Today, when we watch the courageous actions of women who stand for conservative values in this country, we often bring up names like Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin. These women often gallantly rebuke the feminist fallacies and liberal lies of today in ways that make people proud not just to be men or women, but proud to be Americans.

It is not just their smiles, their wit, their skirts, or their grit that make these women ladies of interest, but the culmination of these tantalizing factors with the all-important center-piece of conservative values that make their thoughts, struggles, and victories interesting to the world and of value to public discourse.

As is the case with men, the women of today who champion conservative values owe a great deal to the stalwarts that precede them. Those that have not only battled the socialistic minions of their times, but have also forged a historic path that leads to defeating enemies of freedom with superior values. Despite my ever-eager desire to highlight Americans in these positions of distinction, when it comes to a contemporary display of leadership through conservative values, much can be gained by remembering the work of England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Thatcher became the prime minister in the 1980’s during an economic slump and period of national malaise. Her party name, “The Conservative Party,” was a reflection of her values, and she spent her time fighting the trade unions and championing her beliefs in the free market. If you take a stroll among the video archives of the many interviews Thatcher took part in with the liberal mouth pieces of the 1980’s, you see the same classic confrontations as today: apathy vs. innovation, victimization vs. accountability, and pessimism vs. optimism.

Despite being the first female prime minister in the country’s history, there was never a concern of whether or not she could carry the mantle of power in England, and her strong verbal debates during the rambunctious procedures within the House of Commons contributed to her nickname “Iron Lady.” While some in England floundered on the issue of fighting communism, Margaret Thatcher acted with bold clarity on her belief in the dangers of the Red Menace and stood against the Soviet Union for the betterment of her country. Unlike the flaccid nature found within the U.S. administration today, Thatcher refused to embolden the terrorists of her time by showing fear and apathy. Even after narrowly escaping an assassination attempt by IRA terrorist bombers on October 12, 1984, at the Grand Hotel in Brighton, England, Thatcher never flinched in her stance on strong national security.

There is little wonder that a leader of such quality would find an ally such as Ronald Reagan. Reagan, who was also rejuvenating a nation suffering from recession and liberal dysfunction, together with Thatcher, did more than perpetuate a continual relationship between countries that have shared so much history together; they showed the world the economic and social rewards of flowing conservative values.

Thatcher spoke at length about the values of personal responsibility and standing up for what you believe in, and she embodied her beliefs for her terms as prime minister of England. It could be argued that beyond the grit of Winston Churchill, the Union Jack has never flown with such bold grace in modern times as it did under the guidance of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a truly remarkable woman.

Paul A. Ibbetson is a former Chief of Police of Cherryvale, Kansas, and member of the Montgomery County Drug Task Force. Paul received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his PhD. in sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of the books Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society and Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World. Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008 and 2009 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 f.m. www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact ibbetson91.9@gmail.com

SILENT HOLOCAUST OF CHRISTIAN MARTYRS — A WARNING OF THINGS TO COME?
International News Analysis Today
www.inatoday.com

