Some questions to ponder:

Why does the American Revolution remain such an enduring, endearing, timeless story to everyone?

Why are Andrew Jackson and Abe Lincoln generally regarded as the two best Presidents of the 19th century?

Now moving up the timeline to the early 20th century: Why are the Roosevelts -Teddy and Franklin- held in such high esteem?

Next follows Harry S.Truman; then John F. Kennedy- and finally Reagan; why are all three regarded - depending on one's perspective - as being the best presidents of the 20th century?

But in every case the answer is almost self-explanatory. The very word "American" stands for courage; tenacity; intrepidness...being bold - the willingness to take on one's enemy.

Throughout our history, can anyone think of a POPULAR president who was NOT a strong and decisive leader - one who refused to back down? One who would meet head-on with a challenge- even if it meant paying a steep political price?

Of course not! 

Now let's examine the "lilies of the field"- Presidents who refused to take action, and will forever remain besmirched within the pages of our history:

In 1853, the highly-vilified Millard Fillmore refused to address the simmering issue of slavery- and it would later flare up into a catastrophic civil war.

After Lincoln's April,1865 assassination, a venomous mob, unforgiving of Fillmore's sympathy for the South, surrounded his house - draped it in black cloth- then vandalized it by splashing ink everywhere; a testimony to Fillmore's despicable partisanship. 

In 1894; "second-time" president Grover Cleveland refused to address the economic downturn caused by "The Panic of 1893". Soon after his election, the country went into a severe depression; but despite the suffering of the unemployed, Cleveland stayed true to his "hands off" government policy and would not intervene.

Three-quarters of a century later, in 1968- the tepid response of Lyndon B. Johnson will never be forgotten when the USS Pueblo was seized by the North Koreans 10 miles beyond their coast.

North Korean naval vessels had surrounded the ship, captured the crew, and charged them with spying- and violating North Korean territorial waters.

Johnson's mysterious failure to act caused Pueblo's crew to suffer a long, tortured, miserable captivity for a year, and it served to humiliate America beneath the heel of a far less powerful country.

Not surprisingly, history bears witness that the two least popular presidents of the 20th century were Lyndon Johnson & Jimmy Carter- both liberals; and both were politicians- rather than patriots - at heart.

On Nov 4, 1979, a crowd of Iranian "students" (terrorists) seized the U.S. embassy and took 52 American diplomats hostage. At once, the worm-spined Carter sprung into action - immediately deciding that the most feasible tactic was negotiation.

Iran refused to negotiate.

Carter severed diplomatic relations, and then "brutally" imposed economic sanctions.

Iran countered by marching our blindfolded hostages before TV cameras - mortifying America before the eyes of the world.

Carter then appealed to the UN Security Council, and the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini responded by stating that Iran's parliament would be the one to decide the fate of the embassy hostages.

President Carter (and his entire administration) were bullied by a country we could have EASILY intimidated. But Carter will forever be known as the president who "engineered" America's most humiliating period (444 days) during the ENTIRE 20th century.

CONCLUSION? American history does not shine favorably on the weak or indecisive- or any politician refusing to take on the opposition.

For simplicity, let's call it the politics of poultry-- the chicken syndrome.

Probably the most egregious current example of poultry politics is Arlen Specter.

When Vermont Senator James Jeffords defected from the GOP in 2001, Mr. Specter railed against any senator who would callously change parties in mid-session.

Specter even went so far as to assure Pennsylvania voters that he would, "never  do such a thing"...declaring: "I am a Republican; I am going to run on the Republican ticket in the Republican primary."

Obviously, Specter is no profile in courage, and will forever be relegated to Benedict Arnold status hereafter, when he recently defected to become a democrat.

Next example: the odious Barney Frank:

For the last decade, Americans (particularly conservatives) wonder, "Why would the people of Massachusetts support such a dishonest, slimy liar as Barney Frank, and continually re-elect him to Congress?

But despite Mr. Frank's perfidy; he NEVER plays poultry politics.

Frank commands a perverse kind of respect from his constituents- the one vital trait that continues to enamor them-- he is a fighter.

Which leads us to the Republicans, and why--despite the brazen lies of the democrats- the GOP may lose the 2010 midterms, and even the general election in 2012.

But how you say? Haven't the lousy liberals (and Obama) already have blown it? Does it really seem plausible that the Republicans won't win?

Careful conservatives; there's one structural flaw -top to bottom- in the party; and its a fatal flaw at that.

Pitifully, the Republicans seem committed to be being the party of  the "fraidy cats"-- afraid to take a stand, and take the enemy head-on.

Ever since the presidential campaign of 2008, the Republicans have chosen to play poultry politics:

The Republicans were afraid of losing the moderate vote.

The Republicans were afraid of losing the black vote.

The Republicans were afraid of losing the women's vote.

The Republicans were even afraid of losing the Hispanic vote.

And they were campaigning in fear of losing the youth vote.

And surprise-surprise; in the last election- they lost them all - winning the only category expected ...the white vote.

The irony seems excruciating: 

When Obama was exposed as a disciple of Jeremiah Wright, the Republicans refused to exploit it...afraid of being called racists.

When Obama accused McCain of being "another George Bush" the Republicans had no response. They were afraid of reminding the moderate voters about the incredible unpopularity of their lame-duck President.

When Obama was being pilloried for supporting infanticide as an IIlinois Senator, the Republicans again refused to exploit a hot issue; this time, being afraid of losing the women's "right to choose" vote.

But as the old saying goes..."if you play not to lose, you’ll never win" (another definition of poultry politics).

Ironically, the Democrats - not the Republicans themselves- are the ones taking notice.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) recently affirmed this when he said, (quote) "If Republicans oppose Sonya Sotomayor (for the Supreme Court), they are doing so at their own peril."

Predictably, the Republicans WOULD become putty in Schumer's slithery hands, deciding to play nice during Sotomayor's confirmation hearing. 

Thus, on the Senate Judiciary Commitee, Republicans tossed one softball after another to the radical activist Sotomayor, who - once assuming the bench- will undoubtedly go on to become the most leftist jurist since Earl Warren. 

Schumer (perceptively) added, "I think the confirmation process will be more of a test of the Republican Party, than it is of Judge Sotomayor."

So what does Schumer seem to know, that Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Michael Steele (and the other so-called party leaders) don't even realize themselves?

Simple; the Republicans have become caught up in the liberal trick of the self -fulfilling prophecy.

And why?

Because it's what Schumer, Obama, Frank. and all the liberals seem to know, but the Republicans have yet to recognize: as long as the GOP keeps running as "being afraid to lose votes" (poultry politics) they'll NEVER win; ergo, the chicken syndrome.

The Republicans keep saying..."We need to be the party of Reagan"..."Act more conservative"…"Have a bigger tent"...etc.

Sorry boys; you need to stop talking about Reagan, and start ACTING like Reagan- a man of COURAGE, who would stand up to the opposition, fearless of what others thought about him; and choosing only what he thought was good for the country - not himself. 

And no matter what liberals say about the old Gipper, they'll never admit it, but they probably hold Reagan in even higher esteem than conservatives, because the Gipper was fearless; a trait that few -if any- liberal presidents can claim. 

So who amongst the current GOP leadership could be described as brave? Who could be considered truly meritorious of the title of party leader?

Gingrich? Ron Paul? Mitt Romney? Michael Steele? Huckabee? Who? Anyone? 

Try as they may to look for a theme, the Republicans - although diametrically opposed in political philosophy- trail the democrats in the one inherent necessity to win an election: the courage to fight to the end, no matter the worthiness of the cause.

Examine why the undecideds in the last election went so heavily for democrats- both Congress and the Whitehouse.

Practically all of America knew Obama was not truthful; voters realized they would be electing someone who had not served in the military, and had come from a "less than typical" American backround.

