In 2003 newspaper columnist Robert Novak wrote his now infamous “Mission to Niger” (published on July 14, 2003) in which he mentioned an allegedly failed attempt by Saddam Hussein to purchase uranium reported by the husband of a (not so) secret CIA agent, Valerie Plame, and mentioned her by name.

Mrs. Wilson’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, stated in a number of interviews and in subsequent writings (as listed in his 2004 memoir The Politics of Truth) that members of President George W. Bush’s administration revealed Mrs. Wilson’s covert status as retribution for his op-ed entitled “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” published in The New York Times on July 6, 2003. In addition, after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Wilson wrote a series of other op-eds questioning the war’s factual basis (See “Bibliography” in The Politics of Truth). In one of these op-eds published in the New York Times on July 6, 2003, Wilson says that, in the State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush misrepresented intelligence leading up to the invasion and thus misleadingly suggested that the Iraqi regime sought uranium to manufacture nuclear weapons.

After the initial Novak column, fueled by Democrats, a sycophantic news media proceeded to make the matter a public spectacle for years. A special investigator, Patrick Fitzgerald, was appointed to lead an investigation (which eventually would cost $2.58 million) and he convened a grand jury. Despite revelation to the special investigator that the actual leaker of the name of this secret CIA “operative” (Richard Armitage) in only a few days, Fitzgerald managed to keep the investigation going thereby extending his 15 minutes of fame for years. The CIA leak grand jury investigation did not result in the indictment or conviction of anyone for any crime in connection with the leak itself; however, I. Lewis Libby, Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney was indicted on five counts of obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements to the grand jury and federal investigators on October 28, 2005( Libby resigned hours after the indictment).

The amazing thing about this incident, in addition to the obvious miscarriage of justice, is that at the root of the controversy was an erroneous report by Valerie Plame’s husband. Joseph Plame, who parlayed his report into a public scandal with the help Democrats, the ever-investigative Fitzgerald and the Democrat Party house organs, has been proven to be totally wrong. Those who harped on the Bush administration and its members for both the “leak” and for going to war in Iraq despite a supposed lack of evidence of a nuclear program by Iraq’s monstrous dictator and his sons should by all rights be made to suffer the same indignities visited upon President Bush, Vice President Cheney, their aides and especially, Lewis Libby.

Today we know that Iraq did possess 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” – the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment. The effort to topple Hussein and cause regime change was indeed necessary to prevent the development of nuclear weapons. We know this because it has been revealed, albeit without the fanfare of the earlier “scandal”, that this huge stockpile of concentrated uranium, a remnant of Hussein’ nuclear program, was removed from Iraq and shipped to a buyer in Canada. It should be a great relief to the world to know that Hussein was not given enough time to further develop his nuclear program because President Bush defied his critics and took action to abort this threat.

To those unfamiliar with “yellowcake”, it is a concentrated form of uranium resulting from early stages of uranium ore processing. Although yellowcake is not considered potent enough for a nuclear bomb or for a so-called “dirty bomb” – “a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material” – it is a very dangerous material in the wrong hands. Yellowcake can be enriched for use in nuclear reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons.

Of course, as was the case with Caesar, “The evil that men do (in the eyes of their critics) live after them but the good is (”oft”) interred with their souls”. Bush continues to be maligned by his liberal and appeasement minded critics and too many Americans as well, for taking preemptive action to cancel this threat. We can only wonder what critics and opponents would say if Saddam Hussein had been allowed to continue and developed a nuclear weapon of mass destruction and made it available to world terrorists; at least those of them who would still be alive following a nuclear terrorist attack in the United States?

Vincent Gioia is a retired patent attorney living in Palm Desert, California. His articles may be read at www.vincentgioia.com and he may be contacted at gioia@gte.net.

The domestic violence industry operates under the cloak of secrecy and anonymity, maintaining such policies are necessary to shield victims from their abusers. But every now and then a crack appears in the façade, revealing a sordid panorama of corruption, fraud, and abuse.

On February 28, 2007 the Naples, Fla. citizenry opened their morning newspapers to the jolting headline, “CEO Out at Women’s Shelter: Investigation into Battery Complaint Prompts Departure.” Over the next several months, details would spill out of a woman’s rights activist who had evolved into a self-serving “tyrant,” as one of her colleagues later described her.

The charges surrounded Kathy Herrmann Catino, a former victim of domestic violence and director of the Naples Shelter for Abused Women and Children.

Fifteen years ago Ms. Catino took over the helm of the debt-ridden shelter. She worked tirelessly and proved to be a skilled rainmaker, growing the shelter into a 60-bed facility with a $3.5 million budget, 52 staff members, and 276 volunteers.

