Thursday, July 31, 2008 

Obama misleads and LIES on Oil Profiets

Speaking to a town hall meeting today. Barack Obama tries to slant the money made by the oil industry as being bad. What he once again neglected, ignored, chose not to mention on purpose is the record amount of money the United States Government has raked in from Exxon.

Once again the politicians try to deflect some of the truth about their inability to manage money. They (politicians) point out the greed of corporate America , but do not talk about the greed and lack of fiscal responsibility that they have.

So what if Exxon made 11.7 Billion dollars last quarter. They are in the BUSINESS of making money. Where as the government is not. If Exxon made 11.7 billion the United States government made 4 times that in taxes. That is a whopping 46.8 BILLION dollars.

I say this once again. THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MADE 46.8 BILLION DOLLARS off of EXXON. No be honest, who is fleeceing the American taxpayer? its not the oil companies, its the GOVERNMENT!!!!!

Come on now Barack. You claim to be honest and sincere. So tell the whole truth. Tell the American taxpayer how you and the others in Washington D.C. are the real culprets. You and your buddies are fleecing America and gougeing the taxpayer at the pump!!!!!!!!!!!

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 

Lets be Government Silly.

With all the government bailouts and reparations being planed. (Obama is talking reparations for african americans).


1) An apology to my Irish ancestors for the way they were treated when they
came here LEGALLY. An apology for the bigotry and racial slurs put upon

2) I demand finacial restitution to my family for their scarifices, both
human and finacially for fighting for the north during the Civil War.

3) I demand that I recieve government funds every three years in the sum
of oh lets start at $50,000.00 this year with an increase of 10% every
three years to help keep beyond inflation rates. This money is to be
used to ensure that should I over extend my finacial base. I will have
money to pay off poor monetary decisions.

4) I demand that I be given special status do to my Native American
heritage. Seeing how part of my ancestors were already here when the
rest of the family showed up from Europe. That makes me of mixed
heritage and culturally hindered. By not having a specific heritage
to call my own, I need a new one to be created with holidays, a
religion, and heros of social significance.

5) While we are at it. The way the Governement is apologiseing for things
that no one alive today experianced. I demand that the American Flag,
the Pledge of Alligence, and the Star Spangle banner be taught
truthfully in ALL SCHOOLS.

Our government is so out of control and full of false guilt, micromanagment wannabes, and innane proposals that if we do not send a CLEAR and IMMEDIATE message to Washington D.C. with this election. We deserve the higher taxes, loss of liberty, and lack of freedom that the left is proposeing.

I CHALLENGE all voters to read up on the issues. Pay attention to what Pelosi, Ried, Obama, McCain, Salazar, your govenor. Find out where these self centered, self rightous, lookout for themselves, bums stand. I am warning you they are not in our court or on our side. They have to be put out. made unemployed and taste reality.

Saturday, July 26, 2008 

McCain vs Obama: the Boarder

A comparison of Obama vs McCain and where they stand from their own websites, on the Boarder issue.


Create Secure Borders
Obama wants to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.


Setting clear guidelines and objectives for securing the border through physical and virtual barriers.

Ensuring that adequate funding is provided for resources on the ground, but also training facilities, support staff and the deployment of technologies.

Dedicating funding to US Attorney’s offices in border states.

Implementing sound policies for contracting Department of Homeland Security software and infrastructure.

Deploy Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and other aircraft where needed and appropriate in the border region.

Continue implementation of the US-VISIT comprehensive visitor security program.

(Well McCain has a little more thought on the issue then Obama does.)


Improve Our Immigration System
Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.


Establish a user-friendly system employing a limited set of secure documents that contain biometric data and are electronically verifiable to check a worker’s identity.

Provide responses to employer inquiries in a prompt and timely manner to provide both the employer and employee security in their hiring decisions.

Update and ensure the accuracy of current databases of government agencies that play a role in employment verification.

Protect the identities of each employee being screened and allow both employer and employee adequate time and opportunity to correct possible errors with any information in the system.

Institute targeted auditing by Department of Labor in order to weed out employers abusing the system.

Highly Skilled workers:

Ensure high skilled workers trained and educated in the United States have the opportunity to stay and work in the United States upon graduation.

Reform caps for H-1B visa program to rise and fall in response to market conditions. Reduce bureaucracy and waiting times for workers to arrive in the United States.

Increase available green card numbers to reflect employer and employee demand.

Extend the ability for H-1B visa holders to renew their H-1B status while waiting for their green card number to become available.

Ensure available and qualified American workers are given adequate and fair opportunities to apply for available positions.
Low-skilled non-agricultural workers:

Implement a usable, market based system for low-skilled workers to enter the United States in an orderly fashion.

Ensure that the cap rises and falls with market demand to meet the changing needs of the economy.

Provide for adequate worker protection to guard against employer abuses of temporary workers.

Protect American workers by designing a program that allows willing and eligible United States workers adequate opportunity to apply for available positions.

Ensure that workers return to their home countries after their temporary period in the United States.

Allow for appropriate visa renewals to assure that both the employer and employee have stability in the workforce.

Offer a limited number of green cards to reflect the small number of workers that may wish to remain in the United States permanently.

Low-skilled agricultural workers:

Reform the H-2A visa program to provide a non-bureaucratic, adaptable, useable program that is reflective of market needs and protects both the immigrant and US workers.

(again McCain spells out his plan with a little depth and thought. Obama just gives sound bites. If you look at the basic plans. Well what little is given by Obama and then McCains. There is no real differance supposedly. However if you listen to Obama speak. He is 180 degrees from what is posted on his website. So I ask what change is he bringing? He is full of platitudes and sound bites. It just depends on who he is speaking to at the moment.)

Friday, July 25, 2008 

Nothing new but Obamas Pandering

Reading and rereading Barack Obamas speach one just is left with so many questions. The one I want to look at is this. Does he support corruption? Leaving the Democratic party out of this argument. One that can be looked at later because there is just sooooooo much corruption in the DNC and its elected officials in Washington. I want to look at his support for an open boarder, legalization of law breakers, and no enforcement of our laws.

Obama said "we must tear down walls between immigrants and natives." There is no distinction made between legal and illegal immigrants. So is he implying that when a person VIOLATES, IGNORES, and REPETEDLY offends soverign national territory it is ok?

Off of his campaign website:

Barack Obama's Plan

Create Secure Borders

Obama wants to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.

(OK so whats the differance of this and What John McCain has said? NOTHING!!! He claims he wants to maintain the integrity of our boarders> So then why has he not supported the fence effort? Or the Boarder Patrol themselves. Where is his outcry that two B.P. Agents are in jail so that a druggie can be free. He claims to support more personel on the boarder but was active in calling for the removal of the National Guard off the boarder.)

Improve Our Immigration System

Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.

(Increase the number of immigration? Meet the demands of jobs? Ok increase people coming in when there is a supposedly economic crisis and the immigrants have no proof of employment. Not smart at all. Creates a larger welfare pool. As for jobs with no one to hire. This lie just tweeks me so. How many teenagers cannot find a summer job because a displaced migrant (p.c. for ILLEGAL ALIEN) has the job. How about seeing that AMERICAN youth learn a work ethic and have a chance to earn a little money in what was traditional summer jobs. Or after school jobs.)

Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally

Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.

(Now thats a start. I agree with this whole heartedly. But what is new and hopeful about this. John McCain has the same policy. How about removeing the free medical that they recieve and we the LEGAL CITIZENS end up paying for. How about going a little further and requireing them to learn English and ASSIMILATE into American society, instead of demanding we change to suite them.)

Bring People Out of the Shadows

Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.

(What incentive is there for them to come out of the shadows if they know they will be paying a fine and have to get into a line. This thinking is not new, provides no HOPE, or CHANGE in what is happening. It is a platitude. All pander to those who are sitting on the fence of the immigration issue. This part of the plan has no meat, no potatoes, no substance at all. A waste of time to even consider.)

Work with Mexico

Obama believes we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration.

(How about working with those who are not corrupt and putting a stop to the use of illegals being mules for drugs. Then how about this. Barack says that we need these people for our agriculture. So if we develop Mexicos farm industry would that then be eliminating these workers from coming north? How about developing the jobs stolen. The jobs that teenagers used to do after school and during the summer.)