But compared to McCain -despite the fact he was a Vietnam war hero -they chose Obama instead.

Again why? Because many Americans perceived Obama as the one willing to stand up for what he believed- as flawed a philosophy as it was.

Nowadays, its not patriotism, not truthfulness, and not righteous causes that win elections -despite surface appearances.

Underneath it all, today's elections are won by displaying courage; showing voters the zeal to win.

Well, just keep rummaging through the closet; in much of the USA, July has been April, and were still anxiously a-waitin' summer - if it EVER arrives. 

Yep;  those oh-so-clever liberals had it right all along...the climate IS actually changing - our precious planet is getting COLDER.

Indeed, it was the first July Fourth in memory where bonfires (rather than fireworks) were the order of the day, to ward off perhaps the coldest 4th in our nation's history:

In the Midwest that same night, the low temperature dropped to 47 degrees. Meanwhile, you couldn't have located Al Gore with a search warrant.

Forever hereafter, it shall be known as the "Freezing 4th." In much of the Midwest and East, the weather was cloudy, drizzling, with a stiff wind out of the North - near jacket/sweatshirt temperature.

It was the coldest 4th of July on record at Norfolk, Virginia: the recorded daytime high was a searing 69 degrees; the previous record (70) was set in 1915.

It was the second-coldest 4th of July ever in Omaha...Fourth coldest in Lincoln, Nebraska. And in the cold, rainy Northwest, summer has been long overdue.

July 4th, 2009: Midwestern temperatures recorded at 2 PM were as follows...

-Chicago, Illinois: 66° F (and raining)

-Indianapolis, Indiana: 63° F (and raining)

-Erie, Pennsylvania: 69° F (sunny)

-Minneapolis, Minnesota: 69° F (partly sunny)

Yes, it was supposedly high summer. But liberals are cautioning..."extreme weather swings" are just part of the "uptrend" in global warming. 

In most areas of the country- despite the so-called 'danger' of CO2 emissions - summer temperatures are well BELOW average (according to the National Climate Data Center/NOAA); thereby confirming the fact the earth is cooling.

Conclusion? Global climate change is not as dependent on "rising CO2" as has been postulated. In fact, it's an outright fabrication, "supported" by liberal scientists at the IPCC (international panel on climate change) from the UN. 

But as the party in power, the liberals remain dangerous:

When fanaticism mixes with politics -plus scientific ignorance- it spells "problem"...climate change legislation - taxing CO2.

The answer? Fight back with knowledge. Embarrass all climate cretins! If they won't listen to common sense, use the "Socratic Method" (asking questions), thereby arriving at the truth.

QUESTION #1- What exactly, is climate change? Definition please.

QUESTION #2-  Is it CO2 accumulation? Greenhouse gas? Global warming? Climate change? Which is it? Please specify problem.

QUESTION #3 -The mystery of melting/reforming polar ice; if not global warming...what then?  

QUESTION #4- Whatever happened to the, "North Pole will disappear-within-5-years" prediction?  

Since liberals act confused by facts (and the suck-up leftist media won't reveal evidence to the contrary) just keep inquiring of them why every shred of new science around the globe predicts earth's cooling.

And who can we trust to verify global cooling? Just consult the experts - the most reliable source of all- the glaciers.

FACT: sea ice is expanding at the fastest pace ever by modern records. 

FACT: Alaskan glaciers are advancing for the first time in 250 years.

FACT: 90% of earth's glaciers are growing - 10% continue melting.

Naval physicists- studying sunspot trends- are predicting several decades of global cooling. And century-low levels of sunspots portend "little ice ages" may be around the corner, threatening shorter growing seasons, and possible food shortages.

Okay liberals; ready for some more "silly" facts? Try this head-scratcher...CO2 is HEAVIER than air.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural component of air (approximately 0.03%). It's colorless & odorless, and therefore, does NOT pollute.

Now let's play second grade science teacher: "If CO2 is heavier than air, it CANNOT accumulate (rise) in the upper atmosphere!" Any questions? Raise your hands." 

At the most technical level, REAL scientists find that no valid mechanism exists near earth's surface enabling CO2 to affect warming. Being heavier than air, CO2 absorbs all heat radiation available to it just above the ground.

Ergo, the major reason why "greenhouse gasses" do NOT create significant global warming is because this "relevant radiation" can interact with earth ONLY within the first few meters (10 actual meters for CO2).

Above that, heat radiation disperses equally, therefore not affecting the amount of warmth in the upper atmosphere.

Actually, the real problem with heavier-than-air CO2 is it collects in mine shafts. It also becomes dissolved in the oceans, forming a harmful acid to coral reefs (carbonic acid).

But as CO2 becomes dissolved in the sea, it does NOT warm it.

Recall when noted anti-scientist, John Holdren (a member of the Obama cabinet) said, (quote) "Drastic measures should not be off the table, in discussions on how best to tackle climate change."

Mr. Fanatic (Holdren) was proposing everything from placing mirrors in space (that reflect sunlight), to fertilizing the oceans with iron to encourage the growth of algae (to soak up atmospheric carbon dioxide).

Mr. Holdren's most crazed option was to "seed" clouds; thereby, bouncing the sun's rays back into space, so as to not warm earth's surface- certainly an idea that merited consideration for the Noble Prize for Lunacy. 

But why not actually reverse Holden's wild idea, and employ it in a way that would actually eliminate all of carbon dioxide's ecological harm? Seed the oceans!

Instead of taxing CO2 emissions via cap 'n trade laws, why not just purchase massive amounts of calcium hydroxide? (i.e. the substance used to keep aquariums clean)

Calcium hydroxide mixed with carbonic acid is a base reacting with an acid; therefore, a harmless salt (calcium carbonate) is formed- a "neutralization" reaction, thereby preventing the dissolving away of the beneficial ocean coral.

More specifically, when calcium hydroxide solution (the commercial product is known as Kalkwasser) is added to saltwater, it neutralizes the free carbon dioxide present, and converts carbonic acid to harmless bicarbonate ions, which combine to form solid calcium carbonate -- the same "white stuff" that forms coral in the first place.

"VIOLA" - problem solved. No more disappearing coral reefs.

Instead of using cap 'n trade laws to take trillions out of the economy, just tell all the looney libs to visit their friendly local aquarium shop, purchase some calcium hydroxide solution (which cleans fish tanks), and do their part to save the coral reefs - then shut up once and for all about global warming. 

On that same day, Roosevelt then issues "Executive Order 9066," branding lawful Japanese Americans as security threats - that they must surrender (at once) "for their own safety," and then be housed behind barbed-wire internment camps. 

For weeks thereafter, FBI agents combed the West Coast, arresting thousands of Japanese immigrants, considered “enemy aliens.’’

But this begs the obvious question: How had Roosevelt and the FBI been able to act with such startling efficiency? Was it the thought police?

On Dec. 9, 1941, (two days after Pearl Harbor), the U.S. Census Bureau produced a report titled, "Foreign Populations of the United States" which revealed data concerning every known Japanese person- by citizenship, place of birth, and population numbers (by counties) in states.

All reports were based on the 1940 census, leading to the internment of 110,000 Japanese-Americans, two-thirds of whom were already official U.S. citizens.

Although they felt betrayed by their country, eventually all Japanese Americans were released; but their way of life could never be fully restored. For years after Pearl Harbor, they would be ostracized as a "parallel society," still regarded worthy of suspicion and hate.

And evidence reveals the crafty Roosevelt had planned it all along. 

After 1940, well before Japan attacked, FDR had ordered the Census Bureau to collect information on "American and foreign-born Japanese", clearly illustrating the census' capability to target (and control) one's enemies. 

The US Census- administered every ten years since the Revolutionary War- was to be used for the apportionment of local representation in Congress.

