Most people at some point wonder what kind of programs or projects their tax dollars actually fund.  A couple of initiatives our tax dollars have been paying for can be seen right on the Internet.  Planned Parenthood, the organization which started with hopes of Black genocide in America and went on to kill millions of babies, has unveiled its new website “www.TakeCareDownThere.org.”  Planned Parenthood, which receives taxpayer funding, seems intent not only on killing the unborn, but on turning the nation’s teenagers into degenerates. 

This website targets young people with sketches meant to teach about safe sex while promoting promiscuity and alternative lifestyles.  In every skit, and adult pops in to “teach” the young people something about sex. 

The website runs the gamut of indecency.  The skit titled “Find the STI” shows a girl pulling down her pants and asking two other young girls, and a young boy, if they see anything “down there.”  The sex teacher then walks in and tells her to get tested for sexually transmitted infections.

The skit “Let me do me” has one girl declining an offer to go to a party with her friends because she wants to stay at home and masturbate.  The sex teacher tells her friends to give the girl a group-hug for her decision.

One piece titled “I didn’t spew” has the sex teacher walking up to a young boy telling him that he shouldn’t be receiving oral sex without a condom.  The head of another boy then comes up from out of scene, and he wipes his mouth indicating he was giving the other boy oral sex.

The site contains several other skits of this nature, and sends the message, “We were born to be in love with our bodies, ask any three year old…But somewhere down the road to growing up we put our reproductive selves in the dark…Rather than worry about what went wrong, we should remember: It’s never too late to know ourselves.”  But Planned Parenthood wants teenagers to “know themselves” based on the information given to them by Planned Parenthood, not their actual parents.

Planned Parenthood already had one website up and running targeting teens: “Teenwire.com.”  I guess it wasn’t colorful and entertaining enough.  “Teenwire” presents information to students as factually based, but to an adult, the bias is clear.  In the article “Abortion Myths: Facts vs. Fiction,” the question I was looking for was, “Does having an abortion mean I’m killing an innocent life?”  Of course that question was nowhere to be found.  The article “Teaching Homophobia: Abstinence-Only Sex Education Programs,” suggests that abstinence based sex-ed “might make school more dangerous for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queeer [proper spelling now allowed on TownHall], or questioning (LGBTQ ) students.”  Perhaps this is why the most popular sex-ed programs in public schools emphasize the pleasures of sex.

Of course neither website mentions the beliefs of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.  Sanger made many outlandish comments in her lifetime, mostly in writing, making clear her goals of sterilization of the poor and of the black community.  For Sanger, birth control was meant "to create a race of thoroughbreds."  "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control," wrote Sanger.

The work of Sanger also included the “Negro Project.”  Her belief in Malthusian eugenics led Sanger to call for birth control clinics to deal with the threats of poverty, sickness, racial tension and overpopulation.  In The Birth Control Review in 1926 she wrote:

It now remains for the U.S. government to set a sensible example to the world by offering a bonus or yearly pension to all obviously unfit parents who allow themselves to be sterilized by harmless and scientific means. In this way the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their unhappy condition. The number of the feeble-minded would decrease and a heavy burden would be lifted from the shoulders of the fit. [Emphasis added]

Sanger was dubious in leading members of the black community to go along with her plan.  When it was suggested to Sanger that “black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot,” Sanger wrote:

I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time Negro physician. It seems to me from my experience ... that, while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table, which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and ... knowledge, which ... will have far-reaching results among the colored people.

Sanger admitted, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

Planned Parenthood has come under fire recently after a group exposed racism at Planned Parenthood clinics and posted their findings on YouTube.  LIFENEWS.com reported that the National Black Pro-Life Union said that Sen. Obama, the first black presidential candidate of a major political party, has betrayed the black community by cozying up to Planned Parenthood.  "He purposely overlooks tapes of Planned Parenthood staff and executives, made public on YouTube, gladly accepting donations from clearly racist donors who specifically want their money targeted toward aborting black babies," said Day Garner, head of the union.

