God Willing? Political Fundamentalism in the White House, the 'War on Terror', and the Echoing Press

By Nasrin Dastjerdi
The relationship between politics and media has always been a topic for vast researches. On the other hand the use of religious discourse in addresses and speeches of politicians to back their policies is not a new issue. But what is done in this book that makes is outstanding and different is an analysis of the interconnections among all these three together. Thus David Domke's book is ideally positioned to cut right into the heart of debates about the modern developments at the intersection of religion, politics and media within the US. According to him, the foreign and domestic foreign developments in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were not only (neo) conservative, but also firmly grounded in a (Christian) religious fundamentalism. Domke argues that the Bush administration has turned a religious worldview into political policy and has created what Domke calls a 'political fundamentalism', defined as 'an intertwining of conservative religious faith, politics, and strategic communication' (p. 6). The book is also a critique of the Bush administration's disregard for democracy in the months following the attack.

The introductory chapter of God Willing? identifies four main characteristics of the Bush administration's communication that were grounded in a conservative religious worldview: (1) a binary concept of reality (apparent in the consistent use of two constructions: good vs. evil and security vs. peril); (2) an obsession with time and demands for immediate action against terrorism(manifest in two beliefs: that action in the here and now is imperative, and that one's commitment to a certain course of action, if perceived to be God inspired, should be of an enduring nature); (3) declarations about the will of god for the united states and the values of freedom and liberty; and finally (4) an intolerance for dissent(apparent in the administration's unified voice in public communication, its appeals for other political actors to act with political unity and its harsh criticisms of dissenters). In each of the chapters that follow, one of these characteristics is defined and discussed in detail, with evidence offering its consistent presence in the public communications of the president between 11 September 2001 and 1 may 2003.

In chapter 2 he examines the presence of two binaries in the president's discourse and news coverage after September 11- good versus evil and security versus peril- and argues that these conceptions of reality reflected and contributed to a sense of moral certitude among the bush administration that was used to justify limits on civil liberties and major preemptive military action while also helping to engender public support for the president and administration's "war on terror".

Chapter 3 offers evidence of time fixations throughout the administration's discourse and news coverage, and argues that they allowed the administration simultaneously to push for immediate action on specific "war on terrorism" policies and to justify this desire as a requisite step in a long-term, God- ordained process. The implication was clear: to not act quickly or to not endure in the campaign against terrorism was to risk another September 11.

In chapter 4 evidence is offered of how the universal gospel of freedom and liberty, offered by the president and echoed by the press, functioned as a central rationale for the administration's foreign policies, particularly in justifying the new preemptive doctrine and the Iraq war.

Chapter 5 focuses on how the administration's emphasis upon political unity and harsh rebukes of those dissented worked together to encourage support for the administration, and to suggest that anyone who held opposing views was unpatriotic and potentially placing people in the United States at risk.

Chapter 6 reflects upon the collection of evidence, in three central sections. First, it argues that the Bush administration offers an instructive case study of how political fundamentalism can gain wide support in the United States. The chapter's second section scrutinizes the role of news media in these processes, with the argument that in a nation-challenging context, commercial mass media are drawn to the discourses of political conservatives, particularly those that are religiously grounded. The final section of the chapter explores how cultural leaders might craft a moral discourse that counters the predominance of political fundamentalism, and why it is crucial for U.S. citizens and others that they do so.

Chapter 7 offers conclusions, focusing on implications of the administration's political fundamentalism for democracy, both in the United States and globally.

In the way the writer brings a rigorous analysis of a wide range of empirical material, David Domke's work is of great value to study. However, to what extent his work can contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between religion, politics, and the media is a matter of question. Some scholars may find it the role of religion has been exaggerated. Some scholars may question the way he has analyzed meaning formation and reception in media as it is a subjective matter. Nevertheless, the book very well clarifies how the actions of the Bush administration and the news media are directly counter to fundamental American democratic ideals and principles. It shows how civil religion is used to promote its political goals and to justify self-interest. So "God Willing" is a must-read for anyone who cherishes American democracy, anyone who feels uneasy about the Bush Administration's use of religious images, as well as those who have concerns about the way the press helps Bush advance his agenda. However, the potential and necessity for further discussion on the subject exists that can encourage other scholars.

READ MORE - God Willing? Political Fundamentalism in the White House, the 'War on Terror', and the Echoing Press

First Lady Comes Clean

By Karen Miller
Have you ever purchased a book everyone is talking about and get hit with the seven words George Carlin explained that you can't say on television? I don't know about you, but I don't think a story line is enhanced by the use of words most people would not say in front of their mother.

First Lady of the United States, a political mystery by Anthony Scott, has taken fiction writing to a new high by avoiding the use of those seven words and any other words mom would have washed your mouth out with soap for saying before you were ten years old. Scott avoids using swear words and creates some interesting euphemisms for things other authors go into graphic detail describing. It is a refreshing work and one you can confidently suggest reading to anyone from your golfing buddies to your friends at church.

Scott states he was reading a novel by one of the better known authors when he noticed the over use of swear words. He was distracted from the plot of the book and did not want his readers to experience the same fate. He wanted a book he could give to the pastor of his church and not have to worry about any language offending him.

First Lady of the United States is a novel about a former First Lady who wants to become President. While it sounds like a current political situation, the book was a dream of Scott's for many years. He claims any resemblance to a current candidate for President is purely coincidental and should not be construed as a political statement. The book begins with the former President of the United States dying in an attack on his wife's campaign plane. The plane is shot from the air as it takes off from Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport. The question everyone asks is "was it a terror attack or a personal vendetta?" Scott weaves an intricate plot of deception as the two investigators search for the solution to the attack.

"Writing this book was fun" claims Scott. "I spent hundreds and hundreds of hours on research making sure the book was correct in geographic, political and historical terms. We drove around Bush Intercontinental looking for the perfect spot where someone would be able to fire a shoulder launched rocket at an aircraft as it was taking off or landing. I hate to admit, we found several".

Scott was able to conduct significant research in his office while surfing the internet. "You would be amazed what you can learn with the right search on Google. I learned about missiles, the Secret Service, FBI and the Carnegie Deli. Of course there were a couple of times I hit sites that let me know in no uncertain terms I was not authorized to be on them and could be prosecuted if I proceeded any further. Needless to say I got off those sites immediately".

First Lady crosses all political lines. It is a mystery with a political base. Someone who enjoys mysteries will enjoy the book. As you read, you ask yourself, "How far would someone go to win the White House?" Scott gives many clues as the book builds to a "Wow" ending.

The book is also about the relationship between two investigators, and their work to solve the crime of the century. Scott brings the reader into the dialog between the investigators and their superiors. You feel as though you are a part of the team.

The story lends itself to a potential movie. Scott claims to have written specific characters with an eye toward the movie.

"I have a part for Fred Thompson. I wrote the character, FBI Deputy Director Carl Sampson, with the image of Thompson on Law and Order. I can see John Travolta as Mickey Hammer and Catherine Bell as his girlfriend, Natalie Evans. Of course I would just like to meet Catherine Bell."

This book is for anyone who enjoys a good 'who done it'. While it may sound like a certain political candidate, Scott is convinced if she read the book she would like it. He will be sending copies to a few former First Ladies and would love to hear back from them saying how much they loved the book. "I am hoping the book appeals to all walks of life. I want Hannity and Colmes to like it.

READ MORE - First Lady Comes Clean

A Review of Part IX of Ron Paul's "Pillars of Prosperity"

By Nick Adama
Dr. Ron Paul has published a new book this year, entitled "Pillars of Prosperity: Free Markets, Honest Money, Private Property," which contains an extensive compilation of his thoughts on economics and presents an excellent opportunity for a special book review. This the ninth and final installment of a longer review of the entire book, the full review of which will examine each individual part of the book and present a summary of the positions and arguments presented, which have been woefully underrepresented to most Americans. "Part 9 - Spending, Taxes, and Regulations" is discussed here.

In the final section of the book, Ron Paul has collected a number of miscellaneous writings on various topics relating to the free market and government intervention. The main themes which have also been examined throughout the book are prominent in these discussions, including government overspending, intervention in the economy in an effort to help the poor, and the discriminatory practices of Congress in handing out benefits.

The government's willingness to spend every penny and more that it can tax and borrow has been a frequent issue Paul has raised throughout his speeches. When the politicians can not tax or borrow further, they go to the Federal Reserve, which prints up the money to cover the shortfall. But this new money causes inflation, and the banking system contributes to the problem. Paul states that, due to the fractional reserve system, money is multiplied six times. A $1.5 billion creation of new money will eventually result in a $9 billion increase in the total supply of dollars.

