05-12-2008

Illegal immigration –

We the people were told by our leaders that between 12 to 20 million foreign workers somehow (illegally) crossed our borders and somehow intertwined in our economy. If they produce something (or provide services), that means that they are needed. Governor Romney said that if he would become the president, he would bus all illegal immigrants to the borders and will get rid of all of them. He lost me there. What would happen if we would kick all of those workers out? What will happen to our economy if we will take out 12 to 20 million workers? Who will fill their places? We have 5% unemployment, and for all practical reasons there are no spare hands to infuse into the low paying jobs. We probably will have to beg them to come back, will bus them in and offer incentives.

Those people came here illegally. Those people broke our laws. On the other hand they didn’t come here to kill, sabotage or still from us. They came here to work…. but they came here illegally. Is it a moral dilemma? Yes it is. No, it is not. We allowed them to come here. No one in his/her sane mind would think even for a short moment that the Soviet Union, North Korea, German Democratic Republic and many others could close their borders in mid-XX century, but we, the mighty Americans, can’t. If we didn’t know how to do it, why we didn’t invite Israelis? Two presidents, Clinton and Bush equally to be blamed for this mess. We the people were also waiting for a long time to voice our opposition to the situation, we are also to blame. 

We know that many people are waiting for years to go though the red tape and get here legally. Tough luck. I am one of them, who was waiting for almost four years, and was very very lucky to get in. There are many things in life that are unfair and this is one of them. We have 12 to 20 million illegals in the country who work here, live here, get sick here, drive cars here, get married here, bore children who enter our schools, and all of those people are somehow out of the circle of our normal life.

Yes, they get sick here and go to hospitals. We pay for them. Their employers pay them bare minimums, then they go to hospitals and we the people pay their health bills. Who else? Not their employers, but WE. Then illegally immigrated children go to schools, and we the people pay for their education. Not they or their employers, but WE. We subsidize roads they drive on. We the people pay local administration, pay police, pay for light on the streets – they themselves and the employers (who profit from their labor) pay nothing. I want all people who live and work in the US to get at least minimum wages, with lawful taxes paid by themselves and their employers. This way they will pay for education of their children, medical expenses and everything else what the state provide to its citizens.

Ever more ridiculous idea o handling this illegal immigrations problem then the one that Romney came up with, I have heard from Senator Obama. He offered to make all illegal immigrants to pay back taxes for all years they worked here, At the same time he said that no worker in the United States who earns under seventy thousand dollars a year will pay taxes. So, will they pay… or not? Retroactively at what rate? Who will know how much they earned in previous years and how many years they were here? Another question is - would they want to came out of hiding to pay those back taxes? Do they have money to buy the US citizenship? Will we kick them out if they don’t?

This is what many of the people whom I discussed this problem are saying:

1. Enact laws/rules/regulations to make it a crime to hire people without proper employment authorization, with rather steep penalties for breaking these rules.

2. Expand and simplify guest worker program to allow demand for workers to be easily met. Make it very easy to understand and implement, and advertise in Mexico and other neighboring countries.

3. Amend the "birth rights" law, denying automatic citizenship to the children born in the USA to those parents who are not here legally.

4. Cut off free benefits, welfare, schools, Medicaid (keep only emergency healthcare)

5. Seal off the borders (to keep terrorists, criminals, drug dealer etc. out; normal folks will not go there because of 1,2,and 3, they will go to the American Consulate to get guest worker permit, as it successfully done for example in Israel.

There are not a lot of alternatives in front of us. We have to build a fence, not a joke we are building now, but a border that will be impossible to cross. We have to offer all illegal immigrants a solution that will make sense to us AND to them. They are part of the process and if they feel it is bad for them, they will try to hide and resist. And we have to implement very strict rules regarding punishment for the ones that employ illegals.

This or any other “tough love” solution will take time and effort. It will take courage that I am not sure our leaders have. McCain in his private life had & hopefully continue having courage (and a will) in his political life as well.

