You may use the Discussion Rooms concerning Political matters. Please remember Jesus as our Lord of Lords and King of Kings. These people everyone is so concerned with today are mere specks of dust compared to our God and their day will come.
14The great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the Lord: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.
15That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,
16A day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers.
17And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the Lord: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung.
18Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the Lord'S wrath; but the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make even a speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land. Zeph 1:14-18 (KJV)

7-20
Obama citizenship status lawsuit incites reader furor

By Chuck Williams

7-19c


7-19b
ANALYSIS States Hit Hardest by Recession Get Least Stimulus Money

Here is something you definetly will not see in the government run MSNBC or CNN. LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/19/analysis-states-hit-hard...
Sunday, July 19, 2009
By John Lott

The stimulus bill "includes help for those hardest hit by our economic crisis," President Obama promised when he signed the bill into law on Feb. 17. "As a whole, this plan will help poor and working Americans."

But FOXNews.com has analyzed data tracking how the stimulus money is being given out across the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and it has found a perverse pattern: the states hardest hit by the recession received the least money. States with higher bankruptcy, foreclosure and unemployment rates got less money. And higher income states received more.

The transfers to the states having the least problems are large. Even after accounting for other factors, each $1,000 in a state's per capita income means that the state got $21 more per capita in stimulus funds. With a spread of almost $38,000 in per-person income between the top and bottom states, this has a sizable impact. High-income states get considerably more stimulus money.

States with higher bankruptcy rates got a lot less, not more, money — roughly $86 less per person for each percentage point increase in the state's bankruptcy rate. States with higher foreclosure rates were treated very similarly, losing $82 per person for each one percentage point more of the people suffering foreclosures.

The spending data come from two reliable sources: the Wall Street Journal and the Federal government's Recovery.gov. On June 30, the Wall Street Journal published data on stimulus spending by state for seven categories of social spending (education, HUD, health, crime fighting, job training, arts, and food and farming) and eight categories of infrastructure spending (transportation, water, energy, military, veterans, government, outdoors, and emergency shelters). The Journal's data allow a comparison by each category of government spending. Their total accounts for $195 billion out of the $787 billion that will be spent on the stimulus. Out of this money, the amounts vary a lot across the nation, with the very lowest, a mere $504 per capita in Florida, to the highest, at $3,712 per capita in D.C.

If one relies on the Recovery.gov accounts instead, which, as of July 8, reported $218 billion of spending but without the detailed breakdown provided by the Journal, the bottom line is the same: the money is not going to the states hardest hit by the recession or to the poorest states.


The four accompanying charts show how stimulus dollars per capita from the Journal vary with the unemployment, bankruptcy and foreclosure rates as well as per capita income for the 50 states. A trend line is also included to make comparisons easier. The data for economic conditions were taken from when the stimulus bill was being passed. In each figure, the trend clearly shows that the states in the worst economic shape got the least federal government money.

Two comments should be raised about the figures. Alaska has by far the highest stimulus spending per capita of any state, more than twice the second highest state, Arizona ($808). But its higher amount may at least partially reflect the state's much higher cost of living. In any case, given that it is such an outlier, the charts were redone excluding Alaska. Doing that, the results for bankruptcies, foreclosures, and unemployment indicate that the states with the worst problems got even less money than shown in the charts provided here. While states with higher incomes also still got more money, the relationship was no longer statistically significant. Finally, the charts were redone with the most recent data available for these measures of economic hardship, and the results were very similar.

Obviously all these measures of economic conditions as well as some other factors could simultaneously play a role in how much money different states received from the federal government. To account for political considerations in how the money was distributed, Obama's share of the two-person vote in a state was also included. Concerns about the stimulus being used to reward supporters has already been noted in the press.

Politico reported on June 5 that the “Stimulus tour” — visits by Mr. Obama and other administration officials “across the country to tout the massive spending program or hand out stimulus cash to grateful local officials” — overwhelmingly took place in states that voted for Obama: “52 of the 66 events were in states that backed Obama.” The other 14 events were in states that Obama lost only narrowly. A new study released by USA Today also finds that counties that voted for Obama received about twice as much stimulus money per capita as those that voted for McCain.

