Obama versus McCain or Goldman Sachs versus The Rothschilds

A Clash of the Titans for Control of the Presidency

News the media won't report!

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps your vote really doesn't matter because whatever happens in America is being orchestrated by more powerful sources? Few people understand the power and financial influence of two of the most powerful international financial houses in world history and it may very well be they are heavily involved in cutthroat competition for control of our next president. Yet the media has not even begun to question the relationship between these international bankers and our candidates for president.

Well they should before it is too late. Some would argue it may already be too late as the Congress, the White House, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and the two candidates have already joined forces to adopt the most comprehensive bail out of Wall Street and the banking community every seen in American history and followed it with similar action in every major nation throughout the world.

While Congress and the candidates talk about a $700 billion bailout that was necessary to save the economy, the Federal Reserve and Treasury were quietly adopting new programs and regulations to provide direct assistance to the financial markets bringing the total bailout to nearly $3 trillion. As if that is not enough, the Democratic leadership in Congress also intends to offer a future bribe to the taxpayer of another $300 billion stimulation program if Obama gets elected.

How in the world did the Democrats and Republicans, the liberals and conservatives and the media of this nation all agree to such a massive commitment to save the very institutions that cheated, committed fraud, bent regulations and out-smarted the best minds in government and finance? How did people with opposing philosophies who were bitter political rivals bury the hatchet in the midst of one of the most contentious presidential campaigns in history, just a few weeks before the dramatic climax?

Well perhaps the quiet involvement of Goldman Sachs and the Rothschilds may explain as these global powerhouses have been getting their way with governments since long before most modern governments even existed.

In 1750, 26 years before the American Declaration of Independence the Rothschild family began their journey to become the most powerful financial family in world history and though to this day the vast majority of their holdings are privately held, estimates of their family holdings are as much as $167 trillion dollars. Strategic actions over the 258 year continuous evolvement of the Rothschilds has led to control of much of the world supply of gold, oil, diamonds and many other assets.

As for Goldman Sachs, they were founded in 1869, shortly after the end of the US Civil War and at the dawning of the industrial revolution in America joining yet another family firm still around today, J.P. Morgan whose work to save the Union during the Civil War earned it many privileges during the explosion of growth in America including the opportunity to finance the Rockefeller Standard Oil empire with Rothschild money.

In time the three factions would appear to undertake the most intense competition between them for control of the global financial system ever seen but in the end, though all three groups remain the sole survivors today in terms of American influence, it became known that Morgan was serving as a front for the Rothschilds in order for the Rothschilds to maintain a low profile in America. But low profile or not they dominated what happened and how it happened.

As for the involvement in this election cycle, Goldman Sachs and the Rothschilds have again taken on each other with the Rothschilds jumping onto the McCain bandwagon late in the campaign while Goldman Sachs has been imbedded in the Obama campaign since the beginning. While the Rothschilds have seemingly played a much smaller role in McCain's efforts much remains to be disclosed of the Goldman role with Obama.

This much can be reported. Back when Obama was a freshman candidate for Senator he was selected to be keynote speaker for the Democratic national convention in 2004. A nobody from Chicago was plucked from midair and cast into the most important slot in the convention. How he would up there remains to be revealed.

Just a little over one year after being elected as a junior senator, in 2006 Obama was the featured guest before a private gathering of the Goldman Sachs executives in Chicago, an honor unheard of for someone that politically insignificant, speaking before the most powerful financial firm on Wall Street and one of the most powerful in the world. This was quietly reported in Bloomberg News.

It was the launch of his presidential campaign and Goldman executives soon gave over $800,000 to jump start the Obama presidential bid along with collecting millions of dollars from their fellow Wall Street firms and clients. Oh yes, Robert Rubin became the Obama economic expert, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Billionaire Warren Buffet became his most trusted economic advisor, a man who was to invest $5 billion in Goldman Sachs in the height of the economic meltdown. Yet Buffet was also a personal guest of Lord Rothschild at a private conference at his English estate.

The story only gets better. On May 3, 2007, Barack Obama attended an event at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan that was not on his public schedule and is only now surfacing. The exclusive private dinner was for Goldman Sachs traders and featured a discussion on issues by Obama moderated for the Wall Street firm by NBC's Tom Brokaw. Once again the circumstances are strange as a year later Brokaw would be moderating the second presidential debate between Obama and McCain and the economy and Wall Street were the main points of discussion. Of course the debate commission and McCain were unaware that Obama and Brokaw had already held a practice session the year earlier.

Then comes the financial meltdown which can be traced back to a couple of major events. The first major change to the regulatory framework that opened the door to Enron and the sub-prime crisis occurred in 1991, when Goldman Sachs, through a subsidiary called J. Aron, argued that even though it was an investment bank it should be granted the same exemption given to commercial traders in the commodity markets because it was in the business of buying commodities as a middleman. It was granted by the CFTC.

A second turning point came when Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, that formally allowed investors to trade energy commodities on private electronic platforms outside the purview of regulators. Critics have called this piece of legislation the "Enron loophole," saying Enron played a role in crafting it. In the months after the act was passed, private electronic trading platforms sprang up across the country, challenging the dominance of NYMEX.

Investment banks like Goldman's had been frustrated with the established exchange because they really were never able to get control of it according to Michael Greenberger, a law professor at the University of Maryland and a former staff member at the CFTC. The new law allowed them to create a private trading platform. The most successful of the private platforms was InterContinental Exchange, or ICE, founded by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and a few other big brokerages in 2000. ICE soon opened a trading platform in London, allowing its founders to trade vast quantities of U.S. oil overseas without being subject to regulation. This opened the floodgates to oil price speculation.



Suddenly comes the current economic chaos and the president calls a meeting of Congressional leaders, Treasury, Federal Reserve staff and the presidential candidates. Obama, who was staying away from Washington during the crisis got the call and at the meeting he spoke about economic issues that reportedly had been prepared by the Republicans and was being reviewed by Treasury yet wound up in the Obama campaign. Of course the Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulsen was a former Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs as is the new head of the $700 billion Treasury bailout program.

