Obama flies to Norway the same day Russia detonates ICBM over country

Russian Nuclear ICBM testing failure over Norway brings into question the timing of the test, occurring on the same day that American President, Barack Obama, heads to the country to accept the Nobel Peace Prize.

The amazing display of the failed test launch, as reported in my earlier article, drew speculation of wormhole devices, alien sightings, and the like. However, what was witnessed was an upper stage failure to a Nuclear Capable ICBM.

Navtex recorded a "No Fly" warning over the Russian White Sea for 0600 - 0900 on 09 December due to rocket launch in the region. For the Russians to deny launching a rocket is simply a lie. It was a planned launch.

The question that I have is simple: Why are the media outlets running the non-story of "mysterious lights over Norway" instead of asking the important questions about Russia's ICBM technologies development, the purpose of launching over Norway when the US President is en-route to that country, and what this means for the Obama administration's stance of eliminating advances in ICBM missile shields.

The media fails to ask those questions - so I will ask them to my readers!

Russian News Media Reports: US Collapse in 2010

Russian Professor Igor Panarin has been predicting for ten years that the US will collapse in 2010, but post-election uncertainty, mixed with general economic uncertainty in the United States has given Prof. Panarin's theory new steam.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

"There's a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur," he says. "One could rejoice in that process," he adds, poker-faced. "But if we're talking reasonably, it's not the best scenario -- for Russia." Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S."

He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.

California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.

"It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time." A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. "It's not there for no reason," he says with a sly grin.

Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia, one of Russia's biggest national dailies. In it, he reiterated his theory, called U.S. foreign debt "a pyramid scheme," and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington's role as a global financial regulator.

Panarin, an ex-KGB analyst, may be overstating Russia's role in the restructuring of the United States - a sort of ex-Soviet Fantasy...

However, what he has to say is highly intriguing - regarding the collapse of the US... a prediction that has been made here and on many other blogs recently. He states plainly that "mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar". Though he may be wrong about the restructuring, the wheels may be in motion on the structural collapse...

Mass immigration, upwards of 20+ million, has strained the United States economy, and was the cause for much tension throughout the nation within the past three years - including demonstrations in the streets drawing millions of individuals on both sides of the struggle.

The current economic decline has placed a strain on the people of this nation, but the government may not necessarily lose power due to the loss of income - they can create money and perceived wealth. The conflict would arise, economically, if the US is bankrupted by the demand for immediate debt repayment by Saudi's and China, as well as others who hold US Treasury debt. Such an international strain on relations would weaken the US' role in world affairs, and thus weaken the power of the Federal Government - placing an increased focus on regional governments (as indicated by Panarin in his "going gets tough" comment).

The moral degradation serves to weaken the influence politicians have on the people. As their political pull is weakened, they must substitute force - such as authoritarian assaults on civil liberties (i.e. Patriot Act). See recent political scandals from 1960 - current.

Ahead of uncertainty, the US population has armed itself - as reported on this blog - and has begun preparing for self defense from government incursions within the US. Unlike the first US civil war, the second stands to begin not as two opposing governments, but as the government against her people... a true rebellion, if you will. This is, of course, unless Obama can pull off a miracle and calm tensions in the US, and stabilize international affairs that may trigger such pressures from outside. Unfortunately, it looks like Russia is ready to strike while this iron is hot...

