stimulus program is going to save the San Francisco Bay Area habitat of, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.

That has revived Republican criticism that the pet project was an "invisible earmark" in the massive spending bill for Mrs. Pelosi, whose San Francisco district abuts the Bay, and epitomizes what Republicans say is the failure of stimulus spending so far to help an economy still shedding jobs.

"Lo and behold, the government has announced that the mouse is getting its money after all," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said, standing beside a poster of the furry varmint. "Speaker Pelosi must be so proud."

Mrs. Pelosi’s office was quick to dismiss the criticism.

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill called the attack on the mouse "a tired and tried tale of Republican desperation," noting that the mouse was never mentioned in the legislation and the project competed with other restoration jobs for stimulus dollars.

Mr. Hammill said the Bay project benefited both the economy and the ecosystem.

"Wetlands restoration projects, such as this one, not only create jobs, but improve the environment," he said. "Wetlands filter contaminants from the waters of the Bay, protect our shores against sea level rise, and provide habitat for a myriad of wildlife, including several endangered species."

He stressed that the salt marshes are not in the speaker’s urban district and the harvest mouse never inhabited the city.

Two San Francisco Bay Area projects were among 50 marine and coastal habitat restoration projects undertaken by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with $167 million from the stimulus, dubbed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

About $7.6 million went to restore more than 1,990 acres comprising three former salt ponds in the southern end of San Francisco Bay and $8.5 million went to restore wetlands in American Canyon salt pond, also in the Bay Area.

The Commerce Department, which oversees NOAA, said the 50 projects were chosen from a pool of 814 proposals totaling more than $3 billion in requests. The agency said it worked through a rigorous selection process to identify and set priorities for projects meeting the stimulus law’s criteria.

However, even prior to the stimulus vote, Republican lawmakers said NOAA was indicating that saving the harvest mouse would be a top priority for any stimulus money it received.

Dick Cheney has “Closed Press” Meetings (double standard exposed)

Yet another example of how the press has an OBVIOUS liberal bias. When Cheney was having closed-door meetings, the press hounded him and shouted from the mountain tops that there was some right wing conspiracy going on. Now that Biden is doing the EXACT same thing, you don’t hear a peep. Curious, no?


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/07/joe-biden-update-1.html

Joe Biden update: No ‘private meetings,’ just meetings closed to the press

Possibly a very important policy change quietly emerged in the daily schedule of Vice President Joe Biden today.

Loyal Ticket readers know that as a patriotic duty we monitor the long-time senator’s schedule with a close eye for detail because, after all, this man is only a heartbeat away from having to give a toast at a G8 summit. We’ve especially noted Biden’s innumerable "private meetings" that are closed to the press because, well, they’re private.

And we’ve wondered aloud how this Democratic VP’s private meetings with unnamed people on unnamed subjects differs from the private meetings with unnamed people that his evil predecessor had that got so many Democratic senators and representatives worried about nefarious secrets.

On one recent long weekend the man who became a Delaware senator when his future boss, Barack Obama, was an inexperienced fundraiser of only 11, devoted an entire Monday to "private meetings" that are closed press in his Delaware home.

If that isn’t dedication for the $208,000 salary.

Well, today’s schedule, unlike many at the end of Biden’s work weeks, contains no "private meetings." Not one.

Having spent Thursday traveling and successfully selling the nation on the so far hard-to-detect effects of the $787 billion Obama administration economic stimulus spending plan that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave them, Biden will show up for work around 11 today.

He’ll join Health and Human Services Secy. Kathleen Sebelius in a roundtable to discuss only the rising costs of healthcare for people who own or work for small businesses. One suspects the absent president’s ambitious plan to spend billions more to impose his healthcare reforms might also be mentioned.

OK, so figure an hour for the roundtable, maybe 75 minutes max. You can only talk about that stuff so long before requiring healthcare yourself. Fifteen minutes for handshaking, cellphone photos and congratulations on the excellent roundtable. The VP should be outta there by 12:30.

That leaves — what? — five, maybe six hours to make it a seven-hour workday.

According to the White House schedule, Biden will not spend the remainder of the work day in private meetings that are closed press.

Instead: "The Vice President will spend the remainder of the day in meetings that are closed press."

You get the difference, right?

US President snapped checking out delegate’s bum!

