Many folks have criticized the Bush Administration for trying to create a Police State or act like Nazi Germany. They cite random references and engage the readers of various media sound bites claiming that the Administration stirred up the hornet's nest in the Middle East and caused the Terrorist Problem. Then make references to how the Department of Homeland Security is battening down the hatches on American Freedoms.

This makes for tense controversy and sells news, exactly what media outlets hope for. However, there is only one problem with all this. The Democrats are far more likely to cause or create a police state due to their anti-gun law initiatives, use of social control in political correctness and growing the size of government until it affects every possible aspect of your life. If you do not see this, then let me explain.

If we go for Universal Health Care, it will bankrupt this nation, thus rules will be instituted on who gets health care and anything that is deemed to be unhealthy will become against the law. Things like drinking, smoking or even being fat. To get health care at the government's cost, actually your increased taxes will be footing the bill, you will have to prove that you jog or walk 3-5 miles per day and eat right. Your daily intake of food will be measured and controlled.

You will have no choice but to adapt. If you fail to, society will condemn you and institute more rules to prevent you from harming yourself, gaining weight or failing to exercise. Court ordered exercise will be issued by law. Of course, this will happen over quite a few years so you will not notice. Do you doubt me? Well, what about the laws in NY; no transfat? How about the increased taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, although it does not bother me, I really don't drink or smoke, that is inhibiting your choices.

Have you ever noticed that when a random person disrupts a Republican Speech, he or she is put up on a pedestal in the media; Cindy Sheehan. But, if someone disrupts a Democrat Candidate speech, they get tazed, and you do not even know their name, only remember them as the; "Don't Taze Me Dude." Well, it's much worse than this. If you search; "Bush is a liar" or Bush is an Idiot" you come up with 100 million blog posts, but if anyone says "Obama is an idiot" then they get attacked by the left wing radicals.

Many college students search the Internet and attack anyone who says anything against an Obama comment or anyone who questions Senator Obama's voting record, radical preacher, connection to organized crime, international diplomacy theories, or personal character. Amazing isn't it. Do you know why? Because the media is assisting in creating social control of the masses amongst their own and this is crushing Free Speech and it is in essence allowing laws to be passed at a much faster rate, that are so similar to those of a police state.

Did you know that Hitler was of the labor party? Yep, so is Obama, he supports Unions or so he claims, and has even asked to remove laws that categorize some labor endeavors as criminal activity. Why? Who does it serve to allow Unions and Mobsters to reunite as in past periods? Sure Obama comes from Chicago and that is politics as usual, but someone with that sort of mindset and training need not run this great nation. Labor is a component of economics, let it ride in free markets like anything else, and let it follow the same rules. Why give labor unions the upper hand, that only raises labor costs and sends jobs out of America.

It is amazing that all the problems that Obama has identified are indeed, the same exact problems that his line of thinking cause. Next, Obama will call for increased tariffs on imported goods, causing strife in other nations causing them to hate us, right when Obama tells us that the World hates us and we need to fix that? His argument there is too shallow to consider. Yet, he says we need to give more foreign aid, well, just think how much aid we must give to them if we stifle trade in world markets?

Obama tells us that there is a racial divide in the US, well, everyone knows that but we are mending fences or where quite well until he came along and created more animosity there, why? To get elected, so then it's okay to get blacks and whites all up in arms again if it's good for Obama's campaign, but it's not good if anyone else mentions it? If they do then they are a racist and that proves there is a racial divide? Yah right, created and flames fanned by whom? Obama.

Senator Barack Obama has been accused as being the most liberal of all Senators, I'd like to say he is the most "Socialistic" of all US Senators and his voting record proves it. Why is it that Senator Obama calls us all to join together in a common cause and heal our nation, when he is so far left that he has lost sight of reality. Now mind you my comments here about Obama are not anti-black, anti-Obama or anti-democrat. I have chosen not to vote for any of the above on either side of this so-called divide. This election process has turned into a media circus for the minds of the masses, who have obviously surrendered their brains to the local TV sets.

Voting is a wasteful process when millions of Americans, blind as sheep go marching off in lock-step for a man like Obama, who has never really done anything in his life worthy of becoming a President and the leader of some 5 Billion people in the Free World. It is time for Senator Barack Obama to take some media scrutiny, be brought back to size and exposed for what he is, what he really believes in and to face the music along with his expert PR handlers. Barack Obama is not good enough to be President of the United States of America, the greatest nation ever created in the history of mankind. Think about it, get a better candidate and open your minds to reality.

