factbat.com

In California's 'Same-Sex Marriage' debate the levels of bias and political shenanigans appear to be creeping from the shadows like pedophiles lurking in, and around, the public toilets of city parks. And the Unconstitutional -- and thus illegal -- actions of Court Magistrates, whom have declared themselves veritable dictatorial rulers over an entire state, now draw into question the possible influence of an administration governed by a chief executive officer who, himself, has been proven to be a sexual deviant.

To deviate (pun intended) from the primary subject-at-hand for a moment. The fact is that Barack Obama has been a long time, card-holding member of an upper-scale, gay men's bath house in Chicago named "Man Country". And was closely associated with several homosexual choir boys at Jeremiah Wright's controversial church, which Obama faithfully attended for over 20 years; allegedly involved in casual sexual encounters with all of them.

Furthermore, much of the details in this very delicate matter are unknown to the general public due to the fact that two of the men, Nate Spencer and Donald Young, were murdered execution style in November of 2007 as the 2008 presidential race was beginning to heat-up. And allegedly the third person of interest, Larry Bland, died of health issues brought on by HIV AIDS.

Not only is there credible testimony coming from a man named Larry Sinclaire, who claims to have been involved in a sexual encounter with Barack Obama in a limousine outside of a prominant club in Chicago in 1999, where they smoked cocaine together, and then again at his hotel in Gurney two days later. There are also police reports and hushed-up articles which shed light on Obama's criminal exploits and Crack cocaine use during periods when he was an Illinois Senator involved in passing laws specifically targeting -- and labeling -- drug users as outlaws.

So, now that a small number of the POTUS conflicts of interest have been addressed, amid the obvious implications that a significant number of the people closely tied to Obama must also be considered compromised, it is time to return to the primary matter of alleged United States Justices exibiting like behavior.

One rather odius twist in the Gay Marriage debate -- which came as a complet shock to this author -- is that the ruling handed down in the first case, which, in 2010, initially declared Propostion 8 to be Unconstitutional, was nothing more than personal opinions drafted by a severely biased judge, former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker, who was not legally qualified to rule on the matter since he is a homosexual who has been in a relationship with another man for many years.

However, even setting this delicate subject of conflicting interests aside, the fact is that the United States Constitution does not allow any single person to rule on such a matter. Nor does it recognize the decision of even a three member, State appointed, faculty such as that from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which, Tuesday, concluded that the "lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians".

Moreover, for this latest three member body to have somehow found it logical to assume, without any conclusive evidence whatsoever, that Vaughn was not in any way biased by his affiliation with the moving party in this matter when handing down his ruling, they have quite literally exhumed Adolf Hitler, and pronounced him supremely qualified to solely adjudicate a litigation between Jews and Mussolini.

Any magistrate worth his weight in peanut butter would have honorably recused himself simply due to the inherent conflicts of interest Mr. Vaughn was most certainly presented with.

Furthermore, a real man worth his weight in gold would have admitted that it is likely that no individual could ever truly trust their self to equally regard both parties, and the many interests of all concerned -- including those who are, or will ever, be affected, by the verdict -- when charged with ruling on such a delicate and contoversial state of human affairs.  

The unequivocal truth which supersedes all powers granted any referee appointed to oversee such social conflict is that this populist debate is entirely confined to members of this nation's most sovereign group: "We The People". And there is not any city, county, state or federal official, or membership of officials, whom has, or has ever, been granted the power to rule over any sovereign, or group of sovereigns, in this nation.

An MSN artilce states that the Constitution permits communities to enact laws they feel to be imperative, but requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law which treats different classes of people differently.

However, homosexuals -- a group which itself actually varies widely in "classes" of people -- are not being treated any differently than anyone else simply because they may be refused official approval through the prohibition of a marriage certificate which would essentially require that society illogically ignore the fact that same-sex unions are basically unnatural.

Moreover, the courts do not appear to believe there is any legitimate reason to secure, defend or even attempt to, in any way, preserve the sanctity of one of the most important institutions governing relations between a man and woman in any society. The institution of marriage. As if it is the Court's right or responsibility to make such a determination.

Marriage has long been restricted to unions between "one man and one woman". Proposition 8 was not actually anything new. It was enacted for a very clear reason, and that reason was to protect such a provision from the encroaching destruction of society by the Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage by striking down a pair of laws, and shamelessly denying the efforts of this nation to secure its position as a morally sound preserver of human equity.

The Supreme Court's actions have now opened the door to any number of aberrant unions being officially recognized as legitimate. What's next, polygamy? Beastiality? Maybe even marrying children and babies?

As sick as this sounds, it is remarkably not much of a surprise. Since the Supreme Court's action occured in November of 2008, as Barack Obama, one of the most depraved and criminal presidents in American history, was gearing-up to take control of the Oval Office.

This nation is once again under attack by corrosive elements which, as usual, appear to be employing a "divide and conquer" strategy that could introduce mechanisms capable of bringing the United States to a quick and bitter end.

There is much evidence to show that a society which reaches a point where the majority of its people are homosexuals, begins a rapid decline on many levels.

The current debate is not as much a Constitutional conflict, as much as it is a battle for survival.

The fact is that homosexuals are not in any way being denied their basic human rights simply because a majority of citizens logically desire to prohibit actions which debase the institution of marriage.

Therefore, this matter is entirely reserved to a majority decision, arrived at by a secure count of a properly announced, and attended, ballot measure; be it a proposition, or referendum. And no State representative has the authority to overrule any such majority decision.

