Monday, 25 February 2008
First the NAU now Europe?
COMMENT:  If you want further information about the North American Union, please go to:

7-year plan aligns U.S. with Europe's economy
Rules, regs to be integrated  without congressional review

Posted: January 16, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008

Six U.S. senators and 49 House members are advisers for a group working toward a Transatlantic Common Market between the U.S. and the European Union by 2015.

The Transatlantic Policy Network , a non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington and Brussels,  is advised by the bi-partisan congressional TPN policy group, chaired by Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah.

The plan, currently being implemented by the Bush administration with the formation of the Transatlantic Economic Council in April 2007 ? appears to be following a plan written in 1939 by a world-government advocate who sought to create a Transatlantic Union as an international governing body.

An economist from the World Bank has argued in print that the formation of the Transatlantic Common Market is designed to follow the blueprint of Jean Monnet, a key intellectual architect of the European Union, recognizing that economic integration must inevitably lead to political integration.

As WND previously reported, a key step in advancing this goal was the creation of the Transatlantic Economic Council by the U.S. and the EU through an agreement signed by President Bush, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the current president of the European Council, and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso at a White House summit meeting last April.

Writing in the Fall 2007 issue of the Streit Council journal "Freedom and Union," Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., a member of the TPN advisory group, affirmed the target date of 2015 for the creation of a Transatlantic Common Market.

Costa said the Transatlantic Economic Council is tasked with creating the Transatlantic Common Market regulatory infrastructure. The infrastructure would not require congressional approval, like a new free-trade agreement would.

Writing in the same issue of the Streit Council publication, Bennett also confirmed that what has become known as the "Merkel initiative" would allow the Transatlantic Economic Council to integrate and harmonize administrative rules and regulations between the U.S. and the EU "in a very quiet way," without introducing a new free trade agreement to Congress.

No document on the TEC website suggests that any of the regulatory changes resulting from the process of integrating with the EU will be posted in the Federal Register or submitted to Congress as new free-trade agreements or as modifications to existing trade agreements.

In addition to Bennett, the advisers to the Transatlantic Policy Network includes the following senators: Thad Cochran, R-Miss.; Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.; Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.; Pat Roberts, R-Kan.; and Gordon Smith, R-Ore.

Among the 49 U.S. congressmen on the TPN's Congressional Group are John Boehner, R-Ohio; John Dingell, D-Mich.; Kenny Marchant, R-Texas; and F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc.

WND contacted Bennett's office for comment but received no return call by the publication deadline.

A progress report on the TEC website indicates the following U.S. government agencies are already at work integrating and harmonizing administrative rules and regulations with their EU counterparts: The Office of Management and Budget, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

A step toward world government

The Streit Council is named after Clarence K. Streit, whose 1939 book "Union Now" called for the creation of a Transatlantic Union as a step toward world government. The new federation, with an international constitution, was to include the 15 democracies of U.S., UK, France, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and South Africa.

Ira Straus, the founder and U.S. coordinator of the Committee on Eastern Europe and Russia in NATO, a group dedicated to including Russia within NATO, credits Bennett as TPN chairperson with reviving Streit's work "seven decades later."

A globalist with leftist political leanings, Straus was a Fulbright professor of political science at Moscow State University and the Moscow State Institute of International Relations from 2001 to 2002.

The congruity of ideas between Bennett and Streit is clear when Bennett writes passages that echo precisely goals Streit stated in 1939.

One example is Bennett's claim in his Streit Council article that creating a Transatlantic Common Market would combine markets that comprise 60 percent of world Gross Domestic Product under a common regulatory standard that would become "the de facto world standard, regardless of what any other parties say."

************for remainder, go to **************

Posted on 02/25/2008 5:41 AM by Bobbie Patray
Friday, 22 February 2008
Barack Hussein Obama
1.  Obama Casts His Spell
2.  The Real Obama
3.  Obama's First coming
4.  Obama's International Socialist Connections
5.  Obama's Communist Mentor
6.  Che flag sends 'disturbing' message about Obama

Obama Casts His Spell

By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- There's no better path to success than getting people to buy a free commodity. Like the genius who figured out how to get people to pay for water: bottle it (Aquafina was revealed to be nothing more than reprocessed tap water) and charge more than they pay for gasoline. Or consider how Google found a way to sell dictionary nouns -- boat, shoe, clock -- by charging advertisers zillions to be listed whenever the word is searched.

And now, in the most amazing trick of all, a silver-tongued freshman senator has found a way to sell hope. To get it, you need only give him your vote. Barack Obama is getting millions.

This kind of sale is hardly new. Organized religion has been offering a similar commodity -- salvation -- for millennia. Which is why the Obama campaign has the feel of a religious revival with, as writer James Wolcott observed, a "salvational fervor" and "idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria."

"We are the hope of the future," sayeth Obama. We can "remake this world as it should be." Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country -- nay, we can become "a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest."

And believe they do. After eight straight victories -- and two more (Hawaii and Wisconsin) almost certain to follow -- Obama is near to rendering moot all the post-Super Tuesday fretting about a deadlocked convention with unelected superdelegates deciding the nominee. Unless Hillary Clinton can somehow do in Ohio and Texas on March 4 what Rudy Giuliani proved is almost impossible to do -- maintain a big-state firewall after an unrelenting string of smaller defeats -- the superdelegates will flock to Obama. Hope will have carried the day.

**********for remainder, go to ***********


The Real Obama
By Ken Blackwell
Thursday, February 14, 2008

It’s an amazing time to be alive in America. We’re in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won’t truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won’t arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender.

Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He’s not. He’s the next George McGovern. And it’s time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.

Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he’s not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.

***********for remainder, go to *********


Obama's first coming

Washington correspondent Geoff Elliott | February 09, 2008

IT was early 1994 when Nelson Mandela gave a speech in a slum outside Cape Town and spoke in grand terms of a new beginning and how when he was elected president every household would have a washing machine.

People took him literally. A few months later he became South Africa's first black president. That's when clerks in department stores in Cape Town had to turn people away demanding their free washer and dryer.

Having spent some time as a reporter in South Africa watching the Mandela presidency I was reminded of that story this week when I travelled with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail.