Funding Planned Parenthood with American tax dollars makes no sense at all.  America values families and life, not indiscriminate sex and genocide.  It seems our leaders in Congress would rather use our money to sterilize and kill us, then protect American lives and promote prosperity.

When Anthony, Matthew and Michael Bologna were gunned down last week in San Francisco by Edwin Ramos, a 21-year-old illegal immigrant from El Salvador, the Bologna family took little comfort in knowing that this tragedy could have been avoided had Ramos been deported the last time he committed a crime.  Ramos was convicted twice on felony charges as a juvenile, but never faced deportation.  Danielle Bologna, whose husband and children were murdered, and her brother Frank Kennedy have blamed the city of San Francisco’s sanctuary policy toward illegal immigrants for the loss of their family members.  Sanctuary cities fail to comply with federal law and ignore constitutional principles to shield criminals from justice.  Unfortunately cities across the United States have adopted such measures, and it is doubtful that the next president will do anything to stop these unconstitutional policies.

Sanctuary cities act on a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy which keeps local law enforcement from asking about the legal status of criminals they apprehend.  Sanctuary policies also prohibit local law enforcement from notifying federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about illegals in their custody.

"Any mayor, any board of supervisors that passes these laws should be prosecuted to the fullest," Kennedy said in an interview about the death of his nephews and brother-in-law.  "This is not the United States of San Francisco . . . My family was the sacrificial lamb in this."

Not only do sanctuary cities refuse to comply with long standing federal law, the 9/11 Commission Report also called on local law enforcement to work more closely with federal agencies to enforce immigration law.  The report states, “There is a growing role for state and local law enforcement agencies [for the enforcement of immigration law]. They need more training and work with federal agencies so that they can cooperate more effectively with those federal authorities in identifying terrorist suspects.”

Last year after a series of raids by federal authorities in California to arrest foreign nationals, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom remarked, “I will not allow any of my department heads or anyone associated with this city to cooperate in any way shape or form with these raids,” adding, “We are a sanctuary city, make no mistake about it.”

The MO for San Francisco officials has been to escort juvenile illegals back to their home countries or place them in unsecured halfway houses instead of allowing federal authorities to deport them.  This summer, several criminal illegals escaped from Newsom’s sanctuary houses in San Bernardino County and other regions.

Last August the nation saw how dangerous these sanctuary policies are when three college students were killed by illegal aliens with criminal records in Newark, NJ.  Newark, another sanctuary city, failed to deport the ringleader of the killings who had been indicted twice for felonies in 2007, including the rape of a kindergarten-aged girl.

This month in Virginia, officials in Prince William County have decided to take the proper actions to make sure criminal illegal aliens are identified.  A new policy requires the police to check the immigration status of every single person they arrest by running their information through a national database to check their citizenship status.  Prince William County's Board of County Supervisors unanimously passed the immigration crackdown last fall.  County officials began getting tough on immigration last year by allowing police officers to ask suspects about their immigration status before arrests were made. 

WorldNetDaily reports that crime in Prince William County is down 19.3 percent in the first quarter of 2008, while crime has risen 22 percent in next door Fairfax County.

An editorial in the Washington Post last week said that Prince William County’s immigration policy had intentions to “hound, harass and humiliate illegal immigrants.”  The editorial also commented that, “Across the nation, Prince William (County) has become synonymous with an ugly strain of nativist intolerance that has deep roots in American history but which is a slander on the county's generally well-educated and diverse population.”

As I have pointed out before (Assimilate Or Evacuate, “The Race” And The Candidates) the United States has never had open immigration, and for good reason.  The Framers wanted a unified American citizenry, with similar American customs, who understood the purpose and operation of American government.  Our Founding Fathers made clear that the laws of America, and the rights afforded to its citizens, were meant only to govern legal American citizens:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [Emphasis added]

People who come to the United States illegally do not respect our laws, and are criminals who have declared war on our way of life.  Every law enforcement division in the nation should follow the lead of Prince William County, Virginia in protecting the American people from blatant criminals.  The “don’t ask, don’t tell” practices of sanctuary cities must come to an end to protect American lives and ensure the rule of law.