The people of this nation cannot be forced by the Court to support anyones behaviors. Whether it be someone's choice to believe in an intelligent supreme being, have sex with a person of their own gender, eat meat, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, be a vegetarian, whatever. Nor can anyone be forced by the Court to oppose anyone's decision to engage in actions, providing they are compliant with basic common law.

However, the United States Constitution most certainly protects everyone's right to choose for themselves whether or not it is in their best interests to support or oppose the choices of others. The only requirement is that no person can ever be denied thier inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness simply because their lawful choices may confict with another's.

For instance, a homosexual cannot be placed at risk of attack by those who oppose them. As long as they are law abiding in their actions, then they can live where they want, eat where they want, shop where they want, play where they want, and even engage in non-obscene affection for each other wherever they want. And do so without fear of reprisal or criminal discrimination against them.

This nation's founding documents do not, however, grant homosexuals the right to infringe upon the "truths we find to be self evident." And thus, if a majority finds that this species' proper progress and survival is best protected by confining the official recognition and definition of "marriage" to that of a sacred bond between "one man and one woman" only, then this recognition is unequivocally protected under the auspices of the United States Constitution.

The only Constitutionality affecting this current debate is the fact that said Constitution prohibits any State official from doing anything more than ensuring that the matter does not devolve into an aggressive or criminal representation of one group or individual over and above any other. Or produce, support or promote actions which can be conclusively shown to infringe upon the inalienable rights of all people.

Furthermore, even the lopsided, misrepresentation of the vote that passed Proposition 8 in the first place was undeniably designed to sway the majority in favor of Same Sex Marriage. Since there is almost no doubt that nearly every homosexual in California showed up to cast their ballots in opposition to the proposition, while a great many heterosexuals were unaware that the matter was even being put to a populist vote.

However, the propostion still passed with a 52% majority. And regardless of any insinuation, or even outright proof, that various religious groups showed up in force to vote against Same-Sex Marriage, this only proves that a vast number of the citizens in California do not realize that this matter has a great deal of affect on their daily lives. And if given the opportunity to attend publicly televised debates on the ramifications of a measure which requires all citizens to openly support unabashed homosexual behavior -- including pronouncing them somehow qualified to procure primary status within American society, adopting children and demanding Unconstitutional rights -- they may very well find it in their best interests to vote against it.

Simply the fact that, in the past, many homosexuals were often denied basic human rights by various radical groups, religous zealots, law enforcement, and political organizations does not now somehow grant anyone the authority to create special rights for them as some form of remuneration or another.

Homosexuals have always been protected by the law, regardless that these protections were sometimes ignored or denied them. And the truth is that there are many people in American society -- most of them individuals of no specific group -- who are routinely abused, and denied their basic human rights by various law enforcement organizations and government agencies. Be they black, white, asian, hispanic, middle eastern, gay, straight, religious, athiest, or whatever.

The primary dysfunction is the denial of the individual in this nation. And this denial places all Americans at risk of becoming the next victim of a government, quite obviously, out of control.

Congressman Ron Paul, a true conservative republican from the state of Texas, has been the voice of reason and sober analysis within this nation's legislative body for decades, indefatigably honoring his oath of office as he courageously and unceremoniously upholds, protects and defends the principles of equal opportunity and personal accountability outlined in the documents so long ago drafted by America's founding fathers. And he has done so with a grace and poise that is rarely, if ever, seen - and even less appreciated - on capitol hill.

Dr. Paul, an obstetrician (i.e. a champion of the gift of life) who has delivered thousands of babies during his fastidious career, is so dedicated to this country, and its promise of liberty, that he graciously eschews his own personal viewpoint on "right to life" out of respect for the constitutional values of autonomy and accountability which indelibly place the "power to choose" - and thus the duty to correct any inequity created - directly in the hands of the people and the state legislatures wherein they elect to reside.

His ability to speak, absent the aid of a teleprompter, on any topic, to large crowds of people, with credible confidence and accountability belies a noble soul which proves him to possess the leadership qualities of an illustrious Captain, commanding spirited action through example rather than callous threats and demands; thus courageously preserving life in the face of death rather than complacently delivering subjugate flesh to the slaughter.

Under a Ron Paul presidency, the power of this nation's national defense would exceed all others for the past fifty years, while simultaneously reducing the military budget by streamlining the chain of command, opening channels to communication rather than blind collaboration, and bringing nation-building troops back home where they are most needed.

Ron Paul is quite obviously a man who literally resonates with the principle forces of nature as he clearly defines his position to be that of a public servant who's unwavering compliance with the "truths we find to be self evident" prohibits him from misusing the Executive Office as a station of power.

It is the man who readily admits his powerlessness over others whom remains prepared to "hit the ground running" in defense of all.

Paul has been delivering the identical message of limited government, fiscal responsibility, legislative accountability, transparency, American self reliance, free market economy, auditing the Federal Reserve, and respecting the inalienable rights of all people, during his entire time in office. He is not simply mouthing the words like so many other candidates whom are now agreeing with Dr. Paul because his logical and ethical analogies have become popular sentiments.

Remarkably, one of the only accusations Paul's opponents can sling at him is that he is allegedly racist. And merely due to the fact that a few - less than objective - pamphlets which voiced concerns about the illicit actions of racial groups were printed with Dr. Paul's organization's name on them. And his opponents publicly accuse him of bigotry regardless of the fact that Dr. Paul has denounced the statements as obscene and unwarranted, and has explained that he never had any specific knowledge of the statements, or any direct affiliation with those who printed them.