Paul argues that the issue of the federal debt limit is essentially a joke. Designed to keep a lid on Congress' spending, the politicians have frequently voted to increase the limit, rather than reign in the size of government. This is like a compulsive shopper giving himself a higher credit limit care of his lenders, which is exactly like not having a limit at all. Paul also likens the practice to "making minimum payments on a credit card. Notice that the principal never goes down. In fact, it is rising steadily." Nothing can stop the government from ever increased spending, as it reaches one self-imposed limit after another with only higher limits and more spending.

The growth of government, though, is not just a problem with either side of the aisle. Paul has long argued that the Republican Party has lost its way, giving up positions that got them elected in the first place, such as cutting spending, no deficit spending, and eliminating waste in government. The GOP, though, has instead sold out to the entitlements crowd. But this has not even helped them gain more power or respect from the special interest groups, as the Democrats offer to spend even more than the Republicans on every issue.

A good example of this trend toward growing government is the issue of nondiscretionary funding. If the money must be spent and control is out of the hands of Congress, then these programs are out of the control of the people. Nondiscretionary entitlement spending, according to Paul, is a statist's dream, encouraging the welfare state at home and the American Empire spread across the world.

This government intervention and willingness to spend more money than it has is the true cause of the growing gap between rich and poor. Congress, though, only proposes more welfare and intervention, rather than examining the source of the problems. But increasing federal welfare funds also increases federal control and fosters dependency. The recipients are dependent on government for their money, and the bureaucrats are dependent on more people being on welfare to provide job security.

Paul's solution to the welfare problem is for government to end the huge tax burden on individuals so that they have more money to donate to charities to help the poor. Whereas government destroys culture and creates dependency, charity encourages self-reliance. Paul writes that, "The history of the failed experiments with welfarism and socialism shows that government can only destroy a culture; when a government tries to build a culture, it only further erodes the people's liberty." People who are able to keep only small amounts of their paychecks can not afford to contribute to solving some of these social problems.

Another problem that could be solved with fewer regulations and lower taxes is that of minimum wage. Imposing wage controls on the economy drives a wedge between the supply of labor and demand for labor. This actually increases unemployment, the one problem that the minimum wage was designed to fix. Paul proposes lower taxes and deregulation which he argues would promote job growth.

But the spending, inflating, and government intervention is not just a problem itself, according to Paul. Another more serious issue is the discriminatory means by which Congress hands out its benefits. While it has passed laws to make it more difficult on the average person to discharge their debts through bankruptcy, Congress has bailed out several high-profile institutions using taxpayer money. Lockheed Corporation, the City of New York, Chrysler Corporation, and the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund are just a few of the companies or governments that Congress has considered taking money away from poor and middle class individuals and giving it to the fiscally-incompetent wealthy.

Even before these private corporations or governments get into enough trouble to consider bankruptcy, they can receive billions of dollars of the people's money in corporate welfare benefits. For example, the two largest beneficiaries of aid from the Export-Import Bank are Boeing Corporation and the nation of China. It is inconceivable that the poor and middle class of America should be subsidizing corporations and competitors in foreign nations.

Before Enron collapsed in late 2001, it was also the recipient of billions of dollars in welfare. The company was one of the largest beneficiaries of the Eximbank, receiving nearly $600 million courtesy of the average American. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation also provided the company with nearly $1 billion to pursue twelve projects in foreign countries, many of which turned out to be complete wastes (the power plant Enron financed and built in India remains unused to this day). The funding provided to the company in the form of loans will not be repaid, and the bill will end up being paid by the average American.

Companies like Enron also benefit from indirect government intervention in the market. The fact that the company met all of the regulations and rules required by the Securities and Exchange Commission gave investors, trusting in government institutions, a false sense of security because their financial statements were not in question by the SEC. The easy credit provided by the Federal Reserve also allowed Enron to receive uncollateralized loans from large banks. These loans also will most likely never be repaid now.

Of course, no government intervention would be complete without a contradictory intervention to complete the cycle of irony. On one hand, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations (which Paul would get ride of) in the wake of Enron's and Worldcom's collapse, which were designed to provide more openness in financial reporting. On the other hand, they continued waging a war against the financial privacy of individuals with more attacks on personal liberties after 9/11 under the banner of the open-ended War on Terror. Concealing their own intentions to attack financial privacy rights of the people, these previously rejected proposals were resurrected, colored with the broad brush of "fighting terrorism," and thrust on a fearful public.

Throughout this book, Ron Paul's consistent message has been that of limiting the power and size of government and increasing the liberties and power of the people. The enormous tax burden on the people, along with thousands of regulations interfering in the free market, and the unaccountability of an overspending, inflation-creating government have significantly eroded the people's awareness of their own power to control the government that has supposedly been created to protect their life, liberty, and property. Paul has always stated that it was his intention to leave a record of his beliefs on the proper role of government and practice the principles he holds regarding government intervention into welfare spending and the free market. This book, Pillars of Prosperity: Free Markets, Honest Money, Private Property, is a valuable part of that record and shows that the Congressman is one of the few politicians who believes that the principles of liberty are what make this country great, rather than the politics of special interests.

READ MORE - A Review of Part IX of Ron Paul's "Pillars of Prosperity"

The Appeal

By Nola Redd
In John Grisham's newest thriller, he neglects his usual courtroom drama in favor of dealing with the appeal process - and the related political process. Up until now, Grisham's novels have pretty much followed two separate tracks. He has penned thrilling fiction that keeps you hooked, as well as making a few more literary novels that convey a theme. In The Appeal, Grisham has combined the best of both, giving us a "fun" novel with a purpose.

The trial is finished, and the jury has voted in favor of the plaintiff, returning a multi million dollar ruling for those wronged. Now the appeal is in the works, headed towards the Mississippi Supreme Court. But the owner of the offending chemical plant is convinced that the Court needs to be changed. And so begins a new campaign effort to create a more friendly environment for his case.

Although The Appeal doesn't have the edge-of-the-seat action of The Firm, The Client or The Pelican Brief, the reader is still drawn into the tangled web created. And the world that Grisham reveals should make everyone think, not just Mississippi voters. Don't get me wrong - the story is great, the characters believable, etc. But what I think makes The Appeal stand out is that it has a purpose other than entertainment, while managing to entertain, something that novels like Bleachers and The Painted House just don't seem to do well at.

What do we learn from the novel? There are lessons that apply if your state votes in members of the State Supreme Court, and those are the most obvious. But in the background is a question that should touch every registered voter in the United States - just how much does campaign financing, ads, and entertainment factor into our electoral process, at any stage? I wonder how informed of a decision most Americans make when they turn out to vote. I wonder how many of them bother to double-check statements made by one campaigner about another. What was taken out of context? What was misplayed? How many "errors" do we remember, while not even noticing the corrections? Personally, I'm the kind of person who checks all of my email forwards on Snopes to verify them, but I am ashamed to say I don't do that in regards to campaigns. Do you?

Grisham has timed the release of this novel at a crucial point for Americans - in an election year. And though I am sure most Americans will continue to wander to the polls like thoughtless sheep, I hope that some of them will reflect on the lessons learned in The Appeal and make educated decisions this year.

READ MORE - The Appeal

Book Review - Current Events, Conservative Future, by G A Freiman

By Richard R Blake
Fighting Fear with Knowledge and Vision

Today Americans are faced with unknowns, the uncertainty of the economy, the threat of terrorist attacks, and a concern for our nation's leadership and respect around the world. In his book "Current Events, Conservative Outcomes" G. A. Freiman talks about, and analyzes these fears in light of current events with predictions for America's future. He uses information he has received in the form of a visionary process, meditation and reflection, as well as through life experiences and his own educational opportunities.

Freiman has an innate passion and love for America. This is reflected in his writing. His writing is deeply spiritual, expressive, and logical. Freiman's sets out to help the reader form honest opinions on politics, religion, and social issues. He hypothesizes on political correctness, the threat of terrorism, the impact of global warming, poverty, abortion, and euthanasia with clarity, perception and forthrightness.

I found the questions that accompanied each issue thought provoking, meaningful, and practical. The reader was also shown action steps could take to have an impact on the future, in personal areas, the political arena, or on social issues. Freiman's predictions on American culture provide important insight and are worthy of consideration even for the skeptic of physic phenomena.

