Obama Agrees With McCain on 'Fundamentals'

AGAIN??

Obama agrees with McCain so often maybe he should debate Biden on Clean Coal, gun control and who was President in 1929.

Respectfully,
Pete

The Obama Code = 666

******OBAMA and Biden are Unexploded Bombs*********
Joe Biden is at high risk of Stroke and or heat attach and yet he
goes around going Ballistic.
The DNC wants Biden off the Ticket.

Feel Their Disease

Biden's Brain. Biden needs to step down now.

Please read a this Cerebral Aneurysm Fact Sheet. Joe Biden as we have
all seen routinely goes ballistic. Is Biden Hypertensive and how is
high his blood pressure surging these outbursts?
Could Biden survive a 'Cuban Missile Crisis' or other Political
calamity?

Cerebral Aneurysm Fact Sheet
*****
Now Obama He wants to be your President.
Obama has been to Rehab for COCAINE ADDICTION.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/cerebral_aneurysm/detail_cerebral_aneurysm.htm#126403098

How are cerebral aneurysms treated?

Watch Obama and see if he exhibits these symptoms.

Cocaine is a powerfully addictive drug. Once having tried cocaine, an
individual may have difficulty predicting or controlling the extent to
which he or she will continue to use the drug. Cocaine's stimulant and
addictive effects are thought to be primarily a result of its ability
to inhibit the reabsorption of dopamine by nerve cells. Dopamine is
released as part of the brain's reward system, and is either directly
or indirectly involved in the addictive properties of every major drug
of abuse.
An appreciable tolerance to cocaine's high may develop, with many
addicts reporting that they seek but fail to achieve as much pleasure
as they did from their first experience. Some users will frequently
increase their doses to intensify and prolong the euphoric effects.
While tolerance to the high can occur, users can also become more
sensitive (sensitization) to cocaine's anesthetic and convulsant
effects, without increasing the dose taken. This increased
sensitivity may explain some deaths occurring after apparently low
doses of cocaine.
Use of cocaine in a binge, during which the drug is taken repeatedly
and at increasingly high doses, leads to a state of increasing
irritability, restlessness, and paranoia. This may result in a
full-blown paranoid psychosis, in which the individual loses touch
with reality and experiences auditory hallucinations.

Short Term Effects of Cocaine
��� Increased energy
��� Decreased appetite
��� Mental alertness
��� Increased heart rate/blood pressure
��� Constricted blood vessels
��� Increased temperature
��� Dilated pupils
_________
Long Term Effects of Cocaine
��� Addiction
��� Irritability and mood disturbances
��� Restlessness
��� Paranoia
��� Auditory hallucinations
_____________
Medical Consequences of Cocaine Abuse
��� Cardiovascular Effects
o Heart rhythm disturbances
o Heart attacks
��� Respiratory Effects
o Chest pain
o Respiratory failure
��� Neurological Effects
o Strokes
o Seizures and headaches
��� Gastrointestinal Complications
o Abdominal pain
o Nausea
There are enormous medical complications associated with cocaine use.
Some of the most frequent complications are cardiovascular effects,
including disturbances in heart rhythm and heart attacks; such
respiratory effects as chest pain and respiratory failure;
neurological effects, including strokes, seizure, and headaches; and
gastrointestinal complications, including abdominal pain and nausea.
Cocaine use has been linked to many types of heart disease. Cocaine has been found to trigger chaotic heart rhythms, called ventricular fibrillation; accelerate heartbeat and breathing; and increase blood pressure and body temperature. Physical symptoms may include chest pain, nausea, blurred vision, fever, muscle spasms, convulsions and coma.
Different routes of cocaine administration can produce different adverse effects. Regularly snorting cocaine, for example, can lead to loss of sense of smell, nosebleeds, problems with swallowing, hoarseness, and an overall irritation of the nasal septum, which can lead to a chronically inflamed, runny nose. Ingested cocaine can cause severe bowel gangrene, due to reduced blood flow. And, persons who inject cocaine have puncture marks and "tracks," most commonly in their forearms. Intravenous cocaine users may also experience an allergic reaction, either to the drug, or to some additive in street cocaine, which can result, in severe cases, in death. Because cocaine has a tendency to decrease food intake, many chronic cocaine users lose their appetites and can experience significant weight loss and malnourishment.
Research has revealed a potentially dangerous interaction between cocaine and alcohol. Taken in combination, the two drugs are converted by the body to cocaethylene. Cocaethylene has a longer duration of action in the brain and is more toxic than either drug alone. While more research needs to be done, it is noteworthy that the mixture of cocaine and alcohol is the most common two-drug combination that results in drug-related death.



Obama is a so called "recovering" Cocaine addict with medically
proven brain and physiological damage from Cocaine Abuse.
He can't not be allowed to be President.
Biden won't live through the first first etrm

Vote McCain Palin and Save America.

McCain Palin seem like a natural choice for Pro family Pro Life
Americans concerned over high taxes and Terrorism. Obama is out of
touch and culturally disconnected from the vast majority of
Americana. Obama seems so Off the Wall and unsure of himself.
This is no time for a learn on the job President.
Vote McCain Palin 08

A 1992 video featuring a Republican senator, Republican congressman and top Capitol Hill staffers who worked on Vietnam prisoner of war and missing in action issues say John McCain collaborated with North Vietnamese while a POW, and then covered up that involvement to the detriment of POW/MIA families seeking access to classified Pentagon records about their own family members.

All, I have to say is if this is the man that the American voting public wants to put into office, then your open minds aren't so open to the truth...so what does that say about you??

Most important, they also believe, as expressed so well in the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs final report, that "the single most basic principle of personal honor in America's armed forces is NEVER WILLINGLY TO LEAVE A FELLOW SERVICEMAN BEHIND.

So there it is. John McCain is yet another Republican former Military Veteran who likes to talk a big game when it comes to having the support of the military. Yet, time and time again, he has gone out of his way to vote against the needs of those who are serving in our military. If he can’t even see his way to actually doing what the troops want, or what the veterans need, and he doesn’t have the support of veterans, then how can he be a credible commander in chief? Will never get my Vote, he doesn't take of the Veterans, and thats sad to me.


http://www.alternet.org/story/99663/

http://aiipowmia.com/testimony/hrdlicka1.html

http://aiipowmia.com/testimony/benge910tst.html

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/mccain_vets.cfm

I thought this article should be of great importance to the voting public.

McCain’s Radical Agenda
By BOB HERBERT
Published: September 15, 2008
Talk about a shock to the system. Has anyone bothered to notice the radical changes that John McCain and Sarah Palin are planning for the nation’s health insurance system?

These are changes that will set in motion nothing less than the dismantling of the employer-based coverage that protects most American families.

A study coming out Tuesday from scholars at Columbia, Harvard, Purdue and Michigan projects that 20 million Americans who have employment-based health insurance would lose it under the McCain plan.

There is nothing secret about Senator McCain’s far-reaching proposals, but they haven’t gotten much attention because the chatter in this campaign has mostly been about nonsense — lipstick, celebrities and “Drill, baby, drill!”

For starters, the McCain health plan would treat employer-paid health benefits as income that employees would have to pay taxes on.

“It means your employer is going to have to make an estimate on how much the employer is paying for health insurance on your behalf, and you are going to have to pay taxes on that money,” said Sherry Glied, an economist who chairs the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.

Ms. Glied is one of the four scholars who have just completed an independent joint study of the plan. Their findings are being published on the Web site of the policy journal, Health Affairs.

According to the study: “The McCain plan will force millions of Americans into the weakest segment of the private insurance system — the nongroup market — where cost-sharing is high, covered services are limited and people will lose access to benefits they have now.”

The net effect of the plan, the study said, “almost certainly will be to increase family costs for medical care.”

