Is Barack Obama another Adolf Hitler? Please...we musn't demean Hitler that way.

 

As a young, highly-decorated corporal, Hitler survived the horror-filled trenches of World War I.

 

Obama never saw a day of military service.

 

Hitler believed his country had been betrayed by its generals; and were it not for them, Germany would've won the Great War.

 

As a Communist sympathizer & community organizer in south Chicago, Obama set out to betray his country- a Manchurian candidate who'd eventually con his way to the U.S. presidency.

 

Although both were elected in widely-divergent circumstances, Hitler believed every word of what he preached - a gifted orator who spoke from his soul, who would rouse the German people from their defeated past.

 

Barack Obama is lost without a teleprompter. But only a liar needs to read every word. A man of integrity will speak what's on his mind- and not be in need of coaching to remember what he said.  

 

Hitler purged his country of all who were not of Aryan descent - and sought to condense the German population into a single "master race."

 

Barack Obama wants to bring as many illegal aliens into the U.S. as possible,  and fragment America's melting pot into parallel societies.

 

Hitler felt "Aryan supremacy" would enable Germany to rise as the greatest power the world had ever seen.

 

Obama holds America as inferior to European socialist countries - seeking to relegate the U.S. as part of a non-existent "world community."

 

During the 1940's, Hitler expropriated the gold of each country he conquered, to pay for his war.

 

Barak Obama bankrupts his country by printing unbacked money, to finance his covert war on America's capitalist economy.

 

And ironically, when it comes to the well-being of his own citizenry, Obama is the real Nazi.

 

His concept of "health care reform" could have been written by Adolf Hitler: Forced end-of-life counseling (euthanasia). Obama "storm troopers," entering your home - telling you how to raise your children. Forced abortions. 

 

Dictator Obama deciding who - and who will NOT- be allowed medical treatment.

 

And like any totalitarian state, Obama's support of the House Health Care Reform bill (HR 3200) gives one the "choice"...either obey it to the letter - or ELSE.

 

 

-Page 22: Mandates audits of ALL employers that self-insure

 

-Page 29: Admission: your health care will be RATIONED

 

-Page 30: A government committee decides what treatments and benefits you receive (unlike an insurer- no appeals process)

 

-Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” decides health benefits. No other choice. None.

 

-Page 50: All non-US citizens, ILLEGAL or not, will be provided with FREE healthcare services (alien entitlements)

 

-Page 58: Every person to be issued a National ID Healthcard.

 

-Page 59: The federal government has direct, real-time access to all individual BANK ACCOUNTS for electronic funds transfer.

 

-Page 65:Taxpayers subsidize ALL union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

 

-Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and AMERICORPS to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.

 

-Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.

 

-Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “judicial review” is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.

 

-Page 127: The government will set wages: (The AMA sold doctors out).

 

So is it any wonder the Obama administration decided (as Rahm Emmanuel put it) to "throw long", trying to pass HR 3200 before summer recess - without anyone having read the bill? 

 

And is it any wonder dictator Obama has been buzzing around the country (like the Roadrunner) trying to convince the insured that... "you'll hardly notice a difference in your healthcare - just believe what I say!"

 

Passing HR 3200 is an Obama grand slam home run, in the bottom of the ninth, of the 7th game of the World Series:

 

POINT: Obama controls another 1/7th of the world's biggest, $14 trillion/year economy.

 

POINT: Obama expands government's size by an additional 15%, adding millions of new workers, and perennial democratic voters to the DNCC's rolls.

 

POINT: There will be a blinking beacon for an additional 20 million illegal aliens to come fence-jumping (free healthcare), and eventually, have all their "extended families" cross over to join them. Amnesty gives them all "the vote."

 

POINT: It amounts to the biggest private-to-public wealth transfer ($2 trillion) in the entire of history of mankind- "undercover" reparations. 

 

Bottom line: Obama garners enough of a permanent democratic voting majority to stay in the Whitehouse for possibly the rest of his life, as the abolishment of the 22nd Amendment (2-term president limit) becomes a virtual certainty.

 

And with the upper classes at the government's mercy, plus having their bank accounts open to disbursement, HR 3200 would make Hitler, or even Josef Stalin blanche.

 

Ever mindful of the difficulties in securing a sixty-vote( filibuster-proof) majority in the Senate, Obama successfully pressured Harry Reid (in April) to create an alternative path to passage, by adopting "reconciliation" rules, stating..."if they (Congress) do not act by October 15, the Senate could pass health care legislation with a simple majority of fifty-one votes.

 

Conclusion: HR 3200 is the worst idea EVER conceived for the American public. 

 

The elderly must decide if they want to continue to be medicated, or if they would rather 'die naturally.'  The young will be forced to buy unnecessary full health coverage, to pay for ACORN, the unions, and all the illegal aliens (plus their relatives).

 

And the biggest irony: ALL physicians are going to have to learn how to perform abortions -creating a moral dilemma for Catholic doctors and hospitals alike. 

 

And true to form, as any good band of Nazis, Obama and his Dems dominate the entire government. There's nothing stopping them if they TRULY wanted to pass this scam. But minister of propaganda, Rahm Emanuel, advises "seeking cover," by having some Republicans "on board with it."

 

No matter how he does it (or if he does it ) Obamacare will be nothing other than a massive totalitarian welfare bill, making the world's most expensive health care system even MORE expensive- while still not covering everyone.

 

 

All right class! Sit up...pay attention; we're about to pose a thought-provoking historical question:

 

What if President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) had lived 6 more months? Would he have dropped the BOMB? And would we have witnessed the end of World War 2 by August, 1945? 

 

And could the war have evolved into a worse conflagration? Raise your hand if you know.

 

After Roosevelt's disastrous giveaway at Yalta in early 1945 to Josef Stalin, the Red Army had a "green light opportunity." With eastern Europe in hand, Stalin directed them to head south, and by August 1945 the Red Army was massing on the border of Iran.

 

So what would Roosevelt have done? In all probability-- nothing.

 

Stalin would have then proceeded straight to Tehran, and installed a new Tudeh (Communist) regime in no time.

 

But most fortunately, it was Harry Truman at the helm, who would literally terrify Stalin out of Iran-- purely on a bluff. 

 

Truman-- immediately upon being sworn-in-- recognized Stalin's true intention: Communist expansion, not only into eastern Europe, but also into the oil-rich Mideast.

 

But Stalin believed that America was ready to follow the lead of the late, liberal, trusting FDR, calculating that Truman would not at all want to risk extending the war onto a new front (Mideast). Stalin would be proven wrong-- very wrong!

 

Truman immediately had made up his mind; he would send Ambassador Walter Bedell Smith to personally meet with Stalin in the Kremlin, to deliver the most "strongly worded" message in presidential history.

 

But for the sake of historical context, a little backround on the country formerly known as "Persia." 

 

In 1908, British colonials discovered oil in Persia, and formed the Anglo-Persian Oil Company-- later evolving into British Petroleum.

 

After World War I, Persia's ruler, Ahmad Shah, proved to be grossly incompetent, and in 1921, the pro- British "Reza Khan Merpanji" (1877-1944) was put on the throne, who then changed his name to "Pahlavi" (in deference to an ancient Persian language translation).

 

But the "Reza Khan move" eventually backfired on the British.

 

Ol' Reezy turned out to be a political weathervane, and in betrayal, he decided to entreat Adolf Hitler in Germany, even going so far as to decree that Persia would henceforth be known as "Iran," meaning..."Land of Aryans".

Hitler felt genuinely complimented that the country had re-named itself as home of the "Master Race", and recognizing Iran's strategic importance, a German-Persian alliance was formed in 1939 after the start of the war.

 

The Allies, greatly alarmed, invaded Tehran in August 1941 and deposed the pro-Nazi Reza Khan, installing his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (1917-1980) as the next leader.