But her crusade took on messianic overtones. Believing she was the savior of women, Catino set out to control the Board of Directors and even the personal lives of her employees.

“Kathy Herrmann-Catino ruled as the queen of the fortress she built for too long,” revealed one woman, adding she “was obsessed with the need to control her subordinates and others in the community, and her obsession grew as the Shelter grew.”

“As long as you did as you were told by her, it was all good. Don’t do as you’re told or have a mind of your own, and there were problems,” explained another associate, adding that the shelter director “hates men.”

One saw her as a Captain Queeg in a pantsuit: “You could see the self-satisfaction in her big round eyes and the little smile on her lips whenever she broke a spirit and made an employee cry.”

 “I’ve witnessed and been a victim of her abusive style,” revealed a former board member. “She openly admits her son is an abuser …Now we know where he learned it.”

Catino went so far as to monitor employees’ after-hours pursuits. Paul Vincent Zecchino revealed, “she would check on your home life and [find out] if you did not live your life outside of work as she thought you should.”

And as if that wasn’t enough, “Your condition of employment then required you to go to counseling and report that you went,” the man wrote. “The counselor you went to was one that she would pick for you.”

Is this beginning to sound a little like Soviet psychiatry?

Election Day, 2006 marked the beginning of the end. Believing that advancing social change was part of the shelter’s mission, she sent an email to her staff instructing them to inform her whether they had voted.

But a few scofflaws did not respond. So the next day an infuriated Catino broadcast this warning: “OK – you are the folks who have not responded to my several requests for information regarding whether or not you voted on Tuesday. This is your CEO talking – the one who approves your pay check…Testing 1, 2, 3, anyone out there? Please respond.”

The message was clear: If you don’t come clean with the Commissar of Truth, your paycheck might be delayed, or worse.

Problem was, Florida law prohibits voter intimidation. For that misstep, Catino was arrested, booked, and released on bond.

The worst was yet to come.

Three months later Catino decided one of the shelter employees had crossed her one too many times. She wanted an underling to do the dirty work, but the employee refused to go along with the gig. When the tearful woman tried to walk out of the shelter, Catino grabbed her by the arm and yanked her around.

Legally this counts as assault. The security cameras captured the entire incident. Two weeks later, Kathy Catino was history.

The most insightful commentary came from a former associate who revealed, “In reality, Kathy’s very sad life was never healed – it was only a mask she wore – a role she played. She was angry and unhealed, which is why she loved wallowing in her abuse.”

A year later, whatever came of the former shelter director?

Pay a visit to the website of Equality Virginia, a group that advocates for the legalization of homosexual marriage in the state of Virginia. Cathy Catino is now the deputy director of the organization.

The website proudly states Catino “served as CEO of a FL shelter program for nearly fourteen years…While in Naples, Kathy started an outreach program for LBGT people who were victims of partner violence and routinely sheltered gay, lesbian, and transgender people in her program.”

Long live the Revolution.

He was one of only three U.S. Senators with the courage to vote against Bill Clinton’s nomination of the radical Ruth Bader Ginsberg to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. He never talked to The New York Times or appeared on any of the Sunday morning talk shows, telling his staff there was no point since none of his North Carolina constituents read that paper or watched those shows. He stood fast against communism in all its forms all over the world. In a debate over federal funding for AIDS research, he railed against the “deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct” of homosexuals, saying, “There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy.” And he is largely responsible for giving us the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

He was Jesse Helms, and when he died on the 4th of July, he left enemies and friends alike pondering his legacy. Liberals called him divisive and a racist. Conservatives called him dependable.

If great men rebel against occupying the middle of the road, then Jesse Helms was indeed a great man. He was a stalwart defender of liberty, and he understood the meaning of the word. A journalist and political pundit before running for office himself, Helms wrote in 1959 on compromise in politics: “Compromise, hell! That’s what has happened to us all down the line — and that’s the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?”

Helms had gained fame across much of North Carolina for his five-minute commentaries at the end of the local nightly news broadcasts. In 1972, after 30 years in print and broadcast journalism, he threw his hat into the ring for a U.S. Senate seat. Formerly a Democrat, he, like so many of his fellow conservative southerners, had switched his allegiance to the Republican Party. He won that race, and went on to win re-election in 1978, 1984, 1990 and 1996. In ill health at the end of his fifth term, Helms retired in 2003 after thirty years in the senate.