Do we really know anything about the long term relationship between Obama and Goldman Sachs other than their massive fund raising for him? Since he has been secretly guided and financed by Goldman people from the very beginning of his presidential campaign were they influential in his economic platform? Obama never questioned the role of Goldman in the sub-prime fiasco nor in manipulating the oil futures prices. When Goldman specialists tried to drive the price of oil up to $200 a barrel this year Obama never said a word.

Long before this time the Goldman Sachs Foundation had quietly channeled funds to Colin Powell's new group, America's Promise and Powell himself was collecting honorariums from $50,000 to $100,000 for speaking to various groups including Goldman sponsored events. At some point between the time he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then left government, only to come back as Bush Secretary of State, Powell acquired between $1 million and $5 million of stock in giant defense contractor General Dynamics, a firm in which the Roshschilds have extensive ownership. Powell eventually would be converted from a McCain financial contributor and friend to endorser of Obama in less than a year.

As for the Rothschilds and McCain, it was not until this year that they held a fund raiser for him in London hosted by Lord Jacob Rothschild and his son, Nathaniel Rothschild in the posh London Spencer House on March 28, 2008. As I said at the beginning, the Rothschilds are the oldest, biggest and most powerful of all financial houses and have long chosen to remain in the background while other firms fronted their interests.

Although they compete with firms like Goldman they also cooperate often on international mergers and acquisitions, have been partners in the oil futures exchange, and recently both sought to expand their influence in Asia with the Rothschilds selling a 20% interest in one of their companies to the Bank of China. The Shanghai and Hong Kong-listed commercial bank will pay $341 million for the stake in the French arm of the La Compagnie Financière. It is the first strategic investment by a leading Chinese bank in the eurozone.

In spite of being foreign based the Rothschilds have been one of the chief beneficiaries of the economic crisis in America as J.P. Morgan and Barclays, firms with significant equity held by the Rothschilds, were able to gobble up Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual in sweetheart deals for a fraction of their asset values in the midst of the crisis.

So what control do we really have over the election, over the president and over the Congress? We know control has been lost of the economy, of world trade and of international finance. Most government institutions seem to be operating at the whim and call of the financial giants. Can we expect more after this election? Is America for sale to the highest bidder and is Obama's $500 million campaign the highest bid? All this bodes ill for the liberal, left wing groups and unions rallying around Obama as they may very well be discarded when they have served the purpose of winning the elections.

Obama's Got the Wailin' Palin Blues

Obama President - Palin Vice President - What if the electoral vote is tied?

In this one of the most bizarre presidential campaigns in history with either the first African American or the first woman elected to the highest offices in our land, why not see both of them elected? Don't say "no way" until you check the facts. Twice in our history a president failed to get enough electoral votes and the House made the final decision, in 1801 and 1825. Once in our history the vice president failed to get the required electoral votes and the Senate selected the vice president. Amendment 12 was passed to fix the ambiguities of the Constitution after the 1801 election. A full text of Article II and Amendment 12 follow later in this story.

Right now the election is too close to call. There are 538 total electoral votes and 270, a simple majority, are needed to get someone elected. It is technically possible for the election to end in a tie, with Obama and McCain each getting 269 electoral votes, one shy of the majority needed to be president. If that happens, then the election of the president is up to the House and the vice president up to the Senate.

Each state delegation is expected to vote according to their party affiliation but each state only has one vote in the total votes cast. Thus the House would vote for Obama since there is a clear House majority of Democrats. In the Senate there is a tie between Democrats and Republicans, each with 59 members, while two other Senators are independents. Joe Lieberman, a very close friend and endorser of McCain, is an independent who joined the Democrats to give the Democrats control of the Senate.

Because of Lieberman's support of McCain the Senate democratic leadership have threatened to strip him of any party rank in the new Senate. So if the vice president is to be decided by the Senate, Lieberman could easily change his vote, thus eliminating the Democratic majority. If he cast his vote for Palin it would decide the election.

The result would mean Obama would be president and Palin would be vice president for the next four years and given an electoral tie there would be no other probable conclusion. With the polls closing as expected in these last days such a scenario becomes more and more possible. There are so many firsts in this election, not to mention worldwide economic catastrophes and other strange circumstances, that a result as I outlined may not be so far fetched.

Here is what the Constitution says about the election of the president and vice president in Article II and the procedure is quite clear.

Article II

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

Amendment XII

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

The Big Bailout - Free Market Socialism or Government Regulated Capitalism?

Somewhere between the wildly vacillating stock market, the global economic response and the confusion in Congress there is a presidential campaign nearing a conclusion. As the market soars down 2,000 points one week then up 1,000 the next day and governments around the globe step in to fix crisis after crisis it is no wonder the American public has no clue what just happened. Well certain aspects of the market have been repaired and a lot of manipulation has been covered up. The American public will now be a major shareholder in banks and other companies and a whole lot of hidden losses by the greed mongers will be paid off by the feds.

What price did we just pay for stabilization of the stock market? Did we just take a giant leap into the abyss of Free Market Socialism or Government Regulated Capitalism, either of which has never been a part of the American capitalist system? Even more important, did it fix the problems? Since the raid on the US Treasury went so smoothly don't be surprised if more demons of past behavior don't surface in the near future that also have to be addressed to save the struggling economy.

What hasn't been done? For one, the Congress and other elected officials must be banned from taking campaign money from all special interests from the corporations of Wall Street to the labor unions. This bailout is the best evidence yet that campaign contributions from those with a conflict of interest have no place in America. Beyond that lobbying by any group or organization benefiting from any of the many packages to bailout Wall Street or Main Street must be prohibited. Blood money from lobbyists has contaminated our political process to a degree never seen before. Does anyone think Congress and the new president will have the guts and honesty to do this?

Second of all, why has there been no discussion of the hidden debt or losses already incurred by the Wall Street titans in terms of unregulated derivatives and swaps I have discussed in previous articles? I believe there are about $62 trillion more in hidden losses directly attributable to greed, a level of losses far greater than what we have already dealt with in this crisis. If I am right, the economy could go into a severe recession or even depression and if the losses are any larger the consequences could be unimaginable.

In an earlier article about the resilience of the American economy I said the rest of the world cannot afford to let us fail. Recent events demonstrated just what I meant as a problem in the American housing market nearly destroyed the world economy. Perhaps I need to rethink my conclusion as we just were witness to a world teetering on the brink of economic destruction because of a little greed in the way mortgages were approved. It just might be that the world no longer has the ability to help America if we collapse and the interdependence of world markets and speed of world communications will bring down everyone within days.

