Sept 7, 1964: Gallup polls reveal that democrat Lyndon Johnson, and Republican challenger Barry Goldwater, are in a virtual deadlock in the race for the Presidency.

October 7, 1964: the "Daisy" commercial-- the original negative TV ad -- airs on NBC for the first time.

Nov. 7, 1964 -- Lyndon Johnson wins "going away" in a landslide.

The Daisy commercial remains the most famous political ad of all time- it surpassed far beyond the democrats' wildest expectations:

It featured an innocent-looking, wide-eyed little girl in a field, counting every petal that she flicked off from a big daisy. Suddenly, a harsh voice-over interjects a reverse "military" countdown- which is followed by stark footage of a mushroom cloud rising ominously from a nuclear explosion.

The commercial was designed to impugn Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater as a dangerous, unstable warmonger. Americans became terrified over the possibility of Goldwater's proclivity to employ nuclear weapons in Vietnam, and voted to elect Johnson in droves. 

Ironically, after winning the election, it was only 8 months later that Johnson became the ONE who escalated the Vietnam conflict into a full-blown war, for reasons that-- to this day-- are known only to him.

Think of it: the false innuendo of one negative campaign ad had changed the course of American history-- and decidedly for the worse.

And today-- judging by the precedent of the daisy ad -- negative campaigning has become de rigeuer whenever the polls are close, or one candidate has fallen behind; campaign managers of both parties have  perfected negative ads to near art form:

In 1988, George Bush's "Willie Horton” ad blew the presidential race wide open against Michael Dukakis.

In 2004, it was the famous Republican "527" ads that "swift-boated" a hapless John Kerry to a narrow defeat.

In 2008. Barack Obama ran a blistering series of ads lampooning John McCain for his plan to tax employee health care benefits. But now, Mr. Obama’s government health reforms are back-tracking on his campaign pledge NOT to tax those very same benefits. 

Negative campaigns have become an easy, convenient way to basically lie your way into office. The average voter could view  99 truthful ads, but the one that would stand out in their mind (just before they checked their ballot) would be that ONE negative ad that they clearly recall.

Which bring us to the November 2008 "dead heat" Minnesota race-- the odious Al Franken vs. incumbent Norman Coleman- an election where 3 million votes were cast, yet the final margin was LESS than 500 votes -- the closest senatorial race in history. 

Sure, it was the evil antics of ACORN that had swung the highly-questionable recount to Franken; but that aside-- be it not forgotten-- it was Franken's incredibly harsh, last-minute series of blatantly false ads that caused the race to be so close in the first place. Otherwise, Coleman (the republican) would've triumphed.  

On October 31, 2008, a Minnesota Quinnipiac poll had found a worsening situation for Mr. Franken; he was far behind Coleman- 51 to 41. 

The most damaging of the Franken ads claimed..."Norm Coleman has been ranked the 4th MOST CORRUPT Senator by and independent watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW): the ad continued..."Coleman has been listed near the top as one of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress."

But as it turned out, Coleman was not on CREW's "corrupt" list, which contained only three Senators. Coleman was only listed on the group's "four to watch list" in their autumn report.

Another misleading Franken ad offered..."He (Coleman) voted to give billions of tax breaks to oil companies"..."Now they're raking in record profits, and we're paying four bucks a gallon for gas!"

Franken's obvious intent was to visually reinforce Coleman as a Bush "yes" man.

Yet another Franken ad implied Coleman's 'guilt by association': (quote) "Over 10,000 lakes in Minnesota, but where does Norm Coleman go fishing? Indicted Senator Ted Stevens flew him up to Alaska, and got big oil honchos to give thousands- just to fish with Norm”...”Now, one of the oil guys Norm went fishing with has been convicted of bribery!"

Next, the Franken campaign released an ad that hit an all time low-- even for a weasel like Al Franken:

Franken’s reprehensible portrayal all but accused Coleman of personally killing Army National Guard pilot Stuart Anderson: The ad centers on Nancy and Claremont Anderson, whose son died in January 2006, when his helicopter was shot down over Iraq.

(voice-over) "If Norm Coleman would have stood up to the President and said, 'This war's not a good idea,' maybe Bush would have listened." Mr. & Mrs. Anderson then appear in the ad, and remorse..."We're proud of our son--but he's still gone."

Of course, once the election was over -- despite Coleman's bitter protests-- the Senate Ethics Committee( headed by Democrats) did NOT to even bother to investigate the travesty.

But negative campaigning has now largely resulted in "giving us the government we deserve."

Confused voters go to the polls, well-apprised of what someone's opponent may have done, rather than what the negative campaigner intends to do. Hence our misguided, uncertain electorate knows only whom they're AGAINST, vs. whom they should be supporting.

So is it any wonder there's a 90% probability that the incumbents always return? And the result?  The present morass in Washington: our anti-government, consisting of an anti-President, with an anti-Congress, all united together marching America into socialist oblivion; and all enabled and abetted by negative cam-PAIN-ing.

The democrats have a surefire winning formula similar to a doctor's prescription: Spend your entire term amassing a huge "war-chest," then 30 days before the election, just run enough negative campaign ads "as needed." 

Of course, nothing can be done about those never-ending flowery "blue sky" campaign promises; all politicians make them, and their constituents love it.

But what about making them accountable for what they say on televison & radio? Why not consider a “mud-slinging” law based on the Miranda rights doctrine: anything said over the air waves “can be used against you!"

EXAMPLE: if a "Miranda" truth-in-political ad law had been in effect, the "aggrieved party" (Norm Coleman) would have a thirty day "window" to run public anouncements, and gather evidence. Then, if it were proved that Franken's false accusations were to blame, the penalty could be meted out in one of two forms:

1) automatic term limits - Franken would still be sworn in, but he'd be subject to one term

2) if Coleman could absolutely PROVE malfeasance, he be granted rights to challenge Franken in a run-off (a tax-payer fund would be created to re-do these elections)

The way to prevent excessive runoffs would be to put the "bar" very high; one must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that false (or misleading) ads were the indisputable reason why the candidate lost- just like the traditional court system we have now.

If a Miranda-style “truth in ad law” was proposed, it would box the democrats into a tight, politically uncomfortable corner:

If they tried to oppose such a law, it would be a tacit admission that indeed, the Democrats ARE the party of lairs!

Imagine the look on Barney Fwank's face - or Chuck (the scum) Schumer, or fancy-Nancy Pelosi. How could they avoid NOT being in support of it?

No, it's not a perfect cure, but it's a beginning -- there must be some starting place to remedy this blatant mockery of our democracy-- where liars always triumph over integrity. Where is the justice in that? 

Was Hitler democratically elected as Chancellor of Germany?

In Germany's 1932 presidential election, there were four candidates: the incumbent, Paul von Hindenburg, Adolf Hitler, and two minor candidates-- Ernst Thaelmann and Theodore Duesterberg.

Hindenburg won with over 55% of the vote; Hitler finished a distant second with 37%.

Thaelman & Duesterburg may have gone on to form a law firm (but history has been remiss in documenting this).

Nevertheless, in 1933, Hitler was constitutionally chosen by von Hindenburg to be Chancellor of Germany-- a country that in the early 1930's, was still a democratic nation.

But hundreds of times throughout the centuries, famous dictators -- originally chosen in free elections-- would then usurp their authority by becoming tyrants.

Take for example, our good friend in Venezuela-- Hugo (the great) Chavez:

Chavez had support from two thirds of the population, and was elected by a 66-33% margin.

Shortly after winning election, Mr Chávez announced that he would not renew the license of one of the country's oldest broadcasters, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV).

Next, ol' Hugo decided he'd take a 51% stake in Venezuela's oilfields. Plus, in his inaugural speech, Mr Chávez had said he wanted to change the country's constitution to expropriate control of its natural gas operations as well.

Then a "committee" of his supporters (Venezuela's ACORN) campaigned for constitutional "reform" allowing Chavez to be elected indefinitely-- sound familiar?

How very democratic indeed...use Venezuela's constitution to transform it into an avowedly socialist country, with Mr. Chavez acting as defacto dictator.

In Venezuela today, checks and balances are gone. The National Assembly is a rubber-stamp legislative body on semi-permanent hiatus (vacation), and Chavez's cronies dominate the courts.