In our results, Obama's share of the vote accounted for only a small percentage of the variation in how the stimulus money is being allocated. A one percentage point increase in Obama's vote share means an additional $13.52 in per capita spending, but even then the relationship rests on the large amount of money given to D.C.

Breaking down the data by type of spending shows that money for infrastructure was much more likely than social spending to go to high-income states with low bankruptcy and foreclosure rates. Federal spending on construction and repairs to federal buildings as well as repairs to highways and public transit projects drives much of this perverse relationship between economic distress and infrastructure stimulus spending.

The chairmen of the Senate and House Appropriation Committees, Senator Dan Inouye, D-Hawaii, and Congressman David Obey, D-Wis., have already opened the door for a second stimulus plan this year.

Obey and Inouye have both indicated that a second bill might be needed if the economy didn't improve fast enough, and Obey is on record saying that more money should have been included in the bill. Neither politician's office was willing to provide any on the record comments.

"The stimulus bill is designed to help those who have been hurt by the economic downturn.... Do you see disparity out there in where the money is going? Certainly," a Democratic congressional staffer knowledgeable about the process told FOXNews.com. "The people to talk to are in the administration.... The administration is deciding where [the money] flows."

An Obama administration official told FOXNews.com that "it is not as simple as looking where the money goes. You could have someone who lives in Maryland and works in Virginia and they are benefited from money given to the Virginia firm even though they live in Maryland." She also noted that it didn't really matter who got the money because "giving out money is good for everyone. If you give the money to an old person, they will spend it and that will create more jobs."

She also said that Congress was responsible for deciding where the money would go. "We didn't write the bill. We let Congress write the bill," she said.

Lee Ohanian, an economics professor at UCLA who has extensively studied New Deal policies and depressions, told FOXNews.com that the spending patterns our study found "certainly don't fit what you would think that they would be from the standpoint of government spending as a social safety net.... The pattern does seem quite odd. It is certainly not the way the program was advertised."