Cities and counties with sanctuary policies:

Anchorage, Alaska

Fairbanks, Alaska

Chandler, Ariz.

Fresno, Calif.

Los Angeles

San Diego

San Francisco

Sonoma County, Calif.

Cicero, Ill.

Evanston, Ill.

Portland, Maine

Baltimore

Takoma Park, Md.

Cambridge, Mass.

Orleans, Mass.

Ann Arbor, Mich.

Detroit

Minneapolis

Albuquerque, N.M.

Aztec, N.M.

Rio Arriba County, N.M.

Sante Fe, N.M.

New York

Durham, N.C.

Ashland, Ore.

Gaston, Ore.

Marion County, Ore.

Austin, Texas

Houston

Katy, Texas

Seattle

Madison, Wis.

Source: 'Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement,' Congressional Research Service, last updated Aug. 14, 2006

Has anyone else kept up with what Congress has been doing, or not doing, lately?  Our fine government servants seem to be on a mission to completely waste the time and money of every American, while blaming anyone else but themselves for the policies causing suffering in our nation.  It really doesn’t matter who becomes the next President, since they’ll both try to ruin America, so maybe we should concentrate on voting in a Congress that will actually work for the American people.

One of the greatest pains to Americans right now is the price of gas.  We all inevitably let out a big sigh whenever we fill up our gas tanks lately, and there seems to be no end in sight for these outrageous prices.  Despite that over 1.3 million Americans have signed the petition at American Solutions to “Drill Here. Drill Now,” and that most polls suggest that about 70% of Americans favor drilling (Rasmussen, Zogby, Pew, CNN, FOX), the Democrats in Congress refuse to help the American people. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she will not allow debates about drilling, and has not only blamed President Bush for soaring gas prices, but has blamed the Senate as well.  Perhaps someone should remind Speaker Pelosi of that saying when you point a finger at someone, there are three more pointing back at you.

The Democrats have tried to paint the Republicans as the ones stalling efforts to curb gas prices due to Republican objection to open up the strategic reserves, and for not supporting a recent bill that targets oil speculators.

"The Republican senators have chosen to take a dodge," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "If you don't like our speculation bill, what do you want? Silence. They said they want this energy debate to go on forever." 

What Republicans want is what the American people want: to use our own resources.  Democrats don’t seem to understand the dynamics of speculation at all.  If speculators perceive that there will be a great surge in supply, the speculative price will go down, as it did when President Bush rescinded the executive order against offshore drilling. 

Democrats also don’t seem to understand that the oil in the strategic reserve was acquired by drilling!  Democrats want to open up the reserve, and want OPEC to produce more oil, then turn around and say there’s no supply problem, and we can’t drill our way out.

So what has Congress been doing lately?  Well, a bill sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama was pushed through committee not too long ago.  And what important issue did Barack Obama actually sponsor?  The Global Poverty Act of 2007 (S. 2433).  This bill “Directs the President, through the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.”

According to Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media, Obama’s bill “makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.”  According to this plan, the U.S. would be forced to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending (about $65 billion a year) over a thirteen year period, which adds up to about $845 billion.  That’s $845 billion of American taxpayer money, and not a dime goes towards helping Americans.

“In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning ‘small arms and light weapons’ and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

Phyllis Schlafly calls the Global Poverty Act “a giant step toward the Millennium Goals of global governance and international taxes on Americans,” adding, “Tell your senators to kill this un-American bill.”

Congress has also passed another giant bailout bill recently in the housing sector.  According to David Rogers, “Treasury will gain unprecedented power to lend money to and even purchase an equity interest in the two mortgage finance giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, over the next 17 months. At the same time, the Federal Housing Administration is granted $300 billion in new loan guarantee authority in hopes that the FHA can help establish a new floor for home prices and be a source of refinancing for households at risk of foreclosure.”

Everyone should remember that the Treasury has no money of its own.  Taxpayers are footing this bill. 

