Data Exposes Fraud of 'Global Warming'

From One News Now
"A prominent global-warming critic says many scientists believe that this winter's weather could point to a future cooling trend.

Marc Morano is the resident authority on global warming with the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works minority staff. He says according to records kept by the United Nations, global average temperatures peaked during the El Nino year of 1998 -- and that since 2001, the temperature trend has declined slightly.

According to Morano, despite the continued pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere, the southern hemisphere has also experienced a cooling trend; and in the northern hemisphere, January 2008, by some estimates, was the coldest month in more than a decade.

"Solar scientists are worried about the lows," he says. "They're calling it the 'disturbingly quiet solar cycle.' And we're faced with again just a lack of years ... of temperatures just sort of 'plateau-ing out' to the point where the head of the U.N. IPCC [Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change] has recently called for an investigation as to why temperatures were not continuing to rise as predicted."

Morano also notes that between 1940 and 1975, the earth's temperature cooled even though CO2 levels rose. And global warming alarmists, he notes, have failed to explain the lack of a correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperatures, a theory that Al Gore promotes in his movie An Inconvenient Truth."

"Straights" Banned From Foster Parenting

From Britain - Could be the United States next!

Christian couple told: 'You can't foster if you think it's wrong to be gay'

Excerpts below come from article at this link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=519311&in_page_id=1770

They are devoted foster parents with an unblemished record of caring for almost 20 vulnerable children.

But Eunice and Owen Johns have been forced to abandon their good work because they refuse to tell children as young as ten that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle.
To do so, they say, would go against their Christian beliefs...

The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation), which came into force last April, makes it illegal for any business or organisation providing a public service to discriminate against anyone because of their sexuality....

"They were asking: "What would you do if a 10 year-old child came home and said they had been picked on because they were homosexual?"

"They said, "Do you know you would have to tell them that it's ok to be homosexual?"
"But I said I couldn't do that because my Christian beliefs won't let me. Morally I couldn't do that, spiritually I couldn't do that.

"I said I was there to explain that I would not compromise my faith.
"I said I would have to tell the child that as I am a Christian I don't believe in homosexuality but I can give as much love and security as I possibly can."

Mr Johns, 63, a metal polisher, said: "I would love any child, black or white, gay or straight.
'But I cannot understand why sexuality is an issue when we are talking about boys and girls under the age of ten."

Their case has been taken up by the Christian Legal Centre, which is to seek a judicial review if the council does not reverse its decision.

Religious campaigners say Mr and Mrs Johns are the victims of an equality drive which puts gay rights above religious beliefs.

Help circulate petition on Homosexual Ban on Adoption

Following is an email sent out by Bob Hester with the Arkansas Family Coalition:

The Family Council Action Committee is sponsoring a proposed initiated act to be on the ballot in the fall that will prevent adoptive and foster care children from being placed in homes with individuals who are cohabiting with a sexual partner. This initiative would protect children from being adopted by homosexuals and would prevent foster children from being placed in homes of homosexuals as well as from being placed in the homes of cohabiting heterosexual couples. .

In order to place this initiated act on the November 2008 General Election ballot, The Family Council Action Committee must gather over 100,000 petition signatures of Arkansas voters by July 1, 2008. The participation of everyone concerned about this issue is critical. Please check to see if your church is circulating these petitions and sign one. If they are not circulating them, check with your pastor to see if you can get them circulated in your church. This is perfectly legal for churches to do.

County coordinators are needed for the Arkansas Adoption and Foster Care Act in the several counties. Coordinators are primarily responsible for recruiting volunteers to circulate petitions in churches by the end of April. If you can (or know of anyone who can) serve as coordinators, please contact Jerry Cox at 501-375-7000.

We all also need to get as many signatures from our neighborhood, friends, and family as we can.. This petition can be downloaded at this link: http://adoptionact.familycouncilactioncommittee.com/Adoption_Act_Petition.pdf You must print it off on front and back on the same sheet. The petitions can be photocopied but must be photocopied back and front on one page. And you must carefully follow instructions that are on the back of the petition.

See this link to read an article that indicates just how entrenched homosexual parenting is in Arkansas. http://www.wpaag.org/Surrogacy%20Law%20in%20AR%20magnet%20for%20gay%20surrogacy.htm This article gives detailed information on these points:
Arkansas Has Become a Magnet for Surrogacy Parenting - Including Gay Surrogacy
Arkansas Surrogacy Law Is Among the Most Liberal in the U. S. - Much More Liberal than New York and European Laws
Arkansas is one of 9 states that allow gay surrogacy.

Survival of the Fittest: The Coming Age of Faith and Family

Darwinism is a belief system about the development of life in the universe. It is a natural companion to atheistic materialism because it postulates that no God is necessary to explain the wonders of life. Those who most strongly hold to Darwin's ideas about the development of life tend to be those who hold a humanist/materialist world view.

The reverse is certainly true as well. Those who reject Darwinism tend to have a Theistic (such as Christian) view of life and the world. In the United States, "Bible believing Christians" are often skeptical of naturalistic macro-evolution. The Duggar family, pictured above, is an extreme example of this type.

And that picture tells a story. The short version of it goes like this: There is a coming age of Faith and Family in the World. It is coming because regardless of whether Darwinism/Materialism is true or not, the fact is that by its own method of keeping score, it doesn't work. The evidence shows that there is no evolutionary value in believing in evolution. Quite the reverse, it is those subsets of our population who have most rejected it's philosophical underpinnings that are best at actually practicing it's main precept- that it is all about passing your genes on.