One thing is certain, our economic system and congress are permeated with people who hold greed to a higher standard than honesty, with people who believe taking is more important than giving, and with people who place far more faith in the almighty dollar than the Almighty God. The foundation of our nation's existence is that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights. We are a nation that puts "In God We Trust" on currency and "One nation under God" in our national anthem. Somehow the Christian values so important to the formation of this nation have been lost in Washington, in Wall Street, in the media and in the overwhelming desire for more power, wealth and control.

What could happen? Read Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged and you will see as the mysterious John Galt led the disappearance of the little people who were the foundation for the wealth accumulated by the rich and greedy and all the puppets who served them. Fascism, socialism and communism were all targets of her failures of civilization and a couple of them could still be around today. Come to think of it, after the great nationalization efforts this dark October things may not be all that different.

Hey Wall Street - Enough is Enough! Or Did You Already Bet on Obama?

In yet another slap in the face to the American consumer the greed mongers on Wall Street have gotten everything they wanted from the President, the Congress, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the international central banks, even the two candidates for president Obama and McCain and still they refuse to release the trillions of US dollars they are hoarding while continuing to hold the economy hostage.

Over two trillion dollars in American pension savings have gone up in smoke this year as the forces behind the government have manipulated and raped every treasure trove they could find to protect their precious credit, line their pockets, and demonstrate to the government just who is in charge of the US economy. Such behavior almost borders on criminal if there were any laws that existed to prosecute the predators of lower Manhattan. But thanks to the millions of dollars in special interest contributions poured into the campaigns and pockets of our elected officials no such laws exist.

Is it just circumstance that only two investment houses survived the economic meltdown this year and gobbled up all their competitors, two firms now sitting on billions if not trillions of our funds? Is it circumstance these firms have the power to call accounts in other companies, in other words demand early payment, when there is no money to be had thus driving those competitors out of business?

Is it circumstance that the survivors, Goldman Sachs and J P Morgan owned and controlled the London energy futures market used to drive up the price of oil and devastate our economy and that of the world? Well is it circumstance that these companies have poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the campaigns of our elected officials and both were the primary beneficiaries of stunning government actions to rescue the economy?

As of August 31 according to the Center for Responsive Government Barack Obama had raised about $460 million compared to about $230 million for McCain. Obama is the first federal candidate in our history to refuse public financing even though he pledged to take the public financing which would have greatly reduced his spending in the campaign.

Goldman Sachs temple in Wall Street.

So what financial interest did Goldman Sachs have in Barack Obama? Since the beginning of his campaign the boys at Goldmans have been the biggest contributors to Obama and helped bring in millions from the Wall Street establishment. Goldman executives alone have given Obama $739,521 and have helped raise the following from Wall Street firms for Obama. CitiGroup - $492,548, J P Morgan - $475,112, UBS - $419,550, Lehman Brothers - $391,774, Morgan Stanley - $341,380 and various amounts from Bear Stearns, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank and Merrill Lynch.

What could be Obama's fascination with Goldman Sachs? Well it goes back as Bloomberg News reported Obama was the featured speaker at the Goldman's annual partners meeting in 2006 in Chicago. This was a junior member of the US Senate who had not even been in office two years yet he was speaking to the top executives of one of the most powerful investment houses in the world. There is something very strange about the circumstance.

The story only gets better. On May 3, 2007, Barack Obama attended an event at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan that was not on his public schedule and is only now surfacing. The exclusive private dinner was for Goldman Sachs traders and featured a discussion on issues moderated for the Wall Street firm by NBC's Tom Brokaw. Once again the circumstances are strange as a year later Brokaw would be moderating the second presidential debate between Obama and McCain and the economy and Wall Street were the main points of discussion. Of course the debate commission and McCain were unaware that Obama and Brokaw had already held a practice session the year earlier when Obama was facing a withering attack from Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden in the democratic primary.

Now that is three most unusual encounters between Obama and Goldman Sachs. Then comes the economic chaos and the president calls a meeting of Congressional leaders, Treasury and Federal Reserve staff and the presidential candidates. Obama, who was staying away from Washington during the crisis got the call and at the meeting was the only person to talk about a Republican alternative proposal for the crisis, a proposal that had not even been made public at the time.

Former Goldman CEO and now Treasury Secretary Paulsen.



It was later learned that a Treasury staff member reviewing the confidential proposal from Republicans was able to smuggle the information to Goldman Sachs employees who emailed it to Obama staff and it was given to him before the White House meeting, thus enabling him to pre-empt McCain from offering the new Republican proposal. Of course the Secretary of the Treasury was a former Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs.

Do we really know anything about the relationship between Obama and Goldman Sachs other than their massive fund raising for him? Since he has been secretly guided and financed by Goldman people from the very beginning of his presidential campaign were they influential in his economic platform. While he now admits things have changed and many of his proposals might be delayed or dropped, he still proposed a tax on the rich which would seem to be opposed to the Goldman executives.

Yet it was convenient that Goldman faced billions in losses from the sub-prime mortgage mess and they helped trigger the economic collapse with the manipulation of oil futures driving the world into a credit crisis, a crisis that helped them make billions of dollars through spiraling oil prices. Most convenient of all, the $700 billion Wall Street bailout plan was approved just before a new president was elected so the new president would not be blamed for anything that went wrong.

Obama never questioned the role of Goldman in the sub-prime fiasco nor in manipulating the oil futures prices. When Goldman specialists tried to drive the price of oil up to $200 a barrel Obama never said a word. His meetings with them over the years were in secret and his actions were a wall of silence as the boys from Wall Street destroyed the economic system forcing a historic bailout by Congress that gave Wall Street nearly unlimited access to the US Treasury. Now did all of these incidents slip his mind as well as if his secret meetings with Goldman had nothing to do with the economy. I hope he can explain to the public just what has been going on and what, if anything he promised them in return.

Polling the Polls - Too Close to Call

As we have been warning for the past year, the polls in the presidential race are wrong and the latest round of poll releases demonstrates just how wrong they are. Five major tracking polls have been released in the past 24 hours and the difference is night and day. Each day of the campaign has seen major shifts but the most important factor is that Real Politics shows that McCain-Palin has been slowly and surely closing the gap.