 

The Russians stayed in Iran until Autumn, l942 when they were forced to withdraw and reinforce their army against Hitler's invasion into Stalingrad. 

 

To this day, historians question Hitler's stubborn refusal to allow his huge Stalingrad force to surrender. But if one examines the world map in mid-1942, it reveals expansionist Nazi armies; one moving east toward the Suez under Rommel, and a huge, 600,000 man force moving south on Stalingrad under von Paulus.

 

If Hitler had struck at Stalingrad only 3 months earlier, he would have taken the city, moved south to hook up with the Iranians, and could have met Rommel closing in from the west--possibly winning the war as early as mid 1943.

 

Stalin (like Hitler) understood Iran's strategic importance, so upon meeting with FDR and Churchill at the Tehran Conference at the end of 1943, Stalin conned the trusting Roosevelt, and agreed..."In exchange for continued U.S. aid, I will make no post-war move on Iran." 

 

This was one of many of Stalin's big lies, which set the stage for Roosevelt's disastrous giveaway at Yalta.

Four months after Roosevelt's death, Stalin dispatched a Red Army column to march from Soviet Azerbaijan across the border to Iran, with orders to seize the capital, Tehran. 

 

Now enter the firebrand, no-nonsense persona of Harry Truman, who--via his ambassador-- then delivered his fateful "ultimatum" to Stalin, which in so many words had said:

 

"Dear Mr. Stalin; we think you're just a bit out of bounds, and have violated your agreement at Tehran. Thus, if you recall the 2 big bombs we recently dropped on Japan, if your army doesn't withdraw from the Iranian border within 48 hours, I will immediately dispatch ANOTHER atomic bomb mission from our bases in Libya, and drop the next one right on their fur-capped Soviet heads!" 

 

Stalin complied--and rather quickly.

 

But liberal, revisionist historians have downplayed Truman; so you hear little of the heroic stand he took against Stalin at the end of hostilities in 1945, when the U.S. actually had no THIRD atomic bomb.

But what if Truman had not bluffed Stalin? The entire Mideast map of post-World War II might have gone all Communist, and to this very day, the Russians might be the ones we would be paying for imported oil, instead of OPEC.

 

Indeed, history has completely ignored Truman's sheer cunning;

 

The U.S. was at least 6 months away from assembling a third atomic bomb. But the media despised the blunt-talking, monotone-voiced Missourian, being the reason why it took so long for Truman to take his rightful place in history as perhaps the boldest and most intuitive president of the 20th century.

 

And on the flip side of fate, what if FDR dies a month EARLIER, say around March 12, 1945?

 

It's not the least bit of a stretch that a highly-aggressive George Patton would have told a newly sworn-in Harry Truman..."Mr. President, l can chase these Russkies all the way back to the Ukraine-- just gimme the green light!"

 

By March '45, given the arrival of the newly-upgraded, General Pershing tanks, replete with a high-velocity 90 mm. main gun, and the legions of B-24 & B-17 bombers-- plus heavily-armed P-51 Mustang and P-47 Thunderbolt fighters (6 or 8 .50-caliber Browning machine guns)-- the United States was indeed the most powerful war machine the world had ever seen.

 

And despite the numerical superiority of the Soviet armies on the ground, the Americans could have thrown 10 times as much steel as the backwardly-armed Russians (particularly the Red Air Force), and General Patton, and 8th Air Force General Curtiss LeMay, could have blasted the Soviets all the way back to the Ural Mountains-- and beyond.

 

And  the Cold War? it would have been nothing but a figment in Winston Churchill's imagination.

 

But what would FDR have done if he had lived 6 more months? Let's pontificate:

 

In his trusting liberal heart, FDR may have told his generals..."Oh, let Mr. Stalin go; he can have Iran, it's only fair; the Russians did most of the anti-Nazi fighting; they're our allies; no sense in arguing; bring our boys home; we have no interest in those deserts; we've got plenty of oil back here at home"... etc.

 

And in a perverse way of reasoning, if not for Roosevelt's April,1945 cerebro-vascular accident (stroke), what then? In retrospect, it may have been one of the most fortunate "accidents" in modern world history.

 

Beginning with FDR (and his Yalta fiasco) liberal presidents have always trusted our enemies, and have had a compulsion to be "fair" to them. But  fortunately (for America) a conservative president came along every time to sweep up the mess.

 

In the post-war era, it was the liberal Texan, Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), who decided to escalate a regional overseas conflict into a full blown war (Vietnam), for reasons that are only known to him.

 

But Johnson not only blundered America into an unnecessary conflict, the LBJ presidency was also germane in debasing our currency.

 

In the late 60's, Vietnam war costs were spiraling out of control. The Pentagon's war budget was exploding; inflation was bubbling up. The dollar was sinking.

 

So Mr. Johnson 'cleverly' decided to set a economic precedent that has flourished to this very day-- unleash a new federal reserve strategy-- run the printing presses.

In all its previous wars, the U.S. had enacted either tax hikes, or selling what the old timers refer to as "war bonds". But LBJ had the fed crank out approximately 80 billion in unbacked paper currency, to keep his Great Society ship of state afloat.

 

So by March of 1971, the wolf was at the Whitehouse door, and with inflation spiraling out of control, Nixon was forced to abandon the gold standard, and the irreparable damage to the U.S. dollar had been done-- never again would it be pegged to the price of gold-- it would float up or down in relation to the other currencies of the world.

 

Then in 1977, liberal democrat Jimmy Carter (Mr. Human Rights), immediately began his naive destruction of our foreign intelligence agencies, approving the firing of 400 of our best CIA agents(many of them in the Mideast)-- an ongoing disaster that has affected America calamitously to the present day.

 

Carter intuitively MISUNDERSTOOD the depths of hatred that the radical Islamist movement would have toward America.

 

Once the surprise revelation became known that the Shah of Iran was in trouble, Carter actually sided WITH Ayatollah Khomeini, because he, like himself, was a "religious man", and would "never violate the human rights of the Iranian people" as the Shah had done with his secret police force (SAVAK).

 

Carter foolishly failed to realize that Khomeini could actually be more "unfair" than the Shah; and would employ Iran's oil revenues AGAINST the United States.

 

Carter let the Shah fall in ignominy. And just as history blames Roosevelt for the Cold War, Carter could be considered the defacto founder of radical Islam.

 

And what about the liberal Bill Clinton, and his baseless trusting of our "ally," the Chinese?

 

In February of 1996, President Clinton authorized the export of critical booster-rocket and satellite technology to China, undercutting the Justice Department's investigation that it would greatly harm U.S. national security.

 

A New York Times reporter uncovered the actual plot:

 

In an admission by Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung, it was revealed a quid-pro-quo had occurred-- Clinton had received nearly $100,000 in Chinese "contributions" for his re-election campaign of 1996.

 

Currently, China is practicing how to shoot down orbiting satellites; and to our peril, the media has deliberately ignored Clinton's responsibility, having saved China approximately 15-20 years of difficult research-- all for campaign contributions. 

 

And now that the Chinese are flush with cash (most of it ours) they are going all-out to develop a threat the U.S. hasn't witnessed since Stalin acquired our hydrogen bomb secrets in 1949: the DF- 21 missile, a  'kill weapon' to target & destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

 

The DF-21 rises above the atmosphere at Mach-10, then plunges rapidly with "smart bomb" guidance capability to strike a large moving target at sea-- thereby rendering the U.S. naval carrier umbrella almost useless.

Imagine all American carriers-- going the way of the World War II battleships-- becoming obsolete almost overnight; all through the courtesy of Mr. William Jefferson Clinton.

Clinton's reckless actions with China may now have now greased the skids for a possible future war, but you'll never hear about it in the pro-liberal media, who-- ever since the days of FDR-- have covered up the sinful mistakes of democrats, and the reason why the U.S. military is as necessary now as it was in 1941, or at any other time in America's storied history.

