During a debate this past April, Sen. Barack Obama distanced himself from Weather Underground founder William Ayers by saying, “the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense.”

To detest something is to curse it, with God as your witness. That’s no mild reproach. If he detests Ayers’ acts – which included the bombing of the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol in the early 70s – one would think he’d have a pretty harsh opinion of Ayers himself.

For the record, Obama was 35 years old when he visited Ayers’ house for what news reports describe as a “meet and greet” to kick off his state senate campaign in 1995. It’s unlikely that he voiced his detestation there. A look at the transcript of Obama’s widely lauded “patriotism speech” might tell us why.

“In the early years of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War, defenders of the status quo often accused anybody who questioned the wisdom of government policies of being unpatriotic,” he said. “Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counterculture of the 60s reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea of America itself – by burning flags, by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world, and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day.”

In that paragraph alone, he stitched together an entire fur coat’s worth of weasel words, beginning with his identification of the “so-called” counterculture. Had Ayers and his mates set off “so-called” bombs? Less than three months earlier, Obama had cursed left-wing domestic terrorism, but now he talks as if it’s a figment of a McCarthyite imagination.

He characterized anti-Americanism as a reaction to accusations of the same, but how natural a reaction is that? If you were falsely accused of being unpatriotic, burning an American flag is probably the last thing you’d think about doing. The leader of the “how dare you question our patriotism” party finds that scenario more plausible, however, than the actual existence of genuinely unpatriotic people. This theme recurred a paragraph later, when the senator criticized the slandering of General Petraeus by liberal war critics, but not until preemptively chiding that it was wrong of conservatives to doubt the patriotism of those same people.

Obama’s use of the word “tragically” serves to relieve the America-haters of responsibility for their actions as well. By definition, a tragedy is something that cannot have been helped. Obviously, those who mistreated our returning Vietnam veterans had the option not to do so. Their behavior was an outrage, not a tragedy. Nor is it a “national shame,” as he called it, appearing to suggest that we, as a nation, are collectively at fault.

In his March 18th speech on race, the senator made basically this same case, when he criticized the anti-American fulminations of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, but attributed them to the American culture that had shaped Wright’s views. What else is that explanation, if not a convoluted justification of what Wright had said?

During the Cold War, leftist intellectuals would identify themselves as anti-anti-Communists, to distinguish themselves from the Communists with whom they were coincidentally aligned. They did not profess support for Communism directly, but instead blamed American anti-Communists for driving the Reds to do what they did. Thus, they characterized every act of Soviet aggression as an irresistible reaction to American provocation.

Through his declaration of patriotism, Obama assured us that he’s not anti-American, but then he constructed an argument that identifies him as an anti-anti-anti-American. The fact that this places him in the ideological company of anti-Americans is presented as purely accidental. He’s not in favor of burning flags, spitting on veterans, or damning America from the pulpit, but neither does he scorn those who commit these acts, because he thinks the anti-anti-Americans drove them to it.

If Obama is correct in thinking that his tolerance for countercultural pond scum does not reflect on him, that’s only because he’s succeeded in rhetorically muddying the water. His conclusion – that the enemies of America’s enemies have made them commit detestable acts against America – does not substantially differ much from saying, as Wright did more directly, that America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

Despite gasoline priced at well over $4.00 a gallon over most of the country, and the public calling for “drill now”, Democrats continue to display a degree of obstinacy unparalleled in modern politics. This may be very bad for the country but it is good for their political opponents.

President Bush has finally cancelled the Executive ban on oil drilling while calling for congress to rescind the congressional ban. Until he took this action any criticism of congress’ failure to act sounded a bit hollow. Now however it is only congress that stands in the way of efforts to extract oil from the continental shelf just as Cubans and Chinese are doing. If we add to world oil supplies, the price will go down as supply is potentially able to meet or exceed demand. In fact, some experts think merely authorizing drilling and by so doing indicating a commitment to increase oil supplies in the near future, the price of oil will go down and with it the price of gasoline at the pump.

So what is the problem and who is holding up this sensible action, why Democrat leaders in the House and Senate, that’s who?

Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said this week that he would not allow a vote on an amendment giving states new authority to seek oil off their coasts when he brings a Democratic energy bill to the floor later this month. Reid criticized President Bush’s announcement earlier in the day to rescind a longstanding executive order banning offshore oil drilling, saying it was a gift to the oil companies that are not exploring for oil in 68 millions of acres available to them.

There are many millions of acres available to oil companies to drill for oil but any sensible person would consider why there has been no drilling there before making it a condition precedent to rescinding the ban on ocean drilling. Would oil companies deliberately refrain from getting oil where they could? Isn’t it logical to assume that oil companies have not taken action on these tracts because it was not cost effective to do so? There are reports that these areas either do not contain oil or the cost of extraction is too great to be commercially viable. Only those with some nefarious agenda would try to convince the public that oil companies are intentionally foreclosing themselves from an opportunity to obtain more oil, especially at today’s prices.