Right now Gallup shows Obama ahead by 11 counting all registered voters and leaners, the Rasmussen poll of likely and leaning voters shows Obama ahead by 6, the Reuters/Zogby poll of likely voters shows Obama ahead by 2, while the Battleground poll shows Obama ahead by 4 and the Hotline poll shows Obama ahead by 1. Realclearpolitics.com, which compiles and averages all polls, show the Obama lead has shrunk to just 3, well within the margin of error.

By now there should be about 10% undecided and the Zogby poll shows 8% while Gallup shows 7%. With about 4 weeks left anyone can win the election so hold on to your hats. There is only one poll that really counts, election day!

Campaign 2008 - Defining Issues - Abortion

Few social and moral issues in America draw such emotional response from the opposing sides of an issue like abortion and most of the time it is kept far from the public spotlight but this year may be different, it may be drug out of the closet into the consciousness of the public. With Obama and Biden solidly pro-abortion and McCain and Palin solidly pro-life there is a clear distinction between candidates.

There is nothing unusual about the fact the Democratic candidates are pro-abortion and the Republican candidates are pro-life, that happens most elections. What is different is the Palin effect and the fact she refused to have an abortion of a child even though she knew it had down syndrome before birth. Then there is her teenage daughter who got pregnant and also refused to have an abortion. In response the feminist leftists condemned Palin, the pro-abortionists have gone on television condemning her and the pro-abortion media has denounced her choice.

For better or worse they have collectively made abortion a matter of public debate with hysterical claims that Sarah Palin would single handedly reverse the 1973 Supreme Court ruling, Roe versus Wade, that legalized abortion in America. Such a claim is false because a vice president cannot reverse the Supreme Court and Sarah Palin has never said such a thing but telling the truth does not seem to be a concern of the political pundits. Her magnetic attraction to the public and ability to draw thousands to see her give her a platform never before seen on this side of the issue.

As for Roe versus Wade, it was a ruling by the Supreme Court that centrally held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable'". The Court defined viable as being potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. In 1973 viability usually occurred at about seven months (28 weeks) but might occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. Medical breakthroughs since the ruling and prenatal advances have demonstrated that the ability of the fetus to live outside the mother's womb may come at a much earlier time.

So what is the real story with abortion in America? It has been 35 years since the Supreme Court ruling. The pro-abortion movement changed their name to pro-choice to improve their image and the anti-abortion movement changed their name to pro-life for the same reason, both changes within a couple of years of Roe versus Wade.

As for the record in America since passage of Roe versus Wade, as of 2008 there have now been 50 million legal abortions in the US, a total that somehow gets left out of all discussions of abortion. For comparison purposes, the total people killed in all wars fought by the United States from the War of Independence through Iraq is 1,315,237. In other words there have been 38 times as many abortions in 35 years as death from wars in 232 years. The total abortions in the US is nearly equal to the entire population of England or France.

Worldwide there have now been over 1 billion abortions in the years between 1920 and 2008 according to estimates of the United Nations Population Fund. That means total abortions now equal about 16% of the population of the world. Every year there are about 50 million abortions worldwide.

Beyond the basic belief that the government has no right to legislate morality, a favored argument of the pro-choice movement to justify the abortion option, they also offer three conditions of pregnancy that dominate their defense of unrestricted abortions. First they say it is justified in the case of rape or incest. Total abortions performed annually according to multiple studies and reports reflect less than 1% for rape or incest.

A second justification is in the event of the threat of death to the mother for completing the term. The same studies have shown this is the reason for slightly less than 2% of the abortions. Finally they claim the health of the fetus, when shown to be suffering from life threatening or severe physical impediments is another justification but again this only represents less than 2% of abortions. In other words, the three primary justifications total just under 5% of total annual abortions. Of the 50 million abortions about 2.5 million fall in the three most emotional, most often mentioned and most overrated reasons for abortions. That means 47.5 million abortions that have been performed don't fall into those classifications.

What does this mean to the election? Catholics and other Christian congregations are the strongest group opposed to abortion and we have written earlier how the 47 million Catholics of voting age represent a total demographic block equal to over 25% of all eligible voters. The concentration of Catholics and Christian sharing similar views in swing states make the group even more substantial. With Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, both Catholics advocating abortions, then going on NBC Meet the Press and attempting to distort the teachings of the Catholic Church, the issue has become very hot.

Finally, there is the very dark side of the history of the pro-abortion movement which is not generally known to many dating back to the work of Margaret Sanger early in the 20th century to legalize first birth control and then abortions. She is generally recognized as the founder of pro-abortion and Planned Parenthood and her work in eugenics is a very hidden and dark side of the movement.

Back at the turn of the century some eugenics advocates such as Margaret Sanger used it as a justification for state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. It evolved into a practice intended to cleanse the human population of inferior classes and cultures. Sanger's newsletters and organizations were advocates of this social philosophy and her associates worked with people including Ernst Rudin who became architects of the Nazi Aryan Purification programs under Adolph Hitler.

Although eugenics has been condemned by pro-abortion groups in recent history abortions have resulted in significant "defective" children being aborted and overall 58% of abortions involve Whites while 34% involve Blacks. Such a controversial justification for abortion is relatively unknown to members of the current pro-choice movement.


Depending on the reaction of the Catholic Church to the Pelosi and Biden fiascos, the efforts of the many Christian coalitions opposed to abortion and the growing awareness of the history and stunning numbers of abortions now being performed, there is a potential for this issue to impact on the presidential race. Sarah Palin could also ignite the debate with her fierce opposition to the movement and leftist media attacks against her. In the end, any or all of these factors could help fire up the issue and make it impossible to factor it into the polls.

Campaign 2008 - Defining Issues - The Catholic Vote

No religious group in America packs the political potential of the Catholic Church with over 47 million registered voters, over 25% of the eligible voters. More important, the 47 million are in 19,000 parishes, of which 146 are Latin Catholic parishes. No religious group even approaches the Catholic community in numbers, in organization, and in the ability to deliver a message to the masses through the pulpit. In total the US has over 70 million Catholics and there are over 1.1 billion worldwide.