We have to resolve this situation that is not a wining situation for both us the people and the illegal immigrants. There is no other choice. Otherwise we are passing this problem to our children and grandchildren, who wil face not 12-20 million illegal immigrants, but 50-100 million or more.

Sincerely,

Leon A.Weinstein

Los Angeles, CA

leonweinstein@hotmail.com

 

May 17, 2008

 

Conspiracy theory

(Barack Obama vs. Vladimir Lenin)

By Leon A.Weinstein

An absolutely unproven theory of how a group of rich, educated & very left-wing comrades decided to take America over and beat it without firing of any single shot.

At the beginning of the XX century, a very bright, young and well-educated man who called himself Vladimir Lenin became a leader of the left wing of the social democratic party of Russia. His supporters, liberal & well-educated men (among them many wealthy including several “filthy” rich) were dead set against a not-popular war with Germany. The economy was in a bad shape, price of food rose, the government was at it’s all times low popularity. They decided to try to take country over by either parliamentary or non-parliamentary way. The ideas they propagated were becoming very popular in Russia – the main idea being re-distribution of wealth, free education and free medicine for all; free transportation for students, senior citizens and sick; social security payments to old and sick disregarding their work history, no taxes from half of the population and IMMEDIATE withdrawal from the war! Most of the country’s population loved it. Nobody explained to this population how Lenin would pay for all those great things, where he would get the funds. Since people were told that they would be given everything for free, they didn’t bother to investigate further.

Lenin led his party to a spectacular win, employing first parliamentary, then revolutionary tactics. In November of 1917 Lenin’s party was in charge. They immediately took over the ownership of all natural resources, all industrial complexes, all major real estate holdings, and signed a disgraceful peace accord with Germans, in effect giving to a foreign country a control over about one third of the Russian Empire. Little was known at this time that the Great Lenin’s Revolution was financed by the German Army Intelligence (please view “Wikpedia” under Alexander Parvus, a German agent that was a go-between Lenin and the German High Command). The Lenin’s revolution and subsequent annexation of huge territories of land by Germany were purchased with three million German marks, probably the cheapest real estate deal in the history of humankind.

Now let’s play a game of suspicion – what if…. a group of very educated, rich and very left oriented people decided a century after the great Lenin’s experiment to make America “more just, more human and more understanding of the needs of other peoples and nations”? What they would do, how they would plan their grand operation of taking over the greatest power on the planet Earth? How would they implement this simple idea of “If you can’t fight it, destroy it from within”? But first, let’s put our “what if” game into prospective and lay down several historical facts.

During the JFK era both major American political parties were patriotic and united in their will to defend the US and the American way of life from any possible enemy. Upon inauguration JFK said that the US would “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to ensure the survival and success of liberty.” At that time JFK’s policies toward Cuba, Soviet Union and Vietnam were shared by the entire congress, including the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The New York Times wrote after the invasion of Vietnam that “Free World forces ... still have a chance in South Vietnam, and every effort should be made to save the situation.” This was written at the beginning of the war, before a draft at the Universities began. But when it indeed began, the American students felt scared. They didn’t want to be drafted and didn’t want to go to fight in Vietnam. Massive student’s protests erupted masquerading as political protests and civil disagreements. Intellectual elite joined the “young and scared” in accusations of gross mismanagement of the Vietnam War by LBJ, who inherited Vietnam problem from John & Robert Kennedy. The proof that fear was the chief reason for students’ protests is in the pudding - when drafts stopped, so students’ protests declined dramatically. But something significant happened. For the first time in the history of the US, the liberal Left (known in Europe under names “Socialists” and “Communists”) began to resonate with the mood of the mainstream Americans. This was the start of the new coalition that almost destroyed America, as we know it, and still threatens to change it forever. Let’s now remind ourselves that change is not always for the better, and as was once told by an old Chinese proverb “Save me God from being born at the time of major changes”.

