JUST KIDDING!!!  How could I not support this woman?  She's intelligent, courageous, inspirational, and let's face it, stunning.  It was refreshing to see someone keeping to their beliefs and faith, instead of compromising them for short term gain. 

What I hope really comes out of this whole situation is that America sees what the gay agenda is really all about.  The goal is not a land of tolerance where people can agree to disagree and get on with their lives, but domination of the majority by a violent minority.  Across America, including in California, the majority of people do not agree with gay marriage.  When they disagree, they are attacked.  In every case, except recently in Vermont, gay marriage has been imposed on people by the judiciary despite the people voting to uphold traditional marriage.  Vermont is a dangerous state that should be voted out of the Union anyway.  The place is a haven for child molesters, with judges who refuse to fully prosecute them and protect children.

Gay activist label anyone who disagrees with them a hateful bigot, worthy of chastisement and punishment.  The result?  So called "hate crimes" legislation.

A vote is looming tomorrow on HR 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2009.  The aim of this bill is to "protect" homosexuals and people with gender identity issues.  The "protection" is from opposing view points.

Even though the 14th Amendment already provides for equal protection for all citizens, this special legislation is required for some reason.

All this bill will do is open the door to trample our constitutional rights to free speech and free religion.  If you quote that the Bible is against homosexuality--lawsuit.  If you quote that the Qur'an is against homosexuality--lawsuit.  If you protest against a gay pride parade--lawsuit.  If you are an "ex-gay," and say that homosexuality is a choice that can be overcome--lawsuit.  The government will tell you what beliefs, opinions, and thoughts will be acceptable in America.

If this bill gets passed, you can basically kiss the Constitution goodbye.

When I first heard that the Obama administration would not attend the UN's racism summit, I was kind of surprised.  Could Obama actually be standing up for American principles of free speech? 

Reportedly the two main reasons that the US will not attend are an intended criticism of Israel in the conference declarations, and a move by Muslim countries to silence all criticism of Islam, Sharia law, the prophet Muhammad and other tenets of their faith.

The White House said it could not support a singling out of Israel, one of America's close allies, or a limitation on speech, because as State Department spokesman Robert Wood pointed out, such limitations, "run counter to the U.S. commitment to unfettered free speech."

After thinking about Obama's decision, I'm pretty sure it has to do more with the criticism of Israel being a problem, than limiting speech.  Jewish groups have aggressively lobbied the US and other countries to not attend the conference after a previous UN draft statement likened Zionism to racism.  The Netherlands, Germany, Australia, Canada, Israel and Italy will also not be in attendance.

I think the fight over Israel had more to do with Obama's decision because he has already expressed here in America that he does not support free speech.  Obama and his administration aggressively attacked Rush Limbaugh, a private citizen, after Rush criticized Obama's policies.  Obama and other top Democrats have also openly stated that they support restricting the free opinions expressed on all conservative talk radio programs.

After people realized that the "Fairness Doctrine" was anything but fair, Democrats dropped the name, but began planning to implement its regulations in other pieces of legislation.  One of the provisions amounts to affirmative action where station owners will be forced to hire minorities and people of diverse view points to put on air or face having their operating licenses revoked.

And we shouldn't forget about how Obama hired a team of lawyers during the campaign to go after any citizen who criticized him, his past, his nepharious relationships, or his policies.   

I hope the political pundits are not fooled by this move.

On Thursday, Joe Scarborough reacted to the vile coverage of the TEA Party protests seen on his own MSNBC network, and on CNN.  I'm somebody at this network has some sense.

"You look at these huge rallies, and I'm not going to mention names of people on networks that made sexual jokes, childish sexual jokes, about tens of thousands of Americans who went out and wanted to get involved in their government."  The names Joe didn't mention would be ones like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and David Shuster.

Scarborough continued, "I mean, it was really middle school jokes being made. I didn't hear those jokes being made when people on the left protested over the past eight years."

"But, if a media outlet wants to expose its bias, they can mock tea parties, if they like."

Scarborough asserted that he would expect such juvenile actions from liberal bloggers, however, "I would expect more...from news outlets. And it happened on several networks yesterday."


Media Research Center President Brent Bozell also chastised the liberal press for their coverage. 

"Now the news isn't just biased, it's R-rated," said Bozell. "MSNBC and CNN both allow this vulgar attack-journalism to go out on their airwaves without blinking an eye and without any sign of guilt. It appears neither woeful bias nor lowly crassness on their airwaves bothers them a bit."

"MSNBC and CNN owe these decent Americans an apology for the slimy, smarmy attacks they perpetrated in 'covering' the TEA Parties. Ordinary citizens exercising their First Amendment rights in over 750 cities and towns deserve the media's coverage, not their sleaze-riddled condemnation."

Eric Odom, administrator of TaxDayTeaParty.com, told WorldNetDaily, "It couldn't become more apparent that CNN is taking their content off left-wing blogs and pushing it out through what they consider ethical and coherent journalism.  And I think it further proves the downfall of the mainstream media."

"What's been happening in the last few days has been an example of the [media's] clear and present and complete disconnect with American society.  I don't even know if CNN knows they're doing this. I think they believe what they're saying is sincerely accurate," Odom said, adding, "I don't know that we'd like to see an apology more than we'd like to see some sort of grasp of reality because this is a completely unrealistic realm that they're thriving in, and it's hard to believe they're considered mainstream journalism."

Barack Obama has already spit in the face of Catholics with his radical anti-life policies.  His scheduled appearance to speak at the University of Notre Dame's commencement ceremony (where he will also be honored despite the U.S. Council of Bishops forbidding such a thing) has caused an uproar in the Catholic community with thousands of the faithful, including clergy and Bishops, in protest.  But Obama couldn't stop there.

Prior to speaking at Georgetown University's Gaston Hall this week (a Catholic and Jesuit institution), the White House reportedly asked the university to cover up the IHS monogram that would be seen behind Obama while he spoke.  IHS is an abbreviation for the name of Jesus Christ (read a brief history here). The university did oblige, although we are still waiting to hear a good reason why other than that Obama asked them to.