 

But despite all the negative slant of the media, the United States has been an honorable country, and has never kept territory, or plundered any land we've conquered.

 

November 30, 1775...one of the most important sessions of the Continental Congress.

On the recommendation of Benjamin Franklin, the "original CIA" was established; it would be known as the "Committee of Secret Correspondence," founded on the premise..."It is of utmost consequence to the cause of liberty that the Committee be kept informed of developments in Europe, to find out the disposition of foreign powers towards us;  therefore, circumspection and impenetrable security are necessary."

One of the Committee's most exemplary American agents was Captain David Gray of Massachusetts. Posing undercover as a deserter, Gray became the courier for Major Oliver DeLancey, Jr., the head of the British secret service in New York.

It was the original "spy-vs-spy" episode in American history:

For two years, Captain Gray successfully penetrated the principal communications' link of the British secret service, leading to the capture of a "John Anderson", who purportedly had knowledge of the impending surrender of a major Patriot installation-- the strategic fortress of West Point.

Upon discovering that "John Anderson" had passed through the lines en route to General Benedict Arnold- the traitorous commander at West Point-- Captain Gray had Anderson apprehended, and after "vigorous interrogation," the undercover agent admitted to his true identity-- the infamous Major Andre--and was summarily tried, convicted, and executed as a British spy.

Benedict Arnold, learning that Andre had been taken, at once fled West Point and joined the British forces. Then Washington's reinforcements arrived, and a military calamity was averted thanks to the counter-intelligence work of Captain Gray.

Had the Americans not uncovered Benedict Arnold's plot to hand over West point, the Revolutionary War may have had an entirely different outcome. The British would have seized this vital location at the bend in the Hudson River north of New York, and bisected the colonies in two-- entirely sealing off New England.

From the outset of the Revolutionary war, General Washington had always demanded effective counterintelligence work from his subordinates.

To offset British numerical superiority in firepower and troops, Washington made frequent use of deception, allowing fabricated documents to fall into the hands of enemy agents. His couriers carried bogus information, and then allowed themselves to be "captured" by the British.

Washington would insert clever forgeries into intercepted British pouches, which were then permitted to reach their destination. He often would construct fake military fortifications to confuse the enemy.

Washington managed to make the British believe that his three-thousand-man army outside Philadelphia was a full forty-thousand strong, which is the reason why the English never did attack the city back in early 1777, when it was highly vulnerable.

To this day, most Americans have failed to grasp the seminal importance that accurate information (gleaned through espionage) had in America's amazing victory over the vastly superior forces of the British. American intelligence proved to be the "great equalizer" that enabled the Continentals to survive and eventually win their war of independence.

Even a century and a half later, the tiny democratic state of Israel was founded along a similar path, due to their legendary CIA-type spy organization, the Mossad.

To this day, the Mossad remains cloaked in myth. It was formed on April 1,1951. Mossad translated exactly is..."Ha-Mossad le-Modiin ule-Tafkidim Meyuhadim"--the Institution for Intelligence and Special Tasks.

Without a doubt, the Mossad's most fabled work was the discovery of Egyptian President Gamal Nasser's plans for a joint Arab strike to annihilate Israel--the 6-Day War.

On May 27,1967 Egypt, Jordan and Syria had planned a surprise combined ground & air operation. However, Israeli intelligence had gotten wind of the plan (called " Operation Dawn") and transmitted it to defense minister Moshe Dayan.

In an excerpt from the June 14,1967 edition of TIME magazine, we get a grasp of the splendid performance of the Mossad in enabling the Israeli air force to foil the surprise attack:

"...By the end of the first day's fighting, some 400 warplanes of five Arab nations had been obliterated. Egypt alone lost 300, Syria 60, Jordan 35. The cost to Israel's 400-fighter air force was 19 planes and pilots, mostly downed by ground fire. In a few astonishing hours of incredibly accurate bombing, Israel erased an expensive decade of Russian military aid to the Arab world."

Of course, the real key was Israel's ability to mount a surprise pre-emptive strike that crippled its Arab enemies, before they themselves could move against the Jewish State.

At its founding, the Mossad's original motto had been..."By Way of Deception, Thou Shalt Avoid War." But their new shibboleth (slogan) has evolved to: "For lack of guidance, a nation falls, but many advisers make victory sure."

But going back to 1775, what if there had been "liberal opposition" in the Continental Congress, and they had voted down Franklin's suggestion of a secret spy agency, because it would amount to "playing unfair?" Would the 'rebels' have lasted 'till 1781, and eventually win the Revolutionary war?

And where would Israel be today if back in1951, liberals had seized the Knesset (Jewish parliament) and voted against the formation of the Mossad, because it would require deception, lying, and cause to the world to "not like" the new country of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust.

During the Second World War, the OSS (America's forerunner to the CIA) did an incredible job in conjunction with the British Secret Service in deceiving Hitler before D-Day-- misleading the Nazis to where the attack would actually  occur--which historians agree was key to the Allied victory in the war.

And who doubts (besides liberals) that the Allied victory— with countless covert operations and massive deception—served a just cause, and was morally superior to permitting an Axis victory, which would have enslaved the Western world.

But after the war, when the CIA was formed-- out of deep moral and political confusion-- some American liberals equated the agency with the KGB, and sought to "get even" for all the lying and deception.

And it was the liberal betrayal of America's most guarded military secret, the atomic bomb, that enabled the Soviets to keep pace with America, and prolong the Cold war for 40 frightening years.

From 1946-47, it was the Rosenbergs (Julius & Ethel) who passed US atomic bomb secrets to Stalin. Then, in 1948, Alger Hiss passed the workings of the hydrogen bomb to the Soviets.

In both cases, neither were paid well; it was liberal betrayal of their homeland for reasons of profound disdain of America, who had used "inhumane" means (the BOMB) to end the war in August ,1945.

In fact, Julius Rosenberg’s secret KGB code name was "Liberal". And it was his wife Ethel, who recruited her brother, David Greenglass, to covertly steal nuclear secrets. Greenglass not only provided the Soviets with a sketch of the fuse for the atomic bomb, but also gave them a complete diagram for a prototype.

Then, another liberal traitor who worked for the CIA in the 1960's, Philip Agee-- a bitter critic of U.S. foreign policy--infuriated American intelligence officials by naming agency operatives in his 1975 book.

Agee quit the CIA in 1969 after 12 years working mostly in Latin America, when leftist movements were gaining sympathizers. His book, "Inside the Company: CIA Diary," cited alleged CIA misdeeds against leftists in the region, and included a 22-page list of purported agents, and exposed a CIA station chief, Richard S. Welch, who was later killed by leftist terrorists in Athens.

Agee's actions in the 1970s inspired a law criminalizing the exposure of covert U.S. operatives.

Then in the late 70's, CIA critics like liberal Idaho Senator Frank Church (under the guise of congressional oversight), severely restricted CIA covert operations, after a series of public hearings which vilified the agency for its actions during Vietnam & Watergate.

But the emasculation of CIA activities reached its apogee under President Carter’s CIA Director, Stansfield Turner.

In 1977, Turner fired 400 of the CIA's best experts that kept an eye on the Middle East. This demoralized the entire U.S. intelligence community, and made it virtually impossible to respond to the Iran hostage crisis the following year.

These self-inflicted wounds also contributed to serious U.S. reverses in Angola, Ethiopia, Iran, and Afghanistan. But to this day, the surviving members of that late 1970's Congress (and the Carter White House) stubbornly refuse to take the blame for these disastrous blunders.

But now, after 50-plus years of liberals getting even with America, the peril to the CIA still persists with perhaps its most grave threat ever-- the election of Barack Obama-- the charlatan master of presidential double-speak, who will now release compromising memos of CIA practices to end the "War on Terror".