But intentions of our Founders aside, census data has occasionally been employed as a tactic of war.

Union General William Sherman used the 1860 census to target Confederate enemies during his infamous, 500-mile Civil War march though the deep South in 1864.

To locate pockets of Jewish populations, Hitler assiduously utilized European census data between 1939-1943.

And now, our resourceful anti-president - inspired by General Sherman & Roosevelt - will again wield the census as an instrument of war, in his covert attempt to destroy all Republican opposition.

In January 1997 - after he was sworn in for a two-year term as Illinois state senator- Barack Obama's "T-shaped" 13th congressional district spanned Chicago's South Side, and was approximately 66% black.

Then came Spring of 2001: 

After his bitter loss in a March 2000 primary race for the U.S. Congress, Mr. Obama became determined to never lose another election again.

In the "Stratton Office Building" in the Illinois state capitol (Springfield ) there exists a limited-access room the Democrats have dubbed the "inner sanctum," requiring a precise, fingerprint-scanned code punched into a keypad.

This secret room has but one enormous printer, plus an array of computers- with big double monitors- displaying huge, detailed maps of Chicago. 

And the "inner sanctum" was where Mr. Obama, plus his trusted "technology consultant", John Corrigan, both sat in front of a terminal, re-drawing a new "S"-shaped 13th district- one that would turn out to be 77% black- enabling Obama to eventually win a U.S. Senate seat only three years later.

Presently, mapping technology has become so precise - and the available demographic data so rich - politicians from the winning party can easily "gerrymander" needed voters, right down to individual HOMES.

Now recall November 10, 2006, when after twelve "lean" years, Democrats finally wrested control the House of Representatives from the GOP.

The great hero of the conquering Democrats was none other than south Chicago's Rahm Emanuel. 

Emanuel's strategy was sheer ingenuity: he "dressed up" 50 former republicans to run in nationwide district primaries as "moderate democrats," and the majority would then go on to win former Republican seats- producing the present House "Blue Dog" voting bloc.

So is it any wonder why Mr. "win-at-all-costs" Obama chose Emanuel to be his Chief of Staff?  (a.k.a. the second most powerful man in Washington).

Picture this: Obama and Emanuel...in a limited-access room, adjacent to Rahm's office- only instead of one enormous printer there are five; and instead of two large monitors there are ten, displaying different areas of the country - the Obama/ Emanuel “war room.”

Now we add in the third south side Chicago player – ACORN - and the plan grows more intriguing.

So why is ACORN taking the census? Why are they doing it a full year in advance? Why are they using GPS? And why has Obama stripped the census from the Department of Commerce?

Presently ACORN - using GPS mapping- will incur the data needed to redraw the EVERY nationwide voting district along party lines, and dis-enfranchise all people not thought to be democrats.

Clever? Of course!

After all, when Chicago south side politics meets up with Washington DC, the stakes go higher; but the tactics remain just as low- if not lower-as before.  

Obviously, every ACORN "census worker" has been given precise instructions:

If something (anything) looks like it can be lived in, they are to map it; this includes group quarters (such as dormitories, group homes, prisons, and homeless shelters) giving the "war room" vital ammunition to redraw ALL voting district lines, and conducting a covert assault on the voters' beliefs that elections in the U.S. are inherently fair.

Supposedly, ACORN was signed on as a "national partner" with the U.S. Census Bureau in February 2009 to..."assist with the recruitment of the 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door, to count every person in the United States."

But these so-called "temporary people" are polished scammers: They are to look official, be courteous, but stop at nothing to get needed information.

Emanuel has instructed these ACORN census people to be bold, yet disarming:

Should any citizen become suspicious seeing them on their property, then open their door, they're to respond..."Hi, I'm from the U.S. census; we're just mapping out locations" (or something to that effect).

So important are these GPS co-ordinates, that a "supervisor" is sent out to follow each representative door-to-door, making certain NO possible location was left untallied.

Using a special ‘Blackberry’ with a GPS function, every door must be registered by the census employee, then checked out by a "follow-up" supervisor.

But why GPS co-ordinates? To "track" something by GPS, it has to be MOVING.

Despite unbridled rumors to the contrary, using numbers (GPS co-ordinates) rather than street addresses greatly facilitates constructing a database. This is why sheds, garages, and even barns are being mapped - fabricate as many "addresses" as possible. 

Thus, armed with this new data, if the White House thinks there's not enough of certain groups (democratic) shown in an area, they'll just add more 'ghost individuals," which will add more Congressional representative positions, creating an ever-larger democratic supermajority in the House.

Since Obama needed field reps who were experts at creating ghost individuals, he of course, selected ACORN.

The result? Any areas displaying huge numbers of illegal aliens will now be "rewarded" with a new Congressional district (the Constitution states that representatives are granted by basis of counted population, not number of citizens).

Hence, for 2010, all urban population totals will be adjusted UPWARD, guaranteeing these newly-created districts will always be represented in Washington by democrats.

And by the end of his second term, our beloved anti-president will have accumulated the political muscle (2/3rds majority) to ram through a bill to abolish the 22nd Amendment, and Commander-in-Sneak Obama will march his way triumphantly to a third, or possibly fourth presidential term.

It was early in his political career that Barack Obama learned that politics is a battlefield, and one must be willing to stop at nothing to win.

And now that they're together, Obama and Emanuel are not unlike the two evil twins, Hitler and Mussolini, who'll stop at nothing (corrupting the census) to keep their power intact, and insure the tyranny of one-party rule for years- even decades- to come.  

Yes everyone...brace yourself for the dreaded news: BP (British Petroleum) has decided to scrap its alternative energy initiative, and return to producing only oil.

Now hold on- before you all go hysterical - here's what essentially led up to the company's surprise announcement:

BP had been all set to move to alternative energy, such as solar, hydrogen fuel cells, biofuels, and carbon-capture and storage. 

Now before everyone shouts, "Just another greedy big oil company," the oil giant had really given alternatives its best shot. 

In 2005, BP allocated $8 million to create BP Alternative Energy; then another $80 million each year through 2008. 

But they might as well have spent the money refining whale oil, (which was once used to light kerosene lamps). BP was to only discover what all the others found: Nothing's on the horizon that can substitute for petroleum.

With oil's unique molecular structure, no scientist yet has any idea of how to replace or improve upon it.

But the BP story has a deeper, more ominous ring to it: if a huge company like British Petroleum failed at commercializing alternatives, what does that say?

Simple.  No matter how much money/ time / effort etc. is expended, you cannot INVENT new forms of energy. And oil- like it or not- will be around for at least the next hundred years- perhaps longer.

Compare America 's irrational energy policy to that of other oil-aggressive nations (China-India). They’re not going forward with green energy, but expansive, worldwide oil production.

But here we are in the United States, courting an all-out energy disaster:

Currently we are importing 67% of our oil; but each year, U.S. domestic production in the Southwest and the Gulf declines at approximately 2%, meaning by 2020, we will then be importing almost 90% of our oil- NINETY percent!

So now, the "oil clock" is ticking:

As we continue to produce less domestic energy- but import ever-larger amounts of foreign oil - the national debt keeps going up.

As our national debt keeps rising...interest rates go up.

As interest rates go up...our economy goes south.

As our economy goes south, there's less revenue to run government- hence, taxes keep rising.

As taxes keep rising, profits decline...corporations move overseas, or disintegrate altogether.

As corporations disappear, our manufacturing base shrivels; then we've hit the bottom of a risk spiral- the point of greatest vulnerability.

Meanwhile our enemies are on the move:

OPEC gets wealthier (Iran in particular).