Many prominent officials have given speeches at Gaston Hall where the monogram was uncovered. Among those is First Lady Laura Bush.

Georgetown University professor James Schall asked some important questions about this issue in his article on The Catholic Thing:

If this president speaks at a Jewish Synagogue, or a Baptist church, or the Crystal Cathedral, or the Muslim Mosque on Massachusetts Avenue, the Ravens Stadium, the George Washington University, the headquarters of Planned Parenthood, or the hall of the local Atheist Society, will the same policy be followed? Will all signs of what the place actually is and stands for be covered over? If so, it represents equitable treatment, but is it wise? Is the president never to appear in any venue with obvious particular commitments, and why choose religious and not secular signs? Should, say, a university seal be exempted, but a crucifix not?

Will presidents be able to appear anywhere outside government buildings if the rules are really equally applied to both religious and secular? And this raises a real question: Is it American?

Many of these are questions the Obama administration will have to answer themselves. But Schall’s last question, “Is it American?” is an easy one. Resoundingly the answer is NO! 

Since our inception as a country American presidents and politicians have actively promoted religion among the people. Government officials have also gone so far as to promote unity among the citizens of different faiths by highlighting their common beliefs. And shockingly enough, presidents have even proclaimed national days of prayer.

In his first years as president, George Washington wrote letters to Presbyterians, Quakers, Hebrew Congregations, and Roman Catholics expressing his support for them as people of faith in America.

To the Catholics in 1790 Washington wrote, “And may the members of your society in America, animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and still conducting themselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity.”

He wrote to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, 1790, “May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

Of course today’s society has been radicalized to think that the government having anything to do with religion is unconstitutional, despite the numerous historical documents proving otherwise. 

What most people have yet to realize is that creating a system where the government is devoid of contact with the various faiths in our country in essence violates the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. But the laws being enacted against religion are themselves creating a de facto state religion: a secular humanist one. 

Government officials, government sponsored schools, official proclamations, etc. should actively support the religious faithful in America. To do otherwise violates the true intent of the Constitution.

President Washington assured Jewish Americans that, “there shall be none to make him afraid,” but when people cannot even pray at a high school football game, we have become afraid.

 

The Boston Tea Party and the TEA Parties across the nation yesterday were both in opposition to a tyrannical government.  One of the things I talked about with a reporter on the scene yesterday was how our elected representatives have trampled all over the Constitution of the United States to expand their own power.  Now those on the Left will say that these politicians just interpret the document differently than I do, but if you actually review history and why certain wording was used in the Constitution, and what its authors actually said it was supposed to mean, much of the Left's argument is completely blown out of the water.

Here's something to think about:

The authors of the Constitution just finished a war to gain freedom from a tyrant.  The British did have established laws with understood meanings to govern British subjects.  King George went around those established laws (call it reinterpreting them) to impose his own will on the American Colonies.  So after fighting for independence, would it make sense that the Americans then set up a government under a document that could be interpreted at will by those in power? 

The Constitution was written with fixed meanings for a purpose: to limit the ability of a tyrant (or tyrants in the case of Congress) from imposing their own will on the people.  When we cease being a nation governed by the law, we become a nation governed by the whims of men (and women), which is where we are now.

Here's another thought:

A business owner opens up a shop.  He establishes the policies and procedures to operate the business in following a mission statement.  Time goes by, and the business is prosperous.  One day the owner hires a new manager who decides to start running things under his own policies and procedures with his own mission and goal for the business.  After being confronted by the owner, the new manager says, "Your procedures and mission is in the past.  They don't matter anymore.  This is a new age, and I run things around here."  The business owner then has to choose between conceding to the manager, or firing the bum.

We the People are the owners of America.  Our elected representatives are the managers that we have hired to run things.  We have the same decision to make: do we concede to their power and give up the ways that made us prosperous, or do we fire them and hire new management?

I made a point to watch the liberal media's coverage of today's protest, and boy was I NOT surprised at what I saw.  First there was the flagrant, crude, and childish sexual innuendo provided by the high paid anchors of CNN and MSNBC.  Drench all of those completely inappropriate comments in an elitist smugness looking down on all those who participated, and throw in a bunch of complete lies and misrepresentations about the movement to produce a journalistic quality unsuitable for a high school newsletter.

Before watching all of this, I'll admit that I wasn't completely against these stations as news sources, but now I see that they have absolutely zero credibility as reliable and fair sources.  Now of course Fox News did report favorably on the commentary/opinion shows it airs (Glenn Beck and Hannity), and it's journalists just delivered the story.  Now there is a clip of some long haired guy on the Fox Business Network calling Republicans and Democrats fascists, which was his opinion, but then again, at least it was a balanced opinion. 

Of course Fox was labeled as one of the chief architects of the protests by the liberal MSM, but any intelligent person would know that planning for all of the protests began way before Fox said they were going to cover these events.  And they were started by regular people, not rich corporations or the Republican Party.

What I did notice in watching this dispicable display of so called journalism today was the complete loathing of "traditional values."  Statements were made in many instances to suggest that traditional values (you know the ones that perpetuated the actual existance of this country that we live in and made it the greatest and most prosperous country in the history of the world) were dead and over.  Of course if these values are gone, they have to be replaced right?  And that would mean they could only be replaced by ANTI-AMERICAN values since the traditional ones were those that essentially defined America.

But despite all their smugness, I think liberals are just scared that the spirit of America still lives, and is making a comeback.

Now is the time for Catholics to find themselves and renew their faith in the Church. As Rahm Emanuel famously said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Catholics in America now face a serious crisis concerning their faith. Politicians, reporters, aid workers, judges, teachers, and public figures around the world have hacked away at the Church’s beliefs for a long time, and the scrutiny is intensifying. To compound the problem, many bishops and Vatican officials lack the fortitude to stand up to these attacks, and the flock itself is dwindling and without solid guidance. 