Below are quotes of what American leftists were saying about communism, Soviet Union, war in Vietnam and about the “terrible, imperialistic, fascistic, militaristic and anti-humanistic” United States of America.

Literary critic Edmund Wilson called USSR “The moral light at the top of the world”. Writers Beatrice and Sidney Webb in their book entitled The Truth About Soviet Russia wrote that the Communist Party is “the most inclusive and equalized democracy on Earth”. Journalist I.F.Stone reported that “communism is a progressive force, lined up on the correct side of the historical events”. Princeton professor and TV commentator Stephen Cohen wrote about Lenin’s economic plans “...toleration of social diversity…social harmony… rule of law”. And on top of everything, in 1978 Secretary of State Cyrus Vance had told Time magazine that President Carter and General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev shared “similar dreams and aspirations.” Wow! This is the very same president that single-handedly toppled Shah’s regime in Iraq, put Ayatollah Khomeini (whom he viewed as great humanist and inspiration) into power and ignited worldwide radical Islamist revolution.

In 1972 George McGovern, the Democratic party nominee for the President of the United States said in his acceptance speech during Democratic National Convention: “There will be no more Asian children running ablaze from bombed-out schools. There will be no more talk of bombing the dikes or the cities of the North. And within 90 days of my inauguration, every American soldier and every American prisoner will be out of the jungle and out of their cells and then home in America where they belong. And then let us resolve that never again will we send the precious young blood of this country to die trying to prop up a corrupt military dictatorship abroad.” Doesn’t this sound familiar to those who follow 2008 Presidential election cycle? In his published in 1976 autobiography McGovern included his photos with Fidel Castro, and with the Vietnam’s premier Pham Van Dog. In the same book he wrote nothing about the fact that after the United States were forced by the anti-war movement and the leaders of the Democratic Party to withdraw from Vietnam, the Free world lost ten countries to Communists. As a direct result of the American withdrawal, Vietnam gulags were executing and “re-educating” hundreds of thousands of its own citizens. Khmer Rouge killed about two million Cambodians of the nine million population of this small Asian country. Millions of people in the world shall know that suffering, death, starvation, humiliations of millions of their friends and relatives happened as a direct result of actions and lies spread by the American Left.    

The tone of the New Left changes dramatically when socialists are talking about their own country. MIT professor Noam Chomsky wrote “America is a world leading terrorist state”. Filmmaker Michel Moor in his book “Stupid White Man” wrote “Do you feel like you live in a nation of idiots? I used to console myself about the state of stupidity in this country by repeating this to myself: Even if there are two hundred million stone-cold idiots in this country, that leaves at least eighty million who will get what I'm saying . . . “. Reverend Wright pronounced “The United States government is capable of creating AIDS virus in order to genocide the African and African-American population”. Billionaire George Soros repeatedly said in his speeches: “The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat. The (global capitalist) system is deeply flawed. As long as capitalism remains triumphant, the pursuit of money overrides all other social considerations. The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.”

What “open society” is he talking about? Last time I checked, the most open societies in the world were (among handful of democratic nations) The United States of America and Israel, sworn enemies of the New Left. (I can debate with Mr. Soros the Henri Bergson and Karl Popper’s open society theory and absence of practical results based on this theory, but we will leave this discussion until the next time. Right now we need to understand that the Open Society is set off against the United States of America and that the US is on the way of achieving this desirable by the New Left way of life). But the most important point here is that the New Left doesn’t feel any more a part of this “stupid, oppressive and materialistic” country. They feel, think and act as enemies of the society we live in, ready to CHANGE it. But change it with what?

If you can’t defeat the strongest country in the world by military force, you can try to destroy it from within. What if George Soros and Michael Moore who hate American way of life and think that America is the main obstacle to building a paradise on earth, decided to put their money where their mouth is? (Hearing how stingy Moore is, I doubt he would put the money, but Soros in his many generous deeds proved that he might). After loosing an attempt in 2004 with the like-minded John Kerry, they may decide to act differently. What if … they would decide to put a Trojan Horse in the White House? A person dedicated to their ideas and ideals, but “dressed” as a moderate unifier. How would they do it?