Furthermore, Dr. Paul has always demonstrated a clearly unbiased character in both word and deed in all of his personal and professional affairs. And there is not one example anywhere of him ever behaving even remotely racist; either for or against anyone.

The first of two guarantees in this article is that Ron Paul does not even possess the ability to be a racist. His primary focus, directed pointedly at personal accountability and autonomy, does not provide the room necessary for a scope of racially biased dissemination; thus preventing him from discriminating against anyone based on a birthright attribute such as the color of their skin, their gender or nationality.

Some would also attempt to claim that Dr. Paul wants to "legalize drugs", insinuating that his supporters are merely criminals. However, this mendaciously deleterious sentiment - denigrating a great deal of law abiding, hard working and intelligent citizens of significant note - ignores Dr. Paul's conctrete Constitutional compliance, since he has only ever sought to "decriminalize" the act of smoking cannabis (as California has done), and informed the public that this nation's Constitution does not allow the government to prohibit, by law, the use of any illicit substance. This nation's founding documents only provide protection against the parameters of criminality, of which the "freedom of choice" issue of drug use does not even come close to satisfying.

His support for relaxing the government's strangle-hold on the illicite drug trade is the result of a reasonable and honorable position, wherein he realizes that Richard Nixon's profligate "War on Drugs" has shamelessly destroyed the lives of hundreds of millions of unwitting, emotionally exasperated, people, and literally overnight built the empires of the most brutal and powerful criminals this world has ever seen.

Those who have found themselves in an environment which drives them to seek escape from reality are not merely suffering from drug addiction. These people are an pervasive example of our most severe societal dysfunctions, and are easily rehabilitated when one truly disseminates a reasonable acount of their plight, thus seeking to indemnify the persons themselves rather than their addiction.

Ron Paul is a man who full-well understands the gravity of this nation's currently perilous situation, and the fact that "the government does not have the right to tell the people what to do", or what to like or not like. He realizes that it has been the government's excessive meddling in the personal affairs of the people which is responsible for the many meteoric eruptions and cataclysmic crashes - both social and economic - that have nearly torn this nation assunder over the last century.

The government's responsibilty is to uphold, protect and defend this nation's Supreme Law of the Land; namely, the United States Constitution. It is neither their right nor their responsibility to create special rules for specific groups of people or individuals, nor take sides on any issue other than that wich shall reflect the primary tenets of this nation's founding documents.

Unlike Dr. Paul, many in this nation's government exibit absolutely no respect, whatsoever, for The Constitution, or its principles. But, on the contrary, seek only to craft orations rife with empty words which they can spew upon the masses, riling them with obscenity in an effort to procure, or retain, a position of authority.

Unfortunately, this exposes the fact that America's citizens are the ones whom are, first and foremost, responsible for the corrupt debacle the government has become. Much like the majority of politicians, the majority of this nation's citizens have no respect for their Constitution, as they incessantly demand that those they vote for ignore their oath office, and instead act in deference to the collective bidding of constituents, regardless of whether their demands are Constitutional, or many times, even ethical.

Barrack Obama was primarily elected by people who were expecting him to take sides against those whom they despise. The majority of those who voted for Obama are people who live a vengeful and recalcitrant existence, blaming any number of people and places for their personal predicament. Many of these people are the "occupiers" and malcontents who believe that the government should be granted the power to take from the rich and give to the poor.

The majority of Obama's supporters appear to be shameless racists, and have been rewarded with extreme bigotry on many levels, regardless of the fact that Obama campaigned - quite deceptively - as the one who would end racism in this country. The problem is that Barack Obama's underlying message - for those who were listening - was that he would merely seek to tip the scales in the opposite direction.

Just as poorly motivated are those who voted for the George Bush's, primarily because they were both "company men" who could be counted on to accept personal rewards for protecting the criminal exploits of the bankers and Wall Street cronies, while simultaneously crafting a web of control that would allow the felonious Federal Reserve, the Clinton coddled IMF, and the Kissinger crafted Counsel on Foreign Relations to enter into unabashed nation building.

Truth be told, all of the Bush men are depraved hawks who are entirely willing to feed every last one of this nation's patriotic sons and daughters to the gold plated war machine that lines their pockets with oil-stained dollars.

Contrarily, Ron Paul is the kind of man who, as president of the United States, would actually save lives during any armed clash of ideals, by preventing naked aggression with reasonable conflict, and thus preserving humanity's natural proclivity to disagree. The man, himself, is an expression of progress in that he never attempts to avoid dissention, but rather welcomes it with aplomb. His unwavering respect for the purity of the argument sets him apart from nearly every other legislator on the hill.

Paul's decorum during nationally televised debates shows him to be an expressly shrewd negotiator who will not bend to weak winds, and will force any true threat to bellow its impediment. He, as a congressman, routinely votes against bills of his own crafting if other legislators have introduced unconstitutional amendments and pork barrel spending into its text in their attempt to sneak them through an unsuspecting body of voters.

Dr. Paul is, of course, a kind and sharp spoken man, his is the nature of a true closer. A man moved not by petty regards of blustering sycophants and despots, yet sensitive to the quizzical glance cast by the oft-disregarded and marginalized granite of this nation's foundation; the working class.