The most recent outrage comes from elements within the Catholic Church itself. Father John Jenkins, President of the University of Notre Dame, recently announced that Barack Obama accepted an invitation to speak at Notre Dame’s commencement ceremony this year, and will also receive an honorary law degree from the University. The Cardinal Newman Society, now joined by CatholicVote.org, organized a petition of protest in hopes of convincing Fr. Jenkins to rescind the invitation due to Obama’s far left, anti-life policies. Mr. Obama is no friend to the pro-life movement whatsoever, even to the point of supporting infanticide in botched abortions. The Catholic Church is very clear in its teaching that human life begins at the moment of conception. At the time of this writing, over 104,000 have signed onto the petition.

Despite the petition, and a wave of criticism of Fr. Jenkins and of Notre Dame in the press, so far the university shows no indication of rescinding the offer to Mr. Obama. Kevin Keane, a 1988 alumnus of Notre Dame, told the student newspaper The Observer, “I will be in attendance on commencement day with several thousand others to show my distaste for this decision. We will bring with us the graphic photos of what abortion does to its victims, so there can be no doubt about the hatefulness of the man chosen to instruct Notre Dame graduates in how to be a success in life.” The student paper also interviewed several other people planning massive protests on campus.

Immediately preceding the Notre Dame scandal was the AIDS controversy Pope Benedict faced over comments made during his trip in Africa. “You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem,” the pontiff declared concerning the AIDS virus that has ravaged the African continent. The pope’s remarks were met with condemnation of the Church’s long held beliefs on sexuality. 

“His opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans,” said Rebecca Hodes with the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa.

CNN’s Roland Martin wrote that, “For the church to continue to ignore the definitive research that condoms play a huge role in decreasing the spread of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases is mind-boggling.”

What Rebecca Hodes fails to realize is that if Africans adhered to the dogma of the Catholic Church, as Pope Benedict was encouraging them to do, millions of African lives would be saved.  And as far as Mr. Martin’s contention goes, according to Dr. Edward Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, “There is a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded 'Demographic Health Surveys,' between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates.” 

Dr. Green went on to say that, “We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates," said Green, "which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working,” adding, “The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows that reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behavior change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates.”

Last month Pope Benedict met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a self proclaimed Catholic and abortion supporter, and reminded the Speaker of, “the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.” In the past I have been clear in saying that I think pro-abortion Catholic politicians such as Pelosi, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden are dangerous heretics. These public figures intentionally mislead the faithful to win votes, but Church officials do little to stop them.

The crisis among American Catholics is real. The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University found last year that only 23% of adult Catholics attend Mass every week. Exit polls from the recent presidential election found that Obama won the Catholic vote overall 52 to 45 percent, but that John McCain won the Catholic vote among those who attended Mass on a weekly basis. These numbers reinforce what common sense suggests; that Catholics who regularly attend mass will vote for politicians supportive of Catholic teachings. 

The U.S. Council of Bishops wrote in 2004 that, “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” Obviously this statement failed to reach Notre Dame, and the Catholics who voted for Obama, Biden, Pelosi, etc.

The drumming of Republicans (the political party of life) in the last two elections has galvanized the conservative movement in America to reorganize and take action.  Conservatives realize that the ideas and values of America’s Founding Fathers are timeless, and can restore our nation’s greatness. Likewise, Catholics need to reinvigorate the faithful, and bring our brethren back to Mass (on days other than Easter and Christmas). The teachings of Jesus and of His Church still have real value, even in an era of political correctness. Only by knowing and living the faith can those who identify with Catholicism be truly representative of their religion. Never let a serious crisis go to waste. 

Over the weekend I read the most recent book from featured TruthOfANation.com columnist and martial arts legend Chuck Norris, “Black Belt Patriotism.” Norris has peppered his columns with excerpts from this new book lately, but it really must be read cover to cover. Norris doesn’t delve deep into political philosophy with confusing jargon to explain his vision of America. He provides practical steps to “reawaken” the American people, and return to the tradition of honoring God and country. Chuck Norris, not Barack Obama, truly offers change we can believe in.  

Norris, much like myself, believes that the American people have drifted too far from our history and the traditions and beliefs of the Founding Fathers. In just ten hard hitting rounds (chapters), Norris enters the culture war, and provides the American people with some ammunition for the fight. He discusses American history, the role of religion, our economy of debt, protecting the borders, education, the American family, health, and the need to take action to secure our future. 

The pages are littered with quotes and references from the founding period of America’s history conveying what the men who actually fought for and instituted the government of the United States envisioned its role to be in lives of American citizens, and the world. Thomas Jefferson was most often quoted by Norris in the defense of his beliefs, even in defense of religion in public life.

Norris reminds us that the often misunderstood “separation between church and state,” is not actually found in the Constitution, but first appeared in a letter Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that no particular Christian denomination would hold power over the government. He also notes that two days after writing this letter, Jefferson “attended church in the place where he always had as president: the U.S. Capitol.”

Norris, like other scholars of American history, knows that the Christian religion was essential to the formation of the United States of America. Other than quoting Founding Fathers, Norris often quotes the Bible in providing context to his lessons on returning to our roots. The leaders of America at its birth were men with a strong faith and belief in God, who recognized the need for religion and morality in the lives of American citizens. Unfortunately we don’t learn about this in history class, as Norris points out. Barack Obama believes we should forget about this part of history all together.

Norris dedicates an entire chapter to the need for the Millennials (citizens eighteen to twenty-nine years of age) to take action in the culture war. This generation (my generation) is on the verge of coming to power in America after being cheated out of the truth about our history and traditions, and taught to be ashamed of our country. Far left ideologies have corrupted our schools and the media, and poisoned the American people to the point where a leftist radical like Barack Obama now has a chance to be elected President of the United States. Fortunately for us Millennials, the Information Age has provided the means to learn the truth denied to us, and have a voice in the culture war. 