Although the book's title may limit its audience, this is a book for liberal and conservative a like. It is a call for positive participation and a dedication to create a better future for our children and for those generations still to come.

Frieman's approach draws the reader into a personal assessment of their faith. He helps them take a fresh look at the meaning of life, at root causes, into global thinking. He invites the reader to consider their relationship with God, His creation, and with all of humanity. "Current Events, Conservative Outcomes" is highly perceptive, entertaining, and thought provoking.

READ MORE - Book Review - Current Events, Conservative Future, by G A Freiman

Bill O'Reilly Gives Hillary Clinton The Stink Eye, "You're Going To Bankrupt The Country!" - Economy

By Paul Davis
Senator Hillary Clinton in her best interview ever cordially responded to shock meister and hatchet man Bill O'Reilly.

Hillary showed much class and composure, while assuring Bill that she was a fighter and had every intent of saving the American economy from 8 years of Bush Co. policies.

Senator Clinton vowed to fight greedy health care companies & OPEC in an attempt to save the American economy. Hillary told O'Reilly, "Health care is a moral issue."

Bill who said, "I and your husband make a lot of money. Are you going to take it all away?" referring to higher taxes. Senator Clinton mentioned suspending the gas tax and taking on the OPEC monopoly.

Committed to safeguard and increase accountability throughout the health care industry, Senator Clinton reiterated the need for universal health care coverage for all Americans.

O'Reilly giving her a bit of the stink eye in disbelief as to how she would fund this endeavor replied, "You're going to bankrupt the country." O'Reilly cited bleak economic stats concerning deficits in the states of California and New York of $20 billion and $5 billion respectively.

Nevertheless Senator Clinton provides the American people far more hope than President Bush who has already bankrupt the country with a needless war in Iraq and an ongoing terror campaign throughout the world to further alienate our allies.

With two oil men from Texas currently in the White House, gas prices are at an all-time high and you don't have to wonder who is profiting the most. President Bush may not have as he recently said "a magic wand" to fix the economy, but he and Dick Cheney certainly are profiting rather handsomely from all of this uncertainty as a result of their global war effort to derail the economy.

America needs a fighter in government to take on the establishment and reform the status quo. Between the three candidates left for the American people to decide upon, Senator Clinton in her recent interview with O'Reilly has shown she's got the backbone to confront corruption in high places and not cower in the face of an ugly adversary.

Surprisingly, Hillary has proven to be at her best under pressure.

Paul Davis is a highly sought after worldwide professional speaker, purpose coach, and change master transforming organizations and empowering individuals to live their dreams.

Paul is the author of several books including United States of Arrogance; Poems that Propel the Planet; Breakthrough for a Broken Heart; Adultery: 101 Reasons Not to Cheat; Are You Ready for True Love; Stop Lusting & Start Living; Waves of God; Supernatural Fire; God vs. Religion; and many more!

Paul's compassion for people & passion to travel has taken him to over 50 countries of the world where he has had a tremendous impact. Paul's organization Dream-Maker Inc. builds dreams, transcends limitations, & reconciles nations.

Contact Paul to speak at your event or for consulting:

READ MORE - Bill O'Reilly Gives Hillary Clinton The Stink Eye, "You're Going To Bankrupt The Country!" - Economy

Phillips' Thirty Year Vision of Conservative Rule Might Be Coming To A Close

By Dennis Francis
In this time of political change, we are reminded of the early 60's harbinger of change; the implementation of the Nixon Southern Strategy. There was a time back in the sixties, when the vast majority of working people unabashedly called themselves Democrats. Many Republicans and Democrats called themselves Liberals.

After thirty years of intense Conservative marketing, calling yourself a liberal seems to be as popular as calling yourself a communist. The man who predicted the tectonic political shift was a scholarly man by the name of Kevin Phillips. If you have some time to kill, read a book called The emerging Republican Majority.

Mr. Phillips wasn't the architect of the infamous Southern Strategy but he did, like John the Baptist, foretell the coming change in national preference. And like old John, Mr. Phillips was shuffled off to obscurity after divining the future.

The idea of political parties in the U.S., was frowned on at the birth of the country for many reasons including the polarization that it would cause. Remember that the country was not completely united against England. Many of the very wealthy fled to Canada and back to England during and after the war.

The real sentiments that preside in this country more closely follow ideology than party. For instance, the Democrats of today would not want to admit that they were once the party of slavery or the party of political fiefdom. The modern Republican party can't even remember the days when they were the liberal reform party. The party of progressives who sought to free the slaves, the founders of women's liberation and the original pro choice movement.

What we really have is an age old split between the idea of who should govern. The conservative movement, verses the progressive movement. This ideological divide was evident during the constant struggle to form our style of government. The enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke, David Hume and others were influential but so were biblical scholars and theologians. The constitutional compromises favored the liberals but the conservatives have never given up.

Many people consider the word liberal to be a slur these days because of the concerted by the conservatives during the 1980's. They were able to wrest the white working class voting population from the Democratic party during Richard Nixon's campaign by subtle race baiting and class division.

The infamous "Southern Strategy; created by Harry Dent created a long term division in the Democratic party. It divided the country into what we now consider the Red and Blue states. Kevin Phillips accurately predicted that the Republican party would by the seventies, incorporate the conservative philosophy, organize the disaffected ethnic whites who were traditionally conservative and create a wedge of class and ethnic hostility toward Jews, "Negroes", Latinos and Northeastern white intellectuals who were considerably more liberal. He gave the strategy about 30 years to take hold. Phillips was right on the money.

The strategy is not talked about these days because to discuss it would mean opening up a political wound in regards to race, ethnicity, xenophobia and class issues. It would expose the conservatives to be more interested in power for the sake of power than the grand Republican ideology of sound but limited government and fiscal responsibility.

The shady cabal who gave us the union of the Religious Right and the Sir Edmund Burke Conservatives will have us believe that they care for the common man.

The idea of the Liberal elite came about in the 60's as a way of explaining to the white ethnic working class voters ( Northern Europeans, Irish, Italians, Scandinavians, ect) why the Democratic party's Intellectuals were favoring the "Negroes" and "Latins" who were moving up from the south and the southwest to the Northeast during the early 50's and 60's. The emergence of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as major candidates for the office of president has thrown the specter of race and class again into the

Phillips, the herald of the Conservative age who although marginalized by his peers; was proven prophetic. His forecast of the political trend's longevity foretold it's end in the beginning of the 21st century. Will he be proven right again? The Liberal elites might also lose their clout a new emerging power; the collective purse of the web populace.

Ron Paul is waging a quite revolution in the country. The Goldwater Libertarian is grabbing cash and taking names. I recommend that you pick up a copy of Phillip's book at a bookstore near you.

Dennis Morales Francis is a consultant and coach for business professionals and wellness practitioners. His website, offers its members online coaching on building Internet income and automating their marketing on and off the web. Dennis is the author of "Double My Revenues In 12 Months or Less".

READ MORE - Phillips' Thirty Year Vision of Conservative Rule Might Be Coming To A Close

Do We Dare With-Obama?

By Dennis Siluk Ed.D.
Obama is not the right person for President, period. Why? We judge a person by whom he hangs around with, what is said, and if he stays in the same house with the person he says is doing wrong, and we so judge this person accordingly. It took him a long time for him to make that decision, with a lot of apologies in between to leave his church domain. We judge everyday, ever decision we make. To be frank, none of the three candidates are fit for office, but I fear Obama, is the worse of the worse, Clinton, whom I do not favor either is the best of the worse. This of course is my opinion. But I have looked, as the nation has looked closely at his background, as we should, and what he says, and where he came from, and where he goes, and who he hangs around with, and found him needing. He regrets he has had a negative relationship with a church recently, that is recently, I wonder what that church has talked about for the last twenty years, it by their own tongue, anti white, anti everything but Muslim and black, so it seems, and under the roof of Christianity "Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content three with, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbade them that would, and cast them out of the church." (Epistle of John) they talk it, they salute it, and all in the name of Jesus Christ. They scorn Clinton, as if she should be hated, "But he that hate his brother is in darkness, and walks in darkness, and know not whither he goes, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes." (1 John). God gave to John a message he said, "...try the spirits see if they are of God: because false prophets are gone out into the world." This is Obama's church in a nutshell.

