Fear and Terror in the Frozen Hills of North Korea.

(Compiler's note: Click clips below and see some great interviews. Must read - see. Semper Fidelis)

from The Chosin Few website

The Chosin Few is a documentary film about the amazing true story of the 1^st Marine Division’s fight for survival against hordes of communist Chinese forces in the frozen mountains of North Korea in the winter of 1950. Outnumbered, cut off behind enemy lines, and nearly overwhelmed by unceasing human wave attacks, the Marines fought their way to the sea in what is regarded as the most remarkable military feat of the 20^th Century. Seventeen Medals of Honor and 70 Navy Crosses were awarded to the heroes of this campaign—the most ever awarded for a single battle in American History.

In October of 1950, General MacArthur ordered the 1st Marine Division to march to the Yalu River on the North Korean/Chinese border. This force of approximately 12,000 brave fighting men was strung out along 80 miles of frozen, mountainous terrain. China covertly infiltrated North Korea and soon the Marines found themselves surrounded by over 60,000 Communist Chinese soldiers. For 14 days, the Marines miraculously fought their way to safety through the frozen mountains and subzero temperatures, taking their dead and wounded with them through the onslaught of unceasing Chinese attacks. They suffered over 4,000 killed or wounded but still managed to extract over 25,000 causalities from the enemy. This is an epic tale of terror and triumph that has been quietly tucked away in American history - until now.

We are shooting with Panasonic HD cameras and the clips above is a compressed version of the actual footage. The final project will be in HD.

Some of the links posted at the end of these videos are YouTube generated links and may not be affiliated with this film.

JOHN LOTT: Thugs In the White House

(Compiler's note: A must read article.)

By John R. Lott, Jr.
Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland/Author, Freedomnomics.

So much for any hope that the government would uphold rules and abiding by contracts. Instead, we keep getting examples of something else – that when President Obama fails to persuade firms to follow his wishes, he does not hesitate to use threats of financial destruction.

Cliff Asness, the co-founder of the $20 billion hedge fund AQR Capital Management, laid bare the latest attacks with an open letter on Wednesday:

“The President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along.”

This is just the latest in a string of intimidating tactics starting with threatening costly public audits to get compliance. Then there were the threats of firing CEOs who had the audacity to oppose government plans. The very latest is threats to use “ the full force of the White House press corps [to] destroy [the firm Perella Weinberg's] reputation” if it resisted the government stealing their money, according to Thomas Lauria who represented the firm up until last week. ABC News’s Jake Tapper reports that Mr. Steven Rattner, the head of the auto task force, made the threat.

The White House has been pushing hard to nationalize the automobile companies. While bondholders and the government have loaned similar amounts each to GM and Chrysler, the White House feels that the government should get 50 percent ownership of GM and the creditors about 10 percent.

The Wall Street Journal reports that unions are also being given stock that should be going to the creditors – 39 percent of GM and 55 percent of Chrysler.

Most of the financial institutions holding these bonds have gone along with Obama’s nationalization of the car companies for a simple reason – the government has already nationalized them and they do the government’s bidding. As ABC News and the Wall Street Journal note: JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs have been given up to $100 billion by the government. The irony is that the feds gave these financial institutions money because they were hemorrhaging financially and now the government orders these same institutions to throw away money and take loses that no private company would voluntarily do. Not surprisingly, with this waste, there is talk that Citigroup may need another $10 billion from the government.

As I and others have previously pointed out, the government only obtained ownership of many financial institutions through threats of imposing unnecessary costly public audits and either threatening to replace or actually replacing disobedient CEOs and boards of directors with political cronies willing do Obama’s bidding.

Yet, there are financial institutions that the government still has not gotten control over, and they are fighting this wave of nationalization. So how does the Obama administration control these financial institutions that have avoided being forced to take government bailouts? Why, of course, their standard method: threats. According to lawyer Thomas Lauria in an interview with Frank Beckman on WJR radio, one of his former clients “was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.”

Not surprisingly, as the financial institutions did not cave in, President Obama then followed through his promise and attacked these creditors. During his announcement of Chrysler filing for bankruptcy, he warned, “While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you some did not.” Despite the financial institutions offering to give up 50 percent of their bonds value, Obama claimed: “They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none.” The New York Times and other media have joined in on this attack.

One consequence of the president singling out these creditors is that The Detroit News reported on Monday that some have received death threats and that the threats has been turned over to the FBI.

Finally, we can’t help note that Rattner seems the perfect person to play the enforcer role. In April, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Rattner’s former private-equity firm, Quadrangle Group, is the target of a long-running pay-to-play investigation. Mr. Rattner wasn’t named in the SEC complaint, but The Journal reported that Rattner was “the senior Quadrangle executive the complaint identifies as meeting with a politically connected consultant about a finder’s fee, which Quadrangle later paid after receiving an investment from the New York fund.”

Of course, the administration denies that it has threatened Chrysler’s creditor. This from an administration that denies Obama bowed to the Saudi King despite it being on video tape.

Some creditors, such as Perella Weinberg Partners, have already given in to the president’s threats over Chrysler. But breaking contracts through thuggish threats makes investment riskier and increase the costs as much as any big tax increase. Driving investment overseas is not the way to make America wealthier.

Muslim dentist 'refused to treat female patients unless they wore Islamic dress'

A Muslim dentist refused to treat patients unless they wore traditional Islamic dress, it was alleged today.

Omer Butt, 32, ordered women to put on head scarves or he would not register them or their families at his NHS-funded clinic, it was claimed.

At least two patients were left in pain after they declined to follow his self-imposed rules, the General Dental Council heard. sharia

It is the second time that the dentist - who is the brother of a former spokesman of the radical Islamic group al-Muhajiroun - has appeared before the council's disciplinary panel on similar allegations. ....

Captain's Training Faulted In Air Crash That Killed 50

By ANDY PASZTOR

The captain of a commuter plane that crashed Feb. 12 near Buffalo, N.Y., had flunked numerous flight tests during his career and was never adequately taught how to respond to the emergency that led to the airplane's fatal descent, according to people close to the investigation.