If we were to implement all the things Senator Barack Obama has promised and create laws to insure that it would be done, then the government would grow by 100% during his term and your taxes would increase by nearly as much. Is that the country you want to live in, because it would be getting to be such a highly regulated society that it would feel just like a police state. Doubt what I am saying? Look around the world and see the causality of such policies, then you tell me.

By: Lance Winslow
"Lance Winslow" - Online Blog Content Service. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net. Lance Winslow's Bio

Jewish emigration into Israel did not begin with refugees from Hitler's Europe back in the 1920s the typical Jewish home already have a little blue box of the Jewish national fund for the collection of nickels and dimes to assist Israeli land reclamation then long underway long before anyone outside of Germany had heard of Hitler.

Nor did the emigration begin with the Balfour Declaration of 1917. A Jewish militia, a direct ancestor of the Haganah, was already protecting settlement in Israel in 1909, at a time when Arab nationalism did not yet exist Tel Aviv was founded in that year as far back as 1905 an addition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica reported the population of Jerusalem as 40,000 Jews 13,000 Christians and 7000 Muslims.

Jewish immigration into Israel did not even begin with the founding of the Zionist movement in 1897. 15 years before that it was already so great that the Turkish government banned it. The modern revival of Hebrew as a means of communication among Jews coming to Israel from various countries goes back at least to the 1850s.

Actually there was no beginning. Both the intent and the actuality of Jewish return to Israel have been continuous since ancient times, since even before the Romans began a policy of de-Judaizing the land. It has been constant; it is not a modern revival.

The central prayer of the Jewish liturgy speaks, among other things, of the return of the Jewish people to Israel and Israel's reestablishment of the Jewish political entity with Jerusalem as its capital. This prayer was composed of the Roman Empire was at its height, while Israel was still predominately Jewish, and has been recited constantly, from that era to the present, three times daily, without a break.

Jews first came to Israel in the second millennium B.C. The peoples they found they are no longer exist. For the most part they were absorbed by the Jews. But they were not Arabs. The Arabs came later. Space the country was predominately Jewish for about 1500 years. But in the second century A.D., after a series of rebellions against Roman rule and sporadic periods of regained independence, the Romans determined to crush the Jews permanently by driving out great numbers of them, sending their young men into the arenas as gladiators, and replacing them with the Greek speaking population. Even after this, Jews remain the majority for a long time. The prayer for political reconstitution in Israel continued to serve notice that the Jewish people had not surrendered their claim. Whatever one may think of the functions of prayer, here was a thrice daily notification, by an entire fault, they had every intention of reoccupying their land at the first opportunity. Of course a claim without an army to back it up as little standing in international law. But the claim was there, waiting for its army, and no occupant who might enter in the meantime could be unaware of it. Other references to the claim or throughout the liturgy - in the prayer after every meal, for instance. And every Passover in Yom Kippur ended with a cry, "Next year in Jerusalem!"

There are always been millions of Jews taking all of this very seriously. Throughout the Middle Ages, no matter how bearing the desert is really become, and regardless of the conditions under which Jews lived, there were always some making their way there to settle. Some went in old age, in order to die there. Others settled in groups. Many who had no prospect of getting there, sent for little bags of Israeli soil which they treasured and had poured on their bodies and their coffins, so that they could come as close as possible to burial in Israel. In the 1500s there was a major attempt to reestablish Jewish political autonomy in northern Israel and to make the desert bloom (not with citrus groves, as today, but with silkworm culture). It failed when the leader of the movement, who was an associate of the Sultan, fell out of favor, but it was not an isolated incident.

The emancipation in recent centuries that caused some Jews to take the Israeli claim less seriously also made it easier for others to work for its realization. With us in the 1700s, and in the 18 hundredths, as in the present century, there was one movement after another, one organization after another, with a constant stream of emigration and settlement.

It was all this that made it inevitable that sooner or later, along about the middle of the 20th century, the Jews of Israel would ask for political independence and defend it with an army. It would've happened, even if there had been no World War II or Hitler, even if there had been no United Nations.

Jews and Arabs, as it happens, both originally came to Israel in much the same way. Each was at first the Bedouin people that came out of the desert to conquer a land of ancient towns; each then adopted a subtle way of life and made the towns of their own. It is a frequent pattern in history.