While the mainstream media has anointed Obama the candidate of the young people, they downplayed the youth activism and excitement over Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign for the presidency. Ron Paul’s message of freedom and traditional values inspired a legion of young people to continue the freedom movement even after he lost the presidential nomination through the Campaign for Liberty. Freedom is popular, and so is the truth.  

A liberal friend of mine once confessed to me that in forming her vision of the role of American government that she didn’t really study writings from the founding period because they had no real importance in present day America. I strongly disagree. The Founding Fathers would disagree. And Chuck Norris disagrees. How can our country have a future if we forget our past? The culture war is real, whether we want to enter the fight or not. Earn your black belt, and meet me at the front lines.  

Most people at some point wonder what kind of programs or projects their tax dollars actually fund.  A couple of initiatives our tax dollars have been paying for can be seen right on the Internet.  Planned Parenthood, the organization which started with hopes of Black genocide in America and went on to kill millions of babies, has unveiled its new website “www.TakeCareDownThere.org.”  Planned Parenthood, which receives taxpayer funding, seems intent not only on killing the unborn, but on turning the nation’s teenagers into degenerates. 

 

This website targets young people with sketches meant to teach about safe sex while promoting promiscuity and alternative lifestyles.  In every skit, and adult pops in to “teach” the young people something about sex. 

 

The website runs the gamut of indecency.  The skit titled “Find the STI” shows a girl pulling down her pants and asking two other young girls, and a young boy, if they see anything “down there.”  The sex teacher then walks in and tells her to get tested for sexually transmitted infections.

 

The skit “Let me do me” has one girl declining an offer to go to a party with her friends because she wants to stay at home and masturbate.  The sex teacher tells her friends to give the girl a group-hug for her decision.

 

One piece titled “I didn’t spew” has the sex teacher walking up to a young boy telling him that he shouldn’t be receiving oral sex without a condom.  The head of another boy then comes up from out of scene, and he wipes his mouth indicating he was giving the other boy oral sex.

 

The site contains several other skits of this nature, and sends the message, “We were born to be in love with our bodies, ask any three year old…But somewhere down the road to growing up we put our reproductive selves in the dark…Rather than worry about what went wrong, we should remember: It’s never too late to know ourselves.”  But Planned Parenthood wants teenagers to “know themselves” based on the information given to them by Planned Parenthood, not their actual parents.

 

Planned Parenthood already had one website up and running targeting teens: “Teenwire.com.”  I guess it wasn’t colorful and entertaining enough.  “Teenwire” presents information to students as factually based, but to an adult, the bias is clear.  In the article “Abortion Myths: Facts vs. Fiction,” the question I was looking for was, “Does having an abortion mean I’m killing an innocent life?”  Of course that question was nowhere to be found.  The article “Teaching Homophobia: Abstinence-Only Sex Education Programs,” suggests that abstinence based sex-ed “might make school more dangerous for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queeer [proper spelling now allowed on TownHall], or questioning (LGBTQ ) students.”  Perhaps this is why the most popular sex-ed programs in public schools emphasize the pleasures of sex.

 

Of course neither website mentions the beliefs of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.  Sanger made many outlandish comments in her lifetime, mostly in writing, making clear her goals of sterilization of the poor and of the black community.  For Sanger, birth control was meant "to create a race of thoroughbreds."  "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control," wrote Sanger.

 

The work of Sanger also included the “Negro Project.”  Her belief in Malthusian eugenics led Sanger to call for birth control clinics to deal with the threats of poverty, sickness, racial tension and overpopulation.  In The Birth Control Review in 1926 she wrote:

 

It now remains for the U.S. government to set a sensible example to the world by offering a bonus or yearly pension to all obviously unfit parents who allow themselves to be sterilized by harmless and scientific means. In this way the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their unhappy condition. The number of the feeble-minded would decrease and a heavy burden would be lifted from the shoulders of the fit. [Emphasis added]

 

Sanger was dubious in leading members of the black community to go along with her plan.  When it was suggested to Sanger that “black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot,” Sanger wrote:

 

I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time Negro physician. It seems to me from my experience ... that, while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table, which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and ... knowledge, which ... will have far-reaching results among the colored people.

 

Sanger admitted, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

 

Planned Parenthood has come under fire recently after a group exposed racism at Planned Parenthood clinics and posted their findings on YouTube.  LIFENEWS.com reported that the National Black Pro-Life Union said that Sen. Obama, the first black presidential candidate of a major political party, has betrayed the black community by cozying up to Planned Parenthood.  "He purposely overlooks tapes of Planned Parenthood staff and executives, made public on YouTube, gladly accepting donations from clearly racist donors who specifically want their money targeted toward aborting black babies," said Day Garner, head of the union.

 

Funding Planned Parenthood with American tax dollars makes no sense at all.  America values families and life, not indiscriminate sex and genocide.  It seems our leaders in Congress would rather use our money to sterilize and kill us, then protect American lives and promote prosperity.

When Anthony, Matthew and Michael Bologna were gunned down last week in San Francisco by Edwin Ramos, a 21-year-old illegal immigrant from El Salvador, the Bologna family took little comfort in knowing that this tragedy could have been avoided had Ramos been deported the last time he committed a crime.  Ramos was convicted twice on felony charges as a juvenile, but never faced deportation.  Danielle Bologna, whose husband and children were murdered, and her brother Frank Kennedy have blamed the city of San Francisco’s sanctuary policy toward illegal immigrants for the loss of their family members.  Sanctuary cities fail to comply with federal law and ignore constitutional principles to shield criminals from justice.  Unfortunately cities across the United States have adopted such measures, and it is doubtful that the next president will do anything to stop these unconstitutional policies.

 

Sanctuary cities act on a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy which keeps local law enforcement from asking about the legal status of criminals they apprehend.  Sanctuary policies also prohibit local law enforcement from notifying federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about illegals in their custody.