All 49 people aboard were killed, as well as one person in a house below, when the plane crashed just a few miles short of the Buffalo airport en route from Newark, N.J. The Bombardier Q400 turboprop in the crash, which will be the subject of a National Transportation Safety Board hearing Tuesday, was operated by commuter carrier Colgan Air Inc., a division of Pinnacle Airlines Corp.

Capt. Marvin Renslow had never been properly trained by the company to respond to a warning system designed to prevent the plane from going into a stall, according to people familiar with the investigation. As the speed slowed to a dangerous level, setting off the stall-prevention system, he did the opposite of the proper procedure, which led to the crash, these people said.

Additionally, his 24-year-old co-pilot, Rebecca Shaw, had complained before takeoff about being congested and said she probably should have called in sick, according to people who have listened to the cockpit voice recording.

The circumstances surrounding Continental Connection Flight 3407 have prompted investigators and regulators to examine Colgan's hiring and training practices. At the NTSB hearing, witnesses are expected to provide new allegations about training shortcomings, as well as the prevalence of chronic pilot fatigue and lapses in cockpit discipline. The NTSB also is expected to be critical of the Federal Aviation Administration's oversight of the airline. The FAA, which has said it is investigating the airline over pilot scheduling, declined to comment on issues likely to be raised in the hearing.

Pinnacle has said its pilot training programs "meet or exceed regulatory requirements for all major airlines" and crews "are prepared to handle emergency situations they might face." On Sunday, spokesman Joe Williams confirmed in an email that Capt. Renslow had five "unsatisfactory" training check rides in his career -- including two at Colgan -- but passed a subsequent series of training tests and was "fully qualified in the Q400" aircraft.

Testimony Tuesday

In recent weeks, Colgan's top two training officials resigned; Mr. Williams has said their decisions were voluntary and not connected to the accident. Darrell Mitchell, Colgan's departing director of training, is slated to testify at Tuesday's hearing.

Colgan, based in Manassas, Va., operates nearly 50 planes, carries 2.5 million passengers annually and employs about 480 pilots. It serves as a commuter airline that feeds larger carriers, such as Continental Airlines, United Airlines and US Airways.

Colgan serves 28 routes for Continental Airlines Inc., which said it retains "full confidence in Colgan and its ability to conduct its operations safely."

US Airways Group Inc. and UAL Corp.'s United Airlines said there haven't been any changes to their Colgan contracts.

Capt. Renslow, 47, joined Colgan in September 2005 after graduating from a pilot-training academy, employment records show. He had a history of flunking check rides -- periodic tests of competency that are also required anytime a pilot begins flying a new type of aircraft. Before joining Colgan, he failed three proficiency checks on general aviation aircraft administered by the FAA, according to investigators and the airline. Colgan's spokesman said the company now believes Capt. Renslow failed to fully disclose that poor performance when applying for a job.

Once at Colgan, he failed in his initial attempt to qualify as a co-pilot on the Beech 1900 aircraft, and also had to redo his check ride to upgrade to captain on the Saab 340 turboprop, according to investigators. Repeated check-ride failures raise red flags, and large carriers rarely keep pilots who require such extensive remedial training, according to numerous industry officials. Colgan's Mr. Williams said Capt. Renslow's last unsatisfactory check ride occurred 16 months before the accident, and he subsequently passed six consecutive competency tests and completed three regular training sessions.

Capt. Renslow had about 109 hours of experience flying the Q400 as a captain, an unusually limited amount of time by industry standards. He had started flying the craft only two months earlier. According to investigators, the co-pilot, Ms. Shaw, had a clean training record.

The pilots' families couldn't be reached for comment.

People familiar with the investigation of the accident -- the deadliest U.S. commercial crash in more than seven years -- gave the following account of the plane's last flight:

Both pilots were returning to work after a day off. Capt. Renslow was coming off weeks of late-evening and early-morning flying schedules, often sandwiched around only a few hours of rest. Ms. Shaw had spent the day before the accident skiing. She then took a red-eye flight from Seattle to report for work in Newark.

It was a frigid night. Other planes in the region had reported light to moderate icing, and the pilots observed ice buildup around their own windshield. Bombardier's twin-engine Q400 has a reputation as a workhorse used extensively in winter and isn't known to be susceptible to ice accumulation.

Approaching Buffalo

As the plane made its approach toward Buffalo with the autopilot engaged, the crew exchanged idle banter, according to people who have read transcripts of the conversation recovered from the cockpit voice recorder. Federal rules and airline policy prohibit pilots from having extraneous conversations while flying below 10,000 feet.

The crew initially didn't notice the plane's speed had dropped dangerously low, sliding under 115 miles an hour, and risked going into a stall. The slowing speed set off an emergency system called a "stick-pusher," which pushes the control column down in order to send the aircraft into a temporary dive so it can regain speed and recover from a stall.

However, Capt. Renslow tried to force the plane to do the opposite. He yanked back on the controls while adding thrust. His effort was strong enough to manually override the stick-pusher. Within seconds, the plane lost lift, bucked violently and started to roll. It slammed into a house five miles from the runway.

Colgan's standard training program stops short of demonstrating the operation of the stick-pusher in flight simulators. Without such hands-on experience, safety investigators argue, pilots could be surprised and not react properly when the stick-pusher activates during an emergency. The FAA is required to sign off on all airline training manuals.

On Sunday, Colgan said its FAA-approved program includes "comprehensive" classroom training on the stick-pusher but emphasized a demonstration in a simulator "is not required by the FAA and was not part of the training syllabus" Colgan received when it obtained its Q400s.

Mistaken Assumption

Investigators surmise the pilots didn't fully understand the operation of one ice-protection system, and therefore incorrectly programmed approach speeds into a flight computer. Startled by an initial stall warning at low altitude, Capt. Renslow reacted with the mistaken assumption that ice accumulation on the tail caused speed to suddenly drop well below normal, investigators believe. The NTSB has said the plane wasn't significantly affected by icing.

Since the accident, industry and government safety experts have uncovered what they claim are other shortcomings at Colgan. The airline began flying Q400s in February 2008, but Colgan pilots say it wasn't until nine months later that they received a detailed bulletin on how to use some of its ice safety features. However, the bulletin was delivered three months before the accident. Colgan said that since it started flying the aircraft, pilots "were trained on the use of all components of the ice protection system on the Q400."