Helms was an early supporter of Ronald Reagan for president. When the former California governor decided to challenge the sitting president, Gerald Ford, for the 1976 GOP nomination, Helms pushed hard for Reagan in North Carolina. After suffering several early primary defeats to accidental incumbent Ford, Reagan was ready to drop out. Helms insisted he stay in the race at least until North Carolina. Reagan agreed, and his victory there gave him momentum for additional victories in other primaries and for a close nominating convention. Although Reagan lost the nomination to Ford that year, it set the stage for his triumphant comeback in 1980, when he trounced the incompetent incumbent, Jimmy Carter.

Jesse Helms was a man of conviction, of loyalty and of faith. After his retirement from the senate, he published his memoir, Here’s Where I Stand, wherein he likened abortion to the Holocaust and to 9/11. He wrote, “I will never be silent about the death of those who cannot speak for themselves.”

For thirty years, through turbulent times, Jesse Helms was a conservative bulwark against the political, cultural and ideological degradation of late 20th Century American society. He loved liberty and did not suffer fools. In a time of trendy change, there were three giant conservatives: Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms. Now they are gone and we are left with John McCain. God help us.

____________________________________________________________________________

© Copyright 2008 by Doug Patton
____________________________________________________________________________

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.
____________________________________________________________________________

CHARLOTTE, N.C. - July 7, 2008 - Right now, many developers are feeling the pinch of the current economic recession.  But not Campus Crest, the developer behind a successful brand of college living facilities called The Grove (www.gogrove.com).  Since the company began in 2004, it’s developed 19 of The Grove locations across 10 states, with 12 more slated to begin construction later this year, a 450 percent average increase per year. 

Billed as ‘fully loaded college living,’ The Grove developments provide more than just a home away from home for students.  Amenities include individual lease options for residents, high speed Internet access throughout the residences and properties, a centrally-located clubhouse and resident gathering area complete with a pool, tavern-style game room, sand volleyball court, basketball court, fire pit, coffee shop, fitness center and tanning salon. 

Residents also enjoy bundled payments, in which one bill per month covers rent, all utilities including cable, high speed Internet access, and use of all of The Grove amenities, including the fitness center and tanning salon. 

“The demand for The Groves’ growth has truly been a testament to the Campus Crest vision, which is to build a fully loaded home away from home for students to enjoy during their college years,” said Shannon King, president of Campus Crest.  “Students want to have fun, and their parents want them to be safe.  The Grove provides all of that and more across each of our properties.”

Currently, The Grove properties provide fully loaded living facilities for college students in Alabama, Georgia, New Mexico, North Carolina, Texas, Washington and Colorado.  More locations will be added throughout 2008 and 2009 across these states as well as Tennessee and Kansas, with plans to expand into the Northeast and Western parts of the country.

About Campus Crest and The Grove
The Grove is the brand of luxury college living facilities built by Campus Crest, a progressive, Charlotte, N.C.-based firm founded by a group of professionals whose vision is providing the best student housing in the industry.  Campus Crest has developed more than $100 million of student housing and is committed to responsible development practices, delivering community conscious projects that go beyond the requirements of the cities where they are located.  Visit www.gogrove.com for more information.
###
 

Last week I wrote about the plight of Nashville’s Joy Ford, the country’s latest victim of Eminent Domain abuse by government. Nashville’s Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA) has begun legal proceedings under Eminent Domain to condemn and seize Joy’s business. It has prospered at the head of Music Row for almost 30 years. Now it is “blighted” and must be bulldozed to make room for $100 million dollars worth of development by a private firm in Houston, TX. I said last week, this case is every bit as bad as Kelo vs New London in 2005.

Possibly anticipating the nation’s outrage over Kelo, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in his Kelo opinon, said, “… nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power.” In the aftermath of Kelo, according to Property Fairness, 27 states, including Tennessee, took Justice Stevens’ encouragement and attempted to do exactly that in 2006.

The problem, of course, is not in the attempt but in the accomplishment. The Tennessee Bar Association published an excellent analysis of Tennessee’s new law. The short version is that, in Tennessee, little was accomplished beyond political posturing. It is Tennessee’s 2006 failure to further restrict its takings power which leads directly to MDHA’s 2008 actions against Joy Ford. Speaking of the effectiveness of Tennessee’s legislation, Drew Johnson, President of The Tennessee Center for Policy Research noted,

“Tennessee’s new eminent domain law is a joke—and the joke is on property owners across the state,” … Tennesseans aren’t any more secure from having their property taken than before the law was passed.”

In particular, Johnson says that the law’s failure to more clearly define blight and its outright encouragement of eminent domain use to acquire land for industrial parks makes it particularly threatening to property owners.

