Can you believe we are giving a penny to the master mind and cartoon character who masterminded the Lockerby bombing. Everyday I wake up in complete amazement at the gall of this Current government when I read the current events, where will it end? Is this Obama’s apology to Omar for Reagan sending bombers over his tent that killed his wife?

The Obama Administration plans to give $400,000 in funding to a Libyan charity run by the Gadhafi family, and U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk wants the grant withdrawn.

The money would be divided between two foundations run by the family of Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi. A $200,000 share is set to go to the Gadhafi Development Foundation, which is run by Gadhafi’s son, Saif, and another $200,000 are to go to Wa Attassimou, an organization run by Muammar Gadhafi’s daughter, Aisha.

The grants should be withdrawn in light of the recent return to Libya of Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdel Baset Megrahi. The terminally ill prisoner was released from in Scotland on compassionate grounds, and got a hero’s welcome from Muammar Gadhafi and other Libyans upon his return.

Saif Gadhafi was involved in negotiating for Megrahi’s release, and accompanied him back to Libya.

The money would be divided between two foundations run by the family of Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi. A $200,000 share is set to go to the Gadhafi Development Foundation, which is run by Gadhafi's son, Saif, and another $200,000 are to go to Wa Attassimou, an organization run by Muammar Gadhafi's daughter, Aisha.

The grants should be withdrawn in light of the recent return to Libya of Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdel Baset Megrahi. The terminally ill prisoner was released from in Scotland on compassionate grounds, and got a hero's welcome from Muammar Gadhafi and other Libyans upon his return.

Saif Gadhafi was involved in negotiating for Megrahi's release, and accompanied him back to Libya.

"Just weeks after the Gadhafi family celebrated the return of a terrorist responsible for the murders of 189 Americans, the U.S. taxpayer should not be asked to reward them with $400,000," Kirk wrote to the president. "For the sake of the victims' families who have endured so much pain these last few weeks, I ask you to withdraw your Administration's request."

Iran is out of the closet that finally admitted that they have a secret uranium-enrichment plant.

And they thumbed their nose at the world community and said, "So what, their’s nothing you can do about it. They admit it gives the capability their ability to produce nuclear weapons.

Iran is currently under three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze enrichment what was believed their only enrichment plant. This sanction has only cause Iran to step up aid and troops to the terrorist.

American Intelligence is not sure about the location of the second facility, when or if it had started operations or the type and number of centrifuges it was running. This is where it gets a little strange, an officials, who had access to a review of Western intelligence on the issue, said it was about 100 miles (160 kilometers) southwest of Tehran and was the site of 3,000 centrifuges that could be operational by next year. Now what does that say about American Intelligence.

Iranian officials had previously had sworn on a stack of Koran’s that they only had one plant which is under IAEA monitoring and had denied allegations of undeclared nuclear activities. Having said that, what can we believe that comes out of the mouths of Iranian officials.

How many times will the world let this back water banana republic rub their back street rhetoric in the faces of the major powers. They have a totalitarian regime that keeps their jack boots on the neck of the citizens. They treat their women like they were property along with their goats and camels. I am sure they are many good people living in Iran and I wish no harm to them, just their misdirected leaders. Now this fanatical regime has the power of a nuclear weapon at their disposal and crazy enough to use it. How long before you think Israel pulls the trigger on those braggadocio’s and rid the world of the threat.

It’s like the husband who was caught in bed with another women, he jumps up an exclaims, "Who are you going to believe me or your lying eyes. Obama is asking that same question, "Who are you going to believe me or your lying conservative eyes. The vital question to be asked is, "How involved is Obama, the president of the United States, with the corrupt felonious organization, ACORN. Is the responses that’s on the record the president saying, other than being a community organizer in Chicago and working with ACORN, I do not have any ties to ACORN.

