1. IMPEACHMENT (2/4/08)

2. SILLY SEASON (3/31/08)

3. MORE FED POWER (4/14/08)

4. JACKALS AT JEKYLL

5. APPEASE AND PLEASE (6/10/08)

6. TRIPLE CROWN II (6/24-08))

7. NEW COLD WAR? (9/29/08)

8. CHECKERED PAST OF B. HUSSEIN OBAMA (10/21/08)

What this country needs is a good air tight presidential impeachment that sends the incumbent, if he deserves it, out in disgrace and to the arm pit of history.

Why? To establish the precedent and to put manners on tin horn politicians who gain the high office and ignore the Constitution and their oath to uphold it by usurping power and acting as dictators and dismantling our sovereignty and bringing harm to the country for personal gain.

But every time we have a good candidate for impeachment like Dick Nixon or Bill Clinton, and some contend Bush 43, partisan politics rears its ugly head and becomes more important than the offenses committed by the offending presidents.

Wrangling begins over what constitutes impeachable offenses or high crimes and misdemeanors. Then the bleeding heart know-it-all politicians, as in the Nixon case, try to avoid impeachment allegedly for national unity and other questionable and implausible reasons.

So, the culprits go free. New presidents come in knowing they can get away with just about anything and do so without fear of being removed from office by the only way the Constitution provides for it. They usually commit more offenses against the Constitution and the country and leave office disguised as elder statesmen with hefty perks and pensions.

We now have three such ex-presidents who have all committed such offenses, and we are about to get a fourth on the taxpayer payroll for doing nothing but breathing and dissenting.

As for honoring their oath of office to ‘’defend and protect’’ the Constitution a case could be made for impeachment of five of the last six presidents, especially Nixon and Clinton. Clinton, of course, was impeached and should have been convicted not only of the charges against him but others that partisan dickering quashed.

The full-speed attempt to downgrade U.S. sovereignty and other blatant offenses against the Constitution and the American people make the Bush-Cheney combo prime candidates for impeachment. But, sadly, it will never happen.

There is a move afoot in the little town of Brattleboro, Vt., to vote at a town meeting whether to indict Bush and Cheney on charges of war crimes, perjury or obstruction of justice if they ever show up in Vermont. Even if this vote passes, don’t expect convictions. One wonders why the voters don’t urge their congressmen to file impeachment charges unless they see the futility of it, and the vote is simply to foment bad publicity for Bush-Cheney.

IMPEACHMENT NEEDED

This writer has long maintained that the precedent of impeachment should be established in this country in order to rein in presidents who go berserk with power. It would be good if the possibility of impeachment were so strong a cudgel hanging over the heads of presidents that they would be constitutionally paranoid about taking any questionable action without having their experts consider punishment for evasion of the grand old document.

Bill Clinton was guilty of far more offenses than were allowed to be brought against him by the Senate leadership because of the acquiescence of Republicans who failed to stick together. The Nixon case was not as much a no-brainer, but there was a strong case against him even if it also was enmeshed in partisan politics.

As for the Bush-Cheney offenses, where do we start with our laundry list? For openers, how about the misguided and disingenuous invasion of Iraq without knowing about the consequences, the cost, or the aid it afforded Iran in its efforts to become the regional leader of the Middle East? His legacy may be policies that led to an atomic Iran.

Bush clearly stirred up a mess, and if U.S. forces are now pulled out, Iran takes over as the leading power in the area. It wins the war, the oil and poses a threat to world as well as regional peace. Bush is now trying to prevent this by coddling to and pampering the oil sheiks of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states with money we don’t have.

There is no use to rehash the mistakes in Iraq which in themselves are sufficient for a case for impeachment. But there are plenty of others.

OTHERS

--The run around Congress and usurping its commerce and trade authority in the Constitution to try and establish a North American Union of Canada, Mexico and the United States. This is an apparent total disregard for U.S. sovereignty in the interest of regional and ultimately one-world government.

Bush is going full-speed ahead with this lame-brain program in his lame duck year. He revealed with glee in his State of the Union speech that ‘’I am pleased to announce we will host this year’s North American summit of Canada, Mexico, and the United States in the great City of New Orleans. If the mainline press is interested, Bush just opened the door to some critical questions about the program, which has gotten little attention.

--Failure to uphold his sworn oath to defend and protect the Constitution by not enforcing the immigration laws and outsourcing the infrastructure of the nation. In his State of the Union address he again called for a guest-worker program and a way to deal with the illegals already here. He touted his administration’s efforts to control the borders, but failed to mention how many illegals have crossed on his watch. His plan so far has been what amounts to amnesty.

-Revival of the thrice defeated Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) in his lame duck months. Critics contend LOST would give the United Nations control of 70 percent of the world’s resources under the oceans. President Ronald Reagan refused to sign the treaty, which Bill Clinton later signed and the Senate has deferred action on since. Critics claim LOST would undermine U.S. sovereignty (which Bush 43 appears to have little regard for) as well as the nation’s security. They point out it would add another international court to judge U. S. citizens.

--Secrecy in government and the usurping of congressional authority by signing executive orders like the one protecting presidential papers from historians. That includes the misdeeds of such recent presidents as his father Bush 41 and the paragon of virtue, Bill Clinton. Remember Clinton sent Sandy Berger, his former national security adviser, to the National Archives to steal secrets the public is forbidden to see. Berger stuffed his socks full and later destroyed them. He got off with a fine.

--Encroachment on constitutionally guaranteed individual rights with via the Patriot Act and the use of innovative clandestine surveillance methods.

--Fiscal irresponsibility which has left the nation with record trade deficits, hopelessly in debt, the depreciation of the dollar against other currencies and a threat of a devastating world recession. The defense of the nation is also threatened if it cannot afford the sophisticated weaponry it takes to keep ahead in this age of technological warfare. Bush is now proposing tax rebates to right the economy, and the Fed is printing money at a break-neck pace. The only problem there is no money. The country is broke. The fiat money is nothing more than a quick fix.

--The president has tried to expand executive authority ever since he took office. The latest attempt is to force a state court in Texas to submit to the rule of the United Nation’s World Court. The case involves the confession of a Mexican to the gang rape and murder of two Houston teenagers. The killer was sentenced to death, but Bush intervened to try and get the sentenced overturned at the behest of the UN’s World Court. It found that the killer was not informed of his right to contact the Mexican Consulate and that this was a violation of the Vienna Convention.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Bush administration, another 50 convictions of illegal immigrants may be reversed, and many will go free. Benjamin Bull, counsel for the Alliance Defense Funds (ADF), which opposes the Justice Department in the case, said if the ruling is overturned it would ‘’transfer American sovereignty to instruments of the United Nation…’’

Judge Robert Bork in his book, Coercing Virtue, noted that the UN’s international criminal court ‘’…claims jurisdiction over every person in the world. (Incidentally, there is no love lost between Bork, one of Clinton’s former law professors at Yale, and the former president.)

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who is now a presidential aspirant, contends the U.N. Charter is not a treaty but an illegitimate constitution submitted to the U.S. Senate as a treaty. Therefore, he contends, the charter, or constitution, which was not ratified by the people, is neither politically nor legally binding on the United States or its people. It might be added that communists in the Truman administration were instrumental in forming the United Nations.

--Global Bush 43 appears hell bent on degrading U.S. sovereignty on every front. He is now decrying protectionism. It would be good to see some protection. I would like to see our borders protected; our sovereignty protected; our jobs protected; our military secrets paid for by taxpayers protected, and I’d like to see the Constitution protected as the law of the land, I also would like protection from unsafe Mexico trucks plying our highways, which Bush is supporting. Most of all I would like to see some protection from Bush. And I would like to see some protection from the myth that free trade lifts all boats.

--Another move to underpin U.S. sovereignty was the signing in April 2007 by Bush of an agreement creating the Transatlantic Economic Council, which some reports say is a forerunner for a Transatlantic Common Market. Printed reports say this pact would create a transatlantic regulatory infrastructure without Congressional approval.

It apparently would be similar to the pending American Union that would integrate and harmonize administrative rules and regulations between the United States and the European Union without public or Congressional approval.

--Still another brazen attempt to thumb his nose at Congress and the American people and to usurp more executive power is that of signing statements when he affixes his signature to a bill passed by congress. He signs the bill but points out sections that he claims he is not constitutionally required to enforce. He is supposed to enforce the entire bill or veto it. It is comparable to a line item veto of appropriations bills in which he does not have line item authority to veto any more than he does signing statement authority.

--Bush also should be held accountable for misleading the American people about the nature of Islam. He has repeatedly called Islam a peaceful religion. But he has gone even further and stated that he believes all religions pray to the same God. He is obviously about as qualified as a theologian as Al Gore is as a climatologist or internet inventor.

Bush’s statement is dangerous because it does not take into account the true goal of Islam, which is world domination. Militant or Fundamentalist Muslims, experts contend, are the true followers of Muhammad and ‘’are practicing true Islam.’’

The above list does not cover the entire record of Bush’s misfeasance and malfeasance in office but it’s enough, I think, to condemn him to the trash heap of history and to make a case for impeachment. With a record like his who wouldn’t want it ensconced in secrecy? Incidentally, most Americans must feel as I do. His job approval rating at this writing is a record 24 percent low, according to Reuters/Zogby.