More recently, Colgan removed several of its senior management pilots, known as check airmen, who are responsible for evaluating the performance of crews in the air as well as in simulators. The airline said that "from time-to-time," it relieves check airmen of their duties if they fail "to perform to the company's high standards."

—Susan Carey contributed to this article.

Fears of mass poisoning of Afghan schoolgirls Police say 61 girls hospitalized due to sudden illness

from Associated Press

CHARIKAR, Afghanistan - Doctors are investigating whether dozens of girls were poisoned at a high school in northern Afghanistan on Monday after 61 girls went to the hospital because of sudden illness, officials said.

Dr. Khalil Farhagga said the 61 students and one teacher from a school in Parwan — one province north of Kabul — complained of irritability, tearing and confusion. Several girls also passed out.

The mass hospitalization comes about two weeks after a similar incident in Parwan, where dozens of girls were hospitalized in late April after being sickened by what Afghan officials said were strong fumes or a possible poison gas cloud.

Conservative Afghans oppose education for girls, who were not allowed to attend school under the 1996-2001 Taliban regime.

Officials on Monday sent blood samples to Kabul and to the main U.S. base in Bagram to test whether some form of poison was to blame, said Farhagga, the director of Charikar's hospital.

Strong sweet smell
At least two students interviewed at the hospital by The Associated Press complained of a strong sweet smell, which gave the students headaches and made some girls wobbly before they passed out.

"There was a very strong smell, like flowers in the hallway. I fell down and woke up in the hospital," said the 18-year-old Zahera, who like many Afghan goes by one name.

Sarima Zakeri was on the school's second floor when she heard screams. As she run downstairs, a strong scent hit her.

"It was less about the smell and more like a feeling, like having onion fumes in my eyes," the 18-year-old Zakeri said.

Lightheaded, she made her way back home where she passed out. The family took her to the hospital.

A panic attack?
Nizamuddin Rahimi, a provincial education official, tried to downplay the incident, suggesting it was a panic attack after the students saw one of their colleagues collapse.

As a precaution, and in response to parents' concerns, all students were sent home, Rahimi said.

Several hours after the incident, about three dozen response remained at the hospital, Farhagga said. They were receiving glucose intravenously and oxygen, said Dr. Qassim Asidi, the provincial health director.

The high school where the incident happened is attended by both girls and boys. The girls attend class in the morning, at the time when the students became ill.

Video: Gen. David Petraeus on 'FNS'

Video: Dick Cheney on Gitmo Terrorists Coming to USA

Why Americans Need to See Video of the Unforgettable

The leaders of the House Republican Conference have released this video reminding every American of the dangers of the unlawful enemy combatants currently being securely detained at the Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba.

"This video raises the central questions," Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney asked. "'What is President Obama's plan for detaining or releasing prisoners once Guantanamo is closed? And how does it make us safer?"

"The President has made a terrible mistake in closing the finest, most secure and best-run detention and interrogation facility in the world-- with no clue as to what will be done with its prisoners in the next six or seven months."

"Worse still, a number of them are expected to be turned loose on the American people by releasing them into Alexandria, Virginia or some other unsuspecting-- and highly vulnerable-- community in this country."

"A proposal was announced this week to send 100 Yemeni detainees to Saudi Arabia to undergo a Saudi government 'rehabilitation program' for Jihadists. This is a preposterous idea; violent Jihad against "infidels" is a central obligation for those, like the Gitmo detainees, who adhere to the program authoritative Islam calls Shariah."

"Even if detainees are shipped to one or more federal penitentiaries, they will pose a grave danger. They can teach terrorist technique and ideology to others in prison communities already rife with Islamist proselytization. And their neighbors beyond the prison walls will become new soft targets for the detainees' friends."

The Center for Security Policy urges a public repudiation and congressional prohibition on any Obama administration

plan to transfer Guantanamo detainees-- let alone, their release into the United States.

For more information, contact Lee Cohen at lcohen@securefreedom.org or (202) 835-9077

Brought to you by the editors and research staff of FamilySecurityMatter.org.

'Electronic Police State' report cites U.S. Ultimate Big Brother 'basics are in place'

By Bob Unruh

In what may be the first assessment of its kind, a private company that offers a range of privacy products for computers and other technology is ranking the United States No. 6 in the world for having the most aggressive procedures for monitoring residents electronically.

The report, called The Electronic Police State, assesses the status of governmental surveillance in 52 nations around the globe for 2008.

The document was released Cryptohippie, Inc., which was set up in 2007 through the acquisition of several little-known but highly regarded providers of privacy technologies.

Not surprisingly, China and North Korea ranked No. 1 and No. 2, with Belarus and Russia following up. But the United Kingdom ranked fifth followed by the United States. ....

US Government borrowing almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year. White House: Budget deficit to top $1.8 trillion, 4 times 2008's record

Will Obama’s Nominee to the Supreme Court Help Destroy the U.S. Constitution?

by John Armor

This is not a "conservative" or a "liberal" or a "moderate" issue. It is a matter of national survival. If the Constitution is destroyed as a limitation on the federal government, the essence of the United States will be gone. Labels and forms will remain, but in reality the U.S. will be nothing more than the majority of the world's 192 governments, a tin pot dictatorship with a meaningless constitution. ....

Stress tests 'excuse to nationalize banks' Obama to convert bailout preferred shares into common stock

The following report is excerpted from Jerome Corsi's Red Alert

"Are you ready for government-owned banks?" Jerome Corsi's Red Alert asks readers.

The Obama administration appears to be gearing up to use the bank stress tests as yet another means of nationalizing U.S. banks, Corsi wrote.

While the administration has only allowed the stress test results to become public in partial disclosures made over a series of days, he said up to 10 of the nation's largest 19 banks are likely to need more capital immediately.

Federal regulators are insisting that Citigroup raise $50 billion in new capital and that the Bank of America raise $34 billion.

