Archive for October 21st, 2008

OPEC Pushing to Cut Production, Drive Up Oil and Gasoline Prices

Tuesday, October 21st, 2008

But Democrats don’t want for us to drill domestically. When this increase hits you in the wallet again, you can turn around and thank the Democrat you put in office. Congratulations.

The 13-nation global oil cartel — which includes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran and Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela — will hold an emergency meeting in Vienna Friday to discuss the steep and rapid decline in oil prices.

“The era of cheap oil is finished,” Iran’s Oil Minister Gholamhossein Nozari boasted on Tuesday.

When asked what price Iran would want for its oil, Nozari declared, “The more the better.”

“A few member nations have voiced their intentions of pushing for a cut in production, including Qatar, Iran, as well as OPEC’s president Chekib Khelil, who said that output could be slashed by as much as 2 million barrels a day,” analysts for Raymond James & Associates told

When oil peaked at more than $147 a barrel in July, gas prices soared to above $5 a gallon in some parts of the U.S., and Americans were forced to cut back on driving. With the price of oil at about $73 a barrel on Tuesday, pump prices have fallen to as low as $2.30 a gallon.

The price dip in oil — and gasoline — finally is working its way into the beleagured American economy, putting a few extra dollars in the hands of consumers just as the home heating and holiday shopping seasons begin.

Sam Gault, president of Gault Inc., a fifth-generation, family-owned oil business in Westport, Conn., said the drop in oil prices is helping his customers, his business and his community.

“Obviously a down market helps the consumer,” Gault said. “When the price of oil is less, it’s a good thing for everyone. It’s good for the consumer. It’s good for us as an oil company. It just puts more disposable income back into the economy because it’s not used for household expenses.”

When oil costs more, Gault said, “people need to make different choices. But you have to heat your home.”

OPEC, however, wants prices to climb — and quickly.

Original Link.

‘Smears’ About Obama Largely True

Tuesday, October 21st, 2008

The Obama campaign says its candidate is a victim of “smears” — and has even created a Web site to fight such attacks.

But a Newsmax investigation finds many of the so-called smears are largely based in truth — and the Obama campaign uses half-truths, clever language, and ad hominem attacks to spin the facts.

Obama’s focuses mainly on anti-Obama messages being repeated on the Internet and talk radio, the only media where Obama’s ideological allies are not dominant.

These “smears” and the Obama rebuttals are often framed in lawyerly language that leaves much wiggle room in the candidate’s answers. also makes no attempt at objectivity, describing Obama’s critics as “pushing misleading research and distorted claims” because they are “ideologues” busy “spreading a ‘pack of lies’ about Barack.”

In a section of the site titled, “Who’s Behind the Smears?” visitors can see a chart naming seven groups and six individuals with lines that suggest multiple, sinister connections between them.

The people and groups named are real and are members of Washington’s small but conservative sphere of power and influence. The Obama conspiracy chart links all of these conservative individuals and groups back to the critics who dogged the “Clinton 1992 Campaign.”

This may come as something as a surprise to Hillary Clinton, as many of the “smears” against Obama first surfaced during her heated primary contest with him.

Newsmax reviewed 10 random claims and related rebuttals posted on Obama’s ever-changing to gauge their factuality. Here’s what we found:

Read the rest of the article here.

Educators’ Dues Being Used Against Prop. 8

Tuesday, October 21st, 2008

California Teachers Association, the state affiliate of the National Education Association, has made the donations to kill Prop. 8, a November 4 voter initiative that would overturn the state Supreme Court’s decision in May to legalize homosexual “marriage.” After stating it only makes recommendations to union members — “The final choice is always up to you,” the union states on its website — CTA contends passage of the proposition would establish “one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set of rules for everyone else. That’s not fair.”

Finn Laursen, director of the Christian Educators Association International — which offers educators an alternative to the liberal efforts of the NEA — reacts to the news of CTA members’ dues being used to undermine traditional marriage. “That’s obviously what the union has decided,” he says. “That money speaks loudly so they’re going to invest in the political arena in one of their agendas.”

