Is it okay for government to deceive consumers by photoshopping the ads they use to sway public opinion in order to alter "bad eating habits?" —Jan. 26, 2012>>>When is false advertising "false advertising" and when is lying to manipulate the public to achieve acceptable behavior for New York City? Answer #1: in the view of the New York City Dept. of Health, which believes government has the right to regulate how you eat, to make a point the city not only has a right to deceive the public, it has an obligation to do it if moderates the eating habits of New Yorkers. Answer #2: Advertising fraud is fraud regardless who perpetuates it.

New York City just launched a provocative advertising campaign to scare New Yorkers into cutting down on their portion sizes—or force restaurants to do so. The ad the New York City Department of Health created and is using (pictured on the right) depicted three soft drink containers—small, medium and large—with the small container labeled "Then" and the large container labeled "Now." Probably a lot of truth in that imagery. The heading of the ad says: "PORTIONS HAVE GROWN. So has Type 2 Diabetes." Again, probably a lot of truth in the statement. At that point, for several reasons, truth and reality vanish. So much for government as a credible advertiser. Clearly, as America has painfully learned over the past 50 years you can't believe a word that comes from the mouth of a social progressive when he/she is running for office. Or assuring you that he/she is working in your best interest after winning, we now know you can't trust the appointed social progressive bureaucratic hack anymore than you can trust the elected hack.

Let's look at the ad again. The revelation came from MyEverydayHealth.com on Jan. 25. Only this time, let's look at the whole poster headline. "PORTIONS HAVE GROWN. So has Type 2 Diabetes, which can lead to amputations" No one with Type 2 Diabetes, which is treated with pills—usually sulfonylureas, biguanides, thiazolidinediones. meglitinides, dipeptidyl peptidase or alpha-glucosidase inhibitors—is ever at risk of having limbs amputated. In fact, there is now a pill that will prevent Type 2 diabetes in a majority of high risk patients (those who are obese or have family histories of diabetes). Patients with Type 1 Diabetes (those taking one form or another of insulin by injection) are very seriously at risk of the conditions that lead to the loss of fingers and/or toes, and in extreme cases, the loss of arms or legs—or their life.

To sell that reality in an ad, it is incumbent on the New York City Department of health to find a "model" that is the victim of the tragedy they are attempting to project—that obesity almost 100% of the time leads to diabetes. If obesity is not reversed, Type 2 diabetes will become Type 1 diabetes almost 100% of the time. And, if the patient does not take care of his/her Type 1 diabetes any better than he/she took care of his/her Type 2 diabetes, it's very likely their primary care physician or endocrinologist will be talking to them about the options of using chelation therapy to try to save an arm or leg—if gangrene has not set in. You might think about that on your next visit to your favorite 2,000 calorie fast food burger joint for a quick lunch. Take a tip—don't worry abut the size of the soft drink. Buy the one patty junior burger. No mayo. No fries. Now you can have the large soft drink.

If you absolutely have to buy a triple decker burger, go ahead. Need the fries, too? Jumbo king size? Fine. Buy them even though you could have gone to a sit-down family restaurant and had a balanced, home-cooked meal for the money. Okay. Got your meal? Don't sit down. Take it outside. Somewhere around the door you're going to find a homeless waif down on his luck (or at least posing like he is). Open the burger. Give him the three all-beef patties. You get the tomato ketchup and mustard drenched bun. If you're lucky, you get a slice of tomato and lettuce. The fries you had to have? Eat one. Give the homeless guy the rest. If he really is homeless, he needs the calories. You should feel good. You just did a good deed with minimal damage to your digestive system, your cholesterol and triglycerides.

Okay—back to the New York City Department of Health. Afraid that they would be attacked by the city's restaurants by suggesting that eating hamburgers and French fries might make you fat, the city took what they thought would be the safe route—picking on watered-down fountain colas. Thomas Farley, the city's health commissioner told Reuters that they opted for "...these hard-hitting images because we really felt we needed to drive home a point that large portions are not completely benign." But, he said, the American Beverage Association which represents the soft drink manufacturers and distributors accused Farley's department of using scare tactics. When the New York Times discovered that not only was the city's "model" not an amputee, but that the agency which employed him never checked to find out if he was diabetic. In fact, according to the agency they had no idea who the model was because the photographer who shot his picture did not bother to log his identity. He was simply a "stock shot" in the photographer's portfolio.

The rules and laws that apply to the masses must apply to government. If a free market entrepreneur decided to photoshop a photograph because digital enhancement would sell his products or services better, not only would the FDA or some other agency of the federal government be after him, so would a half dozen State, county and municipal government agencies. But, in New York, John Kelly, a spokesman for Thomas Farley, pushed criticism aside, ignoring the fact that they fabricated a diabetic amputee who did not exist to sell the fear they were peddling that day, said "...sometimes we use individuals who are suffering from the particular disease. Other times we use actors." I'm surprised he didn't just say, "We don't want to exploit the handicapped to make the public realize that it could be them, so we use actors"

ATF wants to regulate Chore Boy pot scrubbers—Dec. 17, 2011>>>On Dec. 14, 2011 David Codrea of the Gun Rights blog for the Examiner.com released a copy of a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [ATF} opinion letter in which the firearms regulatory agency has construed the right to regulate Chore Boy® copper cleansing pads, fiberglass insulation and, of course, 14" shoelaces—if consumers buy too much.

The ATF assumes the right under the US Code to warn consumers that "stockpiling" copper scouring pads can legally be construed as a violation of the National Firearms Act 18 USC 92[a][24] because Chore Boy® can, and with provocation will, be considered an essential component of a gun silencer. As such, the ATF believes the federal government has a right to regulate the use of Chore Boy® copper scouring pads by restricting your right to buy multiple boxes of copper scouring pads at your neighborhood supermarket and too much Fiberglas™ insulation at your local home improvement store. If you are surprised that the ATF would assume the right to regulate Chore Boy® copper scouring pads, remember this is the same agency that tried to regulate 14" shoelaces as a machine gun-making "component" on Sept. 30, 2004.

On that date the ATF responded to a Feb. 6, 2004 letter from a Brian A. Blakely. The ATF was asked about the legality of using a small piece of string to increase the cycling rate of a semiautomatic rifle. Sterling Nixon, then the Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch responded by telling Blakely that any weapon that can be retrofitted to automatically fire more than one shot without physically pulling the trigger according to the National Firearms Act, 26 USC § 5845(b) is construed to be a machine gun. In 1996, the FTB classified a 14" shoelace with a loop at each end that was used to convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun as a machine gun component as defined by 26 USC § 5845(b). Modifying a weapon by any person who is not a licensed gun manufacturer is a violation of law.

The Blakely inquiry dealt with a question concerning the repairing of a legal, registered silencer, and the repairing and/or replacing of the gas/sound-absorbing material in the silencer. The silencer could be repaired with a dollar's worth of fiberglass insulation and a few scraps of a copper Chore Boy. John R. Spencer, the current head of the Firearms Technology Branch of the ATF responded by saying that anyone except a licensed gun manufacturer repairing a silencer would be a violation of federal law. The proper procedure, Spencer advised, would be for the owner of the registered silencer to submit an application to the ATF and pay a $200 fee. In addition, he would also have to submit a "no marking" variance to the FTB since there would be no space on the silencer in which to apply a new serial number to the newly-added sound-absorbing material. Spencer also advised Blakely that it would not be legal for the owner of the registered silencer to "...have a stockpile of sound-absorbing materials for his own use in replacing deteriorated sound-absorbing material."

