Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Eating Food Will Kill You ... by Alan Caruba

Eating Food Will Kill You
By Alan Caruba
It is now a proven fact that eating food—any kind of food—will kill you. No one who has eaten food in the past is alive today and everyone currently eating food will die. Therefore, those noble people who seek to save us from eating every kind of food that the earth provides should be hailed and saluted for their efforts to keep us alive.

I say this as the son of a woman who taught the art of haute cuisine for over three decades and authored several cookbooks. That poor woman died at age 98 and I am convinced it was all that fabulous food that killed her. Ridiculous? YES!

These thoughts were occasioned by word that two groups, the World Cancer Research Fund International, based in the United Kingdom, and the American Institute for Cancer Research, will likely announce that eating meat will give you some form of cancer at a press conference scheduled the same day as Halloween. Boo!

In mid-October The New York Times ran an article, “U.S. Cancer Death Rates Are Found to Be Falling.” It cited a decline “by an average of 2.1 percent a year…a near doubling of decreases that began in 1993, researchers (from the American Cancer Institute) are reporting.” Now this is, of course, good news. The bad news is that smoking appears to be a significant cause of cancer. In the U.S. cancer remains the second leading cause of death after heart disease, with 559,650 deaths expected every year.

Bear in mind that at least 10,000 Americans on the average die every day from something, not infrequently just old age and the infirmities associated with it. If you live beyond age 85 or into your 90s, the odds of dying from something are pretty good.

So why is it that meat is so often singled out as lethal? Well, for one thing, there are any number of vegetarian groups that, like some weird religious cult, flood the Internet and other media with fulminations against eating meat of any kind.

A Google search for “Meat + Health” will turn up links to literally thousands of studies that proclaim that eating meat will cause breast, prostrate, colon, and other forms of cancers. That said, if you search all the studies, you will also find those that confirm that meat is as healthy a part of diet as anything else. For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USDA) 2005 Food Guide and its Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension Eating Plan recommend two to three servings a week of lean meat.

What so many of the anti-meat studies do not tell you is that the subjects of their studies were, as often as not, also exposed to other risk factors that might have contributed to whatever form of cancer is being cited. The correlation between eating meat and the cancer risk cited is a statistical conclusion, but not necessarily the actual cause.

As often as not, if you read the abstract of these studies you will find mitigating phrases such as meat as a “suspected” cause and that those who have a diet high in meat “may” be “particularly” exposed. Now, I admire people who devote their lives to unraveling the mysteries of medical science, but I also know that when you do this for a living, you also have to keep finding correlations or find another job.

I also know there are organizations whose funding and support is dependent on periodically announcing that just about anything you eat, from popcorn to fish, will kill you.

My friend, Frank Murray, the author of dozens of books on nutrition and longtime contributing editor of Let’s Live magazine, once co-wrote an entire book, “You Must Eat Meat” with Max Ernest Jutte, MD. The other day I asked him what he thought of all the anti-meat efforts, and he replied that, “It stands to reason that if you eat a lot of highly-cooked meat, bacon, and meats full of nitrosamines, you need to take counter measures, for example, lots of vitamin C and vitamin E.” You can either get these vitamins from the foods you eat or, like myself, take them as dietary supplements.

According to Wikipedia, “Nitrosamines are found in many foodstuffs especially beer, fish, fish byproducts, and in meat and cheese products preserved with nitrite pickling salt. The US government established limits on the amount of nitrites used in meat products to decrease cancer risk in the population. There are also rules about adding ascorbic acid or related compounds to meat, because they inhibit nitrosamine formation.” (Emphasis added)

Let’s have a show of hands to see how many of you are going to stop drinking beer or eating either meat, fish, or cheese?

The oldest rule of pharmacology regarding the level of threat from anything you injest is that the amount—the dose—is what determines the hazard. Potatos, for example, contain trace elements of arsenic, but not enough to kill you even you ate a truckload at one time.

What people are rarely told these days is that meat is a great source of high quality proteins that a vegetarian diet is not able to provide. It also contains all the essential amino acids the body requires. This is true as well for phosphorous which is more easily absorbed than that present in cereals and legumes. Meat is rich in vitamin B12. Nutritionists will also tell you that, in general, preserved meats such as ham, bacon, salami, et cetera, should be avoided because they are contain large amounts of fats, salts, nitrites and nitrates that have been associated with increased rates of cancer.

It is common sense that must be applied to the latest assault on meat and it is common sense that suggests that vegetables are good for you, too.

So, keep on eating, but not too much, okay?

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, “Warning Signs”, posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, He also maintains a blog at

© Alan Caruba, October 2007
Filed under:

Saving Jerusalem

From: "Facts not Fantasy" at

Saving Jerusalem
By Alan Caruba

Word is rapidly making the rounds of the blogosphere of an emergency coalition that has been formed to save Jerusalem from being divided up between the Israelis and the Palestinians as yet another effort to secure peace with the Muslims.

On the face of it, this is such an idiotic act that one can hardly imagine why the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert would even consider it, let alone actually put it on the same table of utterly failed “negotiations” with various Palestinian groups whose sole objective is the destruction of Israel.

Was nothing learned from the Oslo Agreements that were almost immediately followed by Yasser Arafat’s “Intifada” and, after his death, by the civil war between his Fatah organization and Hamas?

The U.S. State Department policy toward Israel these days seems to be peace at any cost and, of course, that never was and never will be way to achieve peace. Pressuring Israel, an invaluable ally in the region, to give up a piece of Jerusalem is as wrong-headed as all the previous efforts to negotiate "a roadmap to peace" when few of Israel's neighbors are even interested in that prospect.

As other nations fall all over themselves to "make nice" with Muslims, history records that the current Middle Eastern mess that began with the debacle of the post-WWI Versailles Treaty and subsequent League of Nations, has demonstrated an Arab resistance to Western powers, then and now. In fairness, all England and France did was divide up the region for their own imperial, colonial, and economic interests.

Then- U.S. President Woodrow Wilson was a naive onlooker whose chief aim seemed to be the conversion of Arabs to Christianity and his pie-in-the-sky notion of a world governmental body that would end the prospect of future wars. That idea got blown to hell in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. (It reasserted itself in the form of the United Nations and it is still the "great powers", now called the Security Council, that makes all the big decisions about war and peace.)