This is the moment: of more pandering

Yes this is the moment. The moment in time when all can see the transparency of Barack Hussien Obama. The moment in time when he reveled his globalization and pandering to the worlds leftist elites.

In order to form a world union that does not recognise the SOVERIGN boarders of nations. An order that will redistribute what those who have to those who have not.
The moment in time that socialism, on the verge of communism needs to make a push for world domination at the cost of all the free loveing people.

Yep Obamas speech really was insightful. Not to mention insulting to any American who really cares about his/her country.

"Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen -- a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world."

What a lie. This whole trip across the pond has been nothing but a campaign event. Then to claim he is here as a citizen of the world. Say WHAT? I thought he was running for president of the UNITED STATES. Not some position in the German cabnet of the United Nations.

"My father grew up herding goats in Kenya" says Obama. But what he fails to tell the people of Germany, the World, and most importantly AMERICA. Is that after his father grew up he was blackballed as an economist who was so radically into communism that the Kenyan government (who by the way was practicing socialism ) refused to keep him employed. His father had published a book on his socialist economic redistriburseing of money.

"The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin." thinks Obama.

What he neglected to mention that a major military pressence was present that the Soviets really did not want to cross. This force was called Patton. The Soviets respected Gen. G. Patton, as well as feared his tactical mind. Not to mention they were still behind us in the race for the Atomic Bomb. Though there tech and rersearch was as ours . The practical application was not there.

"People of the world -- look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one." A world that stands as one? Not only did Obamas speech writers surgar coat and gloss over many historical facts prior to this statement. Facts like Three years later after the war was over there was still sniper fire, bombs being set off by nazi sympathisers. But for him to actually imply that it weas the world that brought down the Berlin wall. Get a fricken grip on reality and quit rewriting history.

The Berlin wall was brought down through the strategy laid out by then President Ronald Reagon. We spent and developed military systems that the Soviets could not. The economic strain on communism drove them to collapse.

I guess the developmant of the MX missles, deploymentof Patton anti missles in Europe never happened. Or the fact that we still had over half a million military personel still stationed in Europe. He must not know that NATO was mainly madse up of, and funded by Americans. I challenge this arrogant elitist to look up the funding of NATO. See just exactly what Europe paid for.

"The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil." misrepresented facts Obama spoke. Fact only 26 people who died in the trade tower buildings were not American citizens. The rest were AMERICANS pally!!!!. I do not recall on 9/11 planes traveling into Big Ben, Red Square, the capitol of Rommania. No the attack was on American soil. Against America, as stated by the terrorist themselves.

Now nice sentiments but based on JUNK SCIENCE, and feel good speak. Obama claims "As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya." Yes thats right the myth of man made global warming is not just a junk science in America but around the world too.

"Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow. The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all." said Obama. He is right but his own record shows his lack of support to stop these things from happening. His own record shows how he is weak on ideas and cajones to do anything but pander on these topics.

"In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we're honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny." continued Obama.

Notice how he uses progressive talk here to elude to one world one government. One world tax. The key phrases that gives this away ..."we cannot afford to be divided", ... "our shared destiny".

"In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common." said Obama. Is this not what he has said many times on the campaign trail? That America has become the problem? It is his own opinion as well as the worlds left that we are the problem. An arrogant statement from a pompas A#4 to say overseas, to a foriegn crowd. Insulting America overseas, now there is a leadership quality for you.

Obams goes on for another 20 minutes or so. lahying out a speach that is surgar coated with conservative ideals, but laced with socialistic, leftist plans that do not favor or appeal to Americans.

The biggest insult of the whole campaign speach is the fact he went overseas to try and raise support for himself. Never before has a candidate, not even a official party candidate, campaigned on foriegn soil. His elitist, arrogant attitude along with the overbearing handlers he has employed should make the American voter wake up to what he really is.

Barack Obama this is the moment in time when you showed your true colors. You exposed your contempt, and disgust for the United States. The country you so want to be President of.

Thursday, July 24, 2008 

More whinning from Obama

This is just more elitism, arrogance and left pandering comiung from Obama and his overbearing supporters. What this time? Well complaignts that it was and is unfair and propagandish to have FOX news on the television overseas.

When asked about news coverage for the troops by one of his flock of blind followers. Obama answered "I don't know. All I see is him on the T.V." Looking over at Major Garrett of fox news.

Major responded by saying he did not know why fox was always on.

Amother reporter then implied it was this administration who decides what is aired and what isn't. Then wondered aloud what cable news channel will Obama have aired.

Now if that isn't presumptious, and snotty. The MSM is soooooo jelous of FOX news and their superior coverage on news and analysis of everything that they will say and imply all sorts of falsehoods.

Obama in his arrogant fashion leads the way.

Let me fill some of you in on AFRTs. Thats the Armed Forces Radio and Televison network. I was subject to what we used to call its poor programming. However being stationed overseas for 6 years, I learned why it was programmed as such.

A continual survey is done by AFRTs to see what the troops would like to see. What do the troops consider worthy of their attention. So AFRTs is continually trying to improve. This includes an evening news broadcast by armed forces people.

Sure there is oversight from higher up. However basicly the programming is determined by the viewer/men and women in uniform.

So then why is FOX news being broadcast. Simple, the troops prefere their coverage to that of the networks and cable news channels.

Obama quit your whinning about it. FOX is NOT being biased against you. They are reporting your lack of experiance. Your own mistakes on speaking and campaigning. Theyu also do this to John McCain, but McCain isn't fouling up like you. That is why you have more stories then he does pal.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 

Another assault on free will

You are not reponsible enough to govern your own life. You cannont make decisions that are good for you. You cannot manage your money, drive an earth friendly car. You do not have the intellegence to live your life with out the comfort or responsibility of big brother there to look out for your better interest.

Lets just face it as a society we just cannot function unless the left tells us when to breath.

Ok now thats out of my system what in the world am I talking about. Well it started with the regulation of smokers to a third class citizen status. You can't smoke inside. You can only smoke in desginated areas. In some places you can not smoke in your car or even in your own home (apartment or as back east in New Hampshire I believe, it is your house).

After the false junk science on second hand smoke. All of which has been proven false. Just google WHO (world health organization), read their findings. SECOND HAND SMOKE DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER.

Then we had the assault on what vehicale you drive. Your a nazi and hate mother earth if you dare to drive an SUV. you are propollution, antigreen. You are not recucleing and it is adding to global warming, yadda yadda.

Now the fight for decideing what to eat and where to eat has opened a new front. For several years we have been told that eating fast food , fried foods are bad for you. Well anything in mass quantity is bad for you, duuuuh.

SO the regulations went into effect because the "health concerned gurus" wanted it to. Charts and labels telling you how many calories are in the fries,or the apple pie.

Now the front of this war on your right to eat an unhealthy meal once in a while because you feel like it has moved to Southern L.A.

Panel OKs one-year ban on new fast-food restaurants in South L.A.,0,6631786.story

(Here is the excerp of the story that you should read with dread. The defineing of a fast food establishment.)

Los Angeles, defines a fast-food restaurant as "any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."

Huh? What? Sounds like all resturants are included in this because at any resturant you can take home a doggie bag. This means the left over food is placed in a platic/styrafoam container. This falls under their definition.

In the last paragraph it is mentioned the whole key to this issue. It os not about eating healthy. making a choice on whether or not you know what to eat. Lets face it every body knows that a continuous menu of fast food is bad, yet an occasional stop by for the convienance of not cooking is ok. But the bottom line to this war on fast food is the same as it was on the Tobacco industry. It is all about the benjamins.

Sure it is being sugar coated (no pun intended), as a health crisis. Which it is not. A war against obesety, again it is not. It is a war on any capitolism.

Last paragraph, last sentance:

But a much higher percentage of restaurants in South L.A. belong to fast-food chains, and the area has far fewer grocery stores than other parts of town.

So it is the fault of the fast food industry that grocery stores are not in south L.A. HAWGWASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again by spinning the truth and discrediting an industry. The left are slowly taking away our rights to choice, and how to live. Who really is the facist here? the conservative who promotes capitolistic competion? Or the left who want to dictate how you live, and redistribute money.