In March, 2010 a Cornelius, Oregon store owner, Brad Morgan and his son Ben discovered that a shipment of Airsoft BB pistols they ordered from Taiwan were seized by the Obama Administration's ATF agents in an Oct. 30, 2009 raid in Tacoma, Washington. The BB guns, which were worth $12,000 were slated for destruction because ATF Special Agent Kevin Crenshaw said "...[w]ith minimal work it could be converted to a machine gun." In reality, the ATF seized the BB guns because they were missing the blaze orange tips which are required on all imported toy guns. Ben Morgan disagreed with Crenshaw, saying "...[t]o say these are readily convertible to machine guns is absolutely preposterous. The round wouldn't go into the firing chamber, and even if the firing pin did strike the primer, the gun would basically blow up in your face."

Last October the Obama Administration's State Department barred the Republic of South Korea from returning tens of thousands of refurbished surplus M1 Garand rifles to the US consumer market by classifying the semi-automatic WWII and Korean War-era rifle as a threat to public safety in the United States. A Dept. of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms document uncovered by the Examiner's gun rights writer, David Codrea, revealed the ATF's alarm over the fact that the rifle that won World War II would not be regulated any more than any other firearm sold in America. Somehow that bothered the bureaucrats in the US government who are in bed with the globalists trying to impose a global ban on the private ownership of all firearms in the world in order to subdue all populations and make them serfs of the overlords of Utopia.

In May, 2009 the State Dept. approved South Korea's request to sell 87,301 M1 Garand rifles and 770,160 M1 carbine rifles to US gun distributors f or commercial resale in the United States. The Obama ATF contacted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and advised her that the White House felt that such a large stock of rifles "...poses a threat to public safety in the United States." In other words, the White House said "no."

But they actually didn't say that. What the ATF said—supposedly looking out for the profits of the retailers—is that the transfer of so many weapons would raise the number of guns available and lower the price (based on too large of a supply), making them more readily available, and cheaper. On top of that, the ATF said, the M1 rifles "...may be legitimately sold, trafficked or otherwise transferred. The only controls are the ones in the Gun Control Act of 1968 and, while these controls require federal firearms licensees to keep records, and place some restrictions on their firearms sales...very few records are required to be provided to the ATF, and ATF is specifically prohibited from maintaining any form of firearm registry." They further argued that anyone who can purchase seven separate parts for the M1—and install them correctly—could probably convert the carbine into a machine gun.

"Could," "probably." The odds of the average deer hunter doing that are about as good as the Mortons converting BB guns into a live ammo-firing weapon, or converting a carbine into a machine gun with a common, ordinary 14" shoelace. What bothers the Obama Administration, I suspect, is the thought of having about a million military-trained conservative civilians armed with military-grade weapons when Obama or some other social progressive decides to surrender the United States to the UN.

Pakistan has banned the name "Jesus Christ" as an obscenity—Nov. 19, 2011>>>Charisma News.com reported that the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority has just issued a new list of words that it considers to be so obscene they are construed to be pornographic in the Muslim world. The PTA ordered mobile phone companies to begin screening cell phone use and block text messages that contain any of 1,109 English words and 586 Urdu words by Nov. 21, The global eradication of the Son of God from the lips of mankind in the Muslim-friendly world begins on Monday.

In what was termed to be an "unofficial" correspondence from the PTA to those outside of the Muslim world, and what can only be construed as a very official mandate to the believers within Islam—even outside the borders of Pakistan—the letter reiterated that "...the transmission of harmful, fraudulent, misleading, illegal or unsolicited messages in bulk to any person without the express permission of the recipient can be banned. Free speech," the PTA said, "can be restricted in the interest and glory of Islam."

Charisma News noted that although many of the words on he banned list are legitimately obscene or pornographically-suggestive, including the name of Jesus Christ among the most tasteless words in the world, Charisma said, "...is leading some to question Pakistan's motives."

In Pakistan last year 29 Christians were martyred for their faith. Four others were sentenced to prison for blasphemy. In 2010 a Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy. Fifty-eight Christians were kidnapped and over 100 were beaten but survived. When a tsunami hit Indonesia in August, 2010 following an 7.7 earthquake off the coast of Sumatra, the world sent relief to Indonesia. The Islamic government discriminated against Christians by denying them aid.

Bialek's ex-boyfriend backs her sexual harassment claims against Herman Cain—Nov. 14, 2011>>>If you are wondering why Herman Cain's wife came forth over the weekend to defend her GOP presidential candidate husband, it may be because Cain's assurances to the media and to the voting public that he has never sexually harassed any woman is beginning to look like Swiss cheese. Immediately following a CBS News press conference in Louisiana over the weekend when pediatrician Dr. Victor Zuckerman, MD—standing next to his attorney Gloria Allred—validated the allegations Sharon Bialek made against Cain, Cain reiterated once again that he had never met Bialek. Zuckerman affirmed in the news conference that he and Bialek spent time with Cain. ABC News 7 reporter Chuck Goudie in Chicago noted that Zuckerman's version contradicts Cain. He should have said "successfully contradicts," bcause Zuckerman was very credible. Particularly in explaining the portions of Bialek's statement that were just a little fuzzy.

Dr. Victor Zuckerman, the former boyfriend of Bialek, cleared up some of the confusing aspects of Bialek's statement with the missing puzzle pieces that bring clarity to her public statement on Nov. 7. Her original Nov. 7 press conference statement sounded like Bialek went to Washington, DC to meet with Herman Cain for the first time in order to secure a job she did not already have with the National Restaurant Association. In point of fact, according to Zuckerman's statement, Bialek had just been discharged from her job at the Educational Foundation of the National Restaurant Association. Zuckerman said it was he who suggested that she contact Cain to see if he could help her get other employment in the organization. He said he made the suggestion because of the positive interaction and the cordial conversation the three of them—Cain, Bialek and Zuckerman—had during a previous National Restaurant Association conference.

"Miss Bialek," he said, "set up this meeting with Mr. Cain. Since Sharon was now unemployed, I paid for her transportation and hotel in Washington, DC at the Capital Hilton. This hotel was chosen because the Restaurant Association offices were located in Washington, DC. I did not upgrade her suite. She had indicated in previous interviews her account of what happened in DC. I can confirm that when she returned she was upset. She said that something had happened and that Mr. Cain had touched her in an inappropriate manner. She said she handled it and didn't want to talk about it any further."

Zuckerman said he respected her request, and the issue was not brought up again until recently. Zuckerman noted that the two stopped dating a few months after the Washington incident. But, he said, they remained good friends since that time, and talked by phone every few months. When the news reported that allegations of sexual harassment of at least two National Restaurant Association employees, Zuckerman asked Bialek if she was one of those mentioned. Bialek said she was not, but said the accusations did not surprise her. She became livid at Cain's denials of sexual harassment. She told Zuckerman that "...she felt she had to respond to his denials by going public with her experience."

