Bah, Humbug?
Posted here for 12-22-08

The secularists and anti-religion zealots make it abundantly clear that the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." And that's true. And that's clear. And that's proper. But then they stretch that statement far beyond its original intent. They race to cite the First Amendment as a means of removing any hint of religious connotation or content in all governmental affairs. The words "In God We Trust" on our currency don't establish a religion. They state a truth about the vast majority of Americans. You'll know if Congress establishes a religion. There will be religious laws, religious police, and religious incarcerations.

We say, ". . . one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." That's not exactly the same as saying, ". . . one nation, under God, and the government demands you believe in Christianity, with liberty and justice for all," but the anti-religion zealots seem unable to discern a difference.

I got a card in the mail a couple of days ago. It said, "Happy Hanukkah -- May every night of Hanukkah bring you gifts of joy!" Believe it or not, I didn't dash to the nearest temple and demand conversion to Judaism. If you see a manger scene in a public square, it doesn't mean that the individuals who put it there wish to force you -- even if you're atheist -- to dedicate your life to Christ. It means they wish to display a symbol of the season they take pride in.

By decorating a tree with lights, ornaments, and tinsel, it is transformed into a beautiful Christmas tree. It isn't a holiday tree or a winter tree. It's a Christmas tree, just as beautifully decorated trees have been Christmas trees for hundreds of years (they date back to 16th century Germany).

The United States recognizes December 25th as Christmas Day. It's a national holiday and has been for a long time (it was designated a federal holiday by Congress and President U.S. Grant in 1870). Yet, grinches on the left wish to eradicate it from contemporary America. They wish to impose their minority view upon the majority. And much of the left supports this corruption of one of America's great traditions.

The First Amendment has more to say on the subject of religion, however. It states that Congress shall make no law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof!" You don't hear the ACLU and other anti-religious activists mentioning that section very often, even though it follows immediately after the Establishment Clause. If members of a high school football team wish to pray briefly before a game, the Free Exercise Clause allows them to do so. It allows kids to say grace before meals, if they so choose. It allows a cross to be displayed on headstones in Arlington Cemetary and on Los Angeles stationery (see county emblem at right; the cross is next to the stars).

But not if Michael Newdow and his ilk have their way.

This country was founded on Christian principles. Its heritage is richly Christian. Its leaders throughout most of our history have been proud and dedicated Christians. Yet, foes of religion work tirelessly to eradicate these facts from our historical memory. It is indeed a culture war we are engaged in, not just a battle with Islam, but a battle, too, with those who wish to replace all things Christian with godlessness.

All the News That's Fit to Indoctrinate
Posted here for 12-15-08

Let's look at what happened just a couple of months ago.

Senator Barack Obama writes an op-ed piece and submits it for publication in The New York Times. The newspaper promptly publishes the article.

Days later, Senator John McCain writes an op-ed piece and submits it for publication in The New York Times. The newspaper promptly rejects the article.

Times editor David Shipley explains in an email to McCain's staff, "I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. [. . .] Let me suggest an approach. [. . .] The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information, [. . .] he went into detail about his own plans. It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece."

One would think that an op-ed piece ought to mirror the writer's thoughts, opinions, and style, not something written by his adversary! But no, Mr. Shipley is smitten with the grand and glorious Mr. O., so the hallowed one can do no wrong and Mr. M. can do no right.

The Times editor needled a little further, writing that the Republican candidate would have to "articulate in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq," and he'd have to "lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- troop levels, timetables, and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate."

I wonder why Mr. Shipley didn't simply write the whole article himself and leave a few blanks for McCain to fill in.

Let's now change the subject abruptly to a discussion of the Fairness Doctrine. It's not right, the left asserts, for conservatives to have such a presence on radio stations across the country.

Of course the argument is really: it's not right for natural market forces -- free enterprise, free choice, capitalism -- to determine talk radio content. Instead, "fairness," which would basically kill talk radio, must be imposed by dictate.

Isn't it interesting that "fairness" must be forced down the throat of talk radio, but fairness is the last thing Mr. Shipley will tolerate in The New York Times.

Merchants of Misinformation
Posted here for 12-8-08

We've experienced blatant media bias during this year's election campaign, and a lot of people are upset about it (Bill O'Reilly is just one of many who have launched into tirades on the subject). But if you think back, the media have often been at odds with fairness and truth.

Take the silicone implants in the early 1960s. The media told us the implants caused brest cancer, auto-immune disorders, and neurological conditions. Almost 400,000 injury claims were filed, along with 20,000 lawsuits against Dow Corning, and the company finally settled for about $3.2 billion, and bankruptcy. Today scientists say there's absolutely no link between the implants and any systemic health problem.

Remember the red M&Ms scare? The media told us Soviet scientists had determined Red Dye Number 2 was a suspected carcinogen. Red M&Ms were going to kill us! The Food and Drug Administration banned the additive, but subsequent studies showed the coloring poses no danger to humans whatsoever. In a real twist of irony, the little red M&Ms never did contain Red Number 2. Mars pulled the candy anyway because of the scare the report had generated.

In 1979 a study suggested that childhood leukemia was linked to residential power lines. People became worried, some wanted to move, some wanted to sue. Follow-up studies showed no health risk from power line electromagnetic fields (EMF).

Sleeping under an electric blanket was also said to expose sleepers to dangerous EMF radiation. But this scare was later pooh-poohed. Talking on your cell phone for long periods was also cited as dangerous, until reason made an appearance, and the matter was dropped.

In the mid-1980s we were told Alar caused cancer in lab mice, and as a result, supermarkets immediately rejected all shipments of apples that had been treated with the chemical. Tons of the fruit were thrown out. Subsequent studies showed that you'd need to drink some 5,000 gallons of apple juice a day before you'd experience any health risk.

How about the dreaded hole in the ozone layer. In the 1990s we learned chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), resulting from aerosol cans, were responsible for this "catastrophe." As a result, Freon was restricted, and the economic cost of the phase-out was enormous. Scientists now say there never was any evidence CFCs caused a hole to form in the ozone layer? Yet, lack of Freon means inadequate refrigeration, food spoilage, disease, and death for countless people around the world.

Rachel Carson said DDT was harming the ecology and the health of birds and humans was at risk. The media picked up the story, amplified it, and got everyone worried silly. DDT was consequently banned. Later research showed DDT poses no threat of any kind to man nor beast, but withdrawing DDT enabled a massive buildup of malaria, which has killed millions. Mostly the poor and African people. The media show no remorse.

Now the media are telling us global warming is the latest imminent disaster we must brace for. We'll be flooded, roasted, and heaven knows what other calamities will befall us because of the nasty exhaust fumes from our automobiles.

Who's buying this one?


[Reference: "Fear Factor," Fusion magazine, June 2008, pages 10-11. Address: Mercury Radio Arts, Inc. 1270 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10020. Website.]