How does a cult figure, in the eyes of some something akin to a messiah, make the transition to a political frontrunner - president even - where disappointment will soon crush what seemed to be a journey to a promised land?

Looking into the faces of a more than 16,000-strong crowd in a basketball stadium in Hartford, Connecticut this week, the Mandela magic I'd seen before was there too. Black and white, and the youth; they appeared in a state close to rapture watching Obama speak. Here and there one could see women crying and the some men wiping away tears too.

It was not the promise of a washing machine, of course. Mandela was heading a Rainbow Revolution - a new governing coalition. The sense of renewal in those heady days in South Africa in the mid-'90s was palpable. A political and cultural boil was being lanced. There was relief and joy. Cape Town in those days was humming.

In the US today there are echoes of that Rainbow Revolution. Through the media and on the streets people are getting a bit giddy over Obama. In this man they are projecting a new course - one that he says he will lead - where the US buries the culture wars, charts a new course in bipartisan politics and heralds a new dawn for America.

After more than seven years of the Bush administration and when 70 per cent of the populace think America is on the wrong course, there's little wonder that the hunger for something new is real and fertile ground to till for a politician.

But Obama is part politician, part cult. Supporters wearing T-shirts with an Andy Warhol like pop-art image of his face testify to that. But then they - him - were once easy to dismiss until people realised Obama's charisma was being matched by one of the most sophisticated ground operations ever seen. It is one that is outsmarting the Clinton machine. He's marrying inspiration and cult with old-fashioned political grunt.

************for remainder, go to********,25197,23182456-28737,00.html


Obama’s International Socialist Connections

AIM Column  |  By Cliff Kincaid  |  February 14, 2008

Campaign workers for Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara. But Obama has his own controversial socialist connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based Marxist group with access to millions of labor union dollars and connections to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler.   

Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat.  Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.     

Blogger Steve Bartin, who has been following Obama's career and involvement with the Chicago socialists, has uncovered a fascinating video showing Obama campaigning for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Interestingly, Sanders, who won his seat in 2006, called Obama "one of the great leaders of the United States Senate," even though Obama had only been in the body for about two years. In 2007, the National Journal said that Obama had established himself as "the most liberal Senator." More liberal than Sanders? That is quite a feat. Does this make Obama a socialist, too?  

DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. The Socialist International (SI) has what is called "consultative status" with the United Nations. In other words, it works hand-in-glove with the world body.  

The international connection is important and significant because an Obama bill, "The Global Poverty Act," has just been rushed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with the assistance of Democratic Senator Joe Biden, the chairman, and Republican Senator Richard Lugar. The legislation (S.2433) commits the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars more in foreign aid on the rest of the world, in order to comply with the "Millennium Goals" established by the United Nations. Conservative members of the committee were largely caught off-guard by the move to pass the Obama bill but are putting a  "hold" on it, in order to try to prevent the legislation, which also quickly passed the House, from being quickly brought up for a full Senate vote. But observers think that Senate Democrats may try to pass it quickly anyway, in order to give Obama a precious legislative "victory" that he could run on.   

[Bobbie's Note:  Have you called Senators Alexander and Corker urging them to vote NO on S. 2433?
Alexander: 202-224-4944; Corker 202-224-3344]

Another group associated with the SI is the Party of European Socialists (PES), which heard from Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, back in 2006. Dean's speech is posted on the official Democratic Party website, although the European socialist parties are referred to as "progressive." Democrats, Dean said, want to be "good citizens of the world community." He spoke at a session on "Global Challenges for Progressive Politics."  

******for remainder, go to **********


Obama’s Communist Mentor

AIM Column  |  By Cliff Kincaid  |  February 18, 2008

In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama's life as a "secret smoker" and how he "went to great lengths to conceal the habit." But what about Obama's secret political life? It turns out that Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.

In his books, Obama admits attending "socialist conferences" and coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a "hard-core academic Marxist," which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.

However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."

The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What's more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.  

Trevor Loudon, a New Zealand-based libertarian activist, researcher and blogger, noted evidence that "Frank" was Frank Marshall Davis in a posting in March of 2007.

Obama's communist connection adds to mounting public concern about a candidate who has come out of virtually nowhere, with a brief U.S. Senate legislative record, to become the Democratic Party frontrunner for the U.S. presidency. In the latest Real Clear Politics poll average, Obama beats Republican John McCain by almost four percentage points.

AIM recently disclosed that Obama has well-documented socialist connections, which help explain why he sponsored a "Global Poverty Act" designed to send hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. foreign aid to the rest of the world, in order to meet U.N. demands. The bill has passed the House and a Senate committee, and awaits full Senate action.

*********for remainder, go to ***********

Che flag sends 'disturbing' message about Obama
Candidate attracts 'people who think mass murderers are romantic revolutionaries'


Posted: February 13, 2008
1:31 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

The Fox TV affiliate in Houston has captured images of a volunteer in a campaign office for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama working in front of a flag featuring the image of Che Guevara, the South American revolutionary who became Fidel Castro's executioner after the communist takeover in Cuba.


And while the Obama campaign has issued a statement placing a modest distance between the campaign and its "volunteers," the issue of such an image on display in an office operating on behalf of a man hoping to be commander in chief of the world's last remaining superpower is raising alarms.

Even Obama supporters have been forced into corners because of the issue, with one likening the Texas state Republican Party to Guevara, to whom have been attributed hundreds of executions of anti-Castro leaders.

Under the heading "Barack Guevara," Investor's Business Daily raised some of the more pointed questions, to which the campaign responded only with a statement: "The office featured in this video is funded by volunteers of the Barack Obama Campaign and is not an official headquarters for his campaign."


How is it a front-runner for the highest office in the land can reject an American flag on his lapel but permit the display of a huge Cuban flag at one of his offices, emblazoned with a mass murderer's mug?" the publication asked.

"Barack Obama, displaying the same 'anything goes' standard of patriotism he showed when he ostentatiously refused to wear a U.S. flag in his lapel, now shows he's got a whole different idea about patriotism," the publication continued.

"Rather than repudiate the image, Obama would only call it 'inappropriate,' apparently without insisting it be taken down. That contrasts with his dismissal of his Senate colleagues who wear lapel flags as 'hypocrites.' Some hypocrites," IBD said.