In sum, Jerusalem is Judaism’s holiest city, home of the Temple Mount, its most revered site. To get an idea of how much the Muslims respect other religions, after conquering the city in 636 AD, they built the al Aqsa mosque right on top of the Temple Mount and to this day Jews are not allowed to visit any closer than the famed Wailing Wall. Before and after the Six Day War, the governance of the mosque was ceded to Jordan, a nation that has maintained good relations with Israel.

The Palestinians have systematically desecrated other sites in Israel that have also been sacred to Christians and their once flourishing Christian populations have been driven out. Even the birthplace of Jesus, Bethlehem, is now largely a Muslim city. The notion of transferring some of Jerusalem’s holy sites to Arab sovereignty will do no more to secure peace than any of Israel's previous efforts.

One need only see the failure of Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza strip to understand the truth of this. The Gaza today is a place from where Israel is rocketed daily.

Among the organizations that are part of the emergency coalition are the National Council of Young Israel, the Orthodox Union, the Rabbinical Council of America, and the list is growing daily.

It is entirely likely that many American Jews, even assuming they favor an independent Israel, do not understand the significance of the proposal to relinquish part of Jerusalem. Indeed, American evangelical Christians may grasp it better than their Jewish friends.The future of Jerusalem has no place on any negotiation table with any Palestinian/Muslim entity.

Jerusalem existed for more than two thousand years before the existence of Islam. Nowhere in the Koran is the city even mentioned by name. The only reason it plays any role in the Muslim world is that it was conquered in past ages and fought over during the Crusades before lapsing into a backwater of the Ottoman Empire.

Muslims claim that Mohammed journied there one night on his favorite horse, flying through the air, ascending to heaven to spend time in the company of Jewish prophets and Jesus. On this fanciful story rests the Muslim claim to Jerusalem!!!!

What can you do? You can suggest saving Jerusalem as a sermon topic in your church or synagogue.

If you belong to a group with a Christian or Jewish affiliation, you can get the group to issue a statement opposing any transfer of control over any part of the holy city.You can email the office of Israel’s prime minister to let him know you oppose the proposal.

If you have a blog, you can post this commentary or one of your own to let more people know about this.

If Jerusalem goes to Muslim/Arab control, the whole of Israel will follow in time and with it the dreams and hopes of countless generations of Jews and Christians.

One of the websites on which you can garner more information is:

Posted by Alan Caruba

Filed under:

Tuesday, October 30, 2007



Man made Global Warming is unmitigated BS! Bovine Scatology! (I won’t use the country version here, but the reader will certainly know what I mean!)

The purveyors of this crap are suckering an entire generation of young, and not so young, people around the globe. That’s bad enough, but what is worse… is… the human animal is so stupid as to buy into the hoax of Manmade Global Warming!

If you have bought into it… you should be ashamed. You have allowed yourself to be suckered, and led down the primrose path, by a movement bent on nothing less that domination of the earth through a one-world government of socialists.

Are you really so dumb as to believe the Global Warming movement is about Global Warming? Are you really so disconnected from reality that you have allowed yourself to believe the Global Warming movement was about saving the earth? Are you so dense that you have bought the lie that the Global Warming movement is about saving mankind? If you have, then you are an embarrassment to your species!

Followers of the Global Warming hoax remind me of those herds of lemmings racing toward the sea and blindly following the lemming in front of them off the cliff and into the sea to drown. Is there not a single independent mind among the lot? Are you not the least bit dissuaded when you are hit by facts every day that say Global Warming is wrong? I mean, consider the fires in California. We were breathlessly told the fires were the result of Global Warning. Yet a few days later, law enforcement caught suspected arsonist(s) and are searching for others. Then there are the super hurricanes that were supposed to lay waste to the southern and eastern coasts of the United States last year and this year. Where are they?

THINK PEOPLE!!! You are being USED!

If you believe anything coming out of the UN you need serious professional help as soon as possible. Now they are telling us the earth’s people are going to starve to death because we have more people than we can feed. Did your high school teacher and college professors neglect to tell you they were telling us the same thing 40 years ago? Did they tell you the earth’s population has grown since then and we are still here and we are still feeding the earth’s people? Did they?

The prognosticators of earth’s demise never seem to take into consideration that man is resourceful and will find ways, when threatened, to overcome that threat. That includes the threat of worldwide starvation. How else have we survived this long on this lonely little planet?

Fear is the great motivator. Dictators, and would be dictators, have known this fact for as long as there have been men who wish to rule over others. I am telling you that, today; those who would rule over the earth are using the threat of global warming and worldwide starvation to instill deep fear into the hearts and minds of the earth’s masses so as to gain control of the earth, and rule over the earth, as a one-world government!

Sounds crazy? Just remember where you heard it.

Ever hear of fear mongering? It’s not a phrase we use much any more… but it ought to be. Here’s the definition of fear mongering:

FEAR MONGERING: spreading discreditable, misrepresentative information designed to induce fear and apprehension.

Look, just because someone says something is true, doesn’t automatically make it true! I understand you younger folks were not trained, as was my generation, to question the so-called experts, when they handed down decisions from on high. But, you have got to reach way down inside yourself and find that spark of disbelief, that tiny little flicker of doubt, that all human beings have… and use it!

Manmade Global Warming is a scam, a hoax, which will cost you your freedom. Don’t be frightened! Be Angry!


Filed under:

Monday, October 29, 2007

The Coming Fight for the Blogosphere!

The Coming Fight for the Blogosphere!

For the past few months, it has become more and more obvious that there will soon be an all out effort by the Left in America to destroy the blogosphere. Why? For the same reason they want to reintroduce the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Oh, it will be packaged, as all things originating on the left always are… “For the Children”!

The left is now weeping and whining over the language used by bloggers and “commenters”, especially anonymous commenters. They claim children are reading those “cuss words” and, believing their use to be acceptable, they (the children) are using those cuss words themselves.

(Now… before I get an anonymous comment enlightening me that “cuss" and “cuss words” are NOT correct English… please be advised that here in the American South, not ONLY is it correct English… as well as ACCEPTED English... it is PREFERRED English! You see, we tend to reserve the word “curse” for such things as “spells” cast by witches, Voo Doo queens, root doctors, Native American Medicine Men, and assorted “others”. Cursing someone, in these parts, is considered far more anti-social behavior than cussing someone. Got all that?)