In an interview with stephanopulus, he asked Obama, "How about the funding for ACORN"? Obama responded, "You know, if–-frankly, it’s not really something I’ve followed closely". I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money". Stephanopoulos then asked, "Both the Senate and the House have voted to cut it off". Obama’s response was, "You know, what I know is, is that what I saw on that video was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated". Then Stephanopoulos responded by saying, "So you’re not committing to–-to cut off the federal funding"? Obama then answered, "George this not the biggest issue facing the country. It’s not something I’m paying a lot of attention to".

Obama forgot to mention that he represented ACORN along with US Government, in a law suit against the State of Illinois and won. He also failed to mention that in his campaign speeches his stated that, ACORN will shape his agenda, and he would take input/ideas from ACORN.

Here are some facts of Obama’s relationship with ACORN that I was able to discern:

In conclusion

I am going to ask myself some important questions about Obama’s link to ACORN and what the ramifications of this symbiotic relationship, Some of those questions and thoughts that need clarifying that I am concerned with are the following. What if Barack Obama’s most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along? Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), the largest radical group in America. If I told you Obama had close ties with MoveOn.org or Code Pink, you’d know what I was talking about. Acorn is at least as radical as these better-known groups, arguably more so. Yet because Acorn works locally, in carefully selected urban areas, its national profile is lower. Acorn likes it that way. And so, I’d wager, does Barack Obama.

This is a story we’ve largely missed. While Obama’s Acorn connection has not gone entirely unreported, its depth, extent, and significance have been poorly understood. Typically, media background pieces note that, on behalf of Acorn, Obama and a team of Chicago attorneys won a 1995 suit forcing the state of Illinois to implement the federal "motor-voter" bill. In fact, Obama’s Acorn connection is far more extensive. In the few stories where Obama’s role as an Acorn "leadership trainer" is noted, or his seats on the boards of foundations that may have supported Acorn are discussed, there is little follow-up. Even these more extensive reports miss many aspects of Obama’s ties to Acorn.

An Anti-Capitalism Agenda

Sol Stern explains that Acorn is the key modern successor of the radical 1960’s "New Left," with a "1960’s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism" to match. Acorn, says Stern, grew out of "one of the New Left’s silliest and most destructive groups, the National Welfare Rights Organization." In the 1960’s, NWRO launched a campaign of sit-ins and disruptions at welfare offices. The goal was to remove eligibility restrictions, and thus effectively flood welfare rolls with so many clients that the system would burst. The theory, explains Stern, was that an impossibly overburdened welfare system would force "a radical reconstruction of America’s unjust capitalist economy." Instead of a socialist utopia, however, we got the culture of dependency and family breakdown that ate away at America’s inner cities — until welfare reform began to turn the tide.

While Acorn holds to NWRO’s radical economic framework and its confrontational 1960’s-style tactics, the targets and strategy have changed. Acorn prefers to fly under the national radar, organizing locally in liberal urban areas — where, Stern observes, local legislators and reporters are often "slow to grasp how radical Acorn’s positions really are." Acorn’s new goals are municipal "living wage" laws targeting "big-box" stores like Wal-Mart, rolling back welfare reform, and regulating banks — efforts styled as combating "predatory lending." Unfortunately, instead of helping workers, Acorn’s living-wage campaigns drive businesses out of the very neighborhoods where jobs are needed most. Acorn’s opposition to welfare reform only threatens to worsen the self-reinforcing cycle of urban poverty and family breakdown. Perhaps most mischievously, says Stern, Acorn uses banking regulations to pressure financial institutions into massive "donations" that it uses to finance supposedly non-partisan voter turnout drives.

According to Stern, Acorn’s radical agenda sometimes shifts toward "undisguised authoritarian socialism." Fully aware of its living-wage campaign’s tendency to drive businesses out of cities, Acorn hopes to force companies that want to move to obtain "exit visas." "How much longer before Acorn calls for exit visas for wealthy or middle-class individuals before they can leave a city?" asks Stern, adding, "This is the road to serfdom indeed."