Regulators have agreed to allow the banks to convert government-owned preferred stock that was granted when taxpayer bailout funds were given to struggling banks to be converted to common stock.

The transaction will allow the struggling banks to book on balance sheets the bailout "loans" as capital, with the government taking ownership positions in the financial institutions as a result.

"The stress test requirements conveniently have opened a back door through which the Obama administration can begin the process of nationalizing the nation's largest banks," Corsi wrote.

He noted that the Obama administration's determination to take an ownership position in struggling U.S. financial institutions marks a watershed moment in U.S. financial history when banks and brokerage firms move from a free enterprise environment into an environment where U.S. financial institutions are at least in part government owned.

"At the same time, federal regulators are insisting financial institutions raise additional capital, the Obama administration has systematically undermined the market for private capital to be invested in the banks," he wrote.

Corsi said that in the Chrysler bankruptcy, the Obama administration demonized secured lenders and irresponsible "spectators" who refused to accept second place to the UAW, a junior unsecured lender that the Obama administration allowed to receive a bigger debt repayment plus 55 percent of the equity in the government restructured automaker.

Now many investors fear any new private capital placed in struggling U.S. financial institutions could be at risk in the future should they refuse to accept the Obama administration's ideologically driven government solutions to possible financial crises.

Corsi wrote that federal regulators also appear to be developing a tough set of new requirements financial institutions must meet before repaying federal bailout funds.

Financially strong institutions such as Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase have expressed a strong desire to repay government bailout funds as soon as possible, so as to avoid strong Obama administration intrusion into their management.

"Specifically, federal regulators appear inclined to demand that financial institutions demonstrate their ability to raise private capital on their own before any federal bailout funds are repaid," he wrote. "This decision would discount financial institutions relying upon strong first-quarter profits as the trigger justifying repayment of government bailout funds."

The banks needing to raise additional capital under the stress tests will have until June 8 to present to the government a recapitalization plan that federal regulators accept.

While the stocks of financial institutions have rallied on Wall Street, Corsi noted that investors appear to be discounting the dilution to current holders of common stock that will necessarily occur when the Obama administration converts preferred shares into common stock.

Also being discounted is the increased risk to taxpayers when the government takes an ownership position in these still struggling financial institutions, he wrote.

As preferred stock holders, taxpayers would hold a superior position to common stock holders in a bankruptcy proceeding.

Red Alert's author, whose books "The Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command" have topped the New York Times best-sellers list, wrote that taxpayers would also face the same dilution faced by any common stock holder in the event the financial institution decides to raise additional capital or is forced by the government to do so.

Corsi received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972. For nearly 25 years, beginning in 1981, he worked with banks throughout the U.S. and around the world to develop financial services marketing companies to assist banks in establishing broker/dealers and insurance subsidiaries to provide financial planning products and services to their retail customers. In this career, Corsi developed three different third-party financial services marketing firms that reached gross sales levels of $1 billion in annuities and equal volume in mutual funds. In 1999, he began developing Internet-based financial marketing firms, also adapted to work in conjunction with banks.

In his 25-year financial services career, Corsi has been a noted financial services speaker and writer, publishing three books and numerous articles in professional financial services journals and magazines.

For more information on the stress tests and for financial guidance during difficult times, read Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, the premium, online intelligence news source by the WND staff writer, columnist and author of the New York Times No. 1 best-seller, "The Obama Nation."

Petraeus: Al Qaeda No Longer Operating in Afghanistan

The head of U.S. Central Command said Sunday that Al Qaeda is no longer operating in Afghanistan, with its senior leadership having moved to the western region of Pakistan.

Gen. David Petraeus said affiliated groups have "enclaves and sanctuaries" in Afghanistan and that "tentacles of Al Qaeda" have touched countries throughout the Middle East and northern Africa. But he said the terrorist group has suffered" very significant losses" in recent months, and agreed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai's recent assessment that there is no Al Qaeda based in his country.

Still, he said he believes Usama bin Laden and his No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri remain in charge of the terrorist network. ....

A Director of National Intelligence report on congressional briefings about enhanced interrogation techniques conflicts with House Speaker Nancy Pelos

.... The report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, indicates that a classified CIA briefing of Mrs. Pelosi included specific details of the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques," or EITs, on terrorism suspect Abu Zubaydah. ....

.... Republicans have warned that any investigation of Bush administration officials should also look at the approval of top Democrats in Congress, who they say had been briefed on what the CIA was doing but kept silent until it was politically opportune to denounce the practices.

.... "There are still terrorists around the world who are committed to killing Americans and destroying our way of life. A number of those terrorists are being held at the prison in Guantanamo Bay right now," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. "If the administration is allowed to proceed, they won't be there for long. In fact, they may be right here, in the United States."

US threatens military force against hackers

Cyber espionage and attacks from well-funded nations or terror groups are the biggest threats to the military’s computer networks, a top US officer said.

Gen Kevin Chilton, who heads US Strategic Command, said he worries that foes will learn to disable or distort battlefield communications.

Chilton said even as the Pentagon improves its network defences against hackers, he needs more people, training and resources to hone offensive cyber war capacity. At the same time, he asserted that the US would consider using military force against an enemy who attacks and disrupts the nation’s critical networks.

“Our job would be to present options. I don’t think you take anything off the table when you provide options” to the president, in the wake of an attack, whether the weapon is a missile or a computer program, he said.

Chilton’s comments shed the most light to date on the Pentagon’s ongoing debate over how to beef up its abilities to wage and defend against cyber warfare. And they came as the military is planning to set up a new cyber command at Fort Meade not far from Washington that would report to Strategic Command.

Chilton said that his biggest fear is that enemies hack into military battlefield systems, and when an American commander sends out an order that says forces should go left, it is changed to say forces should go right. While most systems are classified and walled off, he said there are often ways to cross into those networks.

The other worry is more internal. When a soldier or sailor sits down at a computer, Chilton said “it’s like he’s stepping to the guard gate at his base,” and can open the digital gate and let adversaries in.

Obama will make his big speech to the Islamic world from Cairo

by Robert Spencer

Cairo has been chosen as the site of the President's promised major address to the Islamic world. Brace yourself.