Punish the Innocent, Reward the Guilty
Posted here for 12-1-08

It's remarkable! What the Democrats have achieved is stunning.

First they passed legislation that forced lending institutions to make loans good business judgement would absolutely prohibit. Then, during their "oversight" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they watched as managers of these funding agencies were given massive incentives to maximize the number of loans issued, without regard to the worthiness of any of them.

Then, although Republicans George Bush, John McCain, and others warned about the looming dangers such policies would produce, a bunch of Democrats trotted out and pooh-poohed the Republican warnings. "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," reassured Barney Frank, according to The New York Times, September 11, 2003. In February 2004, Chris Dodd pronounced the mortgage market "one of the great success stories of all time." In 2005, the Connecticut Democrat voted against a reform that would have limited the size of Fannie's and Freddie’s mortgage portfolios. Dodd, by the way received $133,900 in campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie. Barnie Frank received $40,100. Oh yes, a fellow by the name of Barack Obama received $105,849. He was the guy who only a few years earlier was among those harassing banks and intimidating bank executives to make bad loans.

Then, of course, when economic reality took hold and the bottom fell out of the mortgage market, what were the Democrats doing? They were running around lecturing us that they had nothing to do with the crisis. Absolutely nothing! Yeah, right. Nothing . . . but create it!

Then, with the never-failing support of the mainstream media, the Democrats pulled off their most dramatic feat. They said it was all George Bush's fault! It was those nasty Republicans. They were the ones who caused the meltdown. They were the bad guys responsible for the economic crisis. All of our stock market and financial woes are their fault.

Not hearing anything to the contrary, millions of Americans took the bait. Those outrageous Republicans! Those incompetents! Those evil deed doers on the right.

Then, just by coincidence, there was a national election. Surprise, surprise, Republicans were tossed out on their ears. Democrats took the House and Senate by comfortable margins. And that fellow who, as a community organizer, was a grassroots warrior in the push for sub-par loans . . . why, he was elected President.

It's remarkable!

Lessons Learned from the 2008 Presidential Election Campaign
Posted here for 11-24-08

Looking back on the campaign, I think several lessons are to be learned. Seven come to mind.

For the first time, we have a measure of the relative importance of different groups. We know that liberals favor women, and they raced to support Hillary when she announced her candidacy. But when a black man (though not even half black) challenged Hillary, liberals went gaga over him and they quickly tossed poor, sweet Hillary overboard. So clearly, blacks are the favored segment of the population. Except of course conservative blacks such as Clarence Thomas.

Inexperience is unimportant. Sarah Palin had and has significantly more experience than Barack Obama (she actually accomplished things), but she was criticized as being unequipped to serve in office. Interestingly, liberals also criticized her for her womanhood. She had too many home and family responsibilities to be elected vice president, they said. Imagine the outcry if conservatives ever tried that complaint against a liberal woman candidate.

Relationships. Imagine if John McCain had palled around with David Duke and served on boards with him. And suppose he went to KKK meetings for twenty years or so. Do you think the media would have made excuses for those associations? I don't think so. But Obama can meet with terrorists, attend hate-America church services, and even support Muslim activities in Kenya, and the media don't make a peep.

Election fraud. I think we now know who the experts are in election fraud. In 2000, Republicans were charged with election tampering in Palm Beach County, Florida (even though Democrats controlled the state supreme court, the election apparatus, and even designed the ballot), yet repeated recounts and sifting through chads revealed results consistent with the initial count. In Minnesota this year, however, election irregularities suggest some serious vote fraud on the part of Democrats. (More.)

Media power. Weren't we all told the media are losing their power? Isn't circulation down with the mainstream magazines and newspapers? Aren't advertising revenues down? Layoffs up? Stock prices down? Well, yes, but the media continue to wield enormous influence. I believe that influence put Obama into office. Media leftists swung their favor from Hillary to Obama early on, and Ms. Rodham thereafter didn't have a chance. They were able to winnow out the more conservative republican candidates in the primaries, and after blessing McCain, they then bashed him mercilessly in the runup to the election. Mainstream media power remains frighteningly strong.

Media bias. We've known for years there has been definite leftward bias in the media. What was surprising this year, however, was the brashness and intensity of that bias. NBC became Obama Advocate Number One and the other major media players assumed only somewhat lesser roles.

Dumbed down. Perhaps the most disappointing lesson is how easy it was to hoodwink the American people. A candidate announced "change," and many swooned. He said "hope," and throngs were spellbound. His posters proclaimed "Progress," and thousands told themselves, "Yes!" He shouted, "Yes, we can!" and listeners were captivated. Has any other candidate for President said so little while the public believed so much? Have we reached a point where we don't demand experience, substance, competency? I guess we have.

Data Is Not Enough to Dissuade Politically-Correct "Scientists"
Posted here for 11-17-08

The idea the earth is warming has been so impressed upon the public consciousness as a result of relentless propaganda, little attention is given to actual data that suggest nothing of the sort is going on. According to theory, as CO2 continues to be released into the atmosphere by thoughtless human beings, the globe gets proportionally warmer. So, with ever-increasing CO2 emissions, we should see ever-increasing temperatures. That is, if the global warming fear mongers are right.

What do recent data tell us? They tell us that the U.S. is not warming as it must to abide by the assertions of environmentalists.

Some would suggest that if observable data refute hypotheses advanced by environmental "scientists," then the hypotheses are invalidated.

Politically correct "scientists" won't let themselves reach this conclusion.


Chart is from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Winners and Losers
Posted here for 11-10-08

Now is a good time to review the winners and losers resulting from last week's election.