Some commentators say that the video clearly shows he was not “staring” at her bum, but you can’t tell me he wasn’t at least looking in passing. Michelle, did you catch that? The office of the most powerful man in the world is casting shadows of Clinton, Monica, cigars, and questions about the meaning of “is.” Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.


http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/07/10/barack-obama-nicolas-sarkozy/oh-la-la-us-president-checks-out-bum-of-g8-delegate.html##

Oh là là – US President snapped checking out delegate’s bum!

He may be the world’s most powerful man but even Barack Obama is not immune to the charms of a nice bottom!

image0011

At the G8 summit in Italy, he was snapped apparently checking out the perfect curves of a young lady.

And French President Nicolas Sarkozy (54) was looking on in amusement… Oh là là, Monsieur le Président!

So who was the lady in red who caught the eye of Obama – or should that be O-BUM-a?

Her name is Mayora Tavares, she is 16 and she comes from Brazil.

Mayora was at the G8 summit in Italy as part of the J8 – a group of 53 people aged between 14 and 17 who have been meeting in Rome since the start of the week.

They were discussing how the lives of young people around the world can be improved.

After they presented their results and ideas on Thursday to their senior counterparts, the delegates had a group photo with them when Obama (47) was snapped.

The 2nd American Revolution

This is a must see video! He’s exactly right in that we are cowards who have not stood up and resisted the tyranny of those who are SUPPOSED to represent us. Unless we do so physically and forcefully, we will have gone quietly in that good night. Share this with all those you know, and even the ones you don’t. I’ve included both the video, and the link to the original on YouTube. PLEASE SPREAD THIS VIDEO! Waking up our citizens NOW is critical to the preservation of our nation. The forces of liberalism and socialism are now in control and are bent on our destruction. DON’T LET THEM DO IT!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA


Islam=Strife

Anywhere there is strife around the world, you find Islam. It is like a spreading cancer, and is incompatible with the rest of the world. Most people of western society simply can’t grasp the differences between western culture and Islam. Islam is dichotomous with the values and beliefs upon which western societies were founded. As this article indicates, Islam is also incompatible with the belief systems of just about every other culture around the world. As we are seeing, unless societies wake up from the nightmare of political correctness and pull their collective heads out of the sand, like the cancer it is, Islam will eat them from within and attack them from without.

Our idiot “president” has said that we are not and never will be at war with Islam. He may be right about that, but he ignores the fact that Islam is and has been at war with us. The cancer is devouring us, and we are doing nothing to fight it.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090706/ts_nm/us_china_xinjiang/print

Xinjiang riot toll hits 156 as unrest spreads

By Chris Buckley Chris Buckley Mon Jul 6, 5:11 pm ET

URUMQI, China (Reuters) – Chinese police dispersed 200 people gathering outside a mosque in the Silk Road city of Kashgar, the day after ethnic riots killed 156 in the capital of the Muslim Xinjiang region, state media said on Tuesday.

Calm had settled over Urumqi, capital of western Xinjiang region, after 20,000 police, troops and firefighters reclaimed the streets from rioters who burned and smashed vehicles and shops, and clashed with security forces over Sunday night.

Over 700 people had been detained, the official Xinhua news agency reported, although local residents told Reuters police were making indiscriminate sweeps of Uighur areas.

But despite heightened security some unrest appeared to be spreading in the volatile region, where long-standing ethnic tensions periodically erupt into bloodshed.

Police dispersed around 200 people “trying to gather” at the Id Kah mosque in the center of Kashgar city on Monday evening, the day after the Urumqi rioting, Xinhua said. Kashgar is in the far west of Xinjiang.

The report did not say if police used force, but said checkpoints had been set up at crossroads between Kashgar airport and downtown.

Police also had “clues” about efforts to organize unrest in Aksu city and Yili prefecture, the latter a border region that was racked by unrest in the late 1990s, Xinhua said.

Along with Tibet, Xinjiang is one of the most politically sensitive regions in China and in both places the government has sought to maintain its grip by controlling religious and cultural life while promising economic growth and prosperity.

But minorities have long complained that Han Chinese reap most of the benefits from official investment and subsidies, while making locals feel like outsiders in their own homes.

Almost half of Xinjiang’s 20 million people are Uighurs, while the population of Urumqi, which lies 3,270 km (2,050 miles) west of Beijing, is mostly Han Chinese.

Chinese officials have already blamed the unrest on separatist groups abroad, who it says want to create an independent homeland for the Muslim Uighur minority.