According to Laursen, many Christian educators are also upset with the national organization. “Our phones have been ringing off the hook — not only since this news, but even [about] the millions upon millions of dollars that the NEA has been investing in the Obama campaign,” he shares.

Original Link.

“The Danger of a Super-Majority” by Todd Strandberg

Tuesday, October 21st, 2008

There has been a great deal of concern over the possibility of Barack Obama winning the White House in the November 4th election. In the past few weeks, I’ve received dozens of emails from people frustrated over how one of the most liberal senators is getting a free ride to the White House.

There has been very little media coverage of what could prove to be a far more dangerous political development. Polls indicate that the Democrats have a good chance of expanding their congressional majorities past the point of having a filibuster-proof Senate.

“This would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven’t since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on” (Wall Street Journal, 17 Oct. 2008).

The founding fathers created a system of checks and balances to block an aspiring dictator from seizing total control of the government. No U.S. president has the power to reshape the laws of our nation. If someone like Adolf Hitler were elected to office, he couldn’t implement a fourth Reich alone. The president can propose a budget and legislation, but he cannot force Congress to accept them.

During both previous times when there was a super-majority, it was possible to rewrite the rules at will. Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave us the New Deal and Lyndon Johnson created the Great Society–just fancy words for socialism.

The Democratic party of today is far more liberal than it was during any previous super-majority. I can’t imagine FDR addressing the virtues of gay marriage in one of his radio chats. Mr. Obama has long supported gay unions. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is the representative of America ’s Sodom and Gomorrah: San Francisco. I doubt the gay lobby will have any trouble getting her support.

You can be certain that the Democrats have a very long list of liberal proposals that they would love to see become part of the law of the land. Here are just five of them:

– The fairness doctrine – Backers of the fairness doctrine argue that because the airwaves are a scarce resource, they should be policed by federal bureaucrats to ensure that all viewpoints are heard. Liberals point to conservatives’ dominance of talk radio as the reason radio stations should be forced to give time to left-wing commentators. Liberals have already monopolized TV, newspapers, and Hollywood. A domination of media is a hallmark of any despot seeking dictatorial rule.

– Union supremacy – Unions have been in decline for several decades. One of the key reasons is that they have a negative impact on business productivity. In a highly competitive world, unionized firms tend to fall behind. Democrats love unions because they are a good way to control large blocks of people with promises of government incentives.

– Medicare for all – The U.S. is already facing a calamity from the future entitlements promised to the baby boom generation. That bill will amount to $44 trillion. The idea of expanding the scope of Medicare makes me wonder if the Democrats are part of a secret plan to bankrupt this nation.

– Homosexual rights – Gays already have equal rights. The next step in this moral slide would be to make this sin protected from rebuke. In many European nations, it is a hate crime to quote the Bible’s view of homosexuality.

– The green agenda – Any plan to protect the earth seems like a noble cause, but “you don’t have to dig very deep to discover the true beliefs of the influential leaders who are using genuine concerns about the environment to promote an agenda of fear and control” ( A few years back, Al Gore narrowly missed getting a BTU tax on everything that used energy. If his democratic buddies gain control of the government, you can bet the Environmental Pope is going to be back.

One of the disadvantages of being close to the time of the rapture is that we may witness some rather shocking changes in our form of government. If liberals are swept into super-majority power, there will be nothing to bar them from enacting these proposals. We can take comfort in knowing we will soon be rescued by a special Someone who will stand solidly for liberty and righteousness.

— Todd

Original Link.

“Democrats get ready to silence Conservatives” by Jen Rast

Tuesday, October 21st, 2008

This, from the party that likes to claim their for free speech! If Obama wins (pray that he doesn’t), and the Democrats take over both houses of Congress, the Democrats are set to reimpose the “fairness doctrine”. This doctrine basically takes away Conservative free speech in the name of “fairness”, and demands that liberal talking points be given the same amount of time on talk radio programs, and other Conservative forums. You can bet this law won’t apply to NPR, PBS, and the other publicly funded liberal talk shows and television programs. It boggles my mind that some Americans can not see the obvious unconstitutionality of our government dictating what people on the radio, TV, and probably the internet are allowed to talk about and share with their listeners. Since the failure of Air America and the dismal ratings of liberal talk radio shows have continued, despite liberals best efforts, they are itching to force Conservatives to take up their talking points for them. It’s an obvious violation of the First Amendment to mandate “fairness”, and a loss of freedom for all of us.