January 13, 2010
By Toby Westerman
A silent holocaust of Christian martyrs is taking place around the world. While individual instances of murder and mayhem are sometimes reported, the general pattern of violence is ignored by the media, the United Nations, and most national governments. The perpetrators belong primarily to one of two groups: fundamentalist Islamists or Communist-controlled governments.
Despite ideological differences, Islamic militants and Communist ideologues share a characteristic hostility to Christianity. Muslim fundamentalists cannot abide any worship of God but their own, and the various brands of Communists, reformed and otherwise, recognize the threat posed by Christians who profess God as the center of their lives, not a totalitarian police state.
MUSLIM “TOLERATION”
The burning of several Catholic Churches in Malaysia, the deaths of Coptic Christians shot following midnight Mass outside their church, police raids in Saudi Arabia against private prayer groups, all testify to the type of “toleration” employed by Muslim fundamentalists.
The stated cause in each of the instances noted above was different, but every attack had the same result: death and mayhem.
In Malaysia, considered a modern, progressive Muslim Asian nation, the initial dispute which led to violence concerned the use of the term “Allah” — God in Arabic — by a Catholic newspaper. Islamic fundamentalists demanded that only Muslims use “Allah,” and employed fire bombs against churches and a convent to make their point.
In Egypt, allegations that a Christian man raped a Muslim woman resulted in the murder of seven Coptic Christians and an attempt to kill the area’s Coptic bishop. The deadly assault took place about 60 miles from the ancient temple site of Luxor, a popular tourist attraction.
The Coptic Church traces its roots back to St. Mark, and the word Coptic goes back to the Greek term for Egyptian. The Coptic Christians are the remnant of the original population of Egypt before the Arab Muslim conquest in 641 A.D. Egypt was once a Christian nation with a large population served by 50 bishops spread across the nation.
The Copts are acknowledged to be a small percent of Egypt’s present population, but the exact number is unknown. Political pressure from fundamentalist Muslims prevents the Egyptian government accurately counting the Copts, a tactic which assures that Egypt’s Christians will continue to have little influence in that nation.
The Egyptian government also actively assists in spreading anti-Christian propaganda. A recently released “scientific report” issued by a state-owned corporation described Christianity as “idolatry” and “a religion of polytheism.”
The women of the Coptic community are still the targets of rape, abduction, forced marriage to Muslim men and forced conversion to Islam. This is a pattern of brutality toward Christian women which began shortly after the seventh century Muslim conquests and has continued to this day.
In Saudi Arabia, a nation where no Christian church is allowed, the country’s religious police are ever on the alert for non-Muslim religious activity, including private expressions of prayer. Private group Bible readings and praying run afoul of strict religious edicts. Even Filipino guest workers, who perform menial tasks for wealthy Saudi families, are in danger if they attempt to pray as they did in their homeland.
While instances of Muslim persecution of Christian believers are documented from Nigeria to Indonesia, no where is Christian martyrdom more tragic and ironic than in post-Saddam Iraq.
After the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 the Christian population was estimated at about one million. Unfortunately for Christians, the post-Saddam era gave the Muslim majority a taste of democratic rule without the American provisions of a popularly accepted version of the U.S. Bill of Rights. Unrelenting attacks on Iraqi Christians have caused between 400,000 and 500,000 Iraqi Christians to flee Iraq, and many of those remaining are internal refugees – displaced citizens in their own nation, fearful of returning to their homes.
POLITICAL OPPRESSION
Politically inspired oppression of Christians remains a constant feature of the Communist world, despite the “reforms” reported in the centralized media following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The most significant crime of Christians is that they deny the right of the state to dominate all aspects of human life.
In other words, the state is not God.
Marxists, however, do demand absolute control. The Vietnamese Communist bosses attempted to drive home this point when they ordered about 1,000 police to assist in the destruction of a large, century-old crucifix in a cemetery. Some of the faithful protested and were beaten, two were taken to a hospital where they were initially denied treatment. The parish priest and members of the congregation took the seriously injured victims to another hospital were they received aid.
In neighboring Laos, Communist government officials have described Christianity as a “foreign religion to be abhorred,” and threatened a group of Christians with death if they persisted in their beliefs
China will allow religious expression, but only if the government approves the religion. An official Catholic “patriotic” Church is permitted because it is submissive to the Communist Party line. The unofficial, and, therefore, unapproved, Catholic Church is under constant threat of attack. Parishioners, priests, and bishops all live with the possibility, and sometimes the frightening reality, of arrest, prolonged interrogation, and imprisonment. Members of Protestant house churches face a similar fate.
In the neo-Marxist state of Venezuela, virtual dictator Hugo Chavez has lashed out at Church criticism of his Communist regime and proclaimed the Catholic Church a “tumor” in Venezuelan society. Chavez has also described the Catholic clergy as “mental retards.”
In Cuba, tension persists between the Communist state operated by the Castro brothers and the Catholic Church. The visit of John Paul II in 1998 initially eased Communist oversight of religion, but all expressions of faith remain suspect, and all faithful Christians pose a potential danger to the shaky Communist island gulag.
In 2006, former Communist guerrilla Daniel Ortega returned to power in the Central American nation of Nicaragua. Once a target of U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s anti-Communist strategy, Ortega claims that he has renounced violence, but remains a fervent Marxist. True to recent Communist practice, Ortega is now attempting to put the Christianity at the service of government, and deny the Church any independence in respect to any political and social issue.
Ortega has encountered, however, the sometimes blistering opposition of Nicaragua’s bishops.
Ortega, who has also been accused of child abuse, attempted to use prayer as a wedge against the true concept of religion, and coyly issued to the bishops “an invitation to pray.”
Considering Ortega’s public and personal life, the “invitation” aroused understandable skepticism.
The reply of the bishops was a demand for social justice and human rights against the growing Communist dictatorship in Nicaragua. Silvio Jose Baez Ortega, the Auxiliary Bishop of Managua, declared that “Praying does not exempt you from speaking or working for justice,” and recommended that Ortega engage in an examination of conscience.
The vice president of the Nicaraguan bishops’ conference, Bishop Juan Abelardo Guevara, bluntly stated that it was “abominable” for Ortega “to use the word of the Lord to justify absurd positions.”
Catholic bishops are facing similar struggles in Ecuador and Bolivia, where Chavez clones are attempting to substitute faith for Communist Party doctrine, or to undermine Christian faith with appeals to “traditional” – pre-Colombian – religions whose leaders cooperate with the Marxist government.
It must be added that, while fundamentalist Muslims and Communists have been responsible for the great majority of present-day Christian martyrs, Hindu fanatics have also inflicted serious and ongoing suffering on Christians in India, attacking clergy, nuns, the faithful, and churches.
It is time for the U.S. mass media to acknowledge the persecution of Christians around the world, and to identify those who commit these crimes. We must recognize that the persecution of vulnerable Christian populations by militant Islamists and Communists is a herald of things to come for the remainder of humanity.
Mr. Toby Westerman is the editor and publisher of International News Analysis Today (www.inatoday.com) and author of LIES, TERROR, AND THE RISE OF THE NEO-COMMUNIST EMPIRE: ORIGINS AND DIRECTION