WINNERS
. . Barack Obama. His impressive election returns have given him a mandate to implement the socialist, race-based, revolutionary agenda he and his comrades developed over a period of decades. With a willing House and Senate, a fawning mainstream media, and wealthy and aggressive special-interest groups at his side, he holds a blank check to do as he pleases with America's future.
. . Hollywood actors. The policies actors adore -- such as those implemented by Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and other avid communists -- are about "to come home to roost." We'll get the health-care system they admire in Cuba, an environmental policy that will destroy our economy, the wealth redistribution scheme espoused by Karl Marx. Hollywood will be ecstatic!
. . Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi. With swelled majorities in the House and Senate, the Reid-Pelosi "team" can implement their favorite leftist programs without interference. Both are far leftists, so with an extreme leftist as President, it's full steam ahead.
. . Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, et al. Their reputations, once under attack, have been transformed from extremist to reasonable. Their hate-America perspectives are now mainstream. Their goals of revolution are about to be realized.
. . ACORN. ACORN's fraud and lawlessness will go unchecked as the Obama administration benefits from the organization's actions.
. . KOS. This hate-America website has been vindicated. Lies, hate, and viscousness have paid off. We can expect more of this sort of thing in the years to come.
. . Blacks. The move to give blacks billions or trillions of dollars in reparations can now proceed without delay.
. . George Soros. His investment of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat conservatives and their values has paid off. With an inside track to the White House, he is now more powerful then ever before. His wishes have become Obama's orders.
. . Al Gore and the environmentalists. Environmentalism has always been a disguise worn by the fringe left. Now it will be embodied in law. It will be employed to empower the United Nations, to weaken the United States, and to advance the causes of socialism and communism throughout the world.
. . Homosexuals. As the homosexual agenda is advanced, the family and family values will continue to be discredited. This undermining of America's cultural foundation will transform society for generations.
. . Abortionists. The newly-elected President has, by his own votes as a state senator, shown himself to be extreme in his disdain for unborn human beings, and even born human beings that live in spite of abortion attempts. The culture of death will bloom.
. . Terrorists. Every terrorist in the world is rejoicing, for a terrorist-friendly Democrat is the President-elect. Moreover, Obama has no leadership experience, no backbone, and he's willing to talk -- without pre-conditions -- to any of America's most-feared enemies. So terrorists have been encouraged and empowered in their drive to destroy this country.
. . Unions. The amount spent by unions -- a half billion dollars or more -- on the presidential campaign was worth it. Union-friendly legislation and presidential actions benefiting unions will probably be worth many times that amount.
. . Socialists. As Obama nominates justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Democrat-controlled Senate quickly affirms the nominations, the court will swing sharply socialist and pro-death. And it will remain so for decades.
. . Islam. Apparently Obama was a practicing Muslim for a period of time. I suspect that experience and the influence of Muslim relatives will make him kindly disposed to Islam, even to the point where it interferes with America's interests.
. . Egalitarianism. This is the essence of liberalism. If everyone can't be wealthy, then no one should be wealthy. If everyone can't have a high-energy-usage lifestyle, then no one should be allowed to. If everyone can't succeed, then no one should. Leftists demand equal outcomes, while those on the right demand equal opportunity and equal justice, and assert individual outcomes should be the result of individual responsibility.
. . United Nations. Obama has indicated an anxiousness to yield to the UN powers that rightfully belong to America. Look for the ratification of all manner of ominous treaties and protocols that fritter away American sovereignty.
. . The poor, unproductive, lazy. You won in this election if you're poor, unproductive, and/or lazy. The federal government will reward your slovenliness with all sort of wealth seized from the hard-working and productive.
. . Owners of gold. As U.S. society is transformed into a socialist society, the value of the dollar will plummet. Correspondingly, the value of gold will skyrocket. Folks who live on modest incomes but have no gold will suffer greatly.

LOSERS
. . U.S. citizens. Democrats and Republicans alike (and everyone else, as well) will be losers. As the move to socialism strengthens and accelerates, more and more freedoms will be usurped by the federal government. As taxes on the wealthy escalate, the motivation to innovate, produce, and excel will be curtailed. Job opportunities will decline, inflation will lower the standard of living, and prospects for the future will be glum.
. . U.S. security. Obama's stated intentions are to withdraw from conflicts, slow development of future military combat systems, unilaterally reduce our nuclear stockpile, and drastically reduce the size of our military. This is a dream come true for our enemies. It will not take long for them to take advantage of this gift, and the consequences will be devastating for America.
. . U.S. economy. Increased taxes on individuals and businesses, more regulation, economic mismanagement, and the policies of socialism will send the stock market and economy into a tumble, probably on a par with or even more severe than was brought on in 1929.
. . Capitalism. Socialism is a clear enemy of capitalism, so a socialist-friendly President will in all probability do major damage to our capitalist system. We'll see more centralized control, less liberty, and free enterprise will be increasingly constrained.
. . Christians and Jews. The left has not been kind to religion over the years, and this trend will likely continue. Cries to remove "In God We Trust" from buildings and currency will intensify. Christians and Jews will find their faiths less and less tolerated.
. . Taxpayers. In spite of rhetoric to the contrary, all those who pay taxes in the United States will pay more taxes as a result of an Obama presidency. The tax cuts implemented during the Bush administration will expire, thereby causing a massive tax increase. But taxes will be raised even more, accelerating our economic problems and slowing further economic growth.
. . Talk radio. Passage of the Fairness Doctrine will quickly dispatch conservative radio, and a sizable segment of the First Amendment as well. RIP.
. . The health of U.S. citizens. As health care is federally mandated, the cost of care will increase and the quality of care will decrease. Over time, to save costs, health care will be restricted and rationed. Those who will suffer the most -- as has been the case everywhere socialized medicine is tried -- will be the elderly.
. . Mainstream media. As the Obama presidency turns sour, the mainstream media will feel obliged to make excuses for and be protective of Obama's blunders. Over time, the public may see how hostile the media actually are to fundamental American principles, and consumers of news may look for information from other, more reliable, more honest sources. If that happens, the mainstream media may eventually die out. [Good riddance!]
. . Traditional values. Traditional values that were the starting point for the founding of this country, and sustained it so well for over two hundred years, are now out of favor. The left subscribes to the If-it-feels-good-do-it philosophy, and truth, honesty, patriotism, faith, and family are considered silly relics from the past.
. . Unborn human beings. These priceless little ones will remain the most targeted for murder in the country. Nowhere is life more threatened than in the womb. Since Obama has pledged to place only pro-death justices on the Supreme Court, the unborn will remain in jeopardy for perhaps another generation.
. . Retired Americans. As the economy tumbles, older folks will feel the effect the most. Further, they know an America of a different era when laws were followed, the Constitution was respected, our freedom was cherished, and our values were held in high esteem. As this country slips into socialist robes, the experience of retired Americans gives them the greatest cause for sorrow.
. . Freedom. The left's multiculturalism teaches that no country is any better than any other. It teaches that all values should be equally respected and honored. Such a perspective sows the seeds of egalitarianism and chips away relentlessly at freedom's foundation. Freedom is based on individual rights, but the left would prefer power in the hands of the state, where rights are dispensed to individuals only by the state.
. . The world. The United States, through its strength and freedom and the example it sets, provides stability and hope throughout the world. If that strength and freedom are diminished, then the entire world will sink further into unrest and lawlessness. If the U.S. fades, the world will quickly follow.

Right now our future looks rather bleak. Can America survive the attack Obama and the other leftists will unleash upon her?

We'll see.

The Leap
Posted here for 11-3-08

It's stunning. Truly stunning.

The public has one of the lowest approval ratings of the U.S. Congress in the country's history, so what are voters poised to do? Vote the rascals back into power and then swell the ranks of Democrats, perhaps to filibuster-proof majorities. Why would they do that?

Principally because the mainstream media -- the media we thought were weakening and fading away -- have successfully instilled in the public mind the idea that all the ills we're experiencing are the fault of Republicans. Even though that's not the case at all. The Drive-Bys are so skilled at packaging "news," they're able to spin every good deed on the right as evil, and every bad deed on the left as virtue. In the absence of a fair debate, their web of distortions carries the day. Their attitudes, values, and beliefs seep into the nation's thinking and we are transformed.