A Xinjiang public security spokesman told Xinhua that people outside China used telephones to “direct mobs in Xinjiang to stage the violence,” and said calls for protests were posted Saturday evening on Internet forums by sympathizers.

Last year, Beijing also blamed unrest across Tibetan areas on a “clique” led by the exiled Dalai Lama.

But exile groups deny organizing the violence and say it was an outpouring of pent-up anger over government policies and Han Chinese economic dominance.

In Washington, the White House said it was concerned about the deaths but it would be premature to speculate on the circumstances. “We call on all in Xinjiang to exercise restraint,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

CHASM BETWEEN SIDES

Muslim Uighur and Han Chinese residents of Urumqi gave accounts of bloodshed that are likely to deepen the chasm between the two sides.

Uighur residents, speaking softly in alleyways away from patrolling police and troops, complained about the growing Han Chinese presence. Some said many of those arrested were youths caught up in indiscriminate police sweeps of the rundown concrete apartments where many Uighurs live.

“They’ve been taking away all the young people, going into our homes and taking them away,” said Amina, a middle-aged woman in a Muslim headscarf sitting on the steps of a mosque. She said her own son had been taken but did not want to give his name.

“They don’t care who they take, as long as you’re between 17 and 20 and they don’t like the look of you,” she said as her neighbors shook their heads and clucked in sympathy.

Nearly all Uighurs traced the protests on Sunday back to their own anger over a confrontation in far southern China in late June, when Han Chinese fought Uighurs working in a factory in Shaoguan, leaving two Uighurs dead, after a false allegation that some of them had raped a Han Chinese woman.

The government said two Uighurs died in that clash. But many Uighur residents of Urumqi said they were sure that many more died at the factory, and gave vivid accounts of how 20, 50 or a 100 of the workers were killed in their sleep — stabbed, strangled or poisoned. And some said a Uighur woman was raped.

There is no independent evidence to support those claims, but Uighur residents said they were angry the details of the factory clash were not more fully aired by the government.

“We know that 100 workers were killed,” said a young Uighur, who gave his name as Memet. “Now who cares about their deaths? Why all these police for us, but nothing when they died?”

Han Chinese residents said the toll from the riots was likely to rise and their deepened fears of the Uighurs were unlikely to abate.

Chen, a driver, said his wife who shares driving duties with him had suffered a badly cut eye when a Uighur youth attacked their car, and now she was afraid to venture far from home.

“Why doesn’t the United States classify them as terrorists?,” said Chen, who would not give his full name. “What they did to us is terrorism, isn’t it?”

He said the rioters appeared to be mostly Uighur men in their twenties, many of them unemployed. Riot victims recovering in a Urumqi hospital described groups of men who targeted Han Chinese and attacked them with purposeful efficiency.

“They didn’t really talk to you,” said Huan Zhangzhao, with two broken ribs and a bloodied eye. “When they saw you, when they saw a Han person coming along, they started to attack. When a bus came along, they started to attack.”

(Additional reporting by Tyra Dempster and Mark Chisholm, Writing by Emma Graham-Harrison; editing by Myra MacDonald)


Obama Administration’s New Plan to Raise Cash

I think this is kind of like in the movie “Men In Black” where the rags like the National Enquirer were actually telling the REAL story of aliens. The Onion may just be on to something here.

Click link below for video.


US To Trade Gold Reserves For Cash Through Cash4Gold.com

Obama’s New Fuel Efficiency Plan

http://www.theonion.com/content/infograph/obamas_new_fuel_efficiency

Obama’s New Fuel Efficiency Plan

Last week, President Obama announced a plan to lower automobile emissions by requiring new cars to average 35.5 miles per gallon. How can Detroit rise to meet the challenge?

  • Launch massive campaign urging drivers to draft a few feet behind one another on the highway to minimize drag
  • Will no longer sell or lease to anyone weighing more than 150 pounds
  • Remove least fuel-efficient tire from every car
  • Gradually decrease the length of a mile
  • Slap a sticker that says “35.5″ on all new cars
  • Bulldoze nation’s uphill gradients
  • Talk Obama down to 34 miles per gallon by offering to throw in a copy of The Audacity Of Hope with each auto purchase
  • Copy the Japanese, probably

Michael Jackson: Illustrating What’s Wrong With America

The coverage of the life and death of Michael Jackson does a pretty good job of illustrating what is actually wrong with America for those who have at least half a brain. In reference to the things that SHOULD be grabbing headlines and getting non-stop coverage, let me ask a few questions about Michael.