In Your Face

Acorn’s tactics are famously "in your face." Just think of Code Pink’s well-known operations (threatening to occupy congressional offices, interrupting the testimony of General David Petraeus) and you’ll get the idea. Acorn protesters have disrupted Federal Reserve hearings, but mostly deploy their aggressive tactics locally. Chicago is home to one of its strongest chapters, and Acorn has burst into a closed city council meeting there. Acorn protestors in Baltimore disrupted a bankers’ dinner and sent four busloads of profanity-screaming protestors against the mayor’s home, terrifying his wife and kids. Even a Baltimore city council member who generally supports Acorn said their intimidation tactics had crossed the line.

Should we commit more troops to Afghanistan not only to save the lives of troop that are currently deployed in Afghanistan but also achieve the objective. Being a veteran of Vietnam I thought we learned a valuable lesson, commit your troops with a clear winnable defined goals, then complete that objective at all costs. Congress, white house and the people have to be totally committed to the troops and the objective that lies before them, no questions asked.

This is not, however, to be a body count and numbers game. There is no precisely right or wrong number of US forces that should be in Afghanistan but enough troops to accomplish the intended goal. Troops will be needed for several years. The issue is whether we are pursuing a strategy that defines our goals and tailors our means to them. Thus far, none of our publicly articulated goals seem to reflect what we are actually doing. Depending upon what you think our goals are, we are either doing too much or too little. If our goal is to deny al Qaeda a safe haven in which it can prepare and plan attacks, it might be possible to achieve that outcome with a much smaller US effort. US Special Forces, tactical aircraft, and drones based in and around the capital of Kabul could target and eliminate the terrorists. A nation building effort would not be necessary for such a counterterrorism strategy.

Yet this is what administration officials have proposed: a counter-insurgency program, creation of a national government, a national army, a democratic process, an economy not based on narcotics. If our goal is foster a strong central government, then we are knowingly pursuing something essentially at odds with Afghan history. A strong Afghan national army would mean doubling the number of trained Afghan military personnel that the US is now struggling to field. According to metrics developed by General David Petraeus, a counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan would require 1.3 million troops for a decade. That is five times the size of US, NATO, and Afghan government forces today. No one thinks this is feasible and we are not attempting to do so. A classic counter-insurgency strategy therefore is not in the cards.

Apart from the question of strategy, how long can we sustain a deployment of 75,000 troops, the funding, and the public's casualty tolerance. If the US presence in Iraq is cut by two-thirds over the next year, the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan would be about 125,000, more than President Bush deployed. To support that number, a force twice as large would be constantly either preparing to deploy or recovering. Thus, half of US ground forces would be committed to Iraq and Afghanistan for the indefinite future, while Afghanistan emerges as the largest recipient of US foreign aid. An effort of this size enjoys domestic support if the public thinks we're going to win and Congress, the White House and the pundits line up behind the policy. These conditions are already fading. The Administration would be wise to consider a glide path to lower casualties and reduced spending over several years.

In the short term we should continue to attack Taliban and al Qaeda commanders, while offering security to more Afghans. The goal would be to induce Pushtuns in the south and east to disengage from terrorists or violent opponents of the Afghan or Pakistani governments. The Pushtuns must believe that backsliding would cost them financially and militarily. Some US forces would needed as the hammer to enforce these deals for the foreseeable future, but not on the scale required for a nationwide counter-insurgency.

The Obama Administration may not want to say publicly that it is pursuing such a strategy, wanting instead to convince Afghans of all stripes that we are willing to keep a large presence indefinitely. The truth is, however, that we cannot. In deciding whether to accede to requests for more troops, the President should prepare the ground now for an approach that meshes the threat to US security, prospects for success and a sustainable level of funding.

This is simply the question that needs to be answered, whether we are pursuing a strategy that defines our goals and tailors our means to them.

Former UN representative John Bolton said, "I think Obama just threw Israel under the bus, I don't think there's ever been a speech by an American President at the United Nations that was so critical of Israel."