I hate to tell them, but Christ was not black, nor was he white, he was Jewish, and we know what a Jew looks like, do we not, and what comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, and so we know the heart of the church, and perhaps a good portion of the heart of Obama. On the other hand, he has a slight bend to the Muslim agenda. On one hand this is seen as a gift, for both sides of the world, on the other it is very suspicious-like taking his middle name out of his full name, and not exposing the fact his father is Muslim, they had to pry it out of him, because he wants to hide the fact for the present, until he makes president, he is of the Muslim code, or could be. Even Satan can go into a church and bend his knees with the rest of the crowd, and walk out smiling. It does not mean he is for Christ, his ways his heart. And one cannot afford to guess who is sitting in the White House.

He is pro gun control. If he could, and he may have the chance to, he'd take the guns away from everyone in America, everyone that is, but his bodyguards. Perhaps he will also join the International Court that will end the active role for our military around the world as a superior power, tie their hands. Also, he will give the United Nations all they want, at the expense of the American Tax payer, now we give twenty-billion of our money to feed the empire of the UN, while our own unfed, remain unfed. This would pull the rug from under the chair right out from the poor.

He has never served a day in the military, and I do not think is qualified, to control the military, why should we give him control of something he knows nothing about. It is like giving a backyard car mechanic, the go ahead to fix the 747 Jet at the international airport, whom will carry all the food, arms, money, and congress to its next destination. I spent eight years in active duty, one in war. And he wants to be Commander and Chief, where is his qualifications, in this area I would and could make better decisions, and I do not feel qualified. God help us all, if he is president.

READ MORE - Do We Dare With-Obama?

The Revolution - A Manifesto

By Tommy Leung
Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential Campaign will not likely be forgotten soon. His supporters are amongst the most dedicated and intense in the political field. I can certainly claim so as I am a supporter of Ron Paul and were amongst those who donated money to his campaign on both record breaking days in November and December of 2007. It is without doubt that I will continue to spread the message of limited government and free markets. I had always believed in these ideas. What Ron Paul brought for many people, like myself, is a name and place of gathering for these ideas.

It is a forgone conclusion that John McCain will be the Republican candidate but, Ron Paul's campaign will continue long after we vote for the lesser of the two evils in November. His latest book, The Revolution: A Manifesto is an excellent beginners resource to the views and ideas that he has been talking about all throughout his campaign. The Revolution is a perfect book to introduce or re-introduce the traditional American ideals to our friends, families, and loved ones.

Paul eloquently puts forth his views on a non-interventionist foreign policy, our Constitution, economic freedom, civil liberties, and money. He also includes a reading list for those who want to get an even deeper understanding of the topics. There are few men or women in politics who are as well read and knowledgeable as Ron Paul; his reading list clearly shows us why that is. In The Revolution, Paul has managed to condense his knowledge of these subjects into 167 pages and made it easily accessible to the masses.

I was already convinced of Paul's message long before I read The Revolution: A Manifestoand with that in mind, I must say that there is still much to take away from this book. Where 30 or 90 second soundbites fail to capture his ideas in debates or television interviews, this book brings together a much more thought out and well prepared argument for a return to the ideals of our Founding Fathers.

The most fitting comparison that can be given is a comparison to Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Our circumstances are not identical and the problems at hand are different but the principle is the same and that is what really matters. Where Paine argued for American independence in a style that ordinary folk could understand, Paul argues for a return to a Constitutional form of government in a style that ordinary people like you and I can understand.

Ron Paul has been called the Thomas Jefferson of our time. I am sure that Jefferson along with Washington, Franklin, Adams, and the rest of our Founding Fathers would be pleased with the ideas brought forth in The Revolution: A Manifesto.

READ MORE - The Revolution - A Manifesto

People Decide Whether There Should Be More Or Less Government Involvement

By Joan Reinbold
Even though Dr. Paul was a presidential candidate, there was another aspect to his being a candidate. He shared the message of lower taxes, a foreign policy that is non-interventionist but not isolationist, domestic security, the rights of individuals, the economy stabilized, and government as called for by the Constitution. It is a message of going back to basics and having the country be as it started out.

Dr. Paul is not out to reinvent government. He points out that government as we now know it is not how the United States was set up to be run. He asks questions concerning issues but too often his solution filled messages are blocked.

As a physician he has an analytical ability, thirst for knowledge, and understanding of human nature. His political opinion is based on being well informed and from hard won experience in government. Combined with integrity and persistence you find a statesman seldom seen in the political arena. He is someone you can trust and people are excited about his message.

He has brought about cooperation between distinct groups throughout the country with his message. The same message that has been a part of his long term political and medical careers: individual rights and liberty.

People talk in terms of their apathy being healed. There is greater involvement in politics at the local and national level. Perhaps as a son, brother, husband, father, grandfather, uncle, physician, friend, and Congressional Representative he is also just someone who cares enough to want to make this world a better place.

There is a story that's been around from about the time Dr. Paul started in public office. It is a reminder and perhaps an encouragement for people to voice their opinions and take action to find solutions to the world's many problems.

The story is called Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes by Eleanor Coerr with illustrations by Ronald Himler. It is based upon a real child.

The real life Japanese girl was Sadako Sasaki who lived a short life from January 7, 1943 to October 25, 1955. She was two years old, living near Misasa Bridge in Hiroshima, Japan, when an atomic bomb dropped on the city exploded about one mile from her home. It was August 6, 1945. She developed what was called "an atomic bomb disease" ten years later. This is better known as leukemia. She was hospitalized on 21 February 1955.

Her friend Chizuko Hamamoto visited her in the hospital on August 13th and made her an origami paper crane. Chizuko told Sadako about the Japanese saying that if a person folded 1,000 cranes then their wish would be granted. Sadako did fold the 1,000 cranes by the end of August and even more. For paper she would use paper from medicine wrappers and even asked other patients to for the paper used to wrap get well presents. Chizuko also gave her paper from school. Her family was with her when Sadako died on the morning of October 25, 1955. A collection of her letters was published by her friends and classmates after she died. Their goal was to build a memorial to Sadako and all of the children who died from "atomic bomb disease". The statue was unveiled in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial in 1958. The plaque at the base reads:

This is our cry.
This is our prayer.
Peace in the world.

Dr. Paul is a leader who has been consistent in being knowledgeable, using common sense, and courage in the face of opposition. He wants the best for everyone. He doesn't give up. Perhaps with history continuing to repeat itself, taking a look at this voice of reason will result in a new path for people to follow so that there will be peace in the world.

Is Dr. Paul a modern day hero? Do we need a hero in this age of instant communications? From ancient mythology to modern day the hero/heroine stood up to fight against wrong. They have faced challenges, failed or not, but kept going. They fight for individuals and have a moral standard that results in trust by others.

But then heroes/heroines are not liked by everyone. They stir up controversy. They are hated or liked but may be respected for doing something. We're all heroes/heroines in the waiting. Our heroic action could happen when something bothers us just once too often or something is too extreme.

His point of view is to return control of issues to the local level, to an individual level. The local level of dealing with a concern allows for a unique perspective. This view is based upon local values and understanding from an individual's perspective and involvement. A home voice empowers people to become involved.

READ MORE - People Decide Whether There Should Be More Or Less Government Involvement

Review - "The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder" by Vincent Bugliosi

By Tom Watt
Interested by the premise of the book "The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder" given the prolific nature of the author (Bugliosi being the prosecutor of Charles Manson), I decided to read and review it. The book is broken down into two main sections, the first being the rational for why we should prosecute Bush, and the second being the logistics and legal framework of an actual prosecution of Bush. While the book essentially lays out the rational that Bush should be held accountable for his actions, and that it is legally feasible for him to be prosecuted by any district attorney in any county where a soldier has been killed while serving in the Iraq War, the book bases itself on the conviction that Bush knowingly misled the American people and Congress into a war.

The author spends the first hundred pages of the book, with what amounts to little more than personal attacks upon the Bush Administration and desperate emotional pleas such as, "can you imagine if it was your son who was killed in Iraq and came home 'unviewable' in a box? Yes, your son Scott, or Paul, or Michael, or Ronnie, Todd, Peter, Marty Sean, or Bobby" (Bugliosi, 31). It is exceedingly ironic that an author who is writing a book for the express purpose of exposing what he believes to be a deception of the American people based on emotion and fear inspiring remarks about the possibility of an attack by Iraq on American soil, would use the same emotional/fear based remarks time and time again to try to sway people into thinking with their heart rather than their brain.