Three months earlier, State Rep. Susan Lynn (TN-57), offered this evaluation of the law,

… after being worked through committee, this bill essentially guarantees very little protection for Tennesseans when it comes to eminent domain. To quote Sandra Day O’Connor in her dissent of the Kelo decision, the “specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

The bill states that ‘public use’ shall not include either private use or direct public benefits deriving from private economic development or private commercial enterprise, including the benefit of increased tax revenue and increased employment opportunities - except in the case where eminent domain is used for; roads, public utilities, private utilities, housing authorities, community development agencies for urban renewal or redevelopment plans; or for industrial parks. Looking at that list, I really can’t think of any exception for private economic development by eminent domain that the bill leaves out.

These 2006 comments by Lynn and Johnson are prescient. Joy Ford’s property is being seized because it is deemed “blighted”. Drew Johnson noted the law’s poor definition of blight. According to Ms. Ford, her property is ruled “blighted” because, among other things, it is surrounded by a chain link, barbed-wire topped security fence and is the only building left on the development property. Yet someone, perhaps the developer, has erected a shabbier looking fence around the development site. It goes unreported that both a hotel and Ford’s building abut the same parking lot. I assume the hotel property is not part of the development and so escapes urban “blight” despite also standing alone. Either that or Ford’s building is not the only one left on the property. Further, the reason Ford’s building is the only one left is the Shoney’s and other buildings standing on the site were demolished in anticipation of the development.

I’m trying to determine if these truly are factors in the classification of the Ford’s property as “blighted”. If so, how unfair. MDHA and LionStone Group want to buy her property but Ford won’t sell. They move ahead with development plans and clear the land. This has, for them, the pleasant side effect of creating the situation needed to force Ford from her property. Had LionStone and MDHA been required to wait until the property was free and clear before proceeding, a major element of the case against Ms. Ford, that of her “blighted” property, would not exist. How does creating “blight” for personal gain become working for the good of the public?

However, it is Rep. Lynn’s comments which make me wonder if government has not stacked the deck against the citizens they are to represent. A quick read of the bill would lead one to believe Tennessee was seeking to protect Tennesseans from the exact abuse Connecticut forced on her citizens. As Rep. Lynn observes, the bill starts well, noting “‘public use’ shall not include either private use or direct public benefits deriving from private economic development or private commercial enterprise, including the benefit of increased tax revenue and increased employment opportunities …” Unfortunately, the Tennessee Legislature left a loophole in the law. While making an acceptable exemption for traditional uses of Eminent Domain such as “… roads, public utilities, private utilities …” the bill then opens the door to all manner of Eminent Domain abuse by also exempting cases “… where eminent domain is used for; … housing authorities, community development agencies for urban renewal or redevelopment plans; or for industrial parks.”

The very issue which enraged the public in the Kelo decision, taking private property for private economic development to increase the city’s tax revenue, is not forbidden to government. In fact, the mechanism for government to do precisely that is written into the law. Government is forbidden from directly taking your property to develop to improve tax revenues. But agencies created by government whose purpose is development can do so. How did such disregard for citizen’s rights become law and an example of preserving the rights of citizens?

I’d like an answer to that from the Legislature. I’m sure Ms. Ford would, too. But for her, time is running out. The Legislature ran out of town at the end of the session. Too bad MDHA is still here and they’ve given Ford until just the middle of September to vacate the premises. After that, the wrecking balls start swinging. That’s long before the politicians responsible for this mess swing back through town. Stay tuned for more on this here …

Blue Collar Muse

by Jim Kouri, CPP

After a 1975 fire at the Browns Ferry nuclear plant in Alabama threatened the unit’s ability to shut down safely, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued fire safety rules for commercial nuclear units.

However, nuclear units with different designs and different ages have had difficulty meeting these rules and several have sought exemptions to them. In 2004, NRC began to encourage the nation’s 104 nuclear units to transition to a less prescriptive, risk-informed approach that will analyze the fire risks of individual nuclear units.

In addition, the US Congress directed an examination of the number and causes of fire incidents at nuclear units since 1995; compliance with NRC fire safety regulations; and  the transition to the new approach.

Analysts from the General Accountability Office visited 10 of the 65 nuclear sites nationwide, reviewed NRC reports and related documentation about fire events at nuclear units, and interviewed NRC and industry officials to examine compliance with existing fire protection rules and the transition to the new approach.

According to NRC, all 125 fires at 54 of the nation’s 65 nuclear sites from January 1995 through December 2007 were classified as being of limited safety significance. According to NRC, many of these fires were in areas that do not affect shutdown operations or occurred during refueling outages, when nuclear units are already shut down.