The Arabs first came to Israel as conquerors on horseback in the seventh century A.D.. The peoples then living there spoke Greek and Aramaic, but after the Arab conquest the Arabic language became dominant. Before that the Arabs had lived in the Arabian Peninsula, and still do. When it burst out of Arabia in the seventh century, they conquered not only Israel but an empire extending from the Pyrenees to the border of India. Their religion to call them perch up at their language did not, and neither their language nor the religion was permanent in Spain or Portugal (though both florist there for several centuries). But the rest of their empire corresponds roughly to the Arab world of today. The same 7th-century wave of conquest that brought the Arabs to Israel brought them also to Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and North Africa and made them a major power.

The Jewish settlement and confined itself to the small territory from the Jordan Valley to the coast, the areas of modern Israel and Jordan, and the Jews would retain no connection with any previous region. Their whole culture and religion identified itself permanently within this very small plot. The Arab conquest was of a different order and magnitude. It did not lose momentum at it until it stretched from the Atlantic to Babylonia and beyond, and it retained the ancient homeland of Arabia as well. Israel with a tiny part of the whole.

It was not only a tiny part, but also an unimportant one. The Arab empire split into diverse dynasties or parts fell under invading dynasties, and its pieces were eventually annexed by the Turks, but at no time did the Arabs, or the Turks for that matter, ever make "Palestine" a distinct entity - it was never even a province. It was always an outlying backwater of some other province. The present claim that "Palestinians" are distinct nationality has not the slightest basis at all the centuries of their history. No Arab administration regarded Palestine is anything but an outlying part of something else; they never even had a word for as a whole. "Falastin" in those days was only a part of it, a district. Not only did in the territory have no form of political identity, but it was also neglected physically. Until during the 18th and early 19th centuries the population of Jerusalem had fallen below 10,000 in the road countryside had few people left the occasional nomads.

With the breakup of the Turkish Empire at the end of World War I, the British foreign office, in the course of its map drawing, invented the political and territorial concepts of Palestine and Transjordania (now Jordan). These were not Arab concepts. Arabs simply thought of the whole region is Syria, and an Arab in Jerusalem or Bethlehem, if he wanted to define themselves geographically, called himself a Syrian.

Transjordania was carved from what had been a larger Israel by the British in 1922; they made a kingdom for Bedouin sheik whose family had been driven from the Arabian peninsula by rival Bedouins, also protégés of the British.

The Jews who had fought the Turks, in time found themselves fighting the British. In 1947, the UN passed a resolution urging the partition of Palestine into two intertwined halves - a Jewish state and an Arab state. The following year at the British left in the Jews proclaimed their state. Nobody troubled to set up a state in the Arab half. The surrounding Arab states made ready to invade the hole and take it over. But they had no more intention of setting up an Arab state in Israel than did the Arabs already there; their intention was rather a free-for-all to fragment the territory and annexed the pieces. In other words, in 1947 and 1948 the surrounding Arab states had no more concept of "Palestine" as a permanent Arab entity than did the Arabs who live there. And why should they? There had never been such a state! The Arab farmers in town dwellers of Syria, Israel, and Jordan were homogeneous, alike in language and culture. Among them were other groups such as the Bedouins and the Druzes, but these two were the same everywhere. The British drawn boundaries represented no ethnic or cultural reality.

As a matter of fact the Arab population of Israel, like the Jewish population, had been swelled by recent immigration. In the 19th century the country received not only increasing waves of Jewish immigration a sizable wave of Arab immigration - the latter from Algeria, then being conquered by the French. Even so, for most of the century the population was sparse, and on balance it was still declining. Travelers described his countryside as abandoned, dismal, and desolate. (E.g., Mark Twain in 'The Innocents Abroad': one may write 10 miles hereabouts, and not see 10 human beings.) With the turn of the century, however, Jewish activity increasingly stimulated the economy, and attracted Arab immigration into Israel from Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt. The Jewish and Arab populations grew simultaneously. The Jews also introduced health measures that reduced infant mortality among Arabs. Between the world wars, the Jewish population of his role rose by 375,000 and the Arab population by 380,000. The air of increase in Israel with 75% in that period as compared to 25% and prolific Egypt, and the biggest Arab increases were in the areas of the most intense Jewish development.

In 1947 Jews were majority and half of Israel then assigned to them by the UN resolution. Their numbers would have been greater but for the British restriction on Jewish immigration. On the other hand, the British had placed no restriction at all on Arab immigration into Israel.