"The display of the Castroite flag with Che's picture on it sends a particularly disturbing message about his campaign. Apparently, Obama tends to attract the kind of people who think of mass murderers like Che and Fidel as romantic revolutionaries. Those same people see Obama as a man with a messianic message.

***********For Remainder, go to *************




Posted on 02/22/2008 5:36 AM by Bobbie Patray
Thursday, 21 February 2008
Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
COMMENT:  I predict you WILL NOT see this on the evening news -- after all it doesn't fit in with the global warming agenda whose supporters certainly don't want the facts to be a problem.

Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back

Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?

Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.

Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.

As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the skeptics.

As the Express notes, scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. The newspaper cites the one exception — Western Europe, which had, until the weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking in unseasonably warm weather.

Around the world, vast areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern China, the United States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow.

Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman, and northern Saudi Arabia report the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. In Afghanistan, snow and freezing weather killed 120 people. Even Baghdad had a snowstorm, the first in the memory of most residents.

AFP news reports icy temperatures have just swept through south China, stranding 180,000 people and leading to widespread power cuts just as the area was recovering from the worst weather in 50 years, the government said Monday. The latest cold snap has taken a severe toll in usually temperate Yunnan province, which has been struck by heavy snowfalls since Thursday, a government official from the provincial disaster relief office told AFP.

Twelve people have died there, state Xinhua news agency reported, and four remained missing as of Saturday.

An ongoing record-long spell of cold weather in Vietnam's northern region, which started on Jan. 14, has killed nearly 60,000 cattle, mainly bull and buffalo calves, local press reported Monday. By Feb. 17, the spell had killed a total of 59,962 cattle in the region, including 7,349 in the Ha Giang province, 6,400 in Lao Cai, and 5,571 in Bac Can province, said Hoang Kim Giao, director of the Animal Husbandry Department under the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, according to the Pioneer newspaper.

In Britain the temperatures plunged to -10 C in central England, according to the Express, which reports that experts say that February could end up as one of the coldest in Britain in the past 10 years with the freezing night-time conditions expected to stay around a frigid -8 C until at least the middle of the week. And the BBC reports that a bus company's efforts to cut global warming emissions have led to services being disrupted by cold weather.

************for remainder, go to************

Posted on 02/21/2008 5:32 AM by Bobbie Patray
Tuesday, 19 February 2008
Stop Global Tax Proposal & $5 M for LOST

COMMENT:  The Obama bill was voted out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a voice vote on Feb. 13th.  PLEASE contact Senators Corker and Alexander and URGE them to OPPOSE both the Obama Global Tax AND the $5 million for LOST (See second article).  Contact information follows articles.


Senate Works Global Tax and Toward LOST!
Tell Your Senate to Oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty
and the Global Poverty Act!
This week, leaders of the United States Senate signaled that they are intent on giving more power to the United Nations, including the power to impose taxes, paving the way for ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Wednesday, February 13, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed by voice vote the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433), sponsored by Senator Barack Obama (D-IL).
This feel good legislation commits the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, over and above what we already spend. The bill references the UN's Millennium Declaration (from 2000) which calls for countries to dramatically increase foreign aid and sign on to many dangerous treaties, including the International Criminal Court, Kyoto Protocol, CEDAW, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The U.S. should have nothing to do with these awful treaties or the UN Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). One of the worst aspects of LOST is the mechanism for imposing a global tax by requiring companies to pay a portion of their profits to the International Seabed Authority.
If the Senate passes the Obama global tax bill, LOST can't be far behind. Since President Bush has made his support for LOST well known, we imagine he would be willing to sign the global tax legislation, hoping to speed up ratification of LOST.
In fact, in his 2009 budget request, President Bush included a request for $5 million for LOST and the international tribunal established by the treaty. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) questioned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at Wednesday's committee hearing as to why taxpayer dollars should be going to "a new bureaucratic international organization that has not been endorsed by the U.S. Senate." Secretary Rice reiterated the administration's commitment to ratification of LOST.

Take Action

The Obama global tax bill or the Law of the Sea Treaty could come up on the Senate floor anytime! Be sure to contact Senators Alexander and Corker today (Contact info at the end of email) and tell them to oppose both pieces of legislation. Also, Senators will be in their home offices the week of February 18. Please stop by or schedule an appointment with them to let them know you are watching their position on LOST!!

Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote

AIM Column  |  By Cliff Kincaid  |  February 12, 2008

It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member.
A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.
Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.   
The bill, which is item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.   
A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, "In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day."  
The legislation itself requires the President "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day." 
The bill defines the term "Millennium Development Goals" as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).  
The U.N. says that "The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion-or about 0.25% of their collective GNP."  
In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 
The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as "the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development."  
Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.  
Obama's bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate. 
The House version (H.R. 1302), sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), had only 84 co-sponsors before it was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars.  
It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member. Lugar has worked with Obama in the past to promote more foreign aid for Russia, supposedly to stem nuclear proliferation, and has become Obama's mentor. Like Biden, Lugar is a globalist. They have both promoted passage of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, for example.
The so-called "Lugar-Obama initiative" was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program, also known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which was designed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. But one defense analyst, Rich Kelly, noted evidence that "CTR funds have eased the Russian military's budgetary woes, freeing resources for such initiatives as the war in Chechnya and defense modernization." He recommended that Congress "eliminate CTR funding so that it does not finance additional, perhaps more threatening, programs in the former Soviet Union." However, over $6 billion has already been spent on the program.  
Another program modeled on Nunn-Lugar, the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), was recently exposed as having funded nuclear projects in Iran through Russia.  
More foreign aid through passage of the Global Poverty Act was identified as one of the strategic goals of InterAction, the alliance of U.S-based international non-governmental organizations that lobbies for more foreign aid. The group is heavily financed by the U.S. Government, having received $1.4 million from taxpayers in fiscal year 2005 and $1.7 million in 2006. However, InterAction recently issued a report accusing the United States of "falling short on its commitment to rid the world of dire poverty by 2015 under the U.N. Millennium Development Goals..." 
It's not clear what President Bush would do if the bill passes the Senate. The bill itself quotes Bush as declaring that "We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity." Bush's former top aide, Michael J. Gerson, writes in his new book, Heroic Conservatism, that Bush should be remembered as the President who "sponsored the largest percentage increases in foreign assistance since the Marshall Plan..."
Even these increases, however, will not be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Obama bill. A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money. 