First, who can be a candidate that millions overwhelmingly would vote for? Since it is obviously a year that Democrats are favorite to win (Bush is a very unpopular president, war is unpopular, economy in troubles and people generally want change), the candidate shall be a Democrat. Either female or an African-American would be a plus, giving additional votes to the contender. The person shall be manageable, meaning that he can’t be an established figure with a circle of friends and his own support. He/she shall be relatively new on the political scene, but with enough experience that can be sold as “qualified for the job”. Such politician shall be very dedicated to the extreme left socialist cause, but as we said earlier shall be masqueraded as a mainstream and centrist candidate. The revelation that he is not what he seemed to be would come after the fact, when he is already in the White house. The contender shall be good looking, great speaker and a demagogue. He shall be a good actor and know how to hide his true intentions and thoughts. Is it possible to find such a candidate? When you look hard enough, sooner or later you probably will. 

Next task is to very quietly train such candidate and his team. Even main Dems shall not be in on this secret plot… This is not a new task for George Soros. He already played a pivotal role in facilitating the Rose revolution in the republic of Georgia, then the Orange revolution in Ukraine. Those revolutions were aimed against Russian’s dominance in the region. Now he can start the greatest deed of them all, the revolution that would put on its knees the Great Satan itself, the US of A.

Next step is to train this candidate to promise something that can’t be checked, something intangible, like “bright future for the kids”, “harmony for all”, “peace forever”, “jobs for everybody”, “medicine for free”. In Russia one politician repeatedly told his constituencies that “every single woman will get a men, and if needed we will import men in sufficient quantities, strong, young and very potent men from the Slavic countries”. Don’t scowl – this election promise worked as a charm and sky rocketed the politician into the Russian parliament.

Next task of the group is to outlaw arms and take them from the people. At least the automatic ones. Stalin, Mao, Hitler all did it immediately after seizing the power, to be able to dwarf any possible resistance to “change” and “reforms” that the good Intended Reformers would want to implement. The socialists want best for the people, but “stupid people sometimes do not understand what is best for them and resist”. In every communist country such people were taken to special outdoor camps and re-educated. Much like Vietnamese and Cambodians did. Then others will suddenly understand how good the regime is.

Next step in the campaign is to make people feel bad about themselves, make people feel bad about their government, make people feel bad about their way of life, make sure they think that other ways of life are more human than theirs. Then make sure they loose (or think that they lost) a war, and that they will soon loose their houses, holdings, everything they have. If you ask how to do it – create several independent non-profit companies, channel huge sums of money into them and promote, promote, promote your agenda. Induce panic as much as you can. Lie and cheat, the bigger the lie, the faster people will believe it, as it was proved by the Nazi’s during WWII. Bring in major talent, Hollywood, writers, ex-Presidents, ex-Vice Presidents, sportsmen and TV personalities, journalists and commentators. And lie, lie, lie again. And watch how the lies grow from within…

The truth is - I do not know about any conspiracy to overthrow the US government. What I wrote is a speculation, a game called “what if…”. But it is scary to think that this can really happen. Let’s hope that the XXI century will not repeat mistakes of the XX century, at least not the most tragic ones.

Russians of the XX century learned the hard way that when you get something for free, something is taken from you. The old proverb about the mousetrap being the only place where you can find free cheese proves itself true time and time again. Russians (Soviets) were given free education, free medicine (bad but free), equal pay (small but equal), equal pensions… Several “unimportant” things however were taken from them such as a right to travel abroad, right to express their opinions, right to keep fruits of their labor, right to defend itself against the state, right to elect whom you want to elect, right to worship what you want to worship, and many other rights and privileges that we in the US take for granted. This was the consequence of getting things for free.