Mr. Obama recently announced..."the CIA has my full support."

Translation: "But interrogation is out forever."

Jimmy Carter saw fit to castrate the CIA's personnel in 1977; and now, Obama seeks to put the icing on the cake by emasculating the agencies' basic ability to function.

This is like sending soldiers into battle with unloaded rifles-- just what you'd expect from our anti-military, anti-security, anti-president, who prefers to be nice to our enemies, have the world like us, and that way, the Muslim terrorists will just melt away like last winter's snow.

"The United States is a nation of laws,'' Obama said. "My administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals.''
 
Translation: I will make sure the CIA now operates like the Red Cross, and will give aid & comfort to our enemies.

In Obama's nirvana, we see a perfect liberal world...everyone just be nice... be happy toward our enemies...no bad spies telling lies...no evil deception...no terrible torture...just wonderful, straightforward revelations of U.S. intelligence secrets, and the whole world will nod in unanimous approval!

Yes-- just like little children-- we'll show you ours, and you will show us yours; and Obama will appoint Pollyanna as head of the CIA. Just pretend we have no enemies; and pretend there are no plans for incipient attacks against us.

Just get the nice, Muslim extremists to promise that they will never again plot against us, or force an American to kneel on the floor while they saw his head off-- all while being videotaped for Al-Jazeera.

And according to Mr. Obama, we certainly don't want to support a terrorist-like organization like the CIA within our country, do we? That's why we are the good guys. We follow a certain set of rules. When we do this, we make many allies, and the whole world now loves us.

And to make sure everyone behaves, Obama will get Congress to pass a law outlawing evil in the world, and everything will be all hunky-dory for time immemorial.

T.S. Eliot once wrote: "Espionage is a wilderness of mirrors, a necessary evil...and when properly conducted, spying and covert action are necessary and good in a just struggle."

And who besides the liberal traitors in Washington, could possibly doubt that American’s war against terror is not just?

Espionage is as old as history itself.

In the Old Testament, we read that Moses sent spies into the land of Canaan, to see "whither the cities they dwell in are camps, or strongholds.” (Numbers: 13:17-19)

Technology has changed, but evil (which Obama pretends no longer exists) never goes out of style.

The enduring need for espionage was even acknowledged in a parable of Jesus... “What king will march to battle against another king, without first sitting down to consider whether with ten thousand men, he can face an enemy coming to meet him with twenty thousand?" (Luke 14:31-32)

Winston Churchill wrote..."In wartime, truth is so precious, that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

But in the fantasy liberal world of Barack Obama, if there is ANOTHER terrorist attack in the United States, will he bear the yoke of the tragedy-- or is it beyond his pay grade?


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

QUOTE: "A liberal is one who believes in using a non-violent, tolerant and democratic way to direct the forces of education, publicity, politics, economics, business, law and religion, which will bring peace and the maximum of well-being to the greatest number of human beings...Henry Wallace (circa 1953).

Henry Wallace? Does anyone even recall who this ultra-liberal was...or what he did?

Wallace was Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of Agriculture from 1933 to 1940, and Vice President from 1941 to 1944, and is basically regarded as little more than a blip on the timeline of American history.

But he is best known as being FDR's most liberal lieutenant-- a man whose determination to "fashion a better world" made him (in the words of John Kenneth Galbraith), "second only to Roosevelt as the most important figure of the New Deal."

As you would expect of any idealistic liberal, Wallace bravely championed big-government programs--the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the Soil Conservation Service, the Farm Credit Administration-- and founded the New Deal's version of food stamp and school lunch programs.

Wallace was the Ted Kennedy of his time, and of course, he would have been a shoe-in to become one of Obama's right-hand cronies were he alive today.

During the1930's, Walllace's growing stature as a broad-based liberal caught the eye of FDR, and in the summer of 1940 (after making the decision to run for an unprecedented third term), Roosevelt selected Wallace for the vice-presidency.

But in the summer of 1944, the fate of America took a turn which would affect history down to its very foundations, and altered the course of time in a seminal (and most fortunate) way:

At the '44 democratic convention, bitter wounds remained from the aftermath of Wallace's 1940 nomination, and when it came time for FDR to choose a running mate, he discovered Wallace faced fierce opposition among the democratic party leadership.

Exhausted by war (and not up for a floor fight) Roosevelt offered Wallace only a limited endorsement to the convention, saying that..."he would be glad to run with Senator Harry S. Truman, or Justice William O. Douglas, should they be selected." Wallace's support quickly dissolved, and the VP nomination went to Truman.

In retrospect, we can look back and see it was good ole American regional politics that saved the day for our country, and the Supreme Being had intervened. In April, 1945, Roosevelt collapsed from a cerebral hemorrhage, and Truman became his successor in the Oval office.

Then on August 6, 1945, the B-29 crew of the "Enola Gay" dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. But it took a second Nagasaki bomb, otherwise the obstinate Japanese would not have stopped the conflict. It was their militaristic culture that would have prevailed over the futility of continuing a hopeless war.

If you were an American serviceman slated to invade Japan in late 1945, the Bomb was the greatest thing on earth. It stopped the Japanese from fighting. It saved countless lives on both sides.

But what if Truman had also been a liberal, and as Wallace put it..."one who believes in using a non-violent, tolerant and democratic way to direct the forces of democracy."  What would have been the fate of all those World War II soldiers and sailors back then?

After the bloody capture of Okinawa, the U.S. military began preparations for the greatest invasion that NEVER was-- thank God and President Harry Truman.

Plans for “Operation Downfall" --the invasion of Japan-- called for two massive military operations. The first invasion was code-named “Operation Olympic,” and scheduled for Nov. 1, 1945, to hit the island of Kyushu. The second invasion was scheduled for March 1, 1946, code-named “Operation Coronet,” and would be an attack on the main island of Honshu.

Historians estimate that if the invasion of the Japanese homeland had actually occurred, one million Americans would not have returned back home to mom after the war.

To this day, conservative arguments defending President Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb are still raging, as liberals decry the brutality of incinerating over 100,000 Japanese.

EXAMPLE: In Obama's G-20 trip to Europe, he all but went out of his way to apologize for Truman's use of the bomb. And if Truman were alive today, Eric Holder would undoubtedly be threatening hearings for "crimes against humanity."

In the research room collection of published materials in the Harry S. Truman Library, one of the stories in 1995 was titled: “Sailor Had No Qualms About Use of Bomb." In a quote from that sailor, we can see just how fortunate it was that Truman had acted decisively..."To the many thousands of us who were spared, Harry Truman was our savior, and made the right decision."

But what would Henry Wallace have done, if it had been HE that succeeded Roosevelt as president, instead of Truman?

One can only conclude Wallace would have nixed the Bomb as "being unfair" and "in-humane," and the invasion of Japan's homeland would have gone forth, and perhaps cost America more casualties than ALL of our other previous wars combined--and possibly the war would not have ended until 1947.

Even 20 years later, holdout Japanese soldiers were still being discovered on remote Pacific islands, so fanatical was their resistance to their American enemies, and their dedication and willingness to fight to the end.

And in the early 1950's, were it not for the ultra-rightist Wisconsin senator, Joe McCarthy,  who knows how many more Communist sympathizers could have been organized into a leftist faction, and possibly seized control of the democratic party back then, just as the liberals in Congress have done today.

If it hadn’t been for McCarthy, there may have been no president Kennedy, but instead, a democratic liberal candidate opposing Richard Nixon in the election of 1960.  And had a democratic liberal been in the Whitehouse back then, what would have been the outcome in the Cold War's greatest showdown, the Cuban missile crisis?

What would a weak foreign policy liberal have done against the blustering Soviet bully, Nikita Khruschev, back in Fall of 1962? Would he have sold out America for "peace in our time" (ala Neville Chamberlain)?