 

"Any mayor, any board of supervisors that passes these laws should be prosecuted to the fullest," Kennedy said in an interview about the death of his nephews and brother-in-law.  "This is not the United States of San Francisco . . . My family was the sacrificial lamb in this."

 

Not only do sanctuary cities refuse to comply with long standing federal law, the 9/11 Commission Report also called on local law enforcement to work more closely with federal agencies to enforce immigration law.  The report states, “There is a growing role for state and local law enforcement agencies [for the enforcement of immigration law]. They need more training and work with federal agencies so that they can cooperate more effectively with those federal authorities in identifying terrorist suspects.”

 

Last year after a series of raids by federal authorities in California to arrest foreign nationals, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom remarked, “I will not allow any of my department heads or anyone associated with this city to cooperate in any way shape or form with these raids,” adding, “We are a sanctuary city, make no mistake about it.”

 

The MO for San Francisco officials has been to escort juvenile illegals back to their home countries or place them in unsecured halfway houses instead of allowing federal authorities to deport them.  This summer, several criminal illegals escaped from Newsom’s sanctuary houses in San Bernardino County and other regions.

 

Last August the nation saw how dangerous these sanctuary policies are when three college students were killed by illegal aliens with criminal records in Newark, NJ.  Newark, another sanctuary city, failed to deport the ringleader of the killings who had been indicted twice for felonies in 2007, including the rape of a kindergarten-aged girl.

 

This month in Virginia, officials in Prince William County have decided to take the proper actions to make sure criminal illegal aliens are identified.  A new policy requires the police to check the immigration status of every single person they arrest by running their information through a national database to check their citizenship status.  Prince William County's Board of County Supervisors unanimously passed the immigration crackdown last fall.  County officials began getting tough on immigration last year by allowing police officers to ask suspects about their immigration status before arrests were made. 

 

WorldNetDaily reports that crime in Prince William County is down 19.3 percent in the first quarter of 2008, while crime has risen 22 percent in next door Fairfax County.

 

An editorial in the Washington Post last week said that Prince William County’s immigration policy had intentions to “hound, harass and humiliate illegal immigrants.”  The editorial also commented that, “Across the nation, Prince William (County) has become synonymous with an ugly strain of nativist intolerance that has deep roots in American history but which is a slander on the county's generally well-educated and diverse population.”

 

As I have pointed out before (Assimilate Or Evacuate, “The Race” And The Candidates) the United States has never had open immigration, and for good reason.  The Framers wanted a unified American citizenry, with similar American customs, who understood the purpose and operation of American government.  Our Founding Fathers made clear that the laws of America, and the rights afforded to its citizens, were meant only to govern legal American citizens:

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [Emphasis added]

 

People who come to the United States illegally do not respect our laws, and are criminals who have declared war on our way of life.  Every law enforcement division in the nation should follow the lead of Prince William County, Virginia in protecting the American people from blatant criminals.  The “don’t ask, don’t tell” practices of sanctuary cities must come to an end to protect American lives and ensure the rule of law.

 

Cities and counties with sanctuary policies:

Anchorage, Alaska

Fairbanks, Alaska

Chandler, Ariz.

Fresno, Calif.

Los Angeles

San Diego

San Francisco

Sonoma County, Calif.

Cicero, Ill.

Evanston, Ill.

Portland, Maine

Baltimore

Takoma Park, Md.

Cambridge, Mass.

Orleans, Mass.

Ann Arbor, Mich.

Detroit

Minneapolis

Albuquerque, N.M.

Aztec, N.M.

Rio Arriba County, N.M.

Sante Fe, N.M.

New York

Durham, N.C.

Ashland, Ore.

Gaston, Ore.

Marion County, Ore.

Austin, Texas

Houston

Katy, Texas

Seattle

Madison, Wis.

Source: 'Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement,' Congressional Research Service, last updated Aug. 14, 2006

Has anyone else kept up with what Congress has been doing, or not doing, lately?  Our fine government servants seem to be on a mission to completely waste the time and money of every American, while blaming anyone else but themselves for the policies causing suffering in our nation.  It really doesn’t matter who becomes the next President, since they’ll both try to ruin America, so maybe we should concentrate on voting in a Congress that will actually work for the American people.

 

One of the greatest pains to Americans right now is the price of gas.  We all inevitably let out a big sigh whenever we fill up our gas tanks lately, and there seems to be no end in sight for these outrageous prices.  Despite that over 1.3 million Americans have signed the petition at American Solutions to “Drill Here. Drill Now,” and that most polls suggest that about 70% of Americans favor drilling (Rasmussen, Zogby, Pew, CNN, FOX), the Democrats in Congress refuse to help the American people. 

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she will not allow debates about drilling, and has not only blamed President Bush for soaring gas prices, but has blamed the Senate as well.  Perhaps someone should remind Speaker Pelosi of that saying when you point a finger at someone, there are three more pointing back at you.

 

The Democrats have tried to paint the Republicans as the ones stalling efforts to curb gas prices due to Republican objection to open up the strategic reserves, and for not supporting a recent bill that targets oil speculators.

 

"The Republican senators have chosen to take a dodge," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "If you don't like our speculation bill, what do you want? Silence. They said they want this energy debate to go on forever." 

 

What Republicans want is what the American people want: to use our own resources.  Democrats don’t seem to understand the dynamics of speculation at all.  If speculators perceive that there will be a great surge in supply, the speculative price will go down, as it did when President Bush rescinded the executive order against offshore drilling. 

 

Democrats also don’t seem to understand that the oil in the strategic reserve was acquired by drilling!  Democrats want to open up the reserve, and want OPEC to produce more oil, then turn around and say there’s no supply problem, and we can’t drill our way out.

 

So what has Congress been doing lately?  Well, a bill sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama was pushed through committee not too long ago.  And what important issue did Barack Obama actually sponsor?  The Global Poverty Act of 2007 (S. 2433).  This bill “Directs the President, through the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.”