I would ask only, have you been to the movies lately? Have you taken your child, even to a PG rated movie, lately? How about TV? Do you allow your children to watch TV programs after 8 PM? See where I’m headed with this? The hypocrisy just drips from this accusation.

Here at IoF we make an attempt to keep the “cussing” to a minimum. We were rated “G,” sometime back, because the Blog Rating Service screening us found nary a cuss word. Of course, those comments you readers never saw were salted fairly well with Anglo-Saxon.

Now, I’m no prude and I can hold my own in a cussing contest. I’m fairly imaginative and can even make-up a few “wicked words” on the fly… especially in the heat of anger.

Some of the regular commenters at IoF, upon reading their published comments, have seen that some of their “bluer” words have disappeared from the text of their comments before being published. Gratuitous cussing ain’t allowed on IoF. Now, I will readily admit that, at times, only tried and true Anglo-Saxon cussing will amplify a point as that point should be. Then, it becomes a judgment call made by, yours truly… me. My call is final… at least here at IoF.

Up to now, we have allowed anonymous comments IoF. Most of you have been extraordinarily well behaved. Others have been horrible. The horrible ones never made it into the ether. My ”Delete” button sent them off to “comment Hell”… oops, make that “comment Hades”!

So, as of today there will be no more anonymous comments allowed on IoF. If you want to use a “nom de plume” (pen name), that’s fine. Some of us use nom de plumes because there are other writers out there with whom we share the same name, first and last. That is acceptable practice and has been throughout the history of publishing. In one case, with which I am intimately acquainted, a Blogger shares the same name with a well known writer in Washington, D.C. who happens to work for a Democrat politician, but they (the Blogger and the Congressional aide/ writer) do not share the same political philosophy. In fact, their politics are worlds apart! If you are looking for a real “mess” that’s as quick a way of ensnarling yourself in one as I can think of... at the moment.

So, here’s the thing: Comment all you want. The more the merrier. But, if you choose to comment anonymously, your comments will not be published on IoF. Sorry, but that is the way it is going to be. I see no reason to give those who would shut us down any additional ammunition with which to wound the blogosphere.

When the Blogosphere was created, as most of us old fuddy-duddies remember, it quickly became a joke. But then, imaginative people, writers and such, saw the potential therein and began to use the blogosphere in ways never imagined by the creators and those earlier bloggers. It has grown into a powerful engine and it serves as a moving force in politics, education, publishing, etc, today. The key word used, a few words back, is “powerful”. There are people in this world who feel threatened by anything powerful. The blogoshere is one of those things. They cannot allow it to live… at least… not in its current form. It will either have to be changed, or destroyed. Its destruction is what they want, but… they will settle for a less threatening form of blogoshere… an emasculated form, if you will.

So, prepare for the coming attack. For come it shall. I fully expect bloggers to fight back with all the energy of free men. But will it be enough? Frankly, I don’t know. I’ve seen Americans give up more of their freedom in my lifetime that I ever thought possible for Americans. So whether, or not, the blogosphere will survive is, really, up in the air. Be assured of two things. It will be an historical battle and it will last a very long time with the eventual outcome having lasting effects on, not only the Blogosphere, but on America herself.


© Commentary by Longstreet copyrighted, October 2007

Filed under:

Sunday, October 28, 2007

To Be... Or Not to Be... Religious. It's My Right as an American!

The Right Not To Be Religious.

If one wishes not to subscribe to a religion, in this country, that is perfectly OK. Nowhere is it written that you must belong to one faith, or the other, to be a good citizen, or even just to be a citizen. Nowhere.

At the same time, nowhere is it written that I can’t practice mine.

A not so careful reading of the 1st Amendment will demonstrate, to anyone with an open mind, the framers had nothing to say about the mingling of religion and state. What they did not want to see was the state impose a specific religion, or a specific denomination, on it’s people.

At the time the Constitution was written, some of the northeastern states/colonies had already established state churches. The churches in those states/colonies were a part of that state’s government. If you were a citizen of that state you were a member of that church. One, or two, European countries have the same state/church situation, even today, as the early colonies had in the 1700’s. When you are born, in those countries, you are born into the church. You remain a member until death, or, you go to court and ask a judge to allow you to leave that “state church”.

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in this country. I don’t believe the Constitution even suggests it. Only a myopic, left leaning, court could find that in the Constitution. They think they have. As soon as the conservative court becomes a fact, and not a figment of our imagination, that will be over-turned.

Having said all this, I still favor an amended 1st Amendment to make the practice of Islam illegal in the US. There are obvious reasons for outlawing that religion in this country. The fact that state and religion, or "government and religion", are one and the same, a sort of theocracy, places Islam in direct conflict with democracy and eventually there will be a head-on conflagration in the US over this very issue. If this issue is not dealt with early, and it may already be too late, we are going to reap a bitter and bloody harvest in the not too distant future.

Yes, this country was founded on the tenants of the Judeo-Christian faith. One cannot read any of our state documents, or any of our founding documents, or look at our national buildings, (even the Supreme Court Building) and not be aware of that fact. The individuals and organizations attempting to strip America of her Judeo-Christian Heritage will lose. It will be messy, and tempers are going to flare, but in the end they will lose.

On our money the slogan says: “In God We Trust”. Sometimes we have to be reminded of that. On the top of the Washington Monument are engraved, in Latin, the words “Praise Be To God!” My sentiments exactly!


Join the Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA

Filed under:

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Sweeping Away Christianity with the New Religion: Environmentalism!

(From July of 2007)
Sweeping Away Christianity with the New Religion: Environmentalism!


“Environmentalism” is the new worldwide faith, the new religion. It has millions of adherents and is growing by leaps and bounds every single day. At the center of this new faith is a single deity. Mother Earth! Yes, adherents to the new religion of Environmentalist worship the Earth. We used to call that paganism, but that is an article for another day.

This new religion has woven itself into the churches and pulpits of the old Judeo-Christian faith and is eating the foundation of the church right out from under it. Many of the mainline denominations in America have actually adopted the articles of faith of the new religion, Environmentalism. Many churchgoers today will say that environmentalism is a “good thing”. They will defend it by asking: “Didn’t God, Himself, give mankind stewardship of the earth, to care for it?” They ignore the fact that the Creator never said for man to WORSHIP the earth. And that, dear reader is exactly what the environmental movement, the New Religion, does.