Ron Paul is a man who, as president, would steer America's ship back onto its initial course of true prosperity, braving the swells of carpetbaggers and califates which have smothered nearly all of the last ten presidencies with a mendacious morbidity of pleas for the plight of the poverty stricken and oppressed, cutting their cream nearly to the bottom

Ron Paul's message is that of capabilities rather than disabilities, heart rather than hope. His egalitarian presence, seasoned with a paucity of pragamatism, is the essence of a character rich in personal accountability, seeking to master the equations rather than pretend to manipulate the solutions.

This nation need not suffer the poor, but rather, properly reward the efforts of the many whom suffer the rich. Take not from the wealthy, for it is the frugal whom have gifted them their station. Men are not created equal, simply equally allowed. The essential formulae must be designed to shift the balance by reducing poverty with nothing more than an increase of equal opportunity, and thereby bless this nation, as it so well deserves.  

Take heart, one and all, for this nation is still so great that, against all odds, it created a Ron Paul...Yeah, baby!!! And he has been serving this nation like a benevolent and loving father for decades, shining like a beacon of liberty at the edge of a jetty staunchly piercing this nation's pounding sea of sanguine senility and powerful corruption.

The man possesses an unflappable courage few even understand, and is a leader of the finest order.

So the question remains; is America truly worthy of - or ready for - a "Ron Paul Presidency"?

This author worries that it is not. And for anyone who disagrees, I dare you...no, I double dare you, prove me wrong, and vote for this honorable man. Vote for an executive public servant who will hold you accountable to the principles you claim to fight for.

I challenge you all, prove your true worth. Prove you are a real American, and vote for a just commander in chief...vote for Ron Paul.

Guaranteed, once this nation gets a taste of Dr. Paul's executive office, his re-election will be by a landslide.

A new article that is flogging the same old flaccid - and largely diminutive - subject of Global Warming has recently appeared in the New York Times.

Regardless of the fact that proponents of AGW (anthropogenically-caused global warming) prematurely blew their wad last year when it was proven that the data supporting their claims was being fudged by those packing it for transmission, the city of Chicago is now proving this homogenous fallacy to be just too tempting a spectacle for their anal advisors to resist.

The New York Times article, titled "The Long Hot Forecast", is about as brief on reality as it is extensive on reprimand. Astonishingly, the author attempts to convince readers that Chi Town is some sort of leader of a progressive movement simply because the leadership there is finally beginning to allow the implementation of much needed practicality in the maintenance of its municipalities, insinuating that they may actually be putting tax dollars to good use, and taking responsibility for designing the city in such a way as to begin to compensate for the extreme weather patterns which have plagued its citizens, and been a part of that city's identity, since it was founded. (nytimes.com, 01 June 2011)

The NYT claims that "much of the rest of the nation is stuck in climate-change denial, or passive fretfulness" as it lauds Chicago's leaders for "making long term preparations for a warmer, stormier climate". However, they are doing nothing more than repairing infrastructure malfunctions that are long overdue.

In complete cooperation with the contemporarily-common cur of complacently crafted calculations corroborated by cardiganed carpetbaggers caterwauling a coming catastrophe of consequences in the comprehensive cookhouse of the future, the NYT is basing assertions of fact on little more than the crystal ball ethos of one Leslie Kaufman who reported in The Times that "By the end of the century [Chicago] will feel more like Baton Rouge, La." Claiming that "other cities should pay attention".

Unfortunately, Kaufman has no actual proof to support his claims, except reciprocating data that has no bench mark to sustain it, and thus his are nothing more than illegitimate assumptions.

His article is merely based on extrapolations of nascent statistics that do not in any way compensate for the various changes in spatial contexts that this planet will be experiencing as it enters uncharted coordinates that are unaccompanied by data which would allow plausible reasearch into what might be expected.

The article reports that Chicago is preparing for climate change. However, they are merely implementing various strategies in their overall public sector that reflect an addressal of the needs that were apparent over many decades, but largely ignored.

Now, since the climatologists are finding fresh federal funding that reflects the city government's plans to employ radicalized environmentalists and eugenicists as busy bodies that can help them twist the collective corporate arm of the state, the coffers are brimming with new surpluses that once again are paralyzed by red tape that alllows the policy makers to neglect the truly needy.

While it is certainly a fact that the Earth will eventually experience a full 10 degrees Celsius fluctuation, where the mean global temperature will rise from 12 to 22 degrees centigrade, this will occur over millions of years, rather than mere decades, and has no connection to high global CO2 levels. (factbat.com, 20 March 2008)

It appears that insurance companies are being bent over a pork barrel, and terrified by the possibility of huge payouts should these, and their catastrophic consequences, become a reality. This means that there is a fresh set of hellish premiums for anyone who intends to live or do business near any body of water that the alleged experts can claim will be effected by the basically nostalgic threat of extreme sea level rises.

Can anybody say "psyche!"? It would be best for people to plan for earthquakes as the Earth begins to enter its cycle of expansion based on the coming polarity shift. This planet's gravitational affection for spherical nuances that will allow its core to gyrate into an altered position will bring about various effects that, while gradual and wide spread, will usher in a new era of intercontinental residency that most people are, as yet, unaccustomed to.

The most onerous real-time implications, however, are found in the fact that much of the insurance industry discovered itself buried under extreme economic duress as a result of the government's incessant meddling in the markets, both national and international. And now both the insiders and outsiders are equally paying a dear price for jumping into bed with the politicians.