If we can for a moment pass over the first half of the book, and focus on the second half (the part that is actually interesting and novel) I found Bugliosi in his prime. In reading I focused much more on the case against Bush rather than the very detailed legal framework and basis for such a case. Bugliosi portrays a startling prosecution of George Bush, that I felt I needed to cross reference (given the at times less than objective nature of the author's writing). One of the most interesting points that Bugliosi makes in presenting evidence that George Bush purposely misled the nation into war, comes in his analysis of the previously top secret National Intelligence Community's report entitled "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction" (better known as the National Intelligence Estimate) and what has become know as the White Paper (the "abridged" version of this document which was released to Congress and the general public in the weeks preceding the decision to go to war). The author also spends a considerable amount of time comparing private statements of Bush to public statements to the American people in the build up of war, that draw into serious question, the validity of the administrations approach to the war in Iraq.

While George Bush will probably never end up in an American courtroom being prosecuted for murder, Vincent Bugliosi's book does do an exceptional job of building a case, based on original documents, for the conviction that the Bush Administration intentionally misled the American people into the war in Iraq.

READ MORE - Review - "The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder" by Vincent Bugliosi

International Blackmailing

By Dennis Siluk Ed.D.
We kind of knew this from the 1970s through the 1980s, or at least we talked about it back then, that international blackmailing would become a reality, if we did not put it in check at that moment, and we did not put it in check, and still we have not. It now is a reality, like the EU is now a reality, in the 70s it was loose talk, the ten-nations now are something like 26, but my point is this. All the third world countries have to do is starve its people, and get a few nuclear devices, and blackmailing is next. Like North Korea does, and Iran does, and Pakistan did, kept their people dumb, keep them as followers, take over the country like Burma's generals have, and Zimbabwe has, and all those other countries that get Care Packages, keep the money and buy nuclear capability, and tell the United Nations "Look at our poor people we can't feed them," and demand you get what you want, and usually you get it. If you don't mention the big bomb, and you will surely get it, it's just a matter of a process called international blackmailing. Now they can make a deal with the international community: pay us off, or else! So we send them free food, billions, and free oil, billions, and now the got the best of two worlds, and in essence didn't lift a finger for a thing. They feed their armies now with this free deliver items, and send a few packages down the street to the poor: their priority is to build their arsenals, not feed peasants, like Palestine does, and the terrorists in the hills of Colombia, they could care less about feeding the hungry civilizing folk, so we send more and more food. It is all blackmail, and it works, so why change things. And this new century has all these human right groups, and the news media to start a fire if we don't.

Point two, it all doesn't stop there, we holler we do not want our tax money to go to these regimes in Africa that are using the money to feed their armies, and nuclear ambitions, as we have done in Asia, but the good guys from the United Nations, and the so called representatives of the world, the Human Rights groups, yell at America in particular, if not directly, through the UN, and say "How undesirable and wicked you are with those folks, they are dying by the hundreds, no thousands!" So how did this come about? That is a side they do not look at. It is simple; they are killing their own people with the food they do not have to buy, which they use for weapons. They take (as in Africa) the white man's farms, give it to the black man, and he sits on it like a king, and does nothing, and after a while, it decapitates, like it has in Cuba, which I was there a few years back, and all those once lovely swimming pools, and mansions, are no better than shanties now. Good job Castro. So the money we give to the poor countries, they buy weapons with to kill their own kind, while the human rights groups run to the US, or EU, or UN, to save the day, so we can send more food or money to support the killing soldiers. I am not sure what side these groups are on, but I do know this, Satan is working overtime with planting stupid seeds in their heads.

We seem to say little about the blackmail aspect of these called third world countries, the poor boys down the black, and in most cases the reason they are poor is not because they have to be, but their government wants them to be, because they'd get their heads chopped off by the leaders, if they try jump over the poverty line, it is only allowed for a few to do that. If I was a king of one of these countries, I'd love the Human Rights groups to death, love them morning and night, even send them a free hotel pass, at any five star hotel in the country, if indeed they have one, they get their bread buttered by these folks.

I'll put it in a nutshell; we are enabling other countries to embezzle, to take our tax monies and misappropriate those funds, to kill and starve and build up for World War Three. I can't make it any plainer than that.

What is the solution? I'll say it not so sweet, but up front, and you will not want to hear it, so don't read this part then, but this part is the problem, and we are going to get rid of some of the problems right now: no one wants to hear reality, they want to live in a nutshell. Anyhow, let Israel bomb Iran, and that will take care of the nuclear issue one, therefore another ten-years, and they have enough oil to feed those starving masses if they want to. If not, well, let their president do what he does best, boast.

Second, North Korea, don't give them a dime, let them take care of their own, if the people of North Korea want a dictatorship, let them have it, it's called, create a revolution, like we did in America and fought for our freedom. In most cases, in governments, you get what you deserve, what you've supported. If the people are not willing to fight for it, then perhaps it is not worth fighting for, let the bad guys do what they've been doing, as long as it does not melt out into other societies. As far as the nukes go, blow them up. They are not going to hit South Korea, they may be strange, but they are not that stupid, they will lose the 'goat and the rope.'

Zimbabwe, let's not have a stroke over it, half of Africa is like Zimbabwe. If they can afford to bring in ship loads of arms, they can buy their own bread. If they do not want to buy bread for the masses, then we got a choice, and it should not be blackmail. Go in and dethrone the king, or pay the piper for the rest of our lives, or his, or just let him do what he does best; chop heads until someone chops his off.

The world is getting full of these so called Humpty Dumpy's who will fall sooner or later off their high towering walls. I for one do not wish to pay taxes to keep Egypt afloat, or Palestine armed, or to pacify the Human Right's folks.

READ MORE - International Blackmailing

Unborn Child Amendment - Amending the US Constitution Through State Legislatures

By Charles Kacprowicz
There can be no blacker blot on America's judicial history than Roe vs. Wade and subsequent judicial rulings that extend the age of the Unborn Child beyond the first trimester during which the mother can abort, with impunity, an unwanted Child. This incredibly evil ruling has effectively declared war on the Unborn Child, the father of the Unborn Child, the grandparents, and the young mother who in many cases understands little or nothing about the consequences of her choice. Consequences that are triggered after she gives birth to other children who she learns to love.

Congress and the States cannot overturn Roe vs. Wade with incremental legislation. When the Supreme Court mandated a "constitutional amendment" from the bench in Roe vs. Wade, it created a new "Constitution", without ratification by the States. It removed the inalienable right to life for the Unborn Child and replaced it with an un-enumerated right of privacy for the mother.

it will take several years for the States to complete their Legislative Calls on Congress instructing Congress to convene the "Single Issue" Unborn Child Amendment Convention. Our strategy is to pressure Congress into sending the Amendment to the States for ratification voluntarily. As the States complete their Legislative Calls, Congress will realize that it will soon be forced, by the States, to convene a "Single Issue" Unborn Child Amendment Convention. It is possible that Congress, under pressure from Legislative Calls, will send the Amendment to the States for ratification before it is forced to convene a Convention. If this happens the Calling States are agreeing to withdraw their Calls for a Convention. In either case, whether Congress sends the Amendment to the States for ratification or is forced to convene a Convention, the Unborn Child will be given standing as a "Person" in the United States Constitution after the Amendment is ratified.

The States alone have the authority to "limit" the agenda and authority of a Federal Convention. The States alone can Call for a "Single Issue" Convention by agreeing among themselves the purpose, terms, conditions, duration, and agenda for the Convention. Congress does not have the authority to define a "Single Issue" Convention. Congress' authority, under Article V of the United States Constitution, empowers it to convene a Convention as Called for and defined by the Several States. The Several States alone have the authority to enforce the terms and conditions set forth in this Legislative Call and Agreement between the Calling States for the Unborn Child Amendment Convention. For an accurate history of how the States controlled the agenda, proceedings and outcome of the Federal Convention in Philadelphia click Open vs. "Single Issue" Conventions. Click Incremental Legislation for a discussion of why Incremental Legislation has failed to stop abortion in America.

READ MORE - Unborn Child Amendment - Amending the US Constitution Through State Legislatures

Black Belt Patriotism - How to Reawaken America by Chuck Norris

By Alain Burrese
I have been a fan of Chuck Norris for years. His early movies helped motivate me to study martial arts, and now as an instructor myself, I respect and admire the accomplishments he has achieved, and especially like how he has helped so many kids through his youth programs. It was an honor to meet Chuck Norris, his wife, and the late Howard Jackson a few years ago when he was signing copies of "Against All Odds: My Story."