The bill also includes $15 billion in new housing-related tax breaks and almost $4 billion in aid to help in urban communities with high foreclosures.

Americans have become so focused on the President, that they forget how much power actually lies in the Congress.  The President doesn’t pass legislation, Congress does.  The President can’t help our wallets at the pump, Congress can.  Obama can give speeches about hope and change all day, while John McCain goes on and on about national security, but Congress is ultimately responsible for creating the laws to keep this country on track.

Congress is meant to be the representative voice of the people, yet they refuse to hear our voice.  We need to send them a message this November that America belongs to the American people.

One issue that I can’t help coming back to is the problem of race relations in our country, especially between black and white Americans.  Discussion over the ‘N’ word arose again recently after Jesse Jackson used the term in a derogatory way toward Barack Obama.  The word was also debated on an episode of “The View” with Elisabeth Hasselbeck arguing against Whoopi Goldberg and Sherri Shepherd.  While racism of any kind is a huge problem for any society, the double standard that seems to exist in America dealing with black racism presents a huge problem. 

In listening to part of Hasselbeck’s comments on YouTube, she seemed to make perfect logical sense.  If the ‘N’ word is so offensive, then its use should not be accepted by anyone.  Goldberg and Shepherd contended that Blacks could use the ‘N’ word as much as they wanted, even as a term of endearment, while Whites should not be allowed to use the word under any circumstances.  I’ve heard this argument before, and it makes no sense whatsoever.  There are derogatory words for every race and people in the world, yet black Americans seem to be the only ones so freely using these words. 

What if all the white people in America decided that only they could use the word ‘cracker.’  We could force Nabisco and all the other food companies to change the name of the food product known as the cracker because it offends white people.  All white people would then start referring to each other as ‘crackers.’  “Yo, what’s up cracker?”  “You’re one funny cracker.”  And any time black people said the word, all white people could attack them as being racists.  Now does this sound completely absurd?

Whoopi’s argument that black people have taken the ‘N’ word back after it was used against them is absolutely ridiculous.  The Jewish people were enslaved and mistreated for a much greater span of history than black people in America, but I don’t hear them using derogatory words amongst each other as terms of endearment.  I’ve never heard of them asking for reparations for their slavery either.

There are members of the Black Community who realize that there is a double standard concerning race.  The most well known to me is Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, who I have seen numerous times on Fox News talking about the subject.

My employees, the majority of whom are black, throw the ‘N’ word around constantly.  I have told them several times in the past not to use the word around customers because I consider it profanity.  I still hear it quite frequently, but sometimes I will get an, “Oh, sorry.”

The most prominent example of the double standard can be seen in the rise in popularity of Barack Obama.  Two of my columns (Part I, Part II) exposed the Black Liberation Theology that Sen. Obama has supported for the past twenty years. 

The views of James Cone and Jeremiah Wright, and the mission of Trinity United Church of Christ, are no secret.  I did not have to look hard to reveal the racist nature of their belief system.  Barack Obama has publicly stated his support of this “church” and its leader for the past twenty years.  He defended Trinity and Wright several times during the Democratic primaries, and broke with both only when people just started learning what Black Liberation Theology was all about, and then the media dropped the issue.

I never saw James Cone interviewed on CNN or Fox News.  I never heard reporters asking Sen. Obama about Black Liberation Theology and how it preaches an ideology of hate against white people.  The media, and many Americans, have chosen to ignore that Sen. Obama has supported racism against white people his entire adult life.  If it was revealed that John McCain had even went to one KKK meeting in his life, his political career would be over, yet Obama could be ushered in as President with a twenty year history of supporting racism against Whites.

Racism, by any race, is not acceptable.  The use of derogatory words, by any race, is not acceptable.  Electing a President with a history of supporting racism is definitely not acceptable.

Senators Barack Obama and John McCain recently gave speeches at the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) in efforts to win the Hispanic vote for their presidential bids.  Both candidates have been criticized for these campaign stops, not only for their comments, but for even recognizing NCLR, a group seen by many as anti-American.  Among the most important issues brought up by McCain and Obama was that of immigration.  Unfortunately neither candidate plans to tackle immigration from the traditional American policy perspective of preserving American culture, viewing American values and security as a hindrance to internationalism.