Imagine how different American history would have gone if Cuba had become an armed nuclear camp-- 90 miles off the coast of Florida-- were it not for the heroic, iron-willed decisiveness of John F. Kennedy. How would events have gone for America if the Russians had installed nuclear missiles, that were aimed directly down our throats?

In the 70's, ultra-liberal Jimmie Carter may have been a nuclear engineer in the Navy, but the appointment of his college roommate, Stansfield Turner-- who literally destroyed the CIA in 1977-- has had repercussions to this very day, and could trigger the next nuclear attack, possibly in the Mideast.

Also during the 1970's, the U.S. Senate held highly politicized, public hearings on CIA operations. The Senate investigating committee was chaired by Idaho's Frank Church, a liberal Democrat who craved the presidency.

Now lets play what if: What if Church had defeated Carter for the democratic nomination in 1980, and had gone onto defeat Ronald Reagan? What would have been the course for America in the1980's?

Would Church have ordered the bombing of Libya, which removed another possible Muslim terrorist dictator (Moammar Khadaffi) from the world stage? Would Church have ordered the buildup to a 600-ship ocean Navy? Would the Soviets have detected another spineless, treasonous, lily liberal in the Whitehouse like Carter, and chose to escalate--rather than end-- the Cold War?

And what about now, with Mr. Appeaser himself-- Barack O'Carter Obama-- calling our foreign policy shots?

So far, Mr. Obama has a nearly spotless record.

As a polar opposite of John Kennedy, Obama chose to back down to the threat of another Communist dictator-- Kim Jong IL-- in the recent North Korean missile crisis.

All Mr. Obama would need to have done is show a little spine, and simply had Jong's missile blown up on the launch pad. The result? Right along with his missile, Kim Jong's blustery dictatorship may have toppled, and perhaps a less repressive "administration" would've taken over, and ceased the mindless funding of North Korea's military in lieu of feeding the famished population.

Kim Jong has literally starved his hapless country to death-- there are no small animals or birds left in North Korea, because the people have hunted them to virtual extinction, so desperate are they for food.

But our great liberal humanitarian, Barack Obama, chose the Carter-esque, non-confrontational way out, and opted for a strongly-worded UN resolution, to which Kim has reacted by thumbing his nose at America.

Now-- having successfully tested his missile to the third stage-- Kim Jong will be able to sell them to the Iranians, the Syrians, and possibly even Chavez and Raul Castro in the Western hemisphere, and could eventually precipitate yet
ANOTHER Cuban missile crisis.

You can always count on liberals to bring upon war, in the name of championing peace. It's called "brinkmanship"-- the same thing Hitler did in Czechoslovakia in the late 1930's, Stalin did in Berlin in the late 1940's, and what Krushchev did in the early 60's in Cuba.

All of these events changed the course of world history as a result of either a liberal backing down (i.e. Neville Chamberlain), or a forceful leader standing firm (Truman & Kennedy).

And now, for his next liberal trick, Barack O'Carter will appease the Iranians, who will be thrilled to talk about "peaceful uses" for their nuclear program-- grateful for the opportunity  to keep increasing the number of centrifuges they buy from the Russians-- and will howl behind Obama's back as he grants them the one critical facet to facilitate their nuclear weapon program to completion--TIME.

By "talking" to the Iranians, does our anti-president even realiize he's giving them time? Does Obama understand that Vladimir Putin is the one behind the push for a nuclear Iran, as the Russian economy has collapsed along with the price of oil?

Mr. Putin would be thrilled to witness the outbreak of yet another Mideast war, where Iran launches a missile strike at Israel, and blocks the Strait of Hormuz-- and the price of oil skyrockets as Mideast oil imports cease.

And would Obama then hide in the Whitehouse, as he did recently during the Somali piracy incident? Would he retaliate with a "strongly-worded resolution" against Iran from the UN, and wait for the world "to come together" to stop the fanatical Mamoud Akmidinejad?

Meanwhile, the fate of Israel would hang in the balance; the Russian economy would be 'stimulated' with a wartime price of $200/ barrel oil; the US would be caught flat-footed, and our strategic petroleum reserve would be quickly bled dry.

Now lacking oil, our military would not even be able to sustain itself in the event war was unavoidable.

Throughout history-- whenever liberalism meets fanaticism--- fanaticism wins, and people suffer grievously as a result.

Be it war or any political confrontation, the liberal doctrine (as defined by Henry Wallace) that believes in a non-violent, tolerant and democratic way, ALWAYS invites that very conflict which the liberals seek to avoid.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Here's a couple of quotes that'll shake your booty:

Quote #1: "If you tell a lie BIG ENOUGH and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the consequences of the lie...Thus it becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress the truth, for truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

These chilling words were brought to you by the infamous Joseph Goebbels-- Hitler's propaganda minister; circa 1935.

Quote #2: “A lie told OFTEN ENOUGH becomes truth" (unquote). And these words of marxist wisdom were written by Vladimir Lenin, first head honcho of the Communist revolution; circa 1919.

And 50 years hence, there came a third quote from one James Hansen, who in 1970, released his earth-convulsing statement on climate change: (quote) "The world was warming, and greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels were the reason" (unquote).

And back then (as it is now) it's still the biggest lie and potential scam ever known to all mankind.

Mr. Hansen-- former NASA scientist and renowned researcher-- now speaks of an approaching worldwide "zero-hour", predicting a hellish rise this century of 5.3 to 7.2 F* in average temperatures, and warns that melting polar ice sheets will swamp Manhattan with 18 inches of seawater within the next decade!

And Hansen claims it's fact--NOT a theory-- because he understands the 'carbon cycle' well enough to forecast, (quote) "Civilization has a only a 10-year window of opportunity for decisive action to avert catastrophe."

Holy inferno Batman! This guy makes Gore look tame by comparison.

And then we have a fourth quote from another well known liberal prevaricator, Tom Brokaw, deposed NBC news anchor, who hosted a recent special on the Discovery Channel entitled, "Global Warming- the New Challenge", where Mr. Brokaw declares that, (quote) "Global warming is real, and is getting worse."

But this then begs the question: If global warming is real and getting worse...why the necessity of sounding an alarm? Wouldn't we ALREADY be aware of this?

But in actuality, there's a growing body of evidence that earth has been COOLING over the last decade, and opinion is shifting to the view that global warming is actually "gullible warming"--a fraud perpetrated by liberals and their scientific minions-- all geared toward propagating fear, and using it to wrest control of our lives-- and our wallets.

Global warmongers never seem to shrink from their task at hand. Like a sinewy nest of frenetic ants, they tirelessly work to fabricate a facade of lies, "justifying" their pretension that ALL of science is on board with man-made global warming, and their accompanying worn out exhortation: "We MUST act now!"

But what if fossil fuels were outlawed, yet the poles kept melting and hurricanes actually were intensifying? What would the global warmongers say then?

Earth's history abounds with climate changes. But politics is now dictating that we plunge into game-changing economic proposals (such as cap-'n-trade) before any proof of cause.

The proposed scam of cap and trade projects to vacuum 700 billion dollars from the private sector in what amounts to energy taxation, which will catastrophically shrink our economy and cost the average household an additional $1,300 a year in utility bills--all for the purpose of attacking fossil fuels, which provide 85% of America's energy.

Meanwhile, so called "scientists" such as Mr. Hansen, continue to recite the standard liberal party line..."Fossil fuel use will in time, doom the earth".

But will it?

With the recent spate of bitterly cold winter weather in the U.S. and Europe, it's become obvious to the point of being ridiculous: Science and global warming are not joined at the hip.

True evidence of global warming would require validation by scientific equations-- they are the key measure to derive proof of discovery, and validate any claim or prediction. But to this day, nothing in the way of actual scientific evidence exists-- only computer models-- which can be fabricated to project any point of view, and make it seem factual.