NRC’s characterization of the location, significance, and circumstances of those fire events was consistent with records analysts reviewed and statements of utility and industry officials GAO contacted. NRC has not resolved several long-standing issues that affect the nuclear industry’s compliance with existing NRC fire regulations, and NRC lacks a comprehensive database on the status of compliance.

These long-standing issues include nuclear units’ reliance on manual actions by unit workers to ensure fire safety (for example, a unit worker manually turns a valve to operate a water pump) rather than “passive” measures, such as fire barriers and automatic fire detection and suppression.

Also,  workers’ use of “interim compensatory measures” (primarily fire watches) to ensure fire safety for extended periods of time, rather than making repairs. There is also uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of fire wraps used to protect electrical cables necessary for the safe shutdown of a nuclear unit.

Compounding these issues is that NRC has no centralized database on the use of exemptions from regulations, manual actions, or compensatory measures used for long periods of time that would facilitate the study of compliance trends or help NRC’s field inspectors in examining unit compliance. Primarily to simplify units’ complex licensing, NRC is encouraging nuclear units to transition to a risk-informed approach.

As of April 2008, some 46 units had stated they would adopt the new approach. However, the transition effort faces significant personnel, cost, and methodological challenges.

According to to NRC officials, as well as academics and the nuclear industry, a lack of people with fire modeling, risk assessment, and plant-specific expertise could slow the transition process. They also expressed concern about the potentially high costs of the new approach relative to uncertain benefits.

For example, according to nuclear unit officials, the costs to perform the necessary fire analyses and risk assessments could be millions of dollars per unit. Units, they said, may also need to make costly new modifications as a result of these analyses.

The NRC requires reactor operators or licensees to develop and  implement emergency response plans to prepare for accidents and as well as possible terrorist attacks. Among other things, these plans are to address the coordination of activities by emergency first responders, including police, fire, medical, and hazardous materials personnel. These plans may also include guidelines for when and how areas near a  research reactor should be evacuated.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org).  In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. 

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com.  He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us
   

What if oil prices continue to rise with no end in sight? Even now with gas at $4.50 a gallon on the west coast, it’s becoming difficult for many people to fill up their gas tanks. What’s going to happen when it goes to $5.00, $6.00, $7.00 a gallon, or even higher? This will have an effect on all levels of society - from the poor, all the way to the White House. The entire economy of the country and the free world may be at stake. It could lead to war.

I’m not saying this is going to happen, but it could. It is just as likely that gas prices will start to decline by the end of the year. We are already seeing a small drop in consumption and demand, but no drop in prices as the price of a barrel of oil continues to climb. Some investment professionals are calling it an “oil bubble” that is soon to burst. I don’t see it that way at all.

Let’s explore the consequences of continued gas price hikes and what it will mean for our country. People who are now having trouble paying for gas are going to get angry. Their anger will soon turn to rage and they’ll be looking for someone to blame.

It will start on a small scale with people stealing gas from SUVs. That much has already begun. When gas goes over $5 a gallon, they will start angrily, and mistakenly, attacking gas stations with vandalism and possibly fire bombings.

These are the people who believe that gas stations and American oil companies are responsible for the high price of gas because that is what they‘ve been told by most everyone on the left. It must be difficult living in the world of liberal illusions.

They’ve heard politicians talk about the “windfall profits” of “Big Oil,” and think this means that the oil company that is providing gas to their local station is screwing them while getting rich in the process. They have no idea that the profits are going to millions of people across the country to pay dividends on their retirement investments. They don’t understand that most of the real culprits are not even Americans. They just pick the easiest explanation and the easiest target for their frustration.

They don’t realize that Shell, Exxon-Mobil, Conoco Phillips, and other American oil companies are just small oil companies with only 3% of the oil market. They have no influence on world oil prices when competing against the real “Big Oil” - the national oil companies of OPEC. Still, the media has convinced them that American oil companies are responsible for the price at the pump and need to be targeted.

As gas reaches $6 a gallon and food prices rise accordingly, riots will break out. People will be screaming “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.” They will attack any business that has been forced to raise their prices as a direct result of the rising oil prices and our misguided attempts to process our food into fuel. Yet these are the same people who support making ethanol from corn, and believe the high prices are the result of a vast right wing conspiracy against the poor and middle class.

As gas reaches $7 a gallon, people will be killed fighting over gas that only the wealthy can now comfortably afford. Word of civil unrest will eventually reach the government through the media, and Congress will debate for the rest of the year about what to do about it. Nothing will get done as usual, because Congress can’t control the price of oil on the world market any more than Shell, Conoco-Philips, or Exxon-Mobile can.