 

According to Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media, Obama’s bill “makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.”  According to this plan, the U.S. would be forced to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending (about $65 billion a year) over a thirteen year period, which adds up to about $845 billion.  That’s $845 billion of American taxpayer money, and not a dime goes towards helping Americans.

 

“In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning ‘small arms and light weapons’ and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

 

Phyllis Schlafly calls the Global Poverty Act “a giant step toward the Millennium Goals of global governance and international taxes on Americans,” adding, “Tell your senators to kill this un-American bill.”

 

Congress has also passed another giant bailout bill recently in the housing sector.  According to David Rogers, “Treasury will gain unprecedented power to lend money to and even purchase an equity interest in the two mortgage finance giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, over the next 17 months. At the same time, the Federal Housing Administration is granted $300 billion in new loan guarantee authority in hopes that the FHA can help establish a new floor for home prices and be a source of refinancing for households at risk of foreclosure.”

 

Everyone should remember that the Treasury has no money of its own.  Taxpayers are footing this bill. 

 

The bill also includes $15 billion in new housing-related tax breaks and almost $4 billion in aid to help in urban communities with high foreclosures.

 

Americans have become so focused on the President, that they forget how much power actually lies in the Congress.  The President doesn’t pass legislation, Congress does.  The President can’t help our wallets at the pump, Congress can.  Obama can give speeches about hope and change all day, while John McCain goes on and on about national security, but Congress is ultimately responsible for creating the laws to keep this country on track.

 

Congress is meant to be the representative voice of the people, yet they refuse to hear our voice.  We need to send them a message this November that America belongs to the American people.

One issue that I can’t help coming back to is the problem of race relations in our country, especially between black and white Americans.  Discussion over the ‘N’ word arose again recently after Jesse Jackson used the term in a derogatory way toward Barack Obama.  The word was also debated on an episode of “The View” with Elisabeth Hasselbeck arguing against Whoopi Goldberg and Sherri Shepherd.  While racism of any kind is a huge problem for any society, the double standard that seems to exist in America dealing with black racism presents a huge problem. 

In listening to part of Hasselbeck’s comments on YouTube, she seemed to make perfect logical sense.  If the ‘N’ word is so offensive, then its use should not be accepted by anyone.  Goldberg and Shepherd contended that Blacks could use the ‘N’ word as much as they wanted, even as a term of endearment, while Whites should not be allowed to use the word under any circumstances.  I’ve heard this argument before, and it makes no sense whatsoever.  There are derogatory words for every race and people in the world, yet black Americans seem to be the only ones so freely using these words. 

What if all the white people in America decided that only they could use the word ‘cracker.’  We could force Nabisco and all the other food companies to change the name of the food product known as the cracker because it offends white people.  All white people would then start referring to each other as ‘crackers.’  “Yo, what’s up cracker?”  “You’re one funny cracker.”  And any time black people said the word, all white people could attack them as being racists.  Now does this sound completely absurd?

Whoopi’s argument that black people have taken the ‘N’ word back after it was used against them is absolutely ridiculous.  The Jewish people were enslaved and mistreated for a much greater span of history than black people in America, but I don’t hear them using derogatory words amongst each other as terms of endearment.  I’ve never heard of them asking for reparations for their slavery either.

There are members of the Black Community who realize that there is a double standard concerning race.  The most well known to me is Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, who I have seen numerous times on Fox News talking about the subject.

I have personally seen the double standard at my workplace, as well as hearing how frequently the ‘N’ word can be tossed around.  I’ve had a couple of customers think it was appropriate to accuse me of letting one area of my lobby get really dirty because I have mostly black customers.  Another customer told me that white people are afraid of black people.  One man recently made a racist comment towards one of my co-workers, and explained to the General Manager that there shouldn’t be a problem because he and my co-worker are both black.  My co-worker is bi-racial (her father is from Panama), and didn’t really appreciate the comment.  Had I made any of these comments to my black customers, or if white customers had made them to a black manager or employee, there would certainly have been a problem.

My employees, the majority of whom are black, throw the ‘N’ word around constantly.  I have told them several times in the past not to use the word around customers because I consider it profanity.  I still hear it quite frequently, but sometimes I will get an, “Oh, sorry.”

The most prominent example of the double standard can be seen in the rise in popularity of Barack Obama.  Two of my columns (Part I, Part II) exposed the Black Liberation Theology that Sen. Obama has supported for the past twenty years. 

The views of James Cone and Jeremiah Wright, and the mission of Trinity United Church of Christ, are no secret.  I did not have to look hard to reveal the racist nature of their belief system.  Barack Obama has publicly stated his support of this “church” and its leader for the past twenty years.  He defended Trinity and Wright several times during the Democratic primaries, and broke with both only when people just started learning what Black Liberation Theology was all about, and then the media dropped the issue.

I never saw James Cone interviewed on CNN or Fox News.  I never heard reporters asking Sen. Obama about Black Liberation Theology and how it preaches an ideology of hate against white people.  The media, and many Americans, have chosen to ignore that Sen. Obama has supported racism against white people his entire adult life.  If it was revealed that John McCain had even went to one KKK meeting in his life, his political career would be over, yet Obama could be ushered in as President with a twenty year history of supporting racism against Whites.

Racism, by any race, is not acceptable.  The use of derogatory words, by any race, is not acceptable.  Electing a President with a history of supporting racism is definitely not acceptable.

Senators Barack Obama and John McCain recently gave speeches at the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) in efforts to win the Hispanic vote for their presidential bids.  Both candidates have been criticized for these campaign stops, not only for their comments, but for even recognizing NCLR, a group seen by many as anti-American.  Among the most important issues brought up by McCain and Obama was that of immigration.  Unfortunately neither candidate plans to tackle immigration from the traditional American policy perspective of preserving American culture, viewing American values and security as a hindrance to internationalism.