Only once in the past 30 years have the Catholics failed to support the winning candidate for president. Once reliably Democrat, the new Catholics are 41% Independent, up from 30% in the last election. The strength of the Catholics can be even more pronounced when looking at the election state by state. There are 7 swing states identified in this election, states that total 107 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win.

In 2004 Bush pulled 66% of the Catholic vote in Florida and 65% in Ohio to capture the states and the election. With the Hispanic population the fastest growing sector of the US population and being predominantly Catholic, especially in swing states like Florida and border states, it is doubtful any current polls are reflecting the potential vote accurately.

Of the seven recognized swing states Florida, a state with over 2.3 million Catholics, was decided in 2004 by 363,000 votes. Pennsylvania has 3.3 million Catholics and was decided by 145,000 votes. Ohio has 2.2 million Catholics and was decided by 118,000 votes. Virginia has 1.1 million Catholics and was decided by 262,000 votes. Missouri has 1.1 million Catholics and was decided by 196,000 votes while Minnesota has 1.2 million Catholics and was decided by 99,000 votes. Finally Nevada has 480,000 Catholics and was decided by 21,000 votes.

So what does that mean? It means the winning margin in those states equaled just 15% of the Catholic vote in Florida, 4% of the Catholics in Pennsylvania and Nevada, 5% in Ohio, 8% in Minnesota, 17% in Missouri and 23% in Virginia. In other words less than 25% of the Catholics in two states and less than 15% in all the rest were enough to swing the swing states. That does not fare well for the Obama and Biden ticket or the Democratic party in particular. Most certainly the tracking polls in those states have not been adjusted to reflect the significant strength of the Catholic vote.

The fall from grace of the Democrats can be traced to the increasing liberal platform of the party over the years and especially the radial left moves toward pro-abortion, gay rights and same sex marriages, the favorite issues of the far left that dominate the Democratic platform. Obama, Biden and Pelosi have all adopted positions on those issues opposed by the Catholic Church. More recently major blunders by House Speaker and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden have aggravated the schism and that could be a major factor in the election.

There are two ways to infuriate the Vatican, home of the Catholic Church. First is to adopt positions that reject the law of the Church. Second is to go on national television and invoke the names of church scholars and say those scholars support rejecting the law. Well Pelosi invoked the name of St. Augustine and Biden invoked the name of Thomas Aquinas, both on separate appearances on NBC Meet the Press where they grossly misrepresented the teaching of the church on abortion.

Such strategic blunders in the midst of an election campaign have cost the Obama ticket the support of the Vatican and the American Bishops and the television appearances of Biden and Pelosi attempting to redefine the teachings of the Catholic Church could result in the Church setting the record straight through the 19,000 parishes across the country. There is some evidence this has already begun as a pastoral letter condemning their efforts has already been issued on the subject. Will this schism between the Democratic ticket and the Catholic Church be felt at the ballot box? If so it could cost Obama the election.

Obama and McCain back on Track - The Election is on Again

For the first time since the political conventions in August today the two candidates for president acted presidential and maybe there is hope that the people will finally get the choice they need, a choice between two visions for the future of America.

I suspect the candidates finally got control of the campaigns back from the staff as there is no way these two people were performing to the best of their abilities the past few weeks. I have said repeatedly that we need to hear ideas, a vision and a future of hope for America and the campaigns were bogged down in blame, accusation and hostility that served no good purpose.

Today that seemed to change. Both gave speeches directed to the future, not pointing fingers to the past. It was refreshing to hear so many good ideas being offered and if the candidates were honest then they demonstrated that either one is not beholden to the forces in Washington, DC or Wall Street and were in a position to really go after the people standing in the way of change.

There are many people who represent the old way and will resist any reforms that take away their power and control over the nation and only a president free of dependence on them can offer such hope to the public. Our president is elected to serve all the people, not just the liberals or conservatives, and both candidates could do that.

If the biased media would just shut up and report the news rather than work so hard to manufacture the news, if they would stop the efforts to discredit candidates and recognize that the people running for office have given up a lot to run and will give up a lot more to serve, then we will all be better served.

There are a lot of similarities in the agendas of the candidates but a lot of difference in how they will go about changing things. That is the decision the voters must make. Because of the economy and Bush John McCain has an uphill battle to win but he is not a Bush clone and the people know it.

Barach Obama has to resist being labeled as the liberal candidate in order to reach across party and philosophical lines and his worst enemy are the leftist media supporting him but he too can effectively distance himself from the enemy.

It is time for a populist president and both can be standard bearers for the populist movement. Liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, and Wall Street and Congress have all demonstrated that their narrow agenda is not what America needs at this moment in time. What we need is to hear more of the candidates vision and implementation strategy these last 30 days. If they keep from attacks and focus on the future America will be well served.

What we need is a president with "No strings attached." If the candidates will stay focused America will get such a leader and a new wave of hope and promise will flow over the land.

The Great Debate - Obama and McCain - Enough is Enough

Buried in the middle of an economic meltdown was the first great debate in which every Democratic and Republican pundit and news media person said it would be the debate of the century drawing 80-100 million viewers according to the gospel of MSNBC. It wasn't. Fact is in terms of people watching it didn't even make the top 10 as just 52.4 million people tuned in. It finished 28.2 million people behind the Reagan-Carter debate of 1980. If you adjust the 1980 debate for today's population over 109 million people would have been watching, more than double our present day warriors.

So here are the facts. In terms of convention speeches McCain, Obama and Palin each drew about 40 million viewers. The debate drew 52.4 million. There will be about 121.5 million people actually voting this election so 43% of the likely voters watched, while 57% did not watch. That is not a particularly good sign that the campaigns have energized the voters.

During these last few weeks of the campaign we are going to be hit with an avalanche of campaign ads, emails, television bytes and other forms of slander, distortion and nasty stuff. We have already faced 18 months of the same stuff. Obama will outspend McCain 2-1 nationally and 4-1 in the swing states. If you had access to an honest poll you would see Obama has a slight lead but nearly 16% of the voters are undecided so no matter what the experts say, the race is still up in the air.

By now we expected Obama to have a solid double digit lead but he doesn't in spite of the huge spending advantage. Neither candidate demonstrated much leadership in our economic crisis so don't count on any surge from that. Palin has been mauled by the leftist media, ridiculed by the Hollywood elite and outright slandered by Democratic special interest groups but she is still here.