The comparisons to Chavez (and even Hitler) abound:

-Obama won the presidency in a free democratic election

-Obama then proceeds to nationalize the banks and auto companies

-Obama forms "Organizing for America"-- a "volunteer group" similar to Hitler's Brownshirts

Like his idol Hugo, there is Obama's backdoor approach to destroying media opposition (conservative talk radio), by regulating and breaking up the station franchise owners.

Then, we have Obama's list of priorities, which are little more than veiled socialsm:

1) Obama’s $878 billion anti-stimulus package-- designed to "kick in" by 2011-- is nothing but a democratic vote-buying scheme; it will create a plethora of Obama-dependent government programs, all pointing to his re-election in 2012.

2) Obama supports cap and trade; yet another UN-employment scheme to create more government dependents, who'll depend on their monthly Obama check to survive.

3) Obama's card check revival is nothing more than another fascist idea to create more union voters-- another voting bloc for his re-election

4) Obama's plan for illegal immigrant "amnesty" will lead to citizenship; and you guessed it...another huge democratic voting bloc.

5) Obama's plan for government-controlled healthcare-- the final coup d' etat: Unbeknownst to most citizens, these so-called 47 million uninsured "Americans" are vastly comprised of illegal aliens.

Once Obama rams national healthcare through, it will create a "fence -jumping" frenzy-- an unstoppable flow of aliens streaming across the southern border to get their "inalienable right" to free health care-- Obama's most devious scheme to date.

Unemployment and entitlement recipients already are (or soon will be) the fastest growing segment of the population. Mr. Obama's "coalition"-- those on welfare, illegal aliens, ACORN-provided dead voters, union members, and minorities, will prove difficult to defeat.

And with ACORN running interference for him in our so-called "democratic" elections, Obama is destined to achieve his edifice of power all "legal and proper."

On Jan 16, 2009 --completely ignored by the media-- came this jaw-dropper: U.S Representative, Jose Serrano, (D- New York) introduced HR 5-- a resolution to abolish the 22nd Amendment, term limits on the Presidency.

But is it indeed, not strange that an obscure Congressman would put forth such a major proposal, in a nation where the majority of voters believe there SHOULD be term limits on elected office holders?

It all makes sense: Imagine if someone of a bigger profile had done this: It would certainly have been plastered all over the airwaves; but that's exactly what our sneaky anti-president did NOT want!

And surprise-surprise; apparently, Representative Serrano is good pals with meester Hugo Chavez himself, who, perhaps, not so oddly, also wants no ‘term limit’ on his presidential office.

Mr. Serrano's H.R.5 states the following: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President."

H.R.5 is patterned after the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 

Obama is a student of the New Deal blueprint. His primary goal is to get re-elected-- not by bringing back prosperity, but by using political economics (vote-buying) to tie dependent-voting groups to him, just as Roosevelt had done in the 1930's.

The more power Obama can wrest from the private sector, the larger he'll be able to expand the federal bureaucracy; replicating what FDR did to win re-election for 4 terms-- creating a culture of government dependency.

Obama's "stimulus" will bolster 6 million voters who've recently lost jobs. Plus Obama can extend his political influence over the lives of all other dependents-- a group that could easily approach 45% of the population by 2012.

Thus, if Mr. Obama can cobble enough votes together in the same fashion as Roosevelt, he'll easily win re-election in 2012 with a 51% majority (or better).

Then, with Serrano's resolution in committee, Obama now has all his "men" on the chessboard:

If Serrano's resolution is passed by say, 2015, what  would stand in Obama's way of further consolidating his power, and  becoming a virtual dictator- possibly for life?

Let's do some projections:

After Barack Obama gets elected to a second term, he could easily grant all immigrants the VOTE, arguing, "the privilege of enfranchisement supersedes any and all other individual rights."

By that time, the Obama "Organizing for America" political thugs will have grown into a well paid, para-military, leftist wing of enthusiastic supporters.

The unions will have expanded rapidly. And fully 60% of the population could become dependent on government entitlements.

Obama now convinces his growing majority that..."a leader so vital to America's march toward social utopia, should not be faced with time constraints"... and... "the Constitution shall be amended to read...'Any sitting president serving the common will of the people, could continue in such service until the people no longer willed it-- or serve as president for life..."

Then Obama leads the country into an even deeper depression, which assures his being viewed (like Roosevelt) as a "national necessity."
 

The theory behind the 22nd Amendment is that modern day presidents could exercise too much power and authority, to be allowed access to it for very long-- lest they become despots.

In 1807, Thomas Jefferson warned that presidents, not bound by term limits, could use their popularity and power to become kings.

Jefferson wrote: “If some termination to the services of the chief magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution or supplied in practice, his office, nominally for years, will in fact become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance.”

We must come to understand that Obama sides with Communists who attempt to overthrow their country's constitution. Repealing the 22nd amendment should be considered a near act of war against the American people by their very own government-- and specifically-- the Obama administration.

We must realize this is happening NOW, and Obama WILL eventually attempt to become a dictator.

In the Gospel of Matthew, after betraying his Master Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, Judas Iscariot returns to the Jewish temple and flings the coins at the high priest Caiphus-- then proceeds to hang himself.

And in a modern-day repeat, eight republican quislings --after voting to destroy the United States economy-- may end up hanging themselves politically after having accepted underhanded Whitehouse bribes.

Republicans voting for the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill: Reichert, Mack, Castle, Lo Biondo, McHugh, Smith (N.J.), Lance, Kirk. Indeed. These conniving turncoats won't exactly be getting ticker tape parades when they return home to their districts for summer recess.

But before we condemn them even further, isn't this what serving in Congress has always been about? After all, doesn't everybody have their price?

These Republicans-- having received their "30 pieces of silver"-- knew EXACTLY what they were risking; casting votes, not for the good of  their districts --or their country-- but in hopes of making themselves known in DC political circles, and furthering their own shameful careers.

Wednesday morning- June 24:

After the Waxman-Markey draft emerges from committee, Pelosi calls for a vote, knowing full well there were many blue dog Democrats howling nervously on the fence-- facing career extinction if they voted yes to this "energy tax" on carbon.

Thursday afternoon- June 25:

Carrots and sticks are flying around Capitol Hill. Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel are in frantic arm-twisting mode, imploring the undecided... "What can we do for you?" ..."All votes are on sale"..."What do we need from you to get this passed?"

Illinois Republican Debbie Halvorson is the first to succumb: She had vowed she would "never cave in to pressure from Obama to vote yes on cap and trade." But then..."I had a nice chat with the President this morning, and I’m fine with the bill (i.e. I'll vote with my Illinois buddy Obama; he promised me enough pork to feed the Soviet army”).

Then Republican John McHugh-- from a conservative upstate New York district-- suddenly reversed his position "in the name of bipartisanship" (and warm-fuzzy feelings in general). Mr. Obama picked off yet another Republican "no" vote and changed it to a "yes."

Texas blue-dog Democrat Lloyd Doggett went from a firm “no,” to an enthusiastic “yes” after he was promised a "seat at the table" at the House-Senate negotiations on the final package.

There were also a few traitors from the democratic side who voted against their own districts:

Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan (from a heavily industrialized area of northeastern Ohio) voted "yes," explaining that without the bill, the United States would remain energy-dependent on people who want to, (quote) “fly airplanes into our buildings.”

But will Ryan be able replace all the blue-collar workers in his area who find themselves out of a job, after the bill's provisions hit home? Look for a HUGE earmark-- coming soon to Ryan's district-- to "salve" the wound.

Representative John Boccieri (D-Oh.)-- another "yes” vote traitor to his manufacturing district in Canton--  countered with a lame story about how (as a child) he remembers, "waiting in gas lines with his father"...and..."this bill reduces foreign oil imports."

But the oil companies beg to differ, saying their likely course of action would entail "moth-balling" their domestic refineries, and importing refined oil products in greater quantities.

Boccieri can’t possibly be this dense; Obama may have promised him a nice, fat lobbyist’s job--plus a few earmarks to boot-- should his Republican district exact their revenge in 2010.

June 25, Thursday night- 6 pm: 

3 AM, Friday morning- June 25:

Like a thief in the night, Nancy Pelosi hangs even more carrots from the ceiling of the House- a 325 page addendum to the bill; billions in outright bribery to attract the votes necessary from Midwestern farm states and the coal states out West.

The agriculture areas were promised fat federal subsidies on ethanol, and big "sweeteners" for fertilizer production. Deals were struck with key conservative Democrats over farming offsets and CO2 allowances.