Under the McCain plan (now the McCain-Palin plan) employees who continue to receive employer-paid health benefits would look at their pay stubs each week or each month and find that additional money had been withheld to cover the taxes on the value of their benefits.

While there might be less money in the paycheck, that would not be anything to worry about, according to Senator McCain. That’s because the government would be offering all taxpayers a refundable tax credit — $2,500 for a single worker and $5,000 per family — to be used “to help pay for your health care.”

You may think this is a good move or a bad one — but it’s a monumental change in the way health coverage would be provided to scores of millions of Americans. Why not more attention?

The whole idea of the McCain plan is to get families out of employer-paid health coverage and into the health insurance marketplace, where naked competition is supposed to take care of all ills. (We’re seeing in the Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch fiascos just how well the unfettered marketplace has been working.)

Taxing employer-paid health benefits is the first step in this transition, the equivalent of injecting poison into the system. It’s the beginning of the end.

When younger, healthier workers start seeing additional taxes taken out of their paychecks, some (perhaps many) will opt out of the employer-based plans — either to buy cheaper insurance on their own or to go without coverage.

That will leave employers with a pool of older, less healthy workers to cover. That coverage will necessarily be more expensive, which will encourage more and more employers to give up on the idea of providing coverage at all.

The upshot is that many more Americans — millions more — will find themselves on their own in the bewildering and often treacherous health insurance marketplace. As Senator McCain has said: “I believe the key to real reform is to restore control over our health care system to the patients themselves.”

Yet another radical element of McCain’s plan is his proposal to undermine state health insurance regulations by allowing consumers to buy insurance from sellers anywhere in the country. So a requirement in one state that insurers cover, for example, vaccinations, or annual physicals, or breast examinations, would essentially be meaningless.

In a refrain we’ve heard many times in recent years, Mr. McCain said he is committed to ridding the market of these “needless and costly” insurance regulations.

This entire McCain health insurance transformation is right out of the right-wing Republicans’ ideological playbook: fewer regulations; let the market decide; and send unsophisticated consumers into the crucible alone.

You would think that with some of the most venerable houses on Wall Street crumbling like sand castles right before our eyes, we’d be a little wary about spreading this toxic formula even further into the health care system.

But we’re not even paying much attention.

All place visited by Obama must be 'Sanctified" to cast out the
stench of his wicked soul that his evilness leaves behind. Obama
leaves many devils at each place he speaks. His tongue knows only
lies. His heart is dark and full of hate for "The Lamb of God"
Cast Out Obama.
Obama is a scream from Hell.

Avoiding a 269-269 doomsday tie
September 23rd, 2008 by Josh Mercer
Joseph Curl brings up an excellent question in the Washington Times
today, what would happen to the country if John McCain and Barack
Obama each ended up with 269 electoral votes and the election was
thrown into the Congress.
Sound implausible? If Obama flips Iowa and New Mexico, and wins all
the other states Kerry won, then we are at a 269-269 deadlock.
Then the election goes to the Congress (the incoming Congress). Each
state delegation gets one vote in the House. All sorts of crazy
things could happen because the Senate would elect the Vice-President
and the House would elect the President. It could be possible to have
a divided executive branch with Obama-Palin. Or McCain-Biden.
Each state has as many electoral votes as they have Representatives
in the House plus two for their Senators. So when you add up the 435
members of the House, plus the 100 Senators, plus the 3 electors from
DC, you end up with an even number: 538. Thus the potential for a tie.
To prevent a tie, the U.S. House ought to increase its membership to
an even number.
If there were 436 members (instead of 435) , then the total number of
electors would be 539. If only two candidates received electoral
votes, you would never tie. The closest you���d get to a tie is
270-269.
This fix only prevents a 50% tie. If three candidates split the
electoral college vote and no one gets a majority, the election is
thrown into the House. The Constitution requires a majority, not just
a plurality in the Electoral College vote to get elected president.


Broadcasted in the Clear

Your comment:


The OBAMA Code = 666

Obama doesn't care he will tax us to death to pay for welfare and a
Trillion dollars to Africa.
Who cares Obama is so stupid and lacking in experience he will start
World War III.

What about the post on his Cocaine Addiction.
ACORN is Obama.

Democratic leaders call for Joe Biden to step down.

Biden's interview on Katie Couric where he said he had seen FDR on
Television is ,ost disturbing. His Gaffes and world famous ballistic
temper have Democratic leaders concerned. Can the Nation risk Joe
Biden becoming President and with his finger resting on the nuclear
trigger?
Biden has antagonized Hillary's supporters and the DNC has been
trying to get Biden to step down for weeks.
Now hundreds of Physicians are questioning Joe Biden's health and
behavior.
The following article is representative of Physicians concerns that
ranges from very interested to highly concerned about Joe Bidens
health.


Joe Biden has been going around for about twenty years since his
emergency brain surgery. Biden is due for another medical crisis.
Patients with a history of brain aneurysms can develop new ones.

Patients with a history of brain aneurysms can sometimes develop new
ones

We Need to Know More About Biden's Health
By Steven Lomazow, M.D.
Dr. Lomazow, Assistant Professor of Neurology at Mount Sinai School
of Medicine, is working on a book about FDR's health problems.
The headline, from the Associated Press, May 4, 1988, read: "Biden
Resting After Surgery For Second Brain Aneurysm." The story flashed
the details around the world:
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. underwent surgery today to correct an
aneurysm in an artery that supplies blood to the right side of the
brain, a spokesman for the Walter Reed Army Medical Center said. The
spokesman, Peter Esker, said Senator Biden was awake, resting
comfortably and talking with his family after the operation, his
second this year to correct an aneurysm. An aneurysm is a ballooning
of an artery. The 4 1/2-hour procedure was similar to that performed
Feb. 12 on the left side of Mr. Biden's brain. Under the procedure, a
surgeon using a microscope pinches the aneurysm with a clip, bringing
the walls of the artery together. The clip remains in the patient.
Mr. Esker said there are no signs of any other aneurysms, adding that
the second was much smaller than the first.
Once again, the remarkable run of neurological disease in prominent
political figures has come to the forefront. The potentially fatal
consequences of a ruptured brain aneurysm were recently underscored
by the untimely and wholly unexpected death of Congresswomen
Stephanie Tubbs Jones. Fortunately, for the newly-named Democratic
vice-presidential nominee, his prognosis is excellent but, once
again, because of the gravity and importance of the position he is
aspiring to obtain, special circumstances supervene.
Senator Biden did not return to the Senate until September 8th, seven
months after the initial diagnosis, after suffering a pulmonary
embolus (blood clot in the lungs), requiring another surgery between
his two brain operations. (New York Times, September 8, 1988)
Patients with a history of brain aneurysms can sometimes develop new
ones.

Seven previous vice presidents have died in office, the next to last
being the obscure Garret A. Hobart of New Jersey, who would likely
have become president upon the assassination of William McKinley had
he not succumbed to illness during McKinley's prior term.
Vice-Presidents of the United States Who Died In Office
George Clinton, April 20, 1812
Elbridge Gerry, November 23, 1814
William R. King, April 18, 1853
Henry Wilson, November 22, 1875
Thomas A. Hendricks, November 25, 1885
Garret A. Hobart, November 21, 1899
James S. Sherman, October 30, 1912
Patients with a history of brain aneurysms can sometimes develop new
ones.

War and the "New World Order"

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

09/04/07 "Global Research" --- -

“We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion. And the question is this: Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war. So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?”