Another Mexican PERVERT

It seems that every day you open the paper, or you log onto the internert and what is one of the first headlines you read. Another ILLEGAL ALIEN who is guilty of STATUTORY RAPE of another American innocent child.

PALMETTO - An 18-year-old Palmetto man is accused of having sex with a 12-year-old girl who he picked up after she ran away from home around noon Sunday.

Gavino Guitierez, of 4003 3rd Ave. Blvd. E., told authorities he had sex with the girl three times. He also admitted that he is an illegal immigrant from Mexico, according to a Manatee County Sheriff’s report.

The girl returned home at about 6 p.m. Sunday and deputies were waiting to question her about where she had been. The girl said she was with Guitierez and had sex with him, according to a report.

Guitierez is being held on three counts of felony lewd and lascivious battery with a $150,000 bond. He also has an immigration hold on him, according to a report.

This vile piece of scum does not deserve deportation and another chance to openly cross the boarder and molest another child. What he deserves is physical castration not chemical. A very long prison sentance with a tatoo on his forhead saying he is a child molestor. A little prison justice is due for this bitch.


DNC missuse of taxpayers fuel

More bias and favoritism comes out of Denver City Hall as it was announced that the DNC committee will now pay thier fair share of taxes on fuel. Before this announcement. The commitee was getting fuel from the Denver fuel farm. In other words they were paying no taxes on the fuel they used.

Arrogantly Public Works spokeswoman Christine Downs told City Council members just hours before the city made thier announcment, that host committee members were fueling up at the city pumps. The city does not pay taxes on the fuel for its fleet, and Downs said the host committee would not either.

This practice, which began four months ago, may have ended hours after its disclosure. An aide to Mayor John Hickenlooper released a statement Tuesday evening saying that Denver 2008 Host Committee members would pay the market prices for fuel and would also be liable for all applicable taxes.

Nonprofits organizations, such as the host committee, are subject to state and federal gasoline taxes, according to the Department of Revenue. This disclosure brought immediate scrutiny from Colorado Attorney General John Suthers. Who said the practice "would seem" to be illegal and referred the matter to the state Department of Revenue.

The issue arose during the regular weekly meeting of Mayor Hickenlooper and City Council members. Downs requested authorization for a contract so the Public Works Department could be reimbursed by the host committee for use of "fueling facilities, fuel and car washes."

Downs said the contract with the host committee started in March and that $9,700 in fuel and services had been purchased from the city so far. But the committee has yet to be billed. The city anticipates $466,125 in total revenues from the contract, Downs said. Which makes one wonder why no payment has been made as to date. A contract started in March , used but no payments made as yet. This adds cediance to the belief that elected officials and their beurocrats cannot handle money.

Several City Council members, those who see the fraud being perpetrated. Questioned this contract.

Councilman Charlie Brown raised the question of whether the host committee would be paying fuel taxes, and Downs said it wouldn't.

"There's something there that just doesn't seem right to me because, in a sense, you're saying then that the officials who pass the laws are not willing to live by them," said Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz.

WOW, now this is a newsflash. Open your eyes and look around at not just this practice but at what the Denmocratic party has been doing for years here in Denver on a local, ststa, and national level coouncilwoman.

Trying to deflect the appearance of any sort of favoritism. Mayor Hickenlooper said the practice isn't unique to Denver.

"I do know for a fact that they're doing the same exact thing in Minneapolis," Hickenlooper said, referring to the city that along with St. Paul is hosting the Republican National Convention.

But Teresa McFarland, a spokeswoman for the Minneapolis-St. Paul host committee, said its members are getting their gas at public pumps.

"We're not getting a tax break on fuel," she said. "That's not the setup at this end."

"We know the gas is not tainted," he said. "We use it as a safety and security measure." said Chris Lopez."We're a nonpartisan, nonprofit committee, but certainly, if the city feels that taxes are applicable, we will pay those, too," continued Lopez, spokesman for the host committee. "So we would pay all applicable taxes on any of the fuel."

(note the phrase {we would})

(In Colorado, consumers pay 40.4 cents per gallon in state and federal fuel taxes. With the apparent backroom dealings of the national Democratic leadership trying to push through another tax increase, $0.10 per gallon. Colorado taxpayers will be paying $0.504 cents in taxes per gallon.)

"We can't talk about any individual taxpayer's circumstance," said Department of Revenue spokesman Mark Couch. "Tax-exempt organizations are not exempt from fuel taxes, so a nonprofit group is not exempt from fuel taxes. As to the individual circumstance involved here, we'd have to look into it and investigate to make any kind of determination." (But why not discuss this. It is a scam being pulled on the Colorado taxpayer who was promised by Mayor Hickenlooper and Gov. Bill Ritter. A promise that Coloradoians would not foot the bill for the democratic convention.)

Denis Berckefeldt, spokesman for Denver Auditor Dennis Gallagher, said Hickenlooper's administration has been guilty in the past of doing business before a contract is executed.

It was not very clear Tuesday if the Department of Revenue will investigate. Denis Berckefeldt, spokesman for Denver Auditor Dennis Gallagher, said Hickenlooper's administration has been guilty in the past of doing business before a contract is executed. However it has been put forth that all contracts withe the DNC had been executed.

In January 2006, Gallagher wrote, an examination of 999 contracts found that in 790 cases - 79 percent - work began before the contracts were "fully executed."

"We would have a problem with this because they're clearly selling fuel to the host committee without a fully executed contract," Berckefeldt said. "We have a real serious issue at the auditor's office with the city doing business with anyone without a contract."

What about the favoritism and bias being shown by a local government to one political party? Does this not fall under discrimination?

Dick Wadhams, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, said the city's arrangement with the DNC host committee was "appalling".Then continued to say, "I'm hoping this is not the first of many stories about how Colorado taxpayers are apparently subsidizing the Democratic convention," Wadhams said.

DOnt count on it Wadhams. As this convention moves foward and then leaves Denver with a large bill. Investigations will show more fraud, bias, and under the table dealings that not only brought these clowns to town. But screwed over the Colorado tax payer.

Monday, July 21, 2008 

Obama: What is he hiding

Here we go again. Over on Atlas Shrugs more on the Obama certificate of Birth. Hoe the one the Daily Kos got their hands on is not real.


With the evidance presented and the verified threats on the investigators one can only bring back up the questions of what is Obama trying so hard to hide. This story has been posted since at least 0600 A.M. MST today yet no coverage by any of the networks or the cable news.

Does this mean there is no creditability to it? Not so. Our investigator known as techdude has a verifiable set of credentials (unlike most of the socalled global warming scientists). His credentials: he is an active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, American College of Forensic Examiners, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, International Information Systems Forensics Association. He also is board certified as a forensic computer examiner, a certificated legal investigator, and a licensed private investigator. He has been performing computer based forensic investigations since 1993, and he has performed countless investigations since then.

What he has discovered is fairly obvious when you look at it all. The evidance and findings are posted on Atlas Shrugs. Who by the way has been following this investigation from the start.

Now are these findings clear cut proof of some sort of sham? Could it be part of a larger conspirocy plot? Who knows.

However to put this all to rest all that has to be done is for Barack Obama to release his certificate of Birth from the state of Hawaii. This would put an end to it. Will he do this? No, instead he wants to pull a John Kerry and gloss over the topic and leave it to conjecture and puzzlement by making secret his certificate.

SO what does one conclude form all this. In reality nothing other then we have no proof other then the Barack camps statements as to his place and time of birth. Thier being spin doctors and evaders of the truth (something that both republican and democrats hire). So do I believe what they say .....NOT IN THE LEAST!

Do these findingas give credience to the rumors that maybe Barack was not born in the United States and therefore not eleigable to run for the office of president. Not really but it does provoke thought on it.

I will be the first to admit that I would locve to find some hard corp smoking gun that proved without a doubt Obamas ineligability to run. I personally find the man to be elitist, arrogant, a liar (he contridicts his own statements, even when confronted with vidoe of him saying one thing he denies it). I feel he lacks any true intelligence because when he gets off his prepared speech he can not keep his train of thought.