The coal states were promised that the cap and trade energy tax would be postponed until 2020; and there would be enough loopholes for western coal industries to not really need cut back on their CO2 emissions.

.

Friday morning, 8 AM- June 26:

In an act of desperation, a wild-eyed Nancy Pelosi springs druggie Patrick Kennedy from a rehab hospital, just so he could vote on this obscene regressive tax bill.

Friday afternoon 5PM, June 26:

Pelosi discovers she’s still 8 votes short; Sean Hannity cheerfully reports (during his radio talk show), "the vote has now been postponed!"

5:30 PM - 6:30 PM, late Friday afternoon:

In desperation, Obama "mines" 8 more votes, Chicago-style. He calls all republicans elected from “blue” districts, promising them if they vote "yes", the democrats won't run anyone against them in 2010—plus the majority of their state’s pork will be "diverted” to their home districts for whatever purposes they have in mind. Viola! The last 8 votes!

6:35 PM:

The Mark Levin talk show unexpectedly reports that the House is now going to vote. His voice drops noticeably as he watches a C-Span monitor-- Nancy Pelosi has a smile on her face wider than the Potomac River.  

7:15 PM:

The measure is passed 219 to 212. A mere four-vote swing the other way would have been a huge defeat for the Obama- Pelosi- Reid "axis of evil." This seriously raises the question of whether most legislators-- just like the stimulus package-- even knew what they were voting on. 

SUMMARY:

Cap 'n trade has nothing to do with the environment.

Cap 'n trade has nothing to do with energy independence.

Obama and Pelosi sweated blood to get it passed for one purpose:  WIPE OUT the so-called middle class by bankrupting them with higher energy costs, and the loss of their livelihood.

And remaining will be the aristocracy ruling at the top; and the serfs at the bottom who are ruled by them.

Obama and his comrades are about to achieve total power over the American people... "If we pass it, it will soon render them poor, and TOTALLY dependent on us, their government!"

Thomas Jefferson once said, (quote) “A government big enough to give you anything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” (unquote)

"Press one for English; press two for Spanish”…it’s all so very depressing.

It all started in California; and now there's no denying it; we are rushing headlong into parallel societies. 

E. Pluribus Unum is now Americus Hispanicus defunctus: we're now a bi-lateral nation, speaking two distinct languages, bearing two distinct cultures-- all backed by the democrats who covertly are enabling it.

And don't forget about “the chain.”

Once these illegals become "citizens," the dems will no doubt pass "chain-immigration" laws, enabling all their family members to come across and join the happy clan-- making the problem all the worse. 

If one were to project this all to the next generation (given their high birthrate) there will be upwards of 45 to 50 million “Mexi-Americans” -- a permanent democratic voting bloc -- an unmitigated electoral disaster, transforming the character of our nation permanently.

Ever since they came into California, Mexicans are the only ethnic group who've refused to adopt English, in defiance of our "melting pot." And they are NOT a mosaic; they've become a separate, parallel society.

The omens are everywhere:

-Nancy Pelosi recently made an impassioned speech (in a Catholic church) condemning the arresting of illegal aliens in the workplace--calling it "UN-American." Remember that?

-Janet Napolitano continues to attack Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio over his strict border enforcement against illegals crossing over. 

-New York Senator Chuck Schumer is busily crafting away at his phony bill for "amnesty reform"

-New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez is covertly working behind the scenes to get ALL illegal aliens free health care

-Monatana Senator Max Baucus has sabotaged e-Verify; removing the illegal immigrant enforcement provision from the stimulus bill

-Barack Obama has stated he wants to pass an immigration reform law by this September

If Congress really wanted to solve the problem (especially in California), they only need use e- Verify to "absolve" the country from these immigrant spongers. But it's never gonna happen as long as the democrats keep control; and amnesty, of course, is the key to it.

Which bring us to the prospect of Calmexica.

Instead of the above alternative, why not just surrender part of the state? It's already hopelessly bankrupt. We could simply say..."OK, you illegals have won. Take it away! See ya.”

Rather than let the "cancer" spread, we'll just ward it off-- ergo…Calmexica!

But what would California care? Would anything really change? Would the "non-Hispanic" population even mind? Would L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa protest? He'd be delirious with joy!

And how about San Francisco, the most liberal area in the county; they're supposedly in strong support of immigration- so why would they protest? Wouldn't that be going back on their beliefs that immigrants have "full rights under protection of the law?”

So, let's call ‘em on their bluff. Calmexica forever!

For the people in Big Sur, it's where they could draw the border: Calmexica to the south, and "regular California" starting just north of the Bay Area-- let the surveyors worry about it. 

California has approx. 2.4 million Spanish-speaking public school students. Only 39 percent speak "something other" than their "native" language; and what happens when they grow up? It will only worsen the parallel society problem, and further divide the nation.

From 1982 to 2007, the number of "non English" students in California's public schools has increased by 220 percent-- so why even continue to call California part of the United States if they can’t (won't) speak English?

Current demographic surveys reveal over 150 languages and dialects spoken by California public school students-- Spanish being the first language for over 81 percent. Two-thirds of non-English speaking students are in grades 1 to 6, including one out of every three kindergartners.

Limited and non-English speaking students enter the system at every grade level --all implying the rampant pace of illegal immigration that goes unreported.

And what happens once all these nice, "non-English speaking" children become adults? They will comprise a huge voting bloc-- hotly pursued by ALL politicians-- resulting in laws written to cater to THEM, further depriving the rest of the nation with the tail wagging the dog: a bilingual society encumbered by class warfare, class envy; and working people everywhere heavily taxed to pay for it all.

Imagine California-- say by 2030-- to a visiting foreigner; they would think, “hmmm...what country IS this? 

The bombsight was many years in development, and ultimately, became one of the Allies' most closely guarded military secrets.

Bombardiers had to destroy the device if they crash-landed over enemy territory. War movies told of spies trying to learn its secret, and of Allied heroes giving their lives to protect it from falling into enemy hands.

It was a superb piece of design: First, the bombadier would enter the target's map co-ordinates, and then enter crosswinds, altitude, and airspeed. The bombsight would calculate trajectory, and then automatically would release the bomb load at the "precise" time.

In a plane moving at 300 feet per second, the Norden bombsight  was indeed, an amazing achievement for its time.

But as the war progressed, high-altitude precision bombing-- from 20,000 feet-- proved difficult. Many American bombs fell 1/5 of a mile (or more) from their targets, even with the best of contrivances.

By 1943, the bombsight itself was re-classified from "secret" to "confidential," and  U.S. Air Force generals switched to the English tactic of "saturation" bombing. A 1000-plus Allied bomber armada would fly over an enemy city; the lead plane signaled (by flare) to start the drop-- and God help everything below!

But was this any different to what the Obama administration is now doing to America?  We're being saturation-bombed with Obammunism, and its destructive attack upon our Constitution!

Why do we permit Obama (and his Whitehouse subversives) to target our country? What limits are there to this man's haughty arrogance? Who keeps thinking of these unmitigated attacks? What evil masterminds lurk within his inner circle?

It's all way beyond comprehension!

So far, the Obama administration has been a neutron bomb; our buildings are still standing, but Obammunism has all but completely destroyed the economy. In five brief months, the pace has been staggering. 

One intrusion after another; one political leftist measure after another. Everyday, Americans wake up to some new threat to our freedom-- some new, ever-dangerous form of Obama-generated "fascio-Marxism:"

First, it was Obama's near trillion dollar anti-stimulus, with 90% of the money going to reward his election cronies. Then the usurpation of the banks; then taxes on the energy industries; next, the formation of the political brownshirts (Organizing for America); next, the seizure of the auto companies.

Now it's localism; cap 'n trade; card check; taxes on healthcare benefits; government socialization of medicine; regulation of the internet; climate change; the clean-air bill; immigration amnesty-- and deficits guaranteed to eventually ruin the dollar-- all sanctioned by the so-called mainstream media.

This is beyond out of control-- this is not even America! 

And if that weren't enough, we have ACORN running around fudging the census, and rigging elections.

Let's not mince words: this is the END of a free America -- a transformation right under our unengaged noses!

When someone (or something) poses a threat, there are but two choices: fight...or flight.

Americans must stop playing ostrich--they must become engaged. If we keep running away from these threats (retreating) it will only encourage our Congress (the enemy) to advance further to the left and embolden them more! 

Regardless of where one stands politically-- for government interference in your life, or for freedom-- it doesn't matter; ALL of our liberties are in peril. 