That's stunning. A country of freedom-loving Americans has been buffeted and battered into believing that the good guys are the bad guys and the bad guys are the good guys. Though the nation has for hundreds of years been dedicated to freedom, our mainstream media have cunningly convinced many of us that capitalism is old fashioned, the Constitution is out of date, an ever-more powerful government is the only "solution." Reagan taught us government is the problem, but the media have shrewdly erased that lesson from national consciousness and replaced it with a utopian view of socialism. Ask not what you can do for your country; ask what your country can do for you. It will give you goodies, tax rebates, and all matter of jobs and rewards if you just put your faith and trust in the most left-leaning presidential candidate ever. Change! Hope! Don't look at his record, don't look at whom he has associated with, just listen to his voice. Hear his calm demeanor. Embrace his confidence. Trust him.

Remember one of the first things Clinton did after he scampered into office: he reneged on his promise to lower taxes. Remember what he said? He looked into the camera lens and told us in heart-felt tones that he had worked harder than ever before to make a tax cut a reality, but, golly, it just couldn't be done.

Once again we have a candidate with wondrous and multitudinous promises. Just vote for him and joy and happiness will forever be ours. All of our wishes will be granted. All of our needs will be met. All of our fears will be banished. Because a vote for the anointed one is a vote for change: glorious, blessed, momentous change!

Historians will remind us that Fidel Castro promised change as well. Karl Marx promised change. Adolf Hitler promised change. People bought into those fantasies, not thinking that a promise for change is a blank check for good or bad, anything but the status quo. Historians should also remind us that in almost all such instances, promises of change did not serve the people well.

But years of leftist indoctrination -- by the government schools, by Hollywood, by the media -- apparently have reached critical mass. The anointed one is about to take the reigns. Leftist principles, though proven deadly time and time again, are about to be enacted. A proud, patriotic country sits on the edge of socialism, looks down, and prepares to leap.

A Man Is Known by the Company He Keeps
Posted here for 10-27-08

A lot of pundits on the left say it's inappropriate to discuss Barack Obama's connection to Bill Ayers. After all, Barack was only eight when Ayers was plotting to blow up the Pentagon and U.S. Capital. That may be true, but doesn't it then mean the Democrat candidate had a lot of years to figure out Ayers was a terrorist, and an unapologetic terrorist at that?

Let's say that the Ku Klux Klan reached its peak of racism when John McCain was eight years, but then years later decided to associate himself with an active Ku Klux Klan member. Do you think the pundits on the left would decide such association was inappropriate to discuss? Oh, wait, that's sort of what happened. McCain did associate himself with such a person: Senator Robert Byrd, from West Virginia. You can imagine the outrage if the association was with someone other than a Democrat.

I'd be willing to overlook Obama's casual contact with one left-wing radical, but two, three, four . . . a dozen? How many hate-America associations does it take before they reveal something very substantive about the candidate?

Consider Frank Marshall Davis, said to be a sex pervert, homosexual, and pornographer, who was introduced to nine-year-old Barack Obama by his grandfather. Davis was a member of the Communist Party and he influenced the boy until he was 18. FBI records indicate Davis praised socialism and Russia. The records also suggest he may have been involved in espionage activities for the Soviet Union. FBI information states that Davis spent much of his time in Hawaii photographing large sections of the coastline using a telescopic lens. He had been seen doing this on at least three different occasions and it did not appear he was photographing any particular objects. (Hawaii was a communist focal point because of its strategic location and importance to the U.S. defense effort.) Referring to Davis, talk-show host G. Gordon Liddy said “Only very dangerous people were on the FBI security index, people who were on the side of an enemy and not on the side of the United States.”

How would you like your son or daughter to be under such a person's influence? Davis and Obama had what has been called a "father-son" relationship.

Throughout Obama's life he has been influenced by, associated with, supportive of, and an advocate for numerous left-wing, often extremist, often shady characters, including of course Frank Marshall Davis. Also: Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Madeline Talbott (ACORN), Bill Ayers, Don Warden (a racist black nationalist who changed his name to Khalid al-Mansour), Michael Pfleger, Bernardine Dohrn, James Cone, Carl Davidson, Dorothy Tillman, George Soros, James Meeks . . . . It's a long list. (DiscoverTheNetworks.org.)

As Thomas Sowell observed, Obama has “spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.”

Those on the left go ga-ga over Barack Obama. I can only conclude that millions on the left hate America.

Bedtime Story
Posted here for 10-20-08

Once upon a time there was a clutch of activists anxious to do good deeds. It wasn't fair, they asserted, for a segment of the population to go without individual home ownership, so they set about to rectify this grave social injustice.

But what could they do? Well, some were stationed in a seat of power, and they chiseled carefully at the laws of the land until regulations were in place to allow those who were financially unqualified to own homes to, by statute, be qualified. Their comrades in gigantic mortgage agencies acted in concert to thwart natural and proper business judgements and, for all intents and purposes, make home ownership a government entitlement. Enticements for the top executives were established to link salary increases to the increases in the number of sub-prime mortgages issued.

The stage was set to achieve their prized goal: home ownership for those who couldn't afford it.

Other activists spread out all across the country to push the program from the bottom up. They visited individual banks and suggested that not supporting the home-ownership push would be interpreted as racism. And if bank management didn't see it that way, the activists would see to it that the community saw it that way. Occasionally, demonstrations and pickets were pressed into service to make clear the message.

This blackmail was very effective. Millions of those without any hope of maintaining payments on large mortgages were living beyond their means in their own homes. The activists were joyous. They had achieved a great good. Those without means were rewarded and the rich and powerful banks were forced to underwrite it all.

But as there are laws of physics, so, too, are there laws of economics. Distortions and artificial influences may temporarily disrupt fundamental economic factors, but these factors will ultimately prevail.

And so it was with the mortgage market. Tens of thousands of bad mortgages were bundled together and sold as investment vehicles. In spite of the dubious payback potential of the individual mortgages, the vehicles were given high ratings, so the high risk was marketed as low. Wealthy nations around the world snatched up these "wonderful" investment opportunities.

Then one day when the real estate market turned south, it became clear that the only factor keeping many mortgages afloat was ever-increasing home values. When home values dipped, home "owners" discovered they owed more -- in some cases significantly more -- than the current value of their property. Default was the inevitable result.

Hard-working folks around the country -- folks who had saved, played by the rules, and been responsible in their financial dealings -- were devastated to see their home values, too, were plummeting. Who was responsible for this? How could this have happened? Why wasn't there oversight, accountability, and timely action?

And this is the interesting part, boys and girls.

Those who initiated the scheme, implemented it, and championed it, came before the angry crowds of citizens and made their statements. "It wasn't us," they shouted. "We didn't do anything wrong!" "It was those other guys." "They're the guilty ones." "Those guys in the other party; they're the ones you should be mad at."