On Monday evening Gloria Cain, who has previously declined to speak out publicly to defend her husband against the sexual harassment allegations, went public for the first time, agreeing to be interviewed by Greta van Sustern on Fox News. Gloria Cain said when the story broke "...she did not see it coming. And there were such ugly things said. I kept thinking, who are these people talking about? This—isn't Herman...After about a week and a half of listening, I decided, 'Okay, enough is enough. Everyone has an opinion. But they don't know Herman.'"

She asked Cain about the accusations. "Do you remember any of these people? And, he kept saying no. He told me about the first lady who made the accusation through the National Restaurant Association. For some reason, that rang a bell because years ago he mentioned something about...accusations of harassment."

If you recall, Herman Cain told America there were no allegations that he knew about. That was an obvious lie. Gloria Can is asking us to believe that while her husband sees nothing wrong with lying to the whole nation, he would never lie to her.

When Sharon Bialek made her original press statement, Gloria Cain watched her, thinking, "...you weren't in the car with Herman. I don't know where you have been, but I know Herman Cain. And, I know he has—he has always had too much respect for women to treat them in any type of—type of negative way." For the media, it has now gone full circle. Gloria Cain has become the typical politician's wife—standing by her man.

FBI investigating strange graffiti on Southwest Airlines 737s—Sept. 22, 2011>>>Aircraft graffiti on both the outside skin and in the cargo bins is quite common in the United States. Typically aircraft graffiti is done by ground crews at one airport taking jabs at the ground crews at another airport, at other airline employees, supervisors or senior management—particularly during union negotiations when most of the graffiti is either pro-union or anti-management.

But not in the case of the strange graffiti that has been appearing on the underbellies of several of Southwest Airlines 737 aircraft that began showing up in February of this year. The markings appear to be words written in Arabic, or at least appear to be Arabic symbols which taggers have written on the exterior of the airplanes. Public statements made by a Southwest Airlines spokesperson adamantly stress the markings pose no threat to travel and that the situation appears to be an "internal one." The consensus at Southwest is that the vandalism was done by "employees joking around." In their statement to ABC15 in Phoenix, Arizona, Southwest dismissively minimized the incidents saying that they believe the problem is the result of activities of one or more employees who have access to the planes while they are parked at the gate. A Southwest internal memo say the messages or Arabic symbols were written in thick dirt and soot which, the airline added, can easily be washed off.

That assessment is at odds with a Huffington Post reports, which may be why the FBI and the Transportation Security Administration entered the investigation. While the FBI will investigate any form of graffiti if the taggers leave terrorist threats, it appears what brought the FBI into the investigation were the markings themselves. KNX 1070 Radio] in Los Angeles reported that the graffiti which concerned the FBI were not finger smudging in thick dirt or soot, but words and/or letters applied with a chemical that are apparently invisible to the eye until an auxiliary power unit is turned on and heats up the outside skin of the aircraft in flight, revealing the words or symbols. CBS Los Angeles, which owns KNX 1070 said they are not sure how many aircraft are involved.

Michelle Obama disrespects flag folding at the WTC Memorial—Sept. 11, 2011>>>When Michelle Obama officially kicked off her role in her husband's 2012 Democratic campaign in a speech to the Democratic National Committee's liberal Women's Leadership Forum on Thursday, May 21, 2011, she stood in front of a backdrop of patriotic red, white and blue. The colors of freedom. The American flag. The symbol that men and women have fought for—and died. The flag works—when she is the centerpiece of the display, since all the flag represents to her—window dressing . On Sept. 11, on the 10th Anniversary of the World Trade Center disaster, as she stood waiting impatiently for the hoopla to get over and her celeb moment to begin after the flag folding to the sound of bagpipes to honor the fallen on 9-11. Caught on video by Fox News, Michelle Obama leaned towards her husband and, according to someone who read lips, appears to say: "All of this just for a flag?" Then, she pursed her lips and shook her head as her husband nodded in agreement.

Michelle Obama, you will recall, told the world she had never had occasion to be proud of America. Her statement, made on Feb. 17, 2008 was: "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country." (She really wasn't then, either since her statement was merely a "pitch" for change in America—Obama's move away from free market democracy to Marxism. A couple months after expressing her contempt for America, Michelle Obama made her famous May 5, 2008 Trinity United Church of Christ audio-taped "whitey" speech, referring to the middle class White community of the United States as racist. Her husband is cut from the same cloth. If you recall during his election campaign there was a flap about American flag lapel pins, with Obama's campaign opting from wearing them because "it offended some people."

Defending his action, the far left mainstream TV media did the same. TV newscasters on ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and NBC shunned American flag lapel pins. Obama went a step farther by designing his own "American" logo that emblazoned the tailfin on his rented campaign jet. On the tailfin is where the flag of that plane's registration is generally found (just like the flag that flies on ships-at-sea. Obama's "country-of-origin" based on his 'flag" is about the most honest statement he has made since becoming part of the public persona of America—zero. He has no "public" country of origin. The Canadian conspiracy citizenship claims notwithstanding, Obama was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia.

Barack Obama, in his role (regardless how he got there) as a chief executive, understands the pomp and circumstance that goes with the job. Michelle Obama, whose waking moments are reportedly centered only upon her own celebrirty status, doesn't understand that the official respect shown to her is not about her. It's about her role based solely on the consequence of marriage. The respect shown her is respect Americans show for the First Family of the United States (regardless how they got there). But while they are there, in the White House, they need to show respect for the American flag and for the American people.



Texas Wind Turbines Prove to Be A Joke—Aug. 26, 2011>>>The National Center for Policy Analysis noted in their Aug. 24 Policy Digest that green energy in Texas is a myth that simply does not work. Over the past week ERCOT, the State's electricity grid operator, warned of possible rolling blackouts across Texas if consumers did not reduce consumption. This even though Texas now has 10,135 megawatts of installed, operational wind generation capacity which ERCOT assured consumers when the system was installed, would either replace 15% of the power consumed by customers or add 15% more available power in times of peak demand and, it would seem from the rhetoric, reduce the chance of rolling blackouts.

The wind turbines proved to be a green flop. On the afternoon of Aug. 2, 2011, when electricity demand hit 67,919 megawatts, the maximum output ERCOT could pull from their expensive green experiment was 1,500 megawatts of electricity, or 2.2% of the demand even though the designers of the system assured Texas that it would deliver 15% of peak demand. In four days in August when demand set records in Texas, the Texas wind turbines contributed, respectively, 1%, 2%, 1% and 1% of the demand. Wind turbine advocates promise the extremely expensive technology will produce energy at a rate of 25% to 30% of capacity because as the technology was developed the turbines were always constructed in areas where wind speeds averaged 20 miles per hour or higher. Add to the reality the fact that the environmentalists who champion green science exaggerate the effectiveness of their product, and understate the cost to develop it.