George McGovern, former presidential aspirant, also charges Bush and Cheney with numerous impeachable offenses. He lists, among other things, that they have repeatedly violated the Constitution, lied to the American people, derailed American democracy, deceived Congress, illegally tapped American’s telephones and scandalously mishandled the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe.

And there is a move under way to keep the public abreast of Bush’s shortcomings and not let him leave office with a favorable image. A liberal group called Americans United for Change plans to spend more than $8 million to publicize ‘’the failures of Bush and the ideology he represents’’ to prevent Republican political candidates from using him as a role model for the party.

It doesn’t appear there’s much to worry about here.

Top

The silly season came early this presidential election year. We have had a plethora of clowns who would rule over us and corporate check books open to rule over them. Like in a scavenger hunt whoever garners the most loot wins the prize.

Every day for more than a year the media has used valuable space and air time reporting the trivial blather of the would-be presidents as their wild promises and pledges get sillier and more far-fetched. Our intelligence will become even more insulted as the show goes on.

Most of the aspirants have exited the stage now and of those left only three are viable at this writing and none of them bodes well for the nation should they become the America’s first magistrate.

The long list of primaries and caucuses, money solicitations and delegate selection has underlined to the most causal observer that the system for choosing the president is broke. The people are becoming less and less important, and they can’t even be sure their votes will be counted given the chicanery and technical problems that abound.

Standing as viable Democrat candidates (as a result of winning delegates and raising and spending money allegedly within the system) are Hillary Rodham Clinton (just barely) and Sen. Barack Hussein Obama. Super and special delegates plus ingenious caucus maneuvering may decide the winner. On the Republican side John McCain has a wrap.

So, there is not much to choose from. There never usually is, but this year there is even less. McCain is a maverick who makes one wonder if he suffered brain damage from his long incarceration in a Vietnam prison. A cognitive test may be desirable considering his age and background. The two younger Democrats are incredulous contenders and should submit to similar scrutiny.

None of the above can be counted on to secure our borders, protect our sovereignty and infrastructure, or solve the domestic problems of job loss, secure entitlement programs such as social security and health care, although they make unrealistic promises in all areas. None is eloquent or urbane enough to inspire confidence and bring dignity to the White House and the world.

The backgrounds of McCain and Clinton are better known since they have been on the scene longer. With a legitimate choice they could be rejected with no further ado. But like Texan John Hightower said, ‘’If the Gods had meant us to vote, they would have given us candidates.

Obama’s background is still hazy. He says he took a long sabbatical that included the use of drugs in his soul searching to discover who he was. Maybe he found out, but most of us are still in doubt although he has many followers that don’t seem to care.

It appears from here that he has as much baggage as Hillary Clinton, and she carries more than an air port carousel during the Christmas holidays. Since he is the newest politician seeking Oval Office fame this opus will concern him. We’ll deal with the other two later if developments warrant.

OBAMA-WHO-AM-I

It is interesting that of the thousands (one source estimates 38,000) of Christian denominations, Obama winds up joining one that some critics say is more about Africa and race than God – the United Church of God in Chicago.

Two of the church’s 10-point visions focus on the African continent, according to a dispatch by WorldNetDaily. One is ‘’a non-negotiable commitment to Africa and the other commits ‘’to the historical education of African people in diaspora.’’

Obama’s pastor and mentor has been the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a bigot himself who promotes and lauds another bigot, Louis Farrakhan, as ‘’a great man’’ despite his outspoken prejudices against whites and Jews. Obama said he consulted Wright before deciding to run for president.

He has now distanced himself from the Rev. after more examples of his hate-spewing rhetoric against the United States and white people have come to light. The exercised and ranting Rev. also has been removed from Obama’s campaign and retired from his church.

But his reprised rants provoked Obama into addressing the race problem in a major speech. Maybe some Islamic incidents may force him to deliver a speech on that subject, although he did refer to ‘’the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.’’ He didn’t say where he stood on Islam lite or Islam in general, or the operative hate verses in the Quran.

He disagreed with the Rev. Wright’s bigotry but tried to excuse it because of pent up emotions over past inequities against blacks. He said the nation was in a racial stalemate in which it has been stuck for years, but said it could and has changed. He never endorsed affirmative action but hinted at it when he said present black discriminations must be addressed.

It is incredulous to think that it took 20 years for Obama to find out about the venom the Rev. Wright was spewing against white Americans and Jews. He says he also didn’t know about his church reprinting a manifesto by a Hamas spokesman that defended terrorism as legitimate resistance.

If one believes all the denials and explanations of Obama about his questionable associations and background, here’s one that puts credulity to a major test. In his autobiography, Obama didn’t quite tell it like it was, according to a story by Jerome R. Corsi of WorldNetDaily.

Corsi reports that Obama’s father was a polygamist and chronic alcoholic who was killed in an auto accident in Nairobi while intoxicated and not the hero depicted by the senator. Obama had painted his father as a simple goat herder who became a Harvard-educated economist who returned to Kenya to help modernize its economy.

Here is some more smoke emanating from the Obama camp:

• Denouncing and rejecting ‘’Farrakhan who continues to praise and promote Obama.
• Downgrading the significance of his dress in Muslim attire while in his father’s native Kenya as simply a cultural custom comparing it to some cultures that don’t wear ties. (Muslims don’t wear ties because they think they are symbolic of a cross and Christianity).
• Claims not to ever have been a Muslim, although he clearly has family and background ties to Muslims.
• His wife cried foul over the emphasis some have given to his middle name, Hussein, which is Arabic-Muslim and not African. But Obama has not renounced or changed his name, which would further distance him from Islam. So, if he keeps it why is he apparently ashamed of it?
• Obama says he took his Senate oath of office on the family Bible and not the Quran. One wonders why his atheist mother and Muslim father and step-father needed a family Bible, which Muslims are prone to burn and atheists to mock.
• Obama waxed esoteric when he found support for legal recognition of same-sex unions in the Sermon on the Mount. He should have been on the Massachusetts Supreme Court that found John Adams’ Constitution entitled homosexual couples to marry.
• Obama denies any wrong in dealing with a Chicago slumlord, Antoin (Tony) Rezko. He now says he got more political money from Rezko than he previously acknowledged.
• He denies that tough talk about revising the NAFTA trade agreement was just political rhetoric as allegedly stated to Canadian officials by an Obama adviser.

Top

The 95-year-old constitutionally questionable quasi-‘’Federal’’ Reserve Board -- which was planned in secrecy and railroaded through Congress under suspicious tactics -- will be given even more power and legitimacy if the Bush Administration gets it way.

The plan calls for more transparency from Wall Street financial institutions, which is surely needed. More importantly, however, even more light is needed from the Fed that is responsible to no one and especially Congress. This turkey that admittedly caused the Great Depression and, critics contend, many others including the present one should be abolished, instead of being given more power to protect banks and Wall Street high rollers.

Whether Congress has the power to give it more authority is open to question, but that will not matter. Congress didn’t go by the Constitution in setting it up. The free market economy is being challenged on several fronts, and Hillary Clinton even claims the doctrine is ill-suited for today’s economy. She or Barak Obama would substitute socialistic governmental policies for the free market.

Recall that the Supreme Court before indispensable, Frank (Roosevelt) tried to stack it with yes-men cronies held that his socialist NRA (National Recovery Act that controlled industry) was unconstitutional on grounds that ‘’ Congress may not delegate its legislative authority to trade or industrial associations or groups so as to empower them to make laws.’’

Congress, of course, has delegated (presumable unconstitutionally) to the Fed its legislative authority to set bank reserves, the rediscount rate and the volume of money, and to create fiat money from thin air. Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution provides that Congress ‘’shall have Power to borrow money on the credit of the United States…’’ It also adds, ‘’…and to coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin…’’

It is unconstitutional to print fiat money such as the Fed has been doing since its existence and is doing to this day. The Constitution is clear on the point. The government is prohibited from doing so. But who cares about the Constitution or the free market place any more? Let the private unelected members of the Fed plan the economy while Congress worries about annual pay raises and perks.

The group heading the Fed is not even appointed by Congress. That authority was unconstitutionally shifted to the executive branch by bankers who wrote the Federal Reserve Act passed under suspicious circumstances. The bankers with powerful backing usurped Congress’ authority and took it practically out of the picture with its meek blessing, of course.

So the Fed has been administering congressional functions for almost a century with more concern for the welfare of banks and Wall Street than for farmers and the middle class.

The authority for a national bank goes back to 1791 when the federalists led by Alexander Hamilton proposed one to the chagrin of Thomas Jefferson and his republicans. Jefferson argued that the enumerated powers given to Congress by the founders did not include a national bank or any authority over banking whatever.

Hamilton relied on the ‘’necessary and proper’’ catch-all clause (Article I, Sec. 8) of the Constitution located at the end of the enumerated powers, which reads in part: ‘To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers…’’

Jefferson contended there was no reason for the founders to enumerate Congressional powers if Congress could do anything it wanted under this catch-all provision.

Chief Justice John Marshall bought Hamilton’s argument and the second national bank was established. But, as noted, the court ruled later that Congress could not delegate its legislative authority to trade or industrial groups to make law in the NRA case.

The Fed’s constitutionality has never been challenged and even if it should be there is little doubt that it would be reversed, some legal scholars contend. The reason is time and precedent rather than strict constitutionality, however.