Every country that attempted to build this “wealth re-distribution social paradise” ended up with a totalitarian regime, gulags, killing fields and “starvation into submission” of its own population. Do we really want this to happen to the United States of America? I personally don’t. 

Sincerely,

Leon A.Weinstein

Los Angeles, CA

leonweinstein@hotmail.com

Open letter to

Senator Barack Obama,

possible Democratic Party of America Presidential nominee & some say next

Commander-and-Chief of the United States & Moral Leader of the Western World.

May 17, 2008

Dear Senator Obama,

My name is Leon Weinstein. I immigrated to the United States in 1986, and since I became a citizen, I was voting either republican or democrat, depending on issues and personalities. In fiscal and international areas I am conservative, on many social issues I am a liberal. I am pro-choice, pro-legalization of marihuana, pro-amnesty for illegal emigrants (with however a good solid wall constructed to regulate this issue in the future), pro-staying in Iraq until the situation stabilized, pro-getting our hundred billion dollars investment in Iraq back from sales of Iraqi oil, and with a strong stance against Muslim extremists and other aggressive countries and organizations. I would also want to disassemble the United Nations, this joke of a forum where human rights committee members are Iran & Syria.

When one tries to look into your life achievements, first what he sees is a great carrier in public service, which attests to your political skills. You run a very tight and successful campaign, which is also a very positive sign. On the other hand you have not much of a managerial experience, which is kind of important for the top job in the country. There is not much international experience as well. You are saying that you have good judgment and in media it transfers like the only right judgment you made is that you opposed the war in Iraq. On the other hand your critics saying that you were not in the US senate at that time and didn’t have an access to the intelligence they had (actually you yourself said it several times prior to the Presidential race). Another point that you are making is that you are post-racial and post-partisan candidate and that you will be able to unite the country and the congress. Again the critics say that you didn’t prove while in the US senate that you are able to cross the isle, so to speak. It’s all very confusing. With other candidates it is easier. They are for many years in the all-American politics and we know much more about them. I decided to take try to see by myself where is the truth. Below is my account of the finding regarding your past words and deeds that can shed a light on the two main statements you make: (a) you have good judgment, and (b) you can unite, not divide the country.

Let me stat with a little historical observation. My great grandparents were Jewish and lived in a small village, with no legal right to move to a larger city, being prohibited to enter Universities, denied elementary human rights and frequently being subjected to pogroms. They were killed, humiliated and raped. This was occurring so often that my ancestors decided that we will call our children’s race by their mother’s. Thousands upon thousands of those children of rape were proudly calling themselves Jews, and joined their brothers and sisters in their faith and destiny. It was very easy to blend into a non-Jewish environment and abandon your race and fate. Some did, most stayed. Let me honestly say to you that the very first thing that got me a bit worried in your book DREAMS OF MY FATHER were words: “I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race”.

As you may know, in a Jewish tradition a boy becomes a man at age 13. This is the age we Jews believe that a person can’t hide any more behind his parents, his ignorance or age, has to start choosing his path in this world and has to answer for his own words and actions. This is another quote from your book: “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites”. You were not ready to stand up for people who raised you, fed you, schooled you and loved you. Those people where “whites”. I am white too. The question the crossed my mind was - will you be ready to stand by me if you are our next President? But that was many years ago, you changed now, now you are grown up man.

Every year about one million people legally immigrate to the US. Another million comes every year as illegal immigrants. They work, build their nests and stay here. There are millions of others who would give anything to be able to come and stay in America. When I was receiving my citizenship, the ceremony was conducted in a huge hall with some five thousand emigrants receiving their citizenship at the same time. I remember those five thousand people singing the American hymn and crying. They came from different countries and they all remembered how they lived over there. They had tears of joy in their eyes. Millions of people who came here as emigrants (believe me emigration is a very painful and difficult process) are grateful and love the same country your wife, your pastor and your friends appeared to hate. At least in the sound bites we sew on TV screen they shouted and said many bad words about the US of A. My question to you - did you do anything to stop this wave of hate against your mother’s race and your country? Did you fight and lead by example? Or you pretended not to hear, not to see, not to say?