  • Does coverage of the death of Michael Jackson, or who gets custody of his children, or who owns Neverland effect our nation or economy in a way that will cost each American household from $4,000-$15,000 per year? The cap-and-tax/climate change/global warming/environmental BS bill does. Not exactly a lot of investigative reporting on that, is there?
  • Does coverage of the death of Michael Jackson affect our ability to defend our country? Obama pledging to dismantle our nuclear arsenal does. Appeasing people who historically want us enslaved or dead does. It’s more important to cover Michael Jackson than an emerging nuclear threat that could wipe out millions of American?
  • Does coverage of the death of Michael Jackson saddle your grandchildren’s grandchildren with a debt they can’t hope to repay? Does coverage of the death of Michael Jackson enslave us to debt and possibly to new, despotic rulers and government? The first Obama “stimulus” does, and the if they pass a second one it will in spades. Yet all we see or hear is “Beat It” replayed for the millionth time.
  • Does coverage of the death of Michael Jackson expose how liberals are lying to you to gain wealth and power? No, it covers it up by giving too much air time to something that while tragic, in the larger scope of our nation’s affairs is unimportant. Not important enough for our liberal dominated press to cover.
  • Does coverage of the death of Michael Jackson decide if you have enough earning potential left in your life to justify and repay the state for giving you the surgery that will save your life? Does coverage of the death of Michael Jackson mandate state run health care that will lower quality, cause rationing, drive qualified doctors from practice, and remove incentive for more doctors to enter practice thus increasing the shortage of health care? The Obama/democrat health care reform bill will. Yet no coverage of that.
  • Is Michael Jackson a hero? Perhaps if you’re standards for being a hero are pretty low.
  • Are there REAL heroes out there who for low pay and little or no recognition voluntarily put their lives on the line every day to protect America? You bet. Apparently people don’t want to hear about that. Or is it that the liberal press doesn’t want YOU to hear about that?
  • When those heroes die in the sewers of the world not only to protect Americans and their way of life, but to provide the people living in those sewers a chance at freedom, does the American press cover their death, or more importantly their accomplishments, with any sense of gratitude? Never. They have forgotten that poets and journalists were not the ones who gave them the freedom of the press that they now enjoy.

There are so many things that REALLY MATTER to the future of our country, yet all you can find on TV is Michael Jackson. He was a talented performer with a justifiably questionable personal life. That’s great, but does it really matter? Whether he was or was not a pedophile in the larger view of world events is unimportant. What percentage of his face was plastic is unimportant compared to the issues that should be investigated, exposed, discussed, and solved in America. When our population is more interested in American Idol, Michael Jackson, soap operas, and sports than in being informed, responsible citizens, they are not citizens at all. They are merely subjects of those who wish to exercise power over them. Don’t bother them with news or facts. Just keep the “reality” TV coming.

Michael Jackson, I bid you farewell and hope that you had a chance to make your relationship with God right before you passed away. America will soon be joining you in the ash heap of history unless her subjects reawaken and become citizens again and retake their nation by whatever means necessary. God help us.

New climate strategy: track the world’s wealthiest

Don’t be foolish enough to think that when these despots talk about rich people that they are talking about millionaires. They are talking on a world-wide scale here. Compared to the rest of the world, our “poor” people are rich. Where else in the world do poor people have cars and color televisions with cable? What they are talking about is a treaty that will unfairly and unevenly yoke the U.S. with huge taxes and fees whose sole purpose is to take our wealth and distribute it to other countries. This climate business that they are talking about will complete the destruction of America as we know it. They are lying to you, so you have to read between the lines to figure out what they are talking about.


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06427635.htm

New climate strategy: track the world’s wealthiest

06 Jul 2009 21:00:13 GMT
Source: Reuters
* World’s richest emit about half of Earth’s carbon

* Tracking the wealthy could break climate impasse

* New method would follow individual greenhouse emissions

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON, July 6 (Reuters) – To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.

Since about half the planet’s climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

As it stands now, under the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol, rich countries shoulder most of the burden for cutting the emissions that spur global warming, while developing countries — including fast-growing economies China and India — are not required to curb greenhouse pollution.