If evolution teaches that this world is about "the survival of the fittest", then ironically the evidence shows that it is those who reject naturalistic evolution that are the fittest. The future belongs to the Duggars and those like them. The Richard Dawkinses of the world will vanish into extinction, their only legacy being a few dusty books or cached web pages. The only ones around to read them will be future generations of Duggars and their friends, who might occasionally look at them to wonder at their folly.

Meanwhile, the jaded, cynical materialist-atheist-evolutionist slice of the Western world has discovered that they don't really "believe" in evolution in the same way that Christians "believe" in the God of Scripture. Instead, they believe in nothing. They become self-worshiping, or nihilists or hedonists. None of these views of life is particularly useful in encouraging people to conceive, bear, and successfully raise offspring. Those who hold this view of life tend to reproduce far below replacement levels. Hence, even if they tend to hold the top spots in Universities, media, and the economy, the plain fact is their numbers are receding.

Modern life has given us choices and powers that previous ages of Man have been denied. To those who walk in the Fear of the Lord, these powers are used to do things like enable safer childbirth and giving better medical care to our children. In many cases it allows us to have children that in previous ages would have never been born. These are uses of our modern powers that increase our fitness for survival.

But the power of modern man provides many pitfalls as well. In a simpler world, the joys of raising children were one of the few joys available. Now there are a myriad of ways to feel good, at least in the short run. There are many ways to capture our minds and distract our attention. Modern power is used to separate sexual intercourse from commitment and reproduction. It can be used to abort babies as well as deliver them. Post-faith mores do not distinguish between perversion and legitimate sexual relations. This has helped bring on a loss of fertility that even our modern tools cannot undo.

There have always been hedonists and atheists with us. In prior ages of man, with fewer ways of destroying themselves and less power to avoid unwanted children, they managed to reproduce at about the same rate as the Faithful. Even if they did not desire children, they often found they had them. Conversely the Faithful had fewer means at their disposal to act out their desires, and so more often than today went childless even if it was in their heart to bear children.

That was in prior ages of man. But modern powers have brought post-modern man to a fork in the road. In this day and time people do have more power to act out on their reproductive desires, whether for good or for evil. The Faithful will use their new power to create and sustain new life, the Unbelieving will use it to prevent new obstacles to their pursuit of self or empty pleasure. We shall go to the right, and they to the left. Their road leads to extinction, and ours to the Kingdom come.

Huckabee on SNL

OK, now that was funny.

Bi-partisan Treason in Obama Bill

The Great Phylis Schlafly has the story. Republicans help Obama put his name on a bill that will set up an international tax for the U.N. and advance a globalist agenda. Why would they do such a thing? Because you only think that you have two different teams on the field. There is one team on the field, wearing home and away jerseys, and neither of them is "your team".

Worst. Greenberg. Ever.

Here the author shows evidence that Paul Greenberg is an American Artifact
***********************************
Paul Greenberg thinks that Ron Paul is a populist. Mr. Greenberg is frequently condescending and elitist, but it was his ability to do so while being so spectacularly wrong on the facts that helped put this column, (Ron Paul American Artifact) over the top as the Worst. Greenberg. Ever.

"The populist impulse remains strong in American politics. So long as there are uncertain times and people looking for simple answers to questions that are anything but simple,...." Greenberg tuts, but the man condescends about the wrong Ron.

"They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right." -Ronald W. Reagan, "A Time for Choosing"

Ron Paul offers real answers. And the real answers are often simple- they just aren't easy. Living within your means is a simple way to avoid bankruptcy, but it isn't easy. It especially isn't easy when the giant companies that own the media also have interests in continued government spending and debt. It is especially true in an environment where global corporations, with no particular loyalty to this country, own the media and also own the companies that service government contracts from the welfare state to banking to the military-industrial-complex. That last is something which that other "populist", President Dwight Eisenhower, warned us about.

Yep, when Ron Paul talks about reducing government spending at home and abroad he gets between Greenberg's masters and their easy money. They would prefer to lobby the government to take your earnings under threat of force in order for the government to purchase what they are selling, while Paul would have you keep your earnings and only give them to these people if they produce something that you choose to buy of your own free will. They can't have that, so they hire small men like Paul Greenberg to mock and insult honorable men like Ron Paul, and then use their media to spread the insult nation-wide. Follow the money and you will understand the reason for the insults and distortions from the corporate media's hirelings.

(I am just getting started. Click Wednesday below and scroll down for rest of article, or if sent straight here then just scroll down)

Can We Count on McCain?

Submitted by Mayor Frank Gilbert of Tull.

Pro-life, anti-war candidates are not easy to come by. Congressman Ron Paul was the only one as far as I could tell.

Since Paul is not going to be on the ballot this November the search for second-best is on. Obama and Clinton are anti-war to varying degrees. McCain is pro-life. That’s a wash. With one caveat.

Clinton is anti-war only when the Republicans are in charge. When she, her husband or, I imagine, other Democrats are in charge, her commitment to non-intervention is a lot less firm.

For that reason I’m only going to consider Obama and McCain.

To my mind Obama is a socialist in that he favors direct government intervention in large portions of the economy and in our personal lives. McCain is a fascist in that he favors cooperative interference in those areas between corporate and government interests.

If you see either candidate as much better because of economics please contact me at arkysall@aol.com and help me out of the dilemma I find myself in.

A lot of the positive feeling I have for the ‘straight talk express’ is diminished by his waffling on issues of significance and because of his bull-headed insistence on his absolute right (through congress) to abrogate the First Amendment in any way that suits him and his cronies.