EXPANDED AUTHORITY

In the present economic crisis there has been much ado in the press about the Fed extending, for the first time, its security net to include investment bankers in the form of the Bear Sterns bailout.

But the Fed that answers to no one has always done what it wanted to and has even bailed out a foreign country, Mexico No such authority was included in the original powers it was granted. It also has bailed out big banks such as Continental Illinois of Chicago, the S&L industry and others at the expense of taxpayers.

But the Fed financial umbrella has not extended to the aid of farmers or other segments of the economy. Former Chairman Paul Volcker arrogantly made it plain that the Fed’s constituency included banks and Wall Street.

PAULSON’S PLAN

The Federal Reserve Act was written in secrecy by a group of bankers at Jekyll Island, Ga., in 1910, passed by Congress under dubious circumstances and became law in 1913. The present plan to give it more authority comes from another banker, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former chairman of the investment banking firm of Goldman Sach Group Inc.

Paulson’s plan was in the works some time before the present crisis and calls for more economic oversight, including an expanded role for the Fed to look into the books of investment banks and brokerages. In addition to consolidating more power in the Fed, the plan would also eliminate overlapping state and federal regulators.

The Bush administration’s proposals written by Paulson are not likely to be enacted before Bush leaves office. They also would, among other things, merge the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and incorporate the functions of the office of Thrift supervision into the office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

CRITICS

Critics of a national or central banks have included Jefferson, Lincoln, Jackson, James Garfield, Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

Charles A. Lindberg Sr., the aviator’s father, was one of the harshest critics of the Fed during its formative years. He charged that the Federal Reserve Act ‘’. ..establishes the most gigantic trust on earth.’’

Another severe critic, Rep. Louis T. McFadden, called it ‘’one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known.’’ Some writers have been just as critical. G. Edward Griffin referred to it as ‘’the world’s largest and most successful scam.’’

The late historian Antony C. Sutton wrote it was ‘’a private money monopoly that (was) granted to a few national bankers under suspect circumstances.’’

Eustice Mullions wrote that the Fed ‘’functions as a money monopoly having total power over all the money and credit of the people.’’

PHONY MONEY

The Fed operates under a debt-money system common to European central banks for which it was patterned. The system is explained by several writers as well as by Fed officials in testimony before Congress.

Authors Theodore R. Thoren and Richard F. Warner in their book Truth in Money point out that the Fed unconstitutionally creates the money it lends out of thin air. When the Fed makes a loan, it has to create a debt, they note. It’s simply a paper transaction.

The Fed also sets reserve requirements for its banks, which retain only a fraction of their deposits to satisfy demand for withdrawals while lending out deposits several times for money created money artificially.

Eustace Mullins in Secrets of the Federal Reserve quotes from testimony given by the late Fed Chairman Marriner Eccles. ‘’If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn’t be any money,’’ said Eccles. ‘’There is nothing behind it (the phony money) except the government’s (people’s) credit,’’ which the Fed usurped.

TRANSPARENCY

As noted, there should me more transparency from this organization that is running the economic show at taxpayer expense and banker’s profit. It was created in secrecy and operates much the same way.

For example, why shouldn’t it be required to tell the people and Congress how much profit it creates for banks when it authorizes money and reserves that they can lend for multiple profit on the credit of the people?

Who are the Fed stockholders and how much do they make on the stock? The Fed will give you the routine answer that the member banks own the stock. But it doesn’t answer the question that even Congress has been unable to find out.

Mullins claims that descendents of the families that bought the original stock in the Fed still own it. Sutton, in calling for more light on the Fed’s operations emphasized that more needs to be known about its stock owners. ‘’…the very aspect of the Federal Reserve that needs to be publicly discussed is…who owns what and what advantages accrue to ownership?’’ he asked.

WHY IT SHOULD BE ABOLISHED

For openers it is a miserable failure in relation to its stated purpose that was to stabilize the economy and prevent booms and busts. Even the present chairman of this private money monopoly, Ben Bernanke, admits the Fed was responsible for the Great Depression. It also has presided over several other recessions and crashes.

It has operated for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many and clearly should be abolished. But what would it be replaced with? Several writers and congressmen have offered proposals.

As an example, former Congressman Jack Metcalf of Washington called for the Treasury Department to issue paper money the same way it does coins. This would take a constitutional amendment, however, since it is unconstitutional to issue money without metallic backing such as gold or silver.

Arthur Kitson, an English advocate for monetary reform during the Great Depression, called for a debt-free paper currency of the people that could be expanded or contracted as needed for the public good. Like Metcalfe he saw no reason why the people should pay to rent their own money from the central bank.

G. Edward Griffin, who wrote The Creature from Jekyll Island, doesn’t think a debt-money system shifted from private bankers to the government will work. He advocates a metallic standard.

The point is a system could be devised to divest the nation’s money and credit from this private, monopolistic middleman and give it back to the people. Will it ever be done? Don’t count on it as Congress is more likely to give the Fed more power than to abolish it.

Mullins points out that Eccles was asked in his testimony in 1947 if he thought there would be a possibility of returning to a free and open market, ‘’instead of this pegged and artificially controlled financial market we now have?’’ His answer:

‘’NEVER!’’

Top

Richard Sizemore’s new book, Jackals at Jekyll, is available from the publisher at www.authorhouse.com or from most publishers by request or at their book stores. The book is about the machinations that New York bankers underwent to secretly write legislation to form the Federal Reserve System and then ramrod it through Congress. Here is a synopsis of the book:

--0-- How did a group of private bankers devise, promote and ramrod a plan through Congress to take over the money and credit of the United States at a time when anti-trust laws were being invoked to curb corporate monopolies?

Answer. With money, foreign connections, inside Congressional help, propaganda and a gullible president who believed their scheme to set up the Federal Reserve System was for the welfare of the United States.

That’s what his book is about. The story begins late in the first decade of the 20th Century and involves a secret and successful scam that would make any Hollywood cloak-and-dagger mystery pale by comparison.

The perpetrators of the swindle include prominent New York bankers, a foreigner sent by European banking interests, a key senator and alleged front man for the Rockefeller interests. They pulled off a successful scheme to the take over the people’s money and credit by forming the Federal Reserve System, a deliberate misnomer, since the institution formed was not Federal nor did it have the reserves its name implies.

The machinations involved tops anything Alfred Hitchcock and other Hollywood mystery producers have ever come up with. It might even rival the great Edgar Poe, the master of ratiocination himself.

The book delves into how it was done and sketches those who participated in the scheme often referred to as the greatest scam in history. It pulls together various accounts of the episode as well as biographies of some participants and quotes from one autobiography of a banker who was in on the fraud and who also was a former economics writer.

The story is astounding because the bankers were able to establish a private cartel at the very time when the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust Acts were being invoked to dismantle corporate monopolies such as Standard Oil.

They used as much secrecy as they could contrive to conceal their identity using first or phony names and disguising their trip from New York to an idyllic island off the southern Georgia coast as a hunting expedition. Jekyll Island, where week-long mysterious meetings took place in 1910, was then owned by J.P. Morgan and other wealthy Americans at time.

The bankers not only wrote their legislation but railroaded it through Congress in what the late historian Antony Sutton called ‘’one of the most disgraceful unconstitutional perversions of political power in American history.’’

It is obvious the Fed is a failure and has not achieved its stated objective of stabilizing the economy, protecting the dollar or preventing inflation or economic cycles, some severe. It finally admits that it caused the Great Depression. It also has presided over several others, bailed out big banks, the S&L crisis and even a foreign country, Mexico, at the expense of taxpayers who got the bill plus interest.

The scheme to establish the Fed system was unconstitutional from the beginning because the Constitution forbids fiat money; Congress delegated its constitutional power to coin and regulate money to private bankers, and it also shifted some of its constitutional power to the executive branch without a constitutional amendment.

The Fed’s sorry record is reason enough for its abolishment. At the least its enigmatic and mystic nature should be stripped and its true nature unveiled so the public may at least know how it has been and is being taken.

Top

Republicans should hold the euphoria about success in Iraq, and Democrats like Harry Reid, Nancy Polosi and Barack Hussein Obama should shelve their ‘’appease and leave’’ policy.  It’s still too early for ‘’mission accomplished,’’ and too risky to adopt a ‘’cut-and-run’’ stance.

The radical Islamists have too much up their sleeves to be trusted, and our foreign policy gurus do so at the expense of U.S. security.  The radicals may be changing strategy, but experts caution they are not changing their goal of Islamic world domination and restoration of the caliphate.

Also to be considered is the fact that they want us out of Iraq and could be abetting the appeasers by less vigorous fighting to let the Iraqi government take over so that it will hasten our exit.  Rep. Steve King, (R-Iowa) claims terrorists will ‘’be dancing in the streets’ if Obama is elected president because of his promise to pull troops out of Iraq. 

There have been some important changes in the philosophy of the militant Islamists in the past few years, and Dr. Mark A. Gabriel, former professor of Islamic history at Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt, makes note of them in his book, Journey Into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist.  Politicians would do well to heed his advice, which is:

‘’The smart government will back radicals into a corner where jihad won’t work and then give them a dignified third option: Peaceful involvement in society.’’  In other words the dealing should be done from strength and not parity in arms or appeasement.