If there is any intelligent life left in Washington, they will defy the special interests of the greenfreaks and pass legislation to allow for oil drilling in ANWR and offshore. If Congress won’t do it, then the president should do it with an executive order. It won’t be quite that simple, he will still need some cooperation from Congress to enforce it.

As gas goes to $8 a gallon, the president may have to declare martial law to try to contain the rioting and looting that continues to break out across the country. By now, he is beginning to realize that things are getting serious and he has a big problem to deal with. His economic advisors are briefing him on the inevitable collapse of the economy if something isn’t done soon. He knows from recent history that federal price controls will only result in gas shortages and long lines at the gas pump, and that domestic oil companies and gas suppliers will be forced to try to operate at a negative income level. It could shut down the domestic oil industry altogether.

The State Dept. will begin to talk in stronger and stronger terms with the leaders of OPEC countries. They will try to convince them of the damage they are doing to the U.S. economy and the need to lower oil prices. There will be little response or cooperation. If India and China are willing to pay it, then why not the U.S.? Anyway, damage to America seems to be what some people, including some Americans, want.

In his lecture, Lindsey Williams places the blame directly on the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (ie; the Bilderberg group), who supply the money to pay OPEC for their oil. Williams contends that it is the World Bank and the IMF who, on a daily basis, tell OPEC how much to charge for their oil. If the World Bank and the IMF are willing to pay it on behalf of oil speculators, OPEC is willing to take it.

Unable to influence OPEC and the World Bank, our government will begin to realize that this has become a threat to our economy and national security. The government will turn to sanctions against OPEC countries. This will also fail, as sanctions usually do, because the rest of the world needs their oil as much as we do. Their primary source of income and trade will continue to be available. Sanctions will have no effect and embargos would be impossible if they are to continue providing oil.

With gas at $9 a gallon, the U.S. could then fight fire with fire as a last resort, and offer Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries a bushel of grain for a barrel of oil or threaten to cut off their food supplies from the U.S. altogether if they don’t significantly lower their oil prices.

The Arabs will likely respond by turning to other countries for grain and food stuffs, if they can find them, and retaliate by raising oil prices even more. Our “good friends” in the Mideast will cease being our “good friends,” as we realize that they are holding America hostage at the gas pump. To prevent our economy and country from completely collapsing, the president will have to take stronger action.

When gas is breaking $10 a gallon, and depending on who the president is at that time, he will have just two courses of action. If he’s a Democrat, he will raise taxes on the American people to attempt an increase in production of ethanol and biofuels, adding to the financial burden already being imposed on the people. This, of course, will have no effect on the price of gas for decades to come. It will only exacerbate the problem but will be consistent with the Democrats’ solution to everything - raise taxes.

If he’s a Republican, then he may address the American people and explain that our country has been attacked economically and this attack has done more damage to our country than the attacks of 911. He will be right. We were willing to pay a fair price for Mideastern oil but we can no longer allow the American people to be held hostage to unreasonably inflated oil prices. He will explain that he has no other choice but to send military forces into Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Mideast to secure the oil fields that we discovered and developed. But it’s more likely that he will promote other reasons to launch an attack that doesn’t mention oil.

This will not be ignored by other Islamic countries which will join forces with the Saudis in retaliation against America. Iran and Syria will find reason to become involved if they aren’t already. This will be real war with Islam over oil, and yes, winner takes all. Our survival as a nation will depend on it.

There is just one problem - we don’t have a big enough army. What we lack in manpower, we will have to make up for with technology and advanced weaponry. No war was ever won by overwhelming the enemy with compassion. Wars are only won with overwhelming force. Israel will be attacked by Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, and the march to Armageddon will have begun.

Russia will side with Iran and Syria as war spreads throughout the Mideast. China will also be dragged into it. Nuclear weapons may be involved, although I don’t believe they would be exchanged between the U.S., Russia and China, assuring mutual destruction. Bible prophesies may predict otherwise.

This scenario is, of course, highly speculative, but entirely possible if we don’t take action now to avoid it. We have two choices. We can find some way of bringing down the price of oil on the world market (unlikely), or we can begin to end our dependence on foreign oil by using all of the domestic resources we have available. This alone will encourage foreign oil producers to lower their prices.

We will have to reduce our consumption of oil until such time that America is able to produce all of the oil we require. Petroleum products must be reserved exclusively for transportation fuel and synthetic products such as plastics and rubber. All factories now using oil should convert to natural gas, electric, or other sources of energy.