[Bobbie's comment:  Defeat of LOST is certainly NOT assured. Senators Alexander and Corker HAVE NOT come out in opposition to LOST, so they NEED to hear from YOU.]

February 8, 2008

Congress Should Ignore Budget Requests Relating to the Law of the Sea Treaty

*******for remainder, go to*******

The U.S. Senate has not ratified, and therefore the United States is not a party to, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, commonly known as the "Law of the Sea Treaty," or LOST. The Bush Administration's fiscal year 2009 budget proposal, however, requests nearly $5 million to fund the LOST organization as well as the international tribunal established by the treaty. The Administration's request is both fiscally irresponsible and opposed to U.S. national interest. If it is not withdrawn, Congress should reject the Administration's proposal and any other request to provide funding for international organizations of which the United States is not a member.
A Flawed Treaty
LOST is a controversial treaty that awards effective control of 70 percent of the Earth's surface to an international treaty organization. The treaty purports to establish a comprehensive legal regime for management of the oceans and its mineral resources by an international organization known as the International Seabed Authority (Seabed Authority). LOST, among other things, creates yet another unaccountable and opaque international organization, sets a precedent for international taxation of U.S. companies, provides an avenue for international environmental regulation, and threatens U.S. sovereignty by subjecting the United States and U.S. companies to mandatory dispute resolution in international fora that have traditionally been stacked against U.S. interests.[1]
In 1982, President Ronald Reagan identified serious flaws in LOST and rejected the treaty on multiple grounds.[2] An effort to "fix" LOST during the Administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton resulted only in a new agreement that failed to fully address Reagan's concerns regarding the treaty.[3] Despite the problems with LOST and the failure of the subsequent agreement to address those problems, the Clinton Administration signed the treaty on July 29, 1994, and submitted it to the Senate for ratification. 
Since then, LOST has remained in a state of limbo in the Senate, where it has never been brought to the floor for debate or a vote despite being successfully voted out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on at least two occasions. Unless and until it is ratified by the Senate, the United States is not a party to LOST and is under no obligation to provide funding for any activities related to the treaty.
Despite the above problems, the Administration has requested nearly $5 million for the two principal organs established by LOST—$1.3 million for the Seabed Authority and more than $3.6 million for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, or "Tribunal."[4] 
A Dangerous Precedent
As a nation that has not ratified LOST, the United States is not a member of the Seabed Authority—the Kingston, Jamaica-based international organization established under LOST to "organize and control activities" for the ocean floor.[5] The United States also has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and is not obligated to participate in proceedings that may come before it.




                                                         Phone                         Fax
Sen. Lamar Alexander           202-224-4944            202-228-3398
Sen. Bob Corker                   202-224-3344           202-228-0566   

In-State numbers:
          Nashville                615-736-5129               615-269-4803
          Knoxville                865-545-4253                865-545-4252
          Chattanooga           423-752-5337                423-752-5342
          Memphis                901-544-4224                901-544-4227
          Jackson                  731-423-9344                731-423-8918
          Blountville              423-325-6240                423-325-6236
          Nashville                615-279-8125                615-279-9488
          Chattanooga           423-756-2757                423-756-5313
          Jackson                  731-424-9655                731-424-8322
          Knoxville                865-637-4180                865-637-9886     
          Memphis                901-683-1910      
          Blountville              423-323-1252                423-323-0358
Senator Lamar Alexander Website:
Senator Bob Corker’s website:



Posted on 02/19/2008 4:11 PM by Bobbie Patray
Friday, 15 February 2008
Stossel: Stimulating Nonsense
Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008 - Vote Passed (81-16, 3 Not Voting)

The bipartisan economic stimulus package passed the Senate last week, with the chamber opting to amend this House bill rather than pass its own.

Sen. Lamar Alexander voted YES......send e-mail or see bio
Sen. Bob Corker voted NO......send e-mail or see bio


Stimulating Nonsense
By John Stossel
Wednesday, February 13, 2008

The hottest buzzword of the day is "economic stimulus." Virtually every politician and pundit agrees the government must act quickly to forestall a recession by increasing consumer spending. President Bush and the Democratic leadership in the House quickly got together on a $150 billion package that also includes tax incentives for business investment.

The Republican and Democratic presidential contenders back "stimulus" too. (Ron Paul is the exception.)

Any government program that wins the support of the political class and media commentators makes me suspicious.

The economy does seem to be slowing, and there was a net loss of jobs in January. The housing industry is sluggish and the credit market tight because of the subprime-mortgage problems. So, to "get the economy moving," the anointed experts want the government to quickly put cash in our hands. When we rush out to spend it, the story goes, the economy will get out of the ditch.

Interesting theory, but it's hardly new, and it's been demolished many times before by free-market economists. One problem, which George Mason University economist Russell Roberts observed, is that the money that will allegedly be "injected" into the economy is already in the economy. So how can it be a stimulus?

"The politicians are always going to inject some amount of money into the hands of consumers and into the economy, like a doctor giving a lifesaving blood transfusion," Roberts says. "But where does the economic injection come from? It has to come from inside the system. It's not an outside stimulus like the chest paddles or the transfusion. It means taking money from someone or somewhere inside the system and giving it to someone else."

The federal government is in the red. Bush's new budget has a $400 billion deficit. There's no lockbox with $100 billion in it. So to give everyone a tax rebate, the government will have to borrow more money. But that only moves the cash from one part of the economy to another. As Roberts says, "It's like taking a bucket of water from the deep end of a pool and dumping it into the shallow end."

Unless the government cuts spending, which the theory says would neutralize the stimulus, the only other way to get the money will be to raise taxes or to have the Fed create money -- inflation -- which would raise the price of everything.

How will that stimulate anything but the politicians' short-term approval ratings?

Supporters of the stimulus only consider it's "seen" affects. If government takes or borrows money from Jones and gives it to Smith, Smith's spending will be visible for all to see. Not so visible is the "unseen" affect: What Jones would have done with the money but didn't because it was transferred to Smith.