I also like that Chuck Norris has firm convictions and beliefs and is not afraid to stand by them. His entry into political commentary and endorsing causes and candidates illustrates that he is not content with sitting on the sidelines, but is more than willing to stand up and be counted and voice an opinion. Some people criticize celebrities for endorsing causes or candidates, but I don't. I respect people who stand up for what they believe in and take ACTION. Regardless if you agree or disagree with Norris, you have to respect the fact that he is taking action regarding problems he sees in America.

I've been looking forward to "Black Belt Patriotism: How to Reawaken America" ever since I learned it was coming out. Being a black belt and a patriot, I love the title. But more importantly, I respect Chuck Norris and his views, not just because he is a fellow martial artist, but because he is sincere, honest, and makes a lot of sense. I've been looking forward to his insights and suggestions on how to rebuild our country and ensure the pursuit of the American Dream is available for everyone. The book was released yesterday and I left work and immediately stopped at the bookstore to pick up a copy.

I was not disappointed!

I spent the night reading "Black Belt Patriotism" and was quite impressed. It was not what I thought it was going to be. It had much more research than I expected. In fact, there are over thirty pages of notes, containing more than three hundred references from the text. Norris did his homework!

Before I go any further, I'll address the elephant in the room. (pun intended) It is no secret that Norris is a conservative. On the cover of the book, he is described as a martial arts master, actor, and political activist. This book falls in the political activist realm and the solutions that Norris provides are rooted in his Christian faith and belief in the Constitution and those Constitution Framers and founders of our great nation. If you share his conservative views, you are going to love this book. You might even stand up and yell, "You tell 'em Chuck!" If you are liberal, you are going to disagree with many of the solutions Norris provides, and you might even be insulted because he pulls no punches with his beliefs. If you are an independent, or fall somewhere in the middle, you will probably learn a few things and ponder on others. Regardless of which camp you fall into, I believe the book has value in pointing out the problems that Norris does. If you don't agree with his conservative solutions, so be it. Figure out solutions that you back. But think about the problems and work toward solutions!

The first line of this book is, "I love America: always have, always will." It is clear from reading this text that Norris really does love America and the principles it was founded upon. He has researched the history of our country and government much more than the average person, and goes so far as to include in the Appendices; The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, and The Ten Commandments. If you study the more than three hundred references I mentioned earlier, without a doubt you will have a better understanding of our country and government, and a better understanding of where Norris is coming from. I applaud his inclusion of such material, rather than him just saying, "this is what I believe, so there." He gives us the why behind what he wrote. That still does not mean you have to agree with him, but it will most certainly education you and open your eyes to the conservative perspective in a different light.

The first chapter then goes on to lay out eight problems with America that Norris believes something must be done about. Then, it the next eight chapters he goes into solutions to these problems. These problems he addresses are: 1. Norris believes we have forgotten our roots and have drifted from the principles and beliefs that our country was founded upon. 2. America's debt. The dept by Both by the government and individuals is a major problem and as Norris points out, we must not spend what we don't have. 3. America has failed to enforce our nation's borders. Norris shares some of the Founder's recommendations regarding immigration as well as some of his own recommendations for the illegal immigration problem. 4. Norris believes the fourth major problem is that America has lost its moral compass. This is probably one of the most "religious" chapters because Chuck's moral compass is guided by his Faith. 5. The next problem is that we have devalued human life. Again, this chapter is influenced by his faith, but we must also remember that in his early movies, life was not valued that much with the high body counts of the 80s action genre. But then Norris has changed since then and is the first to admit it. What I like is that he does not try to change or hide his past, and he openly discusses that he made mistakes in his past and is ashamed of some of what he has done. 6. The sixth problem Norris takes on is what he claims is the failing of our children. Children bear the brunt of cultural decay and Norris sets out to help protect our children from predators as well as provide for them and teach them values. 7. The next problem he sees is the dissolution of the family. This chapter again focuses on a Christian model for family, and Norris also makes a case for homeschooling. 8. The eighth problem of America's is apathy: physical, mental, and spiritual. In this chapter Norris takes on the declining health and obesity of Americans and calls for healthy living including nutritious eating and exercise. He also very briefly adds that he believes people need to feed themselves spiritually as well.

As I stated, if you share conservative beliefs with Norris, you will love his solutions, if you don't, you won't find this book nearly as enjoyable. However, regardless of your beliefs, you should find this book educational.

The book is more than educational, it is also motivational. The love for our country that Norris holds is clear, and he is optimistic that Americans can solve the problems the country is facing. This is not a doom and gloom look at troubles. This is a call for action to make our country better, to make our country stronger. Norris wants all Americans to get involved. He closes the book by saying, "I've committed the rest of my life to assure that the America of yesteryear becomes the America of tomorrow. My wish is that you will now join me, and encourage others to do the same."

I highly recommend this book to all Americans. You don't have to be a Chuck Norris fan like I am to gain some valuable insights from Chuck's research into our country's history and government. You don't have to share conservative values and ideals to still learn and be motivated by his optimistic view that we can continue to make America great despite the problems we are facing as a country. You don't even have to agree that these eight problems are the primary problems of the country, even though we must admit they are issues that need to be addressed.

Chuck Norris did an impressive job with this book. It was much more researched than I thought it would be, and it has encouraged me to do even more regarding getting involved. Read this book and become a Black Belt Patriot!

READ MORE - Black Belt Patriotism - How to Reawaken America by Chuck Norris

Politics As Usual and the Move Towards Socialism

By Lance Winslow
Politics is like a drug for society as it is the catalyst, as well as the sound and fury of mankind and his slow progression. Some say that politics is no way to run the human race or our civilization, yet others swear by their leaders, who often enough turn out to be complete hypocrites. Just when you think you have found an honest politician, low and behold we learn that they are not what they purport or the media allows us to believe.

Still, whether you like the idea of the political process or not, and yes, admittedly it has a lot to be desired; it is how we do things here. And so, it makes sense to be informed about our leaders and know what's really going on behind the publicity stunts, political strategists and barrage of mass media advertising. It is for this very reason that I feel compelled to offer you a recommendation for a very good book to help you sort things out and not be fooled by the façade:

"Do As I Say, Not as I Do; Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy" by Peter Schweizer; 2005 by Random House New York.

This author also wrote the bestselling book; "The Bushes and Reagan's War." This book has chapters of some of the leading Democrats that are involved in modern day US politics. People such as the Clintons, George Soros, Nancy Peloci, Barbara Streisand, Edward Kennedy, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Gloria Steinem, and Cornel West. Once you read about some of the reality behind these larger than life celebrities and their true exploits it will leave you shaking your heads and running for higher ground.

READ MORE - Politics As Usual and the Move Towards Socialism

Mass Media and Mental Games Shaping Our Political and Perceived Realities

By Lance Winslow
What do you know? If what you know is what you read in the newspapers and see on TV, then perhaps you do not know much at all. Indeed, there are propaganda spin-meisters at every turn shaping your created realities. In fact, let me recommend a very good book to you about how political games are played at the highest levels of American Politics;

"Spin Cycle; Inside the Clinton Propaganda Machine" by Howard Kurtz (also author of: 'Hot Air and Media Circus'); The Free Press [division of Simon and Schuster Inc.], New York, NY; 1998.

This is an incredibly interesting book on how the media and politicians change our reality and how nothing is exactly as it seems. Indeed, the heart of the message after reading this book is back to that old quote; "you can't fool all the people, all of the time." Perhaps, that is what I took away from the book and maybe you will see something else, as the book is packed with the little details and reality behind the scenes.

The puppets are introduced along with all the players; it's a tribute to the reality of US Politics at the highest levels. The author notes that President Bill Clinton was the most investigated president in history next to Richard Nixon. There was Whitewater, campaign fundraising abuses, Chinese donations, Monica Lewinsky, and the author of Spin Cycle calls the Teflon man resilient and untouchable thanks to his well-oiled propaganda machine.

The book tells of secret meetings with columnists to reap the benefits of favorable publicity is all that saved the Clintons, and he admits it was masterful indeed. One of the chapters discusses Al Gore and his loss and feelings of betrayal that cost him the White House. Today we see a similar story brewing with Senator Barrack Obama's PR machine with 8:1 positive to negative articles in the media, it's no wonder his popularity, but how long can it hold out?

In my opinion, it really does not matter if you like the Clintons or not, what matters is you understand the created realities of the mass media. All informed voters ought to realize what is really going on in Washington DC and on the road to get to the White House.