It is easy to exaggerate the role of the Nazis in bringing Jews to Israel. Jewish immigration into Israel have been increasing steadily since the 19th century, both from Europe and from Arab lands; in killing 75% of all the Jews in Europe, the Nazis eliminated as well as stimulated potential immigrants

1948 war left Egypt in possession of a small southwestern corner of what had been Israel known as the Gaza Strip, and Jordan in possession of the central portion of irregular shape known today as the West Bank, and including the old city of Jerusalem. There was no protest by Palestinian Arabs as asserting that they did not want to be Egyptians or Jordanians. The Egyptian government as it turned out, kept the Palestinians combined to the Gaza Strip and did not let them enter Egypt. But the Arabs of Jerusalem, Samaria, and adjacent districts now became Jordanians with little or no protest

Haj Amin el Husseini, the British appointed mufti of Jerusalem, who had himself urged Arabs to flee from Israel, now try to set up a Palestine government in Gaza, and later in Cairo, but the idea died for lack of support.

For 19 years, until after the cease-fire of 1967, there was plenty of talk of destroying Israel, but no story about a Palestinian nationality. It would hardly have held water, with Arabs supporting Jordan's annexation of a big chunk of central Israel, and with Jordan referring to ancient Jewish ruins there in as Jordanian heritage.

Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Robert Kennedy, called himself a Jordanian, quite naturally, though he and his family were from Jerusalem. That was the pattern, between 1948 and 1967. Jordan today still regards the occupied West Bank as part of Jordan, not as Palestine.

It was only after 1967 the Palestinians began to be spoken of as a distinct nationality, different from Syrians or Jordanians, who would always be in exile and must be returned to Palestine. The concept is so widely used today that we tend to forget that we scarcely heard of it before 1967.

The New York Times quoted an Arab nationalist as saying that the Israelis, "deny that there is a nation of Palestine." But the same Arab was chief administrator of Jerusalem for the government of Jordan. And when you founded in nationalist newspaper in Jerusalem after World War I, he called his newspaper South Syria.

Even if the nation of "Palestine" is a post-1967 ploy, the Arabs have been uprooted from their homes or human reality. To be displaced by the fortunes of war, to be forced from the scenes where your life is unfolded, is not pleasant, emotionally or economically. A man's tight to his surroundings is real.

This misfortune has happened to many peoples, and particularly in the 20th century. Yet none of these peoples have reacted like the Arabs. Each of these displaced populations was taken in by people of the same nationality elsewhere. It was never easy, and most of the individuals involved had little to do with the political disasters in which they were caught. But they began life anew and cease to be a problem.

The Arabs in this respect are unique. Only the Arabs remained unabsorbed elsewhere, still refugees while generations have grown to manhood. There are, after all, over a dozen separate Arab states with a combined population of nearly 200 million and considerable underdeveloped land, the refugees are but a fraction of this figure. Why were they not absorbed? Principally, because most Arab governments did not permit their absorption, preferring to use them as a casus belli against Israel.

By Aniyochanan Ben-Yochanan

Expect this fall's election to be flooded with political rhetoric and populist calls for a deliciously swift exit from Iraq. Digest the hypocrisy and move on. It's the past. It's done.

In an election that's largely to the advantage of the Democrats, the American people will see through fragile liberal intentions and move on. The concern of the people now should not be why we entered Iraq, but why we must stay. Listen to me now: swallow your infectious desire to enlist in the zeitgeist and embrace the need to protect your nation from an evolving threat.

The Democratic approach to this threat is a rapid withdrawal of troops. They believe the growing number of fatalities and financial burden outweigh the need to end the hostility and political turmoil in the Middle East. While reconciliation for the tragic loss of life can never be achieved, those brave Americans will not die in vain. We will not compromise their efforts. We will finish the job.

Those who speak out against the Iraqi occupation lean on the unjust reasons for war as rationale for a withdrawal of troops. I repeat: It's the past. It's done. The drastic consequences of such actions would ensure the maturation of terrorism in Iraq. What Democrats view as a cessation to the loss of life and bleeding financial burden is a biased perspective from across the Atlantic.

In the case of a Democratic presidency, troops will be withdrawn within a short period of time. The morale of the world's greatest military will plummet. What is to become of a military that retreats in the face of boorish Middle Eastern tactics? For one, al-Qaeda will undoubtedly claim victory in Iraq and sound their trumpets across the continent. While that may be a petty price to pay for the reassurances of a withdrawal, consider the breadth of that call. It will not go unanswered. Extremists across the globe will thirstily join the ranks of the organization that sank the US. al-Qaeda will thrive.