For those Democrats such as Obama who are convinced that diplomacy is the way to change radical leaders like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Dr. Gabriel warns: ‘’…the radicals consider deceit to be one of their most important strategies.’’

The militant Iranian president has again predicted that Israel will soon disappear.  He also stated the time has come for the fall of ‘’the satanic power of the United States.’’ So, what’s to negotiate?

Lord Chesterfield advised his son, ‘’Never speak sense to a fool,’’ although the militants are not fools but acting on faith to please Allah in the only sure way He let’s them get to Paradise.  History proves that appeasement won’t work with tyrants, and Dr. Gabrield warns:  ‘’For a radical there is no negotiation concerning Islamic law.’’

So John McCain is right in criticizing Obama for proposing to meet with the leaders of other nations who have been rabidly critical of the United States.  But the Republicans may be a little too sanguine in their outlook about gains in Iraq.   More about that later.

RECENT CHANGES

Dr. Gabriel relates how the leaders of a major terrorist group in Egypt rejected violence after recognizing that it was getting them no where but jail and bloodshed.  This was Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyyah, whose members assassinated Anwar Sadat.  While in prison the leaders of the Al-Gama’a group changed their strategy (but not their goal) after studying Islamic law.

The self-proclaimed leader of the group, Karam Zohdy, condemned not only the killing in Egypt but even Al-Qaeda for the 9-11 attacks in the United States.  According to Gabriel this infuriated Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osma bin-Laden’s second in command.

The leaders, according to Dr. Gabriel, concluded that an older legal opinion can be superceded by a newer opinion based on a change in the position of Muslims at the time. 

This new strategy is based on actions by Muhammad and teachings of the Quran.  It states that if a confrontation with the enemies of Islam reaches a point where the battle would cause the destruction of the Muslim group, they have the right to lay down their arms and retreat.  (One may wonder if that strategy is being applied in Iraq).

‘’The purpose of a new interpretation of the Quran is to show Muslims how to demonstrate full devotion to Islam while building up society instead of tearing it down,’’ concludes Gabriel.

REPUBLICANS

President Bush delivered a speech in Israel warning against appeasement, and this brought an immediate response from Obama that he was using scare tactics.  Obama is easily offended, and he would keep his opponents from talking about almost anything—race, his Islamic affiliations, his outspoken wife, his appeasement posture, his pastors, whom he discovered were rabidly racist after 20 years, his racist church from which he has now resigned and his shady dealings in Chicago.

But again Republicans should not get too optimistic about Iraq and successes against al-Qaeda.  The apparent success may not be as real as it seems.  Nevertheless in the spring  2008 optimistic comments emanated from several GOP operatives.

They included Defense Secretary Robert Gates, U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, Gen. David H. Petraeus and CIA Director Michael V. Hayden.

Crocker said the terrorists have ‘’never been closer to defeat than they are now.’’  Petraeus said attacks in Iraq hit a four-year low in mid-May.  He lauded Iraqi forces and said U.S. casualties are dropping sharply.

The brightest picture of the situation was painted by Hayden.  He portrayed the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia with major setbacks globally, although he prudently cautioned that al-Qaeda ‘’remains a serious threat.’’

He said Osama bin Laden is losing the ability to exploit the Iraq war to enlist recruits, and he used the word ‘’ideologically’’ in connection with the Islamic world pushing back on their form of Islam.  But again, he cautioned that it is too early to tell whether the gains are permanent.

That appears to be in line with the new interpretation of the Quran noted by Dr. Gabriel but rejected by al-Zawahiri.  The latter may be upset because this change in philosophy by a major radical group has cramped al-Qaeda’s operations.  But don’t forget Dr. Gabriel warns only the tactics have been changed and not the goal of the radical Islamists.

Another reason to be cautious is that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has rejected key U.S. terms for an ongoing military presence in the war-torn country.  Maliki is a Shiite and so are Iranians and the anti-American Muqtada al-Sadr, who has called for a new militia offensive against U.S. forces.

Maliki’s rejection of U.S. terms casts doubt on reaching an agreement on the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq before the Dec. 31 expiration of a U.N. mandate that sanctions the U.S. operations there.

DEMOCRATS

It is to be hoped that the Democrats clamoring to appease and leave don’t go overboard because of these developments.  But that may be too much to hope for. 

And don’t be taken in by campaign rhetoric.  Politicians lie and promise the moon to gain the presidency.  Obama, a day after apparently locking up delegates for the Democrat presidential nomination, promised an Israeli lobbying group he would work to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Guess he’ll have a tete-a-tete with Amadinejad, who claims the subject is non-negotiable, and get it all solved.

Bringing the troops home from Iraq, negotiating with adamant radicals, reducing America’s defense capability won’t help Israel or the U.S. position in the Middle East.  What it will do is help Iran in its quest for regional leadership and more prominence on the world scene.

 All politicians placing ambition ahead of national security should consider this scenario offered by Yossef Bodansky in The Secret History of the Iraq War that if the U.S. fails in Iraq:  Shiites will take over in Baghdad, and ‘’…for the first time since the 6th Century, B. C., the Persians will control the Mediterranean Coast and the bulk of the Persian Gulf.’’
   
This could happen if the U.S. cuts and runs, as the Democrat leadership proposes and the Iraqi Government can’t hack it when American troops have evacuated.  But that doesn’t deter Sen. Harry Reid, who probably knows much more about lucrative land deals in Nevada than he does about foreign policy.

Harry wants to cut off funding for war spending in Iraq.  He recently warned President Bush he doesn’t have authority to go to war in Iran without Congressional authorization and that the resolution to go to war in Iraq doesn’t give him that authority.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also wants ‘’redeployment of our troops out of Iraq’’ and said the war is a failure.

Why should the Islamic radicals fight with the previous tenacity when these powerful Democrats will do the job for them by cutting funds and troops?

BUSH FOULS UP

There is little doubt that President Bush was wrong in going into Iraq.  But that should not be the present concern.  It is water under the bridge.  The concern now should be the present condition we are in and what happens if we stay or leave in Iraq.  There is no logical reason whey Iraq should be handed over to Iran after so many lives have been lost and resources have been spent.

President Bush will be held accountable by history for his ill-advised and macho foray into a situation he and his neo-com advisers obviously knew little about.

What he did was eliminate Iran’s worst enemy, Saddam Hussein who kept the Iranians in check even if he was a human butcher.  So are the Iranian clerics.  Hussein’s defeat freed Iraqi fundamentalism, both Shiite and Sunni, along with Kurds, al-Qaeda and other militant Islamists from throughout the Middle East.

Iran has been exporting revolution throughout the world ever since the revolution that deposed the Shah in 1979.  Hussein led the regional defense against the Iranian revolution, and the Bush Administration unwittingly removed him.  It would be a tragedy to compound that mistake by strengthening Iran’s hand now.

BACK TO OBAMA

Now that it apparently is going to be either McCain or Obama who occupies the White House come January, 2009, even Thomas Sowell, a black writer, calls the choice a ‘’no-brainer’’ in favor of McCain because of Obama’s position on Iran.

The profundity of Jim Hightower, the author and former Texas Agriculture Commissioner, continues to amaze:  ‘’If the Gods had meant us to vote they would have given us candidates.’’  The choice is pretty sorry, Jim, but as Sowell said it should be a no-brainer even if McCain is far from an ideal choice

For more on Obama’s background see the earlier essay on this site titled ‘’Silly Season.’’  Here are some items about Obama that have surfaced since that essay was written:

--The question has arisen as to whether Obama is a U.S. citizen and constitutionally eligible to be president.  Bloggers cite rumors that Obama was not born in the United States but elsewhere, possibly Kenya, according to WorldNetDaily.  Because of her age, they say, his mother could not have met the constitutional requirements to make Obama eligible for the presidency.  They also question whether his father was divorced from his first wife when Obama was born.  Even before these questions surfaced, Obama was just barely a U.S. citizen, if his information can be believed.  He says he was born in Honolulu in 1961 just two years after Hawaii became a state.  Hawaii doesn’t publicize birth certificate information, and Obama at this writing has not released a copy of his birth certificate, which would clear the matter up.  But Daily Kos on 6/12/08 published a document purporting to be Obama’s birth certificate and showing he was born 8/4/1961 in Honolulu.  There are now reports that this certificate is a photoshopped fake.  Obama should be required to furnish an authentic birth certificate since only he can obtain it from   
the Hawaiian Department of Health.

--Contrary to Obama’s dlaim that he was never a Muslim his half brother, Malik, said he was raised as a Muslim as have others who knew him as a child.

--Former Republican Leader Tom DeLay called him a Marxist’’ until he proves otherwise.

--His official Obama blogger, Sam Graham-Felson, has been attacked as a ‘’hard-core’’ Marxist for hanging a Communist Party flag in his apartment while a student at Harvard, according to WorldNetDaily.

--WNW also reported the Obama campaign ’’quietly removed’’ a page from its official web site managed by a fundraiser tied to Hamas, the Islamic terrorist group.

--Obama resigned his 20-year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ after racial remarks were made by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and Michael Pfleger, a visiting priest.

--WND also revealed that Obama employs seven staffers who belong to the nation of Islam, which is headed by Louis Farrakhan whom he has officially denounced.

--A yet the name of another Muslim with questionable deals and contributions to Obama has arisen.  He is Ayham al-Samurai, A suni American citizen who returned to Iran after Saddam Hussein was deposed.  He supports the terrorist insurgency, according to WND, and had financial dealings with Tony Rezko.