Obama to Coptic Christians and Egyptian pro-democracy dissidents: drop dead. "Obama will travel to Egypt to address Muslim world," by Margaret Talev for the McClatchy Newspapers, May 8 (thanks to all who sent this in):

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will go to Egypt on June 4 to deliver a long-planned major speech aimed at Muslims worldwide.

The speech is expected to be delivered in Cairo, historically the Arabic center of intellectual thought in the Muslim world, but a location has not been finalized, according to White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

Gibbs called Egypt "a country that in many ways represents the heart of the Arab world" and said the speech was not aimed at Muslim leaders so much as the populace. It represents "a continuing effort by this president and this White House to demonstrate how we can work together to ensure the safety and security and the future well-being through hope and opportunity of the children of this country and of the Muslim world," Gibbs said.

The Egyptian government, led by 81-year-old Hosni Mubarak, is widely criticized for its repressive regime and poor human rights record, issues that Obama must finesse in his remarks....

Radical Islam By Any Other Name...

(Compiler's note: I, for one, have mentioned before that political correctness or "PC" will get us killed. It would appear that Mr. Salvato agrees.)

by Frank Salvato

Honesty and transparency in government are rare commodities, especially in the United States. While some information is legitimately kept from the public for reasons of national security, still other information – and quite a lot when the information flow from the Obama Administration is concerned – is either kept from the public or manipulated for the public's consumption, having been so for ideological and/or political purposes. The subject of radical Islam and the terrorism that jihadis use as their chief tactic to bring about political “change” is not immune from these politically and ideologically opportune manipulations. Because of this the majority of the public is illiterate in the seriousness of the global challenge that faces Western Civilization.

Upon ascending to the office of the presidency, Barack Obama assembled a cabinet that understood the value of controlling information. Even during his campaign, his staff guarded information and controlled the message. Politically, it is a winning formula even if it raises many legitimate questions when the candidate is less than forthright about his past, influences, associations, intentions, motives and loyalties. Today, as President Obama exits the “honeymoon period” that every president enjoys, he and his staff are still executing a “control the message campaign,” and doing so with a vicious effectiveness, aided by a complicit mainstream media. But is this serving the best interest of the public? Is this acting in the best interests of the country?

Shortly after Hillary Clinton was named Secretary of State, the Obama Administration issued a declaration that the term “global war on terror,” erroneously coined by the Bush Administration, would cease to be used in an official capacity. In a memo issued to Pentagon staff members by the Office of Management & Budget, the Executive Branch agency that reviews the public testimony of administration officials before it is delivered, it was ordered:

"...this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT.] Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.'"

The conflict with aggressive and violent radical Islamist ideology (a correct description), was put through the process of information manipulation so as to soften the concept for the public, the electorate, those to whom President Obama promised he would end “the war.”

In his classic – and eerily relevant – book, 1984, George Orwell wrote about the concept of “newspeak” and “doublethink”:

“...Winston thinks again about the idea of ‘doublethink,' or in Oldspeak, ‘reality control.' It means to be able to think two contradictory things at once without being aware of the contradiction. In other words, one is conscious of telling the truth while telling lies, forgetting whatever one needs to forget and then remembering it when needed, only to forget again. Doublethink is essential for political orthodoxy.”

When one listens to the declarations made by fundamentalist Islamist leaders from around the world – and we would have to believe that the Obama Administration is competent enough to understand the value of “listening to our enemies” seeing as they believe there is value in “talking with our enemies” – it becomes clear that the Obama Administration's penchant for word manipulation – or use of “newspeak” and “doublethink” – has spilled over from their goal of achieving political superiority into their Constitutional duty to protect the citizenry.

Sufi Mohammed, the 78-year old leader of the pro-Taliban group behind the now defunct peace agreement between the Pakistani government and the Taliban, declared the democratic system of government “un-Islamic,” saying there was no need for a constitution in Pakistan. “All those who believe in democracy are infidels,” he declared in an interview with a private Pakistani television channel.

Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, said in January of 2009, “Israel is our enemy and the enemy of our nation. It will remain as such even if some make peace with it. The US administration fosters Israel and protects it, so this administration will remain our enemy and the enemy of our nation...”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran has stated repeatedly and emphatically, that he quests for the elimination of the nation of Israel as he pontificates on the evils of the West and the United States:

"Israel must be wiped off the map...The establishment of a Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world...The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land... You [the United States], who have used nuclear weapons against innocent people should be tried as war criminals in courts... "They [the United States] think they are the absolute rulers of the world."

And no less than Osama bin Laden has declared:

“To kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.”

The idea that the Obama Administration played fast-and-loose with manipulating words to affect “change” for political gain is a valid one. The American people are compromised in their ability to employ critical thinking skills where matters of politics and world affairs are concerned. A glad-handing politician armed with hollow promises of “hope” and “change” – and facilitated by an agenda-driven, one-world Progressive-Left mainstream media – easily entranced (or should I say enchanted) a citizenry that hadn't formulated a respect for the seriousness of the threat posed by fundamentalist Islamists.

And while it was easy for Obama to demonize the hard choices and actions taken by President George W. Bush in the conflict with radical Islamist aggression when he was running for office, when all he had to do was take issue with President Bush's approach to the conflict, today the hard choices are his to make.

As we stand at a moment when Iran has most likely acquired nuclear capability, when al Qaeda and the Taliban are waging violent jihad just 60 miles from the capitol of Pakistan – a nuclear nation and as Sharia law is encroaching on people's liberties in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Indonesia and around the world, it is now painfully obvious that we have to formulate a definitive plan for defending not only the United States but Western Civilization itself. To pay this conflict “lip service,” to apply “doublethink” and “newspeak” to this most graven of issues, is to abdicate Constitutional responsibility to defend the American people. It is to place the country and her citizens in grave danger.

Mr. Obama, diminishing the severity of the words used to describe the threat of radical Islam doesn't make those who champion the violent and oppressive ideology any less lethal.

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'" – George Orwell, 1984.

Newly Formed Sovereignty Caucus on Capitol Hill Urges Review of Harold Koh’s Nomination for Legal Advisor

The Legal Advisor must protect and defend the rights of American citizens. Is Harold Koh capable of doing this? ....

CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations'

By Paul Kane

Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.

In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him.

The issue of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it has become a matter of heated debate on Capitol Hill. Republicans have accused her of knowing for many years precisely the techniques CIA agents were using in interrogations, and only protesting the tactics when they became public and liberal antiwar activists protested.

In a carefully worded statement, Pelosi's office said today that she had never been briefed about the use of waterboarding, only that it had been approved by Bush administration lawyers as a legal technique to use in interrogations.

"As this document shows, the Speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002. The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used," said Brendan Daly, Pelosi's spokesman.

Pelosi's statement did not address whether she was informed that other harsh techniques were already in use during the Zubaydah interrogations.

In December 2007 the Washington Post reported that leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees had been briefed in the fall of 2002 about waterboarding -- which simulates drowning -- and other techniques, and that no congressional leaders protested its use. At the time Pelosi said she was not told that waterboarding was being used, a position she stood by repeatedly last month when the Bush-era Justice Department legal documents justifying the interrogation tactics were released by Attorney General Eric Holder.

The new memo shows that intelligence officials were willing to share the information about waterboarding with only a sharply closed group of people. Three years after the initial Pelosi-Goss briefing, Bush officials still limited interrogation technique briefings to just the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the so-called Gang of Four in the intelligence world.

In October 2005, CIA officials began briefing other congressional leaders with oversight of the intelligence community, including top appropriators who provided the agency its annual funding. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam and an opponent of torture techniques, was also read into the program at that time even though he did not hold a special committee position overseeing the intelligence community.

A bipartisan collection of lawmakers have criticized the practice of limiting information to just the "Gang of Four", who were expressly forbidden from talking about the information from other colleagues, including fellow members of the intelligence committees. Pelosi and others are considering reforms that would assure a more open process for all committee members.

NewsBusted: Gitmo Terror Suspects Get Hotel Rooms

Attorney General Eric Holder says some Gitmo detainees will be released into hotels. Obama's new slogan: "We'll Leave the Light on for Ya, al-Qaida." Click on the title above.


For additional information == President Obama should consider the contents of this video - click here.

Top Intelligence Republican: Obama: 'Ready, Fire, Aim'

(Compiler's note: A must read - see 6 minute video interview. Click on the title above)

Michigan U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra tells Newsmax.TV why Obama's national security policies, including releasing classified CIA information, shutting down Guantanamo Bay and abandoning missile shields are jeopardizing America's national security. ....

‘Empathy’ versus law, Part IV

(Compiler's note: Must read article.)

by Thomas Sowell

While President Barack Obama has, in one sense, tipped his hand by saying that he wants judges with "empathy" for certain groups, he has in a more fundamental sense concealed the real goal -- getting judges who will ratify an ever-expanding scope of the power of the federal government and an ever-declining restraint by the Constitution of the United States.

This is consistent with everything else that Obama has done in office and is consistent with his decades-long track record of alliances with people who reject the fundamentals of American society.

Judicial expansion of federal power is not really new, even if the audacity with which that goal is being pursued may be unique. For more than a century, believers in bigger government have also been believers in having judges "interpret" the restraints of the Constitution out of existence.

They called this "a living Constitution." But it has in fact been a dying Constitution, as its restraining provisions have been interpreted to mean less and less, so that the federal government can do more and more.

For example, the Constitution allows private property to be taken for "public use"-- perhaps building a reservoir or a highway -- if "just compensation" was paid. But that power was expanded by the Supreme Court in 2005 when it "interpreted" this to mean that private property could be taken for a "public purpose," which could include almost anything for which politicians could come up with the right rhetoric.

As for "just compensation," that is often about as just as "separate but equal" was equal. As for "empathy" for the less fortunate, it is precisely lower income and minority neighborhoods that are disproportionately bulldozed to make way for upscale shopping and entertainment centers that will bring in more taxes for politicians to spend to get themselves re-elected.

This process of "interpreting" the Constitution (or legislation) to mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean, no matter how plainly the words say something else, has been called judicial activism. But, as a result of widespread objections to this, that problem has been solved by redefining "judicial activism" to mean something different.

By the new definition, a judge who declares legislation that exceeds the authority of the legislature unconstitutional is called a "judicial activist."

The verbal virtuosity is breathtaking. With just a new meaning to an old phrase, reality is turned upside down. Those who oppose letting government actions exceed the bounds of the Constitution-- justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas-- are now called "judicial activists." It is a verbal coup.

Not only politicians like Senator Patrick Leahy, but also law professors like Cass Sunstein and many in the media, measure how much of a judicial activist a judge is by how many laws that judge has declared unconstitutional. Professor Sunstein, incidentally, is among those being mentioned as a possible nominee for a post on the Supreme Court.

When the Supreme Court in 1995 declared that carrying a gun near a school was not "interstate commerce," there was consternation and outrage in the liberal press because previous decisions of the Supreme Court in years past had allowed Congress to legislate on virtually anything it wanted to by saying that it was exercising its authority to regulate interstate commerce.

When the Supreme Court decided by a narrow 5 to 4 vote that carrying a gun near a school was not interstate commerce, it was saying something that most people would consider too obvious for words. But it was considered outrageous that the Supreme Court recognized the obvious and refused to rubberstamp the sophistry that allowed Congress to pass laws dealing with things that the Constitution never authorized it to deal with.

Incidentally, carrying a gun near a school was something that states had the authority to deal with, and the great majority of states had already banned it.

What is at stake in Supreme Court nominations is the power of the federal government. "Empathy" is just camouflage, a soothing word for those who do not look beyond nice-sounding rhetoric.

Saudi Arabia may take Gitmo inmates

Saudi Arabia is considering a US proposal to accept the transfer of almost 100 Yemeni inmates from the Guantanamo Bay detention centre.

An arrangement to put prisoners through a Saudi Arabian rehabilitation programme for Islamic radicals would overcome the main obstacle to President Barack Obama’s drive to shut Guantanamo’s prisoner camps by next January. ....