7-19

By DAVID WESSEL

On Wednesday morning, Sept. 17, Ben Bernanke and his lieutenants assembled. Lehman was in bankruptcy; AIG was not, only because the Fed had intervened. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was at a nearly three-year low. Yields on the safest securities of all, short-term U.S. Treasury bills, fell nearly to zero because so many investors wanted to park their money there. “It was becoming clear that the markets were going into anaphylactic shock, and that we needed to do something,” Mr. Bernanke said in an interview a few weeks later. The Fed could no longer cope with the Great Panic by itself. The Federal Reserve chairman had suspected for months that he and then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson would eventually end up asking Congress to spend substantial sums of taxpayer money to rescue the banks, as every other country had been forced to do in a major banking crisis. So far, Mr. Bernanke had deferred to Mr. Paulson on the timing of going to Congress, while Mr. Paulson had been reluctant to propose anything that Congress might, in an election year, reject. Mr. Bernanke saw this as the inevitable politics of responding to banking crises in a democracy. The most effective solution always called for lots of taxpayer money upfront. The usual political solution was to wait until the crisis was bad enough to dominate the headlines, even if that drove up the ultimate cost. At 7:30 p.m., after a day of nearly constant conference calls, the financial firefighters convened for the last session of the day. Mr. Bernanke and his Washington team were facing the Polcycom speakerphone on the conference table in his office. Timothy Geithner, then-still the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and not yet Treasury secretary, was on the phone from his office. Mr. Paulson was at his desk. More than a dozen Treasury aides stood around him to listen, or huddled in corners in separate conversations. Mr. Bernanke was usually soft-spoken and mild-mannered. He was not this time. “We can’t do this anymore, Hank. We have to go to Congress,” Mr. Bernanke said, according to a participant in the call. Mr. Paulson was uncharacteristically silent. He didn’t argue. He didn’t signal agreement. He didn’t tell Mr. Bernanke that he had come to the same conclusion and already had scrambled his staff. The next day, Messrs. Bernanke and Paulson went to Capitol Hill to alert the congressional leadership. “No economy has ever faced the financial meltdown we’re facing without undergoing a major recession,” he told the stunned leadership behind closed doors. Without congressional action, it would be deep and prolonged. “I kind of scared them,” Mr. Bernanke later said. “I kind of scared myself.” In early October, with more than a little hesitation, Congress approved spending $700 billion to rescue the banks, a sum greater than the annual output of all but 16 other countries. In hindsight, the U.S. economy would have been much better off had Messrs. Bernanke and Paulson gone to the president and Congress sooner. “Our political calculation was that we had to wait until we got to the point where the case would be palpable and clear—that it would be early enough to do some good, but not so early that it wouldn’t be given serious consideration,” Mr. Bernanke said a few months later in an interview. Second-guessing himself for a moment, he added, “If we had, we wouldn’t have gotten it... but at least we would have been able to say we tried.” Looking back, he said soberly, “We came very close in October to Depression 2.0.” Ben Bernanke left Princeton University for Washington in 2002 to join the Federal Reserve Board over which Alan Greenspan then presided, and left the Fed three years later later to chair President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. When the search for a successor to the then-venerated Mr. Greenspan began in the spring of 2005, Mr. Bernanke’s proximity to President Bush heightened the public speculation that he would be among the finalists, and he was. Others were Harvard’s Greg Mankiw and Martin Feldstein, Stanford’s John Taylor and a dark horse whose name never surfaced in the press: Stephen Friedman, a former Goldman Sachs chief executive and White House economic-policy coordinator. Each man was interviewed by a small search committee in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office for about 90 minutes. When Mr. Bernanke’s time came, he talked about housing, a growing concern by then. He was asked how they would handle hypothetical situations—like a call from the CEO of Citigroup saying his bank was in trouble. Mr. Bernanke wasn’t the unanimous first choice. He had the intellect and the credentials as well as the respect of his peers, but he seemed, as he often did, nervous in the interview. And he had never been tested in a crisis. Mr. Friedman had a great interview but could have been an out-of-the-box choice, and the White House had just seen an out-of-the-box choice for the Supreme Court—White House counsel Harriet Miers—turn into an embarrassment. The committee eventually coalesced around Bernanke. But so much time passed between his interview and the decision that Mr. Bernanke figured someone else had been chosen. One Thursday afternoon, he got a message to stop by Andrew Card’s office in the White House West Wing before the next day’s 7:30 a.m. White House senior staff meeting. He told his wife he expected Mr. Card to make the bad news official; she was relieved. But Mr. Card instead asked Mr. Bernanke: “How would you like to be Fed chairman?” When he telephoned his wife, Anna, with what he considered to be good news, she burst into tears. She realized, more than he did, that the job would be all-consuming and change their lives. Mr. Bernanke moved into Mr. Greenspan’s office publicly vowing continuity, but was determined to distinguish himself from Mr. Greenspan in one respect. He didn’t think a Fed chairman should be a rock star, as President Bush had labeled Mr. Greenspan. He wanted to avoid the cult that had attached to Mr. Greenspan, the perception that the chairman is the Fed. He wanted to be the un-Greenspan. Mr. Bernanke had neither