What our Russian friend fails to realize is that the collapse of the US would trigger world economic collapse and widespread territory grabs - not just by forces such as Russia and China, but by well armed regional forces within the United States as well. I imagine the following scenario is much more likely than the events of Panarin's proposed outcome:
* The United States Treasury is bankrupted by a Bail-out to several states' governments, but uncertain international economic times stop foreign countries from buying the debt.
* Oil imports to the United States slow to a near halt as Russia, China, and the Middle East form an alliance in the absence of the US' ability to pay it's debt
* The United States makes an appeal to the United Nations for international economic and energy stimulus, which it receives after agreeing to suspend much of the US constitution and become subject to International Law and the International Court. Obama gladly signs the treaty.
* The US Army 1st Infantry Division, currently deployed to Northern Command, is ordered to begin the mandatory collection of civilian armaments. Civilians are instructed to relinquish all weapons to the determined checkpoints within 30 days.
* Texas and other Midwestern/southern states refuse to comply with the Federal Mandate, and fall back on their State Constitutions - they call up their state National Guards to defend State Government institutions as a show of force against Federal Authority. Private Militias are encouraged for regional protection in these areas.
* Internet and telephones lines are cut - eliminating the civilian use of networking and communication
* Other private militias secretly cashe their weapons, as do private citizens in other states. The Black market opens a flood of munitions into the United States.
* Texas secures it's airspace, and ceases or confines all US military bases - taking control of all military equipment. Neighboring states' private militias assist in this effort, causing the US army to establish checkpoints in other regional states, making mass arrests and detention of free citizens now labelled as terrorists. President Obama appeals for UN Peacekeepers to assist in securing the region after first hot combats erupt during struggle for military bases.
* Alaskan forces move to secure the northern oil fields and the southern ports, as well as a troop build-up in the Bering Straight region. Alaska declares independence, taking with it the Canadian Yukon and British Columbia.
* Quebec declares independence from Canada, causing Canada's government to peacefully dissolve.
* Russian forces secure extreme northern lands formerly belonging to Canada - claiming the sparsely populated NW Territories and Nunavet - they are undisputed in these regions, but are unable to effectively advance south or into Alaska.
* The United States suspends the 2010 congressional elections, Obama suspends those portions of the Constitution under Presidential War Powers.
* The UN and NATO send forces into the Northeast to secure international interests
* Russia moves forces into Ukraine and Georgia beginning a new regional conflict
* Obama concedes the loss of Texas and portions of bordering states - opting to isolate and calm tension in the region, but refuses to release the thousands of detained militia fighters, sparking an outrage throughout the nation, and putting into question the security of the world - now entirely at war...

Of course, this is all speculation and the stuff of debates... Are we headed into a civil war / world war... economic crisis is usually a good indicator for such conflicts, so is political uncertainty. We surely have these two throughout the world. I have heard private mumblings of uncertain times - and now there is international question as to the future of the US as a world power...

As a betting man, let's just say that it is my suggestion to keep your powder dry. You may need it soon. Of course, I pray that the government stops its growth, stops its authoritarianism, stops its socialism, and stops its internationalism...

It is going to be a Long Cold (war) Winter

During the cold war, Soviet and US planes routinely escorted one another along the outskirts of one another's airspace, with the pilot's fingers surely on the trigger. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Cold War was considered over, and the Russian planes ceased their flights around US territory.

That was 1992 - This is now.

Russian bombers began flying off the coast of Alaska last year - a direct threat to US oil supply. This was the first real show of force from Russia towards the United States in nearly two decades. It adds to the increased tensions between the two nations, and may be pushing a direct threat in the face of the Georgian conflict.

Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, warned Moscow that they are playing a dangerous game by pushing the US into Cold War relations with the country.

Russia's resurgence has been made possible by the income gained from energy resources and their respective high prices. Europe's dependence on Russia for energy has given Moscow influence over the continent that the Soviets could have only dreamed of. And now that the once broken Russian government is being strengthened with Cold Hard Cash, and they sense an air of anti-Americanism throughout the world, Russia is looking beyond the Soviet era and into the beginnings of a new Russian Empire.

As this BBC report states, Russia is clearly back after the chaos from the Soviet collapse:


With the war coming to a general close in Iraq, tensions are rising as the US and Russia assert their influence - Cold War style. China is not yet a major player, militarily, though they have been a nuisance to US naval operations - shadowing US fleets and interrupting training exercises in deep waters. The US is faced with Georgia's situation, Iran's Russian backed Nuke plan, tensions due to Polish missile defense systems, Ukrainian pleas for help after Russia's claim to their territory (similar to Georgia), Russia's announcement that it plans to use a 1960's style tactic of placing nuclear missiles in Cuba, China's relationship with Taiwan and Japan, and the list goes on.

From where I stand, the 21st century is shaping up to look a lot like the 20th century. It would appear that we may have been witness to a false spring... and the Bitterly Cold Winter of War between Russia and the US is still simmering.

Enough Benefit of the Doubt – Russia’s Intentions are Clear

Earlier this week, I posted back-to-back blogs regarding the situation in Georgia. Initially I wrote about Russia’s Soviet style authoritarian tendencies percolating back up to the surface in their handling of the Georgian conflict, but then revisited the article with an attempt to give Russia the benefit of the doubt. Based on the assumptions I made in that article, Russia may have had good intentions in protecting civilian life in South Ossetia.