Never has an American president give a speech at the united nations that spent so much time contrasting his administration with the previous administration, it was called a speech more designed for an American audience than an international audience. Many commented on how personal and unpresidential it was.

The President Obama’s address to the U.N. was, a post-American speech by our first post-American president. It was a speech high on the personality of Barack Obama and high on multilateralism, but very short in advocating American interests.

It was a very naïve, Wilsonian speech, and very revealing of Obama’s foreign policy. Overall, it was so apologetic for the actions of prior administrations, in an effort to distance Obama from them, that it became yet another symbol of American weakness in the wake of the president’s decision to abandon missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, and his recent manifest hesitation over what to do in Afghanistan.

The most significant point of the speech was how the president put Israel on the chopping block in a variety of references, from calling Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegitimate to talking about ending ‘the occupation that began in 1967.’ That implies that he supports going back to 1967 borders, Obama has a very tough road ahead. He is frequently taking the side of the Palestinians, who don’t have a competent leader who can make hard decisions and compromises in the future.

Also noteworthy, was how Obama highlighted just how much of American foreign policy that he wants to run through the U.N.

Usually presidential speeches at the U.N. are ‘state of the world’ addresses. Obama’s speech was filled with talk about U.N. bodies, U.N. treaties, and sending Secretary of State Clinton to a conference on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which would be an incredible waste of time for her. The president’s speech showed a fascination with U.N.-centric issues. Obama talked about getting past ‘balance of power’ politics. He talked about the interests that unite us rather than divide us."

The Israeli’s did not think much of his speech, you could hear screams all the way from the wailing wall. They criticized the American president for failing to mention the word terror in his speech even once, opting instead to use violence. They also resented the reference to the Holocaust followed by a direct passage where he spoke of the suffering and humiliation of the Palestinian people was hurtful and unnecessary.

Jewish leaders moved quickly to condemn the president for again making the issue of the so-called natural growth of existing settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as the key roadblocks to peace in the troubled region.

"To make absolute statements, particularly when in the past Israel has sort of done everything the Palestinians asked and they still won’t give her peace is to me a counter productive policy," Senator Charles Schumer said.

Did he through them under the bus or just can’t make all the people happy all of the time, you decide.

Am I going nut or do I see a lot of parallels in societies of the past to current events. It is sometime of great value to put things on paper to assimilate and use that as a sounding board for others to read and set the records straight. What do you think?

Nations most often fall from within, and this fall is usually due to governments decline in the moral and spiritual values. As the values of government goes, so goes a nation.

We first become aware of the government ceasing to lead the country on the values our fathers set forth for this nation, spiritual and moral values became secondary. The governments concept of religion is a political thorn in their side concerning political correctness and gaining minority swing votes, diametrically opposite of our founding fathers ideals and principals.

.

Then government selfishly neglects the care of the oppressed and common man in the pursuit of personal material wealth, and political power, thus eroding the foundation that keeps this country strong.. Material values and idolatry began to dominate political thoughts, congressmen and Senators began to exalt there own grandiose role over the peoples welfare. They stifle the economy with bigger government to the point the working man has a very difficult time making a living. Fanning the flames of this injustice, new and harder taxes and tributes are cast upon the masses causing unbearable consequences for the common people.

The rule of government becomes opaque, the less the people know the better we can cheat and deceive the masses. The representatives become obsessed with big business and personal gain are drawn in with the money changers, the lobbyists and corrupt individuals waiting in the shadows to further the political representatives personal unscrupulous gains.. Ultimately, a double standard develops in the country, the people will abide by laws of the land, the politicians has another set of laws for personal gains. "Tell the citizenry what every they want to hear and if they complain let them eat cake," exclaimed the head of state!