Economists call this the "broken window fallacy." In the 19th century, French economist Frederic Bastiat illustrated it with the story of a boy who breaks a shop window. At first the townspeople lament the loss, but then someone points out that the shopkeeper will have to spend money to replace the window. What the window maker earns, he will soon spend elsewhere. As that money circulates through town, new prosperity will bloom.

***********for remainder, go to***********



Posted on 02/15/2008 5:30 AM by Bobbie Patray
Thursday, 14 February 2008
Ethanol May Add to Global Warming & Global Warming Education

COMMENT: Not that I accept the 'global warming' argument, but this should throw its supporters into a tizzy.  See second article in this email.

1.  Study: Ethanol May Add to Global Warming
Biofuelds and Food Prices
3.  Transformational Education and the Global Warming Fantasy

Study: Ethanol May Add to Global Warming

WASHINGTON (AP) — The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.

The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.

"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine.

The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or grasslands," releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.

The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, called the researchers' view of land-use changes "simplistic" and said the study "fails to put the issue in context."

"Assigning the blame for rainforest deforestation and grassland conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels industry ignores key factors that play a greater role," said Bob Dinneen, the association's president.

There has been a rush to developing biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil.

The new "green" fuel, whether made from corn or other feedstocks, has been widely promoted — both in Congress and by the White House — as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will replace.

During the recent congressional debate over energy legislation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20 percent less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater benefit of 70 percent less emissions.

The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a number of other institutions maintains that these analyses "were one-sided" and counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses.

"The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions," said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and lead author of the study.

The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20 percent, will increases it by 93 percent compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50 percent more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.

Not all ethanol would be affected by the land-use changes, the study said.

"We should be focusing on our use of biofuels from waste products" such as garbage, which would not result in changes in agricultural land use, Searchinger said in an interview. "And you have to be careful how much you require. Use the right biofuels, but don't require too much too fast. Right now we're making almost exclusively the wrong biofuels."

The study included co-authors affiliated with Iowa State University, the Woods Hole Research Center and the Agricultural Conservation Economics. It was supported in part indirectly by a grants from NASA's Terrestrial Ecology Program, and by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Searchinger, in addition to his affiliation with Princeton, is a fellow at the Washington-based German Marshall Fund of the United States.

The study prompted a letter Thursday to President Bush and Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress from nearly a dozen scientists who urged them to pursue a policy "that ensures biofuels are not produced on productive forests, grassland or cropland."

"Some opportunities remain to produce environmentally beneficial biofuels" while "unsound biofuel policies could sacrifice tens of hundreds of million of acres" of grasslands and forests while increasing global warming, said the scientists, including four members of the National Academy of Sciences.


You will want to listen to this piece. 

Biofuelds and Food Prices

Listen Now [4 min 33 sec] add to playlist

Weekend Edition Saturday, November 17, 2007 · Scott Simon speaks with ecologist David Tilman about how much biofuels benefit the environment, and whether growing crops for biofuel manufacturing could drive up food prices

COMMENT:  At a Conference I attended in St. Louis the end of January the author (Christopher C. Horner) of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" spoke. In addition, Phyllis has interviewed him on her radio program as well as had him speak at our Eagle Collegians annual conference. I highly recommend this book especially those who still have children at home and want to counter the near hysteria about 'global warming'.  It is available at a discount at

"Issues and Action in Education"

Transformational Education and the Global Warming Fantasy

by Allen Quist

An e-letter produced by EdWatch, a nonprofit organization.

In early 2007 the government of the United Kingdom sent copies of Al Gore's global warming DVD, An Inconvenient Truth, to all secondary schools in England, Wales and Scotland. This action was part of a nationwide "Sustainable Schools Year of Action" which had been launched in 2006.


Showing the Gore DVD in UK public schools was challenged in the courts, however, on the basis that the schools are legally forbidden to promote partisan political views and that UK schools are required, when dealing with political issues, to provide a balanced presentation of opposing views.

Presiding court judge, Michael Burton, ruled that the Gore film contains numerous errors made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration." As a consequence, said Judge Burton, the film could be shown only on the condition that it be accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-sided" views in order to point out that the film's "apocalyptic vision" was not an impartial analysis of climate change.

At the same time, however, Gore's movie of "alarmism and exaggerations" has been shown, and continues to be shown, in countless American schools-shown to children at all grade levels not just high school-and shown without any warning labels whatsoever.

In this way our school children are being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign of the global warming fanatics. Such programs are not intended to educate our children but rather to indoctrinate them with the attitudes, values and beliefs of the leftists.

To continue reading go to


Posted on 02/14/2008 5:17 AM by Bobbie Patray
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
Dallas Honor Killing? and Sharia Law in Britain

Was this an honor killing?

Motive of girls' killer matters more than you may think

Rowan Williams says Sharia law unavoidable

By Katie Franklin and agencies

Last Updated: 2:32am GMT 08/02/2008

The adoption of some aspects of Islamic Sharia law in Britain "seems unavoidable", the Archbishop of Canterbury has said.

Dr Rowan Williams said other religions enjoyed tolerance of their own laws, and called for "constructive accommodation" with Muslim practice in areas such as marital disputes.


But he stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual's rights as a citizen.

Asked if the adoption of Sharia law was necessary for community cohesion, Dr Williams told the BBC: "It seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system.

"We already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justifying conscientious objections in certain circumstances."

He added: "There is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with aspects of other kinds of religious law.

"It would be quite wrong to say that we could ever license a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general.

"But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them.

*************for remainder, go to************


09:35 AM CST on Sunday, January 13, 2008

Were Amina and Sarah Said, the Lewisville Muslim teenagers found shot to death in their father's taxi, victims of an honor killing? And would it really matter if they were?

It would, and you'd think a lot more people in the media would be exploring that question, particularly because their slayings have so much in common with the honor killing pattern we see in Muslim communities in the West and the Middle East.

True, the only person who can definitively answer the question, Yaser Abdel Said, is on the lam, pursued by police as a suspect in his daughters' deaths. And Mr. Said's teenage son, Islam, while apparently conceding that his father killed his sisters, denies that religion had anything to do with it.