And word was passed along, from hamlet to hamlet, town to town, both written and spoken, by those in charge of passing along words. And the words were not the truth but merely subterfuge.

Many townsfolk heard the words, did not understand them, but subscribed to them nonetheless. They harbored great disdain for those who had instigated the real estate market crash, and the resulting economic meltdown. They wanted to rid from those who were their leaders all those associated with the mortgage scandal.

And so it was that they voted out many Republicans and replaced them with many Democrats. And so it was that they voted for "that one," a new leader, with promises of change, promises of hope.

As luck would have it, "that one" was in reality among those in the original clutch of activists anxious to do good deeds. For it was the community organizers, don't you know, who were in charge of blackmail in this scheme.

The Tipping Point Is Here
Posted here for 10-13-08

I think the Crap-O-Matic Filter on my TV set must be clogged, because the presidential debate last Tuesday (the 7th) let me see the candidates and the political landscape in a new light. I now believe our country is at a tipping point. Congress is so corrupt and irresponsible: although its members rejected an $800 billion "rescue" package because the citizens rose up and objected, a few days later they passed basically the same package except it contained $150 billion dollars in political bribes. Our representatives are on the take and they'll quickly abandon principle if the bribe is big enough. It makes me sick! Where in the Constitution is pork permitted? It isn't. What Congress did was unconstitutional.

What I gather from Barack Let-the-Revolution-Begin Obama is that he's willing to wave the white flag in our nation's wars just to bring back our troops so he can fund his socialist agenda. As the most liberal Senate member (who selected the third most liberal Senator for his running mate -- Hillary is 17th), he decided it wasn't important enough to work on the "rescue" plan, so he continued to campaign. I translate that to mean: selfishness over patriotism.

Barack Redistribution Obama says he wants to give tax breaks to 95 percent of Americans (remember how quickly Bill Clinton reneged on his promise to lower taxes?), and to tax the snot out of the rich. This is a sure-fire way to tax the rich to oblivion. Besides, some 45 percent of Americans don't pay any taxes at all. No wonder they love Obama. More and more government handouts; less and less financial responsibility for government actions. Is it any wonder their demands for more and more government spending escalate?

Unfortunately, John I-Won't-Campaign-in-Michigan-Because-I-Might-Not-Win-There McCain isn't a whole lot better. On the heels of Congressional passage of the massive, inflationary, bring-on-the-depression "rescue" package (that may ultimately bankrupt the country), "Maverick" McCain announced it's insufficient, and proposed $300 billion more in government handouts to reimburse irresponsible home owners. What about all those who were responsible, made the hard decisions, sacrificed, and saved? Well, they'll have to pay for the irresponsible ones.

Sadly, it seems we've reached a point where both parties look first and often only to the government to "fix" things. History teaches that government botches things and almost always makes them worse, but I guess Obama and McCain never learned the lesson. Moreover, most of the citizens apparently never learned the lesson either. They clamor for government intervention at every sign of trouble. It's warm for a few years: government must solve the "global warming problem" by massive income redistribution and global governance. Oil companies are making "too much" money: slap them with an excess-profits tax (punish those who perform a great service and succeed). Oil is in short supply: pass laws to raise fuel-efficiency requirements (heck, why not demand 100 miles to the gallon?). People are poor: raise the minimum wage (why not make it $50 an hour?). People get sick: put the U.S. government in charge of health care. Education standards are down: let the U.S. government stick its nose into the process. At every turn the outcry is: government should fix it, government must save us, we're helpless unless the government does something.

It seems the nation is about ready to reject free enterprise and free markets and individual responsibility. If so, America's great experiment in freedom and liberty will end in failure. Two hundred years of success, but liberal thinking, activism, and policy are about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Our Founders will not have been proven wrong. They will have been proven right. We have strayed from their guiding principles and inspired wisdom. Liberal doctrine contradicts the economic, political, and social values that made this country great. Yet, we are about to abandon those values. My guess is that Obama's election will be the final tipping point.

Voting for Obama
Posted here for 10-6-08

I'd like to think most people will vote for president based on a candidate's policies, character, and values. Sadly, this year in particular, I suspect many will turn to other criteria instead. In an article titled "Why Obama Will Win," (American Renaissance, August 2008, pages 11-12) Jared Taylor catalogs what will motivate many in voting booths next month. Excerpts:

"For many whites, voting for Mr. Obama will be an act of high patriotism. Electing him will prove America is not 'racist,' and many whites believe that rising above 'racism' is America's sacred calling. One must never underestimate the importance to whites of feeling virtuous. Most would rather lose a leg than be thought a 'bigot,' and a vote for Obama is a painless way to burnish anti-racist credentials.

"[Y]oung whites will line up for Mr. Obama. They have been swallowing anti-white, multi-culti propaganda all their lives and have not knocked around enough to discover it is false. Some who know their parents will vote for Mr. McCain will make a special point of voting for Mr. Obama. Every new generation thinks it is cooler, hipper, and wiser than any generation that ever lived, and what could be cooler, hipper, or wiser than putting a black man in the White House? For many young whites, a vote for Mr. Obama will be a denial of every uncool, unhip , and especially every even faintly race-realist thing their parents ever said or did. [. . .]

"Many whites will vote for Mr. Obama because they want to think they helped 'make history.' [. . .]

"In any case, Mr. Obama will win far more white votes than he will lose because he is black. [. . .] As for black voters, even nominal Republicans are said to be running for the doors, but strictly racial voting has always been fine for blacks. Not so for whites, of course. Just try telling your co-workers that you disagree with Mr. McCain but are voting for him because he is white."

It appears many have been so thoroughly tarred with guilt and shame over treatment of blacks a hundred or two hundred years ago -- treatment they had absolutely nothing to do with -- they will trip over themselves racing to elect a black president. And they will do so even if he is the most liberal of the liberals, had the most dubious friends and associates throughout his life, and espouses objectives that will seriously harm or possibly destroy this country. Such is the state of race relations in the U.S. today.

Race Differences
Posted here for 9-29-08

Isn't this an interesting chart! It shows the average intelligence, as indicated by IQ, for the indigenous peoples of various countries and regions around the world. It was presented in a book, published in 2006, titled Race Differences in Intelligence -- An Evolutionary Analysis, by Richard Lynn, Washington Summit Publishers, Agusta, Georgia.


I haven't read the book yet, just paged through, but it looks like a thorough discussion of the subject of intelligence differences among races and regions. On page 5 Mr. Lynn says, "[T]he mean IQ of Europeans is approximately 102, while that of blacks is 87 and of Hispanics about 92." Oops! When one makes such politically incorrect statements -- whether or not they are true -- it is guaranteed his work will be at least ignored by the mainstream media, if not totally trashed. Actually, the PC crowd can't disparage the book, because just citing it will draw attention to something that must not be acknowledged. In "proper" PC circles, the book and its more than 50 pages of references will be treated as though it never existed.

