The emerging New World Order

My friend Carl sends me this, and it has been on my site and my old radio show for years.  My friend Chuck Baldwin, who was also on my show and the Constitution candidate for President wrote this two peice article on the emerging NWO.  I post this info that Carl sent me, as well as invite you to Chucks site to read it, at http://www.newswithviews.com or at my site with more info on the CFR and the NWO at www.offmyfrontporch.com. 

By Chuck Baldwin
January 27, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

It is hard to believe, but a majority of Americans (including Christians and conservatives) seem oblivious to the fact that there is a very real, very legitimate New World Order (NWO) unfolding. In the face of overwhelming evidence, most Americans not only seem totally unaware of this reality, they seem unwilling to even remotely entertain the notion.

On one hand, it is understandable that so many Americans would be ignorant of the emerging New World Order. After all, the mainstream media refuses to report, or even acknowledge, the NWO. Even “conservative” commentators and talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Joe Scarborough refuse to discuss it. And when listeners call these respective programs, these “conservative” hosts usually resort to insulting the caller as being some kind of “conspiracy kook.” One host even railed that if anyone questions the government line on 9/11, we should “lock them up and throw away the key.” So much for freedom of speech!

This is an area–perhaps the central area–where liberals and conservatives agree: they both show no patience or tolerance for anyone who believes that global government (in any form) is evolving. One has to wonder how otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people can be so brain dead when it comes to this issue. It makes one wonder who is really pulling their strings, doesn’t it?

The list of notable personalities who have openly referenced or called for some kind of global government or New World Order is extremely lengthy. Are all these people “kooks” or “conspiracy nuts”? Why would world leaders–including presidents, secretaries of state, and high government officials; including the media, financial, and political elite–constantly refer to something that doesn’t exist? Why would they write about, talk about, or openly promote a New World Order, if there is no such thing?

Many of us recall President George Herbert Walker Bush talking much about an emerging New World Order. For example, in 1989, Bush told the students of Texas A&M University, “Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations.”

Later, Bush, Sr. said, “We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order . . .. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.”

Bush, Sr. also said, “What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea–a new world order.”

Bush, Sr. further said, “The world can therefore seize the opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order . . .”

What was President G.H.W. Bush talking about, if there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order? Was he talking out of his mind? Was he hallucinating?

England’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said, “We are all internationalists now, whether we like it or not.” He continued saying, “On the eve of a new Millennium we are now in a new world. We need new rules for international co-operation and new ways of organizing our international institutions.” He also said, “Today the impulse towards interdependence is immeasurably greater. We are witnessing the beginnings of a new doctrine of international community.”

In 1999, Tony Blair said, “Globalization has transformed our economies and our working practices. But globalism is not just economic. It is also a political and security phenomenon.”

What is Tony Blair talking about, if there is no emerging New World Order? What does he mean by “a new doctrine of international community”? What does he mean by “new world”? How can one have globalism, which includes “a political and security phenomenon,” without creating a New World Order? Is Tony Blair hallucinating?

Likewise, former President George W. Bush penned his signature to the Declaration of Quebec back on April 22, 2001, in which he gave a “commitment to hemispheric integration and national and collective responsibility for improving the economic well-being and security of our people.”

By “our people,” Bush meant the people of the Western Hemisphere, not the people of the United States. Phyllis Schlafly rightly reminded us that G.W. Bush “pledged that the United States will ‘build a hemispheric family on the basis of a more just and democratic international order.’”

Remember, too, that it was G.W. Bush who, back in 2005, committed the United States to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which is nothing more than a precursor to the North American Community or Union, as outlined in CFR member Robert Pastor’s manual, “Toward a North American Community.”

If there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order, what was G.W. Bush talking about when he referred to “a hemispheric family” and an “international order”?

The public statements of notable world leaders regarding an emerging New World Order are copious. Consider the statements of former CBS newsman, Walter Cronkite.

In his book, “A Reporter’s Life,” Walter Cronkite said, “A system of world order–preferably a system of world government–is mandatory. The proud nations someday will see the light and, for the common good and their own survival, yield up their precious sovereignty . . .” Cronkite told BBC newsman Tim Sebastian, “I think we are realizing that we are going to have to have an international rule of law.” He added, “We need not only an executive to make international law, but we need the military forces to enforce that law.” Cronkite also said, “American people are going to begin to realize that perhaps they are going to have to yield some sovereignty to an international body to enforce world law.”

If there is no emerging New World Order, what is Walter Cronkite talking about? Can there be any doubt that Cronkite is talking about global government? Absolutely not!

Now, when Bush, Sr. talks about fulfilling “the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders,” he was talking about the same thing former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali was talking about when he said, “The time for absolute and exclusive sovereignty . . . has passed.”

The United Nations has been on the forefront of promoting the New World Order agenda since its very inception. In 1995, the UN released a manual entitled, “Our Global Neighborhood.” It states, “Population, consumption, technology, development, and the environment are linked in complex relationships that bear closely on human welfare in the global neighborhood. Their effective and equitable management calls for a systematic, long-term, global approach guided by the principle of sustainable development, which has been the central lesson from the mounting ecological dangers of recent times. Its universal application is a priority among the tasks of global governance.”

If there is no emerging New World Order, what is “global governance” all about?

“Who are the movers and shakers promoting global government?” you ask. Obviously, it is the international bankers who are the heavyweights behind the push for global government. Remember, one cannot create a “global economy” without a global government to manage, oversee, and control it.