READ MORE - Mass Media and Mental Games Shaping Our Political and Perceived Realities

Reconciliation - Islam, Democracy, and the West

By Munir Moosa
Leaders are always the focused personalities for the people. People follow and learn many things through their intellectual decisions. They are the voices of thousands and millions of people. People bond the rope of expectations from them. Thousands of leaders' were born and died; but only few leaves their mark of identity forever. Leaders like Quaid-e-Azam, Liaquat Ali Khan, Sir Aga Khan, Allama Iqbal, Sir Syed, etc., who is still alive today, believed in a better Pakistan and against all the odds and hardships stood their ground and helped pave the way for us. Out of these great leaders, one of the most daring and confident lady, who laid down her life for the better future of our country, was Muhatarmma Benazir Bhutto.

Ms. Bhutto was brutally assassinated on December 27, just weeks after she returned from eight years in émigré. She was not only the ray of hope for the people of Pakistan as a leader, but was also an intellect writer, whose writing was greatly inspired by most of the diplomats and International people. The much-anticipated and the most awaited new book by Late Benazir Bhutto - Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West - is released last week. She wrote this book to present the real effective image of Islam to the people with positive gesture. It is also believed that she made the last few edits to her book the day she died. Her long-time friend and adviser, Washington political consultant and lobbyist Mark A. Siegel, indicates that he collaborated on the manuscript.

In a new book released Tuesday, in New York, London and Islamabad, former Pakistani Prime Minister and slain opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto says she was optimistic about her return to Pakistan, but knew about the risks to her life. Ms. Bhutto says that she had been warned that four separate suicide bomber groups had been sent to kill her. But she was the most powerful lady, who, despite of having many threats, returned back, just for the people of Pakistan and for their rights.

After the death of Indra Gandhi, and Lady Diana, she was the person, people admired the most throughout the world. She was the queen of Pakistan. She wanted liberal democratic society, and in the result, our country has given her nothing. She was an intelligent politician. Although she was exiled for many years, but her heart and soul was attached to the people of pakistan which attracted her to come back, in order to be the voices of many innocents unheard.

Bhutto was the eldest child of former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a Pakistani of Sindhi descent and Shia Muslim by faith, and Begum Nusrat Bhutto. She was the first woman elected to lead a Muslim state, having twice been Prime Minister of Pakistan (1988-1990; 1993-1996).

Bhutto was sworn in for the first time in 1988 at the age of 35, In 1993 Bhutto was re-elected but was again removed in 1996 on similar charges, this time by President Farooq Leghari. Bhutto went into self-imposed exile in Dubai in 1998. Bhutto returned to Pakistan on October 18, 2007, after reaching an understanding with President Pervez Musharraf.

In her book 'Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West', Benazir Bhutto has revealed that dialogue between the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and President Pervez Musharraf's regime went on by fits and starts from the very outset of his rule but "these negotiations failed every time because I insisted on a road map to democracy."

"For the PPP it was essential that General Musharraf retire as the army chief of staff," she explains. Benazir's great regret appears to have been Musharraf's aversion to act on any of his promises.

"If Musharraf had fulfilled his promises, Pakistan could have had an orderly democratic transition, closing the chapter on military rule once and for all," she writes.

Benazir also reveals that she was in New York in August 2006 when Musharraf called her for the first time. "He asked for my support for a bill related to women's rights. I agreed, subject to a parliamentary committee's working out the details . . . The passage of the women's bill gave momentum to the process of negotiations, although deep suspicions existed." She writes that her first face-to-face meeting with Musharraf in the United Arab Emirates was "both long and cordial", and Musharraf's response to her political demands was positive. She writes that she told Musharraf to shed his uniform, ensure free, fair and transparent elections, lift ban on twice-elected prime ministers, drop charges against politicians and declare it publicly.

"Gen Musharraf's regime knew of the specific threats against me, including the names and numbers of those who planned to kill me. It also knew the names of others, including those in his own inner circle and in his party, who we believed were conspiring," Ms Bhutto wrote in the book.

She was assassinated on December 27, 2007, after departing a PPP rally in the Pakistani city of Rawalpindi, two weeks before the scheduled Pakistani general election of 2008 where she was a leading opposition candidate. She symbolized the unity of federation. Her charismatic appeal across the country was at its peak and she succeeded in inspiring millions of people in her public rallies during her election campaign. Her father was snoozed up by the brutal leader of Pakistan. The death and killing of her brothers Shahnawaz and Murtaza shows, that they were much popular, due to which government was not satisfied. Benazir intelligence transformed the PPP into a more liberal and social democratic party. She professed democratic values, abandoned anti social values and adopted the way of humanism. She always practiced pluralism. On her death, regardless of ethnic or political dividism, the whole nation is beating its chest in grief. Her magnetic appeal depsote of many rivals in politics made it clear, that there was an element of leadership in her, which no one have. In her last rally at Liaquat Bagh, much in her father's mode she said: "Your country and my country is at risk. This government cannot handle this. We will defend it."

The most interesting part of Ms Bhutto's book is her issue with Samuel Huntington who wrote in his book "Clash of Civilizations" that a disagreement between the "West and militant Islam" was predictable after the Cold War was resolved.

Ms Bhutto asserts in the book that the West cannot treat conflict with the Islamic world as inevitable.

The former prime minister writes that she hoped to be a catalyst for change in bringing democracy to Pakistan. She also calls for a reconciliation of Islam with democratic principles, despite opposition from extremists.

Her assassination has left a great void that cannot be filled since it takes decades to build an international icon of her, but the PPP people are showing great unity and trying to move ahead as it was the mission of bibi to move for the democratic country. For us, she has become immortal. I pay my tribute to the great lady and icon of democratic society.

She was an International icon and role models for many womens. Her courage, bravery, talent, leadership qualities can not be revived without her.

This book is an indispensable bounty for all the people.

Munir Moosa Sewani is one of the notorious, prominent and creative names in the field of Education since 8 years. He is a Master Trainer In Special Education, Post Graduate, Teacher Educator and a Teacher. He is a Freelance Writer and Photographer too. He is an author of the famous self-published storybook for children named as "The MORAL STORIES FOR CHILDREN" and has also written Biology course book for Secondary Classes. He has written almost more than 30 articles on social, health, educational and cultural issues, which are internationally recognized and published on most of the famous world wide websites, magazines and newspapers. He is also a Social worker, private tutor, career counselor, musician, lyrics writer and have multi- dimensional talents. His future plan is to write dozens of informative books and articles and to work for education and media too.

READ MORE - Reconciliation - Islam, Democracy, and the West

Stealth Jihad by Robert Spencer

By M. N. Himed
This is a review of the book: Stealth Jihad. How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs. This is the 7th book written by Robert Spencer since 2002 that supposedly warns Americans and Non-Muslims in general of the threat they face from radical Islam and its jihadist aspect. While Spencer goes out of his way to ensure that readers know that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and the title of his book suggests that he is only condemning the radical aspect of Islam, the actual words in his book testify that he is opposed to Islam in general.

His last book, The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion, warned the U.S. to "stop insisting that Islam is a religion of peace" while he bended the truth on the life of the Prophet Muhammad and focused on his life during war time.

The most intolerant religion happens to be the religion of all the peaceful Muslims that Spencer says he is not against, but who he is offending by claiming their religion is a religion of War. Even the late Benzair Bhutto claimed in her book, that Spencer is guilty of presenting "a skewed, one-sided, and inflammatory story." If a liberal Muslim like Bhutto believed this, then we must be suspicious of what Spencer has to say.

The book starts out by calmly giving us statements from Muslim leaders who say they are out to turn the United States into a nation run by Sharia law and he calls these Muslims "the most influential leaders in the U.S." One of those high-ranking leaders is Sami al-Arian who is quoted as saying "Let us damn America to death." This is a Palestinian immigrant who gained his Phd in computer engineering and has spent the last 5 years in prison. It would not be farfetched to think that most Muslims living in America don't even know who this man is.

The other Muslim leader in the U.S. is Ibrahim Hooper, a high ranking member of the Council of American-Islamic Relations. Hooper once made an offhand remark that he would not mind if the U.S. government became Islamic in the future and said he would not do anything violent to promote it. If Mr. Hooper is a leading and influential spokesman for Muslims in America, then I guess he should making a fatwa anytime soon based on his great knowledge of Islamic law. These are the only influential Muslim spokespeople mentioned, unless you consider a Muslim college student from Queensborough, NY who said "Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah" as quoted from Aaron Klein from a Muslim Student Association meeting.