McCain’s positions on immigration and taxes were firm- until he began competing for Republican support on a national scale. His retreat from those positions may be cynical. Or it may be pragmatic. Either way, I wouldn’t stake the future of the country on his conversion. If you are absolutely certain of his current and continuing commitment to those positions, please give me holler at arkysall@aol.com. I have some ocean-front property here in Grant County that I would love to offer you at a deep discount. You won’t even have to trouble yourself to look at the property. You can trust me and ‘straight talking John.’

That only leaves the matter of federal judges and McCain’s obvious advantage over Obama for those who are pro-life.

I’m sure he would never pragmatically shift his position and nominate another moderate in order to form a ‘bi-partisan’ compromise with the likes of Kennedy or Feingold. Never. Never Ever. Do you think?

The only thing I am certain of with the (presumptive) Republican nominee is that he is committed to the use of American military might (read, young Americans serving their country) to impose our will around the globe and shape the political topography of the entire globe in our image. Like his contempt of the First Amendment of the Constitution, his interventionist ideal remains consistent and unremitting. We can count on John McCain for that.

So What's Huckabee Up To?

Mike Huckabee has stayed in the race despite the odds. Why? There are several possible reasons. An early one is that he was angling for a VP slot. That looks increasingly unlikely now. Or if it is, he will have to elbow his way onto the ticket. Maybe he still thinks he can win. The delegate counts reported by the corporate media are about as accurate as their other reporting- which is to say not very. McCain does not have as many delegates locked up as the media claims that he has. Perhaps Huckabee is hoping that widespread discontent with McCain by the majority of Republican voters produces a brokered convention in which he can emerge on top.

I currently lean toward the idea that Huckabee wants to be Ronald Reagan in 1976. That year Reagan challenged a not-very-popular sitting President named Gerald Ford. The establishment did what they always do, blocked the conservative candidate and pushed the losing Ford onto the base. Ford got the nomination, but in the process Reagan won the hearts of the GOP voters. Four years later, Reagan came in as the favorite. Though the establishment tried to stop him with Bush Senior, Reagan got enough delegates to secure the nomination. Since he was NOT the candidate that the establishment wanted, he was actually able to connect to people and win the election. The only down side was that he had to have the globalist establishment Bush as his VP to placate the insiders.

Perhaps Huckabee is trying to do what Reagan did. Not win, but make the GOP base wish that he had won so that after McCain gets destroyed in November Huckabee becomes the favorite for 08.

Retail Businesses and Sales Tax Police

The federal "know your customer" banking and insurance regulations are an outrageous infringement of our Constitutional right to privacy from unreasonable search. They turn your banker and your insurance agents into government assets who are required to report you to the feds if you engage in any of a number of activities that law-abiding citizens do everyday.

The situation on the state level is not as bad as all that, but it is still bad. Imagine this: a customer whose family owns several businesses has a tax exempt number. They make a significant purchase with the understanding that they would get a sales tax exemption. They sign an agreement stating that the items they purchased would be for re-sale. Let's say it was furniture.

Instead of taking the customers written word for it, the business who is selling him the stuff starts interrogating him, "Wait a minute. You commit fraud if you buy that stuff tax free even though you have no intention of re-selling." "I understand that, and we just signed your paper saying that is our intent. Now let's finish the purchase." The selling business says, "No. They make us pay the tax that they think we should have charged you. You signed our document, but we still don't think you mean it, and we are not going to sell you this stuff unless you pay the sales tax."

The customer protests that even though their primary business is in other ventures, they also own several homes which they might want to sell furnished. They are willing to sign that as their intent. No matter. The business cannot afford to take the customer's word for it. They refuse to sell unless the customer pays the sales tax because the customer's primary business, in the opinion of the store acting in behalf of the state, does not lend itself to re-sale of the product being purchased. Outrageous story? Maybe, but it happens all the time.

In my way of thinking, if the customer signs that they intend to re-sell, then if they don't the government should take it up with them, not the business who sold it to them. But the New Fascism does not work like that. The state requires retail businesses to scrutinize their customers, to question their intentions, and to challenge their word if they claim a sales tax exemption. It seems in the case of sales tax fraud, the state shakes-down the innocent business instead of the guilty customer simply because a business is easier to extort money from than an individual.

So tell me again who is working for whom?

Rove, Voter Caging, and U.S. Attorney Scandal

Why did Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales resign so suddenly? Was the U.S. Attorney Scandal connected to the change? Go to this video and fast forward to the 5:30 point to find what may be the shocking answer.

The fellow on the video is a British Broadcasting Corporation U.S. Correspondent. His source had the domain "georgewbush.org". The official website for the President's re-election campaign was "georgewbush.COM". Hundreds of campaign emails were mistakenly sent to the .org site. Some of them reveal a systematic plan to challenge minority voters in swing states.

Apparently, even U.S. Servicemen who were gone on lengthy deployments to Iraq got their votes thrown out on the basis that they "no longer lived at the address listed on their voter card". That may be disgusting, but it is not illegal. What is both disgusting and illegal is targeting votes to suppress on the basis of race, and it appears that this is what was done. It violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The correspondent says that former U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin was hip-deep in the effort.

Bush: 1.4 Billion for Mexico's Southern Border

Michelle Malkin reports that Presidente Bush wants to spend $1.4 billion dollars so that Mexico can strengthen its southern border. Maybe Bush is not pushing for a North American Union with or without the consent of the governed, but it sure looks like it.

Comptroller General Walker Resigns

David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States who has repeatedly warned Americans that our financial policies are unsustainable, has resigned. He specifically cited the limits on his ability to criticize Congress in his resignation. This would lead one to believe that he is really going to lay into them from his new position as head of a think tank. Congress repeatedly ignored his warnings about fiscal restraint and have continued adding future obligations to the taxpayers at an accelerating pace.