 

During John McCain’s visit to La Raza, “The Race,” he reminded Latino voters that he, “twice attempted to pass comprehensive immigration legislation to fix our broken borders; ensure respect for the laws of this country; recognize the important economic contribution of immigrant laborers; apprehend those who came here illegally to commit crimes; and deal practically and humanely.”

 

McCain worked with Sen. Edward Kennedy on the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act in 2005, and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.  Both measures were criticized for amounting to amnesty, and the 2007 bill nearly ended McCain’s presidential run.  NumbersUSA gives McCain an overall ‘D’ grade on immigration, and the Washington Times notes that McCain has a history of voting for amnesty, and failing to protect America’s sovereign borders.

 

Sen. Obama gave some particularly controversial remarks during his speech at NCLR, saying that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials are terrorizing Hispanic communities by trying to enforce federal law.  Obama went on and on about how “the system” isn’t working, and how the government needs to care for illegal immigrants, “Yes, they broke the law. And we should not excuse that. We should require them to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for citizenship, behind those who came here legally. But we cannot and should not deport 12 million people. That would turn American into something we're not; something we don't want to be.” 

 

Actually, deporting all of the illegals is exactly what America should be doing, as the Founding Fathers intended.

 

Thomas Jefferson warned about mass immigration in his “Notes on the State of Virginia” saying:

 

But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason…They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.

 

Alexander Hamilton agreed in “The Examination” No. 7:

The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on the love of country, which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family. The opinion advanced in [Jefferson’s] Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism?…

In the recommendation to admit indiscriminately foreign emigrants of every description to the privileges of American citizens, on their first entrance into our country, there is an attempt to break down every pale which has been erected for the preservation of a national spirit and a national character; and to let in the most powerful means of perverting and corrupting both the one and the other.

The United States has a long history against free immigration and naturalization.  The laws were put in place not because Americans are xenophobic, but because preserving the unity of a people is essential for a nation to prosper.  Immigrants should assimilate into American culture, not form enclaves and factions.  How many successful empires still exist today?  The more the U.S. moves toward the model of an empire, the quicker our downfall as a nation is ensured.

Groups like the NCLR are no friend to the United States.  Michelle Malkin wrote an article last week, “15 Things You Should Know About The Race.”  Malkin’s piece outlines how the NCLR supports benefits for illegal immigrants, and has engaged in efforts to keep the United States from securing its borders and enforcing federal laws.

To get a clearer view of the mindset surrounding the immigration issue from the Hispanic side, just look at the comments of former Mexican President Vicente Fox.  In an interview with Bill O’Reilly, Fox basically blamed all of the immigration problems, and the problems of drug trafficking and Mexico’s poor economy, on the United States.  According to Fox, Mexico can’t solve any of its own problems without the U.S.:

FOX: ...we are not going to build a pressure in Mexico. We're not building walls to retain our people. We're not Cuba. We're not Communists.

O'REILLY: So you think it's OK for them to come undocumented?

FOX: Of course, it's OK for them to look for a better future for their family.

…

O'REILLY: And Mexican citizens by the millions are violating United States law. And you're saying it's fine.

FOX: Yes, because you hire them here.

…

O'REILLY: You have to improve the education system and wipe out the corruption.

FOX: (INAUDIBLE), not complaining, not provoking violence is the way we are going to do that.

O'REILLY: Well, you got to do it yourself, though. We could…

FOX: (INAUDIBLE) with solidarity, with understanding like Europe does.

O'REILLY: I understand you.

FOX: That's why the union in Europe is so strong.

O'REILLY: But I want more action on the part of the Mexican government to stop illegal aliens, stop illegal drugs, and educate your own folks.

FOX: Let's work together on that…

 

Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama need to understand that immigration is not a right, it’s a privilege.  The President takes an Oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  The Constitution only applies to citizens of the United States, it is not an international standard or blanket for criminals and terrorists.  Illegal immigrants are criminals, and enemies of the United States.  The American people should not stand for any president who cannot fulfill their oath, and defend the Constitution.

People love freedom.  Many have fought and died in the name of freedom.  The concept of freedom is held close in many hearts around the world, but freedom is understood (or misunderstood) differently in various parts of the world, and this country.  A friend of mine said recently that freedom cannot be defined due its various degrees and understandings.  I disagree. 

 

The ideas and actions of America’s Founding Fathers showed the world what it meant to be free and provided the guidelines for living under a just government.  Although having the glaring imperfection of institutional slavery, the system of government created through the American constitution allowed the people to live free from the burdens of government to shape their lives as seen fit.  Many in America today feel that the government has completely deviated from our origins, and has continuously stolen freedom and liberty away from the American people over the years, one small portion at a time.  Events such as the recent Revolution March in Washington, D.C. are demonstrations of the freedom movement, and expressions by the people of their lack of faith in government to secure their liberties.

 

Congressman Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty helped to organize the Revolution March held last Saturday as an informational event for the American people highlighting the unconstitutional actions of the U.S. government, and various ways that personal freedom has been threatened, or taken away.  The rally, held on the lawn of the Capitol Building, included sixteen speakers, featuring Dr. Paul himself. 

 

The turnout fell short of the 15,000 who pledged to attend the event, but several thousand people did show up, with enough enthusiasm for the rest.  Pictures of the event may be seen here.  The attendees were a very diverse and interesting group: young and old; Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics; Code Pinkers and 9/11 Truthers; Conservatives, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists; Army veterans; former government employees; and average citizens from around the country. 

 

The common enemies and issues of the speakers included the unconstitutional nature of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Income Tax, the North American Union, the Iraq war, illegal immigration, the impending war with Iran, FISA, and defending the Constitution of the United States in all areas of life.   

 

While I may not necessarily agree with everything Ron Paul and his supporters believe in, Dr. Paul is right on many issues dealing with the unconstitutional nature of our own government.  Our constitution was not created for a bloated and strong central government that interferes with and restricts the rights and duties of the states and the people.  The central government should be last on the list of the hierarchy of power dealing with domestic issues in the United States, under the people and their local and state legislatures. 