-Norman Dobbs, U.S. Congressional Special Committee for the Investigate of Tax-Exempt Foundations (1982)


War is the ultimate means of attempting to change societies and reshape nations. It is through war that national economies and political structures can be forcibly restructured. War is, potentially, the ultimate economic shock therapy. The wars in the Middle East are stepping stones towards establishing a vision of global order that has been in the hearts and minds of the Anglo-American establishment for years. That vision is global ascendancy.

Towards the “New International Order” through the “Global War on Terror”



“There is a chance for the President of the United States [George W. Bush Jr.] to use this disaster [meaning the attacks of September 11, 2001] to carry out what his father…a phrase his father [George H. Bush Sr.] used I think only once, and it hasn’t been used since … and that is a new world order. Think about this. We already have the support of NATO in a remarkable historic departure.”



-Gary Hart, National Security in the 21st Century: Findings of the Hart-Rudman Commission (September 14, 2001)



On January 18, 2005 Henry Kissinger appeared on Charlie Rose, a television program on PBS, and talked about a “New International Order” being created by George W. Bush Jr. and his administration. [1] Henry Kissinger stated that within the next few years that humanity will see the emergence of the beginning of a “New International Order.” Kissinger also stated that the Bush Jr. Administration could bring about this state; “and it could well be this president, [meaning President Bush Jr.] that is so reviled by intellectuals, [who] will emerge as one of the seminal presidents ... of this period…of American modern history.” [2]

When asked what George W. Bush Jr. has to do to bring about this “New International Order” by his interviewer, Kissinger paused and gave a vague answer that avoided mentioning the criminality of war. “He has to do some certain things and he has to have some luck,” Kissinger answered followed by “Luck is the residue of design.” [3] It should be noted that if luck is a residue of design then it is no longer chance, but a calculation of intent.



Briefly, the role of the American public was talked about by Charlie Rose with Kissinger who paused to pick his words carefully. Kissinger told his interviewer, Rose, that the United States is a nation whose public has no clue about American foreign policy. [4] In regards to the American public, the war agenda cannot move forward if the U.S. maintains its multi-cultural characteristics. It was this multi-cultural characteristic that initially presented the U.S. a problem in declaring war on Germany in both World Wars until the sinking of the RMS Lusitania and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. [5]

Thus, an end to a liberal North American immigration regime that ensures a multi-cultural environment in North America is a prerequisite to expanded American war(s). Zbigniew Brzezinski has written that “as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues [amongst the American people], except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” [6] The E.U. is also beginning to follow suit. This premise by Brzezinski, an individual from within the ruling establishment of America, can be used to explain the demonization of Muslims and several national and ethno-cultural groups such as Arabs, Turks, and Iranians.



It is also worth noting that Gary Hart, a former U.S. senator from Colorado, implied on September 14 of 2001 that the “Global War on Terror” sponsored by the Bush Jr. Administration was a pretext for establishing the so-called “New World Order.” [7] Gary Hart also implicated NATO’s role in shaping this “New World Order.” [8] The project is to be implemented by military might.



A Unipolar World: Pax Americana?



“However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.”



-Vladimir Putin at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany (February 11, 2007)



During his interview, with Charlie Rose, Henry Kissinger had referred to what George H. Bush Sr. identified as the “New World Order.” This was a term frequently used by the former American president that became famous during the Gulf War. With the end of the Cold War and the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War, Georgia H. Bush Sr. said that humanity in 1991 was witness to the emergence of a “New World Order” that would be led by America. [9] The Gulf War was merely the beginning of this “New World Order.” The seeds had been planted in the Middle East for future wars and Eurasian expansion.



The Trilateral Commission, an organization founded in 1973 and consisting of the wealthiest and most powerful elites from the U.S., the E.U., and Japan, originally created the term that George H. Bush Sr. drew on. Their word was “New International Economic Order.” The Trilateral Commission’s terminology lays bare the economic fabric of this program. Military might is merely the enforcer of foreign policy, and foreign policy is based on economic interests.



An agenda of perpetual warfare and violence has been fueling the march towards global domination through economic means. In essence this war agenda has been an unbroken process watched over by the different presidential administrations of the United States.



Stepping forth from behind the Curtains: NATO’s Role in the Eurasian Roadmap



“The policies of the U.S., since the end of the Cold War are complicated and vast. They involve an intent to dominate and the use of international organizations to advance U.S. economic and geopolitical interests. They also include the conversion of NATO into a surrogate military police force for globalization and U.S. world economic domination.”



-Ramsey Clark, 66th United States Attorney-General (October 6, 2000)



NATO has started replicating long-term American war tactics and strategy. NATO is creating a rapid response force, which involves a significant German role. The force is modeled on the U.S. Rapid Response Force, the forerunner of CENTCOM, and has a global reach. The transformation of the U.S. Rapid Deployment Force into CENTCOM was part of long-term Anglo-American war plans. The NATO force is projected to be able to deploy to any region in the world within five days and planned to be capable of self-sufficient, detached operations for approximately one month. The force will also have land, sea, and air components, including an aircraft carrier. [10]



It is apparent that control over Iraq was planned during the culmination of the Cold War by Anglo-American policy makers. The series of wars that have occurred since the Iraq-Iran War are debatably the products of a historical Anglo-American project in the Middle East— a project that was once a solely British project that predated the Cold War. The project to reshape and control the Middle East is part of the greater project to control Eurasia. Just as how this grand project was embraced by the U.S., as the inheritor of British strategy, the project has been embraced by the Franco-German entente and NATO. Zbigniew Brzezinski argued in 1997 that “Europe is America’s essential geopolitical bridgehead in Eurasia,” or an entry point towards dominating Eurasia. [11]



From the statements and goals of U.S. officials going back to the 1990s NATO was projected to expand across the Eurasian landmass and set to embrace Japan, South Korea, and Australia in what Zbigniew Brzezinski identifies as the “trans-Eurasian security system.” [12] The characteristics of prospective conflicts seem to be slated to become dominated by NATO as France and Germany expand their roles in the “long war.” NATO’s role in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, Lebanon, and Afghanistan, along with NATO’s thrust into the post-Soviet niche and inner Eurasia, are all precarious indications of this.



Making Europe the Partner of America in the “Long War:” Enter the Franco-German Entente



“The victory over Iraq [in the Gulf War] was not waged as ‘a war to end all wars.’ Even the ‘New World Order’ cannot guarantee an era of perpetual peace.”



-George H. Bush Sr., 41st President of the United States (March 6, 1991)



Brzezinski explained that although Japan was important to American geo-strategy, Europe as a geopolitical entity (via the E.U. and NATO) constitutes America’s bridgehead into Eurasia. [13] “Unlike America’s links with Japan, NATO entrenches American political influence and military power on the Eurasian mainland,” and that “the allied European nations [were] still highly dependent on U.S. protection, any expansion of Europe’s political scope is automatically an expansion of U.S. influence,” Brzezinski explained in regards to Europe and Japan. [14] Brzezinski was paying more than just lip service to America’s allies in continental Europe; he was stressing that they were crucial, albeit as subordinates, to American global interests.



The strength of NATO would rest on the vitality of the European Union, an Anglo-American and Franco-German device. To emphasis this Brzezinski wrote that “the United States’ ability to project influence and power in Eurasia relies on close transatlantic ties.” [15] Brzezinski also added that France and Germany, the Franco-German entente, would be America’s vital partners in NATO expansion and securing Eurasia, but a united Europe was an essential prerequisite. In regards to the Franco-German entente, Brzezinski wrote in 1998 that “In the western periphery of Eurasia, the key players will continue to be France and Germany, and America’s central goal should be to continue to expand the democratic European bridgehead.” [16] This was essentially the forecast of the “E.U. expansion” that has gone hand-in-hand with earlier NATO expansion since the end of the Cold War. According to Brzezinski it would be up to the Franco-German entente to led Europe: “America cannot create a more united Europe on its own — that is a task for the Europeans, especially the French and the Germans.” [17]



None of the Pentagon’s geo-strategic plans can go forward without the E.U. and NATO. For this to happen it is essential that a strategic consensus between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente be forged. The Anglo-American alliance has pursued this track and deeper integration with the Franco-German side, while also taking an adversarial stance against the Franco-German entente. Iraq is a symbolic testimony to this rivalry while Lebanon and NATO expansion in the Eastern Mediterranean is a parallel testimony to the strategic cooperation between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente. A contradictory and confusing message is sent from these tracks, but there is always more to the picture. However, it is clear that Franco-German and Anglo-American interests must be synchronized for America to expand its global control.