I greatly admired David Walker's efforts. My concern about his new position is that the foundation is controlled by a past president of the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR has long advocated globalist policies.

Have the bad guys gotten to Walker, or is he putting himself in a position to hammer the wild-eyed spenders in Congress? Only time will tell.

No Recorded Vote on $845 Billion on Obama's Bill

I called Senator Lincoln, Senator Pryor, and Representative Marion Berry's office today. None of them would make a commitment as how they would vote on the Obama Global Poverty Act.

In fact the person with whom I spoke in Marion Berry's office said the companion bill to Obama's bill, HR1302, was voted on in the House in September and passed with suspension of the Rules where no recorded vote was taken.

He explained that members could have asked for a vote but didn't and explained that those kind of votes were ordinarily taken when there is no objection from either party to the bill. I am sure it was one of those fast deals they pull on the legislators quite frequently before they know what is up. He said that those conditions (suspension of the rules which require no recorded vote) probably indicate that Bush was supporting the bill as well (although he said he was not certain Bush was supporting the bill.)

It is only logical to assume that if President Bush had opposed it, he would have legislators there fighting against it. Again this is what happens when you have a supposedly conservative President who sides with the liberals.

We need to fight this bill like we did the illegal alien bill. Can you imagine a bill passing the US House with no recorded vote on 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends on foreign aid? I know that the citizens whom are representing would favor such a bill about as enthusiastically as they favored the amnesty bill! Citizens have been sick of foreign aid for years now.

If we can just get this information out there, surely we can stop this bill. Our economy has become a much more focal point even since September. We need to contact all our legislators and the President in mass by phone and by email or fax. Following is the contact information for President Bush and our US legislators.

The House bill was sponsored by Adam Smith from Washington, Berry's office said.

President Bush contact information
E mail - comments@whitehouse.gov.
Comments: 202-456-1111 for White HouseSwitchboard: 202-456-1414 FAX: 202-456-2461 for White House

Senator Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D- AR) Phone 202-224-4843 Fax :202-228-1371 Go to this link to send an email: http://lincoln.senate.gov/html/webform.html

Senator Mark Pryor (D- AR) Phone: 202-224-2353 Fax: 202-228-0908 Go to this link to send an email. http://pryor.senate.gov/email_webform.htm

Representative Marion Berry (D - 01)
202-225-4076
202-225-5602
http://www.house.gov/berry/zipauth.shtml

Representative Vic Snyder (D - 02)
202-225-2506
202-225-5903
http://www.house.gov/snyder/contact/email.htm

Representative John Boozman (R - 03)
202-225-4301
202-225-5713
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Representative Michael A. Ross (D - 04)
202-225-3772
202-225-1314
http://deb-pelley.c.topica.com/maaj2sSabEZdIaBV5JFcaeQCRr/

Global Poverty Act (law) by Obama - Take Action!

See below for contact information for Arkansas US Legislators. With our economy in the condition it is in, our legislators are insane to pass such a bill. Of course, this is just another step in the direction of the one world order and to a global tax.

OBAMA'S GLOBAL TAX PROPOSAL UP FOR SENATE VOTE

"A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday [today, Feburary 14, 08] and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations. . .

"The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends." For rest of this article see this link: http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff207.htm

For contact information for our Arkansas US legislators, see this link: http://www.wpaag.org/Addresses%20Arkansas%20US%20Legislators.htm

Please take action even though the vote in the committee was today. These things usually take a longer route than expected, and the Senate still has to vote on it. Also see next article to be posted on this date for where Arkansas US legislators stand on the issue.

First Baby-Boomer to Get Social Security

Kathleen was born one second after midnight on Jan. 1, 1946. That makes her the first official "baby boomer", and yesterday she received her first Social Security check at the age of 62

The baby boom was a period of about 15 years after the second world war when a prosperous United States had an unusually high birth rate. Between 1961 and 1964 the birthrate tapered off. Fifteen years later, the specter of abortion loomed large over the United States, substantially lowering our birthrate by killing over 44 million Americans- an amount equal to completely liquidating the entire population of the seventeen states shown in red above. Katleen was 27 years old when Roe v. Wade was first imposed on the United States by an activist Supreme Court.

I don't know the politics of this one individual person, and I am not singling her out for criticism. For all I know she has fought as hard or harder for the unborn as I have. But I do know that, as a whole, the baby boomer generation did nothing to stop the holocaust of the unborn in their country. They kept voting for politicians who would keep the immoral legal, or at least give only lip-service to ending it.

Over the next two decades, nearly 80 million baby boomers will become eligible for Social Security. The FAUX news article points out that the Social Security trust fund is projected to deplete its reserves in 2041 and will begin paying out more in benefits that it collects in payroll taxes in 2017". What they don't tell you is that there are no reserves. They have been spent by the same lying politicians that kept abortion legal and there is nothing in the "reserves" but a pile of I.O.U.s. These can only be replenished by increasing taxes on those younger citizens that the baby boomers did not abort.

Women live to about 85 years old in this country. If Katleen was like most college graduates, she did not begin full-time work in earnest until about age 20. She is now retiring at 62 and expects benefits to continue throughout her life. That means that she spent 42 years self-supporting and is projected to spend 43 years living off of the earnings of others. For the first twenty, it was the earnings of her parents out of their own free will. For the last 23 it will off the earnings of strangers against their will. This is a politically explosive situation.

The baby boom generation has frightfully abused following generations. Those they did not abort, they loaded with inconceivable levels of public debt. They began the move away from home parenting and placed infants and toddlers into day care. The "sexual revolution" destroyed stable families so vital to a sound and loving upbringing. The boomers were born into the greatest civilization in the history of mankind. They turned their backs on God and as a result hand down a coarse and decaying culture to their descendants.