The Texas wind turbine system cost federal and State taxpayers $25 billion to date ($17 billion to install the wind turbines and $8 billion for the transmission lines to carry the new energy to waiting consumers across the State during the dog days of summer). And, for $25 billion, the turbines can't keep the home air conditioners pumping cool air because the greenies failed to reveal something they learned when they developed and tested their green science secret—when power demands are highest (during the daylight hours) wind turbines are the least effective. They work best in the middle of night when electricity demand is at its lowest. Holland began experimenting with wind power a decade ago under a "green edict" to slowly begin to replace their existing carbon fuel electricity generating plants with alternative energy sources. Wind turbine energy proved to be so unreliable that what negligible amount of electricity Holland produces it sells to its neighbors.

In February of this year the London Daily Mail called England's £250 billion experiment in wind energy "the greatest scam of our age," The Mail said, "...the 350 foot monstrosity above the M4 (highway) outside Reading...performed so poorly that the £130 thousand subsidy the government gave the owners for cheap energy development was more than the £100 thousand of very expensive electricity it produced." The Mail noted that "...wind turbines are so expensive that Holland became the first country to Europe to abandon its EU renewable energy target...Wind tunnels are so unpopular that our own government has just offered bribes to local communities, in the form of lower council tax and electric bills."

The Mail concluded its piece by noting that "...the Most glaring dishonesty peddled by the wind industry—and echoed by gullible politicians—is to exaggerate the output of turbines by deliberately talking about them only in terms of their 'capacity,' as if this was what they actually produce. Rather, its the total amount of power they are capable of producing..." if the wind levels are strong enough and consistent enough to let the turbines operate 100% of the time at capacity. In the real world, that does not happen. Wind, of course, blows at varying speeds, so the turbines produce only from 2% to 22% of "capacity."

Wind power, the Mail noted, is "...a preposterously expensive way to produce electricity. No one would dream of building wind turbines unless they were guaranteed a huge government subsidy..." since that is the only way the wind energy company would make money. "It is," the Mail reiterated again, "...one of the greatest scams of the age." Oh, and by the way, the London Daily Mail is one of England's more liberal newspapers.

Boehner Walks Out on Talks With Obama—July 23, 2011>>>As the House passed HR 2560, Cut, Cap & Balance, by a vote of 234-190 on July 20, the Senate scheduled its vote first on Saturday, then on Friday, July 22 with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] predicting that Cut, Cap & Balance would be dead on arrival in the Senate. On July 21, Reid said "The Republicans' so-called Cut, Cap & Balance plan doesn't have one chance in a million to pass the Senate." And, by a vote of 51-46, it didn't. Obama, who promised to veto the bill if it passed, felt reinvigorated by its defeat and called Congressional leaders to the White House so he could ram his tax and spend agenda through Congress as a "bipartisan debt ceiling compromise" as he told the public that if the debt ceiling was not raised by Aug. 2 the government would default on its debts, and it wouldn't have enough money to pay the nation's Social Security recipients.

On Friday House Speaker John Boehner [R-OH} said no to the latest White House scheme to spend even more of your tax dollars—which Obama will have to take from your pocket before he can spend them. Boehner told the media that Obama wanted to "...raise taxes too high and won't make fundamental changes" to benefit programs such as Medicare.

Calling for another meeting of Congressional leaders on Saturday, July 23, Obama told reporters that Speaker Boehner would not return his phone calls. "I've been left at the altar now a couple of times. It's hard to understand why Speaker Boehner would walk away from from this kind of deal. Can they say yes to anything? We've run out of time and they are going to have to explain to me how we're going to avoid a default."

That's the problem with foreigners from third world countries. They don't seem to understand that the Speaker of the House of Representatives does not answer to the guy in the Oval Office—even the ones who are actually citizens of the United States. The Speaker of the House answers directly to the People. And, a clear majority of those People—60% of them according to a July 20 Fox News poll—do not want the debt ceiling raised.

In his press conference calling for a new round of talks with Boehner, Obama pulled mythical statistics out of thin air, claiming that "...80% of the American people support a balanced approach that includes revenues and spending cuts." Translated, Obama's double talk meant he plans to implement a tax hike that includes eliminating the mortgage interest deduction that will raise the federal income taxes of every homeowner in the country. So much for Obama only taxing those with incomes over $250,000. His spending cuts will be imaginary. The spending cuts Obama proposed would not be from existing spending programs but from "future" legislation. In other words, by not spending what was not appropriated the social progressives are able to use a media sleight-of-hand to have their cake and eat it, too.

The Saturday meeting, between Obama, Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, which began around 11 a.m. and lasted less than an hour, was described as "grim." The other attendees of the meeting, gathered in another office down the hall from the Oval Office, were Vice President Joe Biden, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majoirty Leader Harry Reid. The tone of the meetings should have told Obama that he overplayed his hand by assuming that Speaker Boehner, Mr. Compromise, would do just that—compomise. Particularly after he predicted that very course of action on July 20 concluding with, "...at the end of the day, we have the responsibility to act.." Obama had ever reason to believe that Boehner came to the Obama two-step to dance. But the American people made it clear they wanted his dance card to remain empty.

TSA Threatened to stop all air flights to Texas if Groping Bill Passed Texas Legislature—May 28, 2011>>> Forbes Magazine reported on May 25 that the Transportation Security Administration [TSA] has arrogantly threatened to cancel all flights in and out of Texas by shutting down all airports in that State if a Texas bill that criminalizes TSA pat-downs that include touching the anus, sexual organs, buttocks or breasts of another person through their clothing. Under the Texas bill, these forms of "groping" will become misdemeanors under law, allowing Texas law enforcement officers to arrest TSA officials and charge them with sexual harassment. The penalty for sexual groping by "search agents" (i.e., screeners) for the government would be a fine of up to $4,000 and a year in jail—per offense.

The legislation was triggered by an intrusive TSA full-body pat-down of 2003 Miss America Susie Castillo in the Dallas-Fort Worth in a connecting flight to Austin airport from Rio de Janeiro where she hosted a red carpet premiere for the movie "Fast Five." When she refused to go through the strip search X-ray scanner—after being specifically directed to that line by TSA officials—she was told she would be required to undergo an intrusive full body pat-down if she did not go through the full body scanner. Castillo explained that as a frequent flyer she feared the constant radiation from the full body X-ray scanners. That was why she chose the line where travelers were receiving noninvasive back-of-the-hand pat-downs.

After opting out of the strip search scanner, Castillo followed a female TSA security agent to the "pat down" area. Since she had the "back-of-the-hand" pat-down at LAX when she flew to Rio, she knew she could endure it again. Only this pat-down had very personal touching contact with her breasts and vagina. Castillo noted that in the pat-down at LAX, the screener never touched any "private part." The DFW screener touched the private areas of her body four times.

When Texas responded with a law to criminalize "cheap feels" by TSA screeners, the TSA responded with a comment on the TSA Blog on May 14, 2011 with an arrogant comment that Texas needed to keep its hands off federal law. "The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) prevents States from regulating the federal government." The 9th and 10th Amendments prevent the federal government for assuming for itself authority not specifically granted to it by the Constitution. The Constitution does not give Congress the right to grant power that it does not, itself, possess under its own franchise in the Constitution. Congress' right, and therefore the rights of the Executive Branch are limited to the search perimeters detailed in the 4th Amendment.