So where is the outrage?

Indeed, it is out there; but Americans are so busy trying to survive through the Obamian deluge, there is little energy left for demonstrations, opposition, letter writing, e-mailing , phone calls, etc.

Instead of holding tea parties, tax-paying citizens should require that Congress sign contracts with their constituents-- voters would then have legal recourse if Congress continues to pass laws to undermine them. There needs to be SOME check upon their brazen, legislative abuses.

Of course, Congress would never agree.

But somehow, the left must be voted out to nullify the power of Comrade Obama-- our shameless, arrogant commander-in-malfeasance.

Mr. Obama thinks he's so clever; actually, he's just a straight-faced liar, with the liberal-run media to sanction his attacks upon our property, our investments, our freedom of speech, and his squandering of our country's future.

And Obama is here for another 3 1/2 years; the only feasible way to block him is to retake the Senate in 2010; remove the instrument of his power--those congressional leftists in support of his fascist agenda.

Currently there are 17 senate democratic seats up for re-election. Here follows the nine "most vulnerable" if the Republicans are up to the task:

Barbara Boxer of California; Christopher Dodd of Connecticut; Roland Burris of Illinois; Evan Bayh of Indiana;  Harry Reid of Nevada; Kirsten Gillibrand of New York; Chuck Schumer of New York; Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania; and Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

So it's high time we developed a plan to get them UN-elected.

But carrying signs, writing letters, and calling members just doesn't work. Conservative attacks (from the right) are useless; Obama must beaten back  from the LEFT -- his own supporters in Congress.

We must unseat them...defeat them! Out fight them! Out-fox them!

How? We certainly can't out spend them; they sit loftily on Capitol Hill, knowing that every election, they just need to spend millions of dollars for unscrupulous, negative campaign ads against their opponents (as Harry Reid & Al Franken did) and lie their way to yet another tainted 6-year term. It works every election.

So it's time to employ the great (and inexpensive) campaign equalizer, the robo-callers; those reliable, computer-generated campaign workers, who --by phoning en masse -- could unseat these radical leftists, and stop Obammunism dead in its tracks.

These robo-calls need be nothing complex, just a basic (but very riveting) two minute-message on WHY the average American is in such distress; and more importantly-- what they can DO about it:

a) the calls would be made (at various times) in every voting precinct, in each contested state where a democrat incumbent is up for re-election

b) the local Republican party chairperson would be responsible for their execution; calls would be made once a month

c) the strategy would force these incumbents to expend tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to counteract the calls-- thus reducing funds available for negative campaign ads in October/ November of 2010

Here follows the text of the robo-call script:

Scene: an average American answering the phone at home:

"Hello"

..."So now, you must be very concerned about being forced to pay for health insurance-- whether you want it or not ...concerned about your job, or whether you will even be employed next month...concerned with your automobile & lawnmower, because they "contribute" to global warming...concerned about your children's education, and the liberal teachers who indoctrinate them...concerned about what you hear or read in the news, or whether its even factual...concerned about the  price of energy for your homes, or if gas prices will soar out of control...and be concerned with paying higher taxes for those who refuse gainful employment..." (65 seconds)

"So vote Republican...Vote freedom. And above all...support YOUR COUNTRY! Thank you." (end)...total running time,  2 minutes,10 seconds 

This "robo-call strategy" will go a long way to fulfill a two-part Republican goal:

1- save our democracy

2- wipe that arrogant smile off Obama's lying face

Now were gettin' somewhere!

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Here are two interesting quotes from none other than Thomas Jefferson:

(quote) "There is an enemy somewhere endeavoring to sow discord among us: To buy off one lie is to give a premium for the invention of others."

(quote) "There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible as that which permits one to tell a lie."

 Here is yet another --and MORE interesting-- quote from Joseph Goebbels (Hitler's fabled "communications" director):

“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 dissent... for the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” (circa 1936)

Now let's take a qoute from Barack Obama, as he directly addresses the Iranian government for the first time, after a day of violence in Iran:

(quote) "We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and FREE SPEECH must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights."

But what does all this have to do with talk radio? Simple; Obama intends to kill freedom over the public air waves-- a right he staunchly supports in Iran. But at home? Well, that's quite another story. 

Obama makes noble statements projecting First Amendment rights to the Iranians; but at the same time, he launches a covert plot to crush all political dissent in America. Make no mistake. Conservative talk radio is now an endangered species.

Localism will be Obama's contrivance to rid his world of the last bastion of political dissension...Limbaugh, Hannity, and the other mainstays of conservative talk radio.

If Obama truly wanted "fairness" it would also apply to TV, newspapers, and news magazines. But all of these mediums are overwhelmingly liberal, serving the big-government, freedom-killing agenda of Obama and his cadre of leftists in Congress.

Now, with Mr. Obama's appointment of his double-talking, Harvard law school buddy, Julius Genachowski as new head of the FCC, Obama has no doubt anointed him as another star addition to the democratic liars' club-- the ability to state one thing but imply another.

Recently, Mr. Genachowski told  Kay B. Hutchinson-- a member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee-- (quote) "No, Senator, I don’t support re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine"...."I feel strongly about the First Amendment, and I don’t think the FCC should be involved in censorship of content-based limiting of political speech.”

If "right-wing" talk radio is a cancer for these liberals, localism is their form of "chemo-therapy".

Obama knows if censorship is disguised as something other than the Fairness Doctrine, then he can champion it without changing his position. By stating his "opposition" to the "Doctrine", Obama's leftist minions will do the dirty work-- giving Mr. Obama the appearance of being "Mr. Forthright."

And having taught Constitutional law, Obama knows localism cannot easily be challenged by the Supreme Court. So now, the handwriting of censorship is on the wall-- only it's been written with invisible ink:

POINT- Obama's continual references about how Fox News won't give him "a fair shake"

POINT - Obama's inference that people should not pay attention (listen) to Rush Limbaugh

POINT-- on the campaign trail last year, his repeated references to Sean Hanitty

Obama's latest big lie (through Genachowski) is akin to waving a white flag to the Republicans, but all the while he digs a tunnel to subvert them politically. Barack Obama is about fighting dirty, preferring to "clear the field" of competition (dissent) whenever possible; and lying and doublespeak have been his most effective strategems.

Once anyone within the Obama administration vows something they absolutely will NOT do, rest assured that it's exactly the course of action they've planned. And Genachowski is no different; as head of the FCC, he'll lie to no end to support what Obama wants-- absolute control of the mainstream media.

Mr. Obama is a Saul Alinsky student-- the end justifies the means; hence, the plot will be couched within his seemingly benign support for "community programming" on local radio stations. 

To date, Mr.Obama has been mum on localism. But his silence is the "tipoff": he'll soon coyly announce..."I support it." Obama knows better than to take on Rush Limbaugh headlong with his 22 million strong audience-- the courts wouldn’t uphold it.

-The FCC will start a movement (behind the scenes) to start a “Fairness in Ownership Doctrine"- making a "case" for minorities to own radio stations, and staging it as a "community concern."

Stage 1) an entity can only own 1-2 stations; thus, Clear Channel and CBS will be forced to sell all their radio outlets on the "cheap."

Stage 2) the "monopoly" break-up will result in stations being sold to minority owners at bargain prices. Obama-connected 'friends" will constitute the mainstay of the new ownership

Stage 3) local-broadcast "advisory boards" (ACORN) will be formed to hold radio owners responsible to uphold "opposing opinions" OR, their broadcast licences will not be renewed. (Obama will claim he has no control over what local communities do)

Stage 4) more diversity (localism) program will be instituted-- a requirement to provide "X" hours of local programming

Stage 5) leftists groups (Media Matters) will a file a blizzard of anti-localism "complaints" against all remaining conservative-owned stations

Stage 6) the final result-- veiled censorship. Conservative stations -- knowing they'll go broke defending all these "complaints" in court-- find it cheaper to broadcast music/sports than to keep Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. on the air

Obama abhors dissent; he will waste no time in placing localism into action. It'll soon be bye-bye to your favorite talk radio shows-- there will no longer be a way to hear the truth.

But Obama will couch it all in noble phrases, declaring: "It's about progressing to a more egalitarian society"...and..."Divisive, hateful, irresponsible speech over the public airways is unacceptable; therefore, is not protected by the First Amendment."

Before we know it, talk radio will vanish, and with it, our ability to speak out against Obama's bold tyranny, as he fully intends to shut down ALL political opposition... PERIOD!  

And once talk radio disappears, the ability to post our thoughts and opinions over the Internet will be the next freedom taken from us in the same underhanded manner.

Independents, Republicans, Conservatives; we must unite and publicly speak out against these egregious tactics!

If we choose not to oppose the assault these insidious leftists have declared upon our Constitution, then we deserve the very tyrrany they seek to impose upon us.

Just keep in mind this ominous reminder from the Nazi fanatic-- Joseph Goebbels..."truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”  

Besides Sept.11 and Dec. 7, 1941, the "Halloween Massacre of 1977" may yet turn out to the most damaging day in modern U.S. foreign policy history-- but only time will tell.

When the Japanese pulled off their incredibly successful Pearl Harbor sneak attack on Dec. 7, 1941, the finger-pointing began immediately. Ultimately, after all the accusations, it was decided that the 4-star Admiral, Husband E. Kimmel --Chief  Naval Commander of the Pacific fleet-- was the man responsible.

But history has shown that Kimmel only served as a convenient scapegoat for the nation's anger. The Pearl harbor attack succeeded largely because of the judicious spying of the Japanese, who-- at that time-- had hundreds of Hawiian agents on the ground in the months leading up to the start of the war.

During and after World War II, the U.S. intelligence forces (O.S.S.- CIA) had done their jobs well. The CIA had succeeded in stalemating the KGB during the early Cold War years. The agency had been led by highly capable men such as Allen Dulles during the Eisenhower years, and John McCone during the Kennedy administration. 

In 1953, the CIA played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular pro-communist Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh-- the democratically-elected leader who had nationalized Iran’s oil industry.  

In  "Operation Ajax," the CIA had argued (correctly) that Mossadegh was soft on communism, and that the Tudeh (the pro-Soviet Communist party) might soon control Iran.

Mossadegh was ousted, and the Shah-- Mohammed Reza Pahlavi-- assumed power.

Throughout the next 25 years-- under the watchful eyes of the CIA (and its well trained agents)-- U.S. interests were well-protected in  the Middle East.

But in 1976 came the election of Jimmie Carter, and his disastrous dismantling of a once-proud, highly-motivated intelligence organization.

Carter (like all liberals) was obsessed with being "fair". So what did Carter see as the first place to single out for reforming? Of course-- it was those nasty, dastardly, secretive, immoral CIA brigands.

After all, hadn't the CIA taken part in the overthrowing of "sovereign" governments? Had they not taken part in assassinations, deception, blackmail, torture, and other knavish misdeeds?

In January 1977, Carter made one of the most ill-conceived presidential appointments of all time: For his CIA director he chose Stansfield Turner-- Carter's college roommate at the Naval Academy-- who had no agency or intelligence experience of any kind. 

Carter probably would have done just as well to appoint Mr. Magoo, because Turner-- like his liberal president-- was blind to the fact that indeed, America had many implacable enemies, ESPECIALLY in the Middle East.

On October 31, 1977 Turner (with Carter's blessing) circulated a photocopied memo informing 800 astonished CIA staffers (mostly Republicans) of their dismissal. Most of these were highly seasoned agents, going all the way back to the OSS spy agency of World War II. A lot of them spoke Arabic, Farsi, and were fluent in other foreign languages.

To the joy and disbelief of our enemies, word spread that the U.S. had decided to delegate its intelligence priorities to only "non-human means"...satellite observations and listening posts. Carter had unilaterally chosen to disarm America from the spy wars-- a decision that to this day, resulted in the single worst intelligence debacle in US history. 

Now link all this with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served between 1977-81 as Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, and the disastrous advice he gave to Carter about Iran: 

In 1978, our "crippled" CIA had no idea that the pro-American Shah of Iran was in grave danger of being overthrown. Once the situation became apparent, Brzezinski--after considering military intervention (which Carter feared)-- recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah and gave the green light to the fundamentalist Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini.

Russian threats...Soviet aggression ... Soviet invasion of yet another Muslim state; Brzezinski assured Carter that if the Shah were deposed, Khomeini's fundamentalist Islam would thwart any further Russian "adventurism" in the Mideast, and the US military could then turn its attention elsewhere.

But in December, 1979, the Soviet Union went ahead and invaded Afghanistan; and Khomeini's fanatics instead had turned their wrath on the Great Satan America, remembering that a generation ago, the CIA had undermined their revered Prime Minister (Mossadegh), and it had not been forgotten -a grievous miscalculation by Brzezinski.

But would this fiasco have occurred if the CIA had not been castrated by Carter only two years earlier?

Without actionable intelligence, Carter was easily pressured into withdrawing American support for the Shah. 

Without actionable intelligence, it had been  Brzezinski's foolish notion that all the "Muslim peoples" would rise up against regional Soviet power.

And without actionable intelligence, the U.S. had not realized what Ayatollah Khomeini was all about, and the colossal series of errors that let him seize power in Iran, with its tremendously negative long-term effects for American foreign policy.

In retrospect, we see that the Brzezinski mind was incapable of thinking clearly about Islam. He was a child of the Cold War, possessing a "fixation" on the USSR-- resulting in his delusion that Muslim extremism could be transformed into a geopolitical weapon in FAVOR of the United States.

Despite what any liberal may profess, it was tha CIA that had kept Communism in check; it was the CIA that kept the Cold War from boiling over; and it was the CIA that had enabled the U.S. to know what was actually taking place on the ground in Asia and the Middle East.

In 1979 when the Shah was finally overthrown,  the United States lost its chief ally and all its outposts along the Russo-Iranian border regions-- as well as our military installations-- including all of our electronic monitoring stations that were aimed at the Soviet Union.

And exactly thirty years later, we have the greatest of ironies-- we have gone full circle:

As the old saying goes: "There's NO easy way to get rich"...er wait a minute-- did we forget something?

What about serving in Congress? Has there ever been a situation when somebody had to give up Congress, because they couldn’t make a living at it?

Best of all, you can NEVER be fired.

Now compare that to the present lot of today's average American:

Americans everywhere have lost their jobs-- forced to lower their standard of living. Many middle-class families are eating like peasants: less meat, more potatoes; more beans 'n franks, more mac 'n cheese; less hamburger-- no steak.

People have terminated cable TV; they have all but eliminated theaters and eating out.

But what if we terminated our out-of-control Congress? What then? The nation would prosper as never before!

Congress has their limos; their privately-chartered jet flights, and their private Senate AND House restaurants. They vote themselves pay raises. They vacation on the Riviera, travel to all the great resorts and golf courses of the world-- all on "official business."

Their arrogant self-righteousness is rooted in our tarnished voting tradition-- the incumbent "re-election factor." They serve until their "expiration" date; 'till death do they part!

Abe Lincoln once said, "Integrity is doing the right thing when nobody’s looking;"

Hence, we shall proceed to review the top ten examples in Congress: people that-- throughout their terms-- have exhibited shining examples of integrity, and have gone far out of their way to serve both their country and constituents.

Feinstein offered "to help" the FDIC stem the rise in foreclosures by making sure that Richard Ellis Properties-- a commercial real estate firm led by her husband -- won the "competitive bidding, and then harvested the bounty created by Feinstein's generous assistance in the matter. 

But California's people will eventually come to their senses, and re-elect her in a landslide.

But instead of an obvious insider trading charge, Durban --being a Democrat-- has "immunity". Nothing will be done. He will keep his perks and power, just as Barney Frank did after lying to George Bush in 2005 about the condition of Fannie Mae.

About 60% of the  Illinois  electorate voted for Durbin in the last election. Now, with this on the record, he'll probably reach 75% in the next election.

Interestingly, in May, 2007, she invested $100,000 in T. Boone Pickens’ Clean Energy Fuels IPO (initial public stock offering)  But is this not a flagrant conflict of interest for Madam Speaker? Should she be allowed to own stock in a company which will benefit from legislation she controls?

But given her lofty Congressional position, someday she will have to answer for it-- in the afterlife.

Baucus now is going full throttle to change the US health care system into a (socialized) Canadian version, and has forbade any democrat connected to the medical industry from contact with Republicans.

Considering the way he's trying to intimidate lobbyists who'd like to hear what the GOP caucus has to say, you can almost SMELL the totalitarianism of this radical leftist.

EXAMPLE #5-- Charles Schumer: 

As a congressman serving in the House, Schumer was censured by the Ethics Committee for having used his taxpayer-paid office staff to collect political campaign contributions.

For the last 3 years, he's been the Senate's numero-uno anti-driller. He's quite fine with the $60 billion we send OPEC every month, and the $3-4-gallon price his N.Y.City constituents pay for gasoline. He is also author to the oxymoronic, "we cant drill our way out" defeatist mantra.

Gee, could Schumer be getting anything under the table from the environmental lobby toward his re-election campaign? Nah, not an ethical fellow like Schumer; he's above ALL reproach.

EXAMPLE #6 -- Henry Waxman:

Waxman's clean air bill will suck so much disposable income from the average American household (estimated between $1800- 3000 annually) that our consumer-driven economy may all but collapse under his final death blow. Say goodbye to your sports car, your "work" truck; and your SUV. The Waxman Bill will eventually legislate them out of existence, much like the EPA did to Detroit 's flourishing muscle car industry in the early 70's.

Waxman is yet another that feasts at the environmental lobby's campaign contribution trough.

EXAMPLE # 7-- Barney Frank (aka Barney Fwank)

Mr. Fwank's repeated claims (since 2003) that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac "are doing okay" should be enough to have him thrown off the House Banking Committee. He was against any oversight for these institutions--his efforts at social engineering-- and shielded these GSE"s (Govenmentt Sponsored Entities) from all regulation.

Frank's idea for 'affordable housing' led to the near-collapse of the worldwide economy and the current U.S. recession. He should be in jail.

Example # 8-- Harry Reid:

In summer of '06  Reid pulled off a secret Las Vegas land deal in which he pocketed a cool $1.1 million for sale of property he hadn't personally owned for years. Once exposed, Mr. Reid then amended his financial disclosure forms, claiming (duh) "he'd forgotten about it."

Over the last four years, Reid also used his influence to help a developer-- Nevada super-lobbyist Harvey Whittemore-- clear legal obstacles from a Vegas suburb (Coyote Springs) and develop part of the site for free, receiving tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Whittemore.

The contributions not only went to Reid's Senate campaigns, but also to his "leadership fund" to help bankroll the campaigns of Democratic colleagues. Rather nifty eh? Ole dirty Harry will undoutedly ride again in his homestate (Nevada) to win another hallmark victory in 2010.

EXAMPLE #9-- Senator Chris Dodd:

Everyone knows about the 4.75% loan Mr. Dodd got from Countrywide, saving him $77,000 interest on his mortgage; but then Dodd bought an Irish estate for a full cost of about $200,000 using "assistance" from a man who had Dodd's "ear" in the Senate.

Although the property was worth much more, Dodd covered it by listing the value on his senate tax form as $100,000. Once exposed, Dodd (in a mere coincidence) had the property "appraised" at 600k; but surprise: it's actually worth close to a million.

Dodd -- who also managed to protect his all campaign contributors at AIG -- claims it was "never about money." But money is all Dodd ever thinks of. He could care less about his constituents in Connecticutt.

EXAMPLE #10-- Ex-Senator Joe Biden:

A recent Google Earth photograph reveals that the lakeside "Joe Biden Compound" in Greenville , Delaware  has at least 4 houses, swimming pool, tennis courts, and various other "swank" amenities.

But a review of Biden's 2005, 2006, and 2007 income tax returns indicates he only listed a total net worth of about $470,000. Biden also reported he has no home note, suggesting ALL of his home/homes are paid for.

How does a person-- who has never made much more than $150,000 per year-- amass properties in amounts at least 10 times (or more) of what he reports to the Senate?  Interestingly, this certainly didn't seem to impede Biden's nomination as Vice President

Americans should take note: These egotistical, greedy, self-absorbed aristocrats operate as though they're completely above the law; and in a sense- as democrats-- they actually are. And as long-serving incumbents, they no longer seem to answer to (nor fear) anyone.

This is all a mockery to what Lincoln wrote about in his Gettysburgh address; he spoke of government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people.

We should require that every newly-elected legislator MEMORIZE Mr. Lincoln 's historic, two-minute speech before they can be sworn in; it's obvious that these lawless lawmakers have totally forgotten why they were elected.

The polar bear has become the poster child for global warming:

We are constantly bombarded on television (news & public service announcements) with the same file footage of that sickly, dirty, obviously exhausted polar bear cub, struggling helplessly to climb aboard an ice floe-- a victim of the "melting Arctic ice cap."

Yes; the poor, forlorn polar bears; what shall become of these beleaguered, cuddly creatures?

But these lovable animals are the only bear species that actively hunts humans for food. And left to their own devices, they could easily survive on a seasonal diet of Inuit Eskimos, or even an occasional stranded ice road trucker.

Recently a federal appeals court threw out a Shell oil and gas leasing program in the Alaskan Chukchi Sea; and of course, it was all because of "concerns" about the potential harm to the polar bears.

But the real polar bear problem may be the threat to our national security; the bears have become pawns in the radical left's attempt to restrict our country's most vital economic mission-- domestic energy exploration. 

But polar bear habitats aside, one thing reamains clear-- America is a nation that runs on oil; and as the old oilmen like to say..."A country that runs on oil, can't afford to run out."

During the Bush years, administration officials maintained that drilling for Alaskan oil, and the survival of the polar bear, "were NOT interconnected.”

But in the Obama era. Edward J. Markey-- Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence-- now claims that indeed, they ARE "intimately connected", and has introduced legislation to reverse Bush's “oil-first, polar-bear-second” energy policy.

Chairman Markey recently was quoted: “It is time to put the interests of an industry awash in profits aside, and consider the vast impacts the Bush administration’s foolish decisions have had on an imperiled species, and on the planet.”

Markey will continue to block Arctic oil exploration at every turn-- using the bears as his "cover story." 

In the 60’s and 70’s, polar bears were being shot, and hunted down wholesale by the thousands. Currently an estimated 1200 polar bears are  being "harvested" per year; mostly in the northwestern territories of Canada. 

If Markey and the environmentalists are so gravely concerned, why do they remain silent about the hunting? Why doesn't Markey push for a "Serengeti-type" bear habitat around Hudson Bay, where --despite the so-called warming climate-- polar bear populations are on the upswing.

Polar bears have been around for as long as time. They have survived on their own through natural warming/cooling cycles long before man became a factor. So why all of a sudden are the bears incapable of surviving now, when they have done so in the past?

And why have they emerged to become the focus of the debate about global warming?

Markey (and the the left) knows that it's a convenient way for storybook emotions to trump common sense: "Protect" the polar bears; save the environment; block  drilling-- which raises fuel prices-- and (drum roll, please), opens the way for ALTERNATIVE energy sources.

Currently, U.S. foreign oil imports are nearing 70% of our annual supply, rising at an alarming rate of 2% per year-- the same rate of decline of our aging oilfields in the Southwest and Gulf of Mexico.

At this pace, by 2019, we'll be importing 90% of our oil from abroad.

What if there was a Mideast war, and oil exports to the U.S. cut off? How would we then supply our military after our strategic petroleum reserve goes dry? What then?

Why does the $700 billion we pay to the Arabs continue to be our chief annual export? Why can't we drill offshore in Alaska; are polar bears really that important?

All we need do is look to the Southern hemisphere.

Since November of 2007, Brazil has had two mega-sized oil discoveries off the coast of Sao Paulo-- among the biggest ever made in the oil industry-- estimated between 12 - 20 billion total barrels. The first commercial oil production is scheduled to begin in late 2010. 

These discoveries literally changed Brazil's status overnight, from a net energy importer to a future exporter. Result? Do the math; 20 billion x $70/barrel = 1.4 trillion dollars of wealth that Brazil will realize over approximately the next decade, as they harvest their petroleum bounty.

Meanwhile, back in the good ol' USA, we continue to worry about polar bears, as our deficits rise, the dollar shrinks; American drivers are looking at three/four dollar gallon gasoline, and our economy continues to crater.

Chances are (within the next five years) a combination of drilling restrictions and falling oil supplies is going to make gasoline too expensive for routine use in America's 250 million private automobiles.

When news of Brazil's amazing oil strike was flashed across the country, it touched off a wild, national celebration; the Brazilians knew it would put money in the pockets of every citizen in the form of social services, government infrastructure improvements, and basically, lifting all boats on a rising economic tide of oil exports.

So why can't we use the Brazilian model? Why should we be the only country worried about polar bears, oil splls, and the like? Deepwater offshore drilling techniques-- developed by U.S. engineers-- have made the process virtually hazard free, and it's been adopted by China, Brazil, Norway, and around the world.

The National Geological Survey has estimated that there are anywhere from 90-160 billion barrels of oil north of the Arctic Circle; at current crude prices, 160 billion x $70 = 11.2 TRILLION dollars-- money that roughly equals our national debt; a total that keeps rising as we continue to borrow money from the Chinese, and then send to OPEC.

But the leftists in Congress (and the Whitehouse) are quite content to preserve this insane staus quo, and watch our standard of living slide toward that of the third world.

The more the left can deny Americans of the wealth that is theirs, the more political control they will garner, as a struggling populace must look to Washington DC to solve economic problems that wouldn't exist were it not for these power-crazed, callous liberals.

But there is a simple solution: Why don't we build a Gitmo for polar bears? Would it not be a lot cheaper than to keep importing oil, and leaving12 trillion bucks in the ground?

Given that the U.S.will continue one of the world's biggest consumers of petroleum, why should we continue to be its biggest importer of oil?

But even if there were no polar bears around in a few decades, would it really change anything? Aren’t efforts to list the polar bear as endangered (or threatened) just liberal attempts to control our lives, and put the UN (and the leftists) in charge of us all?

If the polar bears went away-- so what? Polar bears are hardly the first-- and will definitely not be the last-- of animals to become extinct; this planet could survive just fine without them.

Why should we bankrupt ourselves for 25,000 polar bears? Since when did they get the vote? With so much attention on animals, where’s the concern for people?

100 years from now, people will look upon this present time in sheer bafflement:

History will be written about how a nation-- once the envy of theworld-- literally turned against itself and self-destructed, over a dog-eat-dog environmental argument; an apocalypse of ecological insanity versus common sense-- a nation that caused its own economic downfall, because animal rights had surperseded human rights.

America is a nation that can't afford to wait around for $10/ gallon gas. We need to develop our resources now, and let the polar bears fend for themselves; there are more than enough tasty seals around to keep them happy.

Flashback: 36 years ago-- October, 1973. The "Yom Kipper" Arab-Isreali war breaks out. The OPEC nations -- retaliating against the U.S. for its support of Israel-- quadruple world oil prices to 12 dollars/ barrel, having declared an embargo upon all overseas deliveries to American ports.

Overnight, gas rocketed from 34.9 to 55.9 cents a gallon. Gasoline stations couldn't get deliveries. Purchases were limited to 10 gallons. Americans experienced their first bitter taste of gas lines. Everyone began selling their beloved, tire-scorching, premium-gas-guzzling muscle cars for "economy" vehicles.

Between 1971 to1973, the U.S had already begun importing nearly 40% of its oil-- all of it from OPEC. America then entered into one of its deepest-ever recessions, not to recover for 3 long years.

In 1955, Arabian light crude sold for $2.08 a barrel.

In 1961, the price dropped backed to $1.80, prompting Western industrial  nations to switch from coal (to oil) as their main energy source--exposing themselves economically and politically at the hands of OPEC.

Then, October 1978-- a shock heard round the world: the Shah's overthrow, and Ayatollah Khomeini's rise to power-- the origin of radical Islam-- and the intractable problem it would present to the Western world to this present day.

After 1979, "Khomeinism" was exported: Shiite fundamentalist sects were organized using Iranian petro-dollars. Had Khomeini not assumed power, Islamic fundamentalism may not have realized its eventual outgrowth-- the war on terror.

And behind it all was oil. The petro-dollars we were sending to Iran enabled Khomeini (and his heirs) to export their brand of radical Islam, with its ultimate goal of destroying Israel, and its evil supporter America-- the "Great Satan." 

Since 1979-- because of Iran's huge oil revenues-- Islamic fundamentalism has since expanded at a chilling pace:

--In 1991, Iran's government used a $500 million "grant" to send 1,300 fundamentalist "preachers" (agents) to "convert" the newly-independent Muslim republics of Central Asia.

--In the last 5 years, Iran has spent $100 million annually to reinforce and maintain their operatives in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and in the Palestinian territories (Hamas).

--Iranain oil money has also paved the way for fundamentalism's growth in the Asian and pan-African world. Indonesia's population is over 90 percent Muslim. Half of Nigeria's population is Muslim; and western European countries are now "parallel" societies. 

--Iran is currently scattering hundreds of agents in the near and far reaches of the Mideast, covertly spreading Shiite Islamic beliefs in Sunni-majority countries, and setting up terrorist cells at an all-out pace to subvert the entire region. 

Despite Iran's outward appearances, Bush (in his "axis of evil" speech) had it nailed: the Iranians are avowed, implacable enemies of America. They have the determination (and plan) to execute America's eventual downfall-- using their oil "weapon."

A prime example has been the war in Iraq, and how Iran used the conflict to weaken the United States economically.

Since the late 1990's, Iran has used its oil money (on the black market) and has been diverting sophisticated, American-made electronics into the Mideast region-- in violation of a 1995 ban. These electronics were then used to equip roadside bombs (I-E-D's) with remote-controlled detonators ---accounting for about 70 PERCENT of all American combat deaths in Iraq.

And Iranian-sponsored "imported" suicide bombers (from Lebanon) were used to inflame the war to its 2007 peak, resulting in the Pentagon having to commit an additional 300 billion dollars from its budget-- money that America could ill afford. 

Iran then used their agents within al Jazeera (the official Islamic TV network) to place the blame on al-Qaida, throwing the CIA completely off the "scent."

 
Should the American military completely exit Iraq in 2010, it’s a preview of what’s to come: the Iranians could step in and precipitate a much worse situation than during the pre-war Saddam era-- nullifying all political gains by the Iraqi infant democracy-- and replace it all with a Shiite theocracy.

It all goes back in 1978, when a naive and trusting  Jimmy Carter was blind to the real threat--Ayatollah Khomeini's ambitions of an oil-funded, religious-inspired domination of the entire Mideast...and beyond.

In a remarkably parallel situation, it's the equally naive Barack Obama-- facing Iran's Ayatollah Khameini-- who ignores Mideast history at our peril, and seeks a "season of new beginnings," and talked of Iran's "rightful place in the community of nations" in his 2009 New Year's speech.  

Then, in his speech at Cairo, Mr. Obama all but expected his words of conciliation to literally "rock the entire Islamic world" and possibly be a deciding factor in the Iranian presidential election. 

But in his egotistical arrogance, Obama denies reality: no matter whom the Iranians had chosen to elect as president, there would be no change in foreign policy. The religious Mullahs long ago had made up their minds they would use subversion-- plus oil revenues-- to fuel their nuclear weapons program, and continually undermine Mideast regional stability.

As Obama continually refuses to drill for U.S. domestic oil (and is content to send borrowed petro-dollars to the Mideast)-- it is here where he becomes a pawn in Iranain  hands: 

Once Iran eventually become the defacto regional power, it then becomes a replay of 1973-- a sudden Mideast oil embargo -- the price of crude quadruples to perhaps $250-300 per barrel, and defeats the U.S. in a way that only Iran sees...America's economic bankruptcy, where we can no longer supply our military-- nor our nation-- with energy to run our economy, or defend our overseas interests.

The Iranian Mullahs have but one objective toward their Great Satan Western enemy..."we shall overcome."

 www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Yet, the democratic party (and their liberal ideology) has created the flourishing environment for these "ambulance-pursuers," as malpractice lawsuits-- with lottery payout-sized rewards-- drive up the cost of health insurance for not only the physician, but ultimately destroy the quality (and purpose) of the excellent health care system that currently exists in this country.

Hence, trial lawyers freely advertise to poor & desperate people to file frivolous law suits: "If we DON"T win your case...you owe nothing." And if they do? Trial lawyers reap a fat 30 - 40% of the booty, which often exceeds 7 figures. And we only need recall last fall when an ambulance-chasing lawyer ran for president, reputedly on a "health care reform" platform. 

Of course, the liberal media not once ever called on John Edwards to account for $50 million (paid by health insurance companies) he siphoned from the industry over his "successful" career.

Yet how many doctors actually make $50 million in a lifetime? And these "rewards" go to whom? The legions (leeches) of trial lawyers who wield extraordinary behind-the-scenes influence in how (and why) doctors must deviate their practices-- from sound preventive medicine-- to a strategy amounting to no less than "defensive desperation."

But who pays for all this? Of course, it's everyone else! Ergo, the health care crisis, and why health professionals pay extortion-sized premiums for malpractice insurance, forcing patients to undergo needless examinations, tests, prescriptions-- and even unnecessary operations.