Richard Lynn graduated in Psychology and took his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge. He has been lecturer in psychology at the University of Exeter, professor of psychology at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, and professor and head of the department of psychology at the University of Ulster. His main work has been on intelligence and personality. He has written at least six books and has received the Passingham Prize and the US Mensa Awards for Excellence (1985 and 1993) for work on intelligence.

2008 Politics
Posted here for 9-22-08

There are many lessons to be learned from this election cycle.

First, the "drive-by" media still wield considerable power. I thought talk radio and more importantly the Internet had altered the balance of power regarding public opinion. The drive-by boys retain much of their potency. They wanted Hillary to be president and they were well on their way to achieving that objective . . . until a black guy -- who's even more liberal -- came along. Then they switched allegiances and devoted themselves to Barack, and sure enough, he got the nomination. They wanted McCain to be the Republican candidate because from all appearances, he was the most liberal of those running on the right. Sure enough, John got the nod.

Second, I am shocked that a campaign based almost exclusively on the mantra of "hope" and "change" has been so successful. What in heaven's name has endeared Mr. Obama so to those who embrace him? It's certainly not his experience. It's certainly not his leadership (what leadership has he ever demonstrated?). It's certainly not the policies he has delineated (I bet most people couldn't name one of his major policies, except surrender in Iraq). The Democrat candidate has three things going for him. In order of importance they are: His extreme liberalism, his color (though reports suggest he's only 6.25% black -- search), and his speaking ability (with a teleprompter).

Third, the country seems ready to embrace a radical leftist and a radical leftist agenda. How could it possibly be that Obama's close association with and dedication to extremists (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, George Soros, Frank Marshall Davis, etc.) have not disqualified him? The answer is: the mainstream media consider such associations badges of merit. The mainstream media folks have become extremists themselves and their influence still sways the country.

Right now we're going through very tough times. Our economy is weak and showing signs of further weakness to come, much of which is as a direct result of leftist policy and practices. If an Obama presidency and administration are in our future, it may signal the turning point in American history, where our best days are behind us.

The Transformation of America
Posted here for 9-15-08

What would you think if your son (or daughter) came home from school one day and announced he would no longer eat meat, because doing so is cruelty to animals? What would you think if he demanded you become a vegetarian, too? What would you think if he said that anyone who hunts or fishes is an evil person?

What if he told you that as a result of Islam teachings he received in class, he has decided to become a Muslim? What if he revealed that the teacher told the class Christians are bad for society and Christianity is dangerous?

What if he said that based on what he learned in school, he wanted to be a homosexual? His instructor told him the homosexual lifestyle is liberating and rewarding, it's just as respectable as the heterosexual lifestyle, and there are never any pregnancies.

What if he said that socialism is superior to capitalism? That the UN should govern the world? That the U.S.A. is ruthless and cruel? That protecting our borders and preventing illegals from entering this country are selfish and immoral? That drilling for oil here will destroy the environment and foul nature? That we must get rid of automobiles because they cause global warming?

This is actually happening today because schools and universities aren't teaching facts, history, and truth; they're indoctrinating students with left-wing attitudes, values, and beliefs. And the probability is high these attitudes, values, and beliefs do not correspond to your attitudes, values, and beliefs.

One of the worst things about government schools is that they have instilled in the mind of the public the idea that teaching kids is the government's job. As a result, parents have willingly abdicated their roles of teacher, councilor, and moral authority to agents of change, who are transforming America into a far-left society.

Tom DeWeese describes the consequences: "Twenty years ago the U.S. ranked first in the world in the number of young adults who had high school diplomas and college degrees. Today we rank ninth and seventh, respectively, among industrialized nations. Compared to Europe and Asia, 15-year-olds in the United States are below average in applying math skills to real-life tasks. The United States ranks 18 out of 24 industrialized nations in terms of relative effectiveness of its education system. Knowledge in history, geography, grammar, civics and literature are all in decline in terms of academic understanding and achievement."

Professor Benjamin Bloom, called the Father of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) said: "The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings, and actions of students." That's an outrage! OBE is not education. It's the transformation of our nation, where the principles espoused by our Founding Fathers are discarded, and a socialist, even communist, ideology is installed.

Parents from coast to coast frown, express dissatisfaction, but consider themselves helpless in the transformation. A new world order is underway and the future of America hangs in the balance.

Simulating Foolishness
Posted here for 9-1-08

This is downright embarrassing.

Take a look at the computer projections of the path of Tropical Storm Fay that danced across Florida a couple of times in the last few weeks. The first chart shows predictions with some consistency indicating the storm will move pretty much due north. The second, prepared only a couple of days later[!], shows the storm will make a sharp left-hand turn when it reaches the northern part of the state.

The second projection turned out to be more accurate, but how could the computers be so far off course with the first projection? Of course the answer is that weather simulations are woefully inadequate. What's embarrassing is how scientists brag about the accuracy of their predictions, then produce simulation results that are dead wrong.

And most embarrassing of all are those "scientists" who have the gall to tell us what the temperature of Planet Earth will be ninety years from now. How do they know? By computer simulations they wrote -- simulations that are known to be unsophisticated, laced with unsubstantiated assumptions, and indeed, fatally flawed!

Look what the temperature simulation models don't take into consideration: cloud formulation, movement, and duration; the intensity of volcano eruptions; sun spot activity; factory particulate emissions (for example: China's out-of-control pollution production); ocean water evaporation patterns; Earth axis wobble as it travels around the sun; animal gas discharges; CO2 consumption by algae; forest fires; El Nino and La Nina incidents; hurricane activity; meteor strikes; and dust storms and disturbances. All the computer models are based on the assumption that increasing CO2 causes increased temperature. But it's now known CO2 trends historically follow, not lead temperature trends. If anything, CO2 changes response to temperature changes and are the effect, not cause.

By making wild predictions about the Earth's future temperature, "scientists" discredit themselves, they debase the whole field of science, they reveal themselves to be committed to politics over truth, and they display a level of arrogance that's stunning. There are countless phenomena science today cannot handle, such as when the next earthquake will hit, what volcano will next blow its top, or when, . . . or what the Earth's temperature will be in the year 2100. Or in 2010, for that matter.

Global Warming Advocates
Posted here for 8-25-08

I think it's interesting to look at the qualifications -- or at least the education -- of some of the strongest advocates of global warming. Here's a partial list.