Maybe this kind of censorship is what it will take for people to wake up and realize who they have elected to run their country. When blogs, internet media sites, and all things Conservative are once again regulated by liberal censorship, a few people might just regret not fighting harder against the Socialist, Marxist leaders of the Democrat party. Unfortunately, it will be too late. It’s time for churches, Christians, and every Conservative in this country to start fighting again, before we haven’t the freedom to do so. And, the next time we have the opportunity to elect Conservatives back into power (when the democrats are finished ruining our economy and defecating on our Constitution), lets elect some leaders with the backbone to actually do what we demand of them.

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine – and to diminish conservatives’ influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.

Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn’t seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan’s FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats – including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore – strongly support the idea of mandating “fairness.”

Fairness in who’s eyes? In the eyes of Nancy Pelosi, that’s who.

Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It’s doubtful.

The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It’s a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.

Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham’s, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don’t do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones.

Then there’s all the lawyers you’d have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged – like entertainment or sports coverage?

I guess when you can’t win listeners just based on your ideas, you have to use lawyers to get your way. Disgusting.

Read the rest here.

Original Link.

“Socialism in America: A Revolution in the Making” By Jan Markell

Tuesday, October 21st, 2008

In recent weeks it has become more obvious that America is on the yellow-brick road to Socialism. In 1962 Russian Premier Krushchev said, “We can’t expect the American people to jump from capitalism to Communism but we can assist their leaders by giving them small amounts of Socialism until they awaken one day to find out they have Communism.” He also said that Communism would take over America “without firing a shot.”

I am not suggesting that the “movers and shakers” trying to take over many of our capitalistic institutions are secretly planning a Communist revolution in America. Some like the idea of Socialism; others just want to bail America out of financial trouble to stabilize the world. However, more industries are going to fail in the coming months and need further government intervention. When does the spinning wheel stop and where will we be at when it is over?

As it concerns some recent desperate moves to stablize the economy Joseph Farah asks, “Excuse me? Were you consulted? Do you recall having a national debate about this? Did your congressional representatives poll you on whether you liked this idea? Dare I ask, where would such a move be authorized in the U.S. Constitution? Or has America completely moved away from the idea of the rule of law and the will of the people being the key determinants in our supposedly self-governing society?”

As many of my radio guests and I have said in the last month or two, it is global government that is likely around the corner. Maybe this will be a Socialistic plan. First there will be regional unions and ultimately a one-world system looking to Europe.

Commentator David Limbaugh says, “Maybe I’m being too much of an alarmist, but I’m worried for the first time in my life that the election of a presidential candidate could lead to a fundamental change in our system of government. How many times must history repeat itself before we learn that Socialism and Communism cannot work?”

Karl Marx said, “A new revolution is possible only in consequences of a new crisis.” We have a crisis. As a matter of fact, unless the world stock markets stabilize, the entire world could be looking at a financial tsunami. Many nations, including America, could be ripe for being taken over by unsavory political efforts “without firing a shot.”

Sen. Barack Obama has declared himself a Socialist. The now-famous “Joe the plumber” brought the truth out. Joe may be the most important non-candidate in this race. He became globally famous in 24 hours. He challenged Obama’s tax plans on camera as Joe can’t buy a business he wants. It will be unrealistically taxed. Obama responded, “It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success, too.  I just think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

No, it isn’t good for everybody. Quoting radio commentaor John Loeffler,  “As it becomes more difficult for small businesses to function in the poisoned atmosphere of taxes, fees, fines, regulations, and prosecutions, more of the middle class throws up its hands and goes elsewhere or becomes part of the dependent poor. Small businesses will go out of business or operates illegally. As inflation devours savings, people are wiped out. Retirees have a difficult time getting on as their lifetime achievements are destroyed. Most of the middle class slides down the slope into poverty.” Citizens are not likely to run harder and harder and run faster and faster to keep up with the loss of their currency’s worth and rise in prices.