Despite calls from Republicans in the Senate, and President Bush, to rescind a congressional moratorium prohibiting the practices and give states the option to decide whether to allow drilling off their coasts, Senate Democrats refused.

“We want oil and gas companies to drill on the leases they’ve been given,” Reid said. He also wants oil companies to report to Congress their activities on their leased tracts.

It was not long ago that Senator Reid and other senate Democrats had oil company executives before committee hearings to explain why oil prices are so high and expected them to say it was their fault. The news media as might be expected jumped on the band wagon blaming oil companies for the situation – and why not, they all received the memo from the Democrat Party with marching orders about this. However, as the facts came out, largely due to the internet and conservative talk show hosts, the argument of oil company responsibility became increasingly implausible.

This of course this then required Democrats to find another scapegoat to blame so that attention would be distracted from for their part in causing high oil prices; enter the “speculators.”

Democrats blame market speculators on oil industry futures for propping up oil prices, and are drafting a bill to target the practice. When the Senate votes on that bill, Reid said he would not allow amendments dealing with oil drilling which the Republicans will almost certainly attempt.

Democrat presidential candidate, Barack Obama, is setting the pace for Democrat inaction on oil drilling because he too opposes lifting the offshore-drilling ban. Incredibly, Obama said through a spokesman that “It would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for 30 years”; conveniently ignoring the fact that the practices of the past years failed because of Democrat obstructionism. To his credit, Senator John McCain reversed his support for the ban and has said that boosting supplies will help bring down soaring oil and gas prices.

The only sensible comments about the issue in the senate were by Republicans. “Senator Lamar Alexander said “The key to bringing down record-high gas prices is to find more American energy, as well as use less. After today’s announcement by the president, the only hurdle left to beginning offshore exploration is congressional action, and it’s time for the Democratic leadership to listen to the millions of Americans who are demanding we begin today.”

New Mexico Republican Senator Pete Domenici called Reid a “chicken” for not allowing votes on oil drilling. “Does it seem to you like it does to me like Harry Reid is either scared chicken to have a vote, or has he decided that he’s going to dictate to the United States Senate?” That’s really a silly question senator, isn’t that what Democrats do in congress when they have majorities?

Domenici added “Does it seem to you like it does to me like Harry Reid is either scared chicken to have a vote, or has decided that he’s going to dictate to the United States Senate?”

Lamar Alexander said it all: “Any serious proposal to deal with $4 gasoline prices has to include finding more American energy … and Senator Reid is not willing to do that.”

Of course Democrat idiocy is not confined to the senate. Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on President Bush’s announcement lifting the executive ban on drilling in protected coastal areas:

“Once again, the oilman in the White House is echoing the demands of Big Oil. The Bush plan is a hoax. It will neither reduce gas prices nor increase energy independence. It just gives millions more acres to the same companies that are sitting on nearly 68 million acres of public lands and coastal areas. If the President wants to bring down prices in the next two weeks, not the next two decades, he should free our oil by releasing a small portion of the more than 700 million barrels of oil we have put in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It’s time to tell the oil industry: ‘You already have millions of acres to drill. Use it or lose it.’”

What will it take for Americans to understand that Democrats are really responsible for the high gas prices; not the oil companies, not the speculators, not the Bush administration and not most Republicans (only those Rhinos who share the wacky environmental ideology that puts people last in the food chain)?

Pelosi, like all Democrats in leadership positions believes that if you make a shrill attacking statement, no matter how ridiculous, the American people will buy it and salute their party. We can only hope Americans deep down are too intelligent to accept that; if not, we are in for a long ride to “never, never land.”

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.

As someone who finds more receptivity from internet news sites, I admit I may be a bit biased in the answer to this question. However, looking at my local paper, and yours is probably pretty much the same, I see almost all the national news is from the Associated Press and therein lays the problem.

It is almost impossible to find an AP source article that does not have a liberal and/or Democrat Party spin. For example, in Sunday’s paper there is an article with the heading “Obama fully embraces contrasts with McCain.” Not only is the heading misleading because Obama has actually shifted to some of McCain’s views, but the body of the article seems as if it were written by an Obama staffer.

Obviously it would be possible to cite numerous AP articles as examples but time and space do not permit so I will stay with this one.

This “news” article (note it is on page 2 not on the opinion page) starts with a paragraph as follows:

“Barack Obama has found something that eluded him during the primary season – contrast. And he’s basking in it.”

To emphasize the writer’s point (this AP article is written by Liz Sidoti but she should not be blamed for the newspaper’s placement of it), one of the top paragraphs says:

“In McCain, the likely Democrat(ic) nominee faces an opponent who is the opposite of him in every way – an Iraq war backer who supports free market economics, opposes abortion rights and is a Republican. Obama delights in pointing out the differences, and does so often.”

So from this we can assume (1) there are no similarities in the views of Obama and McCain; (2) Ms. Sidoti didn’t get the memo where Obama says “mental stress” should not be a reason for abortion and; (3) Obama does not support “free market economics”.

Note to Ms. Sidoti and Mr. Obama: the United States IS all about free market economics. Anyone that does not favor a free market and capitalism is in the wrong country and certainly should not be running for president.