--A former Clinton operative, Dick Morris, reports that Eric Holder, a member of Obama’s team that is looking for a vice-president, was deeply involved in the notorious pardon of Marc Rich by former President Clinton.  James Johnson, who also was on that team, already has resigned in connection with charges of questionable mortgage deals.  That leaves Holder and Caroline Kennedy on the committee at this writing.

Obama also has stated in a video that he intends to cut defense spending by ‘’tens of billions of dollars,’’ according to the Center for Individual Freedom (CFIA).  CAIF also said Obama guarantees he will cut investment in unproven defense systems, and he ‘’will not weaponize space.’’

--Obama’s ally and fundraiser Tony Rezko has been convicted of fraud and attempted bribery.  It left him ‘’sad.’’

--Another problem that should be considered by voters is the Supreme Court.  If Obama gains the White House he will undoubtedly have an opportunity to shape the future court.  It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out what that direction will be.  As a matter of fact, rumors are already circulating that he is considering Jamie Gorelick, former deputy to Janet Reno.  Remember her?  Former Attorney General John Aschroft charged she established a wall between criminal and intelligence divisions that obstructed U.S. agents from detection of the Sept. 11 plot.  The differences in the positions on nominating Supreme Court justices between John McCain and Obama was probably foretold by the court’s ruling to allow Guantanamo Bay prisoners to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.  McCain called it one of the worst decisions in the history of the court, and Obama supported it.  The decision gives enemy combatants the same privileges as citizens.  The 5-4 decision divided liberals of the court against conservatives.

--Obama has started a new web site to deal with what he calls rumors about him.  Apparently the rumors or charges were getting to think to be dealt with in more conventional ways.  He may have to close his shop to all else if they continue to fly.

Obama yells scare tactics when confronted about his ‘’appease and please’’ position and his association with unsavory characters.  President Bush said he wasn’t referring to Obama when he cautioned about appeasement in Israel. 

I’m referring to him specifically, and I will state unequivocally--and it has nothing to do with race--that Obama scares the hell out of me.

Top

D. Wayne Lucas says it’s time to change the Triple Crown.  The time is long overdue when it should be eliminated entirely for various reasons.

It has little historical significance since many great horses never ran in all three races; those races have no continuity in either place or distance, and they are not tied together with qualifiers that participate in all three races.

Fresh horses can be supplemented in the Preakness and Belmont with money and do not have to go through the rigors of the prep races to qualify for the Kentucky Derby on earnings or even to run in the Derby itself.  It isn’t fair to the horses that participate in all three races plus the necessary preps.

The latest example of how ridiculous the Belmont can be as a pillar of the Triple Crown was the win by Trainer Nick Zito’s Da’Tara, who had lost in his only graded race, the Florida Derby, to Big Brown by 23-1/2 links.  Da’Tara had never run at a distance of more than 1-1/8 mile and went wire to wire at a mile and a half.  He never had a Beyer speed rating above 92 compared with four triple digits for Big Brown;  his only previous win was a maiden race that took him three races to get, and he has had five different jockeys  in his seven-race career before the Preakness.

In short, he shouldn’t even have been in the race based on his past performances.   He would have been well placed in non-winners of two, however. 

This isn’t the first time that New York-based Zito has spoiled the party.  He did it in 2004
with a horse named  Grinstone.  Horse players thought so much of him that they sent him off at 50-1 in the Derby and they were right because he finished way out of the money.

Zito rested the horse for five weeks before the Belmont while Smarty Jones ran and won the Preakness, and the fresh horse, Grinstone, won the Belmont and paid $36.00.  But that was nothing compared with the $79.00 Da’Tara paid.  And why did Birdstone go off at so much lower odds in the Belmont than he did in the Derby and Preakness when the Belmont is longer?

Maybe Zito took a leaf from the notebook of the late Woodie Stephens who won the Belmont five consecutive times with fresh horses in four of those wins.  The only exception was Swale who won the Kentucky Derby, ran seventh in the Preakness and then dropped dead under mysterious circumstances eight days after winning the Belmont.  The official cause of death was a massive heart attack during a bath.

Stephens and Zito together have spoiled the Triple Crown Party six times during the three decades since its last winner, Affirmed.  But they’ve had some help from other trainers with other fresh horses.

One was Sarava in 2002.  This 70-1 long shot not only had never won a stakes race, he had never even entered one going into the Belmont.  He had never run at a mile and an eighth much less a mile and a half.  His top Beyer speed rating of 99 compared with 107 for Medaglia d’Oro, who came in second, and 114 for War Emblem who had won the Derby and Preakness.

They call Saratogo the graveyard of champions.  Perhaps a good name for the Belmont Stakes would be ‘’Graveyard for Triple Crown Wearies.’’

BIG BROWN

As noted there was nothing in the past performances of Da’Tara to indicate the horse could even go the Belmont distance much less wire the race.  The owners and trainer are still scratching their heads about the performance of Big Brown who was pulled up by jockey Kent Desormeaux who said the horse ran out of gas.

Trainer Rick Dutrow Jr. said he couldn’t find anything wrong with the horse and blamed the jockey for a bad trip.  He said that Desormeaux took a hard hold of Big Brown and yanked him to the outside going into the first turn.  Anyone who was pulling for Big Brown knew his chances were compromised when he was obviously checked.  In the process Big Brown bumped with Anak Nakal before finding running room outside of Tale of Ekati as Da’Tara opened up a three-length lead around the clubhouse turn.

‘’Im’ sure he (Big Brown) didn’t have any idea what the hell was going on going into the first turn the way (Desormeaux) was switching him all over the damn track,’’ Dutrow said, according to the Associated Press.

Dutrow withheld Big Brown’s regular dose of steroids but said he didn’t believe that or a recent quarter crack caused the horse to be beaten.  He laid the blame on Desormeaux.  He said Big Brown should have been given his head and that he is much quicker than Da’ Tara.

‘’There was no need to panic as they approached the first turn,’’ Dutrow said.  ‘’The rail was live all day, the perfect spot to be, and Desormeaux could have sat behind Da’Tara on the inside, patiently biding his time.  It’s a very long race and there was no need to rush Big Brown into a clear path on the spacious oval,’’ Dutrow was quoted by James Scully on the Equibase web site.

D. Wane Lucas and sportswriter Andy Beyer opined that Big Brown’s quarter crack and loss of three days training might have accounted for his poor performance.  Dutrow disagreed.

Co-owner Michael Ivanrone thought the heat and dry surface was not to Big Brown’s lacking.

TRIPLE CROWN CHANGES

As noted D. Wayne Lucas advocates changes in the Triple Crown in line with the changes in breeding from stamina to speed.  Perhaps breeders should consider breeding to make the horses more robust as in the old days.  Maybe there would not be as many accidents like that of Eight Belles in the 2008 Derby.

The industry has to produce horses for about 120 (I counted 117 on one web site) race tracks in the United States and just about every country is into the sport.  Many foreign horsemen scour the United States for their stock.  On a recent Saturday Equibase listed 26 tracks running.  Assuming there were an average of nine races at each track that would have meant 234 races.  Now assume there were eight horses per race and that would have meant 1,872 horses.  If each track averaged four race days a week the number of horse needed would be 7,488.

Those figures which are guesstimates at best give you an idea of why the industry can’t breed the best.  They also might account for why thoroughbred race traces in the United States reported more than three horse deaths a day last year and 5,000 since 2003, according to Jeffrey McMurray of the Associated Press.

Lucas, according to a story by John Clay in the Lexington Herald-Leader, said:

‘’We’ve got to short up the Derby to a mile and an eighth, which is what the horses are bred to run.’’  He would change the distances of both the Preakness and Belmont. ‘’You’d run the Preakness at a mile and 3/16 and then the Belmont at a mile and a quarter.  That’s what we’re breeding horses for today.’’

Luckas, Clay writes, would also move the time between races, making it three weeks between the Derby and Preakness and at lest three weeks between the Preakness and Belmont and maybe four.

One important statement Lucas made during the interview with clay was, ‘’We need to hold the field together.’’  He was alluding to the fact that only one Derby horse, Gayego, challenged Big Brown in the Preakness and three, Anak Nakal, Tale of Ekati and Denis of Cork, challenged him in the Belmont.  ‘’That should tell you something right there,’’ Lucas told Clay in the interview.

Perhaps if they restricted the Triple Crown to horses that only run in all three races, more would show up and if they didn’t, well, that’s what the Triple Crown is supposed to be about isn’t it?  Or is to have weary horses that run the preps and then the Derby and Preakness be faced by fresh horses in the Preakness and Belmont?

HISTORY

Ardent partisans of the three races often argue about tradition and which of the races is the oldest.  But it really isn’t a valid argument for several reasons, although on a consistent basis – that is from the same location and time – the winner would probably be the Belmont and the Derby in that order, although the Preakness was actually run in Baltimore two years before the Derby.

The Preakness, however, never settled on its current date of two weeks after the Derby until the 1930s, according to Thoroughbred Times.  The race was shifted to New York in 1890 and was run off and on there for several years before returning to Maryland.  The distances also have been changed from 1-1/2 miles originally to 1-1/8 miles and to the present 1-3/16 miles in 1925, according to the Times.