In August of 2008, I wrote about The Senate Mentality of John McCain, who was then the Republican candidate for president. In response to this article, I found myself in a discussion with some of my fellow writers and publishers over the McCain candidacy. My position was that I could not vote for McCain and could not encourage others to do so either.

But there was only one other choice, and that was Barack Obama. I certainly couldn’t vote for him, and for all the same reasons that I couldn’t vote for McCain but 10 times over. To try to deter an Obama disaster, I was told that I had to hold my nose and support McCain.

I made the point to my associates that the likely outcome of the general election would be that Obama would win against McCain and that we should consider the inevitable results – that with Democrats in control of both Congress and the White House, the country would finally be able to see exactly what their agenda is and what they are all about.

On the other hand, if somehow McCain pulled off a victory, it would be a huge loss for conservatives, and the Republican Party would be encouraged to continue moving even further to the left – leaving no hope for conservatives to have any representation in government for a very long time.

The only way to move the Republican Party back to its founding conservative principles would be to lose to the Democrats for lack of conservative support. As unpleasant as it would be for a few years, the end result would ultimately be the reestablishment of a conservative Republican Party. Although this idea didn’t go over well with my associates, it is exactly what is happening now.

While Republican Party leaders are beginning to recognize the value of conservative voters, they are also working toward restoring those conservative values to the party instead of being dragged ever further to the left and trying to be more like Democrats. Republican leaders are now learning the need to contrast with the Democrats, rather than appease and emulate them.

Democrat Party leaders are now dragging the Democrat Party directly into socialism and Marxism, which is not going over too well with the American people. Over the past few months we have been seeing Democrats losing elections and now dropping out of the race for the 2010 elections as a result of their socialist ideology.

Had McCain won the election, the Republican Party would be doing the same thing by compromising with the left and making nice with the Marxists in the Congress. Without contrast to the Democrat agenda, Republicans would be no better off now than they were in 2008. It has taken the disaster of Obama to make them realize that the future of the Republican Party points to the right, not to the left.

Lots of people today have little or no confidence in the leadership abilities of Barack Obama. Everyone has been asking, who’s running the show? – while Obama is out running around the country, still in campaign mode and making speeches. Who is giving orders to Obama while he is out playing front man? Whose policies are really being implemented in Washington? Is it David Axelrod‘s? Is it Rohm Emanuel‘s? Or is it George Soros‘?

If you think that Obama came up with the agenda that is being implemented today, think again. If you think someone behind the scenes is directing Obama, that would be wrong too.

The pieces are starting to come together now. There is no one person in charge and Obama is simply the mouthpiece of a larger regime. Who is setting the agenda? We have to look at who supported and funded the Obama campaign.

It is foreign investors. It’s the World Bank. It’s the IMF (International Monetary Fund). It’s the Federal Reserve bank. It’s Ban Ki-moon and the UN. It is the European Union. It is the Skull & Bones Society and the Bilderberg group. It is even King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and the Palestinians to some extent.

Rather than think of it as the plans of one man, think of it as an ideology like radical Islam. The al Qaeda organization is global but bin laden doesn’t call the shots, he just organizes and encourages terrorist cells around the world who share the same ideology. In a sense, bin Laden is very much like a community organizer.

But the ideology that Obama subscribes to is global socialism and communism. He takes his cues from many different special interests who all share his Marxist ideology and desire for global socialism. Nobody tells Obama what to do, instead they tell him what he should do to promote the ideology.

His objective is the same as the UN’s objective – global socialism and the destruction of capitalism and the American value system. And if Islam can be a part of that plan then more power to them. Islam is a useful tool in destroying American Christian values.

As I said, the pieces are starting to come together and the dots are being connected. We have to look not only at who Obama is taking advice from, but also who is benefiting from his policies.