But I digress; let’s continue with this AP “news article.” How is this for something right out of the Obama campaign book?

Apparently quoting from Obama since the paragraph is in quotes:

“’If you are satisfied with the way things are going now, then vote for John McCain,”’ Obama says before rattling off a list of current concerns, home foreclosures and job losses as the country fights two wars. Then Obama promises ‘fundamental change.’”

Obviously the reader is supposed to assume McCain is somehow responsible for foolish loans taken out by the imprudent, job losses where unemployment is still lower than it was for many years before, and McCain financed the two wars all by himself while Democrats had majorities in both the House and Senate.

I could go on and on but you get the point; the AP article is anything but real news. Obama campaign headquarters could post this article right next to the Che Guerra flag on the wall and it would not be out of place.

If you want real news and opinion commentary clearly labeled as such and don’t know where to go, Google the title of this and other articles on my blog, or stay with the site carrying this article.

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.

Islamists have it all over everyone else in the art of intimidation using freedom in western civilization as a weapon in the battle to rule the world. One reason this practice has been successful is that civilized societies cannot comprehend a doctrine so pervasive in its goal to take over the world that so many non Muslims are unwilling to accept that we are in a war of different worlds. The threat is not extra terrestrial; it is a real threat by real people.

To followers of Islam there is but one goal; replace all other religions and governments with Islam and Sharia law. In this there is no compromise, there are no rules, and everything is allowed to achieve success.

We are the victims of our own tolerance and “political correctness.” Everywhere we are told that we should not offend anyone with words or deeds while Muslims are not limited by the same rules. Curiously, criticism and lampooning the Christian religion is not out of bounds in art or politics but Islam is to be protected by law and custom from such behavior. Disgusting art denigrating Christ and symbols of Christianity are tolerated but cartoons of Mohammed elicit violence and mayhem without any organized and effective control of such actions.

Responsible for this situation, at least in part, is that the news media is filled with misinformation about Islam. Despite untold acts of atrocities by Muslims, Islam is still regarded in many circles as “a religion of Peace”; how absurd is that?

In Islamic countries the non Muslims are treated like second or fifth class people and their populations are decreasing enormously. Countries that had significant numbers of Jews and Christians a century ago now have almost none. There are a handful of Jews left in Iraq. The Copts in Egypt are now only about 8% of Egypt’s population. Where did they go? They converted or went to the West.

Political Islam says that we live in “dar al harb”, the land of war. Proof that we live in the land of war is found in the refugees from jihad here in America. They are invisible; only a few like Nonie Darwish and Brigitte Gabriel are willing to risk their lives to bring out the truth about Islam and though their audiences are growing they pale in comparison to the numbers still unaware of the threat to freedom Islam poses. No one wants to know their history or Islamic horror. Actions of political Islam by jihad cause terrible suffering for the persecuted. Not only are their families and friends gone, but their cultures are gone too. The tragedy thrust upon these refugees is that no one wants to hear their stories. We must record and publicize their suffering to honor the dead and for use as weapons of war against Islamic imperialism.

We must develop all manner of propaganda: film, video and audio to inform the public about what faces the world if we continue to be complacent. Books are also an important tool but we must also have other sources of information such as a system of making films and videos that can implement our strategy of informing about the enemy abroad while confronting the enemy at home. This means that we need to engage in the effort not only through films and videos; we must address the financial culture and reveal the truth about Sharia banking and finance. We must also prepare propaganda that is directed towards the blue collar workers. None of the books written today are of any use for the working classes. Short audio MP3 files can be used for everybody.

While we take no or only limited action, political Islam has every single element of their strategy in place at the global, national, state, and local level. Organizations like CAIR (Council on Islamic-American Relations) are active both as lobbyists and plaintiffs in legal actions all over the country where anyone resists providing special treatment for Muslims so that they may continue “to practice their religion” in public institutions like schools, airports, places of employment and everywhere else that does not grant similar concessions to others.

There are four ways to discuss Islamic politics to show the world what Islam is really all about: history, current practice, Muslim’s personal behavior, and Islamic and Sharia doctrines. Islamic history of violence and subjugation is almost unknown to many and has been suppressed by our own media and government. Current knowledge is only what we see in the newspapers and on TV. This source is largely biased by the media elites never reporting the truth about Islam.

Judging Islam by any Muslim’s actions is not accepted by many. Misconceptions of Islam in the modern era can be challenged if people become better informed.

Islamic doctrine is precise and is easily learned. The good news is that Islam never deviates from its “playbook” doctrine. Therefore it is easy to understand what they do and what they will do next. We must become bigot-proof because any challenge will invite accusations of racism.

Presently Muslim and Muslim practices cannot be criticized but you can’t be a bigot in saying what Mohammed did and talking about Islamic politics. The facts of Islamic doctrine are shocking and repulsive. As long as we discuss doctrine we win. By informing the public when apologists discuss how bad the non Muslim world is, how bad Christians are, or how they know a “good” Muslim; remind them about Islamic doctrine and Islamic cruelties.