Scientific equations provide ABSOLUTE physical basis for all of Newton's laws; and these can be easily applied to refute gullible (global) warming.

We know heat is energy; and burning any form of energy (or matter) cannot create more or less energy--  proving Sir Isaac Newton's First Law.  But this proof has been decidedly absent from the fray where it pertains to fossil fuels, and the heating of the atmosphere.

Newton's Law indisputably proves that significant warming is NOT a by-product of fossil-fuel combustion, otherwise Los Angeles-- with the world's largest density of motor vehicles--would be the hottest city on earth. But it is NOT, because Sir Isaac Newton's First Law is impossible to violate.

But for the global warmongering fundamentalists, no amount of contradictory science can shake their "faith"-- or their lies.

Nowadays, because so few people now possess even a rudimentary grasp of science, the warnings of the Alarmists are held dogmatic. Thus people obligingly ascribe to the fallacy that CO2 emissions will inevitably evoke calamity with earth's climate.

And to backup their false pretexts, the Alarmists now have us riding a merry-go-round of conflicting terminology: pollution...greenhouse gas... warming... CO2 emissions.... climate change-- all have become subtly intertwined to make them seem interchangeable-- they are not!

But indeed, these terms are cleverly interchangeable in the Alarmist's lexicon. And this is the ball-of-confusion groundwork behind all the political correctness to vilify oil, glorify windmills and solar panels, and confusing CO2 with carbon monoxide (CO).

Scientific measurements prove atmospheric CO2 as a paltry 32 molecules per million, and in no way exists in dense enough quantity to influence much of anything--especially earth's temperature.

And carbon dioxide is not an air pollutant. All plant life depends on it.

CO2 is natural. It forms the bubbles in bread, champagne, and Coca-Cola. You breathe it out, and plants breathe it in. The earth contains much CO2, but the atmosphere contains so little that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rightly calls CO2 a “trace gas”. But the liberal media will have none of the truth.

So global warming continues to remain an unproven theory. Yet the Alarmists clamor that our carbon footprints will inexorably lead us into a global furnace of hell-- but always devoid of any scientific proof.

Truth can be inconvenient-- just ask  Al Gore. And recent statistical analysis from the University of Alabama (Huntsville) has caused Mr. Gore to remove his hockey-stick temperature graph and the weather slides from his powerpoint.

What we continue to be told (or not told) by the media amounts to censorship-- thus all the deception about gullible warming. More than 700 international scientists now dissent over man-made global warming claims. They comprise more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who support the media-hyped IPCC 2007 "Summary for Policymakers", which has only served to increase the controversy.

But the false Alarmists thrive on controversy. And the louder they warn, the more celebrity they receive. They're skilled in the art of obfuscation-- pollution can be seen-- but warming is invisible. And they're disobliging of the fact earth's climate ALWAYS changes through time.

So proof continues to "exist" either affirming global (gullible) warming, or that it's a hoax, depending on whomever is comprising the data.

But can global warming EVER be proved? Will Man's finite mind ever be capable of answering the infinitely complex questions about global interactions between weather, ocean currents, and the heat dynamics within earth's molten core?

Only the infinite intelligence of the Supreme Being can answer that.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Get out the wheelbarrows. Prepare for heavy lifting. Congress is setting us up for 1920's Germany, and the hyperinflation that once destabilized that country-- leading to the rise of a Austrian lad who's grandfather went by the name of Shicklegruber (Adolf Hitler).
 
In only the last five months, the U.S. overall money supply (M-I) has nearly tripled. M1 includes cash, total demand and government deposits with commercial banks, and money in all the federal reserve banks. And according to best current estimates, M2 (the current money supply in circulation) is hovering at just around 7 trillion dollars--give or take a few hundred billion.
 
But ho hum--a hundred billion here and a hundred billion there-- no big deal to a Congress bent on keeping themselves in power, while they simultaneously destroy every American wage earner's standard of living-- perhaps permanently.
 
Our hallowed 111th Congress is acting like a college freshmen who's just received his (her) first credit card, deficit spending as if they were awarded some unlimited ethereal financial prize, to be spent as one sees fit --with no accountability--and no consequences.
 
To an extent this is true.
 
Yes, long after the inevitable hyper-inflation overcomes America- perhaps ten, fifteen, or even 20 years down the road, the recklessly-spending Congressional perpetrators can choose not to run, and retire on federal pension worthy of a monarch.
 
But does anyone realize that this money the Congress is now delegating for stimulus, supplemental budget expenses, etc. isn't real money, or in fact, that it is not OUR money?

The money is not borrowed. The money is PRINTED.

Current amount of money in circulation (M2) = 7 trillion. Now add the 1 trillion anti-stimulus bill Obama signed into law recently, and every dollar American workers will now earn is worth 14.2% less-- just like that.
 
Now add the 410 billion supplemental budget federal spending bill (earmark-laden) that has just passed, and do the math again: $410 Billion divided by $7 Trillion = 5%. That's right sports fans, in just 3 weeks, your buck has just turned into little more than 6 bits...an inflation rate of almost 20% in less than a month!
 
And the wheelbarrow is getting heavier --basically amounting from more debt to pay off debt. Such fiscal brilliance! The "big money" liberals trying make the impossible possible-- printing money backed by nothing, pretending the interest is free (non-existent).
 
Nancy Pelosi wants a second anti-stimulus bill; Fed chairmen Bernacke says the first one "may not have been enough". Barney Frank is calling for more stimulus. Obama wants 600 billion for revamping (socializing) health care...a Congress running rampant with earmarks...Hillary wants almost a billion to rebuild Gaza. And always accompanied with that ad-nauseum exhortation: "We need to act now."
 
Sure: Act now-- but pay later-- and to what disastrous end?

But mysteriously this fiscal recklessness is never called into question by the media. Even Herbert Hoover would probably know that to add more debt onto an already growing $12.4 trillion existing pyramid of financial obligation would invite catastrophe.

The annual debt interest payment right now is at $600 billion--and growing--an unsustainable amount. Yet Obama and the Congress want to add another 3.4 trillion in deficit spending to fund a boundless plethora of unending federal programs--fiscal insanity on steroids!

Meanwhile, "the bearded one"- Ben Bernacke-- will be toiling away, printing all this "new money" in the fed basement.

And it matters not when Bernanke injects this newly printed money into the economy—it’s how much that counts, because all fed injections immediately act to distort the nation's production structure. The larger the injections (and the longer they continue) the larger will be the distortions. These "funny-money" injections equal more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and services-- ergo...inflation-- which exerts downward pressure on the value of the dollar.
 
With the eventual surging of prices at home, and a depreciating exchange rate, foreign holders of greenbacks might one day decide that they have had "enough"-- starting a run on the currency by dumping their dollar balances-- forcing the Fed to raise interest rates ever higher, and triggering a more devastating recession; or a scenario even worse than the original Great Depression-- a second hyperinflationary depression-- 1920's Germany revisited.
 
In a more simple analysis, let's say we've been building a debt pyramid over the last decade, and now we'll be adding huge new amounts to the base at the bottom, while all the while, the interest will be coalescing at the top. And given time and the continuation of reckless deficit spending, the debt pyramid may become distorted in shape-- growing top heavy-- and at last, it tips over.

Ergo...hyperinflation.

But our beloved anti-president, Mr. Barack Obama, will be long gone out of office when and if that occurs; and of course, living large on his ex-presidential pension.

So should the "average Joe" be mindful about WHEN and IF we do run out of the printing option? And how much of a concern should it be now for all Americans, who already have more than enough to worry about concerning the economy?

Could the world eventually become so flooded with PAPER dollars, that some of our lesser foreign creditors begin to say: "Okay Meester Bernacke...we hold enough of these flimsy dollars now, so if your foolish American Congress wants more credit, we'll need something more solid than all this paper currency in return."