Further posturing with visions of widespread pandemonium, the article - rambunctiously shouting its reportedly factual attack from the NYT "Opinion" section - even goes so far as to irrelevantly cite a deadly "one-week heat wave in 1995" in Chicago that allegedly was solely responsible for the deaths of nearly 740 people, as proof that AGW exists.

It's no wonder the article has no by-line. Whomever is responsible for composing this simplistic, silly symptomatic display of ceremonial supposition surely has no evidence to actually support any of the claims inculpated within the pompous pith this piece is contaminated with.

This author was actually a resident of Chicago in 1995, and I can personally attest to the fact that the heat wave was only a side issue, that was not, in any direct fashion, responsible for the many deaths associated with that year'Ëœs summer swelter. Furthermore, there are also an inordinate number of cold related deaths in the region each year.

The primary cause of the fatalities from heat stroke during the summer of 1995 was the lack of air conditioning in the many urban areas that are populated with veritable human beehives, stacked in roasting rows over an asphalt skillet.

These typically derelict tenement projects are home to some of the poorest and infirmed persons in the city, and a vast majority of them cannot afford common creature comforts that most people take for granted.

Therefore, when these suffocating residences turn into human ovens, a common luxury like air conditioning becomes critical to one's survival. And since many of the residents are incapacitated to the point that they can no longer venture outdoors without assistance, they eventually succumb to this inhospitable environment, and die.

However, this travesty is the result of a system that tolerates many typically self-serving politicians whom are not confined to any set precedent that would force them to service this dire need. And thus they simply ignore the writing on the wall that any half wit could easily decipher as warning of a tragedy just waiting to happen.

Truly, the criminal elements allowed to run amok in this Midwestern city are not reserved to the crack dealers, thugs, pimps and gangs that control large potions of its bullet scorched north, west and south sides.

The victims of public corruption are much more at risk than any you would find on this Great Lakes city's means streets, and most of the average population does not even realize the vast majority of them that suffer at the hands of politicians who routinely consider one particular demographic as nothing more than a nuisance.

This demographic is the elderly and infirmed whom exist on the meager allowance of a federally fixed income. And Chicago's utilities companies have absolutely no qualms about shutting off these peoples' gas and electricity if and when they become unable to pay the exorbitant rates that these suppliers typically charge.

Furthermore, it is no longer a secret that companies routinely abuse and neglect the frail and elderly. Enron is a prime example of just how callous and greedy the average utilities company expects to be allowed to operate. And Chicago's severely corrupt leadership has, for decades, been all too willing to support and facilitate the rapacious environment of recompense that these money-hungry suppliers demand.

Of course, that region's pathetic political spectrum is currently refracted throughout the White House, since Obama's chief of apoplectic incompetence, Rahm Emanuel, was elected to mayor of the same gubernatorial gangland gazpacho that somehow made Barack Obama's flea ridden carcass appear a palatable democratic dish that so many in this nation are blindly swallowing.

Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama both hail from the windy city, and are both lifetime members of a gay men's bathhouse in uptown Chicago named "Man's Country". There relationship, however unscrupulous it may have become at this point, is quite obviously an intricately established one.

Is it any surprise, then, that Emanuel is now part of a questionable quid pro quo which is seeking to legitimize one of the Obama administration's primary goals of haranguing the nation with an emaciating Cap and Trade system that would simultaneously thrust Obama's earmarked earning potential into the stratosphere?

The NYT article ends with a beguiling air of contemptuous blame, as it blatantly accuses the nation of ignoring some imminent doomsday on the near horizon, stating "It would be far better is there were a federal framework to plan a guide the nation's adaptation to the challenging years ahead."

However, it does not take a genius to realize that without a clear definition of what lies ahead, any "framework" would be largely a waste of time and resources. As well as the fact that it could become just one more unstable structure that would imperial all who reside within it in a veritable collapsing coffin.

How irresponsible and insipid of the NYT to portend that such bombastic pressure tactics be placed upon the entire nation. Especially since all the real data to date proves that the Earth is experiencing record low temperatures in many geographical locations that are typically hot and arid. As well as the fact that the last two winters were some of the coldest on record across the entire United States.

What a shameless rag of rhetorical propaganda the New York Times has become. And it is likely due to the fact that most people are now looking to more reputable sources for their information. What is remarkable is that the data is clear on this subject, however, this publication does not appear to have any intention of altering its own deplorable tactics of appealing to the most ignorant and idiotically idealistic readers in the nation.

If Cap and Trade is allowed to run its course, Barack Obama will become the toast of every black hat aristocrat that this nation's money laundering back rooms and basements can hold. And the rolls of treasonous treasury troubadours who play to the warbling witchcraft of Wall Street fat cats - as they howl their malapropos melody of milk and honey - will bury this nation's main street in one destructive, invasive and repressive mechanism after another until everything is under the control of those who are either running, or running for, the government.

The corruption that would ensue under the insolent - and unwarranted - Cap and Trade tax scheme would raise, not only the prices of nearly every product on the market for the next century, but also an iron clad staircase of oblique and obligatory oppression for nearly every criminal of this nation's future political paradigm to climb up, over and out of reach of the people.

The blasphemous bureaucracies that the average government agency will interminably insist on representing under this scheme - while simultaneously selling the citizens down one of the most swift and predacious rivers of revenue creation this world has ever even heard of - will eventually become so out of control that the populous at large will be forced to dam it up in order to save the free market from the powerful and deadly claws of a fetid fascism run amok.