Rich countries, notably the United States, have said this gives developing countries an unfair economic advantage; China, India and other developing countries argue that developed countries have historically spewed more climate-warming gases, and developing countries need time to catch up.

The study suggests setting a uniform international cap on how much carbon dioxide each person could emit in order to limit global emissions; since rich people emit more, they are the ones likely to reach or exceed this cap, whether they live in a rich country or a poor one.

For example, if world leaders agree to keep carbon emissions in 2030 at the same level they are now, no one person’s emissions could exceed 11 tons of carbon each year. That means there would be about a billion “high emitters” in 2030 out of a projected world population of 8.1 billion.

EACH PERSON’S EMISSIONS

By counting the emissions of all the individuals likely to exceed this level, world leaders could provide target emissions cuts for each country. Currently, the world average for individual annual carbon emissions is about 5 tons; each European produces 10 tons and each American produces 20 tons.

With international climate talks set to start this week in Italy among the countries that pollute the most, the authors hope policymakers will look at the strong link between how rich people are and how much carbon dioxide they emit.

“You’re distributing the task of doing something about emissions reduction based on the proportion of the population in the country that’s actually doing the most damage,” said Shoibal Chakravarty of the Princeton Environment Institute, one of the study’s authors.

Rich people’s lives tend to give off more greenhouse gases because they drive more fossil-fueled vehicles, travel frequently by air and live in big houses that take more fuel to heat and cool.

By focusing on rich people everywhere, rather than rich countries and poor ones, the system of setting carbon-cutting targets based on the number of wealthy individuals in various countries would ease developing countries into any new climate change framework, Chakravarty said by telephone.

“As countries develop — India, China, Brazil and others — over time, they’ll have more and more of these (wealthy) individuals and they’ll have a higher share of carbon reductions to do in the future,” he said.

These obligations, based on the increasing number of rich people in various countries, would kick in as each developing country hit a certain overall level of carbon emissions. This level would be set fairly high, so that economic development would not be hampered in the poorest countries, no matter how many rich people live there.

Is this a limousine-and-yacht tax on the rich? Not necessarily, Chakravarty said, but he did not rule it out: “We are not by any means proposing that. If some country finds a way of doing that, it’s great.”

This week’s climate talks in Italy are a prelude to an international forum in December in Copenhagen aimed at crafting an agreement to follow the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. At the same time, the U.S. Congress is working on legislation to curb U.S. carbon emissions. (Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Obama to Unilaterally Disarm U.S.

That’s what this amounts to. Every time we’ve tried to be “reasonable” with the Russians/Soviets, or “bargain” with them from OTHER than a position of strength, it has bought us nothing but grief. We are still paying the prices for those past follies now.

Now Obama is pledging to dismantle the only thing we have left keeping the hordes at bay. Out military is now so week that they can be challenged, especially when we are stretched so thinly across the globe. The only deterrent we have left is the threat of nuclear retaliation. In conjunction with the dismantling of our offensive/retaliatory strike capability, Obama is doing his best to dismantle the defensive capability as well by scuttling the missile defense systems.

Our own “president” is now the biggest threat to our nation! HE MUST GO! Can’t those of you who voted for “change” see that with Obama staying in office we have no “hope?” Now with the liberals in COMPLETE control of both the house and senate following the appointment of Franken to the senate, THERE IS NOT STOPPING OBAMA’S COMMUNIST/SOCIALIST AGENDA. If we don’t “disarm” the house and senate by reigning in or removing the liberals, there will not be an America left to salvage by next year.

God, be merciful on us.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090706/D9996QEG0.html

Obama, Medvedev agree to deal to cut nuke weapons

Jul 6, 5:31 PM (ET)
By STEVEN R. HURST

MOSCOW (AP) – Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev confidently committed to a year-end deal to slash nuclear stockpiles by about a third on Monday, but the U.S. leader failed to crack stubborn Kremlin objections to America’s missile defense plans – a major stumbling block to such an agreement.

Both men renewed pledges to pull U.S.-Russian relations out of the dismal state into which they had descended during the eight years of the Bush administration. And to that end, they signed a series of agreements and joint statements designed to enliven and quicken contacts on a broad range of issues – including cooperation on Afghanistan, a key Obama foreign policy objective.

Obama said the leaders both felt relations had “suffered from a sense of drift. President Medvedev and I are committed to leaving behind the suspicion and rivalry of the past.”