White House moves on contractor workforce cuts

White House officials today proposed cutting the number of contract workers at the Defense Department and collecting delinquent taxes from federal contractors more quickly as part of a plan to save $17 billion next year. ....

DHS asks for nearly $1 billion to protect critical networks, systems

The Homeland Security Department requested about a 15 percent increase in funding for fiscal 2010 to defend the nation's critical infrastructure such as the electrical grid and financial sector, and for cybersecurity to protect government systems, according to the administration's budget released on Thursday. ....

Click here for additional information.

The Statistical Analysis of Islamic Doctrines

(Compiler's note: Long, but still a must read article. Just click on the title above.)

The most unique aspect of Islamic doctrine is dualism. The Koran, Sira (Mohammed's biography) and Hadith (his traditions) hold contradictory positions on many points of doctrine that confuse kafirs. Much ink is wasted on questioning which side of the contradiction is right and which is wrong. However, Islamic dualism allows both sides of a contradiction to be true at the same time. The only way to determine truth in any multi-state system is to use statistics. Here in a Frontpage Magazine interview with Moorthy Muthuswamy, who shows how simple statistical reasoning allows us to see the total truth of Islam. ...

Records suggest Pelosi, others were told of harsh interrogations

Information released by the White House describes dozens of briefings for congressional leaders on CIA methods, including waterboarding and the planned destruction of interrogation videotapes. ....

Congressional Report Warns U.S. Underestimating Iran's Nuclear Progress

WASHINGTON -- Congressional investigators say some foreign intelligence analysts believe U.S. intelligence is underestimating Iran's progress toward designing a nuclear warhead before Tehran halted its program in 2003. ....

Are You an Obama Winner? Or an Obama Loser?

(Compiler's note: This is a must read article.)

by Newt Gingrich

If there was one feeling that inspired almost a million Americans to come out for the Tax Day Tea Parties last month it was this: That our government, supposedly created of the people, by the people and for the people, is busy picking winners and losers.

The feeling that our politics are increasingly rigged against us didn’t begin with President Obama. Deciding to bailout Wall Street rather than let deserving companies go bankrupt began under President Bush.

But the Obama Administration has elevated rewarding some Americans and punishing others to a governing philosophy.

And as he has expanded the size and the scope of government, President Obama has only increased his ability to reach into our businesses, our communities, and even our homes to separate Americans into two groups: Those who will benefit from the new order, and those who will pay the bills.

What follows is just a partial list of the winners and losers of the Obama Administration so far, organized by the government policies that will decide their fate:

The Chrysler Bankruptcy Pt. 1: From the Rule of Law to the Rule of Politics

Winners: The United Auto Workers

Loser: The Rule of Law

Bankruptcy was once a legal process in which an insolvent company, an impartial judge and creditors voting in good faith worked together to make the best of a bad situation.

Under the Obama Administration, the Chrysler bankruptcy has become a political process in which government has bought off some creditors, demonized others, and predetermined a favorable result for an important political constituency.

What happened last week with Chrysler was an unprecedented case of executive branch involvement in a bankruptcy proceeding. The Obama Administration bullied smaller investors to fall in line with TARP-funded creditors in a deal that ultimately benefited the union bosses who bear so much of the responsibility for Chrysler’s downfall to begin with. In the end, the losers weren’t just the secured creditors and the taxpayers who have footed the bill for all these bailouts, but the rule of law itself.

The Chrysler Bankruptcy Pt. 2: America, Get Ready for the “Model O”

Winners: The People Who Are Evading Responsibility for Chrysler’s Bankruptcy

Losers: Consumers Who Want to Buy Good American Cars

The end result of the rigged Chrysler bankruptcy is that two political entities whose priority is winning votes (the Federal Government and the UAW) now have majority ownership of a commercial entity whose priority should be making good cars.

And despite his protestations that he wants to get out of the auto business, President Obama has some definite ideas about what kind of cars Chrysler should make. Announcing the bankruptcy, he blamed Chrysler’s troubles, not on its uncompetitive labor costs, but on its “failure to make the fuel-efficient cars like its foreign competitors.”

Politicians, not businessmen and women, are calling the shots at Chrysler. America, get ready for the Model O.

Cap and Trade: Punishing Americans With High Energy Taxes

Winners: Government Favored “Green Industries”

Losers: Anyone Who Heats a Home, Drives a Car or Has a Job

I’m in favor of doing all we can to protect our environment, but I have a fundamental difference with Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the White House: I believe in incentivizing Americans to produce the innovations that will protect our environment, not punishing Americans with taxes, regulation and litigation.

The Administration’s cap and trade legislation makes losers of the American people by imposing a $1 trillion-$2 trillion energy tax on an already struggling economy. And the winners? They’re the lobbyists for favored special interests and “green” industries who are already lining up in Washington to collect the spoils.

Closing Gitmo: Terrorists from Guantanamo Coming Soon to a Neighborhood Near You

Winners: Terrorists and Anti-Americanism Worldwide

Losers: The New Neighbors of Terrorists and The American Tax-Payers

You may have missed it in all the news of the week, but the Administration has a truly mind-boggling idea about how to solve the problem of the terrorists left homeless by closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay: Send them to a neighborhood near you.

That’s right. As many as 30 detainees at Guantanamo are slated for release into the United States, including a group of Chinese, al Qaeda-trained jihadists who are reportedly being encouraged to settle in Northern Virginia.

And not only is the Obama Administration releasing these terrorists into the United States, it’s proposing that the U.S. taxpayers foot the bill.

Here’s how Dennis Blair, President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, rationalizes their plan for welfare for terrorists: "If we are to release them in the United States, we need some sort of assistance for them to start a new life," Blair said last month. "You can't just put them on the street."

Picking a New Supreme Court Justice: Playing Favorites Through the Courts

Winners: Anyone the President Deems Deserving of Judicial “Empathy”

Losers: Everyone Else

President Obama has announced that his criteria for picking a Supreme Court Justice to replace the retiring David Souter are jurists with the proper “empathy” and those who don’t regard justice as “abstract legal theory.”

Empathy for the less fortunate should have a central place in our public policy. But feeling the people’s pain is the job of the people who make the laws. The job of judges is to interpret the laws without regard to the race, color, creed or station of the individuals involved.