I don't want to throw any old people out into the street. I don't want to cheat anyone who paid into the system- the government is the one doing that by saying one's contributions are not theirs, but the state's and by inflating away the value of retirement dollars. I don't want to do any of those things, but nor do I want to load the survivors of the next generation with a crushing burden. A burden made at least 30% more crushing by the loss of so many of their number to abortion. If the boomers had insisted that those children be protected, they would have more workers to ensure their security today. As it is, I fear the harvest that will be reaped from the sown seed of innocent bloodshed.

Washington State Shennanigans Update

Let's review. Huckabee was up in the (non-binding) vote count all night. McCain and Ron Paul were right behind him. Then McCain jumps to a 242 vote lead and the state GOP chairman shuts the counting down with only 87% of the vote counted and declares John McCain the winner. Huckabee demands they finish the count. The state chair tells him they will Monday.......

"Late Update: It seems that Washington State GOP chair Luke Esser spent most of the day avoiding calls from the Huckabee campaign. And when he finally got back to them he told a lawyer for Huckabee's campaign that they'd probably count the rest of the votes some time next week. When the lawyer, Lauren Huckabee, the candidate's daughter-in-law, requested that a Huckabee lawyer be present when the remaining votes were counted, Esser hung up on her. Before the hang up, Huckabee also asked Esser about the DIY statistical analysis he did to conclude that he should call the race (Esser's expertise in statistics apparently stems from previous work as a state prosecutor and a sports writer). Was there an analysis of what precincts the remaining votes came from? According to Huck campaign manager Ed Rollins, Esser admitted that he didn't [know] which precincts the remaining votes came from.

-TPM's Josh Marshall

h/t Bradblog

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5678#more-5678

*************
Of course the real winner is the one who got the most delegates elected for the state convention, not who won this non-binding preference poll, and all indications are that the real winner was neither McCain or Huckabee but rather Ron Paul. Look for Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other presstitutes to shove knitting needles deep into their own eye sockets before they admit something like that though. You have to read about it places like this.

Rand Study on Iraq

The study can be summarized thusly: the long term answer is not to keep using Americans to kill insurgents, but to build a government that is honest and effective so that the people will have faith in it and be willing to fight for it.

How you do that without virtue, the report does not and cannot say. If we are willing to sacrifice enough blood and treasure, we can stamp down on the insurgents in Iraq as we are now doing. The larger question is "is it in our best interests to devote this amount of our forces to that goal?" Especially when, as the report notes, the Iraqi's themselves show little signs of building a government all three 1/2 major factions can have faith in.

"Debunked" Leprosy Story Still True

I heard the story about the prevalence of leprosy, TB, and certain sexually transmitted diseases in the Marshallese Islanders living in NWA. I did not post a story about it at the time. Nine cases of leprosy spread over 9,000 islanders did not seem to be that big a story, and other people were on it. Leprosy (may or may not be the same disease referred to as "leprosy" in the Scriptures) is a serious disease, but not excessively contagious and at least it is treatable.

I am only writing about it now because if there is one thing I can't stand, its deceit. It is true that the prevalence of disease among these immigrants is a small point in favor of stricter controls on immigration. The re-emergence of diseases that we thought had long since been eliminated in civilized nations is doubtless in part attributable to globalization. But the disease itself is not as great a public danger as is the refusal of many in the local "news" media to be unbiased in their coverage of stories with an immigration angle, aided and abetted by a compliant state government.

I am no fan of globalization, as I believe it is a risky scheme which ties our economic fate to corrupt non-free market economies. It also has many hidden costs that are shifted from those who most benefit from gobalization unto the backs of the common citizen. Regardless of that, I harbor no ill-will against the Marshallese themselves who appear to have immigrated here in a perfectly legal manner. If our immigration controls are not strict enough, it surely is not the fault of legal immigrants. What I do object to is that we can't even have a discussion about immigration, even when it touches a legitimate local health concern, without the local corporate media/government complex jumping in and pretending that those raising legitimate concerns are making much ado about nothing.

Normal people I talk to about this issue tell me that the leprosy story has been "debunked" by the state health department. That is the message they get from local media coverage. Is it the truth? No. It is just another case of one-sided "news" reporting skewing perceptions so that the open-borders interests of large area corporations are protected. It is not even that I have a problem with the large corporations. I have a problem with mis-information posing as legitimate news.

If you will read carefully at this link from KFSM you will discern that the nine cases of leprosy in the Springdale Marshallese do in fact exist. The basis for the "debunking" of the story is NOT that the cases don't exist, but rather simply that they have been "known" for several years. Well, they may have been "known" to a small circle in the state health department, but not to the general population. The "debunking" reports also don't seem to comment on the reports of a high rate of TB and sexually transmitted diseases in the population.

When PC gets in the way of truth, we can't have rational discussions and therefore we can't make rational decisions about public policy. Deceit is wrong at any rate, but even if it wasn't, we are coming on hard times where PC self-delusion is a luxury we can no longer afford.

Hillary Shut Out, Huckabee Strong in Latest Round

Washington State- Too Close to Call with virtual three-way tie.
***************************************************************
--------UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE--------

Ron Paul Washington State Coordinator Mary McMahan Moore (no relation) has issued a statement claiming that Ron Paul has won the most delegates in Washington State. The media is reporting the results of the straw poll, but what actually matters is who the people actually elected as precinct delegates support. The convention will be held at the end of the month to decide who is going to the RNC National Convention
***************************************************************

Barak Obama shut out Hillary Clinton with double-digit wins in four states today. Due to their uniform and straightforward proportional delegate allocation system, we can say that Obama is up 69-40 in delegates from yesterday, plus a couple more from the Virgin Islands. What is not straightforward in the Democrat's plan is that about 30% of the vote comes from "super-delegates" and many claim that Hillary has stacked them. The big question is, will they dare to hand the nomination to Hillary even if Obama beats here in elected delegates? Will she be "selected, not elected"?