When the Texas House enacted Texas House Bill 1937, the measure introduced by State Senator Dan Patrick appeared likely to speed through the Texas Senate as well. Instead, on May 25 a letter from the Department of Justice was hand-carried to the Texas Legislature by TSA officials. The DOJ warned the State of Texas that if they enacted the law, it would send a signal to the Justice Department that the Lone Star State was not fully complying with "aviation safety standards," and the TSA would then have the authority to shut down all airports in Texas. (Keep in mind, this was not the binding legal opinion of a federal judge, this was the nonbinding, non-legal view of a DOJ bureaucrat following the orders of the Obama Administration.)

As the TSA got tough, Texas State Senator Patrick told the Texas Tribune that "...I don't cave in to heavy-handed threats by the federal government." But when the letter arrived from the DOJ, he caved in to mounting pressure from his peers and withdrew the legislation. In an editorial in the Washington Times, former US House Select Committee on Homeland Security spokesman Richard Diamond stated that "...the Texas legislature needs to grow a backbone. A State that prides itself on its independent...ought not to be easily cowed s the upper chamber was on Wednesday. When the time came for a vote to hold the TSA accountable for its despicable airport screening practices, it only took a scary letter from a Department of Justice bureaucrat to convince enough senators to hoist the white flag." I suspect that none of the ancestors of the sitting Texas Senate fought at the Alamo.

On May 25, far right Internet blogger Alex Jones led a boisterous crowd of about 100 protesters into the State Capitol Building around 3 p.m. and proceeded to the House chamber where the Jones crowd was told that the House had passed the measure and that it failed to get through the Senate. The protesters then proceeded to the third floor Senate gallery on the other side of the Capitol Building. By the time they arrived they were blocked by Texas State Troopers. They stood outside the visitors' gallery chanting "Cow-ards, cow-ards; trea-son, trea-son," and calling State senators and the Lt. Governor and Senate President, David Dewhurst, who killed the TSA Groping Bill after Patrick withdrew it, "federal pimps" and "scalawag trash," as they promised to vote them out of office in 2012.

The protesters should have circled their wagons around the White House, not the Texas legislature. It was, after all, Obama's Brown Shirts at the TSA and his appointed Black Shirts in the Department of Homeland Security under a blanket of protection from the Patriot Act, who arbitrarily decided that what can only be described as the sexual assaulting of American citizens was a prerogative they actually possess.

When government assumes power it does not constitutionally possess it is constitutionally incumbent on the people to resist that tyranny. In the Federalist Papers 28, Alexander Hamilton (writing under the pseudonym Publius) claims that the rights of the People to defend themselves against any unlawful infringement of the government is "original" (meaning it existed as a right before the formation of the State, and is a preeminent right). Hamilton said that since man's right to self-defense cannot be taken from them, that right will always be a means of controlling those by whom they are governed. In the United States if elected leaders betray their constituents, the People have an inherent right to divest those representatives of their "artificial strength of government." Also affirming the right of the People to resist and oppose a belligerent government that exceeds the authority granted it by the Founding Fathers in the Founding Document, are Federalist Papers 10, 16, 46, 54 and 60." These documents were written by Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.

The deadliest foe in the Mideast is neither Assad nor Gaddafi—Apr. 23, 2011>>> The Huffington Post reported on Saturday, April 23 that the government of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad opened fire—with live bullets—and tear gas on tens of thousands of protesters throughout the country as Muslim citizens who entered the nation's mosques on Friday as worshippers left the mosques as protesters, taking to the streets in what became the bloodiest day in the month-long uprising in Syria. The virtual slaughter of what appears to be about 105 protesters, many by sniper fire, took place one day after al-Assad lifted a 48-year old emergency law banning any form of anti-government protest in the country. Amnesty International reported that 75 people were killed and 20 others remain missing. If the missing were arrested by security police, they may never be seen again. Taken into custody was one of the ringleaders of the Syrian protest, Palestinian Col. Mahmoud Issa. He was arrested by Syrian security forces on April 19. Issa, who was a political prisoner in Homs from 1992 to 2000, was opposed to both the Ba'ath Party and the Muslim Brotherhood, claiming it has ties to al Qaeda. But reports have also surfaced that Issa has ties with the Brotherhood although no evidence confirming those ties have surfaced.

That, however, is not surprising. The Muslim Brotherhood has a long history of making political deals with its gnat enemies in order to defeat its major threats.

Buckling under pressure from the Muslim Brotherhood orchestrated demonstrations, Assad issued a presidential decree that nullified not only the protest ban, but also abolished by the Higher State Security Court, a special court created to prosecute anyone who opposes the Ba'ath Party. However, a stern warning came with the appeasement—with Assad warning demonstrators to call off their attempts to overthrow his government. Assad said that any further unrest would be considered "sabotage." The mixed message was not "mixed" in Syria. While rank and file protesters may have thought they won a victory when the emergency order was lifted, the Muslim Brotherhood which has been trying to overthrow the Assad regime since the 1980s, knew Assad's ploy was merely political rhetoric for the West, fearing another NATO invasion to bring "democracy" to another Muslim nation like Egypt—which is now controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood has been to foment revolution not only in the Mideast but in the near-East as well as they disarm the West by camouflaging their jihad against those friendly with the West as "popular rebellions" by those craving democracy. The Brotherhood plans, first, to create a unified theocratic Muslim Empire in the Mideast; and then, the conquest the entire world. Today, globally, the Brotherhood has united with atheist or agnostic antiwar socialists who believe they are using the Muslim Brotherhood when, in fact, the Muslim Brotherhood is using them the topple the United States and its allies—through chaos—by collapsing the economies of the industrial world and replacing the free enterprise system with a socialist Utopia. Only, that Utopia will quickly become the battlefield of World War III—the second to the last Jihad for Planet Earth.

Bashar Al-Assad and Muarmar Gaddafi are both despicable despots. Both are killers who have ordered or sanctioned the wholesale slaughter of thousands of their citizens. Both men need to be deposed and tried for their crimes by the citizens of each nation. Free elections should be held and the people allowed to elect a democratic government which then elects its Prime Minister and schedules a general election in which the people then elect a president. But, in the Muslim world where sheiks rule with an iron fist and the Qu'ran is both a political edit and the spiritual guide, the tribal society is raised to obey, not question—nor lead. As much as those who watched the first free election in Iraq on Jan. 30, 2005, envisioned democracy, for most Muslims the Qu'ran forbids them from embracing Western ideas. The popular revolution that is sweeping the Mideast and has now spread to Greece, is not freedom-instigated, it is Shari'a-instigated.

Netanyahu demands the UN throw out Goldstone Report—Apr. 3, 2011>>> The Washington Times reported on Saturday, April 2 that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is demanding that the United Nations reject a controversial war crimes report on the conflict between the State of Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip over a 22-day period in December, 2008 and January, 2009.

In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post on April 2, Richard Goldstone, a South African judge who chaired the UN Fact Finding Mission to investigate the Israeli-Hamas conflict and produced the reported named after him, said "If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document."