Mr. Greenspan’s skill at cowing critics nor his desire to dominate the Federal Open Market Committee—the FOMC in Fedspeak, the collection of Fed governors in Washington and presidents of the 12 regional Fed banks that sets interest rates. The FOMC had a passing resemblance to high school. There were the cool guys, the jocks and the geeks. Mr. Bernanke, his vice chairman Donald Kohn, Mr. Geithner, and Kevin Warsh, a Fed governor and deft networker among Republicans, fell into the first category, the cool ones. The jocks were regional Fed bank presidents determined to show their manhood by talking tough about inflation—economists Jeffrey Lacker in Richmond and Charles Plosser in Philadelphia, investor-turned-policymaker Richard Fisher in Dallas. The geeks included monetary policy scholars who shared Mr. Bernanke’s view of the world: Rick Mishkin in Washington, Janet Yellen in San Francisco, Eric Rosengren in Boston. Mr. Bernanke’s commitment to putting the committee above the chairman and collective wisdom above his own gut won him points for collegiality, but as the Great Panic unfolded through 2007, it became clear: In a fast-breaking crisis that demands a prompt, decisive response, waiting for a committee to reach consensus can be a mistake. In such a crisis, the markets and the public prize clarity, and clarity will always be elusive when a Fed chairman allows everyone else to out-shout him. Mr. Bernanke’s consensus-first approach to his job ended Monday, Jan. 21, 2008. U.S. markets and government offices were closed for Martin Luther King Day. But Mr. Bernanke was at work—as he was nearly every day—watching Asian and European stock markets plummet on the Bloomberg screen in his office. Futures markets Monday were predicting a 4% plunge Tuesday in U.S. stocks. Facing what seemed to be a meltdown of the economy, Mr. Bernanke convened a videoconference call of the FOMC. He and the other Washington-based governors gathered in a small conference room nearby, known as “the special library,” and faced a TV camera and screen that had been wheeled in on a cart. Each regional Fed bank president appeared on the screen in his or her own box, the outline of which was highlighted when the person spoke. A couple of Fed presidents dubbed it Hollywood Squares, after the TV game show. They joked about leaning over and punching the president in the next box in a disagreement. Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Kohn, a Fed veteran who had been Mr. Greenspan’s consigliere, could no longer deny that the Fed was seriously “behind the curve,” as they put it at the time. Basically, they told the videoconferees, the target for the Fed’s key interest rate was more than a percentage point too high for the Fed’s then-current economic forecast. Cutting interest rates that much in one move would have been seen as panic and desperation, but Mr. Bernanke wanted to demonstrate the Fed’s commitment to act decisively. Flexing his muscles as he had rarely done before, Mr. Bernanke won the FOMC’s backing for what—for the Fed—was a king-size rate cut: three- quarters of a percentage point to 3.5% with a strong hint of more to come. It was the first time the Fed had cut rates in between regularly scheduled meetings since the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001. Although no one realized it at the time, Mr. Bernanke’s new strategy was born that day: Whatever it takes. Today, the risk of another Great Depression has ebbed, but Mr. Bernanke has not finished restoring the U.S. economy to health. Now he faces another imminent challenge: His term is up Jan. 31, and President Barack Obama has yet to decide whether to reappoint him. Mr. Bernanke lacks the practiced Washington political survival skills that helped Mr. Greenspan win reappointment four times from three different presidents. But, surprisingly for an introvert who arrived at the Fed determined to be the un-Greenspan, Mr. Bernanke is going beyond Mr. Greenspan in raising his public profile. He went on CBS’s “60 Minutes” to make a pitch that would have done a congressional candidate proud. “I come from Main Street. That’s my background,” he told the interviewer, as they sat on a park bench on Main Street in his hometown of Dillon, S.C. “I’ve never been on Wall Street. And I care about Wall Street for one reason and one reason only: because what happens on Wall Street matters to Main Street.” Next weekend, he ups the ante with a televised town meeting in Kansas City where he’ll take questions from NewsHour’s Jim Lehrer and an invited audience. With the worst moments of the Great Panic apparently past, Mr. Bernanke finds himself celebrated by some as a hero. But he is accused by many others of pursuing bailouts that teach Wall Street gamblers that the Fed will save them from their own mistakes, of confusing markets by saving Bear Stearns and AIG but condemning Lehman, of meddling improperly by secretly pressuring Bank of America to stick to its planned purchase of Merrill Lynch—even of usurping the prerogatives of elected politicians. In the Great Panic, the Fed emerged as almost a fourth branch of government during the crisis, deciding which financial firms would live and which would die and lending hundreds of billions of dollars and putting taxpayers at risk without having to get congressional approval—to the surprise and consternation of some elected politicians. “It’s been inappropriate in a democracy,” said Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat. “There’s a terrible situation and you just hope that the chairman of the Federal Reserve would pop up with the secretary of the Treasury and rescue you.” Mr. Bernanke occasionally chafes at the attacks, privately showing frustration at what he considers the contradictions of his critics’ arguments and publicly defending himself for preventing a recession far worse than the current one. Most of all, he knows he has kept a public vow he made in 2002 to Milton Friedman, the scholar who pinned the Great Depression on the mistakes of the Fed in the 1920s and 1930s. “Regarding the Great Depression,” Mr. Bernanke said to the 90-year-old Nobel laureate. “You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”