The Republican side is much more complicated. Too complicated, it seems, for the MSM to report accurately. For one thing, each state determines how its delegates are allocated. One thing comes out clear, Republicans are NOT rallying to John McCain even though the media has taken to calling him the "presumptive nominee". He MAY have won in Washington state. He got smashed in Kansas and beaten in Louisiana.

Mike Huckabee used his evangelical turnout machine to garner a decisive win in Kansas and grab all 36 delegates at stake.

Louisiana (44 up for grabs) is more complicated. They had a caucus on the 2nd which determined who their state convention delegates would be. Ron Paul's forces were better prepared than any other campaign, so the state GOP stepped in, apparently violating their own rules in the process. A judge will have to sort it out, and do so before Feb. 16th or no one will know who the delegates are supposed to be. If anyone had gotten more than 50% in Louisiana yesterday, then they would have been guaranteed at least 20 of the 44 delegates. Seeing as how no one did, the state delegates elected from the prior caucus will decide the identity of all 44 delegates. John McCain will do well there if the shennanigans are allowed to stand. If they are NOT allowed to stand then I look for Paul and Huckabee forces to make a delegate deal like they did in Maine in an effort to block McCain. Maybe they will split the delegates.

Washington state has been incorrectly declared a "win" for McCain with 87% of the vote counted. He only has 26% of the vote, to 24% for Huckabee and 21% for Paul. The reasoning for giving it to McCain is that the last 13% of the vote is from a more liberal area of the state which might indicate support for McCain. But it may be libertarian part that voted. For example our sources tell us that Ron Paul won Spokane big with at least 45% of the vote. If Paul has the lion's share of the remaining uncounted vote then Washington state would essentially be a three-way tie, hardly good news for the "presumptive nominee" John McCain. It appears all Republicans are looking for someone else to back. In strong evangelical areas like the South and Great Plains, its Huckabee. But in the West and more libertarian areas they will even back Paul. ANYBODY but the MSM's "presumptive nominee" John McCain.

Bush to tell CPAC McCain is a "Strong Conservative"

Diego Montoya has some advice for El Presidente Bush. "You keep using that word. I think you better look that up. I don't think that it means what you think it means.
*****************************************

HOW would George W. Bush KNOW whether or not John McCain or anyone else is a "strong conservative"? Did Bush accidentally meet a strong conservative once? And if the strong conservative that Bush may have met once did tell him that about McCain, it is entirely possible that the President missed the fellow's sarcastic tone when he said it. Bush has never been good at reading people ("I saw into Putin's soul"), much less conservative ones.

John McCain is a strong conservative like Islam is a "religion of peace".

John McCain is a strong conservative like the President's latest 3 trillion dollar budget is a "good, solid" budget.

John McCain is a strong conservative like "comprehensive immigration reform" does not mean amnesty.

Feel free to coin your own.....

Ron Paul at CPAC : Banned in Boston!

Looks like they did it again. They showed McCain and Romney's speech at CPAC but continued the blackout of Paul. Since the global corporate media which controls CNN, Fox, et al has seen fit to continue its policy of censorship/blackout of Ron Paul's message we thought we would give you the opportunity to see it here.

He is truly the only thing close to a conservative in the race, and the only one remotely interested in fulfilling the oath of office should he win. Too bad for him that central to his message is that we don't need to keep sending our earnings (through government spending here and abroad) to the corporations who run the global corporate media. Now why would they ban that message?

Part 1- it takes him about six minutes to really get warmed up, then it just keeps getting better.

Part 2

Part 3

Super Tuesday Open Thread

Purple: All parties. Red: GOP Only Blue: Dem only.
*****************************************************

An open thread to record my, and your, observations on Super Tuesday, everything from the turnout in your local area (mine was 149 Republican voters verses 148 Democratic voters in a locale that is normally 3-1 Republican) to weather. A storm has since blown in and Benton county is now having terrible weather.

Still Missing From Corporate Media Coverage

Image from FAUX News website. Notice anybody missing?
******************************************

I continue to be amazed at how brazen the global corporate media is about censoring Ron Paul. They all but refuse to print his name or face. He is grudgingly allowed to sit in some debates, but then they practically refuse to ask him a question. When they do, it is often an insulting one ("Credibility, do you have any sir?") or they cut him off as soon as he begins to answer.

Despite the blackout and the constant pumping up of the CFR candidates, Paul is still hanging in there with a decent collection of delegates (most of whom you never know about because the media won't tell you or account it to his total). It is a word-of-mouth and internet campaign.

It is crystal clear that there is only one candidate that they fear and despise. That's how the Patriot knows he's the one to vote for.

GOP Super Tuesday Key States and Strategem

Missouri and Georgia are the two key states for GOP electioneers to watch tomorrow night.
*****************************************

Super Tuesday is almost on us. Will McCain get the job done tomorrow? Extremely unlikely. Besides California, Missouri and Georgia are the two key states to watch. They have quite a few delegates and, most importantly, are winner-take-all states. Assuming a near split in California: If John McCain can win both Missouri and Georgia- and most recent polls show him with narrow leads - then he is going to be hard to stop. If he loses them both, the race is still pretty much wide open. If he loses one of them but wins the other, the door is not closed but it is only open a crack for the other contenders. The WTA format over-rewards guys who win with less than 50% of the vote, and McCain is benefiting tremendously from it. The states he is winning in tend to be WTA, while states where his rivals lead award delegates proportionately.