Saratoga Springs is the oldest existing race track in America and the Travers is the oldest stakes race (1864) named for W. R. Travers who was instrumental in getting the track started.

All the tracks were started not long after the Civil War and all have a history of their own.  There is no need for them to be linked to other races.  It doesn’t give them any more tradition.  They should be run as separate entities.

There is too much hoopla about the ‘’ Triple Crown’ a phrase coined by the Daily Racing Form’sCharlie Hatton in 1930.  After all Man O’War didn’t even enter the Derby.  Burgoo King and Bold Venture also skipped the Belmont after winning the Derby and Preakness.

Only 11 horses have won the Triple Crown since Sir Barton did it first in 1919.  But they are not necessarily the best in the 89 years since that time.  Several others might have accomplished the feat under different circumstances.

More than 90 Belmont winners didn’t run in the Preakness and close to 100 Preakness winners didn’t run the Belmont for whatever reason.  So, there’s no Triple Crown tradition there.

Let’s get rid of the Triple Crown or extend it to include the Travers and perhaps the Breeder’s Cup but restrict the entries to horses that run in all the races.  It also would be good to see some of the cheap tracks closed and more emphasis placed on stamina by breeders.  More emphasis on horse racing and less on getting winners of the big races to the breeding shed also might be a good idea.

Top

Rational men aware of the devastating consequences of a nuclear war prevented one from happening during the Cuban missile crisis almost a half century ago.

This feat was hailed as a model for successfully controlling a crisis.  Or as Nikita Khrushchev, then Premier of the USSR, said later in his memories (p.500) ‘’The episode ended in a triumph of common sense.’’

But we must remember these rational men of common sense, who averted a nuclear holocaust at the last minute, were the same men who got us to the brink of war in the first place.

The adversaries in the Cuban missile crisis appear to be playing the same atomic brinksmanship that their former leaders were engaged in during the Kennedy-Khrushchev era.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the man who passed George W. Bush’s soul searching examination and who Bush referred to as his ‘’buddy’’, is now suggesting a Russian return to Cuba.  He also is sending an atomic-powered cruiser to the Caribbean Sea to take part in joint naval maneuvers with Venezuela later this year, and has entered a joint atomic venture with that country.

In addition, he recently sent two Russian bombers to Venezuela and plans an arms deal with that country as well as helping Cuba build a space station.  It also is negotiating to sell new anti-aircraft systems to Iran. 

Putin is livid about U.S. plans for a missile defense system in Eastern Europe just as Khrushchev was upset about U.S. missiles circling Russia in the 60’s.  Russia has threatened a military response to the U.S missiles and is also considering establishing missiles in Syria.  A spokesman said the U.S. missile sites would be targeted by Russia. 

Similar circumstances are why Khrushchev said he stationed missiles in Cuba.  Putin appears to be headed down the same path.

Never mind about U.S. assurances to Putin that the missiles planned for Poland and the Chech Republic are for defense against possible Iranian missile launches and that we have offered Russian participation in the program, Putin is still adamant.  He insists the missiles are meant to confront Russia.

So, like Khrushchev in the 60’s, Putin, a former KGB operative, believes a presence in Cuba and possibly Venezuela would deter the U.S. from installing the weapons in Eastern Europe.  Let’s hope he also is considering the possibility of another U.S. embargo.

There already are reports that Russian nuclear-capable bombers may use Cuba as a refueling stop.  They also are reported to be flying off the coast of Alaska in what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned was a dangerous game.

Like Khrushchev, Putin is getting tough with former Soviet states and reasserting Russia’s position as a world power.  Khrushchev did this by invading Hungary in 1956.  Putin used Russia’s might to snuff out disturbances in Ossetia and Abkhazia, two breakaway Georgian provinces with strong Russian ties.  He also extended the invasion to Georgia itself even to Stalin’s home town of Gori and other areas outside the breakaway provinces.

A truce was signed by both parties, but the Russians are still there and plan to stay. They also blockaded the Georgian port of Poti on the Black Sea.  This meant more Russian military activity on Georgian territory and not just in the breakaway provinces.  U.S. naval vessels bringing food and aid to Georgia bypassed Poti apparently to avoid conflict and landed in a shallower water port.

Russia has always wanted more outlets to the Black and other warmer seas and is salivating over the Ukraine, which wants to join NATO.  The Ukraine used to be the bread basket of the former USSR, and it leaders have joined in a protest of Russia’s Georgian invasion.

Putin received Time Magazine’s ‘’person of the year’’ award in 2007 for bringing stability back to the USSR.  Maybe he will get some sort of a prize this year for reigniting the cold war.  He is now acting like Joseph Stalin who was set to start a nuclear war with the United States at the time he was murdered, according to historian Edvard Radzinsky in Stalin.

Speaking of rationality, Putin is not only getting more aggressive but appears paranoid along with it.  He suggested the United States stirred up trouble in Georgia to influence one of the candidates for president.  He obviously was referring to John McCain.  

The time for firm diplomacy, but not appeasement, in this nuclear age is now and not at the brink.  The goal should be to reach détente before the confrontation elevates to a showdown.  Let’s have no more brinksmanship diplomacy.  We got lucky once, and that’s quite enough.  And remember Khrushchev was deposed for backing down.  Power-hungry Russian leaders, such as Putin, are aware of that and will take it into consideration in negotiating a settlement the next time.

The United States has more problems now than just Russia in our hemisphere as it did in the Cold War. 

There’s also China, North Korea and, yes, Iran where Mahmoud Ahmadinejad issues a statement every day about destroying Israel and also about his country’s alleged capabilities should anyone attack Iran and its pursuit of nuclear capability. 

Some of these people in some of these countries mentioned are reasonable with common sense.  Frighteningly, some are not, and that’s why nuclear proliferation must be stopped.  The furnace-faced idiot, Hugo Chavez, in Venezuela, who has been referred to as ‘’Castro without brains,’’ can also cause us problems in the hemisphere.  He has the welcome mat out for both China and Russia.

Another problem is Pakistan and what happens to its nukes now that Pervez Musharraf has been deposed as president.  Russia also is set to build more nuclear facilities in Iran as well as missile defenses already mentioned.  It is threatening an arms embargo for Georgia and says it no longer recognizes Mikhail Saakashvili as its president.

But that’s not all, in addition to making the breakaway provinces independent of Georgia it also rejects the U.S. influence in world affairs and claims a sphere of influence for itself.

The Bush administration has just proposed $1 billion for Georgia to help rebuild it infrastructure destroyed by Russia.  So, Russia tears down and we pay the damage.  No wonder Stalin called us ‘’deaf mutes.’’ No one mentioned where the money is coming from since we don’t have any.  But we know who will eventually pick up the tab, you.

Another big problem facing the new president is the collapse of U.S. financial institutions and the bail out of the Wall Street high rollers at taxpayer expense.  The crisis underscored the uselessness of Congress, which has delegated most of its constitutional authority including that of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Board which, along with the Treasury Department, illegally and unconstitutionally appropriated taxpayer money. But that is a different story and too long to address here.

Even as the people’s representative in the House were rejecting the bailout the unelected and unconstitutional Fed was spending and estimated $630 million of the taxpayer’s money anyway, according to Bloomberg.com.

For more on the Federal Reserve System, seen my book Jackals at Jekyll referred to on the heading of this page.

KHRUSHCHEV DESERVES CREDIT

Khrushchev deserves a lot of credit for his cool-headed performance during the Cuban missile crisis even though he acted like a blunderbuss on other occasions such as tapping his shoe on his desk at the United Nations.  He was humiliated and deposed two years after the Cuban fiasco.

As former Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin opined in his book In Confidence Khrushchev might have saved his job as well as some embarrassment for himself and the Soviet Union had he insisted on publicizing a major secret concession he got from Kennedy before agreeing to dismantle the Cuban missiles.

That was for the United States to remove its missiles from Turkey on a ‘’base-for-base’’ missile exchange deal.

President Kennedy claimed he had a problem with a public announcement on the Turkey missiles because their presence was the result of a NATO agreement and that to make a unilateral announcement would undermine NATO.

Khrushchev let JFK off the hook on this one and paid a huge personal price for his decision.

The United States Government also agreed to call off the Cuban quarantine then in effect as well as stipulating that it would not invade Cuba or stand by while any other country did so.

But, and it’s a big but, the Cuban understanding between the United States and the then USSR was never formalized in writing, although both sides have apparently lived up to it.

And that brings up an important question.  Is it now or was it ever binding between the two nations?  Does Russia have the right to make frequent refueling stops by its nuclear-carrying missile bombers in Cuba and to help them build a space station?  And does Russia have the right to go back to Cuba, as Putin suggests, without violating the Cuban accords?

Reuters in a dispatch about Putin’s suggestion reported that a top U.S. general (whom it did not name) was drawn to say such a move (by Putin) would cross a ‘red line.’’’

So, do we have déjà vu all over again in Cuba and Eurasia, as the philosopher Yogi might ask?

All this activity by our enemies should get the attention of voters who soon will be headed to the polls to select a new president.  They should ask themselves if they would rather have John McCain, who is said to have a short fuse, or B. Hussein Obama, whose inexperience and willingness to sit with friend or foe should give us pause.  There isn’t much choice.  Joe Biden is no help despite the hype about his foreign policy expertise.  Remember he floated the lame-brain idea of partitioning Iraq.

PUTIN FLEXING BEAR’S MUSSEL

Putin is flexing Russia’s mussel now that world oil prices have given him a windfall that has improved the Russian economy since the dissolution of the USSR.  He also has leverage with European nations who are dependent on Russian oil.

Its invasion of Georgia was condemned by President Bush as ‘’a disproportionate response’’ that Vice President Cheney said ‘’must not go unanswered.’’  Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is threatening a strong (presumably non-military) response from NATO for Russia’s Georgian invasion. But NATO while severing some Russia ties didn’t go as far as Rice wanted.  Russia responded by freezing some military work with NATO.

Cheney says the U.S. will still push for Georgia’s entry into NATO.  Remember he’s part of the lame-duck administration.

The present Georgian situation is comparable to Russia’s 1956 invasion of Hungary to put down riots that were started by disgruntled students.  We didn’t do anything then, and it appears our options short of war are about the same now.  The Bush administration has only a few months to go, and should B. H. Obama win the presidency Russian appeasement is a very likely possibility.

When it comes to a list of options that the United States and Russia have in the new Cold War, it appears that it might be a stand off.  But Russia can cause us aggravations and headaches in many spots around the globe.  Some of the co-operative programs with the Soviets probably should not have been undertaken in the first place, especially space programs and the proposed civil nuclear co-operation agreement.  It would permit transfer of fuels and materials between the two countries.

The United States has put too much trust in both Russia and China and shared too much technology paid for by taxpayers.  What technology we didn’t give them they simply stole by infiltrating spies in sensitive but inadequately protected areas.  Getting rid of some of these co-operative programs could be a good thing.

One thing that should gall U.S. taxpayers who have footed the bill in Iraq is the deal Iraq has struck with China to sell its oil.  The U.S. has spent billions of dollars and lives to reconstruct Iraq and make its oil fields operative again, and China, our enemy, buys Iraqi oil to aid its economy and its military machine. When Stalin said ‘’deaf mutes,’’ he got it right. 

The United States needs to develop a new strategy to deal with Russia and China because encirclement appears to be more provocative than sensible.  What ever happened to intercontinental ballistic missiles?  Do we need missiles on the doorstep of all our enemies?  And why don’t our so-called allies near Russia and Iran establish them on their own territories, which would be legitimate?

OTHER REASONS

Pundits give us various other reasons and historical comparisons for the aggressiveness of the once dormant Russian bear.  They range from Putin’s fear of being encircled by the West as Khrushchev was in the 60’s, to bringing the former Soviet Republics back under Russian control, and even to Hitler’s march into Sudetenland in 1938, as well as Russia’s economic resurgence.

Hitler said he was responding to separatist demands just as Russia is claiming the same for going into South Ossetia and Abkhazia.  Russia is now recognizing these two separatist areas as independent states over strong U.S. objections.  The question is how far does it think its sphere of influence extends?

Another contrast to Putin and Khrushchev is the smiling front man, Russia President Dmitri  Medvedev who everyone knows is Putin’s stooge the same as Nilolai Bulganin was Khrushchev’s front man a few decades ago.  Then as now there was no doubt about who was calling the shots.

It is also interesting that the ethnic cleansing charge has surfaced, especially since Joseph Stalin, the long-time bloody dictator of Russia, was born in Gori, Georgia.

What can the United States do about the Russian aggression?  Militarily, very little, if anything unless it wants to risk nuclear war.  Other options are pulling out of cooperative agreements as mentioned and denying Russia World Trade Organization admission as well as expelling it from the Group of Eight economic alliance.

It can expect little from the corrupt and dysfunctional United Nations where we have more enemies than friends and Russia and China have vetoes.

John McCain has called for a re-evaluation of our association with Russia, which the Bush Administration is doing. 

0ther former USSR republics are watching the U.S. response to the Georgian invasion.  Another cold war appears to be in the making.  This time U.S. armed forces are stretched and our enemies know it.  We also are not as dominant as we were in the 50’s.  The dollar is week, our trade deficit is astronomical, our manufacturing base is practically gone, our economy is teetering near disaster, our borders are down, our enemies own our debt, and our infrastructure has long been for sale by the Bush administration, and our financial institutions are crumbling.

The free enterprise system is morphing into socialism with the president and Congress watching with little to say about fixing the problem. 

The upcoming presidential election may determine how far our enemies go in challenging us.  If we ever needed leadership we need it now.   Unfortunately, none appears to be in sight.

Top

The longest presidential campaign in United States history is about to come to an end.  Voters will be pulling the levers and hoping their votes get counted and that someone else’s doesn’t get totted up multiple times in our pitiful election system that is comparable to that of a banana republic.

But then, we always have the Supreme Court standing by to take an unconstitutional leap into any major election disputes.  It already has decided that Ohio does not have to verify voter registrations.

Every one is fairly sure by now where John McCain stands except when he kicks the traces, but if he does, it won’t be too far from his normal erratic behavior.  But how about Barack Hussein Obama (BHO)?  If his background and associations don’t give voters pause then they are probably impervious to any candidate’s background anyhow.

Obama has a checkered and incredulous past and leaves many questions unanswered and some answers unbelievable.  Yet the public and the biased mainline press give him undeserved carte blanche credence.  Major newspapers with a left-wing bias are endorsing him and giving him biased coverage.

For African-Americans looking to put one of their own in the White House, it would be nice if they had a candidate to fulfill their long deserved dream.  But they don’t.  If Obama gains the Oval Office he will not be the first African-American to do so.  Why?  He isn’t an African-American.  He is no more an African-American than he is Caucasian.   He is in the terminology of the old West, a half-breed, or more precisely, a Mullato.

His forebears did not carry the burden of slavery in the United States as those of Justice Clarence Thomas, whose judicial qualifications Obama questioned, did.  Obama is black but only in pigmentation.  American Negroes voting for him and thinking he is one of their own are being mislead.

When asked if Obama could be considered a typical American black all Jesse Jackson could come up with was that he has suffered racism the same as other blacks. Now there is nothing with a Mullato running for president.  The point is he is not a descendent of the blacks who suffered under slavery in this country as most African-Americans are. 

Black voters should not be taken in by voter registration groups such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) with ties to Obama, which he denies.  ACORN has come under fire for irregularities in at least eight states, according to The Boston Globe.  It claims to have signed up more than a million voters in 18 states.  In Nevada it included the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys.  Another internet story had ACORN registering a young man about 70 or more times and offering him gifts.

There also are some other issues that should give all voters hesitation before they pull the lever for Obama.

MUSLIM TIES

This is probably the most important issue that voters should give consideration.  Why?  Because true Muslims who follow the teaching of Muhammad want to conquer the world, establish Shariah law, and they have both subtle and not so subtle plans to do so. 

First, Obama’s middle name, which he doesn’t use and his wife strongly objects to others using, is Muslim, and his first name, Barack, is Arabic and means blessed.  His father was a non-practicing Muslim.  He also was a philanderer, drunk, bigamous, womanizer and wife beater who was killed while driving intoxicated after having had his legs amputated from a previous wreck while also driving drunk. Obama depicts him in a much better light, of course.   His step father, Lolo Soetoro, also was a Muslim.

News reports that Obama registered for school under the name Barry Soetoro as a Muslim in Indonesia, have never been answered by the Obama camp to the satisfaction of some critics.  They also are awaiting an answer as to whether he was ever an Indonesian citizen at any time and traveled to Pakistan in 1981 under an Indonesian passport.

Obama claims to be a Christian and maybe he is.  He has denounced militant Muslims, but who hasn’t?  According to some experts, however, militant Muslims represent true Islam as practiced by Muhammad.  There is no doubt that Obama has a Muslim affiliation and background.  Just how deep it goes is the question.  He has bragged that his association with Muslims would give him an edge in conducting foreign policy.  Some Muslim nations also have expressed open support for his presidency.

None other than Jesse Jackson warns, according to The New York Post, ‘’Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims.’’  In an interview with Amir Taheri he was quoted as saying ‘’Zionists who have controlled American foreign policy for decades’’ will lose a lot of clout under Obama.

IS OBAMA A MUSLIM?

Some scholars say yes for the simple reason that his father was a Muslim even if not a practicing one.  Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi told a television audience in June, 2008, that Obama is a Muslim who studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia.  Aaron Klein wrote on WorldNetDaily that Gadhafi’s remarks were carried on Al Jazerra in June.

Ousted former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who apparently is looking for a job, not surprisingly endorsed Obama after reading the polls two weeks before election time.  In doing so he claimed BHO had been a lifelong Christian.  That is supposed to erase doubt, I guess, about Obama’s Muslim schooling in Indonesia in his formative years and all ties to Islam.  But Powell covers his flank.  He said even if Obama is a Muslim, so what?  ‘’Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in America?’’ Powell asked. 

Are we now to believe that Powell is also an expert on Islam as he claims in foreign policy and military science?  How about the chapters in the Quran about killing and jihad, Collin?  Do they mean anything?  Granted all Muslims are not the militant type but all terrorists seem to be Muslims.  How do you tell one from the other until you hear a bang?  And lying is their main tactic for advancing Islam, according to Dr. Gabriel.

What’s the big deal about Powell’s endorsement, anyway?  Five former secretaries of state with as much or more impact on foreign policy than Powell have endorsed McCain.  You may not have heard about that.  We have a biased media, you know.  

The political correct police in government sought to downplay the role of Islam in connection with terrorist violence by outlawing the use of words like ‘’jihad’’ and ‘’Islamist.’’   But, according to the Washington Times, civilian analysts in the military have challenged this thinking and said the words are needed in discussing terrorism.  Wonder where Colin stands on this?

Powell used the case of a Muslim U. S. soldier killed in Iraq to support his argument.  I cite 9/11 to dispute his equating Christianity with Islam.  The Bible does not condone killing as the Quran does.  It is spelled out in The Sermon on the Mount.

One more thing about Powell, Obama should be concerned if he names him to a high post.  He has an ego as big as Obama’s and the record shows he does not follow the policies of the administration he joins to support.  That’s why he’s looking for a job.  Obama says if he wins Powell already has a job in some capacity with his administration.  But a little apple polishing may help.

AN APOSTATE?

According to Daniel Pipes, founder of the Middle East Forum, a think tank, and Shireen K. Burki, an educator who spent time in Pakistan studying Islam, anyone born of a Muslim father is automatically a Muslim.  That’s Islamic jurisprudence, Burki writes.

If that is true then that makes Obama an apostate, according to them.  And that raises a perplexing situation because Dr. Mark Gabriel, former professor of Islamic history at the prestigious Al-Azhar University in Cario, Egypt, writes (p73 Islamic Terrorist):  ‘’If a Muslim chooses to abandon the Muslim faith (as Dr. Gabriel did) his punishment is death.’’

One of the proofs Dr. Gabriel quotes comes from the sunnah (the words and actions of Muhammad) in which he said Al-Jihad noted:  The prophet said, ‘’he who changes his religion, kill him.’’

So, if, as Pipes and Burki claim, Obama was automatically a Muslim by birth or adopted Islam later and then converted to Christianity, how has he escaped the fate of Dr. Gabriel, who was driven into hiding and others like him who have been killed or forced to do the same?   

Pipes claims Obama has ‘’lied’’ about his Muslim upbringing, according to a story printed by Newsmax.com.

Ms. Burki suggests that as an apostate Obama could be a powerful propaganda weapon for Al-Qaida.  It’s media affiliate, As-Sahab, could exploit Obama’s background to argue that an apostate is leading the war on terrorism thus provoking sympathizers into action, she writes.

No one wants to label Obama a Muslim if he says he isn’t, but he should rid all doubt about it for voters.  Would he as president condemn Muslim nations and their leaders who persecute Christians who are U.S. citizens?  Muslims in this country are afforded our constitutional protections to be free, practice their religion, and to build as many mosques as they want?

But Dr. Gabriel warns us that the mosque is not comparable to your typical American church.  ‘’Throughout Islamic history all movements of jihad have come from the mosque,’’ he wrote.

OTHER SKELETONS

If Obama were to open his closet more skeletons would fall out than junk from the closet of Fibber McGee, the old-time radio comedian.  Let’s consider a few.

*Natural born citizen:  The Constitution requires this of a president.  There has been much ado about allegations that Obama has never produced an authentic birth certificate.    Phillip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney, has brought suit in a federal court against Obama and the Democratic National Committee to produce proof of Obama’s U.S. citizenship. Obama and the DNC filed a motion to have the suit dismissed.  Berg says all Obama has do is provide the proof and he will dismiss the suit himself.  The proof also would dispel rumors that Obama was born in Kenya and not Hawaii.  Another suit for proof has been filed in the state of Washington.  Both suits are pending.  Why doesn’t Obama provide the proof and have done with it?

*Associations:   Columnist Thomas Sowell, a black columnist, wrote recently: ‘’Time and again, Mr. Obama has allied himself with people who openly expressed their hatred of America.’’  It challenges credulity to believe that it was just co-incidence that Obama had close relationships with the likes of Antonio Rezko, William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger, and Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam leader, who refers to Obama as the Messiah.

It is even harder to believe that it took 20 years for Obama to find out that Wright was a bigot spewing hatred from his pulpit.  Obama also had to distance himself from Farrakhan, another hate spreader.

*William Ayers:  This is the former radical who bombed and bragged about in the Vietnam War era, joins the laundry list of Obama’s extended litany of denials.  He claims he was a kid while Ayers was doing his thing, but he was surely grown when he launched his career in Ayers’ living room where he was given a fundraiser.  Writer Jack Cashill claims there is evidence that Ayers even wrote Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father.   He says an analysis of Ayers’ 1993 book, To Teach, which he compared with Dreams ‘’solidifies the case,’’ according to a story on WorldNetDaily.  Incidentally, in the last debate with John McCain, Obama denied he launched his career in Ayers’ living room.  He didn’t elaborate so I guess we are to infer it was just an ice cream social, but why would he even attend one of those with a former terrorist?

*Antoin (Tony) Rezko:  The convicted felon and slum king also can be found on the list of Obama pal denials.  He denied any wrong dealing with the Chicago gangster but admits he got more political money from him than he originally acknowledged.  Does anyone doubt that Obama was deep into the Chicago brand of sub-rosa politics?

*Kenya involvement:  Obama needs to answer charges by writer Jerome Corsi that he raised almost $1 million for Kenyan leader Raila Odinga, who is referred to as a ‘’thug’’ by WorldNetDaily for whom Corsi also writes columns.  Odinga allegedly used tribal violence in his campaign for power after he lost an election.  WND reports hundreds of Christian churches were destroyed by tribal members favorable to Odinga although not one mosque was destroyed.  It also reported that Odinga ‘’promised after he  became president he would ‘’rewrite the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Shariah as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared religions.’’

Corsi was arrested in Kenya recently for investigating all this.  He was detained by armed officials and bribes were involved before he was able to leave Kenya.  Was Obama’s friend, Odinga; involved in this?  The Senator could shed a lot of light about it if he cared to.  The mainline press hasn’t seemed to bother printing the story.  But the Washington Times has reported that Odinga visited Obama during several trips to the United States.

*The Christian religion:  This nation was founded on the precepts of Christianity.  It is the only religion that scholars who participated in compiling The Great Books of the Western World think is divinely inspired.  But in a speech Obama made in 2006 he appeared to equate Christianity with other religions such as Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim.  He even mocked various passages of the Bible including the Sermon on the Mount by Jesus, which he called ‘’radical,’’ although he said he found support for legal recognition of same-sex unions from that passage.

He said the sermon is ‘’…a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application.’’  That sermon advises us about loving our enemies, turning the other cheek, and keeping the Ten Commandments, including the one that forbids killing.  Incidentally, Islam is the only religion that sanctions killing.  It is obvious that Obama’s researchers deliberately looked for passages in the Bible to condemn or mock.

The senator has a perfect right to critique the Bible as did Thomas Jefferson.  But Jefferson did not profess the Christian religion as Obama does.  He was a deist and, like Lincoln, never belonged to any church.  Obama picked a radical Christian church but claims he didn’t know its pastor was radical. 

Maybe what’s wrong with the country today is that it has strayed too far from its Christian moorings and resorted to rampant greed, hate, and dog-eat-dog wheeling and dealing.

*Subprime loans to minorities:  These loans to people who could not afford housing were singled out as the culprit in the present financial mess.  Obama has said several times that he wrote letters to both Treasuury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke flagging them about such loans.  Does that mean he did not want these poor folks to have housing?  After all he claims to be their champion and is going to cut their taxes (if they pay any) if he becomes president.  He should print copies of those letters for the public to see.

Like all politicians both he and John McCain are promising the moon and have come up with promises to fix the economy.  Hog wash.  They both voted for a bill to hand over billions of dollars to a Wall Street banker, Paulson, to spend any way he chooses to fix the economy.  And, true to form, he chose to help the banks, which have always gotten special treatment from the Fed and Congress.  Incidentally, the bill they rushed to support was unconstitutional.  It included new taxes and tax bills are supposed to originate in the House.

Paulson is buying government stock in the big banks.  Why doesn’t it buy stock in the semi-private and lucrative Federal Reserve Board?  It is not for sale, that’s why.  Only the heirs of the banking founders of the unconstitutional Fed own stock in it and it is not transferable.

*Supreme Court:  Whoever wins the election will almost surely get a chance to appoint one and probably two more Supreme Court justices even if he serves only one term.  Whether the future court will be liberal, conservative or have justices that believe in a ‘’living’’ Constitution or the original one will hang in the balance.  Don’t look for conservative justices if Obama wins.  That would please Colin Powell.

*Foreign policy:  He’s relying on Joe Biden, his running mate.  This ‘’expert’’ came up the lame brain idea of dividing Iraq three ways.  Obama wants to pull all the troops out of Iraq which will hand the Middle East over to Iran.  He wants to talk with our enemies such as the loco president in Iran.  If Biden falters as a foreign policy adviser he always can fall back on Colin Powell, the omniscient former general. 

As president Obama will also face Russia which is trying to reassert its credentials as a world power, an expansionist and belligerent China, growing al-Quaida resistance in Afghanistan, some Marxists below the border such as Venezuela and Cuba, a dysfunctional Mexico on our southern boundary.

The new president will also have to cope with a teetering economy on the brink of a major recession in addition to astronomical trade and budget deficits.

It is crunch time folks.  Is this the man you want to lead the free world?

Top