In the 1800’s America sent its Navy and Marines to fight the Barbary pirates in North Africa. But the Muslims never called their naval raiders “Barbary pirates.” They called them ghazis, sacred raiders. Naming them “pirates” showed that we “kafirs” (non Muslims) had no idea about the doctrine and history of Islam.

Even in the news these days the media report about intifada, and label it an uprising by the Palestinians against the Israelis. But the terms intifada, Palestinian, and Israeli are misnomers. The truer terms are jihad, Muslim and infidel (because Jews are non Muslims), if we follow the Koran. The doctrine of political Islam clearly states that jihad is to be waged by all Muslims against all Jews and other “kafirs.” Today is no different from 1400 years ago in Islam.

One writer put it this way: “The events of 9/11 are recorded in the West as an attack by terrorists. Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 attack, was a pious Muslim. He left a letter clearly stating his intentions: 9/11 was pure jihad. An attack is a single event, but jihad is a 1400-year continuous process. Therefore, a terrorist attack is not the same as jihad. Terrorism does not have the same meaning as jihad.”

We have been in a war declared by Islam for centuries. We have tried a strategy of appeasement without changing anything; we have recently tried empty threats and when that did not work we have pretended that if we are nice enough Islam will be nice. We refuse to believe the doctrine of political Islam. It just can’t be true.

We cannot fight a defensive war if we are to defeat Islam. The war must be offensive and fought with the idea of defeating Islam with such totality that, as Ariel Sharon said in his book ‘Warriors”, we instill in them a “psychology of defeat such that they come to believe they cannot win.” For far too long the West has believed that some form of defensive coexistence can work; it cannot. Such a practice against Islam has never worked for 1400 years and it won’t work now.

While Islam’s power grows daily, our government and others in the western world will not acknowledge there is a war against political Islam; instead we actually aid it through welfare, immigration and civil rights legislation. The time for appeasement is over. Those of us who understand Islam must band together to expose the enemy abroad and attack the enemy at home.

It is simple; we either fight or lose our civilization. Continuing denial and pacifism

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.

America’s Identity is being Erased:Companies/Governments Eager to Hand over America’s Innovations to Foreigners

When you look at someone, you should be able to pick up on some character traits. There was a time when the world looked at the United States and saw innovation, resourcefulness, creativity, independence, and determination.  America was a nation of go-getters and trend setters.  Sadly, much of that has been lost as America’s national identity is being erased as more and more companies seek to take jobs outside of the US or sell their companies to foreigners. These companies do this all in the name of staying afloat or to compete with rivals.  These people are okay with other countries coming into America and stripping her bare. America no longer represents what we were in the past.

What is uniquely American anymore? What kind of America will we leave our children and grandchildren? Is there an American company that will not cave in to the pitfalls of outsourcing or giving away their cherished company to foreign investors?

Anheuser-Busch is one such company that stood its ground, but eventually, caved. They caved following the bullying from InBev, a Belgian company (after they threatened to rid Anheuser-Busch of its board because of their lack of response to InBev’s proposed bid) and after a substantial amount of money was offered–$52 billion. I still ask, where is the pride? 

A few Americans heard of the potential buyout, and protested.  If only Americans would be so agitated as to speak out in protest of other jobs disappearing overseas. Too many American companies are being lost.

To give one an idea of how dire the situation is, below is a list of American companies and infrastructure that have been handed over to foreigners:

-Nestle Toll House (cookie idea started in the US, but is now Swiss owned)

-Church’s Chicken (owned by an Arabic company)

-French’s Mustard (yes Americans started this brand. It’s now British owned)

-Dial soap (German owned)

-The Plaza Hotel in NYC (now Israeli owned)

-7-11 (Japanese owned)

-The Flatiron Building in Manhattan, NY (now Italian owned)

-Chicago Midway Airport (deal in the works to lease the airport for 50 years. There are five noted parties interested that are foreign…French, Spanish, Canadian, German, and Australian)

-Pennsylvania Turnpike (looking into possibly leasing the turnpike for 75 years…)

-Indiana Toll Road (leased to Cintra of Spain and Macquarie of Australia for 75 years)

-Chicago Skyway (under a 99 year lease, again with Cintra and Macquarie) 

-Planned Trans-Texas Corridor (Spain’s Cintra is working on this project)

-Our Ports (just 2 years ago, Dubai Ports World sought to have control of several ports across America which resulted in a firestorm of controversy)

Sadly, the above list represents only a few examples of American identity, ingenuity, and creativity being handed over to foreigners.

To those companies who haven’t sold out yet: What we do today definitely affects our children’s future.  Will our future tell us that we are still a proud country of Americans or will we have lost our country and everything we’ve worked hard for in the past?

What happened to the will of Americans to not give up or give in, even if it means one must go down fighting?

Why the rush to sell out to foreigners just to keep a company afloat or to increase a company’s share value in the stock market?

Why give it all away while under pressure from foreigners or for the right amount of money? 

Even money man Warren Buffet backed the sale of Anheuser-Busch and was to meet with the CEO to pressure the sale to InBev.  The motivator in all of this of course, is greed.