So again I say put this and other rumors to rest. Release your certifiacte of birth from Hawaii. Simple isn't it.

Friday, July 18, 2008 

Political Correctness, THE DARK ROAD

Is political correctness good for this country? No! Emphatically NO!!!!!

Political correctness is going to be the dark road that takes this country into despair and loss of all that we hold dear.

Look at what in the name of political correctness is happening now. In Boulder Colorado it is a hate speech crime to refere to the truth. If you call or say that an ILLEGAL ALIEN IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN you are a racist and guilty of hate speech. The correct way of refering to ILLEGALS is to say misplaced undocumented workers. A euphamism for ILLEGAL ALIEN.

Look at protests that happen today. In the name of political correctness if you oppose an extremist group on grounds of principle you are guilty of bigotry, zenophobia, homophobia, racism, facism and whatever ism you can apply vaguely.

It is now politically incorrect to want the law enforced, learn unaltered history, and improve your life without having to give away your hard earned earnings.

How dare you try to improve your own standard of living includeing your family without improveing the lives of everyone else around the world.

What exactly is political correctness? It seems to be anything that capitulates to the smallest complaint.

What is included in political correctness. Well that is simple , yet complex, very complex. If you look at it in the big picture it would be a simple answer. Yet when one starts to disect the term and meaning of the political correct movement. One finds that is is an ever expanding encompassing effect that simple attacks common sense and any conservative value out there.

Hate speech is a huge aspect of political correctness. It is considered politically incorrect to use terms that for years means one thing but someone somewhere has taken out of context and feel offended by. An example of this is the word FAG. Still used in Eurpoe as a referance to a cigarette. Yet the homosexual community gets thier panties in a knot if refered to by this word. (Oh was that panties in a knot politically incorrect?) What about the hijacking of the term gay? Gay used to mean happy and go lucky. No it referes to a sexual orientation. Even this term now is taking on a bad meaning in the homosexual community as being hateful.

What are some terms that may be funny when looked at but are considered politically correct versus what they were known as?

dwarf = vertically challenged
retarded = mentally impared ... duh retarded is another word for impared.
black = african american
white = whitey
illegal alien = displaced migrant worker
criminal = victem
victem = contributing factor to crime
vagrent = displaced society victem

These are just a few of the vast, alarming changes in terms that are being hijacked in the name of political correctnes.

What does the future hold in this P.C game of oppresion? Well we are looking at a complete change in the way we interpret our freedoms. The fairness in Broadcasting act. It will censor what we here and limit the views on topics. Essentially shutting off any dissenting view points.

Why, because it would be politically incorrect to view a pont that disagrees on the topic. An example is the man made global warming. If you do not believe that man has made that big contrabution to global warming then you are balckballed. Why, because you may have sat down and done some google research into the truth and disagree with the myth on man made global warming. It is politically incorrect to not believe in junk science.

What is a pro to political corectness? Well you have a society that will be afraid to say or do anything for fear of being labeled and condemd. A society that will be easy to control and oppress.

How is that so you ask. Simple. It is politically incorrect to think that you as an individual have the right to defend yourself. Look at the antisecond amendment arguments. How dare a person whos life is in immenent danger use deadly force to prevent their own demise, or that of another person. You had the nerve to protect yourself and kill the assailant (oops assailant is another politically incorrect term).

How dare you wear your religion on your sleve when there may be those who have a different faith or none at all. Why our skins are so thin that it is insulting you dare to show your beliefs.

The attack on religion is in reality not very old, but it has taken a huge toll on the moral fiber of our society. How you ask again. How can that be? What once was a founding principle of our founding fathers is now described as oppresive and hateful. To dare think that one has the mere right to worship as they see fit may be offensive to another. Therefore you cannot worship in your manner. To think that there may be a single force of an omnipresent being running things is just unenlightened, nonprogressive, and simply absurd. Well thats the political correct weay of thinking on the topic.

To be patriotic and display the American flag is definately not P.C. The displaying of the American flag has been found to be offensive to some who despite enjoying certain rights protected by that flag (or rather what it represents and is rallied around) is very offensive. How dare you display it and not the flag of another nation as well.

To actually look at history and think that through treaties and war what has now become known as the Continental United States is wrong. This land politically correct in saying. Does not belong to the victors, but is still part of another country. Or that it belongs to the first peoples who entered here illegally as well.
(now there would be agreat confrerance to be a fly on the wall for. Mexican or Indigonous Peoples land debate).

Bottom line, political correctness is nothing more then censorship and oppresion. A way for communism and utopian beliefs to control the masses. A way to make people loose individuality and long for improvement out of fear and despair.


More proof Dems are the elitist.

When will Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi realise that they are more part of the problem then they are the answer.

Nancy Pelosi is going off the deep end with her latest spin on things. She recently opened her mouth and inserted her foot yet again with the following statement. "President Bush has been a total failure in everything from the economy to the war to energy policy, she said Thursday, in an interview on CNN.

Ignoreing congress has the worst approval rating in history. Its approval rating has hit a new low of just 18 percent, down from 23 percent last month, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll, and as low as 9 percent in a rassumsien poll. Both of which are lower than the approval rating of President Bush.

Looking at these stats I would conclude that she and her democratic cohorts are the failures.

Now look at her demands. We once thought that this issue had been settled, but no Nancy is getting greedy and too big for her britches.

House speaker Nancy Pelosi wants an Air Force C-32. The same plane that the Vice President has. How does House speaker Pelosi claim to be economical responsible, when she wants this. At a cost of $22,000 per hour to operate. She thinks it is ok.

What she has access to now is a C-21, the military version of a LearJet 35A. An 8 passenger executive jet that can be operated for $900 per hour. A much more reasonable plane fopr one in her position.

The C-32 is an inter-continental jumbo jet with a forward galley and lavatory. It has a center private stateroom, and rear seating for 32 passengers.

This plane is powered by twin Pratt and Whitney turbo fan jet engines which produce 41,700 pounds of thrust each.

The C-32 can fly 5,500 nautical miles before refueling. It has a cruising speed of Mach 0.8, or 530 MPH.

Where as what she has access to now, a C-21 has a range of 2,300 miles. This jet is powered by twin Two Garrett TFE-731-2-2B engines mounted pod style to the fuselage. It has a maximum speed of 531 MPH.

The differances are not that big. It basically boils done to the have nots want what the haves have. Nancy Pelosi thinks thats she rates the same privlages as the Vice President. A position that she does not hold.

Instead of her 8 passengers , mainly her staff. She wants to travel with an enterauge of press corp. So that she can travel internationally and violate the law and ethics rules by speaking out of turn state department policies.

talk about another waste of money. If she gets her new , larger plane. It will clearly demonstrate her real culture. Not just of corruption that the MSM and congress ignores (most of which are dems in trouble NOT REPUGNETS), but her contemptful and elitist atitude towards the American voter.


Threat or Sympathetic P.R.?

Top of the Drudge report:

Fri Jul 18 2008 06:26:46 ET

The articale is as follows:

Obama 's planned trip to Israel and the West Bank next week has raised security concerns to levels not seen since the Illinois senator began his presidential bid, officials tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Coming just weeks after shots were fired at Israel's TLV airport during a farewell ceremony for France's Sarkozy, from an apparent suicide of a security guard, Obama's trek to the region has become a serious logistical and safety challenge.

"I would prefer if he did not make the trip to Ramallah," a concerned government official explained Thursday night from Washington. "And he must use extreme caution throughout Israel at this time, in my opinion, especially Jerusalem."

A planned foot tour of Jerusalem's Old City has been called off, a senior source reveals.

[Obama's specific itinerary is not being made public.]

The six-day foreign adventure is set to begin on Monday. Campaign officials have announced stops in Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and England.

Now call me sceptical, because in this case I am very sceptical. Several reasons as to why. The first, when Obama has made many statements and shown his true colors in favor of the radical Islamofacist, why would they want to kill him. He is their favorite in the race for president. As a matter of fact the majority of his canpaign finacing has come from the middle east, (see Maureen Dowds column on this).

Next, is the fact Obama has a week , very week foriegn policy. It might as well not exist.