References:

NYT Article, "The Long Hot Forecast"; @ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/opinion/01wed4.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211

Factbat.com article, "Cold Facts on the Hot Topic"; @

http://www.factbat.com/blog/2008/4/13/cold-facts-on-the-hot-topic.html

Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has given a clear indication that his defiant and nearsighted leadership is primarily responsible for the lack of demonstrable progress in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.

Netanyahu, after meeting with President Barack Obama - following a speech from Obama calling for demarcation of Israel and Palestine along pre 1967 boundaries - offered broad statements of basic defiance that showed both his lack of willingness to cooperate, and his excessively impractical nature. (msnbc.com; Israel Rejects Border Proposal)

Israel is being excoriated for its inhospitable actions on a wider scale than it has been in the past, and it is in large part due to the decisions of its leaders who incessantly expect to remain incomprehensibly xenophobic while simultaneously combative against even the most basic forms of human discrimination.

Netanyahu claims that Israel "wants peace, I want peace. What we all want is peace that will be genuine, that will hold, that will endure".

However, as could be expected, he sought to indemnified his - and his nation's - many aggressive and inhospitable actions against Palestinians, Jordanians and Egyptians, insinuating that they are/were necessary to create peace as he exclaimed "I think we both agree that a peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality -- for there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities."

Brazenly biting the hand that feeds him, Netanyahu perfunctorily defied the Obama administration's consensus that in the interest of a peaceful accord, the lines of the nations should reflect those that existed prior to the "six days war" where Israel took lands from Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

The surprise attack, primarily by the Israeli air force - and likely assisted by a covert ally in France - was an emaciating first strike on the Egyptian air force that gave Israel massive air superiority for the rest of the war, and was largely in response to the closing of the Straits of Tiran by Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt's president.

Israel effectively took control of the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. There are still many who contend that Israel's attack was an act of aggression, rather than a preemptive strike of defense. (Wikipedia.org)

Furthermore, it was Israeli leaders whom demanded that any closing of the Straits would be considered "an act of war". And since there appears to be evidence that deceptive and false reports were delivered to Nasser, allegedly from the Soviet Union, saying that Israel was massing on the Syrian border, the closing of the Strait of Tiran would have been a logical move.

It is no secret that Israel has often employed espionage and deception as a means of gaining a military advantage, or fomenting crises which either appear to warrant retaliation or directly create it. And what is most notable is that Israel rarely suffers any initial casualties prior to a full scale retaliation where the targeted nation sustains heavy casualties.

Israel has also consistently defied international authority, such as during the 1949 Armistice where Israel secretly brokered a deal to disregard the "green line" of the General Armistice Agreement and expelled the entire population of Wadi Fukin after the village had been illegally transferred to an Israeli-occupied area.

The Mixed Armistice Commission found that Israel had violated the agreement, and voted that the villagers should be allowed to return to their homes. But Israel's common practice of destroying the houses of civilians as they steal their land forced the villagers, prodded by further demands from the Israeli military, to return to Jordan controlled territory. (Wikipedia.org)

Netanyahu, refusing to even consider the 1967 boundaries, even went so far as to pretend that there have been no provisions made for the security of various settlements that were built outside of those borders as he claimed that they would be "indefensible because they don't take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes -- over the last 44 years."

However, the proposal by the Obama administration clearly allows for any number of various land swaps in order to secure and satisfy both nations. Furthermore, Netanyahu appears to believe that simply because over four decades have passed, that suddenly the issue of misappropriated lands is not open to debate.

The Israeli Prime Minister even began to dredge up outdated, historical incidences that are both irrelevant and controversial. He shows his intent to exhume long dead conflicts when stating "Remember that before 1967 Israel was all of nine miles wide -- they were the boundaries of repeated wars because the attack on Israel was so attractive."

The primary inequity in Netanyahu's statements is the fact that much of the attacks on Israel were those of retaliation for attacks perpetrated by Israel against other nations.

Israel, with the help of allies in Britain and France, attacked Egypt in 1956 while denying it was a collusive effort. The attack was in response to Egypt's new ties with the Soviet Union and recognition of the People's Republic of China, and Nasser's choice to nationalize the Suez Canal and broker a deal with Russia after the US and Britain backed out of a commitment to fund the building of the Aswan Dam.

The fact is that China is no longer a dividing ally, nor is the Suez Canal a central instigator of conflict in the region. And the fact that these, and other now-retired issues, were the primary means of extending Israel's borders even prior to the 1967 conflict, the argument by Netanyahu is illegitimate.

Netanyahu, in an encroaching bid for further publicly viewed allied posturing, thanked Obama for American support, saying "I appreciate the fact that you reaffirmed, once again, now and in our conversation, and in actual deed, the commitment to Israel's security. We value your efforts to advance the peace process".

To digress for a moment. The actual critical factor in all of this is the fact that Israel does actually want peace. But simply peace, not peaceful relations. Israel just wants the compliance that a peace agreement offers, and often such agreements can be anything but agreeable to both side, regardless of the fact that they produce an end to armed aggression.

The leaders of Israel have never actual sought to enable the freedom of others as a means of eliciting equitable conviviality. And until the collective efforts of the primary players are directed at creating a lasting freedom for all nations concerned, then peace will remain nothing more than a smoldering ember of reticence that can ignite the region like a tinder box whenever the winds of discord begin to blow.