Environmentalism is a “feel-good” religion based on a myth! It is in direct conflict with the Judeo-Christian faith. It is a Pagan religion and Christian churches, and Christian men and women, should have nothing to do with it. It stands against the tenets of Christianity and is, at it’s very base, blasphemous! Yet, millions upon millions have accepted Environmentalism as their savior, or, the savior of their planet. Somewhere they lost their grasp on reality and have forgotten it is not the earth, which needs saving. It is they.

You know, a fact is a fact. It makes absolutely no difference whether you, or I accept that fact. It remains a fact, a truth. No matter how much we try to ignore it, or work around it, like the elephant in the room… it is always a looming presence. Facts are like that.

Why do I bring this into this piece? Because the fact that environmentalism, as a religion, is being ignored, even though it is standing there, naked, in the middle of the room. It is a truth, which will not go away, no matter how much, and how often, the adherents to the New Religion deny it. In fact, the truth remains!

As an adherent to the Christian faith, It has always amused me that some people find it difficult to understand that one cannot buy, nor earn, in any way, one’s salvation. It is a gift. There have been those, down through the centuries, who have tried, with all their might, to buy, or earn, their soul’s salvation only to be thwarted in their efforts… because they cannot accept a “no strings gift”. And that is what makes Christianity so difficult for the human animal.

Now… there is the New Religion, which allows one to buy, and earn, ones salvation. The fact that the salvation one earns, or buys, is totally useless… is of no concern. It makes adherents “Feel Good”. Plus, they can ignore the command of God that “Vengeance is Mine” and they can wreak as much vengeance, as they wish, upon their fellow men who choose not to fall in step with their new Environmentalism Religion.

Man must suffer for his crimes against nature. That is their rallying cry. They demand sacrifice(s)! Turning civilization back a couple of centuries is one of the sacrifices they demand! And, like lemmings, they rush together toward the cliff and into the sea.

There is rarely anything as dangerous as “the arrogance of ignorance”. We have it manifest before our very eyes in the Global Warming Movement. It is all a part of the New Religion.

But, you see, the New Religion is NOT new! It is, in fact, the Old Religion! It is nothing more than worship of the earth as the ancient pagans observed it centuries ago. They were swept away then, by truth, and the New Pagans will be swept away this time, as well.


Join the Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA

Filed under:

Friday, October 26, 2007

Why isn’t Cuba the 51st State?

Why isn’t Cuba the 51st State?

Cuba is located ninety miles south of Key West, and lies at the entrance to the Gulf of Mexico between Florida and Central America. It is the largest island in the West Indies. And Cuba should be a state of the United States. Why isn’t it?

Let’s look at a little Cuban history:

“ Cuba was discovered by Cristobal Colon (Christopher Columbus) in 1492. It was settled nine years later in 1511 by his son Diego Colon who founded the city of Santiago three years later. Its original inhabitants, the Arawak Indians, were wiped out by the Spaniards. Cuba remained under Spanish rule for the next four centuries. Except for a brief period of British occupation in the eighteenth century.

Cuba's independence came about when the United States won the Spanish American War in 1898 and granted Cuba independence in 1902 after four years of U.S. occupation. The Platt Amendment was the price the Cuban rebels paid to get a withdrawal of U.S. troops. This amendment, grafted into the Cuban constitution of 1902, guaranteed the right of the U.S. to intervene in Cuban affairs to protect U.S. interests on the island.

The result was the rise of a corrupt political culture, in Cuba, with two parties: Liberal and Conservative (which by the way wasn't conservative) who often had business holdings with American corporations. This process continued until the election of Machado in 1924. On September 4, 1933, Sergeant Fulgencio Batista led a revolt with student revolutionaries. Fulgencio Batista, a mulatto of modest background, would oversee and manipulate the Cuban political landscape for the next 26 years. Ramon Grau San Martin, a university professor, became provisional president, but refused to swear allegiance to the 1901 Constitution with the planks that contained recognition of the Platt Amendment as US warships circled the island. 127 days later his government is brought down by a Batista led coup. In 1934 the U.S. recognized that the Platt Amendment had been abolished. Between 1934 and 1940 Batista controlled the Cuban government through a series of puppet regimes. In 1940 a constitutional convention met in which all political forces in Cuban society were represented. After the new Cuban constitution was established in 1940. Batista was elected in 1940 as the constitutional president. The communist party made up part of the coalition that brought Batista to power. Batista described himself as a "progressive socialist." He used the communist party to take control of the labor unions.

In 1944, Batista is defeated in a fair election and Grau San Martin is elected President. In 1948 Grau's successor Carlos Prio Socarras is elected President. During the Autentico regime's rule political gangsterism swept through Cuba and shook Cuban society to its very core. According to the constitution of 1940 the University of Havana was an area in which civil and millitary police were not allowed. The result was that these political gangsters were able to murder with impunity and use the University as refuge from the authorities. These groups were used by the Autentico's to wipe out communist infiltration of the Unions. The situation worsened under Prio Socarras to the point that Fulgencio Batista was able to justify a coup de etat which took place on March 10, 1952. One of these political gangsters Fidel Castro would plan an ill-fated attack on the Moncada barracks on July 26, 1953. Thanks to Batista's abrogation of the constitution and an economic downturn in the 1950's opposition to Batista begins to grow. Less than two years after the failed attack, Batista declares an amnesty in which the Castro brothers are released from prison. Castro leaves for Mexico to train and organize. He returns on the Granma and lands in Cuba. Taking up residence in the Sierra Maestra. Four months later the Directorio Revolucionario assaults the Presidential palace, but fails in assassinating Batista and are crushed. Leaving Castro's July 26 movement as the main opposition group. Nearly a year later a general strike fails. Towards the end of 1958 the United States under the Eisenhower Administration began an arms embargo on the Batista Regime, which is interpreted as U.S. support for Fidel Castro and his revolutionaries.

On January 1, 1959 Batista leaves Cuba and Castro takes over Cuba's government. During the next year and a half Fidel Castro consolidates power and seizes properties. Castro allies himself with the Soviet Union. In 1961 Cuban exiles trained and armed by the C.I.A. formed Brigade 2506, which landed at the "Playa de Giron" otherwise known as the Bay of Pigs. Due to leaks within the State Department the Cuban government had fore knowledge of the invasion. In addition, to preserve "plausible deniability", the Kennedy administration reneged on its pledge of air and naval support. Cuban exile troops were left on the beaches to get shot up and or imprisoned. A number of American pilots refused to abandon them and died in action. Due to this fiasco and the Kennedy administration's perceived, or actual indecisiveness, the USSR believed that it could place offensive missiles in Cuba. This would alter the strategic balance of power.