Then we have the celeb angle as well. With the MSM favorite left oped journelist along for the ride. Could this just be a publicity stunt to increas their television ratings? Very possible as they big three networks have basically a no folowing in the moderate, and right political spectrum. Only the left and far left nutjobs believe the NBC,CBS, and ABC actually report news without a leftist bias.

So is this threat real or imagined from the depths of the left wing news. Trying to not only raise support for the left wing candidacy of Obama, but public sympathy for three news readers who have forgotten how to report the news and not editorialise it?


Who is Obama campaigning to?

I just do not understand this. Who is Obama campaigning to. Who cares what Europe thinks. They have no say in the vote or do they? Have the election laws changed. I know barack Obama is collecting money from foriegn sorces. Maureen Dowd wrote about it. Obamas campaign does not deny it. As a matter of fact they are the ones who leaked the information as to where the majority of Obamas campaign funds are coming from. The middle east.

Is barack looking for more money from the leftist Europeans? International support for the left agenda he supports. Less soverignty for America and more oversight and theft by the United nations of American possesions?

Why is he campaigning overseas? This does not make any sense to me. It is American CITIZENS who vote and decide, not foreigners.


Free Speech, Political Activism, or just plain Threats

In todays politically correct enviorment it seems that certain acts are considered free speech. Well that is if it is done by only those in a minority. If a minority protests those they do not like it is ok. However lets put the shoe on the other foot. Lets say if the majority protested the minority is this racism?

If the minority claims it is then it is. Thats Political correctness at work.

Now you ask what am I eluding to. Well I am talking about those subversives in Derechos Humanos and other open boarder activists. Recently Sheriff Joe Arpaio held a book signing for a book (duh) that he had writen, at the Barnes and Nobel in Tucson, Thursday, July 10, 2008.

Now we all know that Sheriff Arpaio has a low tolerance for those who break the law. He is old school and does not believe in the humanitarian p.c. approach of rehabilitation. He goes with what works. He makes you do the time for the crime.

Lately this American Hero has taken a hard line against a certain group of criminals. Yes CRIMINALS, amazing huh. That a Sheriff would choose to ENFORCE THE LAW. The group targeted, ILLEGAL ALIENS. Yes the law breakers who ignore immigration law and enter this country without permission.

Now what is the issue of free speech. Well it seems that those who wanted to protest the sheriffs book signing decided to burn in effigy the Sheriff. Well the efigy is more or less a spin on what was used. There is a vast differance between a dummy dressed and marked to look like a person and the piñata that they used.

The piñata was treated like a piñata. It was beaten and torn assunder with sticks. Then it was set alite. Leading the protest was a Pima county official, Isabel Garcia Public Defender.

Now a big problem is that she is a represenative of the court. Even though she makes a living defending criminals. She represents law and order. Yet here she goes out and leads a violent protest that includes chants of harm, inuendos of harmful acts, and basiclly threats to the life and health of Sheriff Arpaio.

A county official. Amazing huh. Not really. She after all is of the minority right?
Therefore its not racim to attack a white man who supports ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW. To run around carring the head of the pinata in the aftermath of the demonstration as a trophy. No it is free speech right?

No it is a perversion of the 1st amendment. All these claims that you havce a right to say what you want is correct, TO THE POINT only if you remember you are to be held responsible for your words and actions. Something these protestors refuse to remember. Other wise why do whe have slander/liable laws. Why do they take any threat against a sitting president serious. After all it is free speech.

Free speech comes with self responsibility as well. You can not just yell fire in a movie theatre. Words have an outcome.

Now if AMERICAN CITIZENS were to hold a protest outside of the Pima county law offices of the public defenders. Protesting this Isabel Garcia. Calling her what she is, a subversive, open boarder antilaw enforcement bigot. Well then the protest would be called racist. Especially if she was burned in effigy. Then we would have hate crime charges and investigations into a socalled threat of her life. All because the show is put on the other foot.

The reply would be she was only burned in effigy as a protest to the open boarder and support of ILLEGAL ALIENS movements.

Make no mistake about it. This was not a protest as they claim against Sheriff Arpaio. This was a public display of threats, bodily harm, and racist hatred to a MAN who ENFORCES THE LAW.

Thursday, July 17, 2008 

Let the crack down continue

It is about time that certain employers were also held accountable for the hireing of ILLEGAL ALIENS. Not just the illegals themselves. When an employer hires ILLEGALS over naturalised citizens and those here on a LEGAL visa it does the economy no good. not to mention it encourages more ILLEGALS to come and undermine not only the economy but our laws.

Three cheers in Nevada:

McDonald's franchisee fined 1 mln dlrs for hiring illegal immigrants.

A company that owns 11 McDonald's restaurants in Nevada was fined one million dollars Wednesday after pleading guilty to employing 58 illegal immigrants.
The company, Mack Associates Inc., knew the employees were illegal immigrants and had offered them names and social security numbers belonging to other people, the US Justice Department said.

The company pleaded guilty in federal court in Las Vegas to conspiracy to encourage and induce an alien's unlawful residence in the United States and aiding and abetting an alien to remain in the country, the department said.

The company's director of operations also pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting an alien to remain in the country.

And the former vice president of Mack Associates pleaded guilty to inducing an illegal alien to remain in the United States and faces a possible sentence of up to five years in prison and a 250,000 dollar five.

About 30 of the illegal workers have returned to their native countries while the rest were allowed to stay in the United States until the case closes.

Now here is where Mack Associates is getting a pass. Note that the penalty is only a possible five years and a two hundred and fifty thousand dollar fine. Thats pretty damn easy considering how many lives they have screwed over.

Whos lives you ask. Well duh! How about those whos SSN and Names of people they used to falseify their employment. This is identification theft. How many charges of this are gpoing to be brought and prosecuted. No mention of this.

Unfortunately I doubt anything will be done on that angle. However the fact that Mack Associates was charged in the hireing of ILLEGAL ALIENS is a start, move in the right direction.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008 

Obama's Illusions and Lies

Wow, what a load of crap televised yeasterday. Nominee Barack Hussien Obama came out and bot can he spin and divert attention from reality. It is no wonder he refuses to open town hall debates with John McCain. Barack gives a good speech but when asked any questions of substance he cannot answer. he has no clue as to what he just said.

Lets look at his spech given yesterday July 15th, 2008.

"Sixty-one years ago, George Marshall announced the plan that would come to bear his name. Much of Europe lay in ruins. The United States faced a powerful and ideological enemy intent on world domination. This menace was magnified by the recently discovered capability to destroy life on an unimaginable scale. The Soviet Union didn't yet have an atomic bomb, but before long it would."

(Not true. Another historical inaccuracy from the left. The USSR tested its first nuclear weapon in 1949.)

"The challenge facing the greatest generation of Americans - the generation that had vanquished fascism on the battlefield - was how to contain this threat while extending freedom's frontiers. Leaders like Truman and Acheson, Kennan and Marshall, knew that there was no single decisive blow that could be struck for freedom. We needed a new overarching strategy to meet the challenges of a new and dangerous world.

Such a strategy would join overwhelming military strength with sound judgment. It would shape events not just through military force, but through the force of our ideas; through economic power, intelligence and diplomacy. It would support strong allies that freely shared our ideals of liberty and democracy; open markets and the rule of law. It would foster new international institutions like the United Nations, NATO, and the World Bank, and focus on every corner of the globe. It was a strategy that saw clearly the world's dangers, while seizing its promise.

As a general, Marshall had spent years helping FDR wage war. But the Marshall Plan - which was just one part of this strategy - helped rebuild not just allies, but also the nation that Marshall had plotted to defeat. In the speech announcing his plan, he concluded not with tough talk or definitive declarations - but rather with questions and a call for perspective. "The whole world of the future," Marshall said, "hangs on a proper judgment." To make that judgment, he asked the American people to examine distant events that directly affected their security and prosperity. He closed by asking: "What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done?"

What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done?"