Al Gore, B.A. Government, Divinity School Dropout (no science degree) Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree) Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma Christie Brinkley, High School Diploma Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree) Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree) Prince Charles of Wales, B.A. (no science degree) Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree) -------- ABC - Bob Woodruff, J.D. Law (no science degree) CBS - Harry Smith, B.A. Communications and Theater (no science degree) CBS - Katie Couric, B.A. English (no science degree) NBC - Ann Curry, B.A. Journalism (no science degree) NBC - Matt Lauer, B.A. Communications (no science degree) FOX - Shepard Smith, College Dropout -------- Al Sharpton, College Dropout Alicia Keys, College Dropout Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout Ben Affleck, College Dropout Billy Jean King, College Dropout Brad Pitt, College Dropout Britney Spears, High School Dropout

Bruce Springsteen, College Dropout Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout Cindy Crawford, College Dropout Diane Keaton, College Dropout Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout George Clooney, College Dropout Jessica Simpson, High School Dropout John Travolta, High School Dropout Julia Roberts, College Dropout Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout Lindsay Lohan, High School Dropout Ludacris (Christopher Bridges), College Dropout Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout Matt Damon, College Dropout Michael Moore, College Dropout Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout Paris Hilton, High School Dropout Pierce Brosnan, High School Dropout Richard Branson, High School Dropout Robert Redford, College Dropout Rosie O'Donnell, College Dropout Sean Penn, College Dropout Ted Turner, College Dropout Tommy Lee (Thomas Lee Bass), High School Dropout Uma Thurman, High School Dropout Willie Nelson, High School Dropout

I don't think this is the bunch to listen to if you want a scientific perspective, technical analysis, or demonstrated expertise in the study of climate change. I'll admit, however, they're pretty good when it comes to advocating liberal ideology.

[Source of above information.]

Obama Posters
Posted here for 8-18-08

I've searched around again on the Internet (see 7-14-08 below) for Obama posters. Once again I find there are a lot, and in all but a few cases, no American flag is pictured with the candidate.


In greatest abundance is the poster at left. There are dozens of these on the Internet. (Check here.) You'll notice three of the above posters are variations on this theme. You'll note also that the pose is remarkably similar to the picture of JFK at right.

Is this simply a coincidence?

In my opinion, absolutely not! Notice the tilt of the head, the no-smile expression, the direction of gaze. I've read that Obama works hard at trying to copy the charm and allure of JFK. He wanted to appear at the Brandenburg Gate to reinforce a likeness to and comparison with the former president.

I'm not the only one to notice the compare-me-with-JFK marketing scheme. Artwork on the Internet makes the same point.

(But I may be the only one to point out the copy-cat poster design.)

Weaning Ourselves Off of Oil
Posted here for 8-11-08

Barack Obama says that within ten years we should end our dependence on oil coming from the Middle East and Venezuela.

Al Gore says we should completely kick the oil habit in that period of time.

The impact of such an endeavor on our cars, trucks, airplanes, and our entire transportation system would be unimaginable. All existing vehicles and aircraft would have to be either drastically modified or, more likely, discarded. The cost, I suspect, would be trillions or even tens of trillions of dollars.

But that's only part of the problem. When we think of oil, we think of gasolene and jet fuel, but oil is found in countless other products. About a third of your TV set is made from petroleum-based materials. Half of your sneakers. Almost all of your exercise attire.

Laundry detergent comes from oil, as does its plastic container. So do contact lenses. And toothbrushes. And aspirin and many other pharmaceuticals. And make-up, and anti-freeze, and paints, and football helmets, and vaseline, and propane.

And food packaging, bullet-resistant windows, refrigerator shelves, kayaks, golf balls, water pipes, baby oil, suntan lotion, tires, umbrellas, zip-lock bags, paraffin wax, Crayola crayons, candle wax, asphalt shingles, computers, automobiles, and over 90 percent of the roads we drive on. Petroleum-based products are everywhere.

Roughly 50 percent of all the oil we use goes to produce finished gasolene for our vehicles. Only 50 percent! Another 15 percent goes to make diesel. And the remaining 35 percent is used in the manufacture of a myriad of modern-day products. It's an essential ingredient.

While scientists are working hard to find substances to replace oil derivatives in our products, they're a long way from achieving their objective. Moreover, it looks like substitutes will be more expensive -- perhaps significantly more expensive -- than oil.

So while Barack and Al talk about ending our dependence on black gold, they don't seem to understand it will also put an end to products we completely depend on for health, safety, convenience, and pleasure. It will radically alter our standard of living and our way of life.

Perhaps that's the hidden agenda.


[Source of technical information: "Secrets of Oil," Modern Marvels TV program, The History Channel, July 31, 2008.]

The Earth's Temperature, CO2, and the Climate Models
Posted here for 8-4-08

The chart at right shows that since the second half of 1999, the CO2 in the atmosphere (green line) has been rising and the earth's temperature variation (two measurements, represented by the purple and black lines) has also been rising. Wow! Pretty impressive. Looks like there's a correlation. When the CO2 goes up, the earth's temp goes up, although there are some temperature ups and downs along the way. Nevertheless, the trend appears clear. So, many might conclude from this four-to-five-year trend that we could predict a continuation of the temperature rise. Certainly, more and more CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere, so the earth's temp has to increase. Isn't that just simple logic? Well, not so fast. Take a look at the lower chart. From 2002 to 2008, the CO2 line continues to go up, but the temperature variation doesn't follow along. How could this be? I thought the science was settled! Has Al Gore been notified? Maybe he should give back his Nobel Peace Prize. History shows that the earth's temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere do track, but CO2 levels rise after the temperature rises, not the other way around. Temperature rise is the cause; CO2 increase is the effect. This is a dreadfully inconvenient truth for Mr. Gore and his scare mongers, because all the climate computer models are based on the premise that CO2 increases cause the temperature to go up. Thus, all the computer models are fatally flawed. They're all worthless! Note where the purple and black lines are at the beginning of 2008. They're way down! It looks like we won't have to wait until the year 2100 to prove Al "We're-Destroying-the-Earth" Gore is full of hot air. [These charts were adapted from the chart by Joe D'Aleo on this Invisionfree.com webpage. I encourage you to visit the website and check out the wealth of global warming information presented there.]

Helping Obama's Campaign
Posted here for 7-28-08

What has been the mantra of America's black "leaders" for years and a rock-solid position of the left for decades? Yes, of course: affirmative action!

The idea is that blacks have been so disadvantaged for so such a long time, they need special compensations -- special advantages in school and on the job -- so they'll be able to compete effectively with whites who haven't been so disadvantaged. Blacks, we're told, need special rules and exclusions to "level the playing field."

Well, now that a black (or at least someone somewhat black) is the presumptive Democrat candidate for President of the United States, what sort of special compensations are we going to give him? If all other blacks get special treatment -- affirmative action -- in their pursuits, then certainly Barack Obama should receive a boost, an assist, a head start maybe in his run against John McCain. After all, McCain is just a white guy. It certainly isn't fair if both candidates are treated equally.

Let's see. Maybe we could let Obama run on lofty platitudes, instead of substantive statements. Maybe he could run on "Goodness" and "Happiness." No, wait. I've got a better idea. He could run on "Hope" and "Change." That way he wouldn't have to get all tangled up in complex subjects like real issues, policy pronouncements, and statements of what he would actually do if elected to office.

But would that be sufficient? Maybe not. Perhaps more affirmative acting is required.