We became aware of selfish individualism growing and tearing into the fabric of our society, fragmenting it into smaller and smaller group loyalties. The nation was thus weakened by internal conflicts between the citizens of the country. The older population becomes the greatest sector in our society and the government taking an apathetic and uncaring attitude to the welfare of the elderly. A great prophet one said, "Show me a nation that takes care of it’s elderly and I will show you a great nation". We noticed our individual freedoms slowly ebbing away in infinitesimal amounts. Then came a shout from the masses with a roar, "Dear God what happen to our individual rights!"

It became apparent one day that the governments unbelief in God became obvious, putting political correctness and minority religion ahead of the religion that our fathers built this great nation upon. Ethical and moral principles disappeared, affecting the economy and government. Thus, by internal weakness and fragmentation the fabric of our society came apart. There seemed no way to save our way of life except by a dictator who arose from within or by outside forces waiting upon this time and day for a great chasm to divide our society.

The people and family structure are the foundation of any nation. When that crumbles, and the rights of the people are taken away, the nation falls, nations are built upon unity of individuals and family units. They are the true driving social force. A nation will not be strong unless the people and family units of the land are being blessed by the almighty and flourishing from earths bounty. That was true in the ancient world and it is true today." If things go well with the people, life is worth living; when the people falters, life falls apart.

Do you recognize Obama’s plan and agenda to reform the government of the United States? Obama stated in a speech shortly before election, and I paraphrase, "In five days when I am elected President, dramatic changes will happen too our government" he failed to mention what the changes would be. This should have been a red flag, but we considered it political buildup and rhetoric. The questions we failed to ask, what type of changes are you going to implement, how is it going to impact the average citizen, and if the majority of the citizens are against it, what recourse do we have.

It was true, in five days he was elected President of the United States by a majority of the popular vote. Obama’s proclamation of change to the democratic governmental system as we know it, is presently being implemented. Here is part of his Agenda that has already been proposed, and to some extent implemented for change:

Take command of the high positions in government in order to control the economy of the country, then nationalize the system to operate according to preconceived mandate. Regulate big business and the economy so that the free market is abolished in the areas of large corporations and major production in the economic system. This type of system promotes what is called social leveling, eliminating the social class system making everyone just a number in the crowd and cater to the minority.

Create or take advantage of a crisis, monetary, unemployment or healthcare global warming etc, and use this crisis to show capitalism’s inability to over come the problem, adversely Obama’s programs has the only solution. The upshot of crises increases centralization of power, i.e., takeover of big business and production, placing Czar’s to oversee that sector with the same Obama agenda, and implement his proposed programs. The final goal of the crisis doctrine, making the people dependent with the new government’s plan, and developing a strong central big government.

His other plan for change, socialize the work force in this country, concentrating the workers under one governmental system, thus workers of America are dependent on central government. When government control the workers, they control production, translating into a tighter control over the economic system. How do you get the union leaders to agree with the Obama administration, promise the them unbelievable wealth and power to bring them into Obama’s line of thinking, a workers state. When the government controls this great economic power of workers and it’s production capability, it links up to the world wide market, making a one world economy and currency.

These are just a few of Obama’s programs, and I just scratched the surface, this is not the forum to get into a long dissertation concerning his agenda. If you would like to know more about the direction he is taking this country please read Karl Marx Manifesto, it is a blue print of Obama’s agenda. If you want to know what makes Obama tick, I implore you to read the books he has written. Like so many egomaniacs in history he has given a written synopsis of his intent if and when his is in power.

This leads me to the question do you see the socialist undertones in the changes that Obama already initiated? If you have read Karl Marx, can you see the programs being implemented that was written by Marx many decades ago. When you read the books of Obama tell me if you do not get a sick feeling with a cry of Oh, No.

I am extremely grateful to have a forum to give personal opinions on current events, and receive rebuttals agreeing or disagreeing. Through dialogue we gain knowledge if we keep an open mind too different paradigms. One last thought from an old Cherokee Proverb, "He who is present at a wrongdoing and not lift a hand to prevent it, is as guilty as the wrongdoer".