So far, I have only mentioned the international components of the cabal of which Obama is just one part. I should also include the domestic components such as: SEIU, ACLU, the Soros funded Apollo Foundation, the UAW and AFL-CIO, ACORN, AIG, Bear Sterns, etc. They are all part of the global socialist cabal and led by liberal Democrats.

Understand – Obama is not the leader or the head of the cabal. He too is simply one component, but a very important component in his present position. Obama knows the objectives of the cabal, he needs his advisors only to advise him on how best to achieve them.

He doesn’t know squat about running this country, he knows only that he wants a global socialist world under one government. He shares that objective with those mentioned above in a “group think” kind of mentality. Kind of like a flock of birds, or an ant colony.

Although Obama was not brought into the Skull & Bones Society at Harvard University, he has connections to the group as well as close connections to the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign relations through his wife, Michelle, and close associates.

These groups are all global socialist organizations. I suspect they may have been involved in his grooming, especially in his adult years, but he was not inducted into Skull & Bones, I suspect, because his academic grades were not high enough. However, he came in contact with these people during his far left college years.

Obama is not the leader of the cabal because there is no one leader. That is the point I am making. It is a socialist cable of all that I have mentioned. I used the example of al Qaeda because Osama bin Laden, although the leader of his al Qaeda organization, is not the leader of all of the radical Islamist groups around the world. They just share the same radical Islamic beliefs and commit terrorism to promote the cause – not because they were ordered to, or directed by bin Laden.

They share a common philosophy, just as Obama does with the global socialist organizations and people. Obama is currently one component but will never rise to a more powerful position in the cabal once he is out of office. He is being used like a puppet to promote their goals.

99% of what Obama says publicly is scripted by his staff and speech writers. You don’t think he actually writes his own speeches do you? That is why he is so dependent on the teleprompter. He depends on others to put words in his mouth. In his own words, he is a “blank canvas” for other to project their thoughts onto. Or to put it another way, an empty suit.

This is a result of the man having no core principles compatible with the American people. Were he to express his own views – as he did to Joe the Plumber – he would be rejected by the vast majority of the American people.

The media, although they may not see things the same way as Obama, are in his corner and cover for him because of purely political affiliation reasons. They are liberals who hate Republicans. They are interested only in promoting the Democrat party, and for that reason, are reluctant to be critical of Obama.

So if you want to know who is commanding Obama, look no further than the special interests who financed his campaign and their special interest in global socialism. Obama is simply one spoke in the wheel of Marxism which is determined to take over the world and redistribute the wealth.

By Leon Weinstein

Please visit via the link below the Dec 30, 2009 entry into a Video Blog “My
love story with America”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oefeqCmuZRk

By Leon Weinstein

This video blog established in order to provide Americans with a view on the
current events from the point of view of a newcomer, an emigrant from the
Soviet Union. The entries will not be politically correct, and most probably
not self-censored.

Below is a link to an entry # 1 made on the Christmas Day of 2009:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhA1oIbPpcQ

If you felt a frisson of fear on news that the Senate had passed Obamacare the day before Christmas, then you now know what it was and is like to live in a dictatorship. The voice of the People was ignored in a demonstration of raw political power.

There was a time when Americans took Communism seriously. It challenged us in the form of the Soviet Union and we witnessed its takeover of China.

In Europe, uprisings against Soviet rule were crushed in East Germany in 1953, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Poland in the 1980s gave proof that only oppression can sustain this failed economic and political system. President Reagan gave voice to it when he called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.”

The McCarthy hearings in the 1950s proved a setback for efforts to learn how thoroughly infiltrated the U.S. government had become by Communists, not because Sen. Joseph McCarthy was wrong, but because he proved a poor spokesperson for the cause. He was easily criticized for his bombast, but the declassification of the Venona papers, secret communications between Soviet spymasters and their agents, revealed he may well have underestimated the threat.

Later, the Russian Federation declassified former Soviet spy agency records that further confirmed that many Americans, dedicated Communists, were working to undermine our government.

The price America paid in part for the Great Depression of the 1930s was the undermining of faith in the Capitalist system among many Americans.

Unions arose, not just in response to worker grievances, but also because their leaders were frequently sympathetic to Communism. The FDR and subsequent administrations introduced Social Security and Medicare, tapping into the fears of those who had experienced the Depression with programs that vastly expanded the federal government, characterizing them as the ultimate “safety net.” Then Congress plundered the trusts that were supposed to fund both programs. Both programs are insolvent.

A recent study by Paul Hollander, a professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and an associate at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University, was published by Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty & Prosperity. It is titled, “Reflections on Communism: Twenty Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall.”

The celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall earlier this year was attended by many world leaders with the notable exception of President Barack Obama. For a man who has visited more foreign nations in his first year in office than any previous President, the decision to avoid this significant anniversary was taken as one more signal of his true political and economic agenda.

We know that he was greatly influenced by Marxists or people who viewed Communism sympathetically, not the least of which were his grandparents who introduced him to a mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party USA.

Obama wrote that he was drawn to Marxists among his teachers in college. He began his political career in the home of former Weatherman Bill Ayers. These days he is praised by Communists in Cuba and Venezuela. He sided with a Leftist former president of Honduras who tried to illegally alter its constitution. The Hondurans had the courage to cast him out.

The specter of Communist subversion of the U.S. Constitution is staring us in the eye with the so-called healthcare “reform” of Medicare; it includes all manner of provisions that are unconstitutional and would expand federal government control over one-sixth of the nation’s economy. The bribery and thuggish pressures and threats against Democrat Senators and Representatives to pass the bill reveal a political leadership more devoted to ideology than the will of the People.

Specifically, President Obama’s drive for a single payer system is the direct result of the influence of Dr. Quentin Young, a retired physician with a long history of commitment to Communism. In 1995, Dr. Quentin was among those who met in the Hyde Park home of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn to launch Obama’s political career.

As Prof. Hollander points out in his study, “Not only individual intellectuals but entire professional associations have expressed favorable attitudes toward communist systems” citing the Latin American Studies Association that has “repeatedly taken positions supportive of Castro’s Cuba and Sandinista Nicaragua.” In 1990, the Organization of American Historians defeated a motion that expressed regret that the organization “never protested the forced betrayal of the historian’s responsibility to truth imposed upon Soviet and East European historians by their political leaders.”

The recent United Nations’ Climate Change Conference refused to take notice of the revelations that the data on which the “global warming” theory is based was falsified by a handful of meteorologists and climatologists in an effort to impose a global governing system. The interim first Secretary General of the UN was Alger Hiss, an American and secret Soviet agent

It did not escape notice that Venezuela’s communist dictator, Hugo Chavez, received a rousing ovation when he spoke at the conference or that President Obama continues to repeat the lies surrounding the discredited “global warming” fraud.

Virtually the entire agenda of American environmental organizations has been focused on an attack on private property rights and denying Americans access to their vast reserves of energy in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas, thus undermining U.S. growth and prosperity.

Unlike Prof. Hollander who escaped Hungary following the crushing of the 1956 revolution by Soviet forces, “Western intellectuals who remain attracted to communist ideals never had the disillusioning experience of living in an actual communist or socialist society.”

Among them we must number much of the nation’s media that has been a party to political and environmental deceptions, and the Hollywood community that has produced many films to influence public opinion about the earlier efforts to address Communist activities and later Green issues with a very Red agenda.

The Medicare “reform” expands “socialism” in America, but it is an example of naked Communism at work. It is a bill put together behind closed doors and so extensive its control of the lives of Americans literally determines who lives and who dies. It will wreck the best healthcare system in the world albeit one that has its flaws.

It is authoritarianism at work, the kind we associate with regimes in Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and everywhere else Communism has been imposed on captive nations.

Healthcare “reform” is not about uninsured Americans. It is not “socialism.” It is Communism, effectively putting the entire nation’s healthcare system under state control. It must be defeated just as past generations of Americans knew the threat of Communism and devoted the nation’s treasure and even their lives to defeat it.

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

Every member of congress has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I’m pretty sure they have now replaced that oath with a new oath to protect and defend Barack Obama. Obama, along with Al Gore, is promoting the greatest historical hoax since the Piltdown Man.

As you know, the EPA has declared carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas, and now, a gas hazardous to human life. Just see how long life on Earth would last without CO2.

All life would be gone in less than a generation. Plant life would no longer be able to grow and produce oxygen. The food chain would be disrupted causing mass starvation. The existing oxygen would be depleted within a few years and replaced with carbon dioxide from the animal life until they all die. The end of life on Earth would result from the elimination of CO2 from our atmosphere.

Fox News reports that a top White House economic official warned:

“If you don’t pass this [climate change] legislation, then … the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area. And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”

One must ask; when was the last time Congress regulated “on a market-based way?” Not since 2006 when there was at least some free-market common sense in Washington. This brings up two basic constitutional issues:

In the first place; the final clause in Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

That seems pretty clear in its wording. It simply says that [Congress] may make laws and create departments and federal agencies which shall be necessary for carrying out the enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

So the question is, just which enumerated power in the Constitution is relevant to the EPA? I find nowhere in the Constitution does it grant to the federal government the power to regulate the environment; nor can I imagine what other purpose their might be for the EPA.