The result of these developments was the Cuban Missile Crisis and the resulting Kennedy-Khrushchev pact, which guaranteed Castro's rule until present day.

You can read this entire article at:

So, now that you have a little history of the “history” between the US and Cuba, I ask again why Cuba is not a state of the US, or, at the very least a territory of the US? Heck, we even have a military base on the island!

Cuba is an incredibly rich country… for people who have the know-how and the will to turn it into a capitalistic economy. The tourist trade alone would practically support the island.

As things with Cuba are today she is a pimple on an elephants rear. A constant irritant, but not much else. As a US territory, American companies would invest heavily in the island and, in no time, it would bloom into a paradise . (Not to mention those wonderful cigars would be available to us American cigar smokers!)

This week President Bush asked the Cuban government to ease their iron grip on their people. Bush even offered US assistance should Cuba decide to abandon it’s socialist ways and try democracy. Of course, this was a less than subtle message to the Castro brothers, Fidel and Raul, that no matter their plans after Fidel’s passing the US is not going to be satisfied if there are no significant openings of the Cuban economy and Cuban political life.

Senator Fred Thompson, Republican candidate for President, released the following statement regarding President Bush's speech on Cuba policy earlier:

"Our goal for Cuba is nothing less than the complete freedom of the Cuban people. All sanctions must remain in place as long as the current regime, or any 'transitional government,' refuses to hold free and fair elections, to release all political prisoners, to allow private enterprise to flourish, and denies the Cuban people their God-given freedoms. The United States must strengthen its ongoing efforts to build international support to isolate the Castro regime, and stand with the Cuban people. We also need to look at new ways to further weaken this regime, and hasten the democracy, freedom, and self-determination of the Cuban people."

Raul, understanding the US Democrat Party is, for all intents and purposes, socialist, as is Cuba’s government, and hoping for a US Democrat Party victory in the US elections next year, says he is willing to open talks with the US… if… the next Presidential Administration quote: “desists from their arrogance and decides to converse in a civilized manner”. Interpreted into "conservative" English that means Raul will only talk to the socialists in the US… the democrats.

Fidel’s end is in sight. I don’t put much stock in an uprising of the Cuban people upon Castro’s death. I feel it is more likely their spirit has been broken and their will to resist has been “smothered to death”. I expect it will take active intervention by the US to once again free Cuba from her chains and offer her safety as a part of the United States.


Filed under:

Thursday, October 25, 2007

The American Covenant

The American Covenant


It is said the USA has more of it’s citizens incarcerated, imprisoned, than any other nation on earth.

I heard this the other night on TV. I wondered what reaction the person making the statement hoped to elicit from me, and others, who heard it.

My own reaction was… so what?

I mean, only a person having no understanding of the foundation of this country could be surprised by such a fact.

Now… for those of you who still think that is an awful thing to say about a nation… hold on a minute!

Consider the US is a nation founded on laws, on a written constitution, and a code of laws founded on that constitution, Olde English Common Law, the laws of the Judeo-Christian religion, commonly known as the Ten Commandments, and a few other lesser known codes of laws. The US is a “nation of laws”.

Now, here is the “kicker”! Citizens of the US are free people… so long as they/we remain within the boundaries proscribed by the laws, which are made by their/our fellow citizens who have been vested with the power to create those laws.

America asks very little of her citizens. All she asks is that they/we obey the law(s) made by the citizens of the country.

If a US citizens, or anyone residing within the US decides, for whatever reason, to live outside those laws, or to ignore, or in any other way, break those laws, then the wrath of their fellow citizens, the people of the 50 states as a whole, will come down on them like a ton of bricks! And in a system such as ours… that is a good thing.

The fact that we have so many of our citizens in jail says nothing derogatory about our system of government. It DOES say a lot about how our family structure, our educational system, and our religious community, has failed and failed miserably.

The “American Family” is as close to non-existent as it has ever been. We can’t even decide what a family is, anymore! “The Church” has abrogated it’s position as the “setter of societal standards” and has, instead, adopted the aberrant behavior of many in our society as accepted… and even praiseworthy. NO, longer can a functioning American family point it’s young children to The Church for moral guidance. The Church has failed us miserably. As a result the American family has all but disappeared.

Our educational system has also failed… not only it’s students, but the parents of those students who entrusted their young into the hands of an educational system which no longer educates, but indoctrinates the innocent among us.

Those of you astonished when you hear statements about how many of our US citizens are in prison… remember this: Those imprisoned broke the covenant with their fellow Americans to live by the laws of our land. They knew, before hand, their fellow citizens would require their freedom as payment for their transgressions.

So, do not even try to use the number of imprisoned Americans as a maul to hammer shame onto American society. It won’t work. Each American lives within a self-imposed covenant of laws he has forged with his fellow Americans. This American Covenant has managed to hold off the blackness of chaos and anarchy since the country was founded and it has allowed the US to become the pre-eminent power on the planet.

To those who would run our system of law down, we say: Do not speak of that which you do not know… and do not understand. Look first to your own government’s failure! If you are an American citizen and do not already know this… then the shame is on YOU!


Join the Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA

Filed under:

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Ignoring the Constitution... by Alan Caruba

Ignoring the Constitution

(This post is an example of the tough conservative commentary you'll find at "Facts not Fantasy" at:

By Alan Caruba

“The Senate failed to obtain cloture on the DREAM Act amnesty (S. 2205) on October 24 by a 52-44 vote, for which 60 YES votes were needed to prevent a filibuster. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) and Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill) were attempting to bring this nightmarish amnesty bill to the floor under Senate Rule XIV without it ever having been debated in committee.” (Oct 24, 2008)

This was the notice that arrived from an organization devoted to getting a handle on the immigration mess that is one part Bush administration indifference and one part the effort of Mexico to alter the population of the United States. Mexico has encouraged one tenth of its population (much of it illegal) to move to the U.S.A. instead of finding the means to build an economy whereby they might actually want to stay in Mexico.