Adapted from “In Fed We Trust: Ben Bernanke’s War on the Great Panic” by David Wessel. Copyright 2009 by David Wessel. Published by Crown Business, a division of Random House Inc.

7-18 CAUTION, STRONG LANGUAGE

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/ginsberg-espousing-master-race-eugenics/

Ginsberg Espousing Master RaceEugenics?

Pardon my leaving the NBC issue aside for now. Too much strange stuff flying around and I don’t really know what to make of it. I feel like a scene is being set – a dinner table if you will – and the meal is going to be a “long form” BC for your culinary delight. It just feels like a set up – all this long form – long form – long form — blah blah blah. That’s the standard being established for absolute eligibility. It’s being allowed people. Just my opinion. But you have to be a complete lemming if you think Gibbs is now regularly calling on Les Kinsolving of WND in White House pressers just to be a fair dude. The administration appears to be controlling this game and leading it to an endgame where they give you EXACTLY what you’re all asking for. Notice the standard wording Major Cooke stated to the press – “All he has to do is show the long form BC…” etc. If that’s all he has to do to drive a stake through the heart of the eligibility issue… then that’s what you can expect. But I digress from my topic today. I tell you… nothing felt more intellectually dirty or reeked of pure filth to me than my experience with the United States Supreme Court. I know the law. I know procedure. I knew the SCOTUS court rules. Yet, I had to be deloused after that experience. God knows what crawls in those chambers. Go back through SCOTUS history and see the vile possession by evil of those once hallowed chambers by eugenic skank like Oliver Wendell Holmes and his modern successors. Eugenics is basically what Hitler’s Nazi regime worshipped via their final solution. It’s a concept of population control where the Government decides who can live and who can breed… and who cannot be allowed to breed. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is Jewish and one would think that she might find such a concept repulsive. But the abortion rights movement heralded by the BS decision in Roe v. Wade is more about eugenics then it is about a woman’s right to choose. And on July 7, 2009 Ginsburg confirmed what many suspected of her – that she’s a eugenic proliferating skank. Check her comment given to the New York Times: Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. What populations are you speaking of you horn rimmed freak show? There’s not much else I can say about this crap except that the New York Times journalist – Emily Bazelon – failed to do her damn job and follow up on the alarming answer given by Ginsburg. I got news for you Ginsburg, your shit stinks bad, just as the shit emanating from every other race. All shit stinks. Yours isn’t pretty. It doesn’t taste good. It doesn’t smell like roses. Your shit stinks, girl. I know that might be hard for you to accept, but I suggest getting your nose all up in it sometime and have a wake up call. Who breeds and who doesn’t isn’t up to you and it never will be. You’ve already lost. Home is calling. He’s waiting for you. Got the sauna ready… and the air conditioning unit is permanently broken. Word.




7-7
We the people are the RULERS of this land called America. If WE don't do our job as citizens then the 'they's' ...rule WE the peoples country.

The authorities we elect represent the 'they's' too, so WE need to give the authorities reason to ACT in opposition to the "they's" else WE the people loose our issue resolution, because WE did not put the heat on the authorities, so RECRUITING more of WE's is needed to win our issue re: the "SIAP".

We have a driver in the driver's seat who is driving crazy... and it is WE the people who have to enforce our laws...no one else's job...it is our job... so do RECRUIT more of WE the people to be able to remove that RAT/USURPER/"SIAP".

The "squeaking wheel gets greased' and we TRUE AMERICANS need to be greased with a JAIL TERM for the RAT/USURPER/ "SIAP" that includes 'solitary confinement', 'bread and water' once a day, and any other punishment to put the SOB in misery no matter if he is legitimate or not. He has no right to put America through this ordeal, at all.