We must have a conscience as to what America once represented and what we will likely see in a future America. It’s not looking good.  America’s identity is slowly eroding.

Related Reading

InBev buys Bud for $52 bln to be top world brewer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080714/bs_nm/anheuser_inbev_dc

American Icons that are Foreign Owned

http://money.aol.com/special/american-icons-that-are-foreign-owned

Hands off our Ports!  by Felicia Benamon

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/benamon/060306

Prior to sale of Anheuser-Busch: 

InBev May Seek to Oust Anheuser-Busch’s Directors

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=auIl2ggW71_8&refer=us

Buffet backs Budweiser sale

http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/topstocks/archive/2008/06/17/it-s-over-folks-buffet-backs-budweiser-sale.aspx?PageIndex=2

*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

In an Associated Press article released July 6, Joseph Murphy informs us that the final shipment of Saddam’s 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium has arrived at Montreal, Canada, to be processed into electricity producing nuclear fuel. This must come as a shock to many Americans who had the impression that Saddam had no WMDs or nuclear program.

After all, isn’t that what the Democrats and the so called “news media” have been telling us ever since John Kerry was running for president? Never mind about the satellite photos of truck convoys and Russian agents assisting in the removal and transportation of chemical weapons from Saddam’s weapons depots to Syria during the run-up to the war.

Never mind about the testimony of Gen. Georges Sada, one of Saddam’s top generals, who described how chemical weapons were loaded aboard planes at the Baghdad airport and flown to Syria disguised as relief supplies for Syrian flood victims.

Never mind about the saran filled artillery shell, made into an IED, that exploded next to a U.S. troop convoy, but failed to mix the chemicals properly because it hadn’t spun as it would when fired from a cannon. And just forget about those 500 chemical warfare artillery shells found in an ammo dump and destroyed by U.S. troops.

Never mind about the underground bunker found by our troops, filled with barrels of pesticide, the precursor for saran. And should I mention the nuclear components and bomb plans found buried in the back yard of Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi?

Never mind about all the Iraqi Kurds in northern Iraq who were slaughtered by Saddam’s chemical weapons after the Gulf War, and the thousands of Iranians who were smothered by Saddam’s toxic chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war.

Never mind that less than a week before the November, 2004 election, the media was all over the story that hundreds of tons of HMX and RDX explosives were stolen from the Iraqi weapons depot at al Qaqaa. HMX and RDX are explosives used to make missile warheads and to detonate nuclear weapons. The U.S. Army was blamed for not protecting the installation from looters. The story appeared on John Kerry’s campaign website.

Just two days before the election it was revealed that the HMX and RDX had been removed by an Army Ordinance unit attached to the 3rd U.S. Infantry Division and destroyed along with 400,000 tons of weapons and ammunition already collected. The story mysteriously disappeared from Kerry’s website and the media.

No sooner had John Kerry begun using the lie that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction as a wedge issue in his campaign against George W. Bush, it became the conventional wisdom of the lamestream media to support Kerry in his lies. The public must not learn of anything that could dispute Kerry’s claims if the Democrat candidate, supported by most of the media, was to have a chance of becoming president.

But as if it wasn’t enough to mislead the public about Saddam’s chemical weapons, the media all but ignored one of the biggest WMD discoveries of all time in Iraq - the 550 tons of yellowcake uranium located just south of Baghdad at the al Tuwaitha nuclear research and development site, the same site that housed Saddam’s nuclear reactor that was destroyed by Israelis just as it was about to go online in 1981.

“The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans,” writes Murphy.

The news here isn’t that Saddam had 550 tons of yellowcake uranium. It’s not even that the uranium ore has finally been shipped to Canada. The real news story is that the Associated Press, a source of many media news articles, has now admitted that Saddam did have a nuclear program, only they are about 4 years late in reversing their position and informing their readers of the truth.

Those of you who have been following my newsletters since 2004 may think this yellowcake story sounds a little familiar. You would be right. In August of 2004 I sent out just such a newsletter containing the following article:

(excerpt only)
Saddam’s Uranium Cache: 142 Potential Nuclear Weapons

By Steve Roeder
Talon News
August 10, 2004

LONDON (Talon News) — Five hundred metric tons (1,100,000 lbs) of milled uranium oxide (yellowcake, U3O8) stored at Saddam Hussein’s al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons research laboratory near Baghdad could have been converted to enriched gaseous uranium hexafluoride, UF6. This amount of yellowcake could produce up to 142 nuclear weapons, prominent British physicist Norman Dombey has determined.

I added the following postscript at the bottom of the article:

It should be noted that the stockpiles of uranium in this report were removed from Iraq 2 days before the transfer of sovereignty. This was a barely noticed, or non existent news item as the mainstream media would have had to admit that it did exist and all of their erroneous reporting and Bush bashing over the issue would have to be retracted. Did anyone see any retractions?

At the time, it was reported that the yellowcake had been removed just prior to the transfer of sovereignty. Apparently this was not so. The AP reports that this was a “secret” operation. Perhaps the shipping of the uranium to Canada was a secret, but its existence in Iraq was certainly no secret, except to those who depend on the mainstream media to keep them informed on the news.