As bad as the failure to get control over the nation’s southern border is, the notice to me bespoke Sen. Reid’s complete contempt for the U.S. Constitution. The notion that the Democrat Majority Leader would try to slip a bill through the Senate without that body having an opportunity to even debate it is obscene.

Americans of a generation or two born since the years just preceding and following World War II received an education that placed a fair amount of emphasis on American history and about the Constitution that binds us together and has afforded us becoming the most powerful financial and military nation on earth. There was a time when that honor belonged to the British Empire, but they let it slip away.

We are in very real danger of letting the requirements of the Constitution slip away as more and more power is ceded to the Executive branch, the Presidency, and while the Legislative branch, Congress, fails to engage in the primary job of democracy, compromise. The whole purpose of the Constitution was to slow down and require debate among opposing factions for the purpose of requiring them to compromise. Failing that, we end up with more bad laws than good.

We now live in a vile era of politics in which a “winner take all” philosophy exists and the warfare between Democrats and Republicans does injury to the purpose of government. The Republican majority that began when voters turned Congress over to Republicans in 1994 and then the first Bush presidency with its hair-thin victory. The lesson of that was lost on Bush and Cheney.

“The Chief Executive will on occasion feel duty bound to assert monarchical notions of prerogative that will permit him to exceed the laws,” said an obscure Representative from Idaho back in the days when Congress was investigating an illegal operation to supply Nicaraguan anti-communists under cover of Reagan’s National Security Council. That’s what Dick Cheney thought then and he has pursued that philosophy and policy in spades since becoming the Vice President.

In the same way that Congress has not acted upon its exclusive Constitutional mandate to declare war since WWII, it has been the presidents since Truman that have controlled that process. It’s why we drifted into Iraq without much serious debate in Congress. It’s why Americans wonder out loud if (or when) Bush will get us into a war with Iran without taking the decision to Congress.

Everybody senses that something is very wrong with Congress and out of control with the White House.

If more people actually knew something about American history in general and the U.S. Constitution in particular, they would be a lot more worried.

Posted by Alan Caruba at “Facts not Fantasy”

The High Cost of Climate Lies ... by Alan Caruba

The High Cost of Climate Lies
By Alan Caruba

An energy-rationing bill has been introduced to address “global warming.” The “Climate Security Act” would impose caps on how much carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions can be allowed and would institute an elaborate program to “trade” allowances among the industries and business affected.

Americans better hope that some members of Congress will ask if there truly is a threat of global warming and why a similar program in Europe has proven to be a resounding failure.

If you really wanted to undermine the nation’s economy, you could not devise a better way. It is the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol on steroids.

Little noted during all the headlines concerning Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize was the fact that it was shared with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among skeptical scientists I know, the emails were flying. Several had served as part of the vast array of scientists whose opinions on the various IPCC draft reports were requested and then ignored.

A lot of these expert reviewers are among the 2,000 scientists that the IPCC and Al Gore are always citing as being part of the “consensus” on global warming. The problem for both is that many really, really, really disagree that any planet-threatening global warming is occurring.

One of them is Dr. Vincent Gray, a New Zealand-based climate scientist who has been a part of the reviewing process since the IPCC came into being. He is one of those scientists who will not and cannot be shut up despite the din of the IPCC propaganda.

Briefly, Dr. Gray has a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University, England, and his long career has included stints in France, Canada, China, and New Zealand. He has published more than a hundred scientific papers on energy and materials, plus a dozen in climate science.

So, following the announcement of the Nobel, Dr. Gray wrote to Professor David Henderson who has called for a “review” of the IPCC and its procedures. This is a nice way of saying that the Panel is so widely viewed as just one more corrupt United Nations instrumentality, a lot of scientists think it should be tossed in a garbage can behind the UN building.

Permit me to share some of Dr. Gray’s thoughts with you.

Commenting on his initial belief that the IPCC would proceed on the basis of “scientific ethics” and that its conclusions would result from “facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles”, Dr. Gray’s experience revealed that, “Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.”

“I have been forced to the conclusion that, for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound…normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning.”

“I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt.”

Dr. Gray concluded that the only reform “I could envisage, would be its abolition.” Okay, okay, I hear all the environmentalists saying, “but he’s just one crazy, old New Zealand climate scientist. Boo! Hiss!” Character assassination is just one form of the corruption that is endemic to the entire environmental movement.

Undaunted, Dr. Gray continued, “The two main ‘scientific’ claims of the IPCC are the claim that ‘the globe is warming’ and ‘increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible.’ Evidence for both of this claims is fatally flawed.”

Aw, gee, I’m not a scientist you’re saying. What do I know? Well, if you know enough to be reading this, you know enough to wrap your brain around Dr. Gray’s assertion that “No average temperature of any part of the earth’s surface, over any period, has ever been made.” If the earth’s “average temperature” cannot be determined, how can you know that it’s dramatically heating? How can you predict anything about an unknown?

As for the IPCC claims about CO2, Dr. Gray points out that “they have suppressed no less than 90,000 measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide made in the last 150 years. Some of these were made by Nobel Prize-winners and all were published in the best scientific journals.”

The IPCC has depended on computer climate models for its claims and there is now a volume of papers demonstrating how they have repeatedly been proven to be inaccurate. As Dr. Gray points out, if you cannot validate these models as actually capable of making predictions, “no self-respecting computer engineer would dare to make use of a model for prediction.” Anyway, “No computer climate model has ever been tested in this way, so none should be used to prediction.”

“The most elaborate of all their ‘evaluation’ techniques is far more dubious,” said Dr. Gray. “Since they have failed to show that any models are actually capable of prediction, they have decided to ‘evaluate’ them by asking the opinions of those who originate them, people with a financial interest in their success.” (Emphasis added.)

“Sooner or later all of us will come to realize,” Dr. Gray concluded, “that this organization, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.”

But that’s the point of the IPCC!

If you can require that ethanol be substituted or just added to gasoline, you drive up the cost of corn to where the cost of everything else—like food—dependent on it costs more. Moreover, requiring the addition of ethanol increases refinery costs that are, in turn, passed on to consumers.

If you mandate that wind and solar energy be substituted to provide electricity for that provided by coal (over 50% in the USA) and other sources, then you assure that these two totally inadequate energy producers will drive up the cost to consumers.

If every kind of industry contributes to CO2, then you can create an elaborate “cap-and-trade” scam to sell “credits” for the permission to continue in business. The consumers will pick up the costs involved.