Jumping into game theory here, Ron Paul supporters in those two states should vote for Romney in Georgia and Huckabee in Missouri. They should do this because they don't have the votes to be #1 in either state, and in a winner-take-all state #1 is all that matters. By throwing their weight to the other two, they could keep McCain from locking it up. Doing so would give them time to get delegates in states which award them proportionately, more time to get to Texas and Penn., both of which are large prizes that ought to be good for Paul, and more time to go around a corporate media that all but refuses to mention the name "Ron Paul".

McCain needs, realistically, about 1,050 delegates to lock it up (technically he needs 1,191 but there are some 123 party-appointed super-delegates that can be counted on to back the establishment choice). He has 97. If he wins 700 delegates tomorrow that will give him about 800 delegates with 17 states to go. That is very doable. If he only wins 500 then he is less than two-thirds of the way there with all of his best states behind him.

Which Candidate Refuses Lucrative Congressional Pension

I have had some people to challenge me on why I voted for the candidate I did in the Primary (Early Voting). I never named the candidate on purpose - the clues were supposed to give it away. Following are some more clues. I also wonder how many people, like myself, had no idea about these characteristics of this candidate. I even discovered from listening to videos that given the right opportunity this candidate is an eloquent speaker, not all as he appears in the debates in the strained hostile environment. (Be sure to note the links to videos below)

*He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
*He is and has been an unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values.
*He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government (see quote below on this)
*He has never voted to raise taxes.
*He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.He has never voted to raise congressional pay.He has never taken a government-paid junket.He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.He voted against regulating the Internet.
*He tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies.
*He introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
*He once voluntarily relinquished his House seat and returned to his medical practice.
*He advocates Closing Dept. of Education, but not dismantling public schools

*He encourages homeschooling & private school via tax writeoff, saying " The parents have to get control of the education. It used to be parents had control of education through local school boards. Today it's the judicial system and the executive branch of government, the bureaucracy, that controls things, and it would be predictable that the quality would go down. The money goes to the bureaucrats and not to the educational system.

*Ronald Reagan once said of this candidate, "He is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”

*This candidate said, "We spend too much, tax too much, & print too much money It's absolutely a threat to our national security because we've spent too much, we tax too much, we borrow too much, and we print too much. When a country spends way beyond its means, eventually it will destroy the currency, and we're in the midst of a currency crisis. Our dollar is going down rapidly as we speak. It's because we have lived beyond our means. We can't afford the foreign policy that we have. We have to cut back. We have to live within our means. If we're going to spend money, we ought to spend it at home, and that is why we have to change this foreign policy. We can't afford it to do what we're doing today because it will destroy our dollar."

To learn more about this presidential candidate see these videos:
http://www.ickypeople.com/2008/02/ron-paul-finally-gets-equal-timeon-mtv.html - About 15 minutes of questions and answers on TV discussion in which Huckabee, Ron Paul, Obama, and Clinton participated February 2, 08

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/1115#comment-4716 (Two videos on this page) Be sure to watch until the end of these videos) There are several quotes that are very good interspersed throughout the videos.

Also see this article: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/

Maine Caucus- The Real Story

The Corporate media is telling you that Mitt Romney won the Maine caucus with over 50% of the vote, and that McCain was a distant second with just over 20% followed closely by Ron Paul. They either don't know what they are talking about or don't care that they are reporting mis-information. It is a shame, but you have to turn to an amateur blogger to tell you the truth about what is happening in Maine....

There are actually two sets of elections going on in Maine. One is a non-binding preference poll for president, the other (more critical) elections are the ones where they pick the delegates to go to the state convention. Those are the people that will pick the delegates to the national Republican convention.

The numbers the corporate media are reporting are not for delegates to the state convention. They are merely the result of the non-binding poll taken of local attendees. In many cases this vote is taken even before spokesmen for the candidates make their case. What a caucus is really about is selecting delegates. If a Ron Paul supporter running for delegate has a lot of respect in their community, they can be elected as a town's delegate to the state convention even though most of the town voted for another candidate in the non-binding presidential preference poll.

Only the most committed citizens in the local caucus agree to also be a delegate at the state convention. As we read events on the ground, even though people voted for Romney in the non-binding preference poll, they voted to send supporters of Ron Paul to the state convention in at least equal numbers. When the dust settles in May, don't be surprised to see Paul getting more of the state's 18 national convention delegates than any other candidate.

In the state's largest city of Portland for example, at least 21 of the 59 delegates to the state convention are known supporters of Paul. In some of the smaller caucus meetings the results are even more amazing- in one meeting where they held the preference poll last, Paul supporters were 7 of the 11 delegates they are sending to the state convention even though Paul only got 6 votes in the non-binding preference poll! This happened when every Paul supporter in the room was selected as a delegate and one of them had to leave before the non-binding poll was taken.

The number one reason for the difference is in the level of commitment in the supporters of Paul relative to the other candidates. A close second would be that Paul had a lot of sympathy in the caucus meetings even from those who were (without much enthusiasm) voting for someone else.

To find out what the corporate media wants you to believe, turn on the boob tube. To find out what reality is, go outside your door and look around your town.

Why It Would Be Difficult, If Not Impossible, To Vote for Romney

"Romney sent a letter to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts claiming he would be a stronger advocate for homosexual rights than would his then-opponent, Sen. Edward Kennedy"

Following are links to articles that would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for me to vote for Romney if he wins the nomination. I was in the process of moving and have not had time to do all the research on the candidates I needed to do, or I would have already known these facts.