In a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.”

“Old Hickory” did his best to rid the United States from the death grip that the international bankers were beginning to exert on this country. He may have been the last President to actually oppose the bankers. In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Jackson said, “Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out.”

Unfortunately, the international bankers proved themselves to be too formidable for President Jackson. And in 1913, with the collaboration of President Woodrow Wilson, the bankers were given charge over America’s financial system by the creation of the Federal Reserve.

Ever since the CFR and Trilateral Commission were created, they have filled the key leadership positions of government, big media, and of course, the Federal Reserve.

In his book, “With No Apologies,” former Republican Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater wrote, “The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power– political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future.” Was Goldwater a prophet or what?

And again, the goals of the global elite have been publicly stated. Back in 1991, the founder of the CFR, David Rockefeller praised the major media for their complicity in helping to facilitate the globalist agenda by saying, “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

How could Rockefeller be any plainer? He acknowledged the willful assistance of the major media in helping to keep the elitists’ agenda of global government from the American people. To this day, the major media has not deviated from that collaboration. And this includes the aforementioned “conservative” talking heads. They know if they want to keep their jobs, they dare not reveal the New World Order. The NWO, more than anything else, is the “Third Rail” to the national media.

Is it any wonder that President Barack Obama has stacked his government with numerous members of the CFR? Among these are Robert Gates, Janet Napolitano, Eric Shinseki, Timothy Geithner, and Tom Daschle. Other CFR members include CFR President Richard Haass, CFR Director Richard Holbrooke, and founding member of the Trilateral Commission and CFR member Paul Volcker. Obama even asked a CFR member, Rick Warren, to deliver the inaugural prayer.

Still not convinced? Just a few days ago, when asked by a reporter what he thought the most important thing was that Barack Obama could accomplish, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, “I think his task will be develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a New World Order can be created. It’s a great opportunity; it isn’t just a crisis.”

This is the same Henry Kissinger, you will recall, who said back in 1991, “Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were [sic] an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.”

Even Gideon Rachman, the chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial Times, wrote an editorial expressing his support for world government. In his column he said, “I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. . . . But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

“A ‘world government’ would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

“So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.”

Rachman then goes on to explain the reasons why he believes world government is plausible.

Do you now see why it does not matter to a tinker’s dam whether it is a Republican or Democrat who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? For the most part, both major parties in Washington, D.C., have been under the dominating influence of the international bankers who control the Federal Reserve, the CFR, and the Trilateral Commission. And this is also why it does not matter whether one calls himself conservative or liberal. For the most part, both conservatives and liberals in Washington, D.C., are facilitating the emerging New World Order. It is time we wake up to this reality.

Presidents Bush, Sr., Bill Clinton, and Bush, Jr. have thoroughly set the table for the implementation of the NWO, as surely as the sun rises in the east. All Obama has to do is put the food on the table–and you can count on this: Barack Obama will serve up a New World Order feast like you cannot believe!

That a New World Order is emerging is not in question. The only question is, What will freedom-loving Americans do about it? Of course, the first thing they have to do is admit that an emerging New World Order exists! Until conservatives, Christians, pastors, constitutionalists, and others who care about a sovereign, independent United States acknowledge the reality of an emerging New World Order, they will be incapable of opposing it. And right now, that is exactly what they are not doing.

In my last column, I attempted to wake up my fellow Americans, who are either currently slumbering through the collapse of our constitutional republic or in a protracted state of denial regarding a very real–and very dangerous–burgeoning New World Order. The information that I need to disseminate on this matter is so plentiful that it is extremely difficult to condense into one column. Therefore, I must at least attempt to provide a little more information on this subject. I will use this column to do just that.

I already quoted former President George Herbert Walker Bush in my previous column. Here are more of his quotes. In 1991, Bush, Sr. said, “My vision of a New World Order foresees a United Nations with a revitalized peacekeeping function.” In 1992, he said, “It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance.”

Wow! I thought U.S. Presidents, as well as all civil magistrates and military personnel, swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Not in Bush’s mind, obviously.

On January 25, 1993, Warren Christopher, the new Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, told CNN: “We must get the New World Order on track and bring the U.N. into its correct role in regards to the United States.”

In 1958, Cleon Skousen, a former FBI agent (a man I was fortunate enough to get to know before his death), wrote a book entitled “The Naked Communist.” In it, he outlined the long-term communist agenda. Since then, the movers and shakers of the New World Order have successfully achieved many of these goals within the U.S. Here are some samples of those goals:

* Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
* Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
* Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind.
* Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
* Get control of the schools.
* Infiltrate the press.
* Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
* Break down cultural standards of morality.
* Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with social religion.
* Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

Is there anyone who cannot see that the purveyors of the New World Order have largely achieved most of their goals? All they need to do now is tie it all together under one governmental umbrella.

One of the organizations that is at the forefront of promoting the New World Order is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In my last column, I showed how the CFR dominates the Presidencies of both Republican and Democratic administrations (including the current one), as well as the Federal Reserve. I would even go so far as to say that the CFR is a very “clear and present danger” to the sovereignty and independence of the United States.

For example, CFR member and UN spokesman, Walt Rostow, said, “It is, therefore, an American interest to see an end to nationhood.”

The American people need to wake up to the fact that the international banking interests that dominate our political and financial entities are working tirelessly to “see an end to nationhood.” I am talking about the Rothschilds and Warburgs of Europe, and the houses of J.P. Morgan, Kuhn, Loeb, Schiff, Lehman, and Rockefeller.