All production of electricity must be expanded by any and all means available. This includes wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, and new technologies in nuclear fusion currently being developed. Clean coal technology should be expanded and used extensively, even if it does make Harry Reid and the Democrats sick. Yucca Mountain in Nevada should be impounded by the federal government under “eminent domain laws” and declared the official nuclear waste depository over the objections of Reid.

But we cannot sacrifice our food supplies for energy. We need affordable food as much as we need affordable energy. Ethanol production must be ended and the greenfreaks must be defeated if we are to save our country. Ethanol works in Brazil because they have the climate for growing vast quantities of sugar cane; we don’t. Sugar cane makes for practical and efficient ethanol without disrupting food sources; corn doesn’t. As Raymond S. Kraft points out in his recent article, Ending Our Oil Addiction: Reality Check, compliance with recent ethanol mandates by Congress would be disastrous and impractical for the country.

As the world’s largest consumer of foreign oil, just beginning a “moon shot” program toward oil independence will scare OPEC enough to begin lowering the price of oil in an attempt to persuade us to give it up. We played that game before and it worked, OPEC dropped their price so low that our efforts were cancelled. This time there must be no stopping, no matter how much oil prices drop.

I don’t expect the scenario I have described actually to happen, but it could. I suspect we will find more peaceful ways of dealing with the problem in time. Gas is already selling for $10 a gallon in Europe. In Europe, cars are smaller, less powerful, and use less gas. Much of the European lifestyle revolves around bicycles and motor scooters. Some are suggesting that we should be more like the Europeans.

We are Americans, not Europeans. We have our own American lifestyle and we don’t want to exchange it for a European lifestyle, no matter how much a tank of gas costs. $10 a gallon gas is going to hit us a lot harder than it hits Europeans because we depend on oil more than they do. Much of Europe is still living in the dark ages. That’s fine for Europe, it’s not fine for America.

The problem of our transportation costs are not going to be solved with “green” energy. Even if effective alternative fuels were developed and available today, the cars being sold today will still need gasoline for the next 20 years. Trucks, ships, and trains will need diesel fuel; aircraft will need aviation fuel, and homes will need home heating oil.

The only solution is to get serious about providing our own supply of oil to meet our national needs. This must be our first priority next to national security, before it becomes a national security issue.

A terrorist attack may destroy a city. This economic attack through oil and energy will destroy the country if it isn’t stopped. We have the ability to stop it if we do it now. Congress must be made to listen to the American people - their bosses. If they won’t listen, then we must fire those who are standing in the way when their terms expire. The consequences of not doing so could lead to the collapse of our country, or to Armageddon over oil if the present trend continues.

JR Dieckmann is Editor, Publisher, Writer, and Webmaster of GreatAmericanJournal.com. He also works as an electrician in Los Angeles, Ca. He has been writing and publishing articles on the web since 2000. His articles appear on other publications such as: The Conservative Voice; Real Clear Politics; New Media Journal; Mich News; Daley Times-Post; Renew America, The Reality Check, and other conservative websites. JR can be contacted at http://www.greatamericanjournal.com/contact.htm.

Birds of a Feather Flock Together. That saying simply implies that those of similar interests and like mind share a bond and will “flock together.” So it goes for politicians. With whom a politician prefers to line himself/herself with will give the voter insight into what they believe. It will help the voter decide if a politician is truthful when the time comes when a politician comes to “court” a group of voters.

That’s what both Barack Obama and John McCain are up to these days.  How can Barack Obama, who commented, “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…and it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” seriously try to “court” evangelicals(let’s just say Christians shall we, because evangelicals represent a segment of Christians).

If Obama succeeds in wooing Christian voters to his side, we are in trouble as a country. Recently, Christians in America, or “evangelicals” were polled by The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and 57% were found to believe that Jesus wasn’t the only way to heaven!  To those Christians who believe this, I say you’ve been deceived!  I have to wonder if you were Christian to begin with.

How watered down has the Christian faith become? How could some Christians take Obama seriously? Do they bother to check his record to see if he believes in traditional Christian views? Have they checked his voting record in the Senate?

In 2007 Obama said, “Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”

Wrong Obama. Our nation is indeed Christian. The majority of Americans are Christian (however misguided some have become).   We are the most accommodating nation on this planet in that people can come to our nation as they are and not be persecuted for believing differently than Christians. Yes Americans come from all backgrounds, but as a largely Christian nation, Christians ask that their heritage be recognized and respected. Not shunned or devalued.