Democrats and the media continued to promote the lie that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear program or materials, that he wasn’t a threat to the U.S., the Mideast, or the free world, and that invading Iraq to remove Hussein was a mistake.

Now the AP has admitted that Saddam, in fact, did have a nuclear program but stopped short of mentioning the covert nature of the program that concealed it from U.N. inspectors well past the turn of this century. A program that was just waiting to be restarted as soon as western inspectors were out of the country and out of the way.

It’s not always what the media tells you, but more often, what the media doesn’t tell you that matters. If it’s harmful to the Democrat agenda, you probably won’t read or hear about it in the media.

When President Bush mentioned in his 2003 State of the Union Address that British intelligence had reported attempts by Saddam Hussein to secure yellowcake uranium from Niger, former Ambassador, Joseph Wilson, claiming to having been sent by Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, went chasing off to Niger to investigate.

Of course his predetermined conclusion - that no such attempt to purchase had occurred - was published in the New York Times in an article entitled “What I didn‘t find in Africa,” but should have been titled, “How I failed my country in my mission to Africa.”

The article, and then the Democrats, amplified by the media, began accusing Bush of lying. It was no lie; the British intelligence report did exist, and so did the yellowcake in Iraq. Whether the uranium was purchased by Saddam recently, or before the Gulf War doesn’t really matter. What matters is that he had it and would someday use it. Later, a Senate Committee investigating Wilson’s story concluded that Wilson lied about what he “didn’t” find in Niger.

Had it not been for the investigative efforts of people working outside of the mainstream media, we would have never known that Wilson was not sent by the Vice President’s office, but rather by the supervisor of his CIA wife, Valerie Plame, at her request. This resulted in a witch hunt investigation to find out who in the White House had “outed” an alleged covert CIA agent.

Two years later, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice in the investigation for failing to remember the proper sequence of events of two years prior, and was sentenced to a prison term, which was later commuted by the president. No one was convicted of outing Valerie Plame because no crime had been committed, but liberal media distortions of the story left the impression in many minds that Libby had been convicted of outing Plame only because the investigation, targeting Bush and Cheney, failed to uncover any evidence that they were involved.

The AP article by Joseph Murphy sums it up this way:

A CIA officer, Valerie Plame, claimed her identity was leaked to journalists to retaliate against her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote that he had found no evidence to support assertions that Iraq tried to buy additional yellowcake from Niger.

A federal investigation led to the conviction of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Murphy points out that Libby was convicted of unrelated procedural crimes, but fails to mention that the real culprit, the actual leaker of Plame’s identity, Richard Armitage of the State Dept., was known from the very beginning of the investigation.

$80 million of tax payers money was wasted on this political witch hunt to try to bring down the Bush Administration and turn over voters to the Democrats. The media didn’t tell you that but instead led you to believe this was all about White House leaks and protecting agents of the CIA.

This media has no problem with leaking national security secrets that harm our country and put intelligence gathering on terrorists at risk. These leaks are featured on the front page, above the fold, in the New York Times, Washington Post, and others as well as the evening news on every television news network. These same news outlets have no interest in leaking the identity of the person responsible for allegedly outing Valerie Plame, whose covert status had been discontinued 6 years prior.

Then more recently, and based on accusations by Democrat Congressman John Murtha who called our soldiers “murderers and baby killers” for fighting to defend themselves in Haditha, Iraq, the media had most of their readers convinced that the accused soldiers were guilty the day the story broke.

Some still believe it because the media haven’t made much of a point of telling them that they, and Murtha, were wrong and the soldiers involved in the incident, along with their commander, have been exonerated in court and released from custody, except for one who is expected to be released.

Nor did the media report that the accuser was an American-hating Iraqi insurgent posing as a ’civil rights” official, who knew he could use the American media to condemn the soldiers.

Today, what we’re hearing from these same Democrats and media shills is “We can’t drill our way out of high gas prices.” They tell us it’s going to take 10 years or more to get any oil from new wells to the gas pump, and even then it will only lower prices by a few cents. Meanwhile, oil company executives tell us that it will take only 5 years, and investors tell us that just the news that we intend to increase oil production will start to bring prices down significantly.

The Democrats and their media tell us that oil companies should be drilling on federal leases they already hold, but aren’t. The oil executives tell us it makes no sense to drill in previously leased areas where they know there is little or no oil to be extracted. They know where the large oil reserves are and that is where they want to go. Democrats continue to block them from those areas in Alaska and offshore.

The left media continually fail to mention this in their reports and insists that oil companies should be exploring for oil where little, or no oil exists.

Democrats tell us they can fix the high gas prices by taxing the oil companies, suing OPEC, putting the country on an energy diet, and investing in wind and solar power. The media repeat their mantra over and over again. They have already succeeded in changing the subject from motor fuel to electric energy. We will not get one drop of gasoline, diesel, or aviation fuel from a windmill or solar panel. We need gasoline and diesel, and we need it as soon as we can get it.