The Endgame: A “Single Market” under One World Administration?



“I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer...”



-Major-General Smedley D. Butler, U.S. Marine Corp Commander (War Is a Racket, 1935)



After the Second World War, it was believed that from the nucleolus of Britain and American that a “New World Order” would be formed. Britain and America even had a combined military staff and combined chiefs of military staff. Visions for a singular global polity have vividly been tied to the Anglo-American establishment. In 1966, Professor Carroll Quigley, a noted American economist, wrote in his book Hope and Tragedy: A History of the World in Our Time that economics and finance vis-à-vis banking conglomerates were the engine in this drive and the real forces controlling national policies. Carroll Quigley wrote in regards to the Anglo-American alliance that “I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” [18]



“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia,” insists Zbigniew Brzezinski. He also contends, “Now a non-Eurasian power [i.e., the U.S.] is preeminent in Eurasia— and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” [19] The former U.S. national security advisor has also stated, in 1997, that in order to co-opt the Franco-German entente a “Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement, already advocated by a number of prominent Atlantic leaders, could also mitigate the risk of growing economic rivalry between a more united E.U. and the United States.” [20]

There is opposition in North America to what is believed to be the emergence of a projected “North American Union.” This North American entity would further amalgamate Canada, the United States, and Mexico, but the mechanisms for a grander global confederacy have already been drawn. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the creation of the E.U. were stepping stones towards this aspiration. Economics is the key that fuses these polities.



A summit between the E.U. and U.S. has shed light on plans for economic amalgamation. [21] The term used at the summit was “single market” by “renewing the Trans-Atlantic partnership.” [22] This is the same term used to describe the “common market” as it intensified Western European integration, which eventually gave birth to the European Union. At the summit President Bush Jr. met with Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, and Federal Chancellor Merkel. Frau Merkel, while officially there on behalf of the E.U., represented the interests of the Franco-German entente while President Bush Jr. represented Anglo-American interests. Jose Manuel Barroso as the President of the European Commission represented both Anglo-American and Franco-German interests because the E.U. is a joint Anglo-American and Franco-German body. America is a de facto E.U. power due to its alliance with Britain, one of the three major E.U. powers along with France and Germany.

An agreement was reached between the E.U. and U.S. to integrate the markets and regulations of America and Europe even further. This agreement was another layer to add to the strategic consensus that was reached at NATO’s Riga Summit. Both sides also stated that economics is the driving spirit in their relationship and that politics mattered very little. The liberal and conservative leaders of America and Europe are merely two sides of the same coin.



Decades after the end of the Cold War the globe is wrapped within a state of almost perpetual war dominated by the military might of America. The last lines in The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives reveal the ultimate objective of Anglo-American policy: “These efforts will have the added historical advantage of benefiting from the new web of global linkages that is growing exponentially outside the more traditional nation-state system. That web— woven by multinational corporations, NGOs (…) already creates an informal global system that is inherently congenial to more institutionalized and inclusive global cooperation [a reference to global government].” [23]

Brzezinski goes on to predict that “In the course of the next several decades, a functioning structure of global cooperation, based on geopolitical realities, could thus emerge and gradually assume the mantle of the world’s current ‘regent’ [a reference to the U.S.],” and “Geostrategic success in that cause would represent a fitting legacy of America’s role as the first, only, and last truly global superpower.” [24] All around the globe nation-states are being absorbed into larger and larger political and socio-economic entities. This is part of the story of globalization, but it has its dark side. This is the globalization of the few and not of the many.



The Fight for Civilization and the Gathering Storm



“When all is said and done the conflict in Afghanistan will be to the war on terrorism what the North African campaign was to World War II: an essential beginning on the path to victory. But compared to what looms over the horizon— a wide-ranging war in locales from Central Asia to the Middle East and, unfortunately, back again to the United States— Afghanistan will prove but an opening battle.”



-Robert Kagan and William Kristol, The Gathering Storm (The Weekly Standard, October 29, 2001)



One cannot help but remember what was elucidated in 2001 during the start of the “Global War on Terror” by two members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), stating that Afghanistan was only part of a “wide-ranging war.” [25] Both Robert Kagan and William Kristol are deeply linked to U.S. foreign and military policy extending from writing presidential speeches to having a former spouse as the U.S. ambassador to NATO. It is not coincidental that a portion of their editorial from October of 2001 in The Weekly Standard has actually materialized. These men should be taken for their words when they say that Afghanistan is merely the “opening battle” compared to what is waiting in the horizon.



Referring back to Robert Kagan and William Kristol: “this war will not end in Afghanistan. It is going to spread and engulf a number of countries in conflicts of varying intensity. It could well require the use of American military power in multiple places simultaneously. It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. And it is going to put enormous and perhaps unbearable strain on parts of an international coalition that basks in contented consensus.” [26] The “international coalition” being referred to is NATO and the international military network based around the U.S. and the “unbearable strain” is war, but of an unknown scale. On August 10, 2007 Lieutenant-General Douglas Lute, the “War Czar” overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and any expanded theatre, publicly talked about restoring a mandatory military draft. [27] The march to war is not waning, but driving the world towards the abyss.



Afghanistan was the first volley in an advance phase of the global conflict that was in its preparatory stages decades ago during the Iraq-Iran War, the Gulf War, and the Kosovo War. Where this global conflict, this “long war” will lead us is unknown, but all humanity is in this together. The American people will sooner or later feel the pain of war as their freedom is effected. Autocracy is a prerequisite to grand empires. Brzezinski has pointed out that “America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad,” and “never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy.” [28] Deviancy is being normalized all over the globe because of this global project. Those that are behind such projects must be reduced to social leprids, as outcasts, denounced by all societies.



Resistance in the Middle East: The Power of the People



“The Iraqi Resistance is by definition democratic as it is the spontaneous expression of a people who took its destiny into its hands, and is by definition progressive as it defends the interests of the people.”



-Hana Al-Bayaty (March 18, 2007)



Anglo-American planners have underestimated the capacity of the power of ordinary people and the human spirit. In the Middle East it has been the resistance of ordinary people that has brought militant globalization to a standstill. Popular resistance movements have bogged down the military might of the remaining global superpower.



A nation is only as legitimate as the people(s) who live in it define it. America is not at war with individual nations, but with the people(s) of these nations. Nor are the American people at war with these nations, it is the American ruling establishment and elites that are at war with these people(s).

The forces of resistance are the forces of the will of the people, without the support of the people none of them could last or stand up to some of the most powerful war machines in human history.



The wars in the Middle East are as much about choice as they are about the right to live. What is at stake is self-determination and liberty. These wars represent the drive to impose an overall monopoly of controls over other nations by a few who have hijacked the foreign policies of America and Britain to serve their own goals.



The Iraqi Resistance and the other resistance movements of the Middle East are movements of the peoples and by nature egalitarian. Would anyone in the so-called West dare label the French, Czechoslovakian, Greek, Libyan, Chinese, Malaysian, and Soviet resistance movements against Germany, Italy, and Japan during the Second World War as terrorist movements? However, the occupying Axis governments labeled these movements as terrorists. Did not France and the other areas occupied by Germany and the Axis Powers not have governments that said the Axis Powers were welcomed forces bringing stability as do the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan? For example in France there was the Vichy Government. When Germany was defeated the leaders of the Vichy Government in France were executed as traitors.



