71-year old former Vice President Dick Cheney has a heart transplant —Mar. 24, 2013>>>In his book, "In My Time" former Vice President Dick Cheney noted that after much soul-searching he was not sure he would consider a heart transplant. He underwent a pacemaker, bypass surgery and even the the battery-powered heart pump that was installed in June, 2010 to help his left ventricular pump blood. But he said he was still not sure he would consent to a heart transplant, noting that when his own heart failed, he was prepared to die because he had a full, rich life. (But, these are things people who want to life say when they have given up hope of life after someone else's death.) After two years on the heart transplant list, a suitable donor heart became available and, on early Saturday, the heart transplant took place at Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, VA. The former vice president, who has a history of heart diseased dating back to his first heart attack at age 37, received a new lease on life at age 71.

According the United Network for Organ Sharing, 332 people over age 65 received a heart transplant last year. Sadly, with Obamacare those statistics are going to change radically beginning next year. If there are any heart transplant recipients over 70 years of age next year they will either be politicians or their donors who are exempt from Obamacare, doctors, VIP Watermelons or other wealthy individuals. Transplants will simply not be available to the working class elderly if they have advanced cardiac disease (which is when you need cardiac surgery) according to an Ann Arbor, Michigan orthopedic surgeon, Dr. David Janda in a campaign speech he made for Dr. Rob Steele who was running against Congressman John Dingell [D-MI] on Oct. 13, 2010. In his speech he mentioned the Obama Rationing Board whose job it would be to deny healthcare procedures to "double dippers."

The task the rationing board, which I more honestly (and less politically-correctly) choose to refer to as the Death Board, was charged with establishing a formula based on [a] the cost of the treatment [b] divided by the number of the years the patient will benefit from the treatment and [c] an element factored into the equation but not in the physician's calculations that was based on the amount of money the prospective donor drains from the Social Security System verses the amount of tax dollars and/or consumer dollars he or she still contributes to the economy. If you believe the rationing of healthcare is not your next medical nightmare, think back to Friday (you know, the slow news day when all the bad news is reported because no one pays attention to the media going into the weekends) when several electronic news blogs reported, starting with a report by Illinois Policy.org that is urging the Supreme Court to strike Obamacare because children diagnosed with juvenile diabetes will wait over three months just to see a endocrinologist (diabetes specialist). Your wait time to get an X-ray shot and read could amount to a few weeks to a few months. Just hope what's on the film doesn't require immediate surgery, because just like Europe and Canada, your wait for a surgeon may take a year or more—providing you are qualified (by the criteria above) for surgery.

According to Dr. David Janda, Obamacare created a multibillion dollar center to institute the decisions formulated by the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Research (that was buried not in Obamacare but in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act a full year before Obamacare was enacted. In other words, they created the board that will deny us benefits in order to euthanize us a year before they created the healthcare system that they claimed would keep us alive. Within that multibillion dollar center Obama created the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. The National Coordinator will "...determine treatment at the time and place of care." That means," according to Dr. Janda, on Jan. 1, 2013 (right after Obama hopes you are stupid enough to reelect him, or like 2008, not catch him stealing 35 million votes) "...when a physician walks into a hospital room, his nurse or physician's assistant [PA] will have a little handheld computer. And, when the doctor makes the diagnosis on that patient, she will type it into that little handheld computer and the diagnosis will go to the National Coordinator's office and, while we are still in that room, the word will come back from Washington as far as the treatment and protocol for that patient." Dr. Janda noted that hospitals and/or physicians who fail to comply with the protocols ordered by the Coordinator will face penalties.

Dr. Janda quoted these same comments to a US House Committee, and asked them what it meant—what were these penalties? He queried Congress if he received the government's protocol for a patient that he knew it was wrong, and did what he needed to do to heal or prolong the life of that patient would be punished? The unidentified Congressman said, "Yes." Dr. Janda replied, "You're telling me that I get paid twenty bucks to see that patient that you're going to fine me a hundred bucks?" Dr. Janda continued: "They looked at me and said, 'That's not going to make you hurt enough. Try a hundred grand— for your first offense." Jokingly, Janda looked at the Congressman and said, "and if I do it again, which would probably be on the next patient because I am going to do what's right for my patient, are you telling me you're going to fine me again?" Very soberly, the Congressman replied, "No, Doctor. The second time, you're going to jail."

The American people need to understand that every nation on Earth that created an old-age pension system created a companion healthcare system. Not to prolong the lives of the pensioners, but to make sure they don't live long enough to enjoy their golden years. When Social Security was enacted the life expectancy of an American male was 58.1 years. To collect any of the benefits his taxes paid for, he would have to live 7 years longer than the doctors said he would. Medical science adds 2 to 5 additional years to a man's lifespan every decade as abortion-on-demand shrinks America's future taxpayers which means those eligible to collect benefits will so greatly exceed the number of taxpayers supporting them that the economic system will collapse if the number of elderly people draining the system are not eliminated. Rather than creating a system to provide the world's best healthcare to the American people, Obamacare was developed to save Social Security by expediting the deaths of the elderly double-dippers and young work-are welfare recipients who are draining a system that can no longer them, either.

Pruden on the ignorance of Rick Santorum—Feb. 28, 2012>>>Maybe it's just that I agree with retired Washington Times Editor-in-Chief Wes Pruden, or maybe it's just that I like it when someone I respect as much as Wes Pruden agrees with my views. How can any American with a lick of sense vote for someone with such a total lack of understanding of the Constitution of the United States of America and, in particular, its very first Amendment as former US Senator Rick Santorum? Let's take a step backwards to Pruden's Feb. 28 email column.