Unfortunately, the time for Russian action and the tone of their leaders have shown their true colors, and my initial instincts were proven correct.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated earlier this week that Georgia had been “punished enough”, indicating that it was not their intention to cease hostilities against Russian peacekeepers, but destroy Georgia’s ability to defend herself entirely.

Now Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made a bold statement clearly showing the intentions of Russia – stating that the world can forget about Georgia's territorial integrity.

"One can forget about any talk about Georgia's territorial integrity because, I
believe, it is impossible to persuade South Ossetia and Abkhazia to agree with
the logic that they can be forced back into the Georgian state," Lavrov told
reporters.

If Russia intents to absorb these provinces, there may be a greater issue. If Russia intends to liberate these provinces to a free and independent state, we may be looking at a different story. Unfortunately, all signs are pointing to Russia's intention of absorbing Georgian territory, beyond the disputed regions.

It is clear that we may be fastly approaching a new war with Russia – Cold or otherwise. What would that war look like?

Russia was defeated in the Cold War by a United States who was strong, resolute, and had growing influence around the world.

Russia is now facing off against a United States whose people are pacifists, materialists, “Capitalist Pigs”… actually, scratch that. We are no more capitalist pigs than Karl Marx – especially when 45% of Americans are supporting a Socialist candidate promising to use force to take earned profit from an industry to distribute cash to the masses. The United States is going the way of weak and socialized Europe, and Russia smells the fear. Russia used the early days of the Georgia conflict to test the resolve of the United States and the European Union (as well as the United Nations). When it was clear that the EU was at the whims of Russia’s energy supply, the UN Security Council was little more than a group of spineless talking heads, it left the United States on the podium alone.

The United State’s first response was to send 2000 Georgian troops home, by way of US aircraft, to defend the Georgian capitol. Russian Prime Minister Putin showed his outrage by stating that the US was interfering with the resolution of this conflict (which to Putin means crushing Georgia and rolling it back into Russian territory).

Then the United States began delivering humanitarian aid to the Georgian capitol, ensuring that the people have the food and medical supplies to survive the invasion, while at the same time demanding that Russia adhere to the agreed upon cease fire.

Russia has broken the cease fire, and now threatens that they will stay in Georgia proper indefinately. The time to act is now. Lest we concede that the US has become worse than Europe, we need to use a show of force in Georgia.

The United States has over 100,000 troops, who are battle hardened, in the region. An immediate troop movement of 5,000 US servicemen from Iraq to T’bilisi, with anti-tank helicopter support, Air-force fighter jet sorties over the country to ensure air superiority, and a definitive line in the sand needs to be enacted. The United States needs to show the Russians that we are willing to defend our allies. We may not need to fire on the Russians, just assert ourselves by way of our presence - then let Russia decide which path we go down.

It is not just a show of force to the Russians, but to our allies in other countries who are under increasing pressure from Moscow (such as the Ukraine). We need to become the America of the 80’s… not the Post Cold-War wienies we have become. The United States fought back authoritarian Russia once before… We can do it again.

I have seen Rocky IV – I know how it ends… Let’s just hope the Millennials (Generation Y) paid attention in their history class and understand the reason behind the cold war. The situation may slightly different, but the foe is the same.

Cold War Bias Towards Russia?

After writing my previous blog, I began reading more about the conflict in Georgia. I refreshed my history of the region, the Soviet rule of the area, the wars in the region after the Soviet collapse, and the rise of the current government.

Armed with this knowledge of the area, I forced myself to look at the cold hard facts surrounding the conflict, applying the same logic I have for other conflicts or struggles for independence, and take into account my hesitation towards anything Russian due to growing up in the Cold-War / anti-Soviet 80's. In the spirit of fair journalism, I am going to address some questions regarding the situation.

1. Is Russia's response adequate?

2. Is Georgia the actual aggressor?

3. What claim to autonomy do these geographical regions actually have?

Let me start by answering the the questions in reverse order.