During John McCain’s visit to La Raza, “The Race,” he reminded Latino voters that he, “twice attempted to pass comprehensive immigration legislation to fix our broken borders; ensure respect for the laws of this country; recognize the important economic contribution of immigrant laborers; apprehend those who came here illegally to commit crimes; and deal practically and humanely.”

McCain worked with Sen. Edward Kennedy on the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act in 2005, and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.  Both measures were criticized for amounting to amnesty, and the 2007 bill nearly ended McCain’s presidential run.  NumbersUSA gives McCain an overall ‘D’ grade on immigration, and the Washington Times notes that McCain has a history of voting for amnesty, and failing to protect America’s sovereign borders.

Sen. Obama gave some particularly controversial remarks during his speech at NCLR, saying that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials are terrorizing Hispanic communities by trying to enforce federal law.  Obama went on and on about how “the system” isn’t working, and how the government needs to care for illegal immigrants, “Yes, they broke the law. And we should not excuse that. We should require them to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for citizenship, behind those who came here legally. But we cannot and should not deport 12 million people. That would turn American into something we're not; something we don't want to be.” 

Actually, deporting all of the illegals is exactly what America should be doing, as the Founding Fathers intended.

Thomas Jefferson warned about mass immigration in his “Notes on the State of Virginia” saying:

But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason…They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.

Alexander Hamilton agreed in “The Examination” No. 7:

The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on the love of country, which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family. The opinion advanced in [Jefferson’s] Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism?…

In the recommendation to admit indiscriminately foreign emigrants of every description to the privileges of American citizens, on their first entrance into our country, there is an attempt to break down every pale which has been erected for the preservation of a national spirit and a national character; and to let in the most powerful means of perverting and corrupting both the one and the other.

The United States has a long history against free immigration and naturalization.  The laws were put in place not because Americans are xenophobic, but because preserving the unity of a people is essential for a nation to prosper.  Immigrants should assimilate into American culture, not form enclaves and factions.  How many successful empires still exist today?  The more the U.S. moves toward the model of an empire, the quicker our downfall as a nation is ensured.

Groups like the NCLR are no friend to the United States.  Michelle Malkin wrote an article last week, “15 Things You Should Know About The Race.”  Malkin’s piece outlines how the NCLR supports benefits for illegal immigrants, and has engaged in efforts to keep the United States from securing its borders and enforcing federal laws.

To get a clearer view of the mindset surrounding the immigration issue from the Hispanic side, just look at the comments of former Mexican President Vicente Fox.  In an interview with Bill O’Reilly, Fox basically blamed all of the immigration problems, and the problems of drug trafficking and Mexico’s poor economy, on the United States.  According to Fox, Mexico can’t solve any of its own problems without the U.S.:

FOX: ...we are not going to build a pressure in Mexico. We're not building walls to retain our people. We're not Cuba. We're not Communists.

O'REILLY: So you think it's OK for them to come undocumented?

FOX: Of course, it's OK for them to look for a better future for their family.

…

O'REILLY: And Mexican citizens by the millions are violating United States law. And you're saying it's fine.

FOX: Yes, because you hire them here.

…

O'REILLY: You have to improve the education system and wipe out the corruption.

FOX: (INAUDIBLE), not complaining, not provoking violence is the way we are going to do that.

O'REILLY: Well, you got to do it yourself, though. We could…

FOX: (INAUDIBLE) with solidarity, with understanding like Europe does.

O'REILLY: I understand you.

FOX: That's why the union in Europe is so strong.

O'REILLY: But I want more action on the part of the Mexican government to stop illegal aliens, stop illegal drugs, and educate your own folks.

FOX: Let's work together on that…

 

Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama need to understand that immigration is not a right, it’s a privilege.  The President takes an Oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  The Constitution only applies to citizens of the United States, it is not an international standard or blanket for criminals and terrorists.  Illegal immigrants are criminals, and enemies of the United States.  The American people should not stand for any president who cannot fulfill their oath, and defend the Constitution.