The U.S. government misleadingly claims that it is bringing democracy to these lands, but since when was democracy forced from the top down to the bottom? Is this not the opposite of democracy; things being forced down from the top to the bottom? Democracy is an expression of the masses that manifests itself upwards and not from the opposite direction.


No force on earth can defeat the popular will of the people; this is why domestic populations are manipulated into supporting wars. It is only division that allows small groups to take temporary reign over the people(s). However, for every scheme and plan to create division and anarchy amongst the people(s) of the world there is a plan to unite them and strengthen them. This is one of the greatest fears of many in positions of power. This is the fear of any awakening of large societal groups and populations.



There is no greater ally to the movements of resistance in the Middle East and beyond than unadulterated public opinion in the rest of the world. The people(s) of Britain, Israel, and the U.S. are also victims of their own governments who manipulate their fears and create animosity between them and other nations. This in itself is a great crime. What differences exist between nations are only a means to test the best of them.



Fear and hate are the weapons of the real terrorists, the masters of deception, and those who belittle others for profit and personal gain. These are the terrorists who give orders in positions of political leadership in the White House and elsewhere at the expense of their own people and the rest of humanity. The world is now embarking into the abyss of perpetual war and a period in which the contemplation of the use of nuclear weapons is being made. A stand must be made by individuals of good conscience and will. It seems possible that it will be a matter of time before the citizens of Europe, North America, and other lands will be compelled or necessitated to join the peoples of occupied lands in resistance.



War must be averted on two fronts; in the shorter-term (as differentiated from “short-term”) or near future, war must be averted from emerging in the Middle East, and in the longer-term in Eurasia. Only the resistance of the people and public opinion can stop war from enveloping the globe. Public opinion must translate into public action if humanity it to be spared from a massive war—a war that could prove to become a nuclear armageddon.



Countdown to 1984?



“In brief, the U.S policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change...”



-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)



In a twist of Orwellian fate, the earth seems closer to appearing like a rendition of the world in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. [29] However, the road ahead is not scripted. The future is only anticipated and planned, but never certain in a universe of infinite probabilities. Time will tell where the road ahead will guide us. Those that see themselves as masters of destiny have had their ideas proven wrong in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia, and Lebanon. It may look as if opposition to a war agenda is like tiny raindrops beating against an unrelenting mountain, but mountains can be eventually eroded by those tiny raindrops. There exists a “sensitive dependence on initial conditions,” commonly called the “butterfly effect,” whereas the flaps of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil may set off a tornado in Texas. Individual actions can offset the march to war that is unfolding on this planet.


Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

The wife U.S. Republican John McCain callously left behind

By Sharon Churcher


Now that Hillary Clinton has at last formally withdrawn from the race for the White House, the eyes of America and the world will focus on Barack Obama and his Republican rival Senator John McCain.


While Obama will surely press his credentials as the embodiment of the American dream – a handsome, charismatic young black man who was raised on food stamps by a single mother and who represents his country’s future – McCain will present himself as a selfless, principled war hero whose campaign represents not so much a battle for the presidency of the United States, but a crusade to rescue the nation’s tarnished reputation.

McCain likes to illustrate his moral fibre by referring to his five years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam. And to demonstrate his commitment to family values, the 71-year-old former US Navy pilot pays warm tribute to his beautiful blonde wife, Cindy, with whom he has four children.

But there is another Mrs McCain who casts a ghostly shadow over the Senator’s presidential campaign. She is seldom seen and rarely written about, despite being mother to McCain’s three eldest children.

And yet, had events turned out differently, it would be she, rather than Cindy, who would be vying to be First Lady. She is McCain’s first wife, Carol, who was a famous beauty and a successful swimwear model when they married in 1965.

She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam’s infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.

But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her car had skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries.

When Carol was discharged from hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons

had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.

Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self.

Today, she stands at just 5ft4in and still walks awkwardly, with a pronounced limp. Her body is held together by screws and metal plates and, at 70, her face is worn by wrinkles that speak of decades of silent suffering.

For nearly 30 years, Carol has maintained a dignified silence about the accident, McCain and their divorce. But last week at the bungalow where she now lives at Virginia Beach, a faded seaside resort 200 miles south of Washington, she told The Mail on Sunday how McCain divorced her in 1980 and married Cindy, 18 years his junior and the heir to an Arizona brewing fortune, just one month later.

Carol insists she remains on good terms with her ex-husband, who agreed as part of their divorce settlement to pay her medical costs for life. ‘I have no bitterness,’

she says. ‘My accident is well recorded. I had 23 operations, I am five inches shorter than I used to be and I was in hospital for six months. It was just awful, but it wasn’t the reason for my divorce.

‘My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens...it just does.’

Some of McCain’s acquaintances are less forgiving, however. They portray the politician as a self-centred womaniser who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to ‘play the field’. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons.

McCain was then earning little more than £25,000 a year as a naval officer, while his new father-in-law, Jim Hensley, was a multi-millionaire who had impeccable political connections.

He first met Carol in the Fifties while he was at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis. He was a privileged, but rebellious scion of one of America’s most distinguished military dynasties – his father and grandfather were both admirals.

But setting out to have a good time, the young McCain hung out with a group of young officers who called themselves the ‘Bad Bunch’.

His primary interest was women and his conquests ranged from a knife-wielding floozy nicknamed ‘Marie, the Flame of Florida’ to a tobacco heiress.

Carol fell into his fast-living world by accident. She escaped a poor upbringing in Philadelphia to become a successful model, married an Annapolis classmate of McCain’s and had two children – Douglas and Andrew – before renewing what one acquaintance calls ‘an old flirtation’ with McCain.

It seems clear she was bowled over by McCain’s attention at a time when he was becoming bored with his playboy lifestyle.

‘He was 28 and ready to settle down and he loved Carol’s children,’ recalled another Annapolis graduate, Robert Timberg, who wrote The Nightingale’s Song, a bestselling biography of McCain and four other graduates of the academy.

The couple married and McCain adopted Carol’s sons. Their daughter, Sidney, was born a year later, but domesticity was clearly beginning

to bore McCain – the couple were regarded as ‘fixtures on the party circuit’ before McCain requested combat duty in Vietnam at the end of 1966.

He was assigned as a bomber pilot on an aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Tonkin.


What follows is the stuff of the McCain legend. He was shot down over Hanoi in October 1967 on his 23rd mission over North Vietnam and was badly beaten by an angry mob when he was pulled, half-drowned from a lake.


Over the next five-and-a-half years in the notorious Hoa Loa Prison he was regularly tortured and mistreated.

It was in 1969 that Carol went to spend the Christmas holiday – her third without McCain – at her parents’ home. After dinner, she left to drop off some presents at a friend’s house.

It wasn’t until some hours later that she was discovered, alone and in terrible pain, next to the wreckage of her car. She had been hurled through the windscreen.

After her first series of life-saving operations, Carol was told she may never walk again, but when doctors said they would try to get word to McCain about her injuries, she refused, insisting: ‘He’s got enough problems, I don’t want to tell him.’


H. Ross Perot, a billionaire Texas businessman, future presidential candidate and advocate of prisoners of war, paid for her medical care.

When McCain – his hair turned prematurely white and his body reduced to little more than a skeleton – was released in March 1973, he told reporters he was overjoyed to see Carol again.

But friends say privately he was ‘appalled’ by the change in her appearance. At first, though, he was kind, assuring her: ‘I don’t look so good myself. It’s fine.’