In my old country we had a saying “tell me who your friend is and I will tell you who you are”. I understand you do not want to be judged by association with your friends. Many people pass in our lives and we can’t be held accountable for all their words and deeds. Let’s then see what’s going on in your own home. This is what your wife said: “…for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country!” and “America … is a mean country”.  Did you tell your wife that thousands upon thousands of people who dream of coming to this mean country? Why they want to stay here, raise their children and grandchildren? Because America is a mean country? Because there is nothing to be proud of here? Did you communicate those thoughts to your daughters? Or you take them Sunday after Sunday, month after month, year after year to sermons by Jeremiah Wright, filled with venom and hate?

As a mater of fact I personally do not believe that your never heard your pastor and mentor saying that AIDS were created by Americans to wipe out all Africans, or that Christ is black, or that America is a KKK country. This was on CDs and DVDs that were distributed by your church. I have read that you donated large sums of money to this church. Someone used your money to produce those hateful materials. Did you object to that? Did you exercise the leadership and moral authority we seek in our future President?

What else do I know about you? During student years you felt close to radicals and Marxists. It is perfectly OK at certain age to think that things can be easily and radically changed. Winston Churchill once said (or someone else equally smart) that if at the age twenty you are not a socialist, then you do not have a heart. But if at age forty you’re still a socialist, you do not have a brain. Are you still under a spell of Che Gevaras, Karl Marxes and Leo Trotskis? You went to ask for political support of the leader of Weather Underground. We all know what he and his wife are saying about America. You got their support. And became friends with them. So you probably did or said something that they liked. What did you do, say or promise that they liked so much? 

Then you were elected to the Illinois Senate. You were present but didn’t want to express your opinion on 129 subjects during your time in the state senate. What were the subjects? May be they were unimportant? One of them was an attempt to restrict the location of pornographic video stores & strip clubs within 1,000 feet of schools, churches and kindergartens. You refused to vote on this one. You were the only senator to be present but not expressing opinion on a bill that required teaching “respect for others” at schools.You voted NO on a bill that would require prisoners to pay court costs for frivolous lawsuits against the state. You were the ONLY vote in the Illinois Senate against prohibiting softening prison terms for sex offenders if they behaved well while in the prison. You voted NO on a bill requiring school boards to install software on public computers accessible to minors to block sexually explicit material. Why would you want the school age kids be able to watch porno on school computers? However you voted YES to allow purchase of hypodermic needles from pharmacies without a prescription.

Let’s also take a look on how you voted on fiscal issues. When tough was going tougher and tougher in your state, you supported … raising taxes. Not trimming expenses, but raising taxes. The state needed money and it was so simple to take them from the hard working people. You supported raising of more than 300 taxes and fees on businesses in 2004 to help solve a budget deficit. I will let your constituency guess what you would do as a President every time we have fiscal problems in the US.

But may be you are very trustworthy person? May be we shall rock solid believe in every word you say? Let’s examine that as well. In a speech in a church in Selma (Alabama) you said that when Democratic President John F.Kennedy offered all suffering people in the world to start believing in their own powers and come to study in the US, your grandfather in Africa heard this call and sent your father to study in the US. When your father came (with the help of the air-bridge that was organized by brothers Kennedy), he met his future bride to be, your white mother, on the historical civil rights march from the very same Selma to Montgomery.

When examining this story one comes to several interesting conclusions:(a) March from Selma to Montgomery started on Match 7, 1965. You were born in August 1961, four years earlier, (b) In order to be your father, the Obama senior was suppose to come to America the latest in November of 1960, and at that time America’s president was republican Dwight Eisenhower (not democrat JFK).

You said in many speeches and interviews that you would clean Washington and the politics from special interests. When asked about your relations to a shady businessman Tony Resco (an alleged Chicago mobster now being sued in Chicago), you said that you hardy knew the guy. Then you said that you knew him, but never took… then you said that he gave, but not a lot… and you immediately returned… even more then took… Sounds like Bill Clinton, right? No, this is you, Barack Obama.

The real truth we may learn (or not) during and after the Resco trial. But this is what we know - in June 2005 you purchased a 2 million house in Chicago. On the same day, Tony Resco’s wife purchased an adjacent lot and immediately sold part of it to your wife. The remaining part of the lot remained empty and your family conveniently uses it “temporarily” as your backyard. The picture seen on the Google Earth shows that from the air it is now one property with no boundaries separating the two lots. On top of this “small token” of several hundred thousand dollars, Tony was one of your main financial supporters and gave you over $150,000 in donations. Hardly a person whom you hardly knew. But the biggest question is – what were you paid for? What services you performed to this alleged Mafiosi that were worth purchasing a property and donating so much money to you? May be when saying that you will clean Washington from special interests, you meant “except President Obama’s special interests”?

Dear Senator, you are probably a very good-hearted man. Although, not very honest. Che Guevara was a good man as well. Leon Trotsky was a very very good man. Mao Tze-Tung was probably a good man. I am sure many people think that Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez are good men. Those are very good men… but not for us. We need a good man with the clearly American values, with an ability to defend our nation against all attacks (as Bush did as a mater of fact), with an ability to reach across the aisle and unite the nation. We need one that doesn’t lie to us. Your autobiographical "Dreams From My Father" is not a story of reaching across the isle but of developing an African identity. Where is our dream of the melting pot? Instead of White Supremacy that I sincerely hope is already in the past, we are now facing Black Supremacy? Black Values? What the hell is that? Why simply not American values?

Do you know who said this: "There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost“. Your wife said that. What did you do or say in public to counter this wonderful pledge of hers?

There is one more issue I would want to raise in my letter to you:

In 2003 you said according to The Boston Globe the following words: “The United States had an absolute obligation to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success”. You stated that: “… failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster and would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective". In 2004 in your interview to TheNew York Times you said: “I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought [the war] was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence," In the same 2004 in an interview to the Chicago Tribune you said: "… here's not that much difference between my position [on the war] and George Bush's position at this stage." And again in the same 2004 on the Charlie Rose Show, when Charlie asked you if you would have voted against the Iraq War resolution had you been in Congress, your answer was already a simple, "Yes."  On November 2005 you made a speech and called for a gradual withdrawal of forces. You said: "Notice that I say ‘reduce’, and not 'fully withdraw'”. Today, you vow to "immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq."

I think you turned your back on something you proclaimed as an "absolute obligation". I clearly remember that you made similar promises regarding the safety and security of Israel. How long will those promises last? Until January 2009? No wonder Hamas wants you to become America’s next president. And what other promises you are not intending to keep? In strict adherence to the policy of double-talk, your top foreign policy adviser Samantha Power (fired from the campaign) admitted in an interview that a President Obama may very well not keep the commitments regarding withdrawing from Iraq made by Senator Obama while campaigning. Something similar as far as I can remember was with the Canadian government and the North American Free Trade Agreement. I think in the Webster dictionary such behavior called hypocrisy. Correct me if I am wrong.

Senator, you lost me as a potential supporter. You represent so many things that I despise, that I am very much concern now that you might be nominated and (God forbid) elected to become the United States President. I can assure you that I will work hard to stop you from becoming our next Commander-in-Chief. From this moment on and until November I am fighting against you as hard as I can. I will write letters, I will organize meetings, I will talk to as many people as I can, I will send money as much as I can to those who as myself will be feverishly working to stop you from changing this wonderful country of ours into the Union of Socialistic States of America.

Sincerely,

Leon A.Weinstein

Los Angeles, CA

leonweinstein@hotmail.com

                                                                                                05-17-2008

Why world oil producers prefer D to R:           

For a long time Republicans (Bush including) pushed for energy independence from the foreign oil suppliers. Among measures that they proposed were: drilling oil in the US (Alaska and off shore), building refineries and nuclear power stations, development of new energy sources including bio-fuel and other innovative solutions.

If the US will start creating nuclear stations and developing alternative sources of energy, it will obviously be good for us, but it will harm the world oil producers’ profits. New refineries and oil coming from the US will undermine their ability to raise prices, will reduce demand and psychologically make their biggest client feel more independent. If on top of that the US successfully launches inexpensive alternative energy, this might be the beginning of a slow end to those that rip us all off with $120 per barrel price of crude oil (and rising). Venezuela, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Middle East oil producers badly want the US to stumble in its efforts to get of the hook of the oil they supply. For them it is a question of live or death. Can we safely assume that they are doing nothing to stop the US from achieving energy independence?

I am a marketing specialist and let’s assume that someone came to me and said – you have to stop America from achieving their energy goals. Money is not an object. We also have inroads into many media outlets, have hundreds of sympathizers in the upper echelons of the US power structure and people whose interests are coincide with ours (a couple o guys from the US oil companies will sell their mothers and their country to get the kind of money they make with us). So, dear Specialist, create us a plan.

Below is what I would do (assuming I took such task upon myself) to halt the US efforts to be energy independent:

1. Jump start movements in the US that under some “progressive” banners would fight against each of the proposed measures to drill oil on the US soil. For example, “there shall be no drilling in Alaska, because it … can endanger white sharks”. Or “there shall not be drilling in the continental shelf because it … will create an “Exxon-Valdez” effect on all of the US beaches”. More ridicules the slogan – less it can be logically and successfully rebuked.

2. Hire scientists that would proof “beyond any reasonable doubt” that nuclear power stations (even if they were tested for 40-50 years on the US navy vessels) would harm the environment and harm the population that lives near them.

3. Bring in hordes of journalists to create a mass hysteria about “Chernobyl-like” disaster that will “inevitably happen if such stations would be built.”

4. Channel money into creation of an “anti-nuclear stations movement”, and work hard on discrediting people who are behind the policies of energy independence.

5. Contact as many campuses as possible and create special de-stabilization groups from leftists-Marxists circles of both US and foreign students.

5. Offer some partial solutions to energy crisis to pre-occupy the population. Those initiatives shall produce results that will not really harm the oil producers. For example, promotion of energy production by wind and solar stations.

6. Take eyes of Americans off the oil problem by creating a phony global problem, for example “Global Warming”. Find a figurehead with great national standing who would champion such a problem without really researching it and weighting all sides of the arguments. 

Those are first and very general ideas that come to my mind. Now, let’s see if anyone is already doing that? We will not be able to trace sources of the money, especially since there probably is not ONE body that commissions those tasks. They’re probably many foreign organizations and individuals whose livelihood threatens by potential US energy independents. Some US companies can make their own moves to intercept some of the government actions. I doubt that the US oil companies would fight against oil drilling or building refineries, but gently push against nuclear and other power solutions, they might.

Now, let me ask you what party (D or R) supports the following movements and groups:

1. Movement to stop building of nuclear stations in America,
2. Movement to stop building new refineries in America,
3. Movement to stop drilling in Alaska, and  
4. Movement to stop drilling on the American coast shelf?

Also please think of which party (D or R) the following people are supporting:

5. Journalists who relentlessly write against drilling oil and building new refineries,
6. Scientists who relentlessly talk against nuclear power stations, and
7. Politicians and personalities that relentlessly talk about an unproven Global Warming and scaring population about unproven consequences of it?

Now you will have to conclude by yourself who has your interest in heart, and who is not. Who fights for your best future, who believes in this country, who wants to continue the great American traditions, and who is not? You shall decide by yourself who consciously or unconsciously aids to our sworn enemies and our semi-friends. You can show your decision in November at the voting booth. And I hope you will make the right choice.

Sincerely

Leon A.Weinstein

Los Angeles, CA

leonweinstin@hotmail.com