On the chance that Dr. Gray is not some crazy, old New Zealander, maybe we should all be in the streets calling for the abolition of the IPCC? And, while we’re out there, let’s get rid of the United Nations too.

Editor’s Note: The full text of the letter is available at

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, “Warning Signs”, posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, He is the author of “Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy”, published by Merril Press.

© Alan Caruba, October 2007
Visit his blog at

Filed under:

Press release from the Official Fred Thompson website:
October 24, 2007

For Immediate Release

Thompson Calls DREAM Act 'Stealth Amnesty'

Below are excerpts of a commentary by Sen. Fred Thompson on the DREAM Act. The Senate is scheduled to begin consideration of the DREAM act this afternoon.

"Just when we'd thought we'd sent the illegal-immigrant amnesty bill packing (at least for this year), Congress has ignored the public's wishes and is trying to sneak what amounts to another amnesty bill through.

"After several false starts Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) continues to push the DREAM Act. What is the DREAM Act? A nightmare.

"Essentially, the DREAM Act puts some illegal aliens in a better position for residency than legal aliens who have played by the rules.

"At a time when hard working Americans are being asked to foot the bill for costlier college educations, we shouldn't be offering special deals to people here illegally. We need fewer, not more, incentives for illegal aliens to come to this country.

"Instead of focusing on legislation the American people clearly want nothing to do with, Senate Democrats are planning to bring the DREAM Act up for a vote today."

Yesterday, Sen. Thompson unveiled a comprehensive border security and immigration enforcement proposal that would make America safer by increasing security at our nation's borders, enforcing our country's existing laws to reduce the incentive for illegal immigration and streamlining the legal immigration process. For the full Border Security and Immigration Reform plan, please visit .

For the full commentary, please visit .
Filed under:

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Thompson Announces Plan to Secure Border, Enforce Existing Immigration Laws

Press release from the Official Fred Thompson Website:

October 23, 2007

For Immediate Release


Thompson Announces Plan to Secure Border, Enforce Existing Immigration Laws
Senator Fred Thompson today unveiled a comprehensive border security and immigration enforcement proposal that would make America safer by increasing security at our nation's borders, enforcing our country's existing laws to reduce the incentive for illegal immigration and streamlining the legal immigration process.

"A country that cannot secure its borders will not remain a sovereign nation and you cannot have national security without border security," said Thompson. "It's not only necessary for any meaningful immigration reform, but border security plays a key role in both the interdiction of illegal drugs and in defending America against terrorist threats. Weak borders allow terrorists and smugglers, as well as millions of illegal aliens, easy entrance to the United States."

Thompson's two-pronged plan, which can be found in its entirety at , is based on two principles: 1) Securing the Border and Enforcing the Law, and 2) Improving the Legal Immigration Process.

Highlights of the proposal include:

· No Amnesty : Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States.

· Enforce Existing Federal Laws : Enforce the laws Congress has already enacted to prevent illegal aliens from unlawfully benefiting from their presence in the country including:

A. End Sanctuary Cities by cutting off discretionary federal grant funds as appropriate to any community that, by law, ordinance, executive order, or other formal policy directs its public officials not to comply with the provisions of 8 USC 1373 and 8 USC 1644, which prohibit any state or local government from restricting in any way communications with the Department of Homeland Security "regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States."

B. Deny discretionary Federal education grants as appropriate to public universities that violate federal law by offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens without also offering identical benefits to United States citizens, regardless of whether or not they live in the state, as required by 8 USC 1623.

C. Deny discretionary Federal grants as appropriate to states and local governments that violate federal law by offering public benefits to illegal aliens, as prohibited by 8 USC 1621(a).

· Increased Border Security : Doubling Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents handling interior enforcement, increasing the Border Patrol to at least 25,000 agents, and increasing detention space to incarcerate illegal aliens we arrest rather than letting them go with a promise to show up later for legal proceedings against them.

· Attrition through Enforcement : Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers. Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home. This course of a ction offers a reasonable alternative to the false choices currently proposed to deal with the 12 million or more aliens already in the U.S. illegally: either arrest and deport them all, or give them all amnesty.

· Maximize Legal Immigration Program Efficiency : Reduce the backlogs and streamline the process for immigrants and employers who seek to follow the law. Also, simplify and expedite the application processes for temporary visas. Caps for any category of temporary work visa would be increased as appropriate, if it could be demonstrated that there are no Americans capable and willing to do the jobs.

· Modernize Immigration Law/Policy : Change the nature of our legal immigration system to welcome immigrants who can be economic contributors to our country and are willing to learn the English language and reduce the scope of chain migration by giving family preference in the allocation of lawful permanent resident status only to spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, and no one else (no siblings, no parents, no adult children, etc.).

· English as Official Language : Make English the official language of the U.S. to promote assimilation and legal immigrants' success, and require English proficiency in order for any foreign person to be granted lawful permanent resident status.

· Preference for American Military Service : Place those foreign persons who are lawfully present in the country and who serve honorably in the Armed Forces of the United States on a faster, surer track to U.S. citizenship.
Filed under:

Obama: No Hand on Heart for National Anthem

Obama: No Hand on Heart for National Anthem

A picture is worth a thousand words…

During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart.United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171

Turns out that
not wearing a flag lapel pin isn’t the only way Barack Obama chooses to show he’s a different kind of Democrat.

Have a look at the photo from the October 1, 2007 edition of “Time.” It shows Obama, Hillary and Bill Richardson at the Steak Fry of Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) on September 17 in Indianola, IA during [according to the photo caption] the National Anthem. Richardson and Clinton have their hands on their heart. But not Obama. Does he perhaps believe that, like wearing the flag pin, the hand on the heart isn’t “true patriotism”?

“Time” ran the photo without comment. I haven’t seen coverage of this anywhere else in the MSM. Perhaps some enterprising reporter can ask the Illinois senator about his decision to spurn this American tradition.

Meanwhile, does Obama have some third act or omission planned to demonstrate that he’s not falling for those corny, old-fashioned displays of patriotism?
H/T reader J.S.

NOTE: The original version of this item, based on a reader submission, stated that the photo was apparently taken during the Pledge of Allegiance. I’ve now located the original “Time” image, whose caption states that it was taken during the National Anthem.