This why doctors will order an expensive brain scan when a patient reports a headache. This is why doctors must run tests for diabetes when patients report any tingling or numbness. The doctors fear reprisal from the courts-- the dreaded malpractice lawsuit.

Yet the group who complains the most voiciferously about costs (and the need for health care nationalization) are the very same people -- the senate democrats-- who allow these cretins (trial lawyers) to wage a covert, escalating war on both our medical and drug communities.

But in all the health care debates, is this is EVER mentioned?

And as long as trial lawyers hold the malpractice Sword of Damocles over the AMA, universities might as well initiate a law curriculum to go along with each medical degree-- it could go a long way to solving every U.S. doctor's main problem-- our legal system.

Medical insurance premiums keep doubling every four or five years; employer costs keep rising; and as employers write off their costs to the government, the deficit keeps ballooning-- the REAL health care crisis. 

Back in the 19th century, Abraham Lincoln despised those (lawyers) who were members of his own profession, calling them..."corrupt exploiters"...who are collectively ruining this country faster than any destructive force with which we have been previously faced."

Currently, out of the total 99 seated U.S. Senators, there is an astounding majority of 61 who are attorneys, who continue to act as shills for the trial lawyer lobby, and take in their huge campaign contributions.

In 2003, republican-sponsored legislation in the Senate was defeated that would have capped "non-economic damages" in medical liability rewards, despite overwhelming support from the AMA (American Medical Association), and more than 50 other groups representing physicians, insurers, and patients.

The Patients First Act (S 11) would have limited damages for pain and suffering at $250,000. Senate democrats opposed the bill saying..."the recent steep increases in liability premiums have been caused by insurers, that previously maintained premiums at artificially low levels, but made up for it with big gains on stock market investments."

Basically. it amounted to appeasement of the legal lobby-- "do not bite the hand that feeds thee!" This elite-- comprised of unscrupulous malpractice lawyers-- number only in the thousands, but make life miserable for tens of millions.

And now, it's really getting sickening: Barack Obama is promising to fix our health care system--yet another opportunity to not ever "let a crisis go to waste". Once again, the democrats have succeeded in framing the debate as a "health-care crisis"-- rather than a legal one-- and have ignored the fact that legal misconduct in the medical industry has only gotten worse.

But given Obama's position (and his cozy relationship with trial lawyers), nothing will get done.

On his Saturday radio address, Mr. Obama referred to his health reform proposition as "my plan." But of course , there isn't yet any defined Obama plan; he apparently favors the one drafted by Ted Kennedy: 

a) all Americans will have health care

b) employers must contribute to the costs

c) private insurers must pay out a specified percentage of their premium revenues in benefits.

d) fines will be imposed on those who don't provide health care for their employees; thus it "incentivizes" employers to terminate their current health benefits, and simply pay the fine-- which is sure to be less expensive.

This will force at least 100 million employees (who are happy with their current health care) into the government plan, as well as create a new bureaucracy to impose and enforce the fines.

POINT-- If corporations are not motivated to create innovative new drugs, technologies, and facilities (i.e. profitability), why then would they work to develop them?

POINT-- If individuals are not motivated to devote the time and energy to becoming a physician (i.e. income), why would they study to become doctors?

POINT-- When individuals are “given” health care by the government (leading to higher taxes on the producers in society) where/when will these same individuals get the motivation to work?

The failures of the socialist/communist experiments have not ever worked ANYWHERE else; not Cuba; not Canada, and not in England. And there is no reason to believe it could ever succeed here.

The Obama administration has but one purpose in providing healthcare: it's nothing but another cover to transfer wealth from the haves to the have-nots; another excuse to increase the government bureaucracy-- essentially amounting to buying votes for Mr. Obama's re-election-- keeping one-party tyranny in place for years to come.

And employers have no business providing healthcare. It is a leftover from our post-World War II recovery. The IRS employer-tax exclusion provided an excuse for over-insured Americans toward becoming irresponsible with their own personal health, and lacking "skin-in-the-game" (motivation) to keep health costs under control. 

Just get rid of all the "corrupt exploiters"-- those greedy, no-good *&^%!!@** trial lawyers-- and let free market capitalism take care of the rest.

Ever since the exit of George Bush, late night comedians have struggled with the void: for the first time in recent memory, they had no Dubya (or Clinton) to lampoon during their monologues.

And to dare make fun of Barack Obama was completely off limits-- a first degree crime of political incorrectness.

There's the one where Mr. Obama said..."I will promise every American the same health care plan that I have as Senator!"  Hardy-har; guffaw-guffaw. Now that's funny!

Or how about the one where he claimed..."We're going to create five million alternative energy  jobs-- jobs that can't be outsourced!" Indeed--even funnier! And these were supposed to be those highly-coveted, "green-collar" jobs of the future according to Professor Barack-O, the energy master of disaster.

Are we ready for more jesting? How about when he was campaigning in Pennsylvania (and West Virginia) where Obama claimed he was for "clean coal"---basically an oxymoron -- just like all the rest of the "green energy" ideas.

But the apex of Obama's levity hit its peak in late summer "08, during a tour of an alternative energy plant near Monaca, Pennsylvania -- an operation synthesizing biofuels from chicken fat.  Mr. Obama had enthusiastically declared, "We can duplicate these plants all over America!"

This was undoubtedly Obama's greatest-ever idea! U.S. industry would churn out poultry fat-based biodiesel, and we'd thumb our energy noses at Saudi Arabia-- literally playing chicken with OPEC; and it would reduce foreign oil imports, plus show 'em thing or two about good ol' American ingenuity. 

But what came first; the chicken or the egg? It seems that every company who took up the Obama green banner (in 2008) is suddenly "chickening-out." Fat-generated biodiesel is about to bite the dust.

Thus far, every corporate player-- attempting to roll the dice and "play" the green energy game-- has thrown snake eyes.

A prime example is Green Fuel Technologies, one of the earliest, best-funded and most publicized "algae" companies. Green Fuel is shutting its doors; a victim of the credit crunch.

The company's plan was to pump carbon dioxide from smokestacks into "bio-reactors" (cavernous plastic bags filled with algae and water). The algae then grows fat within its cells (as lipids and carbohydrates) and is then converted into oil for biodiesel.

Of course, getting the process to run smoothly became quite another matter:

Green Fuel easily grew the algae; the problem was CONTROLLING it. The algae grew much faster than it could be harvested, and the process became highly unmanageable. The company also found its system would cost more than three times its target. Estimates were that algae- based green fuel would have cost American consumers $12-15 dollars per gallon-- now wouldn't Professor Obama have loved that!

But that’s typical: whenever Obama announces a new policy, he omits the details-- he just puts it out there for "discussion", and lets the media & public run with it.

And all politics aside, why was the threat of the algae fiasco not analyzed, nor the plight of the hapless chicken population ever mentioned?

Hundreds of millions of chickens would have been facing doom-- their innards destined not for the dinner table, but the fuel tank.  It would have meant open season on chickens everywhere-- possibly driving the species to extinction.

Has PETA been asleep at the switch?

And what about the EPA? After it became public that the algae-to-biodiesel process couldn't be controlled, this should have immediately set off  alarm bells in DC -- the specter of an unstoppable green tide of algae engulfing mankind, and possibly taking over the earth.

It would have made the disaster portrayed in the 1969 movie, "the Green Slime", tame by comparison.

And what about economic considerations? The chicken-biodiesel boondoggle would certainly have been another replay of the corn-ethanol disaster, further jacking up worldwide food prices. To what new heights would it have taken the price of poultry? Four-five- even six dollars per pound?

And our science-challenged anti-president never once mentioned the complicated process of "hydro-cracking," where chicken fat is converted to biodesel-- a process not easily performed in basements or garages. 

Chicken fat vaporizes at temperatures varying from 275 to 325 degrees Celsius (527 to 617 degrees Fahrenheit)  After liquefication and weighing, the contents are transferred to stainless steel reactors. Water and catalysts are then added to help achieve the desired pressure. 

But the law of economics always prevails. Costs of production for chicken-biodiesel = approx $40/barrel HIGHER than for conventional diesel; which would translate to fuel costing around $7/gallon!

And we thought $4.43/gallon gasoline was ridiculous (the all-time high of the 2008 peak gas prices).

So Mr. Obama, we only have one final question... wouldn't it just be easier to drill?