ELECTION 20082002 Romney flier promotes 'gay' rightsCandidate reportedly handed out leaflet at Boston 'Pride' parade http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57786

Romney sent a letter to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts claiming he would be a stronger advocate for homosexual rights than would his then-opponent, Sen. Edward Kennedy. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/us/politics/09romney.html?ex=1323320400&en=a1848ee252cfecaf&ei=5088&partner=r

The Many Faces of Mitt Romney http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57208

Don't Be Fooled By Mitt Romany http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56637

Mormon church-owned paper rips Romney on pornhttp://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56668

Political Thievery in Hawaii?

******** "Book'em Dano!" ************
**************************

I had heard through the grape vine that Ron Paul was doing very well in the multi-day Hawaiian Caucus, possibly even winning the majority of the delegates. When it looked like this was happening in Nevada, the rules got changed three times in the ten days leading up to the Caucus in order to allow Romney to bus in loads of supporters and win it. As disgraceful as that was, at least those rules changes occurred before the caucus began. It appears that even that fig-leaf may be gone in the Island State. The Watch has gotten word that the GOP in that state is changing the rules and allowing people to continue to sign up as republicans after the caucuses and still attend the convention.

As in Nevada, this is a tremendous benefit to Romney's campaign- they can bus whole churches over and pay their way.

If these allegations are true then the party has no legitimacy whatsoever. If true, then the "rules" are only hammers used to beat down those the insiders don't like, but discarded like yesterday's garbage when it suits them. The "process" is being exposed as an elaborate ruse designed to conceal the fact that they will cheat as much as necessary in order to stamp out a grassroots movement.

For Whom Did I Vote in the Republican Primary?

Questions I Asked Myself Before I Voted in Early Voting Today.

1. Which candidate would best protect my freedom, especially my freedom of religion and speech. One of my favorite quotes is, "The first responsibility of a government official is to protect the people's freedom?" Any socialist government always squelches true freedom of religion. Despite all the Republican rhetoric by the candidates, only one candidate of the remaining four actually wants less government as exhibited by his words and/or actions. The other three have outlined programs and/or implemented policies that increase government control that intrude on citizens' rights. Since I believe the greatest danger in our nation today is rampant expansion of government, I voted for the candidate who some in our society would even criticize for wanting too little government intervention.

2. Which candidate has integrity? Since I believe the root of all the problems in our nation today stem from lack of character, I voted for the candidate that demonstrated the most integrity and character. There is only one of the candidates that I have not seen waffle, or be deceitful, and only one candidate that always gave straightforward answers without a touch of spin. This candidate's philosophy is so old fashioned that it would take more than a sound bite to explain his views to a modern world that is already almost to the bottom of the slippery slope of socialism. As Emily Dickinson says,

Much madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye.
Much sense the starkest madness
If it is not the majority.
Assent, and you are sane
Demur, your're straightway dangerous
And handled with a chain.

If even liberals can recognize the worth of integrity as illustrated in the anecdote below, then shouldn't I as a Christian and a Republican?

A few years ago while visiting a church in Nashville, I heard the following story from Attorney David Gibbs, a young man of about 35 years old at that time. This young man works as a lawyer helping churches with their legal battles imposed by the liberals and calls himself a legal missionary. (About four years after hearing his testimony, I learned that he became the lead attorney in the Terri Schiavo case,) His testimony was so outstanding and demonstrated such courage that I was so touched that I have never forgotten it.

He told about how he thought about going to Duke University in preparation for his vocation, but it would cost at least twenty thousand a year. Therefore, he saw no reason to even apply, but his Dad encouraged him to try for a scholarship.

He thought it was hopeless because the people who would interview him would all be liberal lawyers. His Dad, however, encouraged him to go for it. He applied, and they sent him a notice to come for an interview, which was also expensive for him to do. He went and met, I believe, he said with 15 liberal lawyers and said he probably offended everyone of them. They even wanted to know if he actually believed in Jonah and the fish and in Noah and the Ark, etc. They interviewed him, I think he said for one hour and twenty minutes; and it was supposed to be only about 30 minutes. He told them he wanted to be a legal missionary. Then he went home and told his dad how badly the interview went. (His parents were very good Christians, and he had gone to a Christian school all twelve years. In fact his dad was also a legal missionary.)

To make a long story short, the lady who headed up the scholarship committee, called him; and his Dad answered the phone. They had given him the one full scholarship to Duke University for four years, and the lady told his Dad that they received hundreds of applications from students who have extremely high intellectual ability, but that his son had demonstrated character and that was something they never saw anymore. She said they did not know what a legal missionary was but were convinced that he would pursue that course since he said he would.

3. Which candidate has courage? I voted for the candidate who has demonstrated the most courage. Another favorite quote of mine is "The strongest man on earth is he who stands most alone." The candidate for whom I voted has shown the same courage this young man had to have when he faced the fifteen liberal lawyers at Duke University – the courage to stand alone while others ridiculed him. This candidate has had subject himself to ridicule in front of the nation and hasn't backed down.

For the rest of this article see this link: http://www.wpaag.org/Why%20I%20voted%20for%20this%20candidate%20in%20primary.htm or click Friday below; or if sent here just scroll down.

Candidates Release 4th Quarter Numbers

4th Quarter Cash Raised:

Paul ($19.9 million)
********************
Romney ($9.1 million)
*********
McCain ($6.8 million)
*******
Huckabee ($6.7 million)
*******
-----------------
Cash On Hand

Paul ($7.8 million)
********
Huckabee ($1.9 million)
**
McCain ($2.9 milion)
***
Romney ($2.4 million)
**

Romney has $35 million worth of debt, McCain over $5 million. Huckabee has minimal debt, and Ron Paul has none.