3. The country of Georgia houses a couple of autonomous regions, existing in de facto independence from the Georgian government since the civil war of 1992-1993. During this war, the worst fighting took place in the Abkhazia region (in the Northwest region of the country). During this conflict, upwards of 200,000 ethnic Georgians were victims of genocide at the hands of the Abkhaz peoples and the Russian military forces remaining in the area. The Ossetian peoples of Central Georgia also declared de facto independence from the central government, intending to join with North Ossetia (which is part of Russia proper). The territories have acted autonomously, with numerous attempts by Georgian officials to extend autonomy under Georgian unity (such as statehood / confederation). The autonomous regions have refused, demanding their own independence.

By natural law, one would conclude that the cessation of violence after the civil war indicated a region of territorial delineation. That is, the de facto autonomy was recognized by both sides - both of which should be party to continued peaceful existence as sovereign territories as decided by the civil war. This is the very basis for the Declaration of Independence - casting off one form of government to create one better suited to the people, as they so desire. The territory lines of Georgia are little more than old Soviet map lines, but did nothing regarding the actual make-up of the region. Therefore, both regions have a legitimate claim to call for independence from Georgia - just as do the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to autonomy, as do the Kosovians, as do the Sioux. What is expected is fair and legal recognition of their claim.

Is it dangerous to draw map lines based on ethnicity? Indeed. But if it is necessary to establish areas of greater autonomy with a loose confederation in order to maintain peace throughout the world, then by all means, so be it.

2. The current conflict is a case of he-said / she-said. Who fired the first shot? Who started the war? If separatist forces in the autonomous regions had been committing acts of aggression towards civilians or government forces of Georgia, then Georgian forces are well within their means to bring peace and order to a region recognized as their own territory. However, reports would indicate a widely unreported series of events in which Georgian forces pushed their forces towards the South Ossetian capitol of Tskhinvali where they then began a bombardment of the civilian population. If this is, in fact, the case, I firmly believe that the Georgian government was out of line. It is one thing to send troops into the city and maintain martial law under constitutional powers, ensuring peace and rule of law. However, attacking civilian populations of another ethnicity is a crime.

3. If Georgia is, in fact, the aggressor against the Ossetian people, then Russia is absolved of my previous harsh criticism. Russia is performing the task of ensuring freedom, and ensuring that genocide is no longer a tool of war.

It is the policy of the US to ensure that the enemy is incapacitated when we enter a conflict. We ensure a swift victory and unconditional cessation of attacks against our forces and civilians. This is the tactic the Russians are employing, saving the US the trouble of having to intervene.

However, it was not long ago that Soviet forces used this same tactic to erect the iron curtain around these very same people... so it is with a cautious hand that I endorse such actions by the Russians.

Is there a cold war bias? Indeed. I feel it, as does the rest of the world. It comes in a time when Russia is still defiant, and interested in asserting their strength on Europe in the form of Energy, and the West in the form of alliances (with Iran, Syria, etc). As much as the United States is the sleeping giant, the USSR Russians are the the sleeping bear. Intervention in these conflicts could, as I hinted in the last post, lead to another conflict between the two world super powers.

It is this fact that is causing the world community to call for Russia to act with reserve.

Depending on the outcome of Russia's actions, we may see a Russia with greater influence in the region as a partner with the US in peacekeeping throughout the world... or we may see a new foe to the United States in a struggle to maintain superiority in influence around the globe.

So I ask now, what is the role of the US in defending an ally? What is the role of any super power in defending against genocide? And is there room for two super powers doing good on the world stage?

Old Habits Die Hard – Russian Empire in Georgia

Michael Phelps wins his second gold medal, the US and China continue to lead the medal count… and in page A14 news Russia invades some country.

In fact, that “some country” is Georgia.

Now before you Southerners lock and load your rifles in defense of your Southern Brothers, rest assured the Ruskies are not in the Peach Orchard…

Georgia is a country south of the Russian Chechnya region which is an ex-Soviet Republic. Georgia is also the United States’ biggest ally in the war in Iraq, second only to Great Britain.

Georgia is also a NATO Promissory – recently promised membership into the military defense treaty of NATO. Such promise of defense should guarantee instant reaction from the President of the United States:

Even after this attention, the Russians continue to attack regions of the Sovereign Georgia territory, in defiance of the United States’ call for cessation of violence.

Unfortunately for Georgia, this is not the limit of Russian involvement. In many regions of Georgia since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation has been aiding the separatist movement in Georgia, including an ethnic cleansing campaign in the early 1990’s in certain regions of the country. Georgia’s increasing reliance on Washington is cause for great concern from Moscow, who has made attempts in recent months to show greater influence in the ex-Soviet region – especially after missile defense platforms have been agreed upon for regions of Eastern Europe.