The Israeli government did not cooperate with the UN Fact Finding Mission solely because the UN Human Rights Council, which ordered the investigation, has a longstanding bias against Israel. The report concluded that both Israel and Hamas had committed war crimes in the 22-day conflict and asked both to initiate probes into approximately 400 reported incidents. In his op-ed piece, Goldstone praised the Israeli government for investigating the allegations against them. Hamas, he noted in his op-ed piece, did nothing.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who oversaw the conflict with Hamas, said that Goldstone needed to share his newfound views with the international community, adding that "...we always said that the IDF was a moral army. Judge Goldstone needs to publish his present conclusions before all international bodies where he published his distorted report."

In this one instance it appears that had the Israeli government and the Israeli Defense Forces cooperated with Judge Goldstone's investigation, the Goldstone Report would likely have only condemned the actions of Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

.
Ecowackos call it "Ocean Fertilization." I call it just plain old fashioned "B.S."—Feb. 27, 2011>>> USA Today reported on Friday, Feb. 25 that scientists are now saying they can use geoengineering to "...put a freeze on global warming." In the front page article, USA Today quoted an environmental economist, Scott Barrett of Columbia University who noted that the scientific community should be asking if "...geoengineering could work, rather than waiting until it becomes a necessity...We're moving into a different kind of world."

I agree with Barnett's second statement. We are moving into a different kind of world. It's called global cooling. Don't expect the scholastic global warming ecowackos to acknowledge global cooling just because the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, on Feb. 27, 2008, reported that global cooling was currently underway. While the environmentalists were decrying what they called "Earth's fever" to fan global warming fears as their political allies on the left on Capitol Hill pushed hard in 2008 to enact Cap & Trade legislation that would allow "friends of the left" to get rich buying and selling carbon credits.

Senator Jim Inhofe's Environment & Public Works press blogger, Marc Morano quoted a Daily Tech report which cited anecdotal evidence that the planet has entered a cooling phase. China has been experiencing its coldest winters in 100 years. Baghdad reported snow for the first time in recorded history. Temperatures lingered around freezing and the Baghdad airport was closed due to poor visibility. Baghdad residents admitted the only snow they had ever seem prior to that morning was in movies. North America had the most snowfall in 50 years, with Wisconsin recording the highest levels of snow since record-keeping began. Record cold spells occurred in Florida, Minnesota, and Texas; and in Australia, Chile, Greece, Greenland, Iran, Mexico—and the thickness of Antarctic sea ice (which the ecowackos claim is thinning so much that the Antarctica ice sheet is in danger of disappearing. The list of cooling ranges from 0.65°C up to 0.75°C—a value large enough, the Daily Tech reported, to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All of this occurred in one year, and it is the single fastest temperature change ever recorded—either up or down.

Scientists linked the cooling to reduced solar activity which they noted is the primary driver of climate change. The scientist at all four global temperature tracking outlets—Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH and RSS—affirmed that while science has not proved that carbon dioxide is responsible for warming the planet, evidence now exists to prove that reduced solar activity is now cooling it.

Dr. Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council predicted a new ice age on Feb. 9, 2008. Tapping is worried about the sun. The sunspot activity that was the hallmark of Solar Cycle 24 has all but vanished, and activity is conspicuously quiet. The last time this happened was between 400 to 700 years ago when a solar event known as a Maunder Minimum happened and the world entered into what became known as the "Little Ice Age." During the Little Ice Age, global temperatures dropped sharply and glaciers in Norway grew up to 100 meters a year, destroying farms and villages. Norse Icelandic Vikings settled Greenland in the late 10th century. Climate change, brought on by the Little Ice Age, which began around 1300 changed the fortunes of the Vikings By 1378, almost all of the the Vikings were gone. By the 1500s the climate in Greenland was dangerously inhospitable, and only a handful of Arctic Induit Indians remained.

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov predicted that the sun would soon peak, triggering a rapid decline in world temperatures. In 2008, his views were echoed by Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow at the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, who advised the world to "...stock up on fur coats." Sorokhtin, who affirmed that man's contribution to climate change amounted to a "drop in the bucket," said that we will hit a "solar minimum" by 2040, and the icy weather would last until 2100 or beyond.

Confirming the Russian findings is Dr. Timothy Patterson, Director of the Geoscience Center at Carleton University. Patterson's research has also centered on the correlations between solar fluctuations and weather and the relationship, he said, which does not exist between CO2 and climate change. Patterson's research, he noted, shows "...the sun is the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

In 1991, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study showing that world temperatures over the past several centuries correlate very closely with solar cycles. A post-2004 DMI study further corroborated their 1991 study adding a key weather factor—the sun's magnetosphere which shields the Earth from more cosmic rays which act as "seeds" for cloud formation. The less clouds, the warmer the planet. When the seed field weakens, cloud layers increase, reflecting more light back into space, causing the Earth to cool.

This is the type of thing geoengineering would do artificially, creating the same side effects the geoengineers and econuts are talking about to cool a planet which is already cooling too fast on its own. National Academy of Science president Ralph Cicerone, a climate advisor to former Vice President Al Gore, Jr., and a "climate realist" according to the leftwing Center for American Progress, insists—without evidence—that the world's average temperature will increase by 3° to 7° by the end of the century, making such drastic measures necessary. All of this as the world is very rapidly cooling.

Once again greedy men, in a hurry to promulgate a Cap & Trade profit center to enrich the envirosocialists are advocating Cap & Trade as necessary to save the world from itself, are really advocating for trillions of dollars in fines and taxes which will be paid by the middle classes in the industrialized nations in the form of higher energy and commodity prices as the princes of industry and barons of banking speed up their efforts to redistribute the wealth of industrialized nations to the emerging nations which they now call "home." Global warming is not only a myth, it is—and always has been—a deliberate fraud, fabricated for obscene profit by greedy men with the ability to create the punitive laws of the industrialized nations because they own the votes of the lawmakers who theoretically write the laws which are actually written by the lobbyists of the princes of industry.

.
Obama State Dept. Makes Passport Applications Gender Neutral—Jan. 8, 2011>>> In yet another politically-correct, social progressive sleight-of-hand, the Obama State Department has surreptitously degenderized parenthood in the United States. The terms "Father" and "Mother" have been removed from U.S. passport applications and replaced with gender-neutral terminology, a State Department spokeswoman said when the bureaucracy announced the change on Friday, Jan. 7, 2011. Brenda Sprague, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services issued the statement after the media inquired about a new policy statement on the State Department's website.

The statement, buried at the end of a Dec. 22, 2010 State Dept. news release entitled "Consular Report of Birth Abroad Certificate Improvements," said: "These improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child's parents and in recognition of different types of families." In the old passport application, the form asks for the "Father's Place of Birth" and the "Mother's Place of Birth." The purpose of tagging the blurb on the politically correct terminology switch into a news report that just about no one was ever going to read was to comply with federal law which required the posting while trying hard to keep it under the public radar screen since Resident Barack Obama is now pretending he's a political moderate in a changing political landscape. If he had managed to keep the terminology change in the US passport from the 99+% of the American people who are heterosexual (statistics from the 2000 US Census), Obama could have scored points from the less than 1% of the population that admits to being homosexual—particularly after his congressional repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The new forms, which cannot yet be accessed by the public, will be available online on Feb. 1, 2011. Instead of the old verbiage, the form will ask for "Parent One's Place of Birth" and "Parent Two's Place of Birth" since "daddy" may actually be a "mommy" and "mommy" may actually be a "daddy." The Washington Post called the new policy a win for gay rights groups which were financially generous to Democrats in the Election of 2008.