The cash-rich Chinese are buying up the Panama Canal in stages- plus oil assets of other countries around the world (Brazil-Mexico-Nigeria)

Now, the oil cataclysm suddenly emerges: 

What if war suddenly erupted in the Ukraine, or in Asian Georgia? Should one of our allies be involved, would we even be able to honor our NATO commitment?

Or how about some flashpoint in the Mideast? What if Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S. was completely cut off from Mideast oil? What then?

Meanwhile, with very limited steel production- and a small manufacturing base- how could we properly engage a long conventional war?

Now the Strategic Petroleum Reserve runs dry- what would all the liberals say then? Without oil, our entire military would literally be grounded!

And what about solar-powered tanks, and wind-powered F-18's? How well would we do fighting with those fantasies?

But this is exactly what our enemies are seeing: an idiopathic, ever-weakening USA, ripe for defeat- the ONLY country in the world that has declared its own domestic energy supply virtually off limits.

When the 2nd Iraqi War began in March 2003, only about 2 percent of the Army’s 110,000 Humvees were armored. Our soldiers quickly discovered that roadside bombs could decimate their vehicles, and Congress quickly allocated $400 million for armored Humvee production.

But so depleted was our manufacturing capabilty, it took a full year and a half before enough specialty-steel, armor bolt-on kits could arrive .

And only two companies  O'Gara, (now called Centigon) and Armor Works, were able to supply newly designed "up-armored" Humvees; and at a pitiful rate of 300 vehicles per month,

Our soldiers, meanwhile, had to jerry-rig Humvees with sandbags and steel plates to absorb the blasts, until new vehicles finally arrived. But in the interim, hundreds of our soldiers were killed or maimed unnecessarily, simply because  America lacked the capacity for production.

And since then, we have learned NOTHING. 

So in a future war, would we subcontract Mexico to make our tanks? Or how 'bout the French? America has entered into a new era of national stupidity- pretending there will never be another major war, and that CO2 is the real enemy to conquer.

Meanwhile the Chinese are prepared; the Russians are preparing; and the North Koreans continue to tweak America 's nose.

But what do we do? We strangle our economy with cap 'n trade, promote windmills and sunpower, and keep paying OPEC  for our oil -- enriching our enemies even more.

What was it Karl Marx once said about..."selling us the rope with which we will hang ourselves?" Now  subsitute "OPEC oil" (for rope) and we have all but already accomplished it.

In 1973, during the Yom-Kippur War, the Arabs completely cut off  their oil imports to the US; and you'd better believe, if the opportunity ever arises, they'll do it again.

The old Roman general, Publius Flavius Vegetius, said it best..."Si vis pacem para bellum"-- "IF YOU WANT PEACE, PREPARE FOR WAR."

To neglect our abundant oil reserves, in lieu of alternative energy, portends an apocalypse; at best a declining economy; but in a worst-case scenario- a calamitous, military defeat.

America must realize the oil clock is ticking, while we continue to walk a "carbon free" path to alternative energy disaster.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Barack Obama a Marxist? Why would anyone say that?

Take Vladamir Lenin for example: Now THERE'S a Marxist. In fact, one could say he wrote the book; it was Lenin who established the four basic rules guiding Russia's early 20th century transformation to Communism:

RULE #1: "You must destroy a nation before you can establish a socialist utopia of Communism"

RULE #2: "The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency"

RULE #3: "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation"

RULE #4: "There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience"

Now c'mon; why indeed would anyone accuse our smiley-faced anti-president of Marxism? Is that being fair?

Conservatives agree, "Obama is a socialist"...and..."he has never achieved anything, nor run anything in his previous life; and therefore, knows NOT how to run the economy."

But that's exactly the point. All Obama needs to know is how to ruin an economy- just what he's up to now. 

Obama may be a bumbler- but he's the most clever one in political history.

His so-called objectives for the "common good” are class warfare, upheaval & partisanship; then weaken national security. It's much easier to ravage a divided populace, than one united by a common enemy...him.

The Republican pundits and talk show hosts say..."Obama is simply out of his depth; he hasn’t a clue about what makes the economy tick"...etc.

Yes, according to his critics, its a unanimous verdict..."Barack Obama- he just doesn't get it"

But it seems that conservatives are the ones not "getting it." Obama has them all drawing blanks.

Six months in office, and Obama has already done more to damage our economy than all previous presidents combined in American history.

Obama has it down pat; the major difference between him and your everyday, run-of-the-mill Marxist is his ability to sugar-coat the destruction of the upper classes in sweet-sounding rhetoric. He pretends he's on everybody's side, then proceeds along his merry Marxist way.

Obama -with his great anti-stimulus hoax- has virtually guaranteed the economy won't recover, because it chains the U.S. with two classic economic leg irons:

1) no tax cuts- Obama knows every possible way to RAISE taxes without calling it that. 

2) keep energy expensive- Obama ruins America's productivity with his alternative energy dictums. 

Then there's Obama's covert war on business: he raises corporate taxes, then cleverly depicts anyone making over 250K as "rich"- and 90% of these are small enterprises, and el-slicko Obama knows it.

It's all just part of that good ol' Karl Marx class warfare thing, or as Nietzsche once said," When you see someone falling, give them a push."

EXAMPLE: An income of $ 250,000...it sounds like a lot to most; but 4 out of 5 people at this level are small businesses, currently paying an average 47% of their gross to the federal government-- plus an additional 5-7% for state and local taxes. 

Under Obama this rises substantially-- possibly 70%-- once new tax hikes, plus all the healthcare increases, energy hikes, etc. are factored in.

And how about Obama's supposed failure of the stimulus? Sorry critics, but it's working superbly- just as he intended.

Obama already knows there's no "spending to prosperity;" and that tax increases on those already carrying 65% of the load portends disaster- exactly why he does it.

Obama is Machiavelli on steroids. He knows the more his opponents rail, the easier his objective becomes:

As long as people believe he's "obtuse"..."too liberal to issue tax cuts"...and..."believes in big government rather than free enterprise;" all these critics unconsciously do his evil bidding: either way, Obama has a bulletproof cover story to play Marxist Robinhood, all the while remaining aloof above the fray. 

Thanks to Obama's anti-stimulus, 1 out of 7 Americans are unemployed or under employed- and going higher; plus a good portion of these jobs are never coming back. And higher business taxes drive corporate enterprise overseas. 

Our industrial base is gone. We produce little, borrow excessively, and thus have almost no way to begin an economic recovery-- and Obama just continues making it worse.

So when will the recovery begin? Never! And never is just fine with Mr. Obama. 

Obama, wanting the economy to recover? No way. Unlimited bloodsucking (er, wealth redistribution) takes precedence over all.

But why would ANY president deliberately wreck the economy? Well, for one thing, who would vote against a sugar daddy?

As the middle/upper classes are devasted by tax hikes, cap 'n trade, and government health care, all this wealth doesn’t just disappear, it finds its way to a rapidly-expanding underclass, which is redistributed to “the poor", who will forever vote "Socialist Obama" in gratitude.

And combine the "sugar daddy" thing with ACORN taking the census-- and registering dead and illegitimate voters-- Obama's re-election is virtually a sure thing. 

How's that for "bumbling" your way into a second term?

Barack’s America: an unrecognizable America- based on socialist dogma, redistribution of wealth, oppressive taxes, socialized medicine, military unpreparedness, and class warfare reparations- possibly driving the U.S. into a depression that could easily be deeper than that of the 1930's.

Which of course, takes us back to good ol' Vladdie Lenin, and his rule #1..."You must destroy a nation before you can establish a socialist utopia of communism."

Yep...that dumbell Obama; he just doesn't get it. He probably can't even spell "bourgeoisie." 

Here are ten refreshing ideas (circa 1963) on improving society- all suggested by the manifesto of the American Communist Party; some of them may actually ring familiar:

1) Capture one or both political parties in the United States  

2) Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press   

3) Discredit American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression

4) Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights

5) Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, and policy-making positions.

6) Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

7) Get control of the schools. Soften the curriculum.

8) Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks

9) Gain control of all student newspapers 

10) Use student riots to foment public protests

Indeed, wonderful ideas all!  And all of them have taken hold, and gone on to inspire the liberals, who are today's "closet communists," spreading their avowed obsession to be "fair" to everyone.

And let's not forget the NEA (National Education Association), which nowadays, actually functions more like the NBA (National Brainwashing Association).

Once upon a time, the teachers of the National Education Association (founded in 1857) actually went beyond the limits of their job description for the good of their students.

During the Great Depression, many teachers would cook soup every day for the school children, most of whom didn’t get breakfast at home .

Before World War II it was (gasp) illegal in many states for female teachers to be married. 

The old fashioned teacher cared about her pupils’ welfare; she also cared outside of the

classroom as well as in. She often served as a "secondary" parent and vocational advisor for those rare instances when a student in her class came from a "broken home."

But three generations hence, how things have changed.

A New York public school teacher was terminated when she dared try and console a grieving child (who's father had died) with a prayer for her student, and some comforting words of hope.

Meanwhile, when that same New York City school system had learned that one of their tenured teachers had joined a national pedophile organization, his punishment? He was reassigned- but given a "firm rebuke."

In America, teachers can pass out condoms in schools. Teachers can even have forums and discussions on devil worship, homosexuality, and why gay marriage should be legalized.

But when moments of silence, pledge of allegiance, prayers before class, and observance of religious holidays become focus issues - rather than teaching facts- we are moving from a state of education, to one of institutionalized religious eradication.

Schools nowadays are going backwards. Teachers can’t mention God, but teaching "social" religion is okay, and is actually encouraged.

But behind it all is the liberal obsession with the word "GOD"- and uprooting it.

In todays public schools, God is a "three letter word." Teachers are escorted out by security guards if  words like "God," "Jesus,"  "intelligent design," etc. are even hinted at.

But why? Because God and socialism are like oil and water.

Today's NEA is about power...teacher power in the classroom - i.e. the teacher (NOT God) is the great almighty.

So why does the NEA despise the thought of God so much? It removes the focus of their power to indoctrinate the student.

Traditionally, God is viewed as omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (infinite powers). God is viewed as maleness; God is viewed as unique... that a supreme being rules over America and is present everywhere.

God also implies control, who guides one in the direction He wishes.

These "divine concepts" are sheer apostasy to libs in general, and the NEA in particular.

In brief, the two (God and liberalism) are incompatible.

Indeed, how can the NEA get on with its business of brainwashing students with God hanging around? Impossible! Ergo, the concept of eradicating belief in God (and Christian religion) has become job numero uno - with "education" being secondary.

After all, with kids not being taught any factual science, nor the three R's, we musn't have God interfering with such things as evolution, global warming, radical environmentalism, and one-world government.

Some of the liberal tenets of today's NEA classroom 'social religion' include:

-Man evolved by chance (evolution).
-Man is "God" on earth -there's no supreme being.
-Man is his own authority.
-There are no absolutes- everything in effect can be interpreted individually.
-Any form of sexual expression or perversion is acceptable.
-Government ownership or control of the entire country.
-Global citizenship replaces self-determination and nationalism.
-No existence beyond the grave.

Despite the billions upon billions in public school funding, the system produces not young scholars, but illiterate, drug-abusing imbeciles and delinquents-- cultivating all the so-called, "wrong things" at school.

With atheism and immorality being tacitly encouraged, is it any wonder why 30% of teen girls become pregnant; and in most public schools, students are more likely to be raped or assaulted (at some point) rather than to come home actually having learned anything.

The problem with liberals is that they cannot realistically replace their cultural targets of destruction with anything better for our society.

And this should be the issue for the Conservatives- not just to win elections, but to save our children from these atheists before it’s too late.

Analyze all liberal causes: global warming... environmentalism... high taxes... government control of lifestyle... welfare...abortion: if you dig beneath -- it originates from the same ethereal baloney:

-there is no God

-there is no morality

-man is in control; and that government- not a higher authority - is master.

To liberals (like the communists) ABSOLUTE behavior control is imperative. This includes both the young and the old.

Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama - no doubt have been paying attention.

Here it comes...battle stations! Seven big bad Democrats, all members of the House Intelligence Committe, have decided to return fire back at the CIA.

The "angry seven" have sent a letter urging Director Leon Panetta to publicly reveal the "renunciation" he gave to the Committee at a June 24 closed-door meeting, which refuted his May 15 pronouncement ...(quote) "it is not the policy or practice of the agency to mislead Congress."

Shocking. Apparently all along, it HAS been the policy of the CIA to mislead Congress; and Panetta (he of the guilty conscience) is finally "coming clean."

This out-of-the-blue "letter" claims that last June 24, Panetta had revealed, (quote) "senior CIA officials have concealed significant actions, and misled lawmakers repeatedly since 2001."

Not surprisingly, this letter tacitly calls Panetta a prevaricator (but NOT on official congressional letterhead) and seemingly attests to having extracted a confession from the apparently hapless CIA director. 

So it's "all aboard!" We now have yet another merry-go-round meeting of the House democrat liar's club-- and Mr. Panetta has been pulled along for the ride.

The seven Democrats -- who signed the letter dated June 26 -- are Reps. Anna Eshoo of California, John Tierney of Massachusetts, Rush Holt of New Jersey, Mike Thompson of California, Alcee Hastings of California, Adam Smith of Washington and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois.

But first let's "reset" the board: 

May 15, 2009- Despite evidence to the contrary, Nancy Pelosi refuses to admit the CIA did not lie to her; but during her denouncement, she was stammering in front of the DC press corps as if suddenly stricken with cerebral palsy.

Then Leon (the nose) Panetta actually shocked Washington-- he stuck up for his agency; declaring, "the CIA doesn't mislead Congress;" in retrospect, a gaffe, given the fact that Panetta is nothing but a democratic hack leftover from the Clinton dustbin.

Indeed, it was all a pipe dream that Pelosi would be left twisting in the wind with a liar's tag stamped on her forehead. So no doubt, Rahm Emanuel immediately went into damage control, and contrived Washington's most recent cover story: 

1) Pelosi would jet off  to China (a country she despises for human rights' violations) to turn down the heat 

2) Panetta would then set up a phony meeting, gather "evidence" for several weeks, and then later "testify" in late June in front of the House Intelligence Committee (intelligence being an oxymoron)

3) a group of democrats (from the Committee) would then compose a "letter" demonstrating "outrage" to Panetta, calling for him to make public a statement condemning the previous administration for fibbing to the "I-cannot-tell-a-lie" Pelosi. (as usual, blame Bush)

Of course, Panetta would be stooge-- after all, that's why he was appointed CIA director in the first place.

But this so-called letter of indignation from these seven Democrats raises obvious inconsistencies:

Exhibit A: Why would Panetta claim at first (May 15) the CIA has kept Congress truthfully informed, then suddenly, he admits the agency isn't doing what he publicly claimed it did? (basically amounting to Panetta calling himself liar)

Exhibit B: Why are we not hearing from the Republicans (also members of the House Intelligence Committee) that were at this supposedly closed-door (June 24) meeting?

Exhibit C- Why did this "letter "(one brief paragraph) contain no details about what information the CIA officials allegedly concealed, or how they purportedly misled members of Congress?

The answer, of course, comes straight from the Emanuel/Pelosi playbook: force Panetta  to back stab people at the CIA, so as to provide cover for the House speaker, who is as vital to the Obama fascist machine as ice to a polar bear.

It's yet another poorly-contrived Obama scam to divert GOP congressional bloodhounds off Pelosi's trail. Mr.Emanuel and fancy Nancy obviously feel they're bulletproof.