(So what was Gen. George marshalls plan? It was prepardness and deployment. A fight against tyranny and oppresion. Recall the Berlin Airlift? Relief from oppression by the Soviets. As for the use of ATOMIC weapons. Gen. Marshall never opposed it. In fact he called for the use of an A-BOMB for a third time in the plans for the invasion of Japan. source:

Marshalls judgment of the military was close to that of Gen Sherman. Leave soldiering to soldiers and politics to politicians. Not a pandering use or nonuse of the military depending on who Obama is talking to at the time. Do not forget that Obama said in a speech last year to a far left anti military goup he wants to reduce, cut back weapons and research, and ban nuclear weapons from the American arsenal. A speech that can be seen on youtube, links at Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, once a link was available on Baracks campaign site but now removed.)

"Today's dangers are different, though no less grave. The power to destroy life on a catastrophic scale now risks falling into the hands of terrorists. The future of our security - and our planet - is held hostage to our dependence on foreign oil and gas. From the cave-spotted mountains of northwest Pakistan, to the centrifuges spinning beneath Iranian soil, we know that the American people cannot be protected by oceans or the sheer might of our military alone."

(The dangers are different? How so. An enemy that wants to destroy our way of life is no different then those he eludes to from WWII. A catastrophic scale is right but with Obama lack of courage to do anything about rouge states and groups who want to build, and sell WMD, he looses any creditability in preventing it. He is correct that our future as a nation is being held hostage from foriegn energy. But should we trade that for tyranny economically from our own government? When I say tyranny I elude to the taxation and robbery of our hard earned money to pay for Baracks energy policies that are tied into the myth of global warming and man made climate change.

His policy stances are as follows. From his own website:

Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.

A falsehood that is honey soaked to cover the fact it is nothing more than a new, heavy taxation program.

Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.

A forceful move to dictate what we drive and where we drive. How does he plan to get energy for the recharge of hybrid/electric cars. More importantly is he going to cut the budget somewhere to come up with the $150 billion dollars. No, but another tax hike will pay for this. When he calls for the commercialized deployment of new energy tech around the world. Is he going to charge these other countries or give it away while the U.S. taxpayer once again pays for the world to move foward.

Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.

So where does he plan to build these wind farms. His buddies on the left will not allow the building in proven areas that produce. Example Tad Kennedy and off the coast of Marthards Vinard.

Support Next Generation Biofuels - new taxes to pay for it
Set America on Path to Oil Independence - but does not support new drilling
Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change - Barack wants to include China , India, Mexico in this however these countries already refuse to cooperate on climate change. As they do not see a problem and enjoy the fact that the United States is changeing our ways to compensate for their usage of fossil fuels.

Barack accepts that Iran is building nuclear centrifuges for a use that is not peaceful. Yet he has no plan to stop, and prevent the development of Nukes from this country other then lets sit down and chat.)

"The attacks of September 11 brought this new reality into a terrible and ominous focus. On that bright and beautiful day, the world of peace and prosperity that was the legacy of our Cold War victory seemed to suddenly vanish under rubble, and twisted steel, and clouds of smoke.

But the depth of this tragedy also drew out the decency and determination of our nation. At blood banks and vigils; in schools and in the United States Congress, Americans were united - more united, even, than we were at the dawn of the Cold War. The world, too, was united against the perpetrators of this evil act, as old allies, new friends, and even long-time adversaries stood by our side. It was time - once again - for America's might and moral suasion to be harnessed; it was time to once again shape a new security strategy for an ever-changing world.

Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.

We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan."

(So we ignore the bases and suppliers to the Taliban and AL Quieda? Cut the head off a hydra and watch more heads rise?)

"We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st."

(So who has these loose nuclear materials? How do we get entities that do not support non-proliferation to suddenly change their minds and jump on the band wagon? Do as Barack said a year ago and disarm ourselves?)

"We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil."

(We have looked at baracks energy plan and found it missing. No real plan other then tax and force a lifestyle change upon American Citizens with no real development in alternative energies.)

"We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity."

(Strengthen old aliiances? What copitulate like France? Our true allies came to our aid. It is sad that we do not have many real friends in this world. Even Canada backed away from us in a time of need.)

"We could have called on a new generation to step into the strong currents of history, and to serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.

We could have secured our homeland--investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants."

(Secure our homeland. Platitude, as barack does not even support securing our southern or northern boarders.)

"We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for every American to strengthen our ability to compete.

We could have done that."

(Yes we could have done that, however other things came up. Like the attack on this country on 9/11.)

"Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats - all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks."

(Note how he demeans the service men and women by saying lost. Giving the act of their service a leesor meaning. Then again he demonstrates the lefts position of not understanding, knowing, and comprehending the connections between Saddam and terrorism.)

Our men and women in uniform have accomplished every mission we have given them. What's missing in our debate about Iraq - what has been missing since before the war began - is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy. This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe."

(Now he praise the accomplishments of the Military. Saying the can get the job done. Yet he says that the surge failed, we are looseing the war. How can the military one moment be perfect and in the next not able to do their job? Flip Flop!!!)

"I am running for President of the United States to lead this country in a new direction - to seize this moment's promise. Instead of being distracted from the most pressing threats that we face, I want to overcome them. Instead of pushing the entire burden of our foreign policy on to the brave men and women of our military, I want to use all elements of American power to keep us safe, and prosperous, and free. Instead of alienating ourselves from the world, I want America - once again - to lead."

(Here he shows complete ignorance of how diplomacy works. The American foriegn policies have always been dependant upon the men and women of the military. Who does he think backs up the policies set forth by what ever administration is in office?)

"As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy - one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

(We demonstrate all the time our interests in foriegn nations. Example the G-8 summits. Support for the Chinese in the world economy by alowing such a huge deficet. What does he think our Embassies and diplomatic corps in Karachi and Kandahar are doing. PLaying bocci ball?

His strategy for ending the war = cut and run. Finish the fight? By withdrawling our forces? Secure nukes and materials? How, with begging and pleading? Energy plan = higher taxes prohibiting development and commercialization. Rebuild our alliances, with who. France is friendly then they have been since WWII, Italy the same. Britan remains a strong friend, Isreal is our only friend in the middle east. Russia is resumeing its communist ways and has never been an ally or friend.

He keeps talking about meeting the challenges of the 21st century, but does not outline any of the NEW challenges. Just a repeteing of the 20th century problems we are still dealing with.)

"My opponent in this campaign has served this country with honor, and we all respect his sacrifice. We both want to do what we think is best to defend the American people. But we've made different judgments, and would lead in very different directions. That starts with Iraq.

(Nice pat on the back for McCain while he gets a knifwe in the back form Obamas campaign. Claiming he is to old and unstable from trauma he suffered in Hanoi's Hilton.)

"I opposed going to war in Iraq; Senator McCain was one of Washington's biggest supporters for war. I warned that the invasion of a country posing no imminent threat would fan the flames of extremism, and distract us from the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; Senator McCain claimed that we would be greeted as liberators, and that democracy would spread across the Middle East. Those were the judgments we made on the most important strategic question since the end of the Cold War."

(He opposed the war? Where? Oh thats right he wasnt in federal office yet. He must have made a speech in the Illinois Senete.)

"Now, all of us recognize that we must do more than look back - we must make a judgment about how to move forward. What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done? Senator McCain wants to talk of our tactics in Iraq; I want to focus on a new strategy for Iraq and the wider world."

(Thats right , don't look back at history so that he can repete the mistakes of the Carter administration. Don't look back at his record of nothing. That way the voters do not have to look at my record of nonaccomplishment.

Plan a new strategy but leave out the tactics that give meat to new policies.)

"It has been 18 months since President Bush announced the surge. As I have said many times, our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence. General Petraeus has used new tactics to protect the Iraqi population. We have talked directly to Sunni tribes that used to be hostile to America, and supported their fight against al Qaeda. Shiite militias have generally respected a cease-fire. Those are the facts, and all Americans welcome them."

(What is he saying we do talk to others? I thought we only were war mongers that had cowboy diplomacy. So diplomacy , back by the military works. Wow, what a concept.)

"For weeks, now, Senator McCain has argued that the gains of the surge mean that I should change my commitment to end the war. But this argument misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face."

(This statment tells us that barack still does not believ in the military winning the war. That he still does not believe that the surge worked.)

"In the 18 months since the surge began, the strain on our military has increased, our troops and their families have borne an enormous burden, and American taxpayers have spent another $200 billion in Iraq. That's over $10 billion each month. That is a consequence of our current strategy."