It is still unclear whether similar changes will be forthcoming in all federal documents. Very likely that will depend on two things: public outcry and the adamance of Republicans to restore the passport status quo. An announcment made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009 suggests the passport terminology change is likely the opening salvo fired across the bow of the USS United States that will lead to a lethal barrage aimed at legalizing homosexual marriage by regulation. Clinton announced that "partners" of homosexual American diplomats who be eligible for spousal benefits.

If you recall, in June, 2000 Hillary Clinton became the first wife of a sitting president to march in a Gay Pride parade. In a speech she made in June, 2010, Clinton said "...the United States is elevating the [gay rights] dialogue with other governments, and conducting public diplomacy to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons."

Sprague said, "The words in the old form were mother and father. They are now 'parent one' and 'parent two.'" She told the media that the decision by the Obama State Department to change the language was not an act of "political correctness"—although the change was lobbied hard by the gay rights group, Family Equality Council, and they were quick to issue a statement when the announcement was made.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council blasted the Obama-Clinton policy as a reflection of "...the topsy-turvy world of leftwing policial correctness." Perkins continued, adding that only in the world of smoke and mirrors "...is it considered an improvement for a birth-related document to provide less information about the circumstances of that birth. This is clearly designed to advance the cause of same-sex marriage and homosexual parenting without statutory authority." Perkins added that this policy decision "...violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Defense of Marriage Act," (the federal law that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman).

Rosemary Macray of the State Department of Consular Affairs which issued to Consular Report of Birth Abroad Certificate Improvements," shrugged off allegations of leftwing political correctness by Perkins and others and described the terminology implant as nothing more than an "...unremarkable tweak." Nothing could be farther from the truth. Macray dismissed the terminology change by suggesting the only thing the public is concerned about is not the legitimizing of homosexuality, but the cost to transition the forms. "It's not going to really involve any expense to taxpayers," she said, ending her statement.

"Changing the term mother and father to the more global term of parent," Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director of the Family Equality Council told Fox News, "allows many different types of families to be able to go and apply for a passport for their child without feeling like the government doesn't recognize their family. Our government needs to recognize that the family structure is changing. The best thing that we can do is support people who are raising kids in loving, stable families."

Chrisler's world view "reality" is warped by the prism of homosexuality. With the tons of gay rights advocacy—funded by billions of dollars of taxpayer money—and the efforts by social progressive educators in the taxpayer-funded public school system promoting homosexual sex as a normal and acceptable lifestyle, as well as an intelligent alternative to abortion, Chrisler appears to be pretending that the statistics which affirm that less than 1% of the population is homosexual or lesbian are fantasies of the homophobic right when, in fact, the numbers come from the 2000 US Census. The question was inserted by the Clinton Administration's Commerce Department on the belief the statistics would verify what the left has been touting for years: that somewhere between 10% to 20% of the American population is gay. When the statistics verified what Christian groups had been saying for decades—that the homosexual-lesbian population in the United States was only around one half of one percent—the unsupported claims of the purveyors of perniciousness notwithstanding, the media chose to ignore the "hard prove" on just how many people actually were homosexuals or lesbians.

Brit newspaper openly talka about breaking away from the European Union—and Europe —Nov. 28, 2010>>>While about half of the working class in Europe has increasingly become more vocal about dumping their current national leaders and sealing their borders, only one British newspaper is talking about it out loud. On Nov. 25, 2010, the tabloid Daily Express became the first national British tabloid to call for England to renounce the European Union and "get out of Dodge." It only took seven years after British Prime Minister Tony Blair angrily accused British Conservative Party Leader Duncan Smith and Tory Member of Parliament David Heathcoat Amory of fashioning a new EU blueprint that would allow member states to step away from the plate and become "associate partners" before a participant of the fourth estate launched an anti-EU initiative—Britain is Better Off Out.

The Daily Express was founded in 1900 by Sir Arthur Pearson and bought by William Maxwell "Max" Aitken, the future Lord Beaverbrook, in 1916. Beaverbrook opposed Britain's entry into what became the European Economic Community, the precursor to the European Union. In March, 1962, Beaverbrook was attacked in the House of Commons for waging a personal vendetta against the Royal Family after Prince Philip denounced the Express as a vicious paper that was full of lies, scandal and imagination. When Beaverbrook died in 1964, his family sold the paper to Trafalgar House in 1977. The political sales pitch to expand the EEC from Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands into the neighboring European States began after the death of Beaverbrook, through what was known as the Luxembourg Compromise on Jan. 29, 1966 and the Merger Treaty (Treaty of Brussels) on July 1, 1967 that fully integrated the EEC nations but, at the same time, protected their individual personalities in order to make joining appear more attractive. World government was on its way, instigated by Europe's weakest nations who would control the throttle of the new global engine of State. Yes, the weak shall inherit the Earth. The seat of world government sits in The Hague, in the Netherlands. During the German invasion in 1940, the weakest nations in Europe, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg fell in a few weeks. Today, they sit on a regal Hapsburg throne, preparing to anoint themselves as the Masters of the World. The New World Order is simply the Old World Order with a few rich, new members who have successfully bribed the legislatures of the world into submission..

In Sept., 2000 a celebrity publisher, Richard Desmond purchased the Express Newspapers. Controversy surrounded Desmond's "right" to purchase a mainstream newspaper since, in addition to owning the celebrity magazine OK!, he also owned several pornographic magazines including Big Ones and Asian Babes, and England's most popular porn TV channel. Desmond publishes Penthouse in England under a special franchise agreement. In the eyes of the mainstream liberal publishers, that made him less than "OK." In 2007 Express Newspapers dropped out of the National Publishers' Association in Britain because the NPA funds the Press Complaint Commission and most of the complaints the PCC investigated were directed at Desmond's newspapers or TV channel. In addition, by dropping out of the NCC, Express Newspapers removed itself from the PCC's jurisdiction. Desmond and Roger Daltrey of The Who formed a super group band called the RD Crusaders in 2003 and regularly fund raise for various charities. In July, 2010, Desmond bought British Channel Five for €125 million (£104.6 million), expanding his legitimate news outlets at just about the same time he began to launch his anti-EU effort.

The paper noted that the "...famous and symbolic Crusader who adorns our masthead will become the figurehead of the struggle to repatriate British sovereignty from a political project that has comprehensively failed. After far too many years as the victims of Brussels larceny, bullying, over-regulation and all-round interference, the time has come for the British people to win back their country and restore legitimacy and accountability to their political process."