Rear Admiral Chester Ward, who was the Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1956-1960 and a former member of the CFR who pulled out after realizing what they were all about, warned the American people about the dangers of this and similar organizations (such as the Trilateral Commission). He said, “The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common–they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR . . . comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.”

Admiral Ward also said, “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government.”

Remember, the CFR was incorporated in 1921 and is currently comprised of only about 4,000 members. The CFR was co-founded by Edward Mandell House and John D. Rockefeller. Colonel (an honorary title–he was not a military colonel) House had been the chief advisor of President Woodrow Wilson. Historians often call House “Wilson’s alter ego” due to the powerful influence he held over the President. House was a rabid Marxist, whose goal was to socialize the United States. In his book, “Philip Dru: Administrator,” House said he was working for “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.”

House’s stated goals were to incorporate a gradual income tax upon the backs of the American people for the purpose of establishing a state-controlled central bank. Both of these goals were accomplished in 1913, the very first year of the House-dominated Wilson administration.

House’s blueprint became the foundation for the CFR. What was not accomplished by the proposed League of Nations at the end of World War I was realized with the formation of the United Nations at the end of World War II. Not by accident, much of the original funding for the CFR came from Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan. President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave CFR members much authority in his administration, and they have pretty much dominated the foreign and financial policies of the United States ever since.

In the April, 1974 edition of the CFR publication, “Foreign Affairs,” Columbia University Professor and CFR member Richard Gardner wrote a column entitled, “The Hard Road to World Order.” In it, he called for “an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.” He named the following organizations that would help fulfill that objective: the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the Law of the Sea Conference, the World Food Conference, the World Population Conference, and of course, the United Nations. I would also include NAFTA, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), CAFTA, etc.

The CFR has a sister organization called the Trilateral Commission (TC). This group was co-founded by the Marxist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and David Rockefeller. Like Gardner, Brzezinski calls for a piecemeal “movement toward a larger community of the developed nations . . . through a variety of indirect ties and already developing limitations on national sovereignty.” (Source: Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, p. 296)

Brzezinski is also a major proponent (along with CFR member Robert Pastor) of the North American Community (or Union), whose construction began during the second term of President George W. Bush and continues today under President Barack Obama.

Here is a sample list of the notable dignitaries in and out of government who hold (or held) membership in the CFR or TC (and sometimes both):

George Herbert Walker Bush. Bill Clinton. Sandra Day O’Connor. Dick Cheney. Les Aspin. Colin Powell. Robert Gates. Brent Scowcroft. Jesse Jackson, Sr. Mario Cuomo. Dan Rather. Tom Brokaw. David Brinkley. John Chancellor. Marvin Kalb. Diane Sawyer. Barbara Walters. Cyrus Vance. Paul Volcker. Henry Kissinger. George Schultz. Alan Greenspan. Madeleine Albright. Roger Altman. Bruce Babbitt. Howard Baker. Samuel Berger. Elaine Chao. Dianne Feinstein. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Chuck Hagel. Gary Hart. John McCain. George Mitchell. Bill Moyers. Jay Rockefeller. Donna Shalala. Strobe Talbott. Fred Thompson. Robert Zoellick. Richard Nixon. Hubert H. Humphrey. George McGovern. Gerald Ford. Jimmy Carter. John Anderson. Walter Mondale. Michael Dukakis. Al Gore. John Kerry.

It is absolutely essential that we stop looking at potential leaders as either Democrats or Republicans, or as conservatives or liberals. Those monikers mean very little today. We must start identifying people as either Americans or globalists. Either they believe in an independent, sovereign, self-governing United States of America, or they believe in supranational government and internationalism. Either they believe in devotion to the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence, or they believe in the goals and objectives of the United Nations. We must rid ourselves of the propensity to support those who classify themselves as “conservatives,” and we must stop blindly supporting the GOP “because it is a ‘conservative’ party.” If they do not understand AND OPPOSE the New World Order, they do not deserve our support or our vote!

George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush laid the foundation for everything that Barack Obama is doing to facilite the New World Order. That two of these Presidents are Democrats and two are Republicans only proves my point: both the Democratic and Republican parties have succumbed to New World Order ideology.

There is more that we can do, of course, but I will save the bulk of that discussion for another day. In the meantime, we need to realize that the New World Order exists, to understand that both major parties are collaborating to facilitate its creation, to start looking at leaders as either Americans or globalists, and to refuse to support the latter in any shape, manner, or form.

Pastors need to start warning their people about the New World Order (and the Biblical principles relating to it) from their pulpits–loud and often! People need to start warning their family members and friends. We need to start searching out like-minded patriots–who understand what’s going on–for information and encouragement. And remember this: WE CAN DEFEAT THE NEW WORLD ORDER. Yes, we can!

The fatalistic view that we are helpless is a bunch of baloney! Our forefathers defeated the New World Order in their day. The globalists have been stymied many times through the years. The fact that they have not yet totally achieved their globalistic objectives shows us that it is possible to stop them, or at the very least, set their agenda backward.

I also urge my Christian brothers and sisters to rid themselves of the propensity to say, “This is God’s will; there is nothing we can do about it.” That, too, is hooey!