Israel, and its neighbors, must collectively embrace legitimacy in their counterparts, and their right to influence policies effectively, and based on their respective peoples' best interests.

Netanyahu also claimed that he shares Obama's "hope and [his] vision for the spread of democracy in the Middle East".

However, the only part of democracy that Netanyahu has shown himself capable of appreciating is that which follows a belief that the "majority rules", and there is little evidence that this includes anyone outside of Israeli interests.

Furthermore, Israel has done as much as any other Middle Eastern nation to profligate the belief that no other structure other than that created of, for and by Israeli's has a right to exist. And Israel has often employed religious beliefs as government policy in an attempt to justify attacks on other peoples.

The animosity that has fostered in the rich, fertile soil of religious extremism in the Arab World has been just as prolifically cultivated by Israel as it has by others in the area. But it is Israel that has so often sought the assistance of Western allies like the United States, France, and Britain as vanguards against the seething revenge they have so consistently created with their refusal to engage their neighbors respectably.

Unfortunately, in the past there were many leaders in America and Europe whom were all-to-happy to oblige in their own self interest, and ignore the rights of sovereign nations as the "red scare" and other anti-socialism campaigns authorized all manner of otherwise prohibited actions as means of eradicating what were seen to be imminent threats to the survival of the west.

A few in the field of republicans campaigning for Obama's job have begun to foam at the mouth as Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Michelle Bachmann attack Obama, claiming that he has insulted Israel.

Either they are simply politicking, or they truly revile Obama's attempts to bring some tough love to the process and begin to stringently exfoliate the endemic crisis that has long festered beneath the chafing dermis of the region.

Bachmann say's that she "was appalled to watch President Obama betray our ally Israel", also claiming that "Obama's plan would abandon decades of peacemaking efforts in the Middle East, and result in further chaos, division and more aggression." (email correspondence from Michelle Bachmann)

What is remarkable is that Bachmann completely ignores the ridiculous irony in her statement. She clearly realizes that the alleged "peacemaking process" has not been affective for "decades", but still insists that Obama has somehow imperiled a process that has not produced any lasting results to date which show it has done any good.

She also claims that this is another example of "Obama's policy of blaming Israel first." Even going so far as to claim that "Obama's words show that he is no friend of Israel".

To be fair; Obama made it clear that he considered Israel to be a friend of the United States, and stated that Israel's security is a top priority. However, he also showed an intent to remain civil and beyond reproach when stating that this friendship requires that he be honest about the situation.

Loyalty is far too often thought to be synonymous with honor, and this is just not the case. One must eschew loyalty at times and be prepared to side with an ally's opposition, providing such opposition is also honorable, if said opponent is correct, if one is to truly be an effective ally.

There are plenty of examples throughout history where an alleged friend or ally, in their own selfish interests, set their counterpart up for a fall by taking their side regardless of an obvious inequity which eventually became their demise.

Bachmann also say's that "American's know that a safer Israel is a safer world". There is actually a vast array of data that indicates the contrary, and thus her statement implies a rather impressionable and collusive atmosphere among politicians.

That Bachmann would truly believe such a statement is unlikely, and thus she must be touting the agenda of some other prospective beneficiary. And that is entirely unacceptable under any circumstances, given the nature of the subject matter, and the fact that AIPAC is a very influential organization in government.

However, Bachmann most notablly displayed her vacuity and lack of intuition last year in Los Angeles where, in a speech she said "If the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States".

It appears that some in the Republican field are comfortable with intemperately shuffling their way to the edge of the precipice in a straitjacket as they attempt to capitalize on any possible rift between Israel and the United States by painting it as an imminently disastrous position for the entire nation.

It makes one wonder if there is not a significant level of legitimacy to the rumors that 9/11 was the result of a collusion between covert Israeli and Western influences that were well enough connected to infiltrate even the most highest levels of government in America.

It is well documented that Israel's Mosad (Israeli secret service) sent agent Eli Cohen to infiltrate the Syrian Government and use his high-ranking position to manipulate the Syrian military's strategy prior to the "six days war", feigning sympathy for the soldiers and convincing Syria to plant trees that allowed Israel to mark their position. Cohen also gathered crucial intelligence for Israel that allowed the Israeli military to strike the Golan Heights area from positions that were largely indefensible by Syria.

It is also well established that Israel's air force was secretly preparing for weeks, and possibly even months, to carry out a surprise attack on Egypt's air fields, thus giving ample reason to believe that the various instigators that Israel claims were legitimate reasons to attack its neighbors were likely just the result of counter-intelligence operations aimed at deceptively creating a "false flag" event that would appear to justify their actions.

Israel's various documented, and otherwise obvioius, scurrilous and underhanded tactics, perpetrated by its leaders and security forces, are inexorably paiinting a clear portrait of a country that cannot be counted on to engage the international community legitimately.

In the interest of the nation and the many honorable and tenacious citizens of America, it must henceforth be reasonably assumed that Israeli espionage is almost certainly one of the lynchpins that is working to manipulate and destablize much of America's foreign policy structure, and corrupting its government with agents whom are secretly coopting its members if the United States is to truly make inroads toward a lasting and equitable accord with the Middle East.