See the latest posting concerning the lawsuit filed against Cheney,Pelosi, Congress, and the RAT/USURPER/"SIAP". AND! do pass on to Attorney Apuzzo any ideas, legal strategies, or Constitution arguments or any other info that can strengthen the plaintiff's case as requested below by the plaintiff.

*****************************

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/plaintiffs-obtain-extension-of-time-to.html

Monday, July 6, 2009

Plaintiffs Obtain Extension of Time to Answer Obama/Congress Motion to Dismiss

Posted by Puzo1 at 5:17 PM 6 comments


7-6 supplied by Louise
IN AN ECONOMIC MELTDOWN, WHERE'S STEVE FORBES?

Plus: VP Biden gives Israel "green light" to hit Iran. Implications? By Joel C. Rosenberg (Washington, D.C., July 6, 2009) -- As I traveled throughout the U.S. on my recent book tour, I kept running into people who would ask me, "Where is Steve Forbes? The economy is melting down. We need his economic expertise right now."

I couldn't agree more. Steve's message in the 1990s of free market ways to create hope, growth and opportunity at home and abroad may have seemed too bold to the GOP establishment at the time. But it's desperately needed today. His plan to scrap the corrupting federal tax code - "We need to take the tax code and kill it, drive a stake through it's heart, bury it, and hope it never rises again to terrorize the American people" - and replace it with a simple flat tax that's a real tax cut for American families and businesses is the right prescription for the the mess we're now in. Steve was passionate about eliminating wasteful government spending, and eliminating pork barrel earmarks and ridiculous corporate welfare schemes. He had serious plans to advance market-based health care reforms where individuals and families get to choose their doctors, and market-based education reforms so that parents could choose the right schools for their children. In foreign policy, Steve was a strong proponent of missile defenses, and recognized the threat Russia and Iran were becoming before many others in Washington did.

The problem is that few in Washington today seem to believe in such bold, dynamic reforms, or have the courage to advance them. I certainly don't hear any of the potential 2012 presidential candidates proposing such sweeping reforms to counter the President's plan to rack up another $10 trillion in debt and socialize much of the American economy, notably the health care sector. As troubling, few are demonstrating Steve's understanding of global trends and threats or insisting on missile defenses or a tougher stance towards Russia and Iran. Indeed, the biggest news the GOP makes these days are by politicians who have marital affairs and should resign but don't, and successful governors who shouldn't resign but do. What's wrong with these people and this party?

Finally off the road from my book tour, I finally called Steve last week to catch up. The good news: he hasn't disappeared. To the contrary, he's spent the last few months working on a fabulous new book, Power, Ambition and Glory: The Stunning Parallels Between Great Leaders of the Ancient World and Today . . . and the Lessons You Can Learn. Last month, Steve embarked on a national media tour. He's talking about the lessons we can learn from history's most effective and provocative leaders and how we can apply those lessons to the challenges we face today. This week, the book hit the New York Times hardcover non-fiction best-seller list at #30. I hope it climbs much higher.

It's a fascinating read. I've been most intrigued with the section on the Persian Empire and particularly the leadership of Cyrus the Great, the surprisingly tolerant leader of ancient Persia. It was Cyrus, Steve reminds us, who fulfilled the Bible prophecy by conquering the Babylonian empire, liberating the Jewish people, and giving the Jews permission to rebuild the holy city of Jerusalem and rebuild their Holy Temple. He also gave the Jewish people, among others, the freedom to worship God as their consciences led them, without fear of persecution. "With Babylon as part of his empire, Cyrus could boast he was 'king of the world,' and he pledged that all his subjects would be free to practice whatever religion they chosen. This promise was particularly significant for the Jews who had been enslaved when Nebuchadnezzar's armies had taken Jerusalem…in 586 B.C." He was, writes Forbes, "one of history's most gifted leaders and his accomplishments are worth a deeper look." What a stark contrast to the leaders who are running Iran today.