Christians are to be the “salt of the earth.” Salt is a preservative, a retardant against decay. We are instructed to be faithful “unto death.” In Romans chapter 3, the Apostle Paul made it clear that we must never support evil that good may come. I would remind my brethren that refusing to resist evil is the same as supporting it. Sitting back complacently and saying, “This must happen so Jesus can come,” borders on blasphemy. It runs counter to everything the Bible teaches. We Christians have a duty, an obligation to do right with no regard to outcome or consequences.

When asked when He would establish His Kingdom on the earth, the first thing out of Jesus’ mouth was, “It is not for you to know.” Yet, many Christians presume to know the times and seasons of Christ’s return. But let’s be honest with ourselves and admit that we do NOT know. To sit back and say that we have full understanding of Bible prophecy and can say for certain what God does or does not want to accomplish in and through our country is the height of arrogance and pride. Only God knows those things. It’s time we let God be God and start doing what is ours to do.

What we do know is any attempt at establishing global government is as wicked now as it was at the Tower of Babel. As Christians, we are instructed to resist the wicked one. We must oppose him and his work. We are told to “occupy” until Christ returns, whenever that is. To “occupy” means to “take care of business.” God expects us to follow His teaching and do what is ours to do. To use Christ’s coming as an excuse to not “take care of business” is itself inexcusable!

As John Quincy Adams said, “Duty is ours; results are God’s.” If we would truly do our duty, who knows what God would do to help us defeat (for the sake of our children and grandchildren) this devilish New World Order?

As for me and my house, we will fight for a free, independent and sovereign United States–so that we might walk, work, and worship in freedom–as long as we have breath in our being. How about you?

P.S. Several readers informed me that Michael Savage began acknowledging the New World Order on his radio show last year. Some said he has even spoken against it. This is good news. If only the rest of the so-called “conservative” talking heads would do the same thing–but in a more aggressive fashion: you know, like America’s freedom depended on it, because it does.

P.P.S. Dennis Cuddy wrote a good chronological history of the New World Order, which covers its progression through the twentieth century. It can be viewed here.

Oops, Rep. Gingrey forgot that Conservatives Do Exist like M & M’s

Have you been following the war on Rush Limbaugh and the Dems?  I think it’s ground work for the Fairness doctrine.  I even see dissention within the Repub party.  Rush went after the leadership, saying that they were about as strong as a noodle.  (paraphrased)  Congressman Phil Gingrey went after him for attacking the leadership, and undoubtedly, Rep. Gingrey’s constitutients reminded him where his bread is buttered.  I applaud Rush for going after the leadership of the party, because all they could send out for the party was John McCain.  I enclose Rep. Gingrey’s comments on his website after being chastised by the voters:

Congressman Phil Gingrey, MD (R-GA) made the following statement in response to an article that ran in Politico Newspaper about comments he made regarding conservative commentator, Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Leadership:

Because of the high volume of phone calls and correspondence received by my office since the Politico article ran, I wanted to take a moment to speak directly to grassroots conservatives.  Let me assure you, I am one of you.  I believe I was sent to Washington to fight for and defend our traditional values of smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense, and the lives of the unborn.  In my six years in Washington, I have led the charge on many of these issues.  In fact, in 2008 The National Journal ranked me the #1 most conservative Member of the House of Representatives.

 

As long as I am in the Congress, I will continue to fight for and defend our sacred values.  I have actively opposed every bailout, every rebate check, every so called “stimulus.”  And on so many of these things, I see eye-to-eye with Rush Limbaugh.  Regardless of what yesterday’s headline may have read, I never told Rush to back off. I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives—that was not my intent.  I am also sorry to see that my comments in defense of our Republican Leadership read much harsher than they actually were intended, but I recognize it is my responsibility to clarify my own comments.

 

Now more than ever, we need to articulate a clear conservative message that distinguishes our values and our approach from those of liberal Democrats who are seeking to move our nation in the wrong direction. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement’s conscience.  Everyday, millions and millions of Americans—myself included—turn on their radios and televisions to listen to what they have to say, and we are inspired by their words and by their determination.  At the end of the day, every member of the conservative movement, from our political commentators and thinkers to our elected officials, share an important and common purpose in advancing the cause of liberty, reigning in a bloated federal government, and defending our traditional family values.

Aren’t you glad Gas Prices are on a Digital Board

Notice that most new signs at the service stations have gone to digital?  That’s because they were wearing out the parttimers going out and changing the prices.  Well, even the digital signs may heat up with the change.  I want you to notice just how jumpy the traders are.  After ramping up the profits of the oil companies (btw, Exxon, biggest profit ever THIS year) and the primary reason this country is in the economic toilet, is starting an upswing the first sign of a draw down.  Notice also in this story that the refineries are now operating at 82 percent?  That means we’ve still got enough stored…more than in a decade.  Oh yeah, and the turbans over at OPEC say they can live with $70 per barrel oil.  I bet, have you got enough salt and pepper to dull that bitter taste?  All the building projects and the gun buying come to a screeching halt?  Even Chavez can’t turn on the power to his microphones for all that idiotic socialist ranting and raving.  Well, really, he doesn’t have to, we’ve taken it up in D.C.

Jan. 28 (Bloomberg) — Crude oil and gasoline rose after a U.S. government report showed an unexpected decline in stockpiles of the motor fuel.

Gasoline supplies fell 121,000 barrels to 219.9 million barrels last week, the Energy Department said today in a weekly report. Inventories were forecast to climb 2 million barrels, according to the median of analyst estimates in a Bloomberg News survey. Stocks gained on President Barack Obama’s plans to boost the economy.