After the failed Lisbon Treaty, the English people—like the voters in every European nation—were promised a referendum by which they would decide whether or not their nations joined the European Union by ratifying its Constitution. The pleblicite to formally adopt the EU constitution was scheduled first for the two nations whose governments most favored the European Union. They voted in May and June, 2005—almost a half year after the EU was rammed down their throats. Both rejected the ratification the EU Constitution. By not voting, Germany did the same, as did the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, Portugal, Poland, Sweden, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Finland. To date, 16 nations have ratified the EU constitution. But only two of the 16 nations, Spain and Luxembourg, allowed their citizens to vote on the matter. The other 14 nations ratified the constitution without the consent of their populations.

With one of the few written Constitutions in the world, the people of the United States watched the evolution of the European Union from several failed attempts to achieve some form of "United States of Europe" beginning with the creation of the failed League of Nations in 1920 to the end of World War II. It frightened them because in the United States, beginning in 1993 with the passage of NAFTA as a law rather than a treaty that could not be ratified by the US Senate, the American people were witnessing the seeds of totalitarianism planted in the fertile soil of the United States through the efforts of the bankers and industrialists who threw their financial support behind Bill Clinton.

Clinton's support came, initially, from Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands whom Clinton met at the Bilderberger conference in Baden-Wertenberg, Germany in June, 1991 as the guest of Washington lawyer Vernon Jordan. Jordan introduced him to Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands where Clinton, the "New Democrat," gained the support of the overlords of the New World Order to become the 42nd President of the United States.

His first assignment was to get the North American Free Trade Agreement Treaty ratified. President George HW Bush was charged with the same responsibility, but he couldn't get the job done in a Democratically-controlled Congress. In the end, Clinton's 103rd Congress had to enact NAFTA as a law rather than a treaty because Clinton couldn't get enough Senate votes to ratify it. Clinton's Democrats resisted signing on to NAFTA during the Bush-41 years not out of fear of retaliation from the voters who have short memories about Congressional wrongdoing. They were afraid of the labor unions whose memory of double-dealing from politicians is decades-long. The United Mine Workers have backed Republicans at the top of a split ticket in solid blue West Virginia since 1994. And blue collar Teamsters' Union members backed George W. Bush in 2000 because buried in NAFTA was the Security and Prosperity Partnership that would open US highways to Mexican truckers—and open the borders to millions of undocumented illegals through deliberately relaxed border security enforcement.

Even before the ink on the North American Free Trade Agreement was dry, American industrialists saw what they thought would be an opportunity to snorkel in an economic tsunami in the Americas through what was proposed as the Free Trade Areas of the Americas [FTAA]. They wanted to expand the financial opportunities provided to them by NAFTA throughout the western hemisphere by expanding NAFTA. And, just weeks after the GOP took control of both Houses of Congress in November, the Summit of the Americas took place in Miami on Dec. 11, 1994.

Because the Democrats weren't listening to the American people, they arrogantly prepared to launch phase two of the deindustrialization of the United States as they tried to convince the American people that NAFTA was a jobs-for-America bill by arguing that by sending jobs south-of-the-border, Mexico would reciprocate by importing more US made goods with its newfound affluence. By December the Democrats understood that the American people weren't fooled by their "jobs rhetoric." By watching Main Street USA the American people understood that the only thing that America was importing were illegal aliens and the only thing they were exporting were not only jobs, but the US factories that provided those jobs which made the products that used to say: "Made in the USA." Because of that, FTAA—which would have sweeping new economic controls over the Americas—has never been ratified. Instead, it is now being covertly implemented by the federal bureaucracy through NAFTA—step one in a western hemisphere American Union.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The governments of Europe, pressured by European and American bankers, businessmen and industrialists, fought hard from 1920 to erase the borders of Europe create a tariff-free economic trade zone from which they would profit from a consolidated Europe. It began with the Treaty of Rome in 1957. It was called the European Economic Community. It was a trade union only. Each nation not only maintained it's own national sovereignty, each nation also maintained its own national currency—and national laws and court systems. It morphed into the Common Market which morphed into the European Union where the member States agreed to surrender external sovereignty, codify EU law, and replace their national currency with the Euro. The United States is still suspended in the limbo of phase one. But every America watching the speed in which globalization is happening now knows that global government is just around the proverbial corne.

Democrats want to tax Red States and exempt Blue States—Aug. 6 , 2010>>> The Wall Street Journal reported on Aug. 5 that Congressman Jerrod Nadler [D-NY] and four other members of the Democratic New York Caucus are proposing what they named the "Tax Equity Act" to protect their jobs when the Bush-43 tax cuts expire at midnight, Dec. 31, 2010. Ironically, losing the Bush-43 tax cuts will hit the high-income Democratic-leaning industrial states the hardest. Here's how the Nadler Tax Equity Act of 2010 works. It assumes that those living in the nation's most heavily populated States are already overtaxed and therefore should be exempt from any tax increases that result when the Bush-43 tax cuts expire at the end of the year and provides them with tax benefits not available to people living in Norman Rockwell's America. The Tax Equity Act would require the IRS to adjust the tax brackets in regions of the country where the cost of living is proportionately higher than the national average. For example, families with incomes of anywhere from $30 thousand to $30 million a year would pay far less taxes if they lived in New York, Chicago or Los Angeles than if they lived in Birmingham, Salt Lake City or Omaha.

Nadler and his far left friends believe the polls that suggest when they refuse to extend the Bush tax cuts, the six-digit, left-leaning earners in States like California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont voted out of office. Contrary to the myth that Democrats don't mind paying higher taxes in order to help the poor, they don't. They want someone else to pay higher taxes. Why are the most heavily populated far left industrial States so expensive? Because social progressives (who are a small communist political minority in the United States) survive in power only by giving your money to the underclass that votes to keep them in office in order to keep receiving their share of your paycheck every month. And, increasingly, the social progressives whose political base continues to shrink, and who needs the votes of illegal minorities from other lands to hold power, are not adverse to giving your money to anyone from anywhere if it will further their career goals. Add to that the propensity of the social progressive to feel their political positions give them a legitimate mandate to regulate the free enterprise system (which they view as the nation's greatest evil right after Christianity) through burdensome regulations and union work rules that add to the cost of everything and make all goods and services more expensive.

There is only one problem with the Nadler Tax Equity Act—it's unconstitutional. The Constitution mandates that, in assessing taxes, government must proportionately apportion taxes based on a uniform formula that treats all taxpayers the same. You cannot assess one net tax rate on taxpayers in New York, Illinois, and California who earn, say, $150 thousand per year and a higher net tax rate to people earning the same paycheck who live in Idaho, Nebraska or Montana just because its cheaper to live there. Currently, federal law allows taxpayers to deduct local, county and/or State taxes from their gross incomes. So those living in Social Progressive Paradise already get to write off a good portion of the excess taxes they pay for the privilege of living in the cities with the highest crime rates in the world. The problem with this, in the mind of Nadler's urbanites is that taxpayers in Mississippi get to do that, too. Putting this in the simplest language possible, what Jerry Nadler wants to make sure of is that when the Bush-43 tax cuts die, rich liberals will still reap the benefits of them in an unconstitutional plan that punishes Red States for voting conservative.