Since criticism can be detrimental to one's campaign, perhaps we can simply ban it if it's aimed at Obama. Immune from criticism, the voters will think he's the best, and he'll sail right into the White House, like illegals into voting booths. No, wait. Here's a better idea: We don't have to ban criticism, we can just say anyone who criticizes Obama is racist. That should do the same thing, but at the same time paint all his critics as mean and evil. That would help level the playing field, don't you think?

Here's something else that might help. Maybe the "big three" networks -- ABC, CBS, NBC -- could post advertizements on the air every hour or so promoting an Obama presidency. Of course there would be no charge for this; it would simply be a public service announcement for the candidate. No, wait. Instead, maybe the "big three" news anchors could follow him around the world and give glowing reports of his meetings, his speeches, and the reception he receives at each stop along the way. If he's viewed as a successful world leader even before the election, then the outcome in November is a fait accompli.

I'm sure there are some who think even these steps are not enough to level the presidential campaign playing field. So, how about this: When election day comes, have some clever Democrat operatives "adjust" the vote. By either "tinkering" with the voting machines, or tampering with the results, Obama's tally could be boosted by five or ten percent. Surely, that would make the election fair.

Cholesterol: Do You Have Your Facts Wrong?
Posted here for 7-21-08

I'm very impressed with Sheldon Zerden's book The Cholesterol Hoax; 101 + Lies. Here are some interesting excerpts:

Page 1: Americans have consumed approximately 600 mg. of cholesterol per day since 1909. The increasing heart attack rate cannot logically be blamed on dietary cholesterol.
Page 1: Rural Romanians have 10 to 20 times less coronary heart disease than Americans and they consume approximately 900 mg. of cholesterol per day, which is 300 mg more cholesterol than Americans.
Page 3: There is no evidence at all that lowering your cholesterol will increase your longevity.
Page 7: Cholesterol is absolutely essential to good health and is located in every cell in the body.
Page 13: The Bedouins in Israel, who had been eating animal fat in the desert began eating vegetable fat as they moved into the towns, and then their problems with coronary heart disease began.
Page 20: There is no treatment of high cholesterol levels known to be both efficacious and safe.
Page 21: Cholesterol levels cannot be reproduced. [. . .] Fasting levels of serum cholesterol and Lipoproteins were measured on a weekly basis for four weeks in twenty subjects aged 20-63 years. Variations greater than plus or minus 20% were seen in 75% of the levels of serum cholesterol. On retesting, 40% of the individuals moved from 'desirable' to 'high risk' category, or vice-versa.
Page 24: Most people with coronary heart disease have low to moderate levels of cholesterol and most people with high levels of cholesterol do not die of coronary heart disease. These facts are fully acknowledged by prominent members of the research community, the same ones who are responsible for the national cholesterol scare.
Page 26: 7.5 ounces of red meat has 145 mg of cholesterol, fish 140 mg. and chicken 186 mg.
Page 29: The overwhelmingly negative findings from 27 clinical trials which used subjects with the highest cholesterol levels indicates that cholesterol-lowering may not have practical benefits for this unique group. There is, in fact, an abundance of proof that lowering cholesterol is harmful to good health.
Page 35: Since the average blood cholesterol is 220 mg., 65 percent of the population will be classified as borderline high or simply high. [. . .] Cholesterol-lowering drugs will cost up to $3000 per person. The total cost could soar to $10 billion per year by the year 2000. Cholesterol testing and treatment is becoming one of the largest and richest industries in the world.
Page 51: You may enjoy exercise, it may help you socially, you may look and feel better, but all the rest is myth. Exercise will not make you healthy. It will not make you live longer. Fitness and health are not the same thing. Fitness is measured physiologically by oxygen consumption. This doesn't mean a thing to your heart. Running conditions the muscles, but does nothing for the lungs. If cardiovascular health was a product of physical training, then fit people wouldn't die of heart disease. The fact is that exercisers suffer the same ills that plague us all. The leading cause of exercise-related deaths in well-trained people is coronary heart disease. You can be fit and healthy. You can also be physically fit and ill with coronary heart disease.
Page 54: It has been known for decades that cholesterol protects cells from toxic substances. It is not surprising that low levels of blood cholesterol may promote such disease as cancer.
Page 62: [T]he Northern Indians, who eat lots of animal fats, butterfat, and milk do not have more heart disease. The Southern Indians who have a low-cholesterol diet have 15 times more heart disease than the Northern Indians with the high-cholesterol diet. Better nutrition explains the difference. These results have not been widely publicized.
Page 62: [O]nly 2O percent of heart disease patients have serum cholesterol levels above 222 mg.
Page 82: The use of cholesterol-lowering drugs in one of the largest and most significant studies showed that more people who were treated died sooner than those who weren't treated. [. . .] [T]he death rate from heart disease among the people who were given drugs exceeded the death rate among the drugless group by 242 percent.

It's hard to believe scientists and experts would mislead the public so. Granted, a lot of people would lose a lot of money if the above factors became general knowledge. Hmmm. Sort of like global warming, isn't it?

* Published by Emissary Publications, 1997. Address: PMB 1776, 9205 SE Clackamas Road, Clackamas, Oregon 97015. Phone/fax: 503-824-2050. E-mail.

A Baker's Dozen Reasons to Vote for (or Against) Barack Hussein Obama
Posted here for 7-14-08


His posters look like long-ago Nazi propaganda posters . . . or maybe Japanese war propaganda posters. And none of them shows an American flag. Talk about a candidate who's consistent: he doesn't even like to wear a flag pin on his lapel.
He keeps talking about hope . . . and I hope to win the lottery.
None of his long-time anti-American friends (Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Frank Marshall Davis, etc., etc., etc.) will be named as his vice president.
He beat Hillary, and anybody who beat Hillary has proven he's for change.
The mainstream media fawn over him, make excuses for him, and say only nice things about him. Moreover, lots of foreign governments think highly of him, too. And almost all of the terrorist groups want him to be our next president.
He looks so young and handsome . . . and thin . . . and dynamic . . . and inspiring. And since we desperately need change, maybe it would be good to get someone so inexperienced.
He wife said that for the first time in her life she's proud to be an American. Well, I'm proud to be an American, too. Is that a coincidence or what?
His smile is so charming; and if you're going to go around chit chatting with our nation's fiercest enemies, you need a beguiling smile.
He says he'll bring change I can believe in. Well, I certainly don't want change I can't believe in.
He'll be by far the most socialist, the most communist, the most Islamic, and the most anti-American president the country has ever had. How exciting to make history!
He doesn't look as crotchety, awkward, and old as John McCain. And McCain has that forced smile and keeps referring to everyone as "my friends".
He's smart enough to figure out I cling to my guns, I cling to my religion, and I don't like illegal immigrants. And he knows I'm bitter, too, about what has been going on in Washington, DC. Gosh, looks like this guy knows all about the average American.
He's black (or at least 6.25% black) and he would be the first 6.25% black president in our nation's history!