Feeding off the hype of a withdrawal, al-Qaeda decides to again attack the US. Suppose that attack rivals 9-11. What do we do? What CAN we do? We just shipped world's reigning military superpower back across the Atlantic under the pretense of defeat. Not only would the mobilization of such an army be financially exhausting, but who would be willing to do it? Would a Democratic president embrace a hypocritical attack message or cower behind "peace negotiations"?

Now suppose we withdraw and there is no such attack. Does the president expect insurgency to decline? No, the Democratic president would most likely take a laissez-faire approach to the violence and let the region go to hell. Expect a dramatic increase in violence and a full scale civil war to erupt. While such a situation may not directly affect us, consider the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Violence would seize the vicinity and oil would cease to flow out of the area. Timid politicians abashed by the great "R" word would step out of the closet to announce the global depression that is to come.

But there is a way. Ironically, the answer is a gradual withdrawal of troops. The surge was a first step in sustaining minimal levels of violence. Now General Petraeus needs to gradually withdraw troops and with each withdrawal assess the situation. If, after the assessment, violence remains at a minimal level, withdrawals may continue. Once the minimum level of troops is reached to maintain levels of violence, begin deploying Iraqi forces to respond to insurgency.

While our presence is needed, many Iraqis are hostile to it. We must allow Iraq to maintain its sovereignty by forcing them to use their security forces against al-Qaeda. The problem is that we do not yet know how well an Iraqi force would respond to such threats. Should the violence reach a point beyond containment, many Iraqis will feel pressured to take sides - Sunni, Shia, etc. - and civil war will break out. We are there for support, but our presence is not indefinite.

Should a rapid withdrawal of troops occur, expect anarchy to downpour on Iraq. Nobody wants war. Sometimes it's necessary.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse . . ." - John Stuart Mill

By: Michael Payne
The Countdown - Political analysis and discussion
http://www.thecountdown.moonfruit.com

Is telling the truth important when you are running for the highest office in the land, perhaps the world? Apparently Hillary Clinton doesn't think so.

Hillary Clinton has admitted that she "did misspeak" about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, blaming tiredness for a dramatic description that was shown to have been significantly exaggerated.

"I remember landing under sniper fire," she said in Washington on Monday. "There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

News footage of the event however showed her claims to have been wide of the mark, and reporters who accompanied her stated that there was no sniper fire. Her account was ridiculed by ABC News as "like a scene from Saving Private Ryan".

CBS News who says they were with her when she arrived in Kosovo also says there was no sniper fire whatsoever. CBS also interviewed a commanding officer on the ground who was there, who also confirmed the first lady at the time Mrs. Clinton received a warm welcome and was greeted by children upon arrival indicative of the safety measures in place.

After initially dismissing the controversy over her comments as a "minor blip", Senator Clinton told a Pittsburgh radio station: "You know I have written about this and described it in many different settings and I did misspeak the other day. This has been a very long campaign. Occasionally, I am a human being like everybody else."

She insisted it was the "first time in 12 years" she had spoken inaccurately about the trip. Others contest that saying her book mentions sniper fire and intense danger as well.

On Feb 29, Senator Clinton stated that the greeting ceremony "had to be moved inside because of sniper fire" while on Dec 29 she said that she had "landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire".

Mrs Clinton told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that she had made the mistake about sniper fire because she had been "sleep-deprived". Her schedule showed she had no public engagements the day before her Washington speech and she spent the night in her Embassy Row home.

The footage of the Tuzla visit combined with her recent comments play repeatedly on American television networks and is getting thousands of viewers at YouTube.

Hillary claims she was simply exaggerating, but it sure looks like self-serving lying to me. Is this the kind of leadership we need in Washington? Doesn't America have enough liars in government already?

By: Paul Davis
The following information was provided by the author.

Paul Davis is a highly sought after worldwide professional speaker, purpose coach, and change master transforming organizations and empowering individuals to live their dreams.

Paul is the author of several books including United States of Arrogance; Poems that Propel the Planet; Breakthrough for a Broken Heart; Adultery: 101 Reasons Not to Cheat; Are You Ready for True Love; Stop Lusting & Start Living; Waves of God; Supernatural Fire; God vs. Religion; and many more!

Paul's compassion for people & passion to travel has taken him to over 50 countries of the world where he has had a tremendous impact. Paul's organization Dream-Maker Inc. builds dreams, transcends limitations, & reconciles nations.

Contact Paul to speak at your event or for consulting:

RevivingNations@yahoo.com
407-284-1705