But this begs the obvious question...why would Panetta take a firm stand one way, and 6 weeks later, he suddenly comes forth with some bogus 180-degree retraction?

Panetta might just as well admit..."I've been compromised-- either submit to Emanuel & Pelosi, or I take home a pink slip."

Now imagine this scenario: Panetta had broken ranks, stood by his agency, and refused to play ball with Pelosi. What then? 

Given the need to maintain the credibility of his most vital henchman (er henchperson) on Capitol Hill, Obama would've asked Mr. Panetta to "kindly step down," and then contrive some horsepucky about.. "Mr. Panetta has chosen to pursue interests in his private life, and spend more time with his family."

After Panetta was appointed CIA director, Washington's illumenati wondered why Obama would choose someone completely inexperienced in the intelligence field.

But now the mystery is solved; all along, Obama had planned on getting even with Bush & Cheney for Iraq; and a puppet CIA director would be key. Now, with this unplanned Pelosi scandal coming to the fore-- and his cowardly retraction-- Panetta's appointment becomes one of Obama's most clever moves.

And one can only wonder how much of an "under the table" deal the Machiavellian Pelosi promised the seven signing the phony letter. For those lucky seven districts, it's certain to be "earmark city," and probably a lot more.

Claiming "the CIA misled me" indeed does brand Pelosi a pathological liar. The CIA is an agency. Agencies are abstractions, and unable to "mislead." Only people can mislead.

So how did Pelosi come up with such a sudden case of amnesia? Where are the names of the people who misled you, liar Pelosi? When you sat on the House intelligence Committee back in 2002, did you suddenly take leave of your intelligence?

The worst part of all…Panetta is an Obama stooge; he would destroy the CIA to serve his master, heading an agency vital to our nation's safety; where a lying CIA director would compromise America's national security for some mere political purpose.

But what did we expect?

But how would you react? Of course, you'd be astonished, outraged.

Would you not immediately call the principal, and inquire..."What the *!*&*#@% are you trying to do? RUIN my child’s education? If this insane idea isn't trashed at once, I'm removing him (her) immediately!"

But thanks to the leftists (who control our nation's schools), the insanity of no more letter grades has become reality. 

In Prospect Elementary School (Pelham, N.Y.) students will now receive "standards based" report cards- yet another liberal attempt to further destroy what’s left of our educational system.

This is all in favor of turning out a new (and lesser prepared) "Duh" Generation, with even more moronic "students" than those at the college level that exist now.

Instead of letter grades, Prospect Elementary's report cards will bear numbers, indicative of how students fare at specific skills, like “decoding strategies” (reading with comprehension), and “number sense operations" (arithmetic).

The top grade of "4", (brainchild) indicates a student is “meeting standards with distinction," while the lowest mark, "1", indicates the student (dolt) is NOT achieving New York State’s academic standards.

Translation: We don't want to discourage self esteem in our wonderful children; we can't be having "A" students running around, hurting the feelings of our "lower performers."

Educators (NEA liberals) profess the new system as a way for setting "clearer expectations." But many parents find it confusing, or worse - a clear and present danger to their child's motivation for learning.

Classroom teachers claim ..."this new approach will be more accurate, because it measures each student against a stated set of criteria, rather than grading on a curve, which compares members of a class with one another."

Step-by-step, these “education-based” leftists are slowly chipping away at the very foundation of our democracy-- an educated electorate.

First, it was the banning of teaching traditional American history in public schools. Now, they're taking away grades.

So what's next? Coloring books for the SAT? Paint-by-numbers for high school graduation exams?

Of course, we can't be "overstressing" our students!  Don't they already have enough to worry about, with global warming and the destruction of the environment? 

But is this not all key to the leftist strategy to divide our country along educational generations; and keeping both young & old ignorant of our nation’s politics? A plot not unlike any take over in some banana republic?

It’s a two-pronged attack to "ignorize" the entire country.

We've got leftists firmly in control of the schools (subverting the knowledge of the young), and the mainstream media in the grasp of liberals, obfuscating the truth from everyone else! 

Analyze the results of the last general election: Without those young, under-25 (imbecile) voters, Barack Obama would be back in Illinois, voting "present."  But because of ignorance, here he is in the Oval Office, brazenly attacking our Constitution from the left.

And what are conservatives on the right doing about it? They're holding tea parties, which basically amounts to "preaching to the choir." 

Sure, the tea parties are attracting attention- but not from where it's wanted:

Instead of sending "warnings" to moderate democrats-- slowing down Obama's leftist agenda in Congress- what the tea parties have accomplished is the exact OPPOSITE. 

Obama has turned the tables again: the only tea party message he's getting (from the Right) is "Hurry up on the Left (Congress) before November 2010." Our anti-president has cleverly discerned... it's "damn the tea parties...full speed ahead."

The result? Leftist overdrive:

First, it’s the Waxman-Markey bill. Next, the democrat's sneaky, back door manipulation to pass nationalized health care; Then it's green energy, followed by Obama's amnesty/immigration reform; plus takeover of the banks, and then Obama's expropriation of the auto industry. Next, it'll be Obama's plan to nationalize the energy industries, and destroy the coal companies.

Obama has put 'em all on fast forward, knowing that if he continues to be attacked from the Right, it only garners MORE support from his Left, as long as he has the majority on Capitol Hill.

Tea parties may be a "feel good" way of rebelling against tyranny; but why not hit back at the left where it really hurts? Take away the foul instrument of their absolutism-- attack the mainstream media!

ATTACK STRATEGY #1: Boycott your local newspaper

Call your editor; DEMAND to speak to him; (or get e-mail address); your message should state the following: "Dear Sir: Recently, the House was able to pass a law called cap and trade (Waxman-Markey bill). But your newspaper did not at all cover its calamitous outcome; it will soon raise my electric (utility) bills by at least 100-150%; but your publication only mentioned the bill would be "good for the environment, and reduce our dependency on foreign oil." This is all half-truth and rubbish!

I am demanding that- lest this measure pass in the Senate- your paper print the full story about its consequences within the next week; if not, I am canceling my subscription, and I shall be prepared to tell others of your callous censorship, and urge them to do likewise.

SIGNED (your name)

ATTACK STRATEGY #2: Community Organizing Against Liberals (COAL) 

Form COAL groups in your neighborhood, church or local civic organization. Establish an  internet blog (or discussion forum) focused on targeting the corrupt practices of ACORN.

Since Congress refuses to expose these leftist criminals, it's the duty of the right (COAL) to inform the public exactly how ACORN subverts elections, and will be acting as corrupt census takers- plus doing all they can to undermine our democratic way of life.

ACORN is supported by government funding, provided by equally corrupt members of Congress; and conservatives have only15 months to stop them from corrupting the 2010 midterm elections. 

Members of COAL work together to share information and strategies, (such as letters to the editor) and whatever lawful means that are most effective in their community (door-to-door communication). Join efforts with others. This must be a co-operative endeavor, and should be kept low key.

ATTACK STRATEGY #3: Target the democrats with the tag of "Un-Americanism"

Because of their liberal political bias, most of the news media has long been subservient to the Democrat Party. But since democrats have become leftist pawns of an un-American socialist-oriented federal government, why not fight back with calling (branding) these people for what they clearly are…"The Un-American party."

Why allow the left to negatively brand the Republicans as the "party of NO"? "Re-branding" democrats as the "Un-American party" will boil them into a stew of disarray, and put them on the defensive indefinitely. After all, can there be any more derogatory insult in politics than being called un-American? It will succeed superbly!

ATTACK STRATEGY #4: Nancy Pelosi "Wanted Posters"

The "Wanted" posters from the days of the old West succeeded in causing outlaws to stay hidden; if they showed up in ANY town, they were instantly recognized, then sent to jail- or they barely escaped with their lives. 