People love freedom.  Many have fought and died in the name of freedom.  The concept of freedom is held close in many hearts around the world, but freedom is understood (or misunderstood) differently in various parts of the world, and this country.  A friend of mine said recently that freedom cannot be defined due its various degrees and understandings.  I disagree. 

The ideas and actions of America’s Founding Fathers showed the world what it meant to be free and provided the guidelines for living under a just government.  Although having the glaring imperfection of institutional slavery, the system of government created through the American constitution allowed the people to live free from the burdens of government to shape their lives as seen fit.  Many in America today feel that the government has completely deviated from our origins, and has continuously stolen freedom and liberty away from the American people over the years, one small portion at a time.  Events such as the recent Revolution March in Washington, D.C. are demonstrations of the freedom movement, and expressions by the people of their lack of faith in government to secure their liberties.

Congressman Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty helped to organize the Revolution March held last Saturday as an informational event for the American people highlighting the unconstitutional actions of the U.S. government, and various ways that personal freedom has been threatened, or taken away.  The rally, held on the lawn of the Capitol Building, included sixteen speakers, featuring Dr. Paul himself. 

The turnout fell short of the 15,000 who pledged to attend the event, but several thousand people did show up, with enough enthusiasm for the rest.  Pictures of the event may be seen here.  The attendees were a very diverse and interesting group: young and old; Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics; Code Pinkers and 9/11 Truthers; Conservatives, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists; Army veterans; former government employees; and average citizens from around the country. 

The common enemies and issues of the speakers included the unconstitutional nature of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Income Tax, the North American Union, the Iraq war, illegal immigration, the impending war with Iran, FISA, and defending the Constitution of the United States in all areas of life.   

While I may not necessarily agree with everything Ron Paul and his supporters believe in, Dr. Paul is right on many issues dealing with the unconstitutional nature of our own government.  Our constitution was not created for a bloated and strong central government that interferes with and restricts the rights and duties of the states and the people.  The central government should be last on the list of the hierarchy of power dealing with domestic issues in the United States, under the people and their local and state legislatures. 

Or maybe we should put the courts last on the list.  For years the people of the American republic have been silenced by the courts who have taken it upon themselves to circumvent the legislatures of the people, and create law out of thin air.  One of the most recent cases was California’s Supreme Court ruling against California’s own state constitution to make gay marriage legal. 

America luckily avoided a near catastrophe last month when one vote of the U.S. Supreme Court could have found the Second Amendment of the Constitution unconstitutional!  While many legislators across the aisle praised the Court’s decision, I asked the question, “[W]here were our "leaders" voices for the past 30 years while American citizens suffered under unconstitutional conditions?”

Judges are meant to interpret laws, not create them.  If judges continue to create the laws, without the consent of the people, who then will take on the task of interpreting the laws they create?

Another interesting case of personal freedom involves our friends to the north.  Canadian author, columnist, and political commentator Mark Steyn found himself in the Canadian courts for his book America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It.  The book was a bestseller in the New York Times and a Number One bestseller in Canada.  However, the Canadian Islamic Congress brought hate crime charges against Steyn at the Canadian Human Rights Commission for Steyn’s discussion in the book of Islam’s relationship with the West.  The Commission sent a letter to Steyn’s editor saying “it is justifiable to restrict expression to prevent exposing citizens to hatred.”  Traces of this sentiment can be seen in America today, where even reading a book can be considered a hate crime.

In an interview with Rush Limbaugh appearing in the Limbaugh Letter, Steyn said the international standard of freedom is somewhere between the idea of freedom in Yemen and that of Switzerland.  Steyn called America the last refuge for Western Civilization, but noted that liberal politicians and judges were pushing American more towards internationalism.  He also told Rush that President Bush sent him a letter praising America Alone.