(You know war isnt just hell. It is expensive too. Especially when you add abunch of riders to military spenind bills and then gloss over them when the total tally is reported. Lets not forget the pork that was included. John Murthas little political paybacks for campaign support. More funds for unneeded welfare expansion.)

"In the 18 months since the surge began, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. June was our highest casualty month of the war. The Taliban has been on the offensive, even launching a brazen attack on one of our bases. Al Qaeda has a growing sanctuary in Pakistan. That is a consequence of our current strategy."

(Yes a repete of history where the American Congress wants to limit the military and where and how they can pursue the enemy.)

"In the 18 months since the surge began, as I warned at the outset - Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge. They have not invested tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues to rebuild their country. They have not resolved their differences or shaped a new political compact."

(A flat out lie about the situation in the newly elected Iraqi governement. They have made great strides in coming together and improving their country. Not untill just recently, a few months ago. Has the Iraqi oil industry been able to commercial enough to invite or propose buisness with foriegn countries.)

"That's why I strongly stand by my plan to end this war. Now, Prime Minister Maliki's call for a timetable for the removal of U.S. forces presents a real opportunity. It comes at a time when the American general in charge of training Iraq's Security Forces has testified that Iraq's Army and Police will be ready to assume responsibility for Iraq's security in 2009. Now is the time for a responsible redeployment of our combat troops that pushes Iraq's leaders toward a political solution, rebuilds our military, and refocuses on Afghanistan and our broader security interests."

(This was the plan to begin with. Train the Iraqis to a level that they can maintain controll in their country of a democratic goverment. Then move our troops onward in the war against Islamofiacism.)

"George Bush and John McCain don't have a strategy for success in Iraq - they have a strategy for staying in Iraq. They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down. They refuse to press the Iraqis to make tough choices, and they label any timetable to redeploy our troops "surrender," even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government - not to a terrorist enemy. Theirs is an endless focus on tactics inside Iraq, with no consideration of our strategy to face threats beyond Iraq's borders."

(More spin and distortion of the current policies inorder to pander to the left antiwar movement.)

"At some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave - General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April. That is why the accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy. In fact, true success in Iraq - victory in Iraq - will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future - a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up."

(What, I am sorry as I recall Obama came into the hearings made a little speech then left. Excuse me barack. But our we not doing the best to achieve the goal of leaving the Iraqi government to handle threats with in their own country now. While also making Iraq an ally. I think if Barack would quit drining his own koolaid. Take the time to actually read and comprehend the policies, stategies, and tactics for what is currently happening. He will see that his platitudes, misdirection, and spin of the current situation is being achieved.)

To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war. Let me be clear: we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - one year after Iraqi Security Forces will be prepared to stand up; two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, we'll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq's Security Forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress."

(Oh so he poposes only a partial pull out. Leaving support elements in Iraq for future missions. This means bases in Iraq. I thought he was against any bases in Iraq. Another FLIP FLOP!!)

"We will make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy - that is what any responsible Commander-in-Chief must do. As I have consistently said, I will consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government. We will redeploy from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We will commit $2 billion to a meaningful international effort to support the more than 4 million displaced Iraqis. We will forge a new coalition to support Iraq's future - one that includes all of Iraq's neighbors, and also the United Nations, the World Bank, and the European Union - because we all have a stake in stability. And we will make it clear that the United States seeks no permanent bases in Iraq."

(Include all of Iraqs nieghbors? Iraqs nieghbors do not support Iraq and its democratic government.)

"This is the future that Iraqis want. This is the future that the American people want. And this is what our common interests demand. Both America and Iraq will be more secure when the terrorist in Anbar is taken out by the Iraqi Army, and the criminal in Baghdad fears Iraqi Police, not just coalition forces. Both America and Iraq will succeed when every Arab government has an embassy open in Baghdad, and the child in Basra benefits from services provided by Iraqi dinars, not American tax dollar."

(So he would have criminals fear the police and authority. Yet in our own country he calls law enforcement agencies terrorists and that under his direction ILLEGAL immigrents will, law breakers entering this country ILLEGALLY, will not fear American law.)

"And this is the future we need for our military. We cannot tolerate this strain on our forces to fight a war that hasn't made us safer. I will restore our strength by ending this war, completing the increase of our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines, and investing in the capabilities we need to defeat conventional foes and meet the unconventional challenges of our time."

(The military is an all volunter foce. With record numbers of recruitmnents. How does Barack plan to do this? Reinstate the draft?)

"So let's be clear. Senator McCain would have our troops continue to fight tour after tour of duty, and our taxpayers keep spending $10 billion a month indefinitely; I want Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future, and to reach the political accommodation necessary for long-term stability. That's victory. That's success. That's what's best for Iraq, that's what's best for America, and that's why I will end this war as President."

(A total lack of understanding that when one signs the contract for the military they knowingly understand that the possibility of war is there. That they signed up to get the job done. No matter how long it takes. That they have a commitment of 8 years and all of it can be spent on active duty in a foriegn land.)

"In fact - as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain - the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. That's why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

(More leftist koolaid and spin on the war in Iraq.)

"It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia. If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned. And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan."

(Here he again eludes that the military can not do its job. Only by hos command can things be accomplished. You know some criminals go into hiding for years. I do not see any reports that Bin Laden or Al-Zawahari our lounging around at club med.)

"Senator McCain said - just months ago - that "Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq." I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That's what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that's why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win."

(McCain is correct. The press as with the war in Iraq only want to report the bad and not the progress being made in Afghanistan. That of which Barack is drinking heavily of the koolaid.)

"I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions - with fewer restrictions - from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century's frontlines are not only on the field of battle - they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat.'

(This is new? This is part of the current mission statemnet now. The battle plans already are set up for this.Oh yeah and it is already happening.)

"Moreover, lasting security will only come if we heed Marshall's lesson, and help Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up. That's why I've proposed an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year, with meaningful safeguards to prevent corruption and to make sure investments are made - not just in Kabul - but out in Afghanistan's provinces. As a part of this program, we'll invest in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers, just as we crack down on heroin trafficking. We cannot lose Afghanistan to a future of narco-terrorism. The Afghan people must know that our commitment to their future is enduring, because the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared."

( Doesn't like the fact we are spending billions now but wants to send billions to Afghanistan. Doesn't want to stop or fight the drug war in this country along the southern boarder but will give billions in aid to subsidise the poppy growers in Afghanistan.)

"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.

Make no mistake: we can't succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That's why I'm cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam."

(Calls the invasion of Iraq unjust and uncalled for. A wrong thing to do. But proposes the invasion of another country. Pakisatn. Hmmmm, don't invade here, but invade there. Who is the war mongerer?)

"Only a strong Pakistani democracy can help us move toward my third goal - securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states. One of the terrible ironies of the Iraq War is that President Bush used the threat of nuclear terrorism to invade a country that had no active nuclear program. But the fact that the President misled us into a misguided war doesn't diminish the threat of a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction - in fact, it has only increased it."

(Strong democracy in Pakistan. So he plans on rebuilding another countries government. Pakistan may be listed as a democracy but it is far from it in practice.)

"In those years after World War II, we worried about the deadly atom falling into the hands of the Kremlin. Now, we worry about 50 tons of highly enriched uranium - some of it poorly secured - at civilian nuclear facilities in over forty countries. Now, we worry about the breakdown of a non-proliferation framework that was designed for the bipolar world of the Cold War. Now, we worry - most of all - about a rogue state or nuclear scientist transferring the world's deadliest weapons to the world's most dangerous people: terrorists who won't think twice about killing themselves and hundreds of thousands in Tel Aviv or Moscow, in London or New York.

We cannot wait any longer to protect the American people. I've made this a priority in the Senate, where I worked with Republican Senator Dick Lugar to pass a law accelerating our pursuit of loose nuclear materials. I'll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear materials around the world during my first term as President. And I'll develop new defenses to protect against the 21st century threat of biological weapons and cyber-terrorism - threats that I'll discuss in more detail tomorrow."