And who could think of anyone --other than Nancy Peolsi-- more deserving of the title of "outlaw of our Constitution"...and "Wanted for subversion of our democracy!"  Pelosi has gotten away with her dictatorial rule in the House long enough!

Since she assumed the mantle of House Speaker in January of '07, Pelosi is directly responsible for our high gasoline prices (she won't allow any domestic drilling measures to be voted on). She is also guilty of ramming through the budget-busting stimulus bill in the House, and was beyond instrumental in sneaking the calamitous passage of the Waxman-Markey travesty, which will eventually bankrupt our country.

Pelosi not only has usurped her Constitutional power as House Speaker, she now actually wields more political power in Washington than Obama himself.

So why not Pelosi "wanted" posters on every block? Why not signs in our yards? And why not "wanted" bumper stickers? Post her picture everywhere!  If the people from her district (in California) won't stop her, why should the rest of our nation be subject to her cold-blooded tyranny? She is a known liar, a diabolical manipulator, and as dangerous to the common welfare as any criminal who now walks the streets - seeking more victims.

ATTACK STRATEGY # 5: Boycotting the major news networks (NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC)

-Write (e-mail) into all the “alphabet” networks, informing them that if they continue to report only “half” the news, and continue to edit out all criticism of the Obama administration, they will only see their pitiful audience drop further.

CONCLUSION: Just as you would remove your child out of a school for not issuing report cards, its time to practice likewise with your media:

-Cancel your subscriptions to corrupted media publications (NY Times. Washington Post etc.)

-Where possible, patronize media sources that endeavor to provide balanced coverage of political events.

.

On the day after they attacked Pearl Harbor - December 8, 1941 - the Japanese immediately turned their attention to the tiny atoll of Wake Island; but the heroic resistance of the marines who fought them there remains legend to this very day. 

The battle of Wake Island--similar to  Bunker Hill-- was a  pyrrhic victory for the enemy, but a great boost to America's morale at a time when war was at its darkest hour.

Despite the overwhelming odds, the Marines on Wake had decided that they would rather DIE fighting, than surrender. 

Marine commander, Major James Devereux, had devised a "Bunker Hill" type strategy..."Don't fire until I give the order".  The marines were to remain in their bunkers while the Japanese invasion fleet bombarded the tiny island as they sailed in.     

Wake Island's defenses had but a mere 12 fighter planes, plus a number of heavy duty Browning machine guns. But the marines were bolstered by a battery of powerful 5-inch cannons, which would decimate the surprised Japanese.

After a shuddering one-hour barrage, the invading Japanese fleet had closed to within 4000 yards (near point blank range). Major Devereux finally gave his signal..."Commence firing!" Then, the devastation was on:

Japanese warships exploded and sank after direct hits. Others were crippled-- forced to turn & retreat. The destroyer "Hayata" then attempted to charge the island, only to suffer a direct hit in its forward magazine, splitting it like a folding jackknife; it then quickly sank with its 168 crewmen. 

Incredibly, not a SINGLE American life was lost (five Marines were wounded). U.S. forces had won their first "victory" of the war. Historians wrote: "It was the only time in all of World War II that coastal defense guns would successfully drive off an amphibious landing." 

On December 18, an amazed Pearl Harbor had radioed Wake, asking: (QUOTE) "Is there anything that we can provide?"  Then the historic message from the marines on the island came back..."Send us more Japs!"

Aboard the aircraft carrier, USS Saratoga (anchored in Pearl Harbor), news of the brave resistance led the ship's newspaper to issue an edition with the headline, "SEND MORE JAPS!" 

Soon, all the newspapers back home were heralding the "Send More Japs" headline: The American public was thrilled by the marine's bravado, and U.S. morale received a remarkable boost.

But late in December, the Japanese returned with an even more powerful armada, replete with two large aircraft carriers. 

The Marines had been promised that a relief force-- also with two aircraft carriers-- was headed their way.  A second major battle was now about to begin.

But at the last minute, Wake's relief force was ordered to "turn back to Pearl" by Admiral W. Scott Cunningham-- thinking the battle was lost.

According to Cunningham's thinking..."Our Navy forces were stretched thin at the time, and we could ill afford any more losses (after Pearl Harbor) just to rescue 300 marines."

When the news hit Washington, President Roosevelt angrily replaced the lily-livered Cunninghanm; but it was too late. Wake's brave marine defenders would serve out the rest of the war in Japanese prison camps.

Cunningham's lack of fortitude was a bitter pill for the Navy to swallow. Historians agree that if the relief force hadn't been ordered back, not only would Wake Island have been saved, but also a great U.S. naval victory might have been won. 

To this day, the irony of Wake Island remains one of the darkest marks on the Navy's entire performance in World War II. 

But looming on the horizon, are the sacrifices of brave American troops once again about to be be betrayed? Instead of the cowardice of W. Scott Cunningham, let's interject Joseph R. Biden (aka, the Chickenhawk).

Biden recently arrived in Baghdad to negotiate the final withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. But does anybody really think that Mr. Biden even cares about our troops?

Biden (and Obama) voted against the surge; but now Mr. Biden seeks to take credit for our soldier's hard-won victory. And not only does our VP suffer from "foot in mouth" disease, but also a faulty memory:

During his January 8, 2007 appearance on “Imus in the Morning,” Mr. Biden had said, “there’s a civil war that will not be affected by us putting in 20,000 or 30,000 or 40,000 troops. It will not change the dynamic.”

Three days later (during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing) Biden said: "I believe the president’s strategy is not a solution-- it’s a tragic mistake."

If one were to carefully examine the core of president Bush’s plan (the Surge), it was to send 30,000 additional Americans to troubled Iraqi provinces, where...(quote)..."They will go, with their fellow Iraqi soldiers, door-to-door, and root out the insurgents, one by one."

Unbeknownst to many, rather than military power, it was the power of the "Benjamins" - the almighty American dollar -- that eventually ended up turning the tide:

After Iraqi sectarian fighting hit its "surge" in 2006, murder, kidnapping, and beheading awaited any native Iraqi trying to work for the Americans. Those who did, ALWAYS wore masks. By necessity, the State Department had sent out pleas for foreign workers. The responders were primarily unemployed men from Jordan -- wishing to escape the poverty of their oil free country.

The Jordanians quickly assumed another vital function; INTELLIGENCE. They spoke Arabic, and began locating all the IUDs (roadside bombs) -- the chief weapon killing the Americans-- which were disguised as garbage, or hidden within animal carcasses.

The Jordanians- plus others- were now flashing $100 bills (Benjamins) around, and Sunni residents became jealous, wishing to also wear nice green uniforms, and have well-paying jobs. The Sunni began complaining to their local mullahs.The mullahs would make a deal with the American officers; everyone would now "be on the payroll." 

The "Great Awakening" consisted of the Iraqis realizing that that these so-called American "occupiers" were actually their friends; and Iraqi friendship could easily be bought- very easily.

But what's to happen when the Americans leave, and take away the highly-coveted $100 "Benjamins" along with them? Iraq will no doubt see a resurgence in so-called sectarian violence, basically an unemployment problem, rather than a civil war.

Since the start of the Iraqi conflict--not the Iraqi people themselves-- but Iran (Hezbollah) and the Wahabi Muslims of Saudi Arabia (al-Qaida) have been the true fomenters of opposition vs. the Americans.

In October of 2007, an account of Hezbollah’s role was provided by four captured Shiite militia. After being questioned separately, the captors revealed that-- as suspected-- Iranians were training Iraqi militia in Iran in unobtrusive ways, such as how to set up a suicide bomb factory, and paying locals to plant them.