References:

1949 Armistice Agreements; @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements

1956 Suez Canal Crisis; @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis

MSNBC article @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43106082/ns/politics-white_house/t/we-cant-go-back-israeli-pm-rejects-border-proposal/

Beyonce's new video "Run the World (girls)" is clearly gender biased, and one of the strangest displays of apoplectic human disregard on the hip-hop market today.

I never would have actually watched this entire - let's face it, extremey less-than-talented music diatribe - if it were not for the fact that I found it disturbingly misguided, and thus felt it imperative to write an article about it.

The direction that Beyonce and also much of the music industry's popular artists are intending to drag this nation is alarming, as they spend obviously hundreds of billions of dollars to create grandiose presentations of defunct social distortion that are only intended to satisfy the droves of starving minds that have become emaciated by the daily diet of divisiveness that leaves them malnourished but bloated.

Beyonce is only offering the needle of necromantic nuance, injecting the ignorant and criminally derisive minds that inhabit specific portions of the world. Namely, the young and impressionable whom simply exist under mom and dad's roof, seeking any means of rebellion against a structured environment, and of course the millions of misfortunates who blame everybody else for their problems.

Beyonce's indelibly self-worshipping, heavily voice modulated and creepy dance video is anything but the praise of women that it bills itself as.

Who cares that she does it in clothes from the latest designer. That she needs to persuade people with excessively edited videos of her in extravagent pop-culture dress, and elicit the support of expensive designers, only detracts from the atmosphere of actual talent the art is expected to exude.

Whitney Houston, with all of her set-backs, still out-shines Beyonce any day of the week. And she does it with poise and grace. Her latest tour "Nothing But Love" says it all, and was a terrific success.

Beyonce has only served to further the world of gender bias and hateful discrimination against others by precociously proposing that "we run this mutha-f--er" ad nauseam. Her video is every bit as bad as a racially discriminatory and repressive Nazi or Klan rally.

However, she has been allowed to spew her sick, depraved and - again, let's face it, misanthropic melody - across the entire planet where she is being hailed by every hate-filled sycophant and salacious sophist that watches it.

Beyonce's video is no better than the Narcorrido songs and their sick subculture that is invading from this nation's southern borders, and which are supported almost entirely by gangbangers, gun runners, drug cartels and the mountains of ready cash that their criminal exploits generate.

The rest of this "commando-style conscience copulation" (aka "mindf---k") is supported by the growing number of lethargic citizens in Mexico who choose to worship the Santa Muerta (Saint Death) and sell pirated and stolen merchandise on their black market as they inhale glue, and do drugs while worshipping at shrines. This is their self-defeating and recalcitrant reaction to the poverty and squalor that is being created by the government corruption in Mexico that has allowed drug cartels to take over much of the country.

Is America truly no more capable than its sqanderous southern neighbor? Are the citizens in this country truly going to allow the boisterous criminal element to define the road ahead, controlled by a mob of intemperate reprobates that spend most of their time getting high and dreaming of being somebody, and then react with violence and upheaval to the foibles they allow to proliferate with their recidivist ways?

This nation has an extremely healthy foundation that is inexorably bound to documents of clear human compunction where truths that are found to be "self evident" are the lynchpins that speak out loudly and viciously against just the kind of blind acrimony and broadbased bigotry that Beyonce is intending to use as a means of creating riotous and myopic defiance, likened to mutiny, that she can personally profit from.

Of course, she incessantly attempts to use her vagina to sell herself to whatever audience that has the stomach to watch her whore herself for the camera. I could barely sit through the entire pandering and pugnacious prostitution of it all, and I am an extremely virile male who adore's women. However, I am inexorably bound to respect them regardless of how much they may disrespect themselves. And I require a much more elevated level of behavior than do most men I encounter.

I was recently extremely impressed by the speech that Barack Obama gave on May 19th about a "More Perfect Union" where he addressed the audience at Constitution Center in Philadelphia, PA. on matters such as race, gender equality and the fundamental path for America.

The Obama administration actually appears to be "getting it", and while I do understand that it is speech writers and advisors whom are primarily responsible for composing the message, it is the President who has the final word. I must admit that Obama swung for the fence on this one ... and connected.

In contrast to his bleacher bound, base rounding blast is the beguiling bromide bunt that Beyonce has unleashed into the infield.

Are the many conscioniable and egalitarian citizens of this nation going to just remain silent and idle, allowing her robitically mechanized and egotistical voice of vacuity and dysfunction to profit from the creation of destructive demoralization. Will we just sit and shake our heads as denizens of dime-store dilletantes peck and paw at the flesh of the very hand that feeds them?

Stand up tall and proud America, as Egypt and Libya have done, and cast off the blinders of vengeance. Refuse to live in the self-imposed shackles of shame and sanctimonious severance that the egomaniacal establishment so often attempts to sell to the masses; praising them for compliance with the corruption.

Beyonce is nothing more than an opportunistic and maladjusted hater who is attempting to ride the latest roller coaster of angst that will surely drag her vociferously vehement vacillations, and those who follow them like a pied pipers tune, to the depths - as the sea of change that is gripping this world rises to the fall.

How trite that Beyonce shows absolutely no concern whatsoever for the vindictiveness and loathing that she is warranting as she selfishly appeals to the peoples' lesser nature, and targets the lowest common denominator as a means of building her personal bank account and sedentary celebrity status.

Be certain that Beyonce will not be there to contribute to the need that she is creating when the effects of her poverty and crime creating callousness brings the walls of reality crashing in against her fans.

What a shame...what a low, down, dirty shame.