This weeks vice presidential debate will have to be her coming out party or the election will probably be over but to those hate mongering liberals don't be surprised if she doesn't knock that smug smile off your faces. The McCain campaign staff has done a terrible job of over managing her and it has cost them. If they learned their lesson and they cut her loose things might be a lot different.

Both candidates, their many surrogates and in particular the elitist media need to stop with the criticism, charges and political nonsense and get on with telling us how they will govern. Who cares if Sarah Palin doesn't know the name of regulation reforms offered by McCain over the years, we need to know that she understands our needs and interests and they sure aren't old regulatory bills from the past. All the candidates need to focus on their vision of the future.

With the election leaning toward Obama but still up in the air there are four factors that could swing the final tally either way, the Catholic vote, the pro and anti abortion vote, the women's vote as opposed to the feminist vote and the racial issue. Each of these will be examined in detail during the next few days.

Is Wall Street Arrogance To Blame for Failures in Congress?

Today the Wall Street bailout failed in Congress. Immediately after the financial experts on television began threatening yet again that the public is too dumb to understand the problem and as a result there will be no money for mortgages, autos, credit card purchases and other needs of Main Street America.

The financial experts went so far on CNBC to say the people in Congress are limited to liberal arts and law degrees and have no understanding of the economy and that is why the bailout failed. One day the many people whose lives and pocketbooks are lined by their close relationship to Wall Street may wake up and discover their own arrogance is what is fueling the public opinion revolt against them in their efforts to raid the public Treasury.

Long ago the general public stopped paying attention to idle threats from those demanding access to the Treasury to solve all the problems of the world. The international banking cartel and financiers from around the world have made run after run on the U.S. Treasury since the days of the American revolution to the Civil War to the latest crisis resulting from the mismanagement and greed on Wall Street.

Clever public relations people hired by them told them to stop talking about Wall Street and keep talking about how their problems are really the problems of Main Street but the American public knows better in spite of the public relations efforts. Today's problems on Wall Street were caused by greed, incompetent government regulation, Congress looking the other way while the financial institutions lined their pockets and campaign treasuries, and the expectation that the taxpayer could be hoodwinked into covering their losses.

Now the American taxpayer is expected to pay $700 billion to buy all the "toxic" loans that were issued by banks and mortgage companies and have resulted in a tightened credit market. What in the world makes them think the public should buy all the toxic loans and bail them out of their mismanagement and greed? If Wall Street had not started meddling in the mortgage market by packaging sub-prime mortgages when they saw how much money could be made in real estate we would have no crisis.

So they get caught with a couple of trillion in worthless mortgages and decide the American taxpayer has a responsibility to bail them out or they will cut off credit to Main Street. Where I come from that is not a request for help but blackmail. Then they say the financial integrity of our 401k, IRAs and pensions are in jeopardy if the bail out is not approved. That is second degree blackmail. The only way our pension money could be threatened is if the thieves on Wall Street invested it in the crooked stocks to begin with. Of course they did.

A reasonable way to help Wall Street while protecting the federal Treasury is possible and maybe now that the stampede to action has been halted by the vote in Congress perhaps the arrogant experts on wall Street who are demanding the handout can simply ask the stupid public for help in a nice and honest way and maybe this time they will get it.



Perhaps most important, the financial elitists and their liberal apologists had better learn humility and take responsibility for the mess we are in that they caused. Their days of unlimited feeding at the public treasury are over. The public has no responsibility to pay them for the mess they made and if we do give help, then we have every right to prosecute them if they violated the law. As for the financial television channels, turn them off, there are far better ways to spend the day.

Hijacking of American Economy Stopped by the People

Bush Pelosi Obama bailout of Wall Street fails!

To the absolute amazement of Wall Street and the weak-kneed Democratic leadership the people of America spoke through their elected representatives and the takeover of America by Wall Street was brought to a screeching halt in a stunning vote today.

Obama who refused to consider the negotiations over the vote worthy of returning to the capitol but remained available via telephone found out just what Americans thought of his "call me if you need me" attitude. No one called him. Pelosi called the Republicans "unpatriotic", hardly a way to encourage cooperation.

In the end the strange alliance of Bush, Obama and Pelosi to save the money mongers on Wall Street and help pursue our course toward socialism got, well, bushwhacked. Obama ran from his leadership chance while Pelosi again demonstrated why she has no business acting like a leader.

The American public, overwhelming against this Wall Street bailout and unwilling to use public dollars to reward corrupt corporate executives were finally heard by the Republicans in Congress and about 94 Democrats opposed to their own leaders bitter partisanship attacks. If just 11 votes were needed to pass the bill why did Pelosi lose 94 from her own party?

For the moment the world witnessed the real strength of the American political system. No political party nor Wall Street is going to steal the banking system from public accountability nor hijack the American economy. Our Constitution remains intact and our country remains the strongest light in the world toward a true nation devoted to "We The People."

Liberal Media's Code of Omertà Fails to Silence Sarah Palin

The seemingly secret pact between the liberal media and the Obama campaign to block all news coverage and reference to Sarah Palin is failing if we can believe our eyes. It is failing because MSNBC, ABC, The New York Times and the host of other left-leaning media just don't get it, the people of America are not going to let the media tell them who to support.

This past weekend Sarah Palin held a rally in Florida, one of the critical swing states, and there was a virtual media wall of silence about the event. MSNBC had the audacity to only report Palin said "Goodbye to thanks but no thanks," a direct reference to the Alaska bridge to nowhere. Of course MSNBC would have been a little more honest if they said in the end Palin refused to approve the project. They might have been more honest yet if they told you Obama and Biden both voted for the bridge to nowhere but that is the truth and we know the American people aren't ready for the truth.

Not a word was mentioned in the MSNBC report about the rally in Florida, a rally in which the largest crowd to ever witness a vice presidential candidate gathered to see Palin. According to the local Fire Chief Mike Tucker over 60,000 people attended. Only Obama's convention speech drew more and the Obama campaign spent over $8 million to stage that event. Sarah Palin didn't have top spend millions of dollars to draw a crowd. The media did nothing to help make people aware of the event or let the rest of the world know what did happen.