So bye bye Fort Knox...hello national insolvency. And then what?

Then it'll be time to break out the Kruggerands (gold coins) hidden in the cellar, because American money won't be worth the paper it's printed on-- and the Fed won't even have enough credit left to purchase the the green ink.

And the OPEC countries and the Chinese (previously reluctant to dun their number one trading partner) will then be forced to pull their "debt  triggers", and deliver the final coupe de' gras. Then its turn out the lights America-- the party's over. We'll have descended into the financial nether existence of a third world nation, totally bereft of all liquid assets, with liabilities extending "as far as the eye can see..."

So Mexico-- prepare for a taste of your own medicine: Americans might one day be reverse-migrating into your territory, with all of them seeking a sense of survival after hyperinflation comes to the fore, and completely destroys the affluence of a once-proud and powerful nation.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Barack Obama has good intentions for America, but could his naivete and callow idealism spell danger for our country?
 
If he attempts to make friends with dictators who despise America, it could be interpreted as a sign of weakness. And weakness is provocative. It invites attack.
 
Obama sees himself in a different light. As president-elect of the United States, he has access to the international stage, and he knows the whole world is watching his every move. So he’ll have the platform to launch his grandiose idea of a new role for America, where everyone can now look to the United States as no longer the arrogant policemen of the world, but as a nation eager to play the role as friend to all mankind.
 
Obama is relying on his mythical powers of persuasion, and is confident that he can tread where no president has gone before; and that he can convince everyone (including the most implacable of our enemies) to be nice to America, just because of who he is...the Chosen One!
 
Yes-- Mr. Obama knows best about foreign policy; um-hmm; he's seen it all before. He's going to take a novel diplomatic approach...show everyone that it's a brand new shiny-happy world out there, because HE is the one that the whole world has been waiting for! A star on the world horizon has been born, and now all the world sees America in an all-new affirmative light.
 
Barack maintains that the old ways of diplomacy are out of touch with today's reality. He wants America to disarm unilaterally... stop all the space weaponry...ban all the missile-defenses. Just be nicey-nice to everyone, and the world shall forgive America for all its "misdeeds" of the past.  Apologists are in; tough negotiators are out. No more of that EITHER-OR  tough-stuff from the warmongering Bush.
 
But look back in American history at the presidents who rate the highest. No-nonsense, bare-knuckle negotiators like Harry Truman And Ronald Reagan, knew you don't take the nice-guy approach to totalitarianism and aggression. The original liberal, Franklin Roosevelt, tried that with Stalin near the end of World War II at Yalta, and disastrously brought upon the onset of Iron Curtain, and prolonged the bitter 40-year Cold War. Neville Chamberlain tried being accommodating to Adolph Hitler in 1939, and thus has gone down in history as the lily that appeased the despot, and ignited the Second World War.
 
At Yalta, Roosevelt naively succumbed to the "charm” of Josef Stalin, who had promised post-war elections in eastern Europe. It resulted in one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in U.S. history. The lesson we learned was simple...leaders from countries, not based in Christianity, have no reason to EVER tell the truth, or live up to diplomatic agreements.

DIctators have no moral standards. They deal in the either-or. Like Stalin at Yalta, they are quite willing to tell the Big Lie, and stall America into pacifism and inaction.  They only understand force. They consider only consequences.
 
Obama (he of the Second Camelot) is often compared to John F. Kennedy. But is this a fair comparison to a World War II hero, and a president who acted decisively under the extraordinary duress of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis? At that time, Kennedy was faced with the threat of nuclear missile attack by Nikita Khruschev.
 
But John Kennedy had seen and experienced bloody war before. His will of iron stood as a warning to Mr. Khruschev, and caused the Russian premier to blink during a time when an actual threat of a nuclear exchange hung in the balance. It was a shining moment in U.S. foreign policy history. Could Obama be as decisive in a touch-and-go situation?
 
Obama (the Arrogant One), has set upon a total contrarian path to all the historical lessons we've had to learn the hard way. Does he actually believe he could charm away the implacable positions of Moslem extremists; or that he could sweet talk a Hugo Chavez into a pro-American stance? Would his imperial ego countermand the level-headedness required of a president when the stakes are high, and decisive action (or inaction) is at hand?
 
As our next president who has never served, Mr. Obama must grasp the cold reality of wars; and he must be cognizant that an enemy plays for keeps...it's victory or defeat, no middle ground exists with a determined foe. You can't negotiate with fanatacism. In war, nice guys don't win. Defeat awaits the weak and the meek. Diplomacy begins only after you state your mission with all your pieces poised on the chessboard, with all your forces in position. THEN you play your cards from the side of strength, because the stronger player always holds the upper hand.
 
So, does Mr Obama realize diplomacy is NOT at all like running for office? Or does he ominously (and naively) believe in his own fairy tale, and that he alone could solve a foreign crisis merely because he's "cool enough", and so very worthy of admiration. Does he actually feel his rock-star persona would be preferable to the forceful will of a Kennedy or Reagan in a critical foreign situation?
 
Obama's energy policies are grounds for grave concern. They portend disaster. He professes radical environmentalism. He wants to abandon oil in favor of alternative energy. This all works great in an election campaign, but the grim reality is that America relies on OPEC for much of its oil, and any Mideast flare-up (or worse) will be undoubtedly accompanied by a supply disruption from the Persian Gulf. This would leave America vulnerable, and cripple our military in its most critical need-- the fuel to power our weapons and fly our planes!
 
But will his idealism be eclipsed by the realities on the ground in the Middle East? Does he believe that he, unlike any previous world leader, could smooth talk a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian impasse? What if the phlegmatic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a missile strike at Israel, what would (or could) Obama do?...send a strongly-worded message?...or call the Iranians and tell them to be nice?

Could his pacifism put us in an even more perilous energy position, and leave our military in the lurch without enough jet fuel, and high octane gasoline in a time of emergency?

Would his domestic stances (raising capital gains taxes... taxing the rich) for reasons of "fairness,” illustrate how he'd comport himself as the nation’s chief commander... always first deciding what would the FAIREST way to conduct a military conflict?
 
Conflict among humans never changes. It will always boil down to the haves vs. the have nots, be it between countries or within a nation. Life itself is never fair. But does Mr.Obama believe that war and conflicts should be treated as politics; and that in dealing with conflicts, America must always be fair?
 
Mr. Obama must examine his inner soul. He is now responsible for the entire western world. Should a crisis arise, there may be no time for talk. A president must always be ready to answer that out-of-the-blue, zero-hour call, for either decisive action, or inaction, to avert war. There may be no time to negotiate. You can't vote "PRESENT"; appeal to the U.N, or hide in the Whitehouse.

Mr Obama, that's the critical decision that you, the new president, may one day soon be forced to make. And we pray for your resolve to be able to rise to the occasion, should that time ever be at hand.

 

QUESTION: Who'll be next in the White house?  Just ask Wall Street. Calculate using this simple ratio: the higher the pre-election polls rise for Obama, the faster the Dow-Jones will tumble. The result? (in biblical parlance)..."and the blame shall falleth on George W. Bush". 

And in the parlance of Wall Street, the term "smart money", refers to those individuals who have the clearest crystal balls (i.e. the insiders). These are the people who "know people". And what are they telling each other?

"PSST...you know what I found out about that Obama? He's going to raise the dividend tax to 39.7% , and capital gains to 35% ! 

"WHAT?..." I'm selling BEFORE he gets in! 

Now magnify this scenario a few million more times around the world for the next few months, and it's not hard to perceive why the market will continue to churn, and then stumble ever lower until about 2011, when Obama is on the way out.