Again, I refer to this clause: “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers…” Which of the forgoing powers does the EPA support? If it is not proper and necessary for carrying into execution a power granted to the federal government, then it doesn’t belong in the federal government – it is a right reserved to the states or to the people as prescribed in the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

In the second place; The EPA is “going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way?” This sounds to me like the EPA is going to be making laws to regulate how we use energy and how much CO2 we emit. The problem is that only Congress can make laws, not some agency created by Congress, and certainly not an agency which has no basis for its existence in the Constitution. Are we expected to obey laws that were not legally created by Congress? What happens if we “just say no?”

This Congress needs to go back and read the Constitution. If we need agencies and regulations to deal with air pollution, that’s fine – as long as they are state and local agencies, not federal government agencies that are prohibited by the Constitution.

Obama’s plan to fight global warming says we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by the year 2020, and 80% by the end of the century. Since water vapor makes up 95% of all greenhouse gasses, reducing carbon dioxide emissions will have virtually no effect on the climate.

CO2 accounts for only 3.62% of total greenhouse gasses while human activity accounts for only 3.4% of that amount. The total CO2 emissions from human activity amount to a mere 0.00123% of all greenhouse gasses. It is not possible to reduce greenhouse gasses by even two thousandths of one percent, even by cutting CO2 emissions to zero. Methane gas is just one tenth of that amount so farmers don‘t have to worry about bovine flatulence either. Nothing we do will have any effect on the climate – and Congress cannot control the weather.

The logic of global warming alarmists would also seem to indicate that once CO2 is introduced into the atmosphere it just stays there and builds up. This is preposterous. Have these people never heard of the carbon cycle or gravity? They must have thought that Led Zeppelin was a real airship too.

CO2, being heavier than air (nitrogen & oxygen), naturally settles back to earth to feed the vegetation, which uses the carbon atoms as building blocks for growth while releasing the oxygen atoms back into the atmosphere through the process of photosynthesis. The more CO2 there is, the more vegetation grows and the more oxygen it produces. Without CO2 in the air, there would be no life on the planet. So the EPA has classified CO2 as “harmful to life?” Are they nuts? Tell it to the plants in your garden and watch them die of shock.

But if that isn’t enough, last week Congress passed the Clean Water Restoration Act which gives the EPA the power to regulate all natural public waters in the U.S., essentially turning over control of all lands which contain water to the federal government. Every river, every lake, every stream, every wetlands, every pond – pretty much every natural resource that uses nature’s waters will be regulated by this unconstitutional agency.

This is a huge intrusion of the federal government into the states’ lands and rights. This is one result of Obama’s appointment of Cass Sunstein as “regulatory czar” where he can impose his radical agenda and sneaky methods on all of us.

By simply removing the word “navigable“ from the phrase “navigable waters of the United States” in the 1972 The Clean Water Act, Sunstein has now given the federal government powers over all U.S. waters and adjacent lands including private property. This is a tactic Sunstein calls “nudging” as described in his book, “Nudge.” You simply change a word here and there to tweak a policy into something that was never intended in its original form.

The 1972 Clean Water Act was developed to control the discharge of pollutants into public waters. As a result of the Obama administration, it has now been used to put California’s central valley farms out of business and turn their land into a desert wasteland by cutting off their water supply to protect a stinking smelt fish from being sucked into the pumps. Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply install screens on the pump inlets? Who needs smelt fish anyway?

Where is the scientific evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in the first place? The atmosphere on Venus is full of CO2 and methane and it’s very hot there, up to 900 degrees. But Mars also has an atmosphere of methane and mostly CO2 but it’s very cold on Mars, ranging from +1 to -178 degrees. Why isn’t it hot on Mars too? What about the “greenhouse effect?”

Consider the temperature and CO2 historic records of the Earth which Al Gore uses to establish his premise. They show a relationship between temperature and CO2, but with a closer look, they also show that changes in CO2 levels trail the temperature changes by several hundred years. It would appear that the temperature on Earth is what controls the CO2 content in the atmosphere, not the other way around.

What the climate models fail to take into account:

Climate records, until very recently, have been gathered from ground-based weather stations. You cannot take the temperature of the Earth from ground-based weather stations and expect to get accurate readings. These reading are a result not only of actual atmospheric temperatures but also ground-effects as well: urban sprawl; pavements; buildings; foliage; air conditioning and ventilation exhaust; road traffic; etc. Not only are readings from various locations different, they continually change. The only way to take the Earth’s temperature is from space. We have been doing that for the past couple of decades and the readings show little or no change at all in overall temperatures.