When we start picking judges based on their “empathy” for certain groups, the rights of favored groups inevitably collide with the rights of others. That’s why we have – or should have – equal justice before the law.

Demonizing Wall Street: Putting Talent and Resources Where Washington Wants Them

Winners: Professional “Community Organizers” and Other Government Activists

Losers: Young Americans Who Want to Chose Their Own Careers

President Obama frequently urges young Americans to emulate him by making the choice to forgo a lucrative career in finance or law and choose public service instead. But now he’s put the full power of the federal government behind his favored career path for young Americans.

Speaking last week to the New York Times, President Obama said that his anti-business, high-taxing, and high-regulating crusade against Wall Street “means that more talent, more resources will be going to other sectors of the economy. I actually think that’s healthy."

The message will not be lost on young Americans: Do what the President thinks is “healthy.” Be an Obama winner, not a loser.

What is at Stake Isn’t Just Tax Dollars and Jobs But Freedom

The list could go on and on.

What is at stake isn’t just the tax dollars, the jobs and the opportunities of those Americans who come out on the losing side of the Obama Administration’s policies -- as important as these things are.

What is at stake are moral issues of fairness and freedom. As Arthur Brooks, the President of the American Enterprise Institute, wrote last week, it’s immoral for the government to “confiscate more income from the minority simply because the government can. It's also a moral issue to lower the rewards for entrepreneurial success, and to spend what we don't have without regard for our children's future.”

Americans don’t mind working hard and competing to win. We don’t even mind losing sometimes.

What we mind is government making the call. That was the real message of the Tea Party movement, and it’s one President Obama and his aides would do well to hear.

Fiddling While Rome Burns

by Michael Sall

How long will we sit by while the education of literally millions of children is trashed in the wake of the teachers unions? In schools where, if children are taught at all, they are taught politically correct garbage - a fantasy of some radical liberal having nothing to do with the real world – leaving American kids with third world education levels, preparing them for nothing productive?

How long will we sit by while our State Department engages in imaginary fixes for the threats that face America and her allies? While Obama says the actions of North Korea have consequences, North Korea continues with impunity to arm itself and other rogue nations. While Rahm Emanuel says disarming Iran can be accomplished only if Israel moves forward with the "peace" process, the Palestinians continue to plot to drive the Jews into the sea, and Iran rockets forward with their nuclear program, threatening the entire world, and hiding behind propaganda that ridiculously claims Palestinian grievances as their motive.

How long will we sit by while Obama destroys the rule of law, the latest example being the threats to the senior debt holders in Chrysler who refused to allow the administration to force them to take less money than their contracts call for? Before that, this administration tried to pass a law that would allow judges to abrogate mortgage obligations. It is as if the administration is saying, "We don't care what your contract says, we don't care what the law says, we will do what we want (for the 'greater good' of course)." Activist judges unconstitutionally continue to write law with tortured logic, while Obama applauds. They even have the temerity with convoluted logic to try to undo many purely democratic and Constitutionally-passed ballot initiatives.

How long will we allow the liberals to undermine our security, our lives and our limbs? On the home front they restrict guns, thereby creating the perverse situation where criminals are armed and law abiding citizens are not. They expose secret and successful programs that have made us safer from terror, yet the traitors go unpunished. They treat terrorists sworn to our destruction as if they were shoplifters, inventing "rights" and privileges for them that never existed and don't exist now.

How long will we allow fictions like global warming to go unchallenged? The supposed universal agreement on its very existence is a myth promoted by a group of political extremists, the media, and a few scientists, many of whom were bought and paid for through grants and tenure. This theory is as much proven science as its predecessors - nuclear winter, the population bomb, and the imminent exhaustion of the world’s commodities - all of which were safely discredited and are now resting on the trash heap of history.

How long will we allow the nonsense of universal health care to be taken seriously, even as we move closer and closer to that goal? There are 46 million uninsured. 10 million are illegal aliens. 10 million can afford it but choose not to buy, and 10 million already qualify for government-paid programs but are too dysfunctional to enroll. The health care quality in America is so far superior to what it is anywhere in the world or what it would become that any thinking person should dismiss the idea as an idiot’s rant. Those who doubts this can just look around the world where government health care has been mandated (to a country it is a disaster), rather than listen to the continuing stream of lies from the left.

How long will we sit by and allow the government to take over the economy? In varying degrees the government currently controls Citi Bank, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, GM, Chrysler, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama proposes nationalizing health care (one sixth of the economy), and imposing a cap and trade energy tax that will effectively give the bureaucrats control over the energy sector. This has been tried before and failed. See the old Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea for details.

When are we going to stop the growth of federal regulations governing everything we do, and thereby snatching the very freedoms guaranteed to us under the Constitution? Don't people understand that laws, by definition, are direct restraints on our freedom and, although we need laws to take us out of "a state of nature" as Hobbs said, extending legal controls as broadly as we are doing today will surely result in a Soviet-style society.

When are we going to give God the same status in the public square that we give the other religion, atheism? Those unfortunate enough not to know God should be given a voice, but those of us who embrace Him are entitled to speak out as well.

Our friends at the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan and others remind us that we must accept some of this garbage on the theory that 51 votes in a Senate comprised of 20 John McCains and Olympia Snows is better than 30 votes made up of all Jim DeMints and John Kyls. I disagree. If we run only genuinely conservative candidates, we will get our chance to govern, and then we have at least a chance of doing it right. Bush senior and junior slowed the pace of the race towards socialism, but allowed it to continue. Reagan was the only President since Eisenhower to even attempt to stop the growth of government. The 30/20 mix of Republicans will only delay our decline, not arrest it.

For those who doubt that an all-conservative coalition will get a chance to govern, I would suggest that governments are almost always voted out, not voted in. During the Depression every ruling party in every democracy, liberal and conservative alike, was voted out. Obama didn't win nearly so much as Republicans lost. I predict that this fantastic surge towards Socialism, this vast overreaching, will usher in a new government in a very few years. The question is: will it be the party of Reagan, or of Obama lite?

History demonstrates to us that, when either party moves more to the right, they win.