If we can’t get it for 5 years to come, then so be it. But that’s better than waiting 20 to 30 years for speculative “green” electric power while gas prices continue to rise. We don’t need more electricity nearly as much as we need more oil, but somehow the debate has turned to “energy” instead of oil.

Democrats and the media are telling us that we must stop using petroleum-based fuels because it’s causing global warming, it’s making us sick, and it’s killing the planet. Harry Reid is telling us that we have been putting CO2 up into the atmosphere for the past century and it’s built up to dangerous levels. That is simply not so.

What goes up must come down when it’s heavier than air. A CO2 molecule is many times heavier than either nitrogen or oxygen, which makes up 99% of our atmosphere. Carbon dioxide doesn’t stay up in the atmosphere, it falls back to the ground over time and feeds the plant life. The media don’t tell you that.

In not doing so, they are simply compounding one lie upon another, and CNN calls itself “The most trusted name in news?” I would trust a news organization that tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. We don’t get that from the Democrats, nor from their allies in the liberal news media today.

If this hogwash disguised as news is what most people trust to be the truth, then our country is in real trouble and the propagandists of the Democrat party have won the battle for public opinion. They have proven themselves to be the most effective liars in history by using all of the tools provided by Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin: “A lie told often enough becomes the truth in the minds of the people.”

Want proof? Just look at how many people are reported to believe that man is causing global warming. I personally don’t know any who believe that, but the media trumpets this propaganda as though it was a proven fact. Then they have the audacity to tell the American people that we need to sacrifice our American way of life, and our economy, to combat it and “save the planet.” Hogwash!

And this is the media, and the political party, to which most Americans want to entrust our economy, national security, and the running of our country to - according to them - the media! They tell us that Democrats will sweep the 2008 elections while taking little notice of the Democrat led congressional approval rating now at an all time low of 9%.

Why would the country want to elect and reelect a political party who 91% of Americans believe is doing a rotten job? It’s just more media spin to try to persuade people to vote for the perceived winner in November, and a desperate attempt by the media to save a failed Democrat party and their misguided policies. The media know that they only have to fool 51% of the voters to save their beloved Democrat party.

Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it. Then you’re going to discover why people, fed up with high taxes, government oppression and regulation, left Europe and moved to America to establish freedom and liberty. After a few years of Democrat control of the country, the descendants of those immigrants are going to be going back to Europe in disgust and disappointment with American big government interference in their lives.

The Democrat party has been beholden to radical environmentalists for many years - a group of tree huggers who have no concept of what their policies would do to our quality of life and our economy. Might it not be better for all concerned if the “greens” would confine themselves to the Green Party instead of trying to run the country by proxy through the Democrat Party?

Then the Democrats and the media could get back to supporting American values and being good patriotic Americans like they used to be many years ago before they started trying to replace our Constitution with a socialist platform and laws written to benefit only the special interest groups on the left.

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, American Truckers At War, and other conservative websites. JR can be contacted at http://www.greatamericanjournal.com/contact.htm.

There are two states on opposite sides of the nation where, if something really stupid can be proposed, they represent the most fertile ground. I speak, of course, of New Jersey and California.

I happen to know a lot more about New Jersey since I am born, raised, and still residing here in my old age despite all the hype about retiring in Florida. I hold a degree from the University of Miami, Coral Gables, so I have fulfilled my Florida quota, but if you want a front row seat to idiocy, there is no better place than my home state or California.

In early July some of the Democrat heavy hitters who run New Jersey joined U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. in an event to lambaste the notion of actually permitting the exploration and extraction of oil way, way off the coast of New Jersey. On the podium was Governor Jon Corzine and both of New Jersey’s Senators, Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez. If mendacity has a particular odor to it, the stench of this event is probably still lingering over Belmar.

“We are really talking about something that is irrelevant to the overall dependency on oil,” said Pallone. “What we need to do is (to) be moving to alternative energies and most importantly (to) conservation.” Referring to the effort in Congress to permit the use of our own national oil and natural gas resources from the continental shelf and elsewhere, Pallone said, “I can’t think of an idea whose time is less appropriate than this one.”

Meanwhile, anyone filling up their automobile gas tank that day was paying out $4.00 per gallon for the privilege. In fact, there was a rumor going around that quite a few Americans were upset over the failure of Congress to permit some—any—degree of energy independence.

That might account for the historic single-digit disapproval rating for Congress that was announced shortly after Pallone and his pals got through bloviating about the evils of oil.

How does one go about achieving “conservation” of oil if, at the same time, the entire nation depends on it to get anywhere?

By conservation, one must assume that Pallone and the rest of the Democrats mean leaving it untapped and thus requiring Americans to import it from other countries.

Pallone raised the tired bogyman of an offshore oil mishap that would harm the pristine beaches of New Jersey, but failed to mention the many offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico that withstood Hurricane Katrina without a single mishap. Indeed, they fared much better than the city of New Orleans. Meanwhile, Sen. Menendez raised the specter of California beaches—he’s from Jersey City—allegedly destroyed by a spill long ago. I personally have been to the beach in Santa Monica and all I saw was a lot of people enjoying it.