He bought her a bungalow near the sea in Florida and another former PoW helped him to build a railing so she could pull herself over the dunes to the water.

‘I thought, of course, we would live happily ever after,’ says Carol. But as a war hero, McCain was moving in ever-more elevated circles.


Through Ross Perot, he met Ronald Reagan, then Governor of California. A sympathetic Nancy Reagan took Carol under her wing.

But already the McCains’ marriage had begun to fray. ‘John started carousing and running around with women,’ said Robert Timberg.


McCain has acknowledged that he had girlfriends during this time, without going into details. Some friends blame his dissatisfaction with Carol, but others give some credence to her theory of a mid-life crisis.

He was also fiercely ambitious, but it was clear he would never become an admiral like his illustrious father and grandfather and his thoughts were turning to politics.

In 1979 – while still married to Carol – he met Cindy at a cocktail party in Hawaii. Over the next six months he pursued her, flying around the country to see her. Then he began to push to end his marriage.

Carol and her children were devastated. ‘It was a complete surprise,’ says Nancy Reynolds, a former Reagan aide.

‘They never displayed any difficulties between themselves. I know the Reagans were quite shocked because they loved and respected both Carol and John.’

Another friend added: ‘Carol didn’t fight him. She felt her infirmity made her an impediment to him. She justified his actions because of all he had gone through. She used to say, “He just wants to make up for lost time.”’

Indeed, to many in their circle the saddest part of the break-up was Carol’s decision to resign herself to losing a man she says she still adores.

Friends confirm she has remained friends with McCain and backed him in all his campaigns. ‘He was very generous to her in the divorce but of course he could afford to be, since he was marrying Cindy,’ one observed.

McCain transferred the Florida beach house to Carol and gave her the right to live in their jointly-owned townhouse in the Washington suburb of Alexandria. He also agreed to pay her alimony and child support.

A former neighbour says she subsequently sold up in Florida and Washington and moved in 2003 to Virginia Beach. He said: ‘My impression was that she found the new place easier to manage as she still has some difficulties walking.’

Meanwhile McCain moved to Arizona with his new bride immediately after their 1980 marriage. There, his new father-in-law gave him a job and introduced him to local businessmen and political powerbrokers who would smooth his passage to Washington via the House of Representatives and Senate.


And yet despite his popularity as a politician, there are those who won’t forget his treatment of his first wife.

Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans’ rights, said: ‘I have been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is – deceit.

‘When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it.

‘Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better.

‘This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.’

One old friend of the McCains said: ‘Carol always insists she is not bitter, but I think that’s a defence mechanism. She also feels deeply in his debt because in return for her agreement to a divorce, he promised to pay for her medical care for the rest of her life.’


Carol remained resolutely loyal as McCain’s political star rose. She says she agreed to talk to The Mail on Sunday only because she wanted to publicise her support for the man who abandoned her.

Indeed, the old Mercedes that she uses to run errands displays both a disabled badge and a sticker encouraging people to vote for her ex-husband. ‘He’s a good guy,’ she assured us. ‘We are still good friends. He is the best man for president.’

But Ross Perot, who paid her medical bills all those years ago, now believes that both Carol McCain and the American people have been taken in by a man who is unusually slick and cruel – even by the standards of modern politics.

‘McCain is the classic opportunist. He’s always reaching for attention and glory,’ he said.

‘After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.’

Additional reporting by Paul Henderson in Virginia Beach and William Lowther in Washington

Obama and ACORN want to Community "Organize" you about of all your
money.

According to the Wall Street Journal, evidence indicates Barack Obama
and William Ayers pushed 'radicalism on Schools.' This well
researched piece highlights important facts suggesting that Obama
continues to hide his in-depth association with an American
terrorist.
We offer this article and this question for your consideration before
November 4: if a presidential candidate cannot be truthful to the
American people about his past and his relationships, can we trust
him with our nuclear codes?
Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools
By STANLEY KURTZ

Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never
written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to
1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg
Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group
poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers
and radical education activists.
The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather
Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his
cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for
his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate
was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home.
The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last
April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my
neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a
regular basis." Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr.
Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are
housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois
at Chicago and I've recently spent days looking through them.
The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve
Chicago's public schools. The funding came from a national education
initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama
was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal
matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation's other key body, the
"Collaborative," which shaped education policy.
The CAC's basic functioning has long been known, because its annual
reports, evaluations and some board minutes were public. But the
Daley archive contains additional board minutes, the Collaborative
minutes, and documentation on the groups that CAC funded and
rejected. The Daley archives show that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked
as a team to advance the CAC agenda.

One unsettled question is how Mr. Obama, a former community organizer
fresh out of law school, could vault to the top of a new foundation?
In response to my questions, the Obama campaign issued a statement
saying that Mr. Ayers had nothing to do with Obama's "recruitment" to
the board. The statement says Deborah Leff and Patricia Albjerg Graham
(presidents of other foundations) recruited him. Yet the archives show
that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a
working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr.
Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been
appointed the CAC chairman without his approval.