Global climate and temperatures are subject to much more than simply the contents of the atmosphere. The primary thermostat of the earth is the sun. One important factor here is the distance between the Earth and the sun which varies between 91 million miles, and 94.5 million miles. When Earth is closer to the sun, it gets warmer. When further from the sun it gets colder.

Another factor is the axial tilt of the planet of 23.4 degrees with a rotational period of 25,700 years counter to the rotational direction of the planet. As an example; when the northern hemisphere is tilted toward the sun, and the planet is closer to the sun, the weather is going to be warmer.

With the current cooling trend over the past decade, the term “global warming” has become no longer acceptable by its promoters. It has morphed into “climate change” which is absolutely meaningless. Of course there is climate change – there always has been and always will be.

Now, if you want to stabilize the Earth’s wobbling axis cycle, and regulate its orbit cycle around the sun which varies from round to oval over centuries of time, then you might be able to reduce climate change. But what you can’t do is regulate it with draconian legislation.

But that alone won’t be enough. You’re also going to have to control sun spot activity which is probably the major cause of climate change. Sun spots run in 11 year cycles – from sunspot maximum to minimum, then back to maximum. When sunspot activity is at maximum, the sun produces more radiation that heats the Earth, and less when sunspot activity is at minimum.

Since these cycles mentioned above have different periods, maximum alignments of them don’t happen too often. When they do, the Earth can become warmer or colder.

The last sunspot maximum was in 1999, the weather was warm, and Al Gore began his global warming campaign which resulted in his horror movie that we all know and loved. At the high peak of the sunspot cycle, Al Gore and the ‘Climites’ told the world that the planet is going to continue getting warmer based on consensus and insufficient data from climate scientists who should have known better.

When the cooling cycle began, they all tried to hide their mistakes by fudging the data and cooking the books to protect their reputations, government grants, and careers. The result is the Piltdown Man of the 21^st century which governments and the U.N. recognized as a great opportunity to promote global socialism.

The sunspot minimum was reached in late 2005 which accounts for the cooling over the last decade. That means that we should be seeing warming now, and another sunspot maximum in 2010. Apocalyptic predictions in programs on the Science Channel usually include high sunspot activity by 2012 in their programs.

But something is terribly wrong and the media is ignoring it. The Earth should now be warming again, but it’s still cooling. Why? Because there have been absolutely no sunspots for the past 3 years. The sunspot activity cycle has been disrupted, as has occurred before, most recently about 10,000 years ago. If the sunspots don’t return soon, we should be preparing for another ice age, not global warming.

If Obama, Gore, and the IPCC are right about CO2 causing global warming, then we should be producing as much of it as possible to keep the Earth warm in the absence of solar sunspot activity until the sunspots return.

JR Dieckmann is editor, publisher, writer, and webmaster of GreatAmericanJournal.com. He also works as an electrician in Los Angeles. He has been writing and publishing articles on the web since 2000. Permission for reprints and reposts of this article are freely granted and approved by the author providing credit is given to the writer and linked to the original source at GreatAmericanJournal.com. JR can be contacted at http://www.greatamericanjournal.com/contact

By JR Dieckmann

In less than one year, we are seeing our country go from a nation of laws to a nation of men. Obama, a community organizer, with his regime in Congress, is the one making the laws for all of us to obey, with or without constitutional authority to do so. Have the American voters gone completely insane?

Not the least of these laws include using the EPA to dictate and enforce draconian regulations in the name of the “global warming” hoax, whether Congress passes “Cap and Trade” or not. With the congressional “Clean Water Restoration Act,” the Obama regime intends to take over all water resources from coast to coast including the land these resources occupy and sustain. More on this in my next column. And now, the House of Pelosi has rammed through Barney Frank’s Financial Services Bill which gives the keys to the treasury to Lord Obama forever and gives ACORN a seat on the Financial Services Board.

I can’t decide if Obama is the biggest fool in history or the biggest liar in history. He seems to believe all of the ridiculous statements he uses in his speeches – or is it that he reads the teleprompter so well that he thinks we will believe he is sincere? He frequently uses conservative sounding phrases, and later follows them with contradictory socialist statements that marginalize or compromise what he previously said. He is a better double-talker than John Kerry was, but no more believable.

My reason for questioning his sincerity should be obvious to most people who read this. Obama consistently says one thing to the cameras while doing just the opposite. For example, he says he is trying to curb the recession and create jobs while his policies are doing just the opposite. The only jobs he is interested in creating are government jobs while he does nothing to encourage hiring in the private sector – which continues to lose jobs.

He says one of his highest priorities is to control spending and bring down the budget deficit and national debt. Then he and his congressional cabal go about their excessive spending and borrowing practices as though there were no tomorrow. The spending they have legislated is unsustainable and the debt they have run up is unrecoverable.