“The unexpected drawdown in gasoline supplies is giving everything a boost along with the strength we’re seeing in the stock market,” said Phil Flynn, senior trader at Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago. “A stock market rally raises optimism about demand in the months ahead.”

Crude oil for March delivery rose 49 cents, or 1.2 percent, to $42.07 a barrel at the 2:30 p.m. close of floor trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices are down 5.8 percent this year and are 54 percent lower than a year ago.

The U.S. House of Representatives is set to approve President Barack Obama’s proposed $816 billion economic stimulus package today. The plan is aimed at wresting the economy out of a recession through tax cuts and $604 billion in spending.

Crude oil inventories rose 6.22 million barrels to 338.9 million barrels in the week ended Jan. 23, the department said. Supplies were forecast to climb 2.9 million barrels, according to the median of 14 analyst estimates.

Stockpiles of distillate fuel, a category that includes heating oil and diesel, fell 1 million barrels to 144 million barrels, the amount that was forecast by the analysts.

Refinery Operations

Refineries operated at 82.5 percent of capacity last week, the Energy Department said. Analysts forecast that refiners would operate at 82.8 percent of capacity. Companies often shut units for maintenance in January and February as attention shifts away from heating oil and before gasoline use rises.

ConocoPhillips, the second-largest U.S. refiner, expects refinery operating rates near 80 percent during the first quarter due to planned turnarounds and hydro-skimming economics.

The profit margin, or crack spread, for making three barrels of crude into two of gasoline and one of heating oil, based on futures prices, climbed 22 percent to $11.4198 a barrel today.

“The products are showing strength because we are looking at a persistent downtrend in refinery runs,” said John Kilduff, senior vice president of energy at MF Global Inc. in New York. “The ConocoPhillips announcement should drain stockpiles and support the crack.”

Gasoline futures for February delivery rose 6.75 cents, or 6.1 percent, to $1.176 a gallon in New York. Heating oil for February increased 4.37 cents, or 3.2 percent, to $1.4182 a gallon.

Brent crude oil for March settlement increased 82 cents, or 1.9 percent, to $44.55 a barrel on London’s ICE Futures Europe exchange.

And once again, the Prophecy of the Goracle – We are doomed!

It never fails, on a cold, icy day in D.C., the rantings of the insane carbon collecting millionaire Al Gore in congress, yet once again screaming about the failures of mankind to control global warming.  Pulllllllleese!  Somebody give him an algae popsicle and sit him down.  Giving him the gold has made him a trusted seer!  What a great article in the Washington Post by Dana Milbank for your perusal.  Enjoi!

 

By Dana Milbank, Washington Post
Thursday, January 29, 2009; A03
 

The lawmakers gazed in awe at the figure before them. The Goracle had seen the future, and he had come to tell them about it.

What the Goracle saw in the future was not good: temperature changes that “would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth — and this is within this century, if we don’t change.”

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry (D-Mass.), appealed to hear more of the Goracle’s premonitions. “Share with us, if you would, sort of the immediate vision that you see in this transformative process as we move to this new economy,” he beseeched.

“Geothermal energy,” the Goracle prophesied. “This has great potential; it is not very far off.”

Another lawmaker asked about the future of nuclear power. “I have grown skeptical about the degree to which it will expand,” the Goracle spoke.

A third asked the legislative future — and here the Goracle spoke in riddle. “The road to Copenhagen has three steps to it,” he said.

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) begged the Goracle to look further into the future. “What does your modeling tell you about how long we’re going to be around as a species?” he inquired.

The Goracle chuckled. “I don’t claim the expertise to answer a question like that, Senator.”

It was a jarring reminder that the Goracle is, indeed, mortal. Once Al Gore was a mere vice president, but now he is a Nobel laureate and climate-change prophet. He repeats phrases such as “unified national smart grid” the way he once did “no controlling legal authority” — and the ridicule has been replaced by worship, even by his political foes.

“Tennessee,” gushed Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Gore’s home state, “has a legacy of having people here in the Senate and in public service that have been of major consequence and contributed in a major way to the public debate, and you no doubt have helped build that legacy.” If that wasn’t quite enough, Corker added: “Very much enjoyed your sense of humor, too.”

Humor? From Al Gore? “I benefit from low expectations,” he replied.

The Goracle’s powers seem to come from his ability to scare the bejesus out of people. “We must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization,” he said. And: “This is the most serious challenge the world has ever faced.” And: It “could completely end human civilization, and it is rushing at us with such speed and force.”

Though some lawmakers tangled with Gore on his last visit to Capitol Hill, none did on the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. Dick Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican, agreed that there will be “an almost existential impact” from the climate changes Gore described.

As such, the Goracle, even when questioned, was shown great deference. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), challenging Gore over spent nuclear fuel, began by saying: “I stand to be corrected, and I defer to your position, you’re probably right, and I’m probably wrong.” He ended his question by saying: “I’m not questioning you; I’m questioning myself.”

Others sought to buy the Goracle’s favor by offering him gifts. “Thank you for your incredible leadership; you make this crystalline for those who don’t either understand it or want to understand it,” gushed Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who went on to ask: “Will you join me this summer at the Jersey Shore?”

The chairman worried that the Goracle may have been offended by “naysayers” who thought it funny that Gore’s testimony before the committee came on a morning after a snow-and-ice storm in the capital. “The little snow in Washington does nothing to diminish the reality of the crisis,” Kerry said at the start of the hearing.

The climate was well controlled inside the hearing room, although Gore, suffering from a case of personal climate change, perspired heavily during his testimony. The Goracle presented the latest version of his climate-change slide show to the senators: a globe with yellow and red blotches, a house falling into water, and ones with obscure titles such as “Warming Impacts Ugandan Coffee Growing Region.” At one point he flashed a biblical passage on the screen, but he quickly removed it. “I’m not proselytizing,” he explained. A graphic showing a disappearing rain forest was accompanied by construction noises.

The Goracle supplied abundant metaphors to accompany his visuals. Oil demand: “This roller coaster is headed for a crash, and we’re in the front car.” Polar ice: “Like a beating heart, and the permanent ice looks almost like blood spilling out of a body along the eastern coast of Greenland.”

The lawmakers joined in. “There are a lot of ways to skin a cat,” contributed Isakson, who is unlikely to get the Humane Society endorsement. “And if we have the dire circumstances we’re facing, we need to find every way to skin every cat.”

Mostly, however, the lawmakers took turns asking the Goracle for advice, as if playing with a Magic 8 Ball.

Lugar, a 32-year veteran of the Senate, asked Gore, as a “practical politician,” how to get the votes for climate-change legislation. “I am a recovering politician. I’m on about Step 9,” the Goracle replied, before providing his vision.

Prospects for regulating a future carbon emissions market? “There’s a high degree of confidence.” The future of automobiles in China and India? “I wouldn’t give up on electric vehicles.” The potential of solar power in those countries? “I have no question about it at all.”

Of course not. He’s the Goracle.

Congress now sued over Obama’s Citizenship

We haven’t had a chance to do much blogging because of the weather, as we lost power and internet service for a while.  I hope you and your family are safe and warm.  It’s amazing how much has happened in the week or so since we’ve been on line.  Seem’s O is worried about his financial legacy.  He should be worried more if a few ‘pub’s get their hands on  this little sweetie:

Posted: January 31, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A new lawsuit is challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, and this one targets Congress as a defendant for its “failure” to uphold the constitutional demand to make sure Obama qualified before approving the Electoral College vote that actually designated him as the occupant of the Oval Office.

The new case raises many of the same arguments as dozens of other cases that have flooded into courtrooms around the nation since the November election.

It is being brought on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. and names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the “natural-born American” clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 193,000 others and sign up now!

As WND has reported, dozens of lawsuits have been filed over Obama’s eligibility to assume the office of the president. Many have been dismissed while others remain pending.

The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the “natural born citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Several details of Obama’s past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family’s move to Indonesia when he was a child, his travel to Pakistan in the ’80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens and conflicting reports from Obama’s family about his place of birth.
Perhaps the most perplexing detail, however, has been Obama’s refusal to allow the public release of a signed “vault” copy of his original birth certificate.

The new case was launched in New Jersey, and focuses on the alleged failure in Congress to follow the Constitution.

That document, the lawsuit states, “provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors.”

In provides, the lawsuit said, “If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified.”

“There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama’s eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified.”

“Congress is the elected representative of the American people and the people speak and act through them,” the lawsuit said.

The defendants “violated” the 20th Amendment by failing to assure that Obama meets the eligibility requirements,” the lawsuit said.

In the Russian publication Pravda, commentator Mark S. McGrew addressed the subject:

“The United States Congress is required, under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, to count the Electoral College votes for president and vice president, ask if any member of Congress objects to the count and hear that Congressman’s objection. This is under Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15, ‘Upon such reading of any such certificate of paper, the president of the Senate shall call for objections, if any,’” he wrote.

Several of the cases – including those brought by Orly Taitz, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Philip Berg, already have been heard in conference at the U.S. Supreme Court, which has failed to have a hearing on any of the merits involved.

Taitz, in fact, is requesting information from the Supreme Court about a meeting eight of its justices held with Obama, a defendant in her case, before the justices reviewed the issues of the case in a private conference.

Several of the cases not scheduled for hearings at the Supreme Court still remain active at lower court levels, from which emergency requests to the high court were launched.

“I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States,” Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.

“Obama knows he is not ‘natural born’ as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest ‘hoax’ attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a ‘crisis’ situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified,” Berg’s statement continued.

A partial listing and status update for several of the cases surrounding Obama’s eligibility to serve as president is below:

    * Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama’s original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg’s latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.

    * Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

    * Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

    * Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public’s support.

    * Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

    * Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.

    * In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

    * In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.

    * In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

    * California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

Private investigator Douglas Hagmann of HomelandSecurityUS.com reported earlier he found 13 cases challenging Obama’s eligibility still active or semi-active.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility include:

    * In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

    * In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

    * In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

    * In Washington, L. Charles vs. Obama.

    * In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn’t simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject. A one point a Kenyan ambassador said Obama’s birth place in Kenya already was recognized and honored.

Only in California…Illegal to smoke in your own home

No Smoking – Even At Home?

CBS Evening News: Town Passes Tough Anti-Smoking Law, Banning Indoor Smoking In Condos

Belmont, Calif., is home to a tough new anti-smoking law – and a tough old smoker, CBS News correspondent John Blackstone reports.

Edith Frederickson came there from Germany 40 years ago and has been smoking two packs a day even longer than that. But now in Belmont it’s illegal for her to light up inside her own home.

“Just the fact that somebody forces me to do something goes against my grain!” she said.

But Coralin Feierbach of the Belmont City Council says: “She’s gonna have to smoke outside, where everybody else smokes.”

Feierbach pushed Belmont’s new law banning smoking inside apartments and condos to protect neighbors.

“Overwhelming evidence shows that secondhand smoke is dangerous, even for a few seconds,” Feierbach said. “We don’t want to be around anybody who smokes.”

“This idea that I am killing other people is ridiculous!” Frederickson said. “Prove it!”

At 72, Frederickson rejects the science on smoking, insisting she’s in robust health.

“The cigarettes aren’t gonna kill me,” she said. “They haven’t done it yet.”

Police don’t go around peeking in apartment windows in Belmont. But if apartment building neighbors complain about a smoker next door, officers can come knocking.

Frederickson says what she does in her own apartment is no one else’s business. We visited her before the law took effect when her home was still her castle.

“There has to be something in the Constitution that guarantees my happiness — and smoking makes me happy,” she said.

What also makes her happy right now is carrying the torch for smokers’ rights – keeping the heat on city council.

“I don’t know what to do!” Feierbach said. “I mean, maybe she’ll move.”

For now Frederickson seems immovable.

She won’t admit to breaking the law, but she fumes, “just try” to catch her.

Read at CBS.com

Usually when it hits the UK…..the US is next:

‘Smoking police’ hit the streets to shock people into quitting

Smokers will be stopped in the street and asked to take a carbon monoxide test in London’s most hard-hitting anti-smoking campaign.

‘Smoking police’ will target people at betting shops, bus stops and shopping centres to shock them into giving up cigarettes.

They will be asked to breathe into a monitor to show how much carbon monoxide is in their bodies, and could then be signed up to local stop-smoking services and given access to counsellors.

Pro-smoking group Forest described the campaign as a humiliating infringement of civil liberties.

Smokers will soon be stopped and asked to take a breath test to try to shock them into quitting

Ealing Primary Care Trust, which is funding the £75,000 scheme, said it could help 2,400 people to give up.

A team of 11 young people have been employed to approach smokers, in a similar way to charity fund-raisers  -  nicknamed ‘chuggers’  -  who ask passers-by for donations.

Project spokeswoman Fran Pearce admitted: ‘They will have to be careful when approaching smokers in case they become aggressive, but we are interested to see how it pans out. If someone says no, they will not pressure them to take the test.’

Read at Daily mail.co.uk

Obama’s New Stimulus Plan – What do you Think!

Well I”ve searched for the details of what is in Obama’s stimulus package and here’s what I found. You’d better be sitting down when you read this and then ask yourself. Is this a stimulus package ? What do you think of it? I’m posting an article by Glenn Beck that says it well and yet is a short article. I might add not a single Republican voted for this stimulus plan in the House bill and I believe I heard 11 Democrats voted against it also.

First you can read the entire 647 page bill for yourself here: PDF

Obama’s Stimulus Package Details:

Everyone else is talking about what’s in the $825 billion stimulus package, but here’s the one thing I want to know: How can we let the government get away with calling it a “stimulus” in the first place?Let’s break down the numbers on this with the help of those non-partisan, radical hate-mongers over at the Congressional Budget Office.

According to the CBO, only $26 billion — just over 3 percent — will be spent this year. Another $110 billion — or 13 percent — will be spent next year. Which means that by the time President Obama’s term is halfway through, just 16 percent of the money will have been spent.

I thought President Obama said this is supposed to be a quick “jolt” to the economy?

I’m going to take the middle of this article and post the actual figures for you to see what Glenn is talking about:

• There’s $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years
• $2 billion for child-care subsidies
• $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts
• $400 million for global-warming research
• $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
• $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars
• $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities
• The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million
• $252 billion is for income-transfer payments — that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all
• $20 billion for food stamps
• $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don’t pay income tax
• $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as “ineffective”
• $4.19 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities” including ACORN
• $335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION
• $650 million for digital TV coupons
• $6 billion for colleges/universities — many which have billion dollar endowments

The Wall Street Journal has a Rahm Emanuel quote from just last Novenmer that is quite telling:

Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.

Now that is chilling. We can see from that quote that Barack Obama is engaging in the politics of fear.

The president has also billed the stimulus as an investment in America’s infrastructure. And if that were true, I’d be all for it. I mean, I-95 here on the East Coast isn’t exactly the autobahn. Yet only 3 percent — just $30 billion — of this entire package is dedicated to road and highway spending.Then you have the promise about creating “green jobs” and clean energy.

Again, you want to seriously get wind and solar and nuclear power off the ground, I’m in. But this isn’t serious. Only 2 percent of the money is earmarked for clean energy and only 1/7th of that will be spent over the next 2 years.

var adsonar_placementId=”1425970″,adsonar_pid=”1372769″,adsonar_ps=”-1″,adsonar_zw=224;adsonar_zh=93,adsonar_jv=”ads.adsonar.com”;
qas_writeAd();

The CBO tells us that billions of dollars are going to buy new computers and replace government cars with new alternative fuel vehicles. In all, the money is going to 150 different federal programs — from Amtrak to the TSA — and it’s not clear a single new job will be created.

America, let’s call a spade a spade: This package isn’t meant to stimulate the economy, it’s meant to reshape it.

If President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the progressives really believe that socialism is the best way out of this mess and the best way forward for America, then make the case. Let’s debate it and allow the American people to decide.

But what they’re doing now — using fear to promote long-term changes to the country — is exactly the kind of thing that has led to the biggest deficit of all: The deficit of trust we now have in our leaders.

Read at Fox News.com

New Legislation Authorizes FEMA Camps In U.S.

Most people have laughed at Steve on his radio program when he talked about camps built here in the US………now here’s new legislation right in your face about FEMA camps in the US.

New Legislation Authorizes FEMA Camps In U.S.

A new bill introduced in Congress authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to set up a network of FEMA camp facilities to be used to house U.S. citizens in the event of a national emergency.

The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 mandates the establishment of “national emergency centers” to be located on military installations for the purpose of to providing “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,” according to the bill.

The legislation also states that the camps will be used to “provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations”.

Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse.

Many credible forecasters have predicted riots and rebellions in America that will dwarf those already witnessed in countries like Iceland and Greece.

With active duty military personnel already being stationed inside the U.S. under Northcom, partly for purposes of “crowd control,” fears that Americans could be incarcerated in detainment camps are all too real.

The bill mandates that six separate facilities be established in different Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions (FEMA) throughout the country.

The camps will double up as “command and control” centers that will also house a “24/7 operations watch center” as well as training facilities for Federal, State, and local first responders.

The bill also contains language that will authorize camps to be established within closed or already operating military bases around the country.

As we have previously highlighted, in early 2006 Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root was awarded a $385 million dollar contract by Homeland Security to construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national emergency.

The language of the preamble to the agreement veils the program with talk of temporary migrant holding centers, but it is made clear that the camps would also be used “as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency.”

As far back as 2002, FEMA sought bids from major real estate and engineering firms to construct giant internment facilities in the case of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack or a natural disaster.

A much discussed and circulated report, the Pentagon’s Civilian Inmate Labor Program, was more recently updated and the revision details a “template for developing agreements” between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations.”

Read at Campaign for Liberty.com

Hey, Hey, Queen Nancy’s Proposal to Save Economy-No Kids!

1. 
   PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY
   Sun Jan 25 2009 22:13:43 ET

   Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic “stimulus” package, claiming “contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”

   Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, “Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom,” seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.

   The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC’s THIS WEEK.

   STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

   PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

   STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

   PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

That was a breaking story from the Drudge Report….I thought Barack was gonna buy me some gas, now they wanna look in my bedroom!!!

Take that Conservatives and Moderates…no more Bush!

Boy, it didn’t take long…should we even ask what the people want?

Did Obama’s election trigger new stem cell experiments?
FDA’s approval of embryonic trials comes day after president change

---

Posted: January 24, 2009
12:30 am Eastern

By Jerome Corsi and Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

Harvesting of embryonic stem cell

In a move the Food and Drug Administration denies has anything to do with the new presidency, the federal agency granted permission this week to begin the country’s first embryonic stem cell treatments on human subjects.

The FDA approved an application from Geron Corporation, based in Menlo Park, Calif., to inject stem cells derived from human embryos into 10 people paralyzed from the chest down by spinal cord injuries.

“This marks the beginning of what is potentially a new chapter in medical therapeutics,” said the company’s president, Tom Okarma, in a statement, “one that reaches beyond pills to a new level of healing: the restoration of organ and tissue function achieved by the injection of healthy replacement cells.”

Stem cells can replicate and develop into other body cells and are therefore capable, many scientists hope, of treating disease and injury by replacing damaged tissue. Research on stem cells derived from human embryos, however, has remained controversial because extracting the stem cells requires destruction of the embryos.

Former President George W. Bush, for example, signed an executive order in 2001 restricting federally-funded research to adult stem cells, animal stem cells and only those embryonic stem cells that originate from already derived cell lines and do not require the deaths of additional embryos.

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, on the other hand, promised the group Science Debate 2008 last summer that he would overturn Bush’s policy.

“I strongly support expanding research on stem cells,” reads an Obama statement reported by ABC News. “As president, I will lift the current administration’s ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines.”

Not only that, but they’ll be using them soon on aborted fetuses, thanks once again to the swift pen of Barack Obama:

Vatican official accuses Obama of ‘arrogance’

A senior Vatican official on Saturday attacked US President Barack Obama for “arrogance” for overturning a ban on state funding for family-planning groups that carry out or facilitate abortions overseas.

It is “the arrogance of someone who believes they are right, in signing a decree which will open the door to abortion and thus to the destruction of human life,” Archbishop Rino Fisichella was quoted as saying by the Corriere della Sera daily. Fisichella is president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, one of a number of so-called pontifical academies which are formed by or under the direction of the Holy See. “What is important is to know how to listen… without locking oneself into ideological visions with the arrogance of a person who, having the power, thinks they can decide on life and death,” he added.

Obama signed the executive order cancelling the eight-year-old restrictions on Friday, the third full day of his presidency.

The so-called “global gag rule” cut off US funding to overseas family planning clinics which provide any abortion services whatsoever, from the operation itself to counselling, referrals or post-abortion services. “If this is one of the first acts of President Obama, with all due respect, it seems to me that the path towards disappointment will have been very short,” Fisichella said. “I do not believe that those who voted for him took into consideration ethical themes, which were astutely left aside during the election debate. The majority of the American population does not take the same position as the president and his team,” he added.

The order won Obama praise from Democratic lawmakers, family planning and women’s rights groups but drew angry condemnation from pro-life organisations and Republicans.

Gosh, can’t you just hardly wait til the next 100 days?