Wall Street is about creating wealth. Yes they are the capitalists. They are the people who seek to put their money where it can multiply, and create more wealth for them. They seek to invest where they see growth possibilities-- companies or industries where there is a bright future. Every investor on Wall Street , large or small,  is therefore,  a venture capitalist, seeking the creation of additional wealth.

But Obama, intentional or not , is about destroying wealth. Oppressive tax policies on the wealthy, destroy venture capital; destroy the most essential element of future economic expansion--M-O-N-E-Y! People seem to be thrown for a loop when the word 'capital' is tossed out there. That includes Barack Obama.

If Mr. Obama only could have a better grasp of the basic premise about wealth creation, he would learn ...the more you tax the wealthy, the faster capital shall flee this country, and seek fertile ground else where. EXAMPLE: Ireland has the lowest corporate tax in Europe (12.5%) and is experiencing a sizzling 7.5%  current rate of economic growth. China is growing at 8%.

But Comrade Obama is about socialism-- spreading the wealth around from a constantly shrinking source-- defying all economic logic. It is the formula for "Economic Failure 101"...seizing wealth from the producers, and giving it to the drones: attacking the growth phase of the economic base, and rewarding the stagnant segment. This implies shortages; this implies class envy.

The basic tenet of the Marx-Engels theory is class warfare..."the individual exists for The State!"...dismantling the anthill of the workers, and transferring their bounty to the do-nothing drones: encourage the people to be lax, and become a public dependent .

The basic socialist theory for retaining power is ..."tax the wealthy (the opposition) and distribute it to those who will vote for you (your base of support).  And when this dependent population ratio rises toward 45-50%, you retain power (i.e. re-election).

So now Comrade Obama's only challenge is to gain the power; so once again he refers to the time tested socialist textbook for the answer...tell the masses what will work for you, and gain their trust in you..."YES AMERICA...I'M GOING TO RAISE TAXES...BUT NOT YOURS!"

This class-warfare tenet for the ascension to power has worked unfailingly throughout any era in modern history; whether it was Lenin, Goebbels, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mobutu, Chavez, or Mugabe. But you must strike when the iron is hot (i.e. when times are bad, and the masses are angry).

So now everybody, we shall proceed to connect all the dots. Once again...the lower the Dow-Jones  tumbles... the madder the people will get, and the more likely they are to blame Bush, and vote for the democrats.

Is this all starting to sound familiar? Picture Obama  at one of his rock-star midwest campaign rallies..."Hello St Louis! (flashes his big Cheshire cat-grin)...Today, John McCain said he wants to give more tax cuts to Exxon and big oil...(BOO!) This is just more of the same failed policies of George Bush!  (BOOO!) But Its time we stop favoring Wall Street, and think about Main Street! (YAY!)...It's time we give the rest of America a break! (YAY!!)... I'm going to a give tax cut to the other 95 percent of America! (HOO-RAY!!)...America doesn't need another George Bush in the White house (YAY!)... That's how we will move America  forward (YAY!)... And that’s why I'm running for president of the United States! (WILD APPLAUSE) ...Thank you St Louis...and God bless America! (music plays...Obama steps off podium waving to wildly cheering crowd).

Tsk-tsk-tsk...oh well, they'll never learn. Okay now for all you nice, intelligent Obama-crats out there, it's time for your multiple choice question: What will America look like in just 4 years after the Obamunnism theory of taxation has taken hold? Just fill in the following blank:  economic______ (a) Devastation (b) Havoc (c) Destruction (d) Turmoil)
 
If Obama could only stop his vote-shopping speeches for once, and use some logic, then we could pose to him this obvious question..."Mr Obama sir...why would you think that with higher corporate taxes, companies would stay in the United States, when instead  they could save millions of dollars by opening in another country with a better deal?  (answer) "They won't."

In addition, corporations would migrate to where the labor costs are lowest. Next question: "Comrade Obama...did you ever hear of a country called China?"

Soon, Americans might be reverse-migrating into Mexico after this fanatical proponent of "being fair'', is through.

The impact on raising taxes on corporations is astounding. It drives business offshore, seeking new tax havens. It has nothing to do with not being patriotic. It's about staying competitive.This will take more jobs away from Americans, and stimulate another country's economy.

The funny thing is that 90 percent of the democrats, who pronounce Obama as their candidate, think that he will provide more jobs for the people.

The humor comes in knowing that the public doesn't understand the impact of what increasing corporate taxes really will have on the United States. But it's not funny at all. Does Obama really know what he is saying? Doesn't he understand that corporations open shop elsewhere because of the higher-priced taxes?

The most troubling aspect of all this is-- what if he DOES know this? Oh my gawd! Now we've really opened up a can of worms. Conspiracy!

Now, all of Obama's past associations begin to make sense.

No longer would it be a mystery of why he hung with characters like the honorable, most-reverend Jeremiah Wright, the despicable Billy Ayers, the odious Bernadine Dohrn, sweet Father Plager, and Louie-Louie Farrakhan. They all were cut from the same cloth...rabble rousers, and virulent anti-American radical thinkers. And, lest we not forget- ACORN!

And further coming into focus would be why he chose to launch his political campaign in Mr. & Mrs. Ayers' living room. Could it be that the fact is; Ayers and his wife chose him? They saw in Obama a man richly gifted in the skills of articulation, public oration, manipulation, and equanimity (cool under fire)...skills that would pretext someone who could change people's minds against their own best interests: A man so disarming in appearance and candor, that no one would ever suspect the devious nature within...a man who would turn America against itself.

Could this man be the anti-Christ of our democracy? He seems too intelligent, and has surrounded himself with so many economic experts, that how could he possibly NOT know the almost certain devastation it will do to our economy if he raised taxes during a downturn? Why would America even think of revisiting Herbert Hoover and 1931 again?

Haven't these democrats damaged the wealth of America enough? Look at the wealth destruction they have already wrought upon our country!

Nancy Pelosi (estimated net worth-- $25 million) as Speaker of the House, has blocked all Republican drilling bills from reaching the House floor for a vote. We have 4 trillion dollars worth of oil sitting in the ground around us. lt's liquid gold--4 TRILLION DOLLARS! Sitting wasted! For what? 

This is money that could go for investment. It's the money a deficit-plagued America needs at a most critical time. We could rebuild this country's infrastructure. We could invest in alternative energy vehicles: new money for corporate expansion; or for R&D toward high tech medical and pharmaceutical advancements; toward new inventions and hundreds of new entrepreneurial ideas; the list is endless.

But without capital, nothing can move move forward. And the democrats have chosen to stifle all this, and have declared our own resources to be illegal! And if they regain control of both the congress and the presidency, they wil keep it illegal!  And electing Obama would have a "coattails' effect-- more democrats in Congress, inviting more potential liberal devastation. Plus it would only encouraged Nazi Pelosi and her ilk, to legislate more leftist havoc upon us.

Other congressional Leftists like Senator Chuck Schumer (architect of, "we can't drill our way out") and Pelosi rant constantly against "Big Oil". They despise that hateful word, "profit". They are committed to never again permitting any additional domestic drilling, and seem quite content to export our money to OPEC. They're never questioned about this treason by our leftist media , so Americans are manipulated into political insanity, and are easily led to voting against their own best economic interests; and remain pacified by their big lie (we cant drill our way out").

So according to logic of this perfidious bunch, we should... keep our resources off-limits, buy our energy from OPEC, shrink our capital base further, which stifles economic growth; then pacify the expanding unemployed masses (i.e.unemployment benefits)...and further expand political power from those whom you have made newly dependent.

The moral of the Socialist theory? (1) Condemn the profitable (2) Make times seem worse than they really are (3) Get the masses to keep voting for you. Just ask Karl Marx: class warfare; class distinction; class envy; rich vs poor; basic manipulation; basic socialism-- convincing the people that they are getting what they should really want-- someone else's wealth. Why should they want more?

 A vote for Obama seems like irrational political exuberance to its most insane extreme.