The obvious is that Socialism means giving some of my wealth and Joe’s wealth to someone less deserving. This is the very reason the founding fathers rebelled against England.  They were beholden to big government in England, and we will be if we take this road to Socialism.

This is Karl Marx speaking: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” You will produce what you can using your talents, and then the government will use its power to take your earnings and spread them to others who are unable (or unwilling) to do as well. It isn’t by accident that the Soviet Union failed! It wasn’t the “worker’s paradise,” and it won’t work in America!

So America could be in for big change. That’s the battle cry! As Victor Davis Hanson says in National Review Online, “Obama wasn’t born into Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s world. Obama could have picked any church in Chicago. He picked Jeremiah Wright’s church, and Wright is in to ‘Black Liberation Theology.’  This is a movement rooted in Socialism and Marxism.” Quoting Gary Bauer, “This is just Marxism dressed up in the gospel of economic justice.”

So change we may get; in fact, the entire way in which our country has functioned for over 230 years could be turned upside down! Is this one reason America does not seem to play a prominent role in the last days?

In spite of America’s weaknesses, we are still a bright light in a wicked world. When my Jewish grandparents fled the pogroms of Russia right before 1920, they wept tears of joy as their dingy and filthy ship sailed past the Statue of Liberty. They fled a sick Russian system for a land offering freedom and prosperity. And yes, they did prosper, but if they saw what America seems to be morphing into today, they would cry a different kind of tears.

May I suggest that you spend time praying and fasting for America in the next two weeks? All is not lost. But God wants “change,” too. He wants to see America become a God-fearing nation again. What will it take?

To read more commentary by Jan Markell, visit and support her site: Olive Tree Ministries

Bin Laden’s Plan for ‘Global Fireball’

Tuesday, October 21st, 2008

I think it’s important to be reminded that there are still Islamic terrorist bent on killing all of us. Recent discoveries indicate that they now want to use wildfires as their latest weapon. Judging by the amount of damage caused by wildfires in California over the last two years, if terrorist were to use this method, the damage could be even worse.

LONDON — Documents recovered from a remote area along the Pakistan border have revealed that Osama bin Laden wants al-Qaida to launch a “global fireball” by lighting forest fires in Europe, the United States, Australia and South America, according to a report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

The documents were uncovered during an operation led by the British intelligence service MI6, and now have been described by experts in that agency as “the most worrying [plot] that the world is facing.”

The catastrophic wildfires would not only produce an environmental disaster but would stretch emergency services often beyond their limit and leave insurance companies facing multi-billion claims for damages that could effectively destroy the already shattered economies of a number of countries.

Australia, gripped by years of drought that has left tinderbox conditions as summer now approaches, regards the threat as “terrifying.”

The country’s attorney-general, Robert McClelland, warned there is “a most urgent need for renewed vigilance against a very real and present danger.”

The FBI has issued a high priority warning that “such a terrorist plan could devastate states like California.”

Spain, France and Germany — all with vast forests — are “vulnerable,” MI6 warned the intelligence services of those countries. “The Amazon Basin, and other forests which supply the world with wood, is another prime target,” the warning added.

The instructions for a “global fireball” were among documents recovered in the Pakistan border raid on an al-Qaida safe house.

Original Link.

“‘Freedom of Choice’ Trumps ‘Born Alive’ for Obama” by Dr. Warren Throckmorton

Tuesday, October 21st, 2008

In a presidential campaign issues arise and then fade from view. The emergence of new media preoccupations may make it seem as though yesterday’s controversy has been resolved. This is rarely true as was demonstrated by Wednesday’ final presidential debate.