Abominable Obamanomics

Obama's Economic Agenda Is At Odds With The Interests Of Taxpayers, Small Businesses, And U.S. Productivity
OBAMA'S LAUNDRY LIST OF TAX HIKES WOULD HURT THE ECONOMY
Obama Is A High-Tax Candidate Whose Slew Of Tax Increases Would Hurt The Economy:
Obama Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Higher Social Security Taxes, Higher Investment Taxes, And Higher Corporate Taxes, As Well As "Massive New Domestic Spending." "Obama's transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system." (James Pethokoukis, "Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?" U.S. News & World Report's "Capital Commerce" Blog, www.usnews.com, 2/12/08)
• Obama Has Also Called For Tax Hikes On "Dirty Energy" Such As Coal And Natural Gas. Obama: "What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas." ("Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama," San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)
Alan Reynolds, Senior Fellow At The Cato Institute: "In Short, Obama Is A 'Tax-And-Spend' Liberal..." (Alan Reynolds, Op-Ed, "Tax Delusions," New York Post, 2/15/08)
The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore: "[Obama] doesn't believe that raising tax rates is going to hurt the economy and if he becomes President ... tax rates will go up almost across the board." (The Wall Street Journal Website, www.wsj.com, Accessed 2/13/08)
CNBC's Larry Kudlow: "[Obama] has a very punitive high-tax campaign plan for the economy." (Larry Kudlow, "Obama, The Very-High-Tax Candidate," National Review's "The Corner" Blog, nationalreview.com, 2/11/08)
• Kudlow: "Whether Wall Street has fully discounted this, I have no idea. Probably not yet. But somebody in the investor class ought to be thinking about it, because it's not good." (Larry Kudlow, "Obama, The Very-High-Tax Candidate," National Review's "The Corner" Blog, nationalreview.com, 2/11/08)
Ben Stein On Barack Obama's Economic Plan: "Mr. Obama could become president and derail everything because his understanding of economics is 100 percent wrong. ... I must say I'm so scared about Mr. Obama becoming president. I can hardly tell you." (CNBC's "Kudlow & Company," 2/14/08)
Obama's Tax Reform Proposal Was Widely Criticized And Labeled "A Recipe For Economic Disaster":
The Las Vegas Review-Journal Calls Obama's Tax Plan "A Recipe For Economic Disaster." (Editorial, "More Class Warfare," Las Vegas Review-Journal, 9/20/07)
The Washington Post: "[T]he Illinois Senator's Proposals Are Poorly Crafted, Lavishing Tax Goodies Where They're Not Needed." (Editorial, "Mr. Obama's Cookie Jar," The Washington Post, 9/25/07)
U.S. News & World Report's James Pethokoukis: "[T]he Obama Plan Could Also Be Called A 'Ways In Which Government Can Collect More Taxes To Pay For New Spending' Plan..." (James Pethokoukis, "Obama Pushes For Higher Investment Taxes," U.S. News & World Report's "Capital Commerce" Blog, www.usnews.com, 9/19/07)
OBAMA'S BUSINESS TAX PLAN IMPOSES A SIGNIFICANT TAX BURDEN
Obama's Business Tax Proposal Imposes Significant Tax Increases That Would Make "U.S. Companies Less Profitable And Less Competitive World-Wide":
Obama's Tax Proposal For Businesses Favors Employers That Fulfill "The Fondest Big Labor Agenda." "Mr. Obama's proposal would designate certain companies as 'patriot employers' and favor them over other, presumably not so patriotic, businesses. ... In other words, a patriotic employer is one which fulfills the fondest Big Labor agenda, regardless of the competitive implications. The proposal ignores the marketplace reality that businesses hire a work force they can afford to pay and still make money. Coercing companies into raising wages and benefits above market rates may only lead to fewer workers getting hired in the first place." (Editorial, "Obama's 'Patriot' Act," The Wall Street Journal, 2/27/08)
Obama's Proposal Penalizes Most American Companies That Have Subsidiaries Abroad With "A Big Tax Increase." "Under Mr. Obama's plan, 'patriot employers' qualify for a 1% tax credit on their profits. To finance this tax break, American companies with subsidiaries abroad would have to pay the U.S. corporate tax on profits earned abroad, rather than the corporate tax of the host country where they are earned. Since the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35%, while most of the world has a lower rate, this amounts to a big tax increase on earnings owned abroad. Put another way, U.S. companies would suddenly have to pay a higher tax rate than their Chinese, Japanese and Eur opean competitors." (Editorial, "Obama's 'Patriot' Act," The Wall Street Journal, 2/27/08)
• "According To Research By Peter Merrill, An International Tax Expert At PriceWaterhouseCoopers, This Change Would 'Raise The Cost Of Capital Of U.S. Multinationals And Cause Them To Lose Market Share To Foreign Rivals.'" (Editorial, "Obama's 'Patriot' Act," The Wall Street Journal, 2/27/08)
• "Apparently Mr. Obama Believes That By Making U.S. Companies Less Profitable And Less Competitive World-Wide, They Will Somehow Be Able To Create More Jobs In America." (Editorial, "Obama's 'Patriot' Act," The Wall Street Journal, 2/27/08)
OBAMA'S PROPOSALS WOULD HURT SMALL BUSINESS
Obama's Plans For Health Care And Social Security Would Burden Small Businesses:
Obama's Health Care Proposal Includes "A New Tax On Small Businesses That Don't Provide Health Care To Their Employees." "[Obama] is calling for the tax cuts pushed by President Bush to expire in 2010 for upper-income earners -- an effective tax hike for more than 1 million taxpayers -- and is proposing a new tax on small businesses that don't provide health care to their employees." (Rick Klein, "No Lip Service: Dems Trade Higher Taxes For Social Programs," ABCNews.com, 5/29/07)
Obama's Plan To Raise Payroll Taxes To Fund Social Security Would Hurt Small Business Owners Who Create Two Of Every Three New Jobs. "Lost in Obama's calculations is that many of the people who would be affected by eliminating the earnings cap are small-business owners who employ more than half the nonfarm private-sector work force and create two of every three new jobs in this country." (Editorial, "Caps Off For Obama," Investor's Business Daily, 9/25/07)
• Three Million Small Business Owners Would Have Their Taxes Raised. "Taxes would also be raised on 3 million small-business owners. By fiscal 2015, the number of job opportunities lost would exceed 865,000 and personal savings would decline by more than $55 billion." (Editorial, "Caps Off For Obama," Investor's Business Daily, 9/25/07)
FLASHBACK: In The Illinois State Senate, Obama Was Criticized For Not Being On The Side Of Small Business. Kim Clarke Maisch, Director of the Illinois Chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business: "When it's a labor versus business issue, he's not going to be on the side of the small business." (Ryan Keith, "Legislative Record Puts Obama At Heart Of Philosophical Debate," The Associated Press, 9/9/04)
OBAMA IS AT ODDS WITH MANUFACTURING INTERESTS
Obama Joined The Senate Manufacturing Caucus, But Rarely Votes With Manufacturing Interests:
Obama Joined The Manufacturing Caucus In The Senate. "Senators ... announced formation of a Senate Manufacturing Caucus to advance and study the issues and interests of manufacturers. ... [F]ounding members of the Caucus were the following Senators: ... Barack Obama (D-IL)..." (National Association Of Manufacturers, "Senate Announces Manufacturing Caucus," "ShopFloor" Blog, www.blog.nam.org, 6/15/05)
As Of February 27, 2008, In The 110th Congress, Obama Has Received A Zero Percent Rating From The National Association Of Manufacturers. (National Association Of Manufacturers Website, www.bipac.net, Accessed 2/27/08)
In The 109th Congress, Obama Received A 16 Percent Rating From The National Association Of Manufacturers. (National Association Of Manufacturers Website, www.bipac.net, Accessed 1/10/08)
OBAMA'S POOR TAX, SPENDING AND BUSINESS INTEREST GROUP RATINGS
Obama Gets Poor Marks From Tax, Spending And Business Interest Groups:
Americans For Tax Reform Gave Obama A Lifetime Rating Of 7.5 Out Of 100. (Americans For Tax Reform Website, www.atr.org, Accessed 1/29/08)
Citizens Against Government Waste Gave Obama A Lifetime Rating Of 22 Out Of 100. (Citizens Against Government Waste, "CCAGW Challenges Presidential Candidates On Earmarks," Press Release, 12/27/07)
The National Taxpayers Union Gave Obama A Grade Of "F" For His Fiscal Voting Record, For His Score Of 16 Out Of 100. (National Taxpayers Union Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 9/25/07)
The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Gave Obama A 55 Percent Rating For His Voting Record In 2006. (U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Website, www.uschamber.com, Accessed 9/17/07)
Obama Is Among The Most Liberal U.S. Senators On Economic Issues:
"In 2006, Obama Was One Of 13 Senate Democrats With A Perfect Liberal Score On Economic Issues." (Richard E. Cohen, "Left To Right," National Journal, 3/2/07

Today i heard senator obama tell CONGRESS "TO GET BACK TO WORK". what? Isnt senator obama a sitting senator from iLLINOIS ? Isnt it time for him to get his ass back to work and stop telling other people what to do ? He thinks he has already been elected president. Is he still getting his salary for his senate job ? He needs to be fired, hes lazy,arrogant and childish. Did everybody hear Pelosis talking points from obama when she pissed off half the house ? Way to go senator, wannabe a president, barry......

ONCE AGAIN, he flips, he flops. Face it, he's just a plain LIAR! If you want a President that only has HIS best interests at heart, Obama is your ticket.
Vote for Country First....McCain/Palin '08

Nancy Polosi thinks Obam will gain from an extended Financial Crisis and is now on an open microphone saying just that.
Nancy Polsoi single handedly "queered" the Financial Crisis Package. Listen to her speech in essence say
"f#!& Off" to the Republicans hoping to delay the crisis solution at least until Friday's debate.
Even Barny Frank thinks she, Polosi is crazy.
You know Polosi is the worst house speaker of all time and most Democrats think so.

Does Obama share your views on the major issues? 20 questions
A recent poll by Pew Research reported that 55% of those people who were supporting Obama claimed what they liked most about him was his "stand on the issues." Really? Taking this short quiz may help you double-check. Better take it quick though, he'll probably change his position on some of the points tomorrow!

Indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements:

1 ILLEGAL immigrants should be given drivers licenses

2 If following an attempt at an abortion, the baby is born alive, we should kill him or her

3 Our new president should immediately hold a conference for the leaders of all Muslim nations so we can listen to their concerns

4 A "Marriage" can be between a man and woman, or a man and man, or a woman and woman

5 If America wants to be respected in the world, we can't drive our SUVs, and eat as much as we want .

6 After September 11, I immediately thought it was important to understand what causes such madness.

7 People in small towns in Pennsylvania and the Mid-West are bitter, which explains why they cling to guns and religion

8 Even though doubling capital gains tax will result in less revenue for the government we should do it anyway. Its about fairness...some people make too much money

9 A church whose magazine publishes a claim in June 2007 that Jews invented a bomb which only targets Africans and Arabs is actually not that controversial.

10 We cannot continue to rely on the US military to achieve homeland security. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as WELL-FUNDED.

11 We should commit the US to cutting global poverty in half by 2015 at an estimated cost to US taxpayers of around $800 billion.

12 Its unreasonable to expect a nominee for President to vet the people he/she asks to conduct a search for a Vice President

13 We should slow down our development of future combat systems for the US Military

14 Its OK to make a fundamental promise to use public finance during the general election in order to win a Primary, and then to break the promise at the start of the general election because its all about winning.

15 Its OK for a candidate for president not to pay parking tickets for 20 years, as long as he/she pays them off at least two weeks before announcing a run for president

16 We should never criticize the words spoken by a candidate's spouse, even if that spouse is actively giving speeches promoting the candidate, talking about policy and other political issues

17 A church whose Senior Pastor condemns the US government for creating HIV to kill African- Americans, is actually not that controversial

18 For a Presidential candidate's National Campaign Chairperson to compare a Primary between an African- American male and a blond white woman, to OJ Simpson murdering Nicole is OK

19 Child sex-abusers should be considered for early release

20 Iran is not a threat...it spends less than one hundredth of what the US spends on Military


The more statements you agree with the more your likely your views are in line with the positions held by Senator Obama.

All 20 questions reflect statements made/positions held by Senator Obama...at least as of today. Click on the links if you want to check on the actual wording and context.

For those with many disagreements, this may provide more reasons to just say no deal to Obama.

Google this: "Community Reinvestment Act" (1995) The DEMOCRATS added massive new provisions that FORCED banks to issue 1 trillion in new "Subprime Loans" (or pay big penalties) Google this: In 2003 the Bush Administration recommended major overhauls in the Housing Finance Industry but the Democrats tried to stop it... Google this: 2005 John McCain Warned of Mortgage Collapse Co-sponsoring a Bill "The Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act" of 2005 www.govtrack.us. Bill S-190 but DEMOCRATS blocked it. It came back in 2007 but Fannie Mae had friends - (Dodd, Johnson, Rains, Obama, etc...) "Change you can believe in?" LOL.. Sweetheart Loan, Sweetheart Deals... ... Google this: "Center For Responsive Politics" www.opensecrets.org Do we want those who were part of the problem to now be overseers in the solving of the problem? ---Greg------http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2734923/

Why is Obama nicknamed "queenie"?

Just ask Larry Sinclair.
Obama has done everything to bury this story but it is verified as 100% true.

Read and puke.

Why is the Media Hiding Larry Sinclair?
http://www.clintons4mccain.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=60


While most of us agree that Obama is a media darling on the left, we must stop and ask ourselves WTH (what the heck) is going on when something as notable as a Larry Sinclair Press Conference occurs and there is NO Media play.
Thanks only to a select few in the media, like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, we know about Wright and Ayers. If you haven't heard about Ayers...as many still have not...read on.
"We all must do our homework. Radical socialism is communism. Bill Ayers and his lovely then girlfriend bombed the Pentagon and other buildings....and in prison were quoted as saying they wish they could have done more. Guess who gave Obama his coming out party in Chicago? You got it, the Ayers. Michelle Obama works with Bill Ayers wife and what's more, they are best friends. Interesting to note that they are all friends with Rev. Wright and the other loony Priest. and Farrakhan...Hello? Is anyone listening?"
So, here at Clintons4McCain, we are dedicated to give you as much news as possible. Thus, world meet Larry Sinclair.
I'd like to share my perspective, after having attended the press conference with Larry Sinclair today.
Larry Sinclair came across as a very likable, credible man. Give the circumstances, its hard to imagine how he could have done better.
He started out by saying he has a criminal record, used drugs, and was in prison, but that was about 20 years ago. He is now 46 and on disability from a construction job he held a few years ago.
His story had 3 very important aspects that would normally gather tremendous press coverage for a presidential candidate:
1. He said when he was visiting Chicago in 1999 he asked the limo driver if he could find someone to show him around. The limo driver introduced him to Barack Obama by name, and he joined Sinclair in the limo. Obama then bought cocaine for the 2 of them (using Larry's $250) and Larry had 2 lines while Obama smoked crack. I believe that is a felony.
2. He said this took place in the back of a limo, and then Larry performed fellatio. This info was presented in a very non-sensational, matter of fact way.
He knew Obama's name but didn't know he was a state senator. In 2004, while living in Mexico, he saw Obama give the keynote at the Dem National Convention and realized who he was.
Last year, he heard Obama claim not to have used drugs since college and he called the campaign to suggest Obama should admit to drug use in 1999. He said he did not mention anything about sex.
He got numerous calls back from the Choir Director of Trinity church, who was clearly a confidante of Obama's. It became clear to Sinclair that they were lovers. He wanted reassurance that Larry wasn't going to talk about the sexuality issues, and Sinclair said he assured him of that.
3. The choir director, an openly gay man, was shot and killed execution style last Dec 23. Sinclair believes he was killed to keep him quiet.
When asked why anyone should believe him, Sinclair said: "I don't ask you to believe me. I ask you to do your job. Check out what I tell you and discover for yourself if it is true. Sprint will provide you with the records of my cell phone. The murder of the choir director has been reported in Chicago newspapers. Chicago police have his cell phone and you can check to see that he called me several times. You should also ask for Obama's cell phone records for the times that we were together." He also provided the name of the limousine driver (Paramjit Multani) and other info so that reporters could check out his statements.
I have spoken with credible people in Chicago, who say this story is entirely consistent with the story on the streets.
There's a story about Larry Sinclair taking a polygraph test, some of which he passed and some of which he didn't. However, I know from my professional work that polygraphs are questionable evidence, which is why they are not considered proof in a court of law.
I should mention that I had seen Larry Sinclair's YouTube video and thought he seemed sleazy and pathetic. In person today, he seemed completely different. He basically said "I've made mistakes, and I'm not political, but I don't like the way I've been trashed by the Obama campaign and the media that support him and I want to stand up for what I know to be true. This is it. Now I'm done."
When asked if he was "in love" with Obama or if he thought he was charismatic, he said he was not in love and that when he met Obama he at first did seem charismatic but that it was soon obvious that he was a phony and that's not the real person.

Now, if you haven't seen the Larry Sinclair video, it's a little disturbing and so outrageous, we brush it aside. But, if he has evidence to support his claim, why aren't we seeing it?
Ask yourself these questions:
1. Where's the media on this topic?
2. Why aren't we getting public evidence?
3. What happened to the choir director?
I'll leave my long winded blog to your thoughts and get other views on this...but remember:
Tell 5 of your friends every day, NObama, NO Way!
http://www.clintons4mccain.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=60

Hey, GAS. That's a really good name for you as you are certainly full of it. Actually, an even better moniker for you would be Swamp Gas. No one reads those long, drawn out diatribes you post. You are just trying to fill up the blog with your hateful nonsense. If you want to pontificate, at least have something with some humor in it, or is that beyond your capabilities?