There's a tiny priest, Wes began, living in Rick Santorum's trim, toned body, struggling to get out. The rogue priest escaped Sunday and said foolish things. The candidate most admired for plain speech made it plain and clear that he doesn't believe in the wall between church and state and doesn't think much of John F. Kennedy for saying he did. "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," he told ABC News. "The idea that church can have no influence or involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country."

This should cook his goose with conservatives (and everybody else), Wes Pruden continued, Catholic and Protestant alike, but it probably won't. Many voters are as ignorant as Rick Santorum about the plain meaning of the First Amendment. Mr. Santorum, no doubt listening to his inner rogue, says the First Amendment's guarantee of "the free exercise of religion means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square...but none of them has the right, as arbitrators of their faith, to compel the President of the United States to make public policy conform to religious doctrine. This is what makes America the exceptional nation. This is what Mr. Santorum appears to not understand..."

Pruden observed that Kennedy, addressing the concerns of Protestant ministers in Houston in 1963, assured them that he believed the separation of Church and State was absolute, and where no man "...is denied public office merely because his religion differs from ...the people who might elect him." Santorum said he read Kennedy's speech and it made him want to throw up." This, apparently, is the essence of Santorum's campaign against Mitt Romney. Their faiths differ. Since politics is political and not theological, that makes Santorum a bigot. A political candidate who rubs his religiosity in the face of his political opponent is worse than the candidate with no religious ethics at all.

The longer Santorum runs, the more he looks like John Adams, American's second president (and the nation's first and last Federalist head-of-state). Adams left such a bad taste in America's mouth that no new Federalist candidate was ever elected to high office again. Some sitting Federalist Congressmen and Senators were reelected, but within a few years, none were left. Adams did two things to incur America's wrath and kill the Federalist Party. First, a Congregationalist, Adams—in a clear violation of the 1st Amendment—tried to form a national church with Congregationalism as the national religion of the United States. Second, Adams pushed Congress to enact repressive laws that would negatively impact US citizens. The worst of these was the Aliens and Sedition Act of 1798 which made it a crime to criticize the President. Ten men who criticized the law were stripped of their property, sentenced and imprisoned by US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase for violating that law. Chase was later impeached and removed from the bench for violating the Constitutional free speech rights of American citizens.

McDonald's announced it will quit putting "pink slime" in their burgers—Feb. 21, 2012>>>Have you figured out the "secret ingredient" that makes your Mickey D's Big Mac or Quarter Pounder taste so good? British celebrity chef Jamie Oliver did, and let the cat out of the bag in an episode of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution. He derisively called that "yummy stuff" that brings customers back for a second Big Mac "pink slime." There is a non-food additive called ammonium hydroxide mixed with waste fat trimmings (which the burger industry calls "boneless lean meat trimmings." You call those meat trimmings "fat," or "suet.") The fatty beef offcuts from many different cuts of beef are ground into filler and mixed with leaner, low grade, generally tough cuts of beef to create the beef patties that Americans burger lovers know and love. That fat trimmings actually make the burger tastier. When busy Americans miss dinner, today's overweight consumer sometimes buys two of these mega-calorie treats with large fries and a diet soft drink.

But it wasn't just McDonald's who was adding boneless lean meat trimmings to the beef patties they serve their customers. This is one of those things where, in America, everyone's doing it. Seventeen percent of all meat products sold contain boneless lean meat trimmings. Even your local supermarket sells pink slime. Anyone who mixes those indigestible fat trimmings from steaks, roasts or other cuts of meet with what becomes high fat ground beef is doing it. The ammonium hydroxide, which is approved for human consumption by the USDA, is added to the waste fat to kill all sorts of bacteria (like E.coli and salmonella) that may be lurking in the fat trimmings. And, under USDA regulations, processors are not required to list ammonium hydroxide on the food label.

How many times have you brought home a bargain pound of 75/25 hamburger meat, and when you were frying up a couple of patties for a cheeseburger dinner, saw a thick pink ooze on the top of your burger? I know. You thought it was beef blood. In 94% lean meat, it is because there is virtually no fat in those burgers. (It's usually watery because supermarkets sometimes add weight to their cuts of beef by soaking them in water before packaging and weighing them. In tough times, it all about the bottom line.)

When you see a thick, pinkish ooze instead of bright red, slightly watery blood, you've been zapped with pink slime. When Oliver first revealed "pink slime" on his program, Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution, he asked a question: "Why would any sensible human being want to put ammonia-filled meat into their children's mouths?" that had to make executives at McDonald's quake. If that didn't, his final comment did. He said: "Basically, we've taken a product that would be sold as the cheapest form for dogs and after it's processed, give it to humans."

That raised a question in my own mind. Would I ever sit down and eat a can of Alpo dog food for dinner? I don't think so. US Department of Agriculture microbiologist Geral Zimstein agreed with Oliver that the ammonium hydroxide agent should be banned. It's been banned from human consumption in the United Kingdom and Ireland for years. While Oliver did not achieve his goal of having the USDA ban ammonium hydroxide (and through a ban, relegating "boneless lean meat trimmings" to the trash bin, or to pet food makers), he accomplished the next best thing—McDonald's announced on Feb. 12, 2012 that it will no longer use it as a filler. McDonald's action will force the entire fast food industry in the United States to do the same thing.

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..

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.

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.
ted, 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.