His host expressed similar good will.

“This is the first but very important step in improving full-scale cooperation between our two countries, which would go to the benefit of both states,” the Russian leader said. But he injected a note of caution, saying discussions so far “cannot remove the burden of all the problems.”

There was no statement of Russian readiness to help the United States persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, even though Obama’s top Russia adviser, Michael McFaul, told reporters in a post-meeting briefing that Iran dominated the two leaders’ private meeting that opened the summit. Talks continued in an expanded session that included 12 advisers for each president.

For all the upbeat public statements, a pall of disagreement on missile defense and NATO expansion lingered over the glittering Kremlin hall where Obama and Medvedev answered reporters’ questions. Obama said the meetings had been “frank,” diplomatic speak for difficult.

Obama sits down on Tuesday with Medvedev’s patron and predecessor as president, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the target of a verbal poke from the U.S. president last Friday. In a pre-summit interview with The Associated Press, Obama said Putin still had one foot in the old, Cold War way of doing things.

While Medvedev insisted on Monday that a replacement to the keystone START I nuclear arms reduction treaty, which expires Dec. 5, must be linked to Russian concerns about the U.S. missile defense program in Eastern Europe, it remained unclear if the Kremlin was prepared to scuttle the negotiations over that issue.

Gary Samore, Obama’s chief adviser on weapons of mass destruction and arms control, told reporters he did not believe the Russians were prepared to walk away.

“I think at the end of the day – because our missile defense does not actually pose a threat to Russia’s strategic forces – I think they’ll be prepared to go ahead without trying to extract a price on missile defense.”

And McFaul said it had been made “crystal clear” from the beginning that negotiations about a START replacement would not include any missile defense issues.

Washington insists the defense program is designed only to protect European allies from missile attack by Iran.

Hoping to ease Kremlin concerns, Obama promised that an assessment of whether the missile defense would actually work would be finished by late summer, earlier than expected, and that he would share initial U.S. thoughts with Medvedev.

Obama also said he understood in principle that arms control must take into account both offensive and defensive weapons. But he insisted the missile defense installations planned for Poland and the Czech Republic would pose no threat to Russia. He said they were not being built to intercept missiles from “a mighty Russian arsenal.”

Obama does not approach the missile defense issue with the same fervor as former President George W. Bush, whose administration was responsible for reaching agreement with the two former Soviet satellites to serve as sites for the system.

The planned START replacement pact – the centerpiece summit agreement – calls for each side to reduce strategic warheads to a range of 1,500 to 1,675, and strategic delivery vehicles to a range of 500 to 1,100. Current limits allow a maximum of 2,200 warheads and 1,600 launch vehicles. The new treaty, as conceived, would run for 10 years. Each side would have seven years to reach reduction goals with the final three years used for verification.

Medvedev called the plan a “reasonable compromise.”

Among the deals meant to sweeten Obama’s two days of talks here and show progress toward resetting U.S.-Russian ties was a joint statement on Afghanistan. It included a deal to allow the United States to transport arms and military personnel across Russian land and airspace into Afghanistan.

The White House said that would save $133 million a year, through a transit fee waiver, shorter flying times and fuel savings.

The presidents outlined other areas in which they said their countries would work together to help stabilize Afghanistan, including increasing assistance to the Afghan army and police, and training counternarcotics personnel. A joint statement said they welcomed increased international support for upcoming Afghan elections and were prepared to help Afghanistan and Pakistan work together against the “common threats of terrorism, extremism and drug trafficking.”

Among other side agreements was the resumption of military cooperation, suspended after Russia invaded neighboring Georgia last August and sent relations into a nosedive. Last August, after the Georgian president ordered his military to try to retake the breakaway region of South Ossetia, Russia invaded and crushed the tiny nation’s military.

McFaul said Obama would never accept Russia’s contention that South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another breakaway Georgia region, are no longer part of Georgia.

Putin has voiced deep anger with Georgia’s coziness with the United States as it lobbies to join NATO, and the standoff about Georgia is likely to be a central issue when Putin meets with Obama on Tuesday.

Obama also will deliver a speech Tuesday to graduates of Moscow’s New Economic School in a bid to reach out to the Russian people. In addition, he plans to meet with opposition leaders who are continually under government pressure for their complaints about retreating democracy and freedom under Putin.

Associated Press Writer Ben Feller contributed to this report.