But several of the girls' friends told reporters that Mr. Said was furious at his daughters for having boyfriends and had threatened to kill them. The girls' great-aunt, Gail Gartrell – to whose house Patricia Said fled with her daughters out of fear of her husband – used the words "honor killing" to describe the murders.

"She ran with them," Ms. Gartrell told The Dallas Morning News, "because she knew he would carry out the threat."

If Mr. Said killed his children, is his motive significant? After all, domestic violence is found across religious, social and economic lines. Some would say that to speculate on whether Mr. Said's background – Egyptian immigrant and Muslim – played a key role in his daughters' slayings is merely to search for another reason to bash Muslims. One suspects that has a lot to do with the by-now routine media incuriosity when it comes to news stories that might reflect poorly on Islamic culture.

Yet news outlets are wrong to play down or ignore the honor killing angle, and here's why:

"Honor killing" is the term used to describe a practice in which one or more males kills a female relative who has, in their view, dishonored the family – usually by breaking a strict taboo governing sexual behavior or gender roles. To be sure, it is not a practice historically limited to Islamic societies, nor is there clear sanction for it in the Quran.

However, its Islamic proponents do cite this Quranic verse (4:34) in their defense:

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and [as to] those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Honor killing enjoys significant support in some Muslim societies – and among some immigrant communities in the West. Last week, Jordanian authorities charged a man there with gunning down his unmarried 30-year-old daughter. He suspected her of dating and reportedly confessed to police that his homicidal act had "cleansed" his family's honor.

Several years ago, the Jordanian parliament voted down attempts by Jordanian women and human rights activists to end honor killing, which takes the lives of 20 to 30 Jordanian women each year. Parliament upheld lenient sentences for men guilty of honor killing as necessary to protect traditional Islamic social mores against Westernization. Human rights activists there complain that there is little political will to fight honor killings because the barbaric practice is so culturally entrenched.

The legitimacy of male violence against rebellious women is by no means an extreme view among Arab Muslims. A columnist in the Yemen Times last week argued that violence against women is sometimes necessary to "preserve the morals and principles with which Islam has honored us." In Arab culture, where honor is prized and female sexual purity exalted, a family can be cast out if a female member brings shame upon it. Traditionally, the only way to restore peace is through violence.

**********For remainder, go here*************


Posted on 02/12/2008 5:14 AM by Bobbie Patray
Monday, 11 February 2008
Tainted Drugs Tied to Maker of Abortion Pill

Tainted Drugs Tied to Maker of Abortion Pill

BEIJING — A huge state-owned Chinese pharmaceutical company that exports to dozens of countries, including the United States, is at the center of a nationwide drug scandal after nearly 200 Chinese cancer patients were paralyzed or otherwise harmed last summer by contaminated leukemia drugs.

Chinese drug regulators have accused the manufacturer of the tainted drugs of a cover-up and have closed the factory that produced them. In December, China’s Food and Drug Administration said that the Shanghai police had begun a criminal investigation and that two officials, including the head of the plant, had been detained.

The drug maker, Shanghai Hualian, is the sole supplier to the United States of the abortion pill, mifepristone, known as RU-486. It is made at a factory different from the one that produced the tainted cancer drugs, about an hour’s drive away.

The United States Food and Drug Administration declined to answer questions about Shanghai Hualian, because of security concerns stemming from the sometimes violent opposition to abortion. But in a statement, the agency said the RU-486 plant had passed an F.D.A. inspection in May. “F.D.A. is not aware of any evidence to suggest the issue that occurred at the leukemia drug facility is linked in any way with the facility that manufactures the mifepristone,” the statement said.

When told of Shanghai Hualian’s troubles, Dr. Sidney M. Wolfe, a leading consumer advocate and frequent F.D.A. critic, said American regulators ought to be concerned because of accusations that serious health risks had been covered up there. “Every one of these plants should be immediately inspected,” he said.

The director of the Chinese F.D.A.’s drug safety control unit in Shanghai, Zhou Qun, said her agency had inspected the factory that produced mifepristone three times in recent months and found it in compliance. “It is natural to worry,” Ms. Zhou said, “but these two plants are in two different places and have different quality-assurance people.”

The investigation of the contaminated cancer drugs comes as China is trying to restore confidence in its tattered regulatory system. In the last two years, scores of people around the world have died after ingesting contaminated drugs and drug ingredients produced in China. Last year, China executed its top drug safety official for accepting bribes to approve drugs.

Shanghai Hualian is a division of one of China’s largest pharmaceutical companies, the Shanghai Pharmaceutical Group, which owns dozens of factories. Neither Shanghai Hualian nor its parent company would comment on the tainted medicine.

Last week, The New York Times asked the F.D.A. whether the Shanghai Pharmaceutical Group exported to the United States any drugs or pharmaceutical ingredients other than the abortion pill. But after repeated requests, the agency declined to provide that information; it did not cite a reason.

On at least two occasions in 2002, Shanghai Hualian had shipments of drugs stopped at the United States border, F.D.A. records show. One shipment was an unapproved antibiotic and the other a diuretic that had “false or misleading labeling.” Records also show that another unit of Shanghai Pharmaceutical Group has filed papers declaring its intention to sell at least five active pharmaceutical ingredients to manufacturers for sale in the United States.

One major pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, declined to buy drug ingredients from Shanghai Pharmaceutical Group because of quality-related issues, said Christopher Loder, a Pfizer spokesman. In 2006, Pfizer agreed to evaluate Shanghai Pharmaceutical Group’s “capabilities” as an ingredient supplier, but so far the company “has not met the standards required by Pfizer,” Mr. Loder said in a statement.

To continue reading go to

Posted on 02/11/2008 3:53 PM by Bobbie Patray
Friday, 8 February 2008
State House Proselyism
State House Proselytism  
By Janet Levy | Friday, February 01, 2008

The cultural traditions and values of American society originate from the Judeo-Christian heritage of our Founding Fathers. They pledged allegiance to “one nation under God,” with the Creator as the source of our inalienable civil rights and liberties. In that spirit, Congressional invocations by clergy are a time-honored ritual from the birth of the American republic to the present. Public recognition and celebrations of the role of religion in helping establish our precious freedoms have also long been part of American public life. But now, those traditions are under attack from militant Islamists who have, under the guise of political and religious acceptance, steadily advanced their own messages with the goal of undermining our status as a nation of free individuals and the intent of the Founders to insure liberty and justice for all.