 

Or maybe we should put the courts last on the list.  For years the people of the American republic have been silenced by the courts who have taken it upon themselves to circumvent the legislatures of the people, and create law out of thin air.  One of the most recent cases was California’s Supreme Court ruling against California’s own state constitution to make gay marriage legal. 

 

America luckily avoided a near catastrophe last month when one vote of the U.S. Supreme Court could have found the Second Amendment of the Constitution unconstitutional!  While many legislators across the aisle praised the Court’s decision, I asked the question, “[W]here were our "leaders" voices for the past 30 years while American citizens suffered under unconstitutional conditions?”

 

Judges are meant to interpret laws, not create them.  If judges continue to create the laws, without the consent of the people, who then will take on the task of interpreting the laws they create?

 

Another interesting case of personal freedom involves our friends to the north.  Canadian author, columnist, and political commentator Mark Steyn found himself in the Canadian courts for his book America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It.  The book was a bestseller in the New York Times and a Number One bestseller in Canada.  However, the Canadian Islamic Congress brought hate crime charges against Steyn at the Canadian Human Rights Commission for Steyn’s discussion in the book of Islam’s relationship with the West.  The Commission sent a letter to Steyn’s editor saying “it is justifiable to restrict expression to prevent exposing citizens to hatred.”  Traces of this sentiment can be seen in America today, where even reading a book can be considered a hate crime.

 

In an interview with Rush Limbaugh appearing in the Limbaugh Letter, Steyn said the international standard of freedom is somewhere between the idea of freedom in Yemen and that of Switzerland.  Steyn called America the last refuge for Western Civilization, but noted that liberal politicians and judges were pushing American more towards internationalism.  He also told Rush that President Bush sent him a letter praising America Alone.

 

Ron Paul has a saying that “Freedom is Popular,” but we must agree on our understanding of freedom.  Barack Obama recently began talking about personal responsibility and freedom, yet has a laundry list of government programs he wants to institute by stealing money from the American people, and having them rely on the government.  The liberal idea of freedom shared by the UN, Canada, and people like Barack Obama, is not the freedom of America and our Founding Fathers, but it may soon destroy our liberties unless the American people are vigilant.

Out of all of the problems facing our world, the G-8 decided to focus on global warming during this week’s conference.  All of the major media stories about the G-8 this week have primarily focused on global warming, negotiations between developed and developing countries about global warming, and President Bush’s newfound willingness to commit the United States to a treaty to cut carbon emissions to halt global warming.  Even the logo for this year’s summit has a vine with leaves growing out of it to signify the focus on the environment.  I hope I’m not the only one who thinks that paying this much lip service to the environmentalist lefties is completely insane.

 

People in the United States, and around the world, should really think about how their leaders benefit them and their fellow countrymen by completely wasting a G-8 summit, and their tax dollars, on promoting environmentalist propaganda that has not even been conclusively scientifically proven as fact.  President Bush completely wasted the money and time of the American people by even going to Japan for this summit, and plans to waste even more of our money in trying to implement environmental restrictions here at home for the sake of curbing global warming.  His future successor, whether it be Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama, will impose even more restrictions than Bush has expressed he’s comfortable with.

 

I like to breathe clean air, I enjoy seeing trees around, and I even recycle, but when the government says it wants to impose restrictions on business, keep America dependent on foreign oil, and cause suffering across the U.S. by making citizens pay $4 a gallon gas, all because of global warming, that’s not a policy I can support.

 

No matter how many movies Al Gore makes, or how many Nobel Prizes he wins, the truth remains that attributing global warming to carbon emissions caused by humans is not scientific fact.  The environmentalist propaganda machine, working with the UN and other left leaning agencies and governments, simply wants to keep the poorest countries in the world from developing and being able to feed themselves so that developed countries can go bankrupt doling out aid, and eventually everyone will be equally poor.  Thus, the socialist utopia will be realized.  The only way everyone can be equal, is if we are all poor.  Economic equality can’t exist with the expectation that everyone in the world will have the same standard of living the middleclass of America enjoy.

 

Over 31,000 American scientists have asserted that, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”  The research this statement is based on has been posted online.

 

Scientists from around the world have also come to the same conclusions.  A U.S. Senate report released last December documents over 400 scientists from more than two dozen countries who “voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming.”  The report points out that, “Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists.  In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."

 

Many of the scientists are current or former participants in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), which was recognized jointly with Gore for the Nobel.  Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explained in the Senate report that, “Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media.”

 

Professor Philip Stott, from the University of London said in 2001 about the IPPC’s work that, "In the last month alone, serious scientific studies have undermined the whole basis of these predictions, with the temperature over the oceans seen as exaggerated by up to 40% and the very relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature questioned."  He added that, "The IPCC models and correlations are not new; they are re-cycled 'old hat'.  It is essentially a political response to the collapse of The Hague climate talks."

 

Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, listed among the experts in a 2001 report by the National of Sciences that was supposed to end the debate on global warming by declaring the dangers scientifically proven, noted that, “neither he nor any of the other scientists listed ever saw that report before it was published.  It was in fact written by government bureaucrats -- as was the more recently published summary report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is also touted as the final proof and the end of the discussion.”

 

Instead of realizing that maybe global warming isn’t really a problem governments can deal with, since it is part of a natural heating and cooling cycle that has been correlated to activity on the Sun, world leaders have instead decided to waste lots of time and money on conferences and unneeded development restrictions, while hampering the freedom of countries like America to do profitable business and become energy independent. 

 

The G-8’s big decision to curb global warming is to halve the emission of greenhouse gases by 2050.  A huge problem with that decision is that no one agreed upon a base year of emissions in which to halve.  Marthinus van Schalkwyk, South African Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, remarked that, "To be meaningful and credible, a long-term goal must have a base year, it must be underpinned by ambitious midterm targets and actions," adding, "As it is expressed in the G-8 statement, the long-term goal is an empty slogan."