What Do You Make of This?

On the surface I’d like to think this is a good thing (Biden/Obama allowing Israel to take care of business). Pulling off the gloves and allowing Israel to protect herself with our blessing would be the right thing to do, but knowing how Obama dislikes (hates?) Israel makes me think something else is afoot. My first guess is that Obama hopes Israel does indeed strike Iran’s nukes. What I believe he wants to accomplish is two fold. First, he lets Israel do our dirty work for us. Second, by striking Iran, Israel stirs up a hornet’s nest and gets attacked from all sides in the middle east. When this happens, Obama will throw them under the bus and be rid of them.

If it weren’t for a little thing called Biblical prophecy, it might just work.

I’d love to hear any other plausible theories on this.


Article: Biden: Israel free to set own course on Iran

Article: Saudis give nod to Israeli raid on Iran

Biden: We ‘Misread the Economy’

The same old tired excuses aren’t helping the economy. That tired line about “the economy we inherited” might have played up until they passed the porkulus bill, but after spending over a trillion dollars, much of which was political pay back pork, the economy has done nothing but get worse. Obama and company just move from one gaffe to another while the economy sinks, proving they have no idea what they’re doing. Actually, I think Obama knows EXACTLY what he’s doing. He is advancing his socialist agenda by destroying capitalism, and he is consolidating power. Sorry, fellas. After a trillion plus dollars of waste and all the broken promises that go along with it, you just bought yourself an economy. Blaming Bush can’t help you anymore.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/07/biden-we-misread-the-economy-.html

Biden: We ‘Misread the Economy’

July 05, 2009 10:10 AM

Big admission from Vice President Joe Biden today.

“The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy,” Biden told me during our exclusive “This Week” interview in Iraq.

Biden acknowledged administration officials were too optimistic earlier this year when they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at 8 percent as part of their effort to sell the stimulus package. The national unemployment rate has ballooned to 9.5 percent in June — the worst in 26 years.

“The truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited,” said Biden, who is leading the administration’s effort to implement it’s $787 billion economic stimulus plan.

“Now, that doesn’t — I’m not — it’s now our responsibility. So the second question becomes, did the economic package we put in place, including the Recovery Act, is it the right package given the circumstances we’re in? And we believe it is the right package given the circumstances we’re in,” he told me.

The vice president argued more time is needed for the stimulus to work.

“We misread how bad the economy was, but we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package,” he said. “The truth of the matter was, no one anticipated, no one expected that that recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having to distribute the bulk of money.”

Biden didn’t rule out a second government stimulus package, but downplayed calls from Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman this week that a second stimulus will be needed.

I pressed the vice president, who is also leading the administration’s middle-class task force, on whether he’d rule out a second stimulus package.

“So, no second stimulus?” I asked.

“No, I didn’t say that,” Biden said, “I think it’s premature to make that judgment. This was set up to spend out over 18 months. There are going to be major programs that are going to take effect in September, $7.5 billion for broadband, new money for high-speed rail, the implementation of the grid — the new electric grid. And so this is just starting, the pace of the ball is now going to increase.”

–George Stephanopoulos

Truly “Free” Credit

Another jewel from Tim Hawkins. Do you enjoy the Free Credit Report.com commercials? If so, here’s Tim’s take on those commercials with an important twist.


Obama Closing GM Dealers Because They Donated to Republicans

Why didn’t this get any air time in the mainstream media? Because the mainstream media has dirty knees for Obama. They don’t just have a liberal bias, they are liberal through and through. They are doing everything they can to sway public opinion in favor of Obama and his socialist agenda. They have been caught in lie after lie, and they have abandoned all pretense of objectivity. Obama is channeling the spirits of Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and every other dead socialist dictator you can name. He is openly and aggressively dragging this country toward socialism and ruin, yet the media still portrays him as a savior.

It’s time to pull the plug on the mainstream media, along with all of the dead weight from both parties in Washington, D.C. who are there for themselves, not for our country.


Go Ahead and Try…

Go ahead, liberals. Try to take our guns away. Ask the British how that worked out for them when they tried it. Tyrant British king or American liberal, it’s all the same.

From Our Cold Dead Fingers

Things You Don’t Say to Your Wife

For you married guys out there who want to stay happily married, or at least not get stabbed or shot by your wife, Tim Hawkins has some advice for you. Consider his advice as words to “live” by.