What should Washington’s response be when one of her most trusted and most reliable allies is invaded and pummeled by Russian bombs?

If we do nothing, our allies in the fledgling democracies will be increasingly hesitant to rely on the US for security in their separation from the Soviet Union (Now the Russian Federation… but led by the same groups of folks). If we do nothing, violence and murder will befall our most trusted friend in Iraq.

If we act, it may lead to war with Russia… the doomsday clock moves closer to midnight. The US has mended relations with Russia, but an act of aggression in defense of an ally could lead to a resurgence of the Cold War – this time, however, the Russians have the backing of a huge anti-US sentiment worldwide… something that was absent for so many years after the US helped lead the world to victory in WWII.

The ultimate question is this: does a country have the right to enforce rule of law within their own borders, assuming rule of law includes retention of sovereign lands from secessionist forces backed by a foreign country?

If this is the definition of a Civil War, then what role should the US take in defending an ally in their civil war if Russia becomes involved on the side of the antagonist separatists? What is the price of freedom and sovereignty?

=====Update=====
The United States has begun assisting Georgian Soldiers back to their country from Iraq, to the cry of "foul" from Russia's Putin, who said that the US presence would hamper efforts for Russia to resolve the conflict. The resolution Russia is looking for is victory, and the claiming of the territory for their own. The presence of the US means that this outcome will likely not be the case... Yes... hampering their outcome.

It happened in the USSR...

When the USSR collapsed in the late 80's, the Cold War ended. The United States was filled with joy of the end of the CW, but new threats began to arise.

Those threats were rogue states, unstable nations, and civil wars throughout the old soviet republics.

What would it look like if the US government, and it's complacent voters, continues the gap between the people and the leaders... What would it look like if the gas prices reached $4.00 a gallon and drove the nation into an economic panic, as the lower and middle class could no longer afford the basic necessities. What would it look like if the lower and middle class was systematically uprooted from their homes because of government mingling in the private housing market?

What would it look like if the US ceased to be a union of peaceful states, and instead became a series of independent states fighting for resources enough to survive?

It is not crazy... we have done it before... and as the people are less and less able to thrive, let alone survive, we march forward along the same path that destroyed the Soviet Union.

We are truly at a pivotal point in our nation's history... and our nation's existence.

Here is an interesting timeline starting in 2008... it is from a video game, but is hardly unlikely.

Iran's Goal: A Nuclear Apocalypse

Iran's quest to bring about the End-Times is as clear as listening to a speech by any one of her leaders. The self-fullfilling prophecy of bringing about the savior of man, or the next prophet, is done so by tragic warfare, with total destruction of humanity in it's current form... It would appear, to anyone actually listening, that Iran's hopes for world peace come only from making haste on bringing about global nuclear war.

This is the problem with religious fanaticism in leadership positions... such as the Iranian panel of religious leaders and the Ayatollah, in charge of overseeing all that the governemnt and people do. Their hope is to please their god by aiding the end times.

Don't believe me? Iran has been trying to obtain the technology to build nuclear wepons since before the revolution, and since 2003 has redoubled their efforts to create not just enriched Uranium for fuel, but Plutonium for bombs. All the while speaking of peaceful energy use, but ending the speeches and policy with "and by the by, we also are going to blow Israel off the map"... let me guess, blow them off the map with peaceful energy?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regularly mentions the Mahdi, the Muslim Messiah, in his speeches regarding the future of Iran and Iran's energy program.

If we analyse the events and the rhetoric, we can better understand what is unfolding.

The use of religion, or the invocation of the name of a god on behalf of one's cause has been the oldest and strongest form of coorsion in the history of man. Fighting in "god's army" has been a battle cry of both sides of countless wars throughout the ages. Most famous was the Crusades, in which the Holy Land was being reclaimed in the name of Christ. What better way to get atonement than to glorify your god in battle?

With this in mind, there is no question that the leaders of Iran look to influence their subjects, as well as Muslims around the world, who see the tasks they are undertaking as the work of the muslim god. As a muslim, or a citizen of Iran, how can you question the actions of your divinely inspired leaders? To do so would be blasphemy... and to blaspheme would mean death. So it goes, that the leaders of Iran have taken the most widely used page out of the history book, and are once again invoking religion over reason, and their loyal subjects are powerless to stop god.