When Spencer is not busy bashing Islam, he is giving the thumbs up to people who are actively fighting against the surge of Islam in America. Congresswoman Sue Myrick of North Carolina is praised by Spencer and he backs up her 10 point "Wake Up America" plan to battle radical Islam. This is the same Sue Myrick who criticized the Justice Department just for sending representatives to a convention held by the Islamic Society of North America because she thought they were a group of "radical jihadists."

It would be frightening indeed if all Muslims or most Muslims wanted Sharia law to be implemented in the West, but this is an exaggeration of monumental proportions. Spencer quotes in his book Sheikh Hisham Kabbani, a Sufi Muslim, who said that 80% of mosques in the U.S. are run by "extremist ideologies."

ISNA, a group which condemns Islamic terrorism at nearly every convention they have had since 9-11, is one of eight major U.S. Muslim organizations that issued a joint statement to Kabbani which demanded that he retract his accusation or prove it and an additional 100 Muslim groups and people have endorsed the condemnation and asked that he publicly make the financial details of the tax-exempt organizations which he runs.

Spencer's book ends with advice that we should be aware and active in stopping Muslims from increasing their power in the West and he implies that we should have suspicion towards any Muslim group or mosque in the U.S., whether they are peaceful or not. One must wonder if this preconceived notion of fearing Muslims is not a form of "stealth racism" which is similar to how Jews were perceived prior to Adolf Hitler getting into power.

READ MORE - Stealth Jihad by Robert Spencer

How to Identify the Wall of Separation Between God and State in the US Constitution

By Dennis Woods
Original Intent" is a book by David Barton about Supreme Court rulings that have stripped the Constitution of the founders' original meaning. It was published in 2000 by WallBuilders of Alemedo, Texas.

David Barton Argues Against

Separation of Church and State

The book emphasizes religious aspects of the Constitution, especially the doctrine of separation of church and state. Mr. Barton attempts to show this was not part of the original intent of the founding fathers.

The author discusses eight Supreme Court landmark religious liberty cases which followed the 1947 Everson case. The latter introduced the "wall of separation" terminology. In these he claims the Supreme Court rewrote the original intent of the founders.

Later chapters demonstrate how the new subjective standard of judicial opinion is altering the Constitution and Constitutional law in fundamental ways. The law is in a state of flux because the Constitution has become whatever the justices say it is. This new era of positivistic law began in the 1930s and 1940s.

Thesis Is Flawed

The problem with the book is a flawed thesis. The founders did in fact intend to separate the new government from the authority of biblical law. Surprisingly, David Barton actually applauds this.

David Barton states that "there is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Founders intended to build the 'wall of separation' that was constitutionalized in Everson..." (p.179). The actual words, "wall of separation" do not appear, but the wall is nonetheless set in place by Article VI, Section 3.

This provision disestablishes Christianity as the "coin of the realm" so to speak. When the Constitution says that "no religious test shall ever be required for any office...," it makes it illegal to require an officeholder to swear to govern by the Bible. It thus established the U.S. Constitution as a pluralistic and secular document. This is clearly a "wall of separation," divorcing the legal system from its religious foundation.

David Barton alludes to Article VI, but praises its effect. He asserts that, "...it was therefore not within the federal government's authority to examine the religious beliefs of any candidate" (p.34). He adds with approval that "The Founders believed that the investigation of the religious views of a candidate should not be conducted by the federal government, but rather by the voters in each state."

That is the heart of our problem. A declaration of religious neutrality by the Federal government. This would be like Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai and declaring that he wasn't going to favor any particular religion, but would leave it to the tribes.

On the contrary, it is the primary duty of government to require that its officials are committed to Christ and the Christian religion. It is cultural suicide to neglect this duty. The law of God is the only source of justice, and God expects the officeholder to swear to uphold it. David Barton fails to grasp this most basic biblical principle of civil government.

Innocuous Civil Religion

David Barton and the founders prefer a milquetoast civil religion, rather than undiluted Christianity. To quote the author, "I agree fully to what is beautifully and appropriately said in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth... -- Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law: 'not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets'...(p.70)"

"The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as 'enlightened,' by John Quincy Adams as 'civilized,' and by John Adams as 'rational.'" (p.127). As long as Christianity remains a toothless, feel-good religion, devoid of doctrine, David Barton and the founding fathers are apparently happy with it.

And this leads to another root problem. David Barton virtually always refers to civil government in terms of what it must not do respecting separation of church and state. He ignores the responsibility government has to govern pro-actively in submission to Biblical law. As noted above, his Christianity is toothless when it comes to obligations for the civil magistrate.

This rejection of God and Biblical law as the basis for the new government leads inevitably to disregard for the Constitution we see today. When they rejected the absolute standard, the founders guaranteed that their posterity would end up adrift in a sea of subjectivity and oppression.

In the end, Mr. Barton calls for a return to the "original intent" of the founders to create a limited government based on Christian principles. But the flaw in his thesis makes this impossible.

Departure from the original intent of the Constitution is not our problem. Rather, our problem lies in the seeds of humanism and religious neutrality that were planted originally in the Constitution and are bearing their evil fruit today.

READ MORE - How to Identify the Wall of Separation Between God and State in the US Constitution

Barack Obama's Policies

By Freddie Brister
Barack Hussein Obama represented his state of Illinois as a junior senator. He was the only African American serving in the US Senate before he was elected president on November 4, 2008. Almost two weeks later, he gave up his US Senate seat.

Education Policy

The National Education Association gave Obama an A rating in 2005, 2006, and 2007.

Elections and Government Policy

Obama has been an advocate of ethics as well as election and campaign finance reform.

Economy Policy

Obama wanted to federally fund rebuilding New Orleans as well as the Gulf Coast communities after Hurricane Katrina. He pushed for hearings because he felt like the Bush administration was slow in responding to the needs of the people.

He had pushed for creating 5 million new green energy jobs within his first four years. This idea was first pushed for by Senator Hillary Clinton.

National Security and Foreign Policy

Iraq
Barack was one of the loudest opponents of the Iraq War, calling it a "stupid war", even before it began in 2002. He waivered on that opposition during the elections 4 years ago. He introduced a bill to get troops out of Iraq within 16 months. He still holds this position. He has spoken against ending the war but has voted against a bill to fund the troops.

Hoshyar Zabari, an Iraqi Foreign Minister, said that Barack tried to get the Iraqi leader to halt a troop withdrawal. In July 2008 he tried to delay an agreement until after a new president was elected.

Veterans and Soldiers Conditions

Obama voted to increase standards and oversight of VA programs.

Obama has challenged the Bush administration to back a UN or NATO force in Darfur.

Energy and Environment Issues

In 2006, Obama wanted the US automakers to take 10% of their billions of dollars in health costs for retirees in exchange for making more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. He criticized the Bush administration for not pushing hard enough for energy independence.

Labor, Immigration, and Retirement Policy

In 2006, Barack pushed forth a bill that would keep congressional raises at the same rate as increases in the federal minimum wage.

Liberties, Rights, and Courts Issues

Barack supported the interests of Leadership Conference of Civil Rights, American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN), Iranian American Political Action Committee, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Council of La Raza, and the Arab American Institute.

Food and Agricultute

Barack supported the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Council of Agricultural Employers, American Farm Bureau Federation, and the National Farmers Union.

Health Policy

Barack supported the Alliance for the Alliance for Headache Disorders Advocacy, American Academy of Family Physicans, Academy of General Dentistry, American Public Health Association, American Academy of Emergency Medicine, the American Nurses Association, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, and the St. Joseph Health System.

Tobacco Control Policy

There were many tobacco laws Barack pushed for. In one of them, Barack voted for the "Display of Tobacco Products Act" and that makes it unlawful to offer for sale, give away, or display tobacco products where customers can get products through self-service.

Science, Communications, and Intellectual Property

Obama is in favor of network neutrality legislation.

Infrastructure and Transportation Policy

Barack was in favor of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association.

Social Policy

Barack was in favor of the Children's Defense Fund, Family Research Council, and American Family Association.

Writer and editor, Freddie Brister, is a former high school football coach of 25 years. His love of the game of football is reflected in his words and memories of growing up in the South and playing football in the back yard with his brother, cousins and neighborhood friends. His biggest thrill is watching former high school players he has coached play at the college level. His favorite pastime is watching college football on tv and

READ MORE - Barack Obama's Policies