Did I mention that Obama is running for president? The 60,000 screaming, chanting fans of Sarah Palin know all about the liberal media's policy of Omertà and how it is intended to help the liberal Democratic ticket. The people responded by turning out in record numbers. Now that is hard news. The idiotic efforts of the media to dictate the results of the election and protect the leftist movement in America so they can bring about a more socialist government will backfire and their coveted policy of Omertà is going to be drowned in a chorus of chants, "Sarah, Sarah."

Could Palin Invasion of Privacy be Obama's Watergate?

Privacy in America is guaranteed by the Constitution and an invasion of privacy is a criminal violation with dire consequences which is why it seems odd how little the Obama campaign has had to say about the illegal hacking into Sarah Palin's private email, the posting of the stolen emails on the internet, and the fact the liberal media all seemed to have copies of the emails.

About 36 years ago another well financed presidential campaign that expected to win the election did something equally as stupid, denied it to the world, and then got caught in the lie later costing the winner the presidency. Back then the President was Richard Nixon and the break in was called Watergate.

Watergate was not about approving the act, nor even knowing about the act. Watergate was all about covering up the act for campaign functionaries whose enthusiasm to win at all costs made them ignore the laws. We are far better prepared to investigate this illegal act than we were 36 years ago and it is serious enough that the FBI and the Secret Service have already launched an investigation.

If the private emails of our presidential and vice presidential candidates can be stolen all those involved must be prosecuted. The Obama campaign denies involvement. Barack Obama claims he personally runs the campaign, he has said so as a claim of his executive experience during the campaign so we should give him the benefit of the doubt on both counts.

But if his campaign was involved in any way in the theft, in encouraging the theft, or the distribution of the stolen materials by notifying the liberal media where to find them and give them talking points on what to say about them, then he should stand ready to withdraw from the race in disgrace.

In watching the various liberal media outlets comment about the stolen emails they used almost the exact words as Obama campaign representatives dismissing the seriousness of the theft and turning attention to the fact Sarah Palin had a private email account. Then insinuating she must have had the account to hide things from the State of Alaska. How stupid is that? Nearly everyone in America has a private email account including most members of the media.

Why did the liberal media and the campaign spokespersons have the exact same script? Why did they raise the exact same issue? Why weren't they outraged by the invasion of privacy? And why did they keep looking at the emails in their possession? If the Obama campaign was involved in the theft or any of these following actions it is the most serious breach of faith possible to the American public and would only demonstrate that a secret agenda must be driving them, one called Big Brother, where the right to privacy will no longer exist.

In one of the true ironies of history, Julie Nixon Eisenhower, daughter of President Richard Nixon, who grew up in the White House, is a supporter of Barack Obama and gave him the maximum financial contribution possible in the primary election. You certainly don't hear much about her from the Obama campaign. We shall await the results of the federal criminal investigation.

Nancy Pelosi Really Believes We Are Stupid

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House and the person most responsible for the passage of legislation in our nation's capitol has continued her leadership mission of destroying the effectiveness of Congress with passage of the House Energy bill which is as stupid as stupid gets.

Of course Pelosi is also the one that promised to change history in her first 100 days as the most powerful person in Congress. That was over 500 days ago. We are still waiting for the first action to change history and in the meantime the approval rating of Congress has deservedly sunk to its lowest point in history, just 9% of Americans approve the job they are doing. It should be the job they are not doing.

Now her Obama energy bill promised the world we would be energy independent but as with everything Pelosi does you better read the fine print. She allowed off shore drilling for oil but only beyond 50 miles knowing full well that the vast majority of oil reserves are between 3 and 50 miles.

She also required approval by the state for the drilling but did not share any of the oil revenue with the state. So why in the world would they approve anything? It was a joke, it passed on a party line vote, and her own Democratic leadership in the Senate already declared it dead. And wasn't that the purpose all along?

If we are ever going to be energy independent we must first drill a big hole and drop in Pelosi and the Democratic leadership but then we would be sued for toxic poisoning by Democratic class action lawyers hired by the DNC to cover up the broken promises buried with the Democratic leadership.

Or maybe we should just vote them all out of office.

Liberal Elitists of the World Unite - Intellectual Constipation Reaches Epidemic Proportions

Are all liberal media elitists and their army of mouthpieces intellectually constipated? There is a chorus of condemnation today toward Sarah Palin from everyone that hates Republicans, mothers, mothers with children, mothers with down children, mothers with sons in the war, religious mothers, feminists opposed to abortion, feminists opposed to fanatical feminism, conservatives, small town, Alaskan, moose hunting, oil drilling and whatever else the latest smear may be.

Wake up eggheads, Sarah Palin got it right, you got it wrong. The Bush Doctrine is not preemptive strikes as ABC News and Obama backers shouted all over the cyber world. The Bush Doctrine, if any of you have any interest in the truth, is the National Security Strategy of 2002 that identifies the US position concerning terrorism and includes four pillars in the struggle.

The four pillars include (1) rejection of moral relativism and commitment to fostering the spread of democracy in the Middle East, (2) treating terrorism proactively, on a global basis, and not as law enforcement issue, (3) willingness to engage in preemptive attacks against terrorists and terrorist supporting states, and (4) unwillingness to support a Palestinian state until Palestinian leaders "engage in a sustained fight against terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure."
Palin addressed the global view on terrorism, and she was right. She even asked Gibson to be more specific when he asked about the Bush Doctrine and he didn't change the question. Finally, he clarified his question, acting like a professor correcting a student, and said the Bush Doctrine was preemptive strikes. Guess what professor, wrong! You left out the other three pillars.

You also didn't correct Obama when ABC News on Rick Klein Reports asked Obama about the Bush Doctrine back on July 26, 2007. Obama said Clinton would continue the "Bush Doctrine" of only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States. No mention of preemptive strikes, no mention of the Obama mistake on such a critical national security issue and he was a sitting US Senator running for president.

Now are there dual standards in this race? Are female VP candidates expected to know what US Senators don't know. Can the news media simply call them wrong when they are right? Is there no requirement for the news media to check the facts? Perhaps the media madness that prevails within the Washington elite establishment should be cleaned out first.