Next, let's evaluate the "code words" being used by Iranian leadership. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad often talks about the use of Uranium for "peaceful purposes" while in the same breath talking about the destruction of Israel and the West. Let me explain: in the eyes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad they are not mutually exclusive... they are, in fact, one in the same. According to the story of the Mahdi, there will be peace on earth when the restores righteousness and changes the world into a perfect and just Islamic society alongside Jesus (who, of course, was Muslim and not Jewish... right?). So the peace comes when the world is controlled by Islam, and we are all subject to Islamic law. That is the ultimate "peaceful purpose"... death to the infadels, and survival and submittal of all loyal islamic subjects to the islamic leadership... I mean allah, of course!

Iran is in a dangerous bind... and that bind is tying knots in the stomach of the rest of the world.

Should Iran obtain nuclear weapons, or the capability to manufacture them, we will be within a decade of nuclear war.

I ask, if we can see the future and know what tragedies are going to come, is it our obligation to stop them?

Of course I am not suggesting all out war with Iran... but destroying the ability for Iran to enrich nuclear material... for energy or for weapons.

The alternative could be much worse.

The State of the World *Amended for a friend

Firstly, I apologize to my two loyal readers for my long absence. Life has been so busy that I shan't even start down that path!

I wanted to discuss the state of the world. As a brief overview, these are the things that are really sticking out in my mind:

US/Russo relations are further strained by Russian response to European missile shield, and begin Soviet sorties over the Arctic ocean. They are also laying claim to the North Pole, dissolving their government, and instilling a strong sense of national pride in "youth camps". Sounds like the cold war isn't over... but I have to admit, Bush's foreign policies regarding Russia have been the protagonist in this epic play.

Iran is really being a pain in the rear... which is a double edged sword. The PEOPLE of Iran are unhappy with their leadership, like the US is with theirs... but the two governments are locking in to a war of words, and per Iran, a Final Answer (similar to the Final Solution of Hitler?) on October 12th. And the huevos that the Iranian President has, wanting to lay a wreath at the WTC Ground Zero site... really... like you would expect the US president to be allowed to lay a wreath at the old US embassy in Tehran in remembrance of the Marines killed and the hostage situation of the early 80's. PLUS, Iran has been working with Syria to mount chemical weapons onto missiles, pushing for nuclear weapons, and most likely trading nukes with North Korea. I was a little concerned about Iran before, but now I fear that war with them is inevitable... which is going to bulk up support for the government and eliminate any hope for change from the people.

Syria was just bombed by Israel for trying to smuggle nukes in from Iran. Of course Syria was the country of least concern, until the Nancy Pelosis of the world began visiting them and giving them any sort of legitimacy... now we are seeing assassinations by Pro-Syrians in Lebanon, inevitable war with Israel, and more problems in Iraq from the increasingly rogue country.

And I had a discussion with a liberal friend up in Washington State as I was visiting over the weekend. She was touting the Bush/McCain immigration "reform", i.e. amnesty plan. She was talking about how she was having construction done on her house, and the first group of union workers were crap, so they fired them and brought in (what were potentially) illegals, who worked longer hours for cheaper pay with better quality. My first thought was that the union guys are a product of the union environment... where you don't have to work long and/or hard to keep your job... you have strength in numbers and that trumps any working standard (I've seen this in action... ). Then she argued that we should work to build up Mexico so we don't have them running across the border. I told her that the problem with "world government mentality" is that the US becomes some sort of a nanny to the other countries. Our country ends at the borders, therefore our constitution ends at the borders, and our involvement should end at the borders. IF the Mexicans want a better living situation, go home and fix the problem. Please come back when, and only when, you plan to accept American culture and American Loyalty... but of course the liberal agenda has worked wonders in destroying American Culture... and expanding it around the world... so now borders are blurred, and it makes no sense that governments fight because "we are the people of one world"... well... needless to say it was an interesting conversation, and as I was discussing the issues I was being bashed for my views... a common liberal tactic. Of course if you try the same tactic you can expect a lawsuit or some crap like that. (In my humblest opinion)

Anyway... I have been gone, but I have not been uninvolved! I look forward to sharing some more ideas with you all more regularly now!

God Bless!