Is he so foolish to believe that the programs his advisors are giving him will really do what he says they will do, or is he deliberately lying to the American people to hide a sinister Marxist agenda? What we do know is that Obama is a Marxist as are his advisors. Their political philosophy and policies come straight out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” and Cloward-Piven, with pushes, shoves, and nudges by George Soros and Cass Sunstein.

The last time Americans were faced with this kind of oppressive government the Revolutionary War was the result, which led to the crafting of our Declaration of Independence (1776) and our Constitution in 1787. (My apologies for the stupid error in my last column dating the Constitution as 1776.) We may have to face this real crisis again, but won’t have to write new documents this time. We need only to enforce the ones we already have – the ones that the Obama regime is determined to ignore or overrule.

When our Founding Fathers declared their independence from the King of England, they claimed “taxation without representation.” Today we are being victimized and oppressed by the Obama regime for the same reason. Our money is being taken and nothing we want is being provided in return. On the contrary, they are using it for things we emphatically oppose, and strapping our citizens with unconscionable debt. They are grabbing every dollar and every ounce of credit they can to spend this country into insolvency.

Now they want to increase the national debt ceiling from 12.1 trillion to 14 trillion just to cover the entitlement programs already on the books until after the coming November 2010 elections, in spite of Obama‘s 2006 statement on the Senate floor: “Raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.” The current national debt is at 12.09 trillion, and at the current rate of spending, the 12.1 trillion ceiling will be reached in January.

Adding another trillion to the debt ceiling would last only until 3 months before the next election. That wouldn’t be good for Democrat re-election chances so if they increase it now by 1.9 trillion, they hope no one will notice or if they do, they won’t remember next November. This additional debt should last until the end of 2010, well after the elections.

The socialists have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to reduce the budget, the national debt, or their spending. Even the TARP loan payback money that banks have repaid to the government – which was supposed to go back into the treasury to help reduce the deficit – has been stolen by the Obama regime and diverted to his government job creation program. Or in other words, to his environmental and union supporters and other special interest lobbies.

Moody’s Investors Service says the U.S. and U.K. may loose their triple-A credit rating by 2013 “if economic growth lags, interest rates rise and the government fails to shrink the deficit or recover its loans to the financial sector.” Obama professes that he can solve the problem of government overspending with dramatic increases in government overspending. He prides himself on removing $100 million from a $1.2 billion wasteful spending bill. This is insane.

So in a year from now, when the debt reaches 14 trillion, what then? Just do it again? Where does it end? What is the end game? When will the goal of a Cloward-Piven financial collapse finally be realized? Will it happen before the next election?

How long will it be before this imitation president declares to the country that the government has no choice but to take over all private sector business and industry, and consequently redistribute the wealth, in order to “save the country” – or is it to “save the planet?” Closer to the truth would be to secure permanent political power for the socialist left. If you haven’t recognized it by now, that is the end game. We call it communism.

We now have two systems working against each other: a government socialist system competing against the private sector capitalist system. Who will hold these tyrants accountable to the Constitution and to the people? Only the voters can, if it’s not too late by next November and in 2012. Unfortunately, this regime has nearly a half trillion dollars of our money unspent from TARP and Stimulus to use as they wish to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Those who laid our constitutional foundation were very clear about its limits on government. Our Constitution’s principle author, James Madison, wrote, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.”

Concerning the legislature’s authority, Thomas Jefferson asserted: “Giving Congress a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole Constitution to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly, no such universal power was meant to be given them. The Constitution was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.”

Madison added, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”

If you quoted these verses to those in power today, they would think you were nuts. Madam Pelosi as much as said so when asked to state constitutional authority for her healthcare bill. Others in Congress had similar reactions and none could answer the question. The don’t believe in the Constitution or the limits it places on their powers.

This is not the government created by our Founding Fathers – this is not the government the American people want. The replacement constitution these people are creating is not the Constitution our Armed Forces are sworn to protect and defend. When did Hugo Chavez become president of the United States under the name of Barack Obama? Whose side will the military be on when push comes to shove? I think they well know who supports them and who doesn’t. And they know the Constitution they swore an oath to defend.

Americans, check your freedom at the door – it will not be returned to you. We must stop this madness now!

JR Dieckmann is editor, publisher, writer, and webmaster of GreatAmericanJournal.com. He also works as an electrician in Los Angeles. He has been writing and publishing articles on the web since 2000. Permission for reprints and reposts of this article are freely granted and approved by the author providing credit is given to the writer and linked to the original source at GreatAmericanJournal.com. JR can be contacted at http://www.greatamericanjournal.com/contact.htm.