Such is the case with the issue of Barack Obama’s position on legal protections for infants while an Illinois state senator. In a nutshell, the controversy comes down to a claim from Senator Obama that he would have favored the bill in the U.S. Senate that he opposed while he was an Illinois state senator. More specifically, at issue is the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA), which gave “human” legal status to infants born alive accidentally following an abortion. The federal version of the bill passed the U.S. Congress easily, with abortion-rights supporters like Hillary Clinton in the Senate and Jerald Nadler in the House voting in favor. After Obama left the Illinois Senate to run for the U.S. Senate, the Illinois version of the bill flew through that body 52-0. The bill, both the federal and state version, passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate and Illinois Senate, both in Obama’s absence.

During his term in the Illinois Senate, Obama opposed the bill, saying repeatedly that he did so because the state bill was worded differently than the federal bill. However, as noted by and other sources, the bills were identical. As a committee chair, Obama did not allow the bill to get to the Senate floor, yet he said he would have voted in favor of the same bill had he been in the U.S. Senate. After Obama’s campaign admitted that Senator Obama was mistaken, it provided another rationale for his opposition, telling the New York Sun:

“… that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.”

Versions of this explanation persist. During the Republican National Convention coverage, Alan Colmes of “Hannity and Colmes” said that the reason Barack Obama voted against the Illinois bill was because it conflicted with an existing Illinois law.

I submit that the Obama campaign’s explanation was a dodge. Look again at the campaign’s explanation: Obama says he would be unconcerned about voting for a federal bill giving human rights to born-alive infants of questionable viability because “the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law” and “there is no federal abortion law.”

First, his campaign claimed there was a state abortion law which influenced his vote. I have asked the campaign to identify the law but have received no clarification.

Second, the campaign’s explanation ignores the fact that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. When he was a state senator, Obama opposed BAIPA on constitutional grounds and claimed the legislation violated Roe v. Wade. Given this rationale, he should not have claimed support for the federal version with the exact same language and intent.

The strongest strike against the campaign’s rationale is this: Obama wants to create federal abortion law in the form of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which would prohibit protection of “previable fetuses.” The Freedom of Choice Act, which Obama says would be a top legislative priority, says the government may not regulate abortion if such regulations contradict the following policy:

Original Link.

Biden: Obama Will Face “Generated International Crisis” in First 6 Months

Tuesday, October 21st, 2008

OK, so Biden is willing to admit that the world will generate a crisis to test Obama’s skill at being president. It’s important to remember that Obama’s total experience, at the federal level, is 142 days in the senate, between the time he was sworn in and when he announced that he was going to run for president.
Aside from his desire to raise our taxes and give it to people who don’t pay taxes, his policies remain hazy at best. As for his foreign policy, it remains completely obscured, to the point of non-existence.
Do we really want a 142 day senator, with no foreign policy, trying to deal with a “Generated International Crisis” within his first six months in office.
Like so many other reasons, here is yet one more for not voting this man in as our next president.

Barack Obama will face an international crisis early in his presidency, Joe Biden warns, fueling Republican charges that the Democratic presidential candidate’s own running mate admits Obama is a blank slate in the face of coming national security threats.

Speaking in Seattle on Sunday, Biden said he could guarantee that the world will want to find out if Obama is up to the job, which he assured voters he is.

“Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking,” Biden said.

“Remember I said it standing here. if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he’s gonna have to make some really tough — I don’t know what the decision’s gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it’s gonna happen,” Biden continued.

The Delaware senator’s remarks were the second of their kind over the weekend. At a fundraiser in San Francisco, Biden said Obama’s challengers will “find out this guy’s got steel in his spine” whenhe is tested.

The McCain campaign jumped on Biden’s remarks, saying the next president “won’t have time to get used to the office.”

“Just last night, Senator Biden guaranteed that if Senator Obama is elected, we will have an international crisis to test America’s new president,” reads a memo from the McCain campaign. “We don’t want a president who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars. …

“Senator Obama wont have the right response, and we know that because we’ve seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign. … We cannot spend the next four years as we have spent much of the last eight: hoping for our luck to change at home and abroad. We have to act. We need a new direction, and we have to fight for it,” the statement said.

Original Link.