Letters to the Editor on Biased Media

We love getting comments on the stories and the latest comment concerns media bias asking why we don't point out the right wing media bias like we point out the left wing bias. A good question as media bias is media bias no matter which way the pendulum swings.

However, in the past two years we have pointed out many instances of right wing media abuse against Barack Obama showing that true journalism in America is a lot closer to being dead than we might think. Truth is even the left wing media took many unfair shots at Obama in their frenzy to get Hillary elected.

With the era of the blogger regular news organizations have insulated themselves from responsibility for many stories that would never meet the test for objective journalism. They do this by using blogs to front for them by running unsubstantiated stories, rumors and outright lies.

That said, I would like to ask readers to help me compile a more complete list of biased media from both the right and left fringe, sites that are prone to publishing without validation and whose agenda is not reporting news but promoting their beliefs.

In earlier stories I have identified the following as some of the right wing media, FAUX, or Fox News Network, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Hannity. Other shows include Fox and Friends.

Left wing media includes NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Olbermann, Matthews, The Washington Post, The New York Times, NPR sometimes and Time Magazine among others. Since the media is dominated by the left wing there will naturally be more. However, I do not waste time with biased blogs as there are hundreds for each side and to mention them is to not really serve the public interest.

I am asking you to send me your additions to the list of purveyors of false truth so we can keep a running record of who not to trust in our nation's media. Actually, you can trust them to sell their own agenda and if you believe their agenda that is your right as an American but these groups hardly qualify as objective media and people need to know it.

Let me know who you would add to the list.

Obama Says Governor Palin Not Experienced to Lead Nation

Barack Obama has challenged the experience of Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, saying being governor is inadequate experience to be president of the US even though Palin is running for vice president, not president. But she will be a heart beat from the presidency so we can accept his hypothetical claim.

To make such a claim, the Obama campaign and the entire biased liberal media echoing the same propaganda surely must be suffering from temporary memory loss. The governor is not qualified to be president? Can animosity be so blind? Having been in many campaigns I know it is not the candidate but the campaign staff that undertakes these missions so I do not hold the candidates totally responsible.

The truth. In the last 32 years a former state governor has served as US president during 28 of those years! Four of the past five US presidents were governors including the last two Democrats to serve as president. Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter all went from the statehouse directly to the White House and the American public had no trouble entrusting the future of the nation to them.

Fact is whenever America faced the darkest hours the voters turned to the governors to save the day, not the professional politicians in our nation's capitol. In modern times former governor Teddy Roosevelt became the youngest president in our history in 1901 when President McKinley was assassinated and Teddy helped us through economic chaos.

Former Governor Wilson guided us through World War I while former Governor Franklin Roosevelt brought us through the Great Depression and World War II. The Cold War was brought to an end by former Governor Reagan while former Governors Clinton and Bush drove the ship of state through the era of rampant international terrorism.

In total 18 former governors beginning with Thomas Jefferson went on to serve as president of the US, 42% of all US presidents. Four of the past five presidents were governors. So before anyone states that governors are not qualified or able to run the United States perhaps they better take a refresher course on the history of the US. In America the will of the people decides who has the necessary experience, not the claims of the candidates or the wayward whims of the media.

Major Historical Milestones Reached by Pro-Abortionists - 50 Million & 1 Billion Barriers Shattered

The pro-abortion movement in America has reached several major historical milestones which should be recognized by those members of the liberal and social left. This year, 2008, just 38 years after the passage of Roe versus Wade, a golden moment has been achieved as 50 million abortions have now been performed in America since the passage of the federal law.

Perhaps more staggering is the fact that there have now been over one billion abortions performed in the world in the period of 1920-2008 according to estimates of the United Nations Population Fund. That means total abortions equal over 16% of the entire population of the world.

The total abortions performed in America between 1973 and 2008 according to estimates from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and "The Global Abortion Summary" by William Robert Johnson is now equal to the total abortions performed worldwide in a single year, yet another major milestone. The United States now performs 3.7% of the worldwide abortions annually.

With the Democratic party (Nancy Pelosi Democratic House Speaker) and presidential candidates Barack Obama and Joe Biden in the forefront of protecting abortion rights it remains one of the most sensitive political issues of the year. Recent efforts of the media and liberal organizations to condemn the Republican candidates John McCain and Sarah Palin for opposing abortion have intensified interest in the issue.

The success of the pro-abortionists in America can best be understood when you realize that the total abortions performed in America is nearly equal to the entire 2000 population of the country of England or the country of France.

Palin Stops Obama's Bridge to Nowhere

Chris Matthews & Keith Olbermann - Liberal Dobermans Protecting the Left

The NBC team of Dobermans self-appointed to protect the liberal left, Matthews and Olbermann from MSNBC, continue as stalking horses for the Obama campaign even after their network banned them from future campaign coverage because of their radical views.

Today, incensed by the Sarah Palin ability to power McCain into the lead, they have resorted to lies, innuendo and distortions on their cable programs to rally the socialists to the cause. Unable to find any facts to support their character assassination of Sarah Palin, they are trying to raise issues intended to upset the voters.

Under the guise of "character" they claim Palin lied regarding her views on the infamous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, as if a non-existence bridge is the final determinant in a persons career in public service.

According to the leftist propagandists Palin supported the pork barrel bridge project before she became governor and then opposed it after she became governor. Curiously Obama used the exact words the very same day to attack Palin.

Of course Palin never did support the $400 million bridge project to a very small island but did support a "link" to the island. The pork barrel advocates translated a link into a $400 million boondoggle when all Sarah Palin wanted was a ferry service to link the island to the mainland. Once she was made aware what they did she fought the wasteful project.

Two gross distortions from the liberal left including Obama. Palin never supported a $400 million bridge and the governor of any state does not create pork barrel projects. Only the US Congress, the House and the Senate, can create such projects.

So just who created the $400 million boondoggle? A senator from Alaska and it was approved by the US Senate. And who actually voted for the project, Senator Barack Obama, not Governor Sarah Palin. It was part of nearly $1 billion in pork barrel projects approved by the free spending liberal Barack Obama in Congress. Did I mention Congress is controlled by the Democrats?

The only question left in this campaign is who will win the hearts and minds of the American voters? Will it be the mud slingers from NBC and the leftist elite or the gun slinger from the Alaska backwoods?