Sen. Lautenberg, a man who, if reelected, will be 548 years old by the end of his next term complained that, “A plan to drill here is no plan at all. It’s a handout, simply a handout to the oil companies. It’s a terrible idea. And drilling will do nothing to cut today’s gas prices.” Apparently, like the entire Democrat Party, the Senator has never heard of the immutable law of supply and demand.

He’s also wrong about cutting today’s prices. If these morons had gathered to announce that leases had been granted to explore and extract oil from offshore New Jersey, the price of oil in the world’s mercantile exchanges would definitely respond. Every time a new reserve of oil is found, the price of this global commodity reflects the potential of a new supply. The price per barrel drops.

The newspaper report of the event did not quote Gov. Corzine, but he is so in the tank for “alternative” energy that the prospect of offshore oil must keep the man up at night. Let’s assume he thinks the idea of oil rigs offshore (most would be completely out of sight of land) is a very bad idea.

So why is Gov. Corzine a vocal proponent of vast fields of wind turbines whirling their blades around (but only when the wind is blowing) in full sight of beachgoers? Corzine is positively crazed for wind farms, particularly if they are located offshore.

One proposal in March of this year envisioned the construction of up to 118 wind turbines “rising hundreds of feet above the water.” The project costs are estimated at more than $1 billion and, for the record, there are no offshore wind farms operating in the United States. One such proposal that would have spoiled the view from the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, Massachusetts was opposed by that famous family and a coalition of local residents.

So the Democrat political equation is oil rigs, bad. Wind turbines, good. Only you can’t run your car on wind power. In fact, wind and solar power combined provide less than 5% of all the electricity generated in America.

The issue facing Americans these days is oil, oil, oil. We have lots of it if Congress will just let the oil companies explore and drill for it in desolate places like ANWR or difficult places like the ocean deeps.

“Every time we try something to create energy independence,” said Pallone, “We are fought tooth and nail by these oil guys.”

If you combined all the oil resources owned by the investor-owned oil companies, it would constitute about 4% of the world’s known oil reserves. These are the same companies that pay billions in taxes to the federal and state governments every year and, so far as the Democrats are concerned, they are the problem.

The citizens of New Jersey actually have it in their power to replace Sen. Lautenberg in the upcoming national elections. Do you think they will do it? Do you think they are going to vote for Sen. Obama? At least the Governor of Florida, like John McCain, has decided offshore oil rigs are not such a bad thing after all. Oh, wait, I forgot. Those guys are Republicans.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com. He blogs at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com.

   

-By Warner Todd Huston

A few days ago I posted a story on a recent article in the New York Sun by Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow at The Hudson Institute, that focused on how the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) had not fully funded the pension plan of their rank and file members while they had over funded the pension plan of the Union’s chief officers.

Well, today at noon (CT) I was included as part of a conference call on the pending release of the full study upon which that earlier article in the Sun was based, written by by Diana Furchtgott-Roth. This study reviews 21 — the SEIU included — of the largest unions in the country to see where pension solvency stood in general. The results are shocking.

The Hudson study found that by 2005, the last full year of reports filed, 21 of the nation’s biggest unions show that their rank and file members’ pensions are only funded at an appalling 67.7%. Conversely, the pension funds of the union bosses are funded at a much better 88.3%. So, the union bosses — all of who have a separate pension fund than their own rank and file members — have made sure THEIR pensions are funded at a much higher rate than that of their own members. Needless to say, the union bosses administer both their own and the rank and file members’ funds.

The SEIU is particularly egregious in that the union bosses have a pension funded at 103% while to poor rank and file members are only at a paltry 75% funded.

For their part, the SEIU in particular claims that the Hudson Institute numbers are off and that the 2005 numbers no longer apply. The SEIU claims that they have improved their pension status since then and fault the study from Hudson as old news. They also said that those 2005 numbers weren’t correct in any case.

In reply to that criticism during the conference call, Diana Furchtgott-Roth said that the 2005 numbers are the most current numbers on file with the Federal government and that the various unions have not fulfilled their reporting requirements for any more up to date information. (On that note, I have to say this is a situation that is intolerable. These unions are dragging their feet in the reporting duties to the Gov’t, duties that are mandated by law. Also, these reporting requirements are something that Barack Obama has pledged to try to eliminate for his union supporters should he become president. If it were up to Obama the unions wouldn’t have to disclose anything!)

Diana Furchtgott-Roth did ask a pertinent question about the SEIU’s reported 2005 pension numbers. The SEIU claims the numbers did not reflect the pension fund status even in 2005, as mentioned. This caused Furchtgott-Roth to wonder why the SEIU reported fraudulent numbers on their required report to the Feds? It seems unlikely that they would have violated Federal law and supplied false numbers. We can but take their report at face value.

In any case, the Hudson Institute will unveil the full report tomorrow so that we might all take a look at their stats.

One thing that the study does show, however, is that the unions care a lot about the pensions of their own high officers but not very much about that of the poor rank and file membership.