Last week, Mohammed Khan, the imam of the Islamic Center of Des Moines, led the opening prayer in the Iowa legislature at the request of Iowa State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad, a former Iowa school board member who has worked as a counselor in the Iowa prison system, and has questionable associations with Islamic extremists.

In his four-minute prayer before the Iowa legislative session, Khan made a plea for “victory over those who disbelieve” and “protection from the Great Satan,” comments which sparked outrage. Pastor Steve Smith of the Evangelical Free Church in Albert City took issue with Khan’s appeal for victory, explaining, “This is a request in the Iowa Legislature for God to grant the Muslims victory over every non-Muslim; not a request for salvation.”

Iowa State Representative Gary Worthan, the father of two decorated Army officers with eight combat deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan between them, was incensed over the reference to infidels or “disbelievers” and “the Great Satan.” He plans to protest to the Speaker of the House. Worthan recognized the phrase, “the Great Satan,” as a commonly used Islamic reference to the United States and, thus, felt the prayer called for the conquest of our nation. People in his district were also upset by the prayer and complained to the Iowa legislature.

Further, victory over “unbelievers” has specific violent references in the Koran. The most well-known is the Verse of the Sword (9:5): “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.”

Another frequently quoted verse is 47:4, “If you encounter the unbelievers, strike their necks until you have bloodied them, then fasten the shackles.” Finally, the term “unbeliever” is interchangeable with “infidel” and refers to the inhabitants of the Dar-al-Harb, the world of war that must be defeated according to the wishes of Allah and Mohammed by the Dar-al-Islam, the world of Islam.

That such language would be permitted within the state house of Iowa – a middle American state and the home of the first presidential sweepstakes – should be surprising. However,  public expressions of Islamic support have increased dramatically:

  • Rep. Abdul-Samad is a former president of the Islamic Center in Des Moines, which first achieved notoriety in 2004 when it welcomed Muslim extremist Ibrahim Dremali as its new imam. Dremali came to Des Moines after a hasty departure from a position at the Islamic Center of Boca Raton, shortly after a local physician and congregant, Rafiq Sabir, was arrested and pled guilty for swearing allegiance to Al Qaeda. In Des Moines, Dremali founded the Islamic New Horizons School with funds from the Islamic Society of North America, a Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi organization that controls most U.S. mosques, espouses a radical form of Islam, has sponsored extremists who call for jihad and is an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the terrorist support trial in Texas of the Holy Land Foundation.
  • In February 2007, in a blatant violation of the religious establishment clause, a seventh-grade public school class visited a Des Moines mosque for a school field trip and was asked by the presiding imam to join him in prayer.
  • In 2005, Governor Tom Vilsack – a potential 2008 Democratic vice presidential candidate – welcomed members of four local mosques and fellow Iowans to celebrate “Muslim Recognition Day” and “join in the making of history and get a taste of what it feels like to be Muslim.” This, despite residents being unable to recall any instance in which the state declared a special day to recognize Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, or any other religion.
  • In March 2006, Cedar Rapids Mayor Kay Halloran welcomed a new chapter of the Muslim American Society at the Cedar Rapids Public Library, saying she was “honored and delighted” to have them in the community. Yet, according to the FBI in the terror-support trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the Muslim American Society is the representative for the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, is one of the largest and most influential Islamist organizations in the world and believed to be the parent organization for Hamas and al-Qaeda.
  • In September 2005, the first conference of the Islamic Foundation of Iowa was held in Central Middle School in Waterloo with Mohammed Kahn and Ako Abdul-Samad as featured speakers. The program for “The Way to the Future” Conference included: The Practical Structure of Building an Islamic Society and The Future Vision and Plans for Muslims in Iowa. One of the prayers recited chided the Children of Israel (Jews) for their wickedness in not remembering Allah. Another prayer recited included the proclamation, “There is no God except Allah, alone with no partner,” a specifically anti-Trinitarian prayer found in many parts of the Koran. A personal ad in the conference program referred to “Allah SWT,” which according to Robert Spencer has anti-Christian connotations. Spencer says SWT stands for “Subhanahu wa ta'ala,” which Muslims commonly understand to mean, “Allah is pure of having partners, and he is exalted above having a son.”

Iowa is not alone in honoring Islam with a legislative convocation. Texas, the State of Washington, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) have also conferred this privilege on Muslim clergy who have similarly misused the opportunity.

To continue reading, go to

Posted on 02/08/2008 3:50 PM by Bobbie Patray
Friday, 8 February 2008
Three-parent embryo formed in lab
Three-parent embryo formed in lab

Scientists believe they have made a potential breakthrough in the treatment of serious disease by creating a human embryo with three separate parents.

The Newcastle University team believe the technique could help to eradicate a whole class of hereditary diseases, including some forms of epilepsy.

The embryos have been created using DNA from a man and two women in lab tests.

It could ensure women with genetic defects do not pass the diseases on to their children.

It is human beings they are experimenting with
Josephine Quintavalle
Comment on Reproductive Ethics

The technique is intended to help women with diseases of the mitochondria - mini organelles that are found within individual cells.

They are sometimes described as "cellular power plants" because they generate most of the cell's energy.

Faults in the mitochondrial DNA can cause around 50 known diseases, some of which lead to disability and death.

About one in every 6,500 people is affected by such conditions, which include fatal liver failure, stroke-like episodes, blindness, muscular dystrophy, diabetes and deafness.

At present, no treatment for mitochondrial diseases exists.

Genetic transplant

The Newcastle team have effectively given the embryos a mitochondria transplant.

We believe we could develop this technique and offer treatment in the forseeable future that will give families some hope of avoiding passing these diseases to their children
Professor Patrick Chinnery
University of Newcastle

They experimented on 10 severely abnormal embryos left over from traditional fertility treatment.

Within hours of their creation, the nucleus, containing DNA from the mother and father, was removed from the embryo, and implanted into a donor egg whose DNA had been largely removed.

The only genetic information remaining from the donor egg was the tiny bit that controls production of mitochondria - around 16,000 of the 3billion component parts that make up the human genome.

The embryos then began to develop normally, but were destroyed within six days.


Experiments using mice have shown that the offspring with the new mitochondria carry no information that defines any human attributes.

*********for remainder, go to**********

Posted on 02/08/2008 3:48 PM by Bobbie Patray
Thursday, 7 February 2008
Three-parent embryo formed in lab
Three-parent embryo formed in lab

Scientists believe they have made a potential breakthrough in the treatment of serious disease by creating a human embryo with three separate parents.

The Newcastle University team believe the technique could help to eradicate a whole class of hereditary diseases, including some forms of epilepsy.

The embryos have been created using DNA from a man and two women in lab tests.

It could ensure women with genetic defects do not pass the diseases on to their children.

It is human beings they are experimenting with
Josephine Quintavalle
Comment on Reproductive Ethics

The technique is intended to help women with diseases of the mitochondria - mini organelles that are found within individual cells.

They are sometimes described as "cellular power plants" because they generate most of the cell's energy.

Faults in the mitochondrial DNA can cause around 50 known diseases, some of which lead to disability and death.

About one in every 6,500 people is affected by such conditions, which include fatal liver failure, stroke-like episodes, blindness, muscular dystrophy, diabetes and deafness.

At present, no treatment for mitochondrial diseases exists.

Genetic transplant

The Newcastle team have effectively given the embryos a mitochondria transplant.

We believe we could develop this technique and offer treatment in the forseeable future that will give families some hope of avoiding passing these diseases to their children
Professor Patrick Chinnery
University of Newcastle

They experimented on 10 severely abnormal embryos left over from traditional fertility treatment.

Within hours of their creation, the nucleus, containing DNA from the mother and father, was removed from the embryo, and implanted into a donor egg whose DNA had been largely removed.

The only genetic information remaining from the donor egg was the tiny bit that controls production of mitochondria - around 16,000 of the 3billion component parts that make up the human genome.

The embryos then began to develop normally, but were destroyed within six days.


Experiments using mice have shown that the offspring with the new mitochondria carry no information that defines any human attributes.

*********for remainder, go to**********


Posted on 02/07/2008 6:32 AM by Bobbie Patray
Tuesday, 5 February 2008
The Outrageous WTO

The Outrageous WTO


by Phyllis Schlafly, January 9, 2008

WTO now stands for World Trade Outrage rather than its original name, World Trade Organization. The WTO just ruled that the Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda can freely violate American copyrights and trademarks in order to punish the United States for our laws prohibiting internet gambling.


Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006 after finding that "internet gambling is a growing cause of debt collection problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer credit industry." The social and financial costs of gambling would be greatly increased if we permit internet gambling.

The WTO ordered this punishment because it says U.S. laws interfere with free trade in "recreational services." The foreign tribunal ranks free trade as more important than the intellectual property rights Americans have enjoyed since our Constitution was written.

The WTO's 88-page decision issued in December contained the panel's remarkable admission that "we feel we are on shaky grounds." But that didn't stop the Geneva tribunal from issuing its ruling anyway.

We have every right as a nation to protect our people against the corruption and loss of wealth that result from gambling on the internet. It is shocking for an unelected foreign tribunal to tell our 435-member House of Representatives, our 100-member Senate, and the President of the United States that they lack the power to protect our people.

Even American supremacist judges would not have the nerve to authorize stealing copyrights and trademarks as a remedy for one side in an unrelated dispute. But the WTO granted what has been called a "piracy permit" that allows a small Caribbean nation to "pirate," or steal, U.S. property rights.

The response in Washington was to announce an attempt to revise the conditions under which we joined the WTO in 1994. That's a non-starter because these changes in the WTO treaty would require the approval of all 151 members, most of whom don't like the U.S. anyway.

The WTO has ruled against the United States in 40 out of 47 major cases, and against us in 30 out of 33 trade remedies cases. After the WTO ruled that the U.S. cannot divert tariff revenue to U.S. companies that are injured by foreign subsidies to their competitors, Vice President Dick Cheney provided the tie-breaking vote in the Senate on December 21, 2005 to kowtow to the WTO.

For many years, opponents of the WTO have predicted that this foreign bureaucracy would massively interfere with our sovereignty. This new ruling is crazy, unjust and impertinent, but without a lot of public protest, it looks unlikely that our "free trade" President or Congress will do anything to protect us from the WTO.

How is a foreign tribunal in Geneva able to put the United States in such a box? It's because the internationalist free-trade lobby cooked up a sleazy deal to force the WTO on us back in 1994 during the week after Thanksgiving when Americans were preoccupied with Christmas shopping and festivities.

The deal to lock us into WTO consisted of three parts. First, the 14-page WTO agreement was surreptitiously added, without debate or publicity, to the 22,000-page revision of the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) implementing legislation, and was voted on under "fast track" rules which allowed no amendments or changes, severely limited debate, and forbade any filibuster.

Second, the Treaty Clause in the U.S. Constitution for ratification of treaties was ignored, and WTO was declared passed by Congress as a non-treaty. Third, the GATT/WTO agreement was passed in the December lame-duck session with the votes of dozens of Congressmen who were looking for lucrative jobs representing foreign interests because they had already been defeated in the Republican landslide of November 1994.

The WTO is not "free trade" at all, but is a supra-national body in Geneva that sets, manages and enforces WTO-made rules to govern global trade. The WTO includes a one-country-one-vote legislature of 151 nations (we have the same one vote as Cuba), an unelected multinational bureaucracy, and a Dispute Settlement Board which deliberates and votes in secret and whose decisions cannot be appealed or vetoed.

WTO is a direct attack on our sovereignty because it claims it can force us to change our laws to comply with WTO rulings. Article XVI, paragraph 4, states: "Each Member shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations, and administrative procedures with its obligations." The WTO has the final say about whether U.S. laws meet WTO requirements.

In this presidential season, the WTO should make easy target practice for any candidate to speak up and defend our sovereignty against the globalists who, under the mantra of "free trade," willingly allow the WTO to tell us what laws we may or may not adopt.

Posted on 02/05/2008 3:46 PM by Bobbie Patray
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
      1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29