Ron Paul has a saying that “Freedom is Popular,” but we must agree on our understanding of freedom.  Barack Obama recently began talking about personal responsibility and freedom, yet has a laundry list of government programs he wants to institute by stealing money from the American people, and having them rely on the government.  The liberal idea of freedom shared by the UN, Canada, and people like Barack Obama, is not the freedom of America and our Founding Fathers, but it may soon destroy our liberties unless the American people are vigilant.

Out of all of the problems facing our world, the G-8 decided to focus on global warming during this week’s conference.  All of the major media stories about the G-8 this week have primarily focused on global warming, negotiations between developed and developing countries about global warming, and President Bush’s newfound willingness to commit the United States to a treaty to cut carbon emissions to halt global warming.  Even the logo for this year’s summit has a vine with leaves growing out of it to signify the focus on the environment.  I hope I’m not the only one who thinks that paying this much lip service to the environmentalist lefties is completely insane.

People in the United States, and around the world, should really think about how their leaders benefit them and their fellow countrymen by completely wasting a G-8 summit, and their tax dollars, on promoting environmentalist propaganda that has not even been conclusively scientifically proven as fact.  President Bush completely wasted the money and time of the American people by even going to Japan for this summit, and plans to waste even more of our money in trying to implement environmental restrictions here at home for the sake of curbing global warming.  His future successor, whether it be Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama, will impose even more restrictions than Bush has expressed he’s comfortable with.

I like to breathe clean air, I enjoy seeing trees around, and I even recycle, but when the government says it wants to impose restrictions on business, keep America dependent on foreign oil, and cause suffering across the U.S. by making citizens pay $4 a gallon gas, all because of global warming, that’s not a policy I can support.

No matter how many movies Al Gore makes, or how many Nobel Prizes he wins, the truth remains that attributing global warming to carbon emissions caused by humans is not scientific fact.  The environmentalist propaganda machine, working with the UN and other left leaning agencies and governments, simply wants to keep the poorest countries in the world from developing and being able to feed themselves so that developed countries can go bankrupt doling out aid, and eventually everyone will be equally poor.  Thus, the socialist utopia will be realized.  The only way everyone can be equal, is if we are all poor.  Economic equality can’t exist with the expectation that everyone in the world will have the same standard of living the middleclass of America enjoy.

Over 31,000 American scientists have asserted that, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”  The research this statement is based on has been posted online.

Scientists from around the world have also come to the same conclusions.  A U.S. Senate report released last December documents over 400 scientists from more than two dozen countries who “voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming.”  The report points out that, “Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists.  In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."

Many of the scientists are current or former participants in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), which was recognized jointly with Gore for the Nobel.  Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explained in the Senate report that, “Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media.”

Professor Philip Stott, from the University of London said in 2001 about the IPPC’s work that, "In the last month alone, serious scientific studies have undermined the whole basis of these predictions, with the temperature over the oceans seen as exaggerated by up to 40% and the very relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature questioned."  He added that, "The IPCC models and correlations are not new; they are re-cycled 'old hat'.  It is essentially a political response to the collapse of The Hague climate talks."

Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, listed among the experts in a 2001 report by the National of Sciences that was supposed to end the debate on global warming by declaring the dangers scientifically proven, noted that, “neither he nor any of the other scientists listed ever saw that report before it was published.  It was in fact written by government bureaucrats -- as was the more recently published summary report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is also touted as the final proof and the end of the discussion.”

Instead of realizing that maybe global warming isn’t really a problem governments can deal with, since it is part of a natural heating and cooling cycle that has been correlated to activity on the Sun, world leaders have instead decided to waste lots of time and money on conferences and unneeded development restrictions, while hampering the freedom of countries like America to do profitable business and become energy independent. 

The G-8’s big decision to curb global warming is to halve the emission of greenhouse gases by 2050.  A huge problem with that decision is that no one agreed upon a base year of emissions in which to halve.  Marthinus van Schalkwyk, South African Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, remarked that, "To be meaningful and credible, a long-term goal must have a base year, it must be underpinned by ambitious midterm targets and actions," adding, "As it is expressed in the G-8 statement, the long-term goal is an empty slogan."