Meanwhile al-Qaida was recruiting suicide bombers from poor families in Syria and Jordan (paying each family $23,000) to come to Iraq and be "martyrs for Allah," and fight off the invading "American infidels." 

Their goal was simple: If enough soldiers, UN officials, Red Cross workers, Iraqi police etc. were murdered, the Americans (and British) would cut and run, and either Shiite or Sunni fundamentalists would fill the power vacuum.

But now, after the long-shot success of the surge in Iraq-- and the many American lives sacrificed there- are we about to see an ironic repeat of the Wake Island fiasco? 

Vice President Biden has sent Iraqi leaders a mixed message, saying ..."the path to a secure peace lies in uniting ethnic and sectarian groups;" but also adding..."the U.S. might disengage from your country if it reverts to sustained violence."

Translation: The United States-- under the "leadership" (chickenship) of the Obama administration- is looking for a way to chicken out of Iraq. 

Biden then told Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki that...(quote) "if Iraq fell into a period of sectarian violence, or engaged in ethnic fighting, such a step would change the 'nature' of U.S. engagement."

Translation: "We worm-spined liberals are sick of  funding our soldiers, and want the money spent more wisely-- on social programs."

Throughout America's military history-- be it two World Wars; Vietnam, or the two Iraqi conflicts-- we are the only nation to raise young people brave enough to give their lives-- not only for the sake of their own country--but for the liberty of other nations as well.  

But with chickenhawks Obama and Biden running the show -- powderpuffs who never even served a day in the miltary-- the ironic story of Wake Island may be repeated yet again, and the deaths of 4,300 brave American soldiers will have been in vain.

Get your popcorn popped; keep your bag of M&M's handy; we're about to review one of the most famous film scenes of all time-- from the iconic movie, "Godfather II."

Scene: Micheal Corleone in New York, after his Florida meeting with Hyman Roth:

Setting: Michael meets with Frank Pentangeli at his father's old house, asking his friend's help; Michael insists that Pentangeli accede to the Rosato brothers, so Hyman Roth won't suspect Michael is CONSPIRING against him.

MICHAEL:  "My father taught me many things here -- he taught me in this room....He taught me -- keep your friends close... but your enemies closer. Now, if Hyman Roth sees that I interceded in this thing, and the Rosato brothers failed him, he's gonna think his relationship with me is still good. Capish?

PENTANGELI (Acknowledging in Italian.)

MICHAEL: That's what I want Roth to think. I want him completely RELAXED, and confident. (cut back to reality):

But like anything else where leftists are concerned-- to get beyond their deceit-- just follow the (tax) money. The Waxman Markey calamity will indeed, turn out to be the biggest political rip-off of all time.

These libs are too clever by half; they very well understand there’s no global warming; it's a smokescreen-- a big CON-spiracy-- to garner their portion of a trillion dollars worth of carbon credits to be traded on the commodity exchanges over the next decade. ALL the money will eventually be scammed from the pockets of the bourgeoisie (middle class).

And what better way to cover? While the Republicans are haplessly trying to gin up public support, the liberals conspire away- pretending they're on a sincere mission to rescue the planet. Thus far, they've concocted a dream story to justify passage of the bill:

- to prevent fossil fuel emissions from harming from the environment

- for creating green jobs

- for breathing new  life into economically devastated areas, building windmills/solar panels

- for reducing "our dependency" on foreign oil

But should Waxman-Markey pass in the Senate, it will eventually bankrupt the American economy, and allow these desperados to slake off enough wealth to gain political control of everything-- perhaps even in Europe; or eventually, the entire world.

Why else would these liberals sweat blood to get this disaster through the House? For the environment? To create jobs? This law will eventually line their pockets with untold wealth as never before.

POINT: Why would Henry Waxman spend all afternoon meeting with ONE new freshman congressman (Alan Grayson D-Fla) just to garner only ONE vote? Waxman almost killed himself (literally) to convince (bribe) Mr. Grayson with a zesty $50 million earmark for a new Hurricane Research Center in Orlando. (Grayson's central Florida district is heavily conservative)

And think of the absurdity-- "researching" hurricanes? What would be the point? That we can learn to prevent storms, similar to what Smokey the Bear tells us...that we can prevent forest fires?

So what's next? Public service announcements by Wally the Polar Bear? "Only YOU can prevent global warming!" (er, climate change)

POINT: Why would Barack Obama put on some bogus Hawiian "luaua" for 50 freshmen/sophomore House democrats-- and at the Whitehouse? That's because Rahm Emanuel (Luca Brazzi) was lurking amongst them, threatening (arm-twisting) each one that if they didn't vote FOR the bill, they would be outcasts from the democratic party --PERMANENTLY.

POINT: Why would creepy, slithery Nancy Pelosi stay up until 3:30 A.M. in the morning in her office, writing 400 extra pages of "sweeteners" into the bill, just to convince a few farm and coal state reps (from the South, Midwest and West)  to vote yes?  And the price of these giveaways was astounding -amounting to over $100 billion.

Examine each premise of the bill: (which has been well-sold to the public by the media)

1-control greenhouse gas emissions

2-give enough time (in stages) for industry to adapt to CLEAN, renewable energy sources

3-create millions of high paying jobs in the rust belt states

4-energy efficiency in homes and buildings

Premise 1: FALSE

If the bill was really written to deter CO2 emissions, why were there no original provisions for nuclear power -- which CLEANLY generates huge mega-watts of electricity; and no CO2 emissions.  This fact alone demonstrates the bill was intended for purposes other than preventing greenhouse gases from "endangering" the atmosphere.  

Premise 2- FALSE: 

The bill supposedly grants a grace period (by 2020) to give heavy industry time to adapt to "new" sources of energy. But can you picture a steel mill with windmills sprouting all around its perimeter; or with solar panels on the roof? How much steel would be poured on calm or overcast days? 

Premise 3- FALSE:  

How many green jobs can you actually create? Once a windmill or solar panel is installed--that's it --your green job has now become defunct. Plus, it will eliminate millions of high paying jobs in conventional energy industries, such as oil-drilling, coal mining and plant maintenance -- Henry Waxman sure ain't talking about that.

The above 3 rebuttals could have been the talking points that would have exposed the Waxman Markey bill for what it is -- a con-job on the America public; but the Repubicans are still at square one--  arguing with libs about their "stupidity" in trying to prevent global warming-- and that's just where these leftists want them! 

Human beings are not "selectively" stupid!  Liberals like Pelosi, Frank, Schumer, Markey , Emanuel, Waxman, et al., are as smart as they come. Obama and Pelosi could outwit Niccolo Machiavelli himself.

Yes; these democrats sure don't get it, do they Republicans? Stop falling for their con job!  Stop complaining about them!  Concentrate on the next big fight -- the attempt by the liberals to sneak Waxman-Markey through the Senate; already Harry (the worm) Reid has probably got over 50 votes ready for roll call.

Here's why the Republicans have been set up for their next BIG fall:

-Reid keeps claiming, "the bill won't get through." (Hyman Roth strategy- part 2)

-the news media outlets report... "that many Senate democrats see 'problems' with the bill'

-Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe (quote) "It’s dead on arrival in the Senate. It will not happen,”

Well get ready there, Mr. Inhofe--from Oklahoma-- just you wait:

The democrats will have 60 seats by the time this bill goes for a vote-- and they'll get it though; they'll outsmart all you naive Republicans again- just like they did in the House.

Barack Obama, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi; can anyone (but the most naive) think they would make such a determined effort, only to be later denied?

They will go to no end to make sure their dastardly work comes to fruition; the big payoff is already in sight: Charging industries to "pollute" will be a never-ending, eternal-motion, crooked money machine-- and it'll pay off handsomely for ALL of them for the rest of their lives.

Pretty stupid eh?