( Distorting the facts of history again. We did not worry about the nuke fallin ginto the hands of the Soviets. We worried that they would use it sionce they already had it. Notice how he attaches his name to all legislation that may sway voters. But he has no idea of what is in this legislation. Secure global materials that may be used in nuclear, biological , and chemical weapons. Sounds to me like he wants to step all over other nations soveriegnty. Be the policemen and father . Dictate to the world. Who is the one that may get us involved into a much larger quamuire now?)

"Beyond taking these immediate, urgent steps, it's time to send a clear message: America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we must retain a strong deterrent. But instead of threatening to kick them out of the G-8, we need to work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material; to seek a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons; and to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global. By keeping our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we'll be in a better position to press nations like North Korea and Iran to keep theirs. In particular, it will give us more credibility and leverage in dealing with Iran."

(Very important key phrase here. AS LONG AS NUCLEAR WEAPONS EXIST. Again go back and listen to his speech to the antinuke crowd. Barack wants to disarm us and in doing so thinks the world will just follow, includeing rogue states. As to Russia. Who has proposed kicking themout of the G-8?)

"We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table, but Senator McCain would continue a failed policy that has seen Iran strengthen its position, advance its nuclear program, and stockpile 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, starting with aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy - diplomacy backed with strong sanctions and without preconditions."

(Strong diplomacy? Enfoced by what. He wants the military to move out of the Persian Gulf. Instead of standing by with prepared bases for easy use, established supply lines,ect. Funny how now he says Iran is a threat when early in the campaign he claimed they were a nothing. Posed no threat at all.)

"There will be careful preparation. I commend the work of our European allies on this important matter, and we should be full partners in that effort. Ultimately the measure of any effort is whether it leads to a change in Iranian behavior. That's why we must pursue these tough negotiations in full coordination with our allies, bringing to bear our full influence - including, if it will advance our interests, my meeting with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing."

(Commend what? The fact the Europe has ignored sanctions. Sold centrifuge parts, technology to Iran. Russia has aidded in building Irans nuke facilities. Yeah that deserves a pat on the back and congratulatory hand shake.)

"We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives. If you refuse, then we will ratchet up the pressure, with stronger unilateral sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions in the Security Council, and sustained action outside the UN to isolate the Iranian regime. That's the diplomacy we need. And the Iranians should negotiate now; by waiting, they will only face mounting pressure."

( Oh yeah the ol mighty dollar. Look Iran if you do as we say the American tax payer will give you billions of dollars and subsides your nation.)

"The surest way to increase our leverage against Iran in the long-run is to stop bankrolling its ambitions. That will depend on achieving my fourth goal: ending the tyranny of oil in our time."

(End the tyranny of oil. Would not a sensible drilling policy help with this?

"One of the most dangerous weapons in the world today is the price of oil. We ship nearly $700 million a day to unstable or hostile nations for their oil. It pays for terrorist bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut. It funds petro-diplomacy in Caracas and radical madrasas from Karachi to Khartoum. It takes leverage away from America and shifts it to dictators."

(Thats true, yet he refuses to step up and alow us to use our own natural resources to stem our dependancy on foiegn energy.)

"This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline."

( Oh God, another folower of the Al Gore church of histaria.)

"This is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis. For the sake of our security - and for every American family that is paying the price at the pump - we must end this dependence on foreign oil. And as President, that's exactly what I'll do. Small steps and political gimmickry just won't do. I'll invest $150 billion over the next ten years to put America on the path to true energy security. This fund will fast track investments in a new green energy business sector that will end our addiction to oil and create up to 5 million jobs over the next two decades, and help secure the future of our country and our planet. We'll invest in research and development of every form of alternative energy - solar, wind, and biofuels, as well as technologies that can make coal clean and nuclear power safe. And from the moment I take office, I will let it be known that the United States of America is ready to lead again."

(We have already taken a peak at baracks energy plans. They are nothing more then more taxes and no real plan.)

"Never again will we sit on the sidelines, or stand in the way of global action to tackle this global challenge. I will reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. We will also build an alliance of oil-importing nations and work together to reduce our demand, and to break the grip of OPEC on the global economy. We'll set a goal of an 80% reduction in global emissions by 2050. And as we develop new forms of clean energy here at home, we will share our technology and our innovations with all the nations of the world."

(Here is his hope. Hope that other nations buy into the clobal warming myth. That it is all mans fault and we have to give up our lifestyle in order to stop what is a natural cycle of climate patterns.)

"That is the tradition of American leadership on behalf of the global good. And that will be my fifth goal - rebuilding our alliances to meet the common challenges of the 21st century."

(Agai what are these new challenges? I hear nothing but a repete of old challenges.)

"For all of our power, America is strongest when we act alongside strong partners. We faced down fascism with the greatest war-time alliance the world has ever known. We stood shoulder to shoulder with our NATO allies against the Soviet threat, and paid a far smaller price for the first Gulf War because we acted together with a broad coalition. We helped create the United Nations - not to constrain America's influence, but to amplify it by advancing our values."

(Here again he eludes to the use of the military. Something he does not favor or knows how to use.)

"Now is the time for a new era of international cooperation. It's time for America and Europe to renew our common commitment to face down the threats of the 21st century just as we did the challenges of the 20th. It's time to strengthen our partnerships with Japan, South Korea, Australia and the world's largest democracy - India - to create a stable and prosperous Asia. It's time to engage China on common interests like climate change, even as we continue to encourage their shift to a more open and market-based society. It's time to strengthen NATO by asking more of our allies, while always approaching them with the respect owed a partner. It's time to reform the United Nations, so that this imperfect institution can become a more perfect forum to share burdens, strengthen our leverage, and promote our values. It's time to deepen our engagement to help resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, so that we help our ally Israel achieve true and lasting security, while helping Palestinians achieve their legitimate aspirations for statehood."

(Renew bonds with Europe. This means if you read Obamas statements less soverignty of this nation and more United Nation control over our lives. Share burdens = more handouts of American tax dollars to other nations. A redistribution of Americas wealth.)

"And just as we renew longstanding efforts, so must we shape new ones to meet new challenges. That's why I'll create a Shared Security Partnership Program - a new alliance of nations to strengthen cooperative efforts to take down global terrorist networks, while standing up against torture and brutality. That's why we'll work with the African Union to enhance its ability to keep the peace. That's why we'll build a new partnership to roll back the trafficking of drugs, and guns, and gangs in the Americas. That's what we can do if we are ready to engage the world."

( More international agencies and oversight? How about stepping into the Unnited nations and overhauling that agency?)

"We will have to provide meaningful resources to meet critical priorities. I know development assistance is not the most popular program, but as President, I will make the case to the American people that it can be our best investment in increasing the common security of the entire world. That was true with the Marshall Plan, and that must be true today. That's why I'll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease. To send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now."

(See more money, more money , more money.)

"This must be the moment when we answer the call of history. For eight years, we have paid the price for a foreign policy that lectures without listening; that divides us from one another - and from the world - instead of calling us to a common purpose; that focuses on our tactics in fighting a war without end in Iraq instead of forging a new strategy to face down the true threats that we face. We cannot afford four more years of a strategy that is out of balance and out of step with this defining moment."

(Yet his proposals are not that different form the policies we have right now.)

"None of this will be easy, but we have faced great odds before. When General Marshall first spoke about the plan that would bear his name, the rubble of Berlin had not yet been built into a wall. But Marshall knew that even the fiercest of adversaries could forge bonds of friendship founded in freedom. He had the confidence to know that the purpose and pragmatism of the American people could outlast any foe. Today, the dangers and divisions that came with the dawn of the Cold War have receded. Now, the defeat of the threats of the past has been replaced by the transnational threats of today. We know what is needed. We know what can best be done. We know what must done. Now it falls to us to act with the same sense of purpose and pragmatism as an earlier generation, to join with friends and partners to lead the world anew."

(The generation Obama eludes to also knoew when to step up to the plate. To do the right thing dispite world views. Not to worry about polls and what they have been scewed to say. That generation my friend is called the GREATEST GENERATION.)

About me

  • I'm Devious Mind
  • From Denver, Colorado, United States
  • Good judgemnt comes from experiance. Experiance comes from bad judgement. Karma, its a bitch.
My profile
Powered by Blogger