In case you're curious, I had no part in writing this book, so it's far better than you think! I highly recommend it, and I hope this book launch is just the beginning of Steve's effort to re-engage in the battle of ideas. His message -- and his perspective on history, and the future -- is needed more than ever. With once-promising voices like Mark Sanford's and Sarah Palin's suddenly sidelined, it's time for a wise and trusted voice to step back up to the microphone and inject some common sense conservatism back into the public debate.
To read the latest stories and links on Joel's weblog, please click here
Will you help us build a global alliance of 1 million true friends of Israel? Click here to sign up a friend, family member or colleague for Flash Traffic.
If you would like to learn more about The Joshua Fund -- and/or make a tax-deductible donation of $25, $50, $100 or more into the projects TJF is engaged in -- please click here
BIDEN GIVES ISRAEL "GREEN LIGHT" FOR WAR WITH IRAN U.S. Vice President Joe Biden stunned observers Sunday by seeming to give Israel a green light to launch a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear weapons facilities if Israeli leaders see no other way to protect the Jewish people from the threat of annihilation.

"Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," the Vice President told ABC's "This Week" in an interview with host George Stephanopolous. "Whether we agree or not, they're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed."

Biden's comments stand in contrast to other senior Obama administration voices in recent months that have publicly and privately warned Israel not to launch a preemptive strike. It's not clear why Biden made these comments now, but The Joshua Fund considers the prospect for war sometime in 2010 or 2011 increasingly likely.

For these reason, we would love to have you join us this November for a prayer tour of Israel so we can really pray together for the peace of Jerusalem. We'll also be able to share with you in more detail the preparations we are making in case a major war in the region does break out in the next few years. It is critical that we are able to provide food, clothing, medical supplies and other humanitarian aid for those who are struggling with poverty today, as well as those who will be affected by the coming war. It's also critical that The Joshua Fund can educate and mobilize Christians around the world to "learn, pray, give and go" to the work the Lord is doing in the epicenter.

As always, we will do our best to keep you up-to-date on the kinds of projects we are doing, and brief you on how those projects are proceeding. We will also let you know about the kinds of projects we are developing for the future. In no way do we want to pressure anyone to give financially. We fully believe the Lord will provide for the needs of the people we seek to serve. But if you or others wish to help, we gratefully welcome your support, and all financial gifts are tax-deductible.

If you would like to make a contribution to the on-going work of The Joshua Fund please make your check payable to "The Joshua Fund" and send to:

The Joshua Fund
18950 Base Camp Road
Monument, Colorado 80132-8009

Thanks so much and may the Lord richly bless you and your family as you bless Israel and her neighbors in the name of Jesus -- especially at critical moment in history of the epicenter.
To learn more about The Joshua Fund's Prayer & Vision Trip to Israel, or to register today on-line, please click here
To receive further >> FLASH TRAFFIC << updates, please click here

For about a year two of us worked to collect email addresses that the volunteers could use to connect with almost everything and everyone out there.
Here are the types of email at the link and that one may want to use to deliver their messages to whatever group that they want to connect with.
Elector's emails , SOS , Fed Reps, State Reps, Domestic MSM, foreign MSM, Radio stations, and more.
The website is named WIKIA the same as WIKIPEDIA in operation, so anyone can ADD stuff or edit stuff by just taking the initiative to contribute data for MASS mailings.

Good luck... with contacting the world to get the RAT/USURPER/"SIAP" out of our house...the white one we all pay for.

--
Please help to further develop this STRAWMAN survey.
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surveyID=KCHNJ_e6da7feb
WALK the TALK VOLUNTEERS NEEDED to AID DR.Orly and Other attorneys to be successful with their pursuits.
What can one do to move the process forward?
Resource to Combine progress Data of various Obama Elimination Groups:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg7bd2qt_43f3qddwdk
**************************
JOIN AS A VOLUNTEER TO ADD Data on Obama, news videos etc.
http://groups.diigo.com/groups/SaveOurRights-
**************************
A DO SOMETHING VOLUNTEER WEBSITE:
http://saveourrights.wikia.com/wiki/Overview
**************************
DrOrly...JD represents Alan Keyes to remove the criminal "POTUS".
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/
**************************
Attorney Apuzzo has ACTIVE court filings
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
**************************
Interactive Stop Obama WebPortal:
http://bergvsobama.ning.com/profiles/blog/list