For some interesting commentary on this story go to Texas Fred's at:

The Truth About Racism!

The Truth About Racism!


There are two major truths about Racism.

One: Racism will always be with us.

Two: We are ALL racists!

The plain truth is… as long as there is more than one race on this planet there will be racism. Human beings come hard-wired that way. We simply do not trust other human beings who do not look like us, speak like us, or live like us. It is a defensive device and it dates all the way back the era of the cave man and, possibly, even earlier.

Oh, we can make pretty speeches and we can formulate laws to make racism illegal, but all the time we are doing these socially acceptable things we understand, deep down inside, it is hypocritical... and... that nothing will change man’s distrust for those not of his race.

So what’s to be done? Not much we can do, really. Civilization demands that we learn to live together. For the most part, we have done that. However, it is not easy... and we have strife amongst us. That strife, between some races, will always be with us. There will be times when genocide will be the result. But for those of us who have decided to make an attempt at living in a civilized world it is incumbent to make a bone fide effort to get along with other human beings of races other than our own.

In the context of racism, there is no such thing as a “color-blind” individual. Only a fool will claim that title. Unless one is physically blind, it is impossible not to notice the color of a fellow human being’s skin. To force oneself to look beyond that… to the individual’s worth as a human being… is laudable and is necessary in our small world today.

No geographical area of the globe, nor single country on the globe, has the corner on racism. We are ALL racists. The sooner we come to understand that, and drop the phony politically correct pronouncements about a color-blind society, and come to terms with what, and who, we are, in the real world, then, and only then, will we be ready to embrace those of a different race. We must be honest with ourselves … FIRST!

"Oh", you say, "But...we are integrated here in America". Yes, we are! We are forced to be so by federal and state law. Take those laws away and America will instantly re-segregate. It’s not a pleasant thing to suddenly be slapped in the face with a fact like that… is it? But there it is!

Can we live together in respect, and even love? Yes, we can. But it will, as we have learned (well… many of us have learned) take hard work and honesty on the part of all of us… of all races. It is not going to happen in a century or two. A millennia, or two, is more like it.

Now, I know a lot of you are going to take issue with this... and that is fine. As I said, honesty must come first. But understand… as long as we continue to lie to ourselves that we are beyond such distasteful things as racism, then no progress will be made toward actually accomplishing that goal. In fact, I’m not totally sold on the idea that ending racism is even a sought after goal in the first place. I’m not even sure that we really want to! Many among us today, of all races, have vested interests in keeping the friction between the various races at a level of intensity suitable to guarantee it as an exploitable source of income. This they do exceedingly well.

I broach the subject in this article only to offer another perspective, one that we have, perhaps, overlooked. That is… we have allowed ourselves to buy into the feel-good propaganda of a "raceless society". The plain truth is… that is not going to happen on this planet. For whatever reason, the creator thought it necessary to create a multitude of races to populate this world. As a result, we are ALL here now. And we are all different. Plus, none of us is going anywhere. Seems to me the only option we have is to live together at a level of harmony necessary to ensure our continued survival, and the survival of our world.

So, I close as I began by saying… we are all racists. That is the persistent fact we cannot get around. We have managed to create a politically correct façade to mask our racism, to one degree or another, but worldwide harmony among the races is simply non-existent. If you doubt it, observe the body counts in the so-called “War on Terror”. If we were honest we would call this a war between the Middle Easterner and Westerners. But we won’t do that. We’ll continue to lie to ourselves… and… even continue refusing to "profile" for our Eastern enemies among us, to protect that lie... even if it costs us our lives… as it has surely done.

No, we have not learned to live side by side, with harmony, and it is my firm belief that we never shall. The least we can do is stop lying about it to ourselves, and to each other, acknowledge our differences, and move on.

And… no… I don’t expect that to happen, either!


Filed under:

Monday, October 22, 2007

Urge your Senators to Oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty!

Urge your Senators to Oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty!

I came across something alarming a few days ago and I wanted to pass it along to you. Actually, a friend of mine, in Ohio, alerted me to this and as soon as I read it I fired off e-mails to both my US Senators asking them to oppose it. I am referring to the Law of the Sea Treaty better known, at least among those who actually KNOW about it, as “LOST”!

Here is a snippet for the article I read:

“The United States is inching closer toward ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). President Bush endorsed this treaty in May and has since urged the Senate to vote on ratification. Initial reports indicated that the Senate may have attempted to ratify LOST before adjourning for the August recess. Recent reports indicate that a vote to ratify the treaty could take place within the coming weeks. Former President Ronald Reagan originally rejected the ratification of LOST in 1982, but recent appeals from the Bush administration, some members of Congress, and the
Council on Foreign Relations, have caused the treaty to resurface.”

At first I thought it was frightening enough that the Senate had possible attempted to slip this horrible treaty through undetected but as I read more about it, I truly became alarmed.

Here is another snippet:

“The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) entered into force in 1994 and has been ratified by 153 countries (
click here for a list of recent LOST developments). The treaty gives the UN complete jurisdiction over the oceans and everything in them, including the ocean floor with all its resources, along with the power to regulate 70 percent of the world's surface.

The International Seabed Authority could require the United States to share intelligence, technology and even military information. LOST could impose restrictions on intelligence-gathering by U.S. submarines, activities that are essential to national defense.”

Lou Dobbs had this to say about this Treaty:

“The Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently heard arguments on the 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty, which President Ronald Reagan rejected but President Bill Clinton submitted to the Senate in 1994. A vote is likely in the weeks ahead, and this Democratic-controlled Senate is the same institution whose leadership sought passage of the disastrous comprehensive immigration overhaul legislation.”

If we have captured your attention, even a little bit, we’d like to direct you to the website from which the snippets of info on this page originally came. You’ll find it here:

This is serious business. We have given away far too much of our freedom in this country in the last couple of decades, or so. We stand at the threshold of a "one-world government", which would immediately place the United States, and it’s constitution, at heel behind that single globe spanning government.

Do you want that?

I certainly don’t.

This treaty, which, when passed by the US Senate, will have the force of US Federal Law, and is one of the ways your freedom, and mine, will be handed over to some other governing authority other than the one you and I voted for.

We here at IoF urge you to write both your US Senators and IMPLORE them to oppose the passage of “LOST” (Law of the Sea Treaty)! We cannot allow this monster “freedom killer” to survive!


Filed under: