You can almost hear the Secular Progressive Communist Democrats that control Congress and their leader Obama CHEERING that their 'HELL NO WE WONT DRILL' policy is working.

 

A typical part of their "Game Plan" to Bankrupt America and re-make us into a Secular Progressive Communist Nation.

 

THINK COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: James Fennell

To: Uvin A. Clough, Jr. ; Vernon Clayson

Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:25 PM

Subject: Fw: Obama Opposes California's Marriage Protection Act

Who could have guessed that this ultra-liberal, pro-abortion, anti-war Democrat/Socialist would oppose it?

 

Obama Opposes California's Marriage Protection Act

 

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has come out in opposition to the California ballot initiative that would amend the state’s Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

In a letter sent to the Alice B. Toklas L.G.B.T. Democratic Club, a San Francisco gay rights group, Obama declared: “I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.”

The California Marriage Protection Act, which will appear on the state’s November ballot, asserts: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

The move to amend California’s Constitution came after the May 15 decision by the state’s Supreme Court that gave same-sex couples the right to marry.

While Obama opposes the initiative, he remains opposed to same-sex marriage, the New York Times reported. He does support civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Obama expressed opposition to the amendment, on the ballot as Proposition 8, because “as we have seen in some states, enshrining a definition of marriage into the constitution can allow states to roll back the civil rights and benefits that are provided in domestic partnerships and civil unions,” campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told The Times.

Obama’s presumptive Republican rival John McCain announced his support for the initiative last month.

A Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll conducted shortly after the California Supreme Court decision found that 54 percent of registered voters surveyed supported the amendment, and 35 percent said they opposed it.

source: Insider Report from Newsmax.com

Both Carter and Clinton as Commander-in-Chief's gutted the military, ignoring their Primary Constitutional Job to Protect America.  Luckily under Carter we were not at war, while Clinton chose to ignore the fact that War had been declared on us by the Islamic World, the build up from the Regain and Bush Administrations has made the difference despite Clintons reductions. Today we are faced with a far different problem due to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the need to not only maintain necessary levels of military equipment to but to continue to develop and produce more and better capabilities

 

What Obama has promised will not only fail to maintain even current requirements but will give our enemies TIME to develop new and better capabilities that may exceed our current lead in this area. So not only will he SURRENDER in Iraq but he plans to DISARM America through attrition.

 

Electing Obama, who has promised that he not only doesn't plan fulfill his primary function as Commander-in-Chief, but will DISARM us as well is absolute Madness!! 

 

Uvin's Take

 

 

 

Poll Shows Americans Afraid of Obama as Commander-in-Chief
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
Friday, July 18, 2008

On the night of January 20, 2009, a new commander-in-chief will leave the inaugural podium, parade, and festivities for the Oval Office. A national security staff ready with the latest “threat briefing” will join him there. On his desk, they will place a thick binder of reports, each focusing on real or emerging threats to our national security. In the quiet of the Oval Office -- in the presence of these stern-faced, deadly serious briefers and advisers -- Barack I. Obama, should he be the next president, will come face-to-face with reality.

Americans are afraid of this scenario, Barack I.E. Obama as commander-in-chief. The New York Times and CBS News released a poll this week; in it, Americans answered detailed questions about this possibility.

The poll’s answers shocked the strategists at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago. An intensive international travel schedule for Obama and a refocus of the campaign’s message on defense and foreign policy speaks to this fear.

The poll says Americans consider him lacking in the abilities necessary to run the armed services. Conversely, the polls show John McCain blows Obama out of the water as a good commander-in-chief. Forty-six percent of respondents thought McCain would very likely “be effective” as commander-in-chief, as opposed to only 24 percent saying the same of Obama. In fact, 36 percent think it is “not likely” Obama will be effective in the position.

Obama’s talents lie in his gift of oratory and his ability to move people with emotion, but this does not necessarily make for a good commander. The chief executive’s job requires forward thinking, realistic assessments of the world’s threats, and the maturity to make judgments in a crisis.

The USS Gerald R. Ford, an aircraft carrier, is now under construction in Hampton Roads, Va. It will be ready to join the fleet in 2015, replacing a carrier launched 47 years ago. Do we know that the USS Ford will be needed in 2015?

No, we do not. But can we afford to bet against it?

Obama thinks so. According to his own campaign literature, he is willing to let the USS Ford, and many more of tomorrow’s defense technologies, rust at the pier.

The decision to build the aircraft carrier is based on the concept of preparing America for the next war to come. Commanders must anticipate the evil designs of irrational lunatics. It’s always a tricky business, trying to anticipate future unknowns. Nevertheless, the president’s oath is to protect and defend the United States.

A president who hasn’t had any experience in military strategic planning is going to find himself in deep trouble if he finds his strategic armories empty in the face of an advancing enemy.

A review of Obama’s national defense plans offers insight into his preparedness to meet today’s and tomorrow’s defense realities. Obama makes a variety of claims which we think would dramatically weaken America if enacted. The Obama plans include cutting tens of billions of dollars of the Defense Department budget, and the development of no new weapons in space to protect satellites and strategic assets. He plans cuts in missile defense systems, slowing our development of future combat systems, developing no new nuclear weapons, and negotiating with Russia to take our ICBMs off what he calls “hair-trigger alert”. He advocates deep cuts in our nuclear program.

Not only does Obama have dangerous disarmament plans for America, he sorely lacks in experience. Besides being a junior senator, he has not been on any of the major defense committees. He has no previous hands-on experience with the military nor has he spent time with the men and women of our armed forces.

There are hundreds of weapon systems that could, under the quick-to-cut hand of Obama, be eliminated before they had the chance to prove themselves. If Obama had been in charge when the MAN Abrams Main Battle Tank was under development (a huge financial problem for the military) he would have cut it. But its developers persisted, and dollars that might have been considered “waste” by Obama were spent until the MAN became the most lethal, most respected, most effective tank on the battlefield.

Ask any Abrams crewmember who has survived direct hits by explosive shells and rocket-propelled grenades if he would have cancelled the Abrams, and the answer will be a resounding “No!”

Obama’s perfect future vision enables him to scrap defense programs, even as our nation’s enemies prepare very nasty projectiles to hurtle across continents and oceans.

Will he be able to effectively deal with crazed terrorists and power-hungry leaders with nuclear weapons in hand? Recent polls show Americans are nervous about Obama as commander-in-chief, and rightly so. 

 

The editors of the Patriot always put it together in the best and most important way. Whish that I was half as articulate as they and these authors.

 

Bill 

 

 

 

THE FOUNDATION "If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation." -Samuel Adams PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE Why the Left can't get it Right By Mark Alexander Ask a liberal about some manifestation of his worldview-for example, why he supports charlatans like Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Albert Arnold Gore, Jean-Francois Kerry, et al., and he invariably predicates his response with, "Because I feel..." Ask a conservative about what he believes, or why he does or doesn't support John McCain, and he invariably predicates his response with, ">John McCain, and he invariably predicates his response with, "Because I think..." It has always been easier to "feel" rather than "think," and that is why our national culture, and by extension, national politics (see Democrat Party Platforms) reflect only the most rudimentary remnants of the guiding principles established by our Founders. Of course, though Republican Party Platforms are more consistent with our Founding principles, Ronald Reagan was the last Republican president to stand firmly in support of those principles. Liberalism tends to appeal to the worst of human instincts-greed, envy, laziness, victimization and every line of division. Its practitioners appeal to constituent "feelings," and they thus convert emotions into political capital. Leftist pathology is deserving of its own category on the short list of personality disorders, and liberal politicians have one uniformly defining characteristic: hypocrisy. Liberal politicos advocate populist themes but are consummate elitists. They feign concern for the plight of the poor while hobnobbing with the richest of the rich. They are charitable with everyone's income but their own. They decry school vouchers yet send their children to the finest academies. They hate SUVs, unless they are expensive imports. They advocate mass transit but commute on private jets. They express concern for the homeless yet maintain multiple manors. Liberals advocate diversity, unless your views don't comport with their own doctrines of moral relativism. They want to preserve nature and the natural order but advocate homosexual ">homosexual "marriage." They oppose the death penalty for the most heinous of criminal sociopaths, but they support the execution of unborn children in their mothers' wombs. They believed that one nut who bombs an abortion clinic deserves far more law-enforcement attention than jihadi cells planning the 9/11 attacks. They called 9/11 victims ">unborn children in their mothers' wombs. They believed that one nut who bombs an abortion clinic deserves far more law-enforcement attention than jihadi cells planning the 9/11 attacks. They called 9/11 victims "Little Eichmanns" while calling their murderers "oppressed." They "support our troops" while calling for retreat and surrender. Liberals call for "change" but are firmly committed to the status quo. They oppose nuclear power production while complaining about ">"global warming." They call for racial, ethnic and religious harmony, but they rally constituencies by fomenting division and hate. They deride moral clarity because they can't survive its scrutiny. Indeed, liberals have turned the wisdom of their iconic sovereigns inside out. Then: "My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country." -John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, 1961 Now: "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you." Then: "I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." -Martin L. King, Address from the Lincoln Memorial, 1963 Now: "I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the content of their character but by the color of their skin." Liberals have replaced the original Constitution with their so-called "Living Constitution" so that they can insist on viewing the First Amendment through a wide-angle lens-except, of course, the "freedom of religion" part, where they opt to censor Christianity while imposing secular atheism. They advocate a ">"Wall of Separation" between church and state, but they tear down any obstacles between your income and the state. Of course, they also insist on viewing the Second Amendment through a pinhole. Liberals protest economic recession, all the while suppressing economic growth with evermore taxes and regulations. Most of them are card-carrying members of the ignoble ranks of ">"useful idiots," those Western apologists for Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism. Of course, that card reads: "Member, Democrat National Committee." I have no doubt that you've already come up with a list of additional examples of liberal hypocrisy. Unfortunately, there isn't enough bandwidth on the Internet to compile a comprehensive list here. (Feel free to post additional examples on our reader comments page.) Liberal and conservative worldviews often collide for this reason: Disciplined conservatives put God first, family and country second and themselves third, while liberals tend to put themselves first, their country last, and serve gods made in their image. This is the most defining philosophical distinction between these two groups. As we approach the next presidential election, Leftmedia types suggest that most Americans are in the middle-">Leftmedia types suggest that most Americans are in the middle-"moderate" or "centrist." But political researchers are finding that we are in fact a deeply divided nation, with many voters strongly identifying with either conservative or liberal doctrines. Let's hope and pray that more of our fellow Americans, those guided by their feelings, will think better of this process and vote on right-minded principles. Otherwise, it will be difficult to seat candidates who, in the words of Samuel Adams, possess the qualities of ">Samuel Adams, possess the qualities of "wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth..." Quote of the week "Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people's freedom and security." -William F. Buckley Jr. On cross-examination "Before government hijacked charity in the form of the New Deal and Great Society, compassion and charity began at home. People were to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit prisoners, care for widows and orphans and love their enemies. Those were biblical commands to individuals, not government. Democrat politicians see things differently. Apparently believing there aren't enough caring people, they want compassion to originate in Washington, depriving it of its true meaning. They define compassion as big and ever-growing government and a guaranteed check forever with no expectation-or requirement-the recipient will ever better his or her circumstances." -Cal Thomas Open query "Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes-one rich, one poor-both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other?" -Ronald Reagan

 

Secular Progressive Lesion #2; "Aiding and Abetting Your Enemy".

 

1. Financing North Korea:

    A. Agree to build two Nuclear Plants in North Korea at a price of $4 Billion.

    B. Tell a Lie. Despite Pyongyang's history of lying and cheating, tell the American People "

this agreement will help achieve a vital and long-standing American Objective, and an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.

    C.  For six years ignore North Korea's role in nuclear and other missile-related activities with China, Pakistan, Iran, and Libya.

 

2. Chinese Assistance:

    A.  Ignore any Chinese missile buildup along the Taiwan Strait and in the Himalayas adjacent to India, as well as any threat of a nuclear strike on Los Angles by a Senior Chinese General.

    B.  Reward "Friends of Bill/Hillary" and your Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown, by giving permission to sell restricted military-related technologies to Chinese Companies with direct ties to the military.

    C.  Grant Chinese Companies bargain-basement sales on supercomputers worth $9 Million for $30,000 and ignore objections by the Department of Defense and other agencies.

    D.  Lift restrictions on sales of Powerful American-made communications encryption software, there by enabling China's military to operate its weapons-development projects and conduct military exercises at a very high level of secrecy.

    E.  To accommodate all of the above transfer responsibility for licensing sensitive military technologies from the far more cautious State Department to the more accommodating Department of Commerce, run by your friend Ron Brown, that acted as a fundraising arm of the Democratic (Secular Progressive) Party. 

 

3.  Reduce Security, both internal and external to accommodate your Enemy:

    A.  Have your Energy Secretary, Hazel O'Leary declare an "Openness" policy at  laboratories that develop our most advanced thermonuclear warheads run by the Department of Energy (DOE) that accommodated the sale noted in paragraph 2C above.

    B.  Dismantle long standing security practices like banishing the wearing for colored security badges at national laboratories and DOE headquarters that revealed clearances for entry to very sensitive areas. Use the excuse that the practice was "discriminatory".

    C. Terminate restriction of visits by foreign nationals from countries such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea to unclassified areas of the labs.

    D.  Stop all background checks on most foreign visitors to America's most important nuclear laboratories.

    E.   Order the Declassification of voluminous information on the laboratories and other nuclear facilities and transfer this information from classified to unclassified computer systems, enabling Internet access world wide

    F.  Ignore or fire any DOE professionals that protest this declassification that resulted in security breakdowns, to include the Director of the DOE Edward McCallum.

 

 

 

I sent this to Diana West, though you all might be interested.

Madam,
Your article reads like a Chapter from M. Stanton Evans' Book "Blacklisted by History". Some feel it is "to great a reach" to believe that the Socialist/Communists, now known as Democrats or Progressives are willing to use the Muslim war on America for their own ends. If this means "Playing Nice, Nice" with an obvious "Islamic Radical" like Hershum Islam, the the Progressive Gordon England must let Coughlin go.
Where is McCarthy when you need him.

 

TSGT Uvin A. Clough Jr., USAF, RET

 

The Pentagon Mantra: PC Trumps Security?
By Diana West
Thursday, January 17, 2008

The year is 1942. The place, the Pentagon. A Berlin-born aide to the U.S. deputy secretary of Defense has learned that a military intelligence officer has not only read Hitler's "Mein Kampf," but is lecturing senior officers about Hitler's heretofore unexamined goals of world domination.

This schweinhunt must go. At least, that's what the German-born staffer thinks. Did I mention he's fluent in German? That's partly why the deputy secretary of Defense relies so heavily on his aide's judgment on all things German, particularly when it comes to the War on Nazism's German outreach program. This program brings Nazi apologists into the inner sanctum of the American war machine ...

Sound crazy?

Travel forward to 1973. The deputy secretary of Defense's Soviet-born, Russian-speaking aide is gunning for the one intelligence officer who has boned up on Marx, Engels and Soviet military doctrine. Why? Because the officer refuses to "soften" his brief on communist ideology, and is presenting it to the military leadership -- now hearing it for the first time since the Cold War began. If communist plans for global domination become common knowledge, the aide realizes, gazing thoughtfully at a blown-up photo of Soviet mouthpiece Vladimir Posner on his office wall, the Pentagon will surely change strategy and halt the USSR outreach program, which gives commie symps Pentagon access ...

Totally outlandish, right?

Once upon a time, yes. But this month, the Washington Times' Bill Gertz reported on a not entirely dissimilar real-life version of such fictions, the termination of Maj. Stephen Coughlin (USAR). Coughlin, a lawyer and reserve military intelligence officer, has been the Pentagon's sole specialist on Islamic law charged with lecturing senior officers on jihad doctrine -- military leaders who have been fighting the so-called war on terror for years without an inkling of Islamic ideology. His contract with the Joint Staff will end in March, Gertz wrote, because Coughlin "had run afoul of a key aide" to the Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England.

That "key aide" is Cmdr. Hesham Islam (USN ret.), an Egyptian-born, Arabic-speaking Muslim whom Gordon England describes as "my interlocutor" and "personal, close confidante." According to Gertz, England's interlocutor and confidante confronted Stephen Coughlin seeking "to have Mr. Coughlin soften his views of Islamist extremism."

Note the irony in this choice of words. "Islamist" and "extremism," like "Islamofascism" and other euphemisms, are words that draw a PC curtain over mainstream Islam. They effectively shield the religion and its tenets from the scrutiny necessary to assess the ideology driving our jihadist enemies. Of course, lifting that PC curtain on Islam and its jihadist tenets is precisely the affect of Stephen Coughlin's Pentagon brief. It goes against what political correctness tells us; it also goes against what Islamic advocacy groups tell us.

For example, Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), is someone who advocates decoupling the word "Islamic" from the word "terrorism" for discussions of, well, Islamic terrorism. Why do I mention this? ISNA is a group that has been strenuously "outreached" by Gordon England's Pentagon even as the Justice Department has officially labeled it a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Wonder if England ever thought much about the large picture of Mattson -- head of what Justice has said is an MB front organization -- hanging amid the photos on Hesham Islam's office wall.

What Hesham Islam wanted from Stephen Coughlin was a softer interpretation of Islamic law and jihad, and, as Gertz reported, in the process he slurred Coughlin as "a Christian zealot or extremist `with a pen.' " Now Coughlin is out.

This high-level effort, in effect, to deny the connection between Islamic law and what the military calls the "enemy threat doctrine" should ring bells, not just in the military, but in Congress, which obviously has Pentagon oversight responsibilities. And what about the FBI? When a citizen is denounced as a "Christian zealot or extremist" shortly before his government contract is dropped, has a civil rights violation occurred?

More questions. Why is the deputy secretary of Defense engaged in Muslim "outreach" in the first place? And how good (safe) is his "outreach" advice if, to name a couple of examples, it brings ISNA into a bizarro relationship with the Pentagon, and sends a longtime apologist for assorted terrorists, Muslim Public Affairs Council's Salam Al-Marayati, on a Pentagon-sponsored trip to Guantanamo Bay? When such advice brings the military's woefully belated education on jihad to a halt, it becomes shockingly clear that the Pentagon is more concerned with political correctness than protecting the nation.

Diana West is a contributing columnist for Townhall.com and author of the new book, The Death of the Grown-up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization.

 

 

    

     The Wahhabi/al Qaeda Command and Control Structure for destruction of Infidel Nations/Governments can be found by anyone with a computer and "Goggle" or "Ask", it is in a word "Mosques", "Wahhabi Mosques" to be specific, 2,000 of which are very active in the United States alone.       

 

    Their proliferation from Indonesia to Europe, England, Australia, and South America that has taken place in the last 20 to 30 years is not benign. The sole purpose of the Mosques is the control of that huge immigration of Muslims. This was not an immigration of people escaping from either poverty or suppression by their governments, it was and is instead the "Spearhead" of an attacking army, prepositioned for the purpose of bringing about the new "Caliphate".

 

     They are not only ready to use attacks like 9/11 but studiously attack our civilization, our religion, our morality thru the Courts to get special considerations for Muslims, with the aide and assistance from the likes of CAIR (a Wahhabi Organization) and the ACLU (a Communist Organization) in the United States. Sadly they have been successful.

    

     The Wahhabi Mosques Command and Control Structure; 

 

     1.  Accumulates and distributes wealth world wide in support of al Qaeda;

     2.  Provides command and control Communications world wide;

     3.  Location of in-place commanders, operation officers, and intelligence collectors, the Imams;

     4.  Trains/Brainwashes their own as well as converts in the suicidal mandate of "Fatwa";

     5.  Infiltrates our Prisons, Schools and Universities to convert the disaffected. They have been successful as noted by Prison Authorities, and evidenced in our schools that today hold mandatory classes on "How to be a Muslim" to include study of the Koran. You will note there are no classes on "How to be a Jew, Christian, Buddhist, etc" and this is encouraged by the Secular Progressives;

     6.  The 9/11 Terrorists had a superb network waiting for them when they entered the United States, it doesn't take a leap of faith to see that the Wahhabi Mosques was/is that Network.

     7.  What better way to accumulate the materials to use in "suicidal attacks" against power stations, waterways, shopping centers, etc, etc, then to purchase business that use these materials, in each country they have invaded.

      While this of course is not a complete outline of the "Command and Control Structure" I contend is in place, but I'm sure you get the message.

    

     In the event that we desert Iraq, as the Secular Progressives want us to do, and war erupts over an attack on Israel, promised by al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, etc.  What better way to support their war effort then to have in place a "Command and Control Center" to commit sabotage in those countries that are committed to come to the aid of Israel? 

      

     Finally the vary nature of the distortion that the Muslim Immigration has had in some countries in Europe is that they are in danger of loosing their Judo/Christian Identities. These countries are already reneging on some of their NATO commitments, which is a further problem should war erupt.

 

      Maybe this is just a case of "Chicken Little" on my part, I don't think so and our leaders, from 'Homeland Security", State, Defense, to the President need to be more forthcoming with the American People on these probable dangers.

 

     Uvin A. Clough JR., TSGT, USAF, RET.

 

P.S. I would appreciate any comments, additions or deletions.