With that in mind, how can Obama come before Christian voters after making such a statement above and ask for their vote? The only way that Barack Obama could lure Christian voters to his side is if the Christian’s walk with the Lord Jesus is not solid enough. Otherwise, he/she would see the warning signs simply from what Obama has said in the past AND with whom he chooses to associate with.

Earlier this year, the terror organization Hamas put their support behind Barack Obama.  Hamas, who has refused to recognize Israel looks at Obama as a legitimate candidate to lead America. Americans CANNOT look at Obama and Hamas with a liberal view and think that the change Obama speaks of will be necessarily GOOD.

Hamas has endorsed Obama. Could it be because of the words that Obama has uttered in regards to America no longer a Christian nation? That opens the door for those espousing secularism and other forms of religion to enter into the governing of American life. No wonder they endorse him.

Christians overwhelmingly see Israel as an ally in the Mid-East. America as a whole considers Israel an ally. How can we seriously consider voting for someone who has the support of Hamas? An Obama presidency should send warning signs among Christians.

Christians are compelled to stand up for Israel. Israel has survived through time with God’s hand upholding them even though she has enemies who wish to destroy her.  God STILL stands with Israel…

“…I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse…” –Genesis 12:3 (NIV)

Most in the “red” states are undoubtedly Christian.  Barack Obama is visiting red states as well to shore up votes. As a politician, he sure is working the crowds. But is he real to our faces? No.

Obama tries to hide his associations as the media quickly does damage control. Barack Obama has promised gays that he will be an advocate for them…to push legislation for them. Obama takes the Sermon on the Mount and justifies why he supports homosexuality.  His earlier comments in regards to gay marriage:

“I will tell you that I don’t believe in gay marriage, but I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them…”

“…So, I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That’s my view.”

Obama is selecting and twisting verses from the Bible to fit his position. He does not look at the Bible for what it CLEARLY says. The Book of Romans talks of homosexuality as sinful.

 Barack Obama also stands against the Defense of Marriage Act. He blasts black churches across America who are still overwhelmingly traditional in the view of marriage (between one man, one woman). Obama said, “Most African-American churches are still fairly traditional in their interpretations of Scripture…”

“…And so from the pulpit or in sermons you still hear homophobic attitudes expressed,” Obama continued, speaking to the news editor of The Advocate, a pro-homosexual publication. (Read responses from traditional black pastors in response to Obama’s comment at link below this article)

I would SINCERELY hope that most churches in general are still preaching the traditional view of Christianity!  Barack Obama wants INDEED to distort the Word of God…all in the name of getting support from a wide range of people. What he says, his actions should be an indication of who he is, really.

All one needs to do is go behind the scenes, to look closer and see where a candidate stands. Obama is liberal to the core. And he’s trying to hide it. He cannot accuse John McCain of flip-flopping or coming across in a different manner to various groups when he is hiding his true positions.

John McCain isn’t off the hook either.  Let’s examine his behavior towards conservatives.  McCain has consistently gone against conservatives on the issue of illegal immigration and has chosen to speak before LaRaza, or ”The Race”, a separatist Hispanic group.  How could John McCain also court conservatives after he has labeled senators who resisted his call for amnesty, “racists”? 

Now, all voters are receiving are sound bites and flattery. The American people are not getting the genuine article in this election. That is ALL the more important as we seek to choose the next American president.

Once Barack Obama and John McCain have your attention and vote, they will go about their own agendas, regardless of what the people want.  Both are either deflecting comments made by his opponent or tailoring their commentary to whatever group is before them.

Birds of a feather.

Look beyond the suave talk and take a gander at what organizations/groups the two presidential candidates hold in high esteem or with whom the two align their views with. THEN, make your choice at the polls.

You would have then voted wisely.

Related Reading

Statistics on Religion in America Report

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Obama: America is ‘no longer Christian’

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67735

Hamas terrorists make 2008 Presidential Pick

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67735

Obama Praised Wright, Criticized Traditional Black Churches on Homosexuality

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200805/CUL20080529a.html

Obama: Sermon on the Mount Justifies Same-Sex Unions

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080303b.html

John McCain stand on the Issues

http://ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm

Barack Obama stand on the Issues

http://ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

*Felicia Benamon is a conservative columnist who writes from a political perspective, but occasionally deviates to write about other concerns facing her country.  A patriotic American, Felicia hopes to motivate others to be more conscious of the current state of affairs in America, and to hold true to the wonderful traditions that make America great.Felicia comes from a military background and is proud to support the men and women who put their lives on the line daily to protect American citizens and who reach out to help those in need across the globe.

Write to Felicia at: FeliciasDesk@aol.com