http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123578458503498487.html

 

Partisanship is as old as this nation, and as long as people live in a free society, there will always be partisanship. No matter what the current batch of political candidates tell us.

The good news is that partisanship is fundamentally a good thing, and an attribute that a free society should value and guard. The alternative can easily result in the trampling of liberty. I realize and acknowledge that this position of mine is not iron clad, and there are many instances where we should seek a bi-partisan consensus for the good of society. I would like to offer a suggestion for a bi-partisan speech and action by our new president that would go a lone way in healing our country.

The setting is the White House Oval Office of the President, with a close in shot of the President:

“My fellow Americans, I would like you to join me in a truly historic celebration honoring a fellow American citizen with the nations highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom”

The camera widens to include the recipient, and guests.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present to you my choice for this honor, the former President of the United States, the Honorable George W. Bush.

In reviewing the record of this great American, I can point with gratitude to a record of splendid achievement as follows:

·         His steadfast and courageous leadership in the “War against Terror”, which has resulted in victories around the world against Islamic militants that have terrorized innocent nations and people around the world.

·         His leadership in heading off economic disaster in the wake of the attacks of 9/11/2001.

·         His leadership in cutting taxes across the board, which helped the nation recover from the recession of 2000-2001. This tax cut also helped to head off a deeper economic down turn from the 9/11 attacks. These tax cuts allowed the economy to flourish through the majority of his term of office.

·         The dramatic although under reported turn around of a former adversary nation and dictator in the person of Moammar Kadafi. Mr. Kadafi abandoned his terrorist stance, as well as his Weapons of Mass Destruction programs.

·         The liberation of the Afghanistan people from the tyranny of the Taliban, as well as avenging the attacks of 9/11 by way of the defeat of Al-Qaeda in their Afghanistan  safe havens and training camps.

·         When the best intelligence indicated that Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat that most probably had weapons of mass destruction, and may have been close to the production of nuclear weapons, President Bush made the hard but necessary choice of preemption. Had he not done so, and the intelligence proved correct, then it is difficult to ponder the likely catastrophic consequences to the region, and the rest of the world.

·         This preemption brought down one of the worlds most ruthless and dangerous dictatorships, and in it’s place left a freely elected republic for the first time in the mid east region, not withstanding the democratic Israel. This new nation is, at the present time, an example to the rest of the region, and to the world, and is an American Ally.

·         It is my job, and the foreign policy focus of my administration to recognize and solidify these remarkable gains, and to build on them for present and future peace and stability for that fragile region. We have much hard work remaining, and we must be united as a nation during the struggles ahead.

Fellow Americans, join me in celebration as I bestow this great honor on President George W. Bush.

Thank You, and may God bless the United States of America.

The camera pans across the room to the guests which include the former First Lady, President and Mrs. George H.W. Bush, as well as  former Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife

 

Upside Down Economics

By Thomas Sowell

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |From television specials to newspaper editorials, the media are pushing the idea that current economic problems were caused by the market and that only the government can rescue us.

What was lacking in the housing market, they say, was government regulation of the market's "greed." That makes great moral melodrama, but it turns the facts upside down.

It was precisely government intervention which turned a thriving industry into a basket case.

An economist specializing in financial markets gave a glimpse of the history of housing markets when he said: "Lending money to American homebuyers had been one of the least risky and most profitable businesses a bank could engage in for nearly a century."

That was what the market was like before the government intervened. Like many government interventions, it began small and later grew.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 directed federal regulatory agencies to "encourage" banks and other lending institutions "to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions."

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

That sounds pretty innocent and, in fact, it had little effect for more than a decade. However, its premise was that bureaucrats and politicians know where loans should go, better than people who are in the business of making loans.

The real potential of that premise became apparent in the 1990s, when the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) imposed a requirement that mortgage lenders demonstrate with hard data that they were meeting their responsibilities under the Community Reinvestment Act.

What HUD wanted were numbers showing that mortgage loans were being made to low-income and moderate-income people on a scale that HUD expected, even if this required "innovative or flexible" mortgage eligibility standards.

In other words, quotas were imposed— and if some people didn't meet the standards, then the standards need to be changed.

Both HUD and the Department of Justice began bringing lawsuits against mortgage bakers when a higher percentage of minority applicants than white applicants were turned down for mortgage loans.

A substantial majority of both black and white mortgage loan applicants had their loans approved but a statistical difference was enough to get a bank sued.

It should also be noted that the same statistical sources from which data on blacks and whites were obtained usually contained data on Asian Americans as well. But those data on Asian Americans were almost never mentioned.

Whites were turned down for mortgage loans more often than Asian Americans. But saying that would undermine the reasoning on which the whole moral melodrama and political crusades were based.

Lawsuits were only part of the pressures put on lenders by government officials. Banks and other lenders are overseen by regulatory agencies and must go to those agencies for approval of many business decisions that other businesses make without needing anyone else's approval.

Government regulators refused to approve such decisions when a lender was under investigation for not producing satisfactory statistics on loans to low-income people or minorities.

Under growing pressures from both the Clinton administration and later the George W. Bush administration, banks began to lower their lending standards.

Mortgage loans with no down payment, no income verification and other "creative" financial arrangements abounded. Although this was done under pressures begun in the name of the poor and minorities, people who were neither could also get these mortgage loans.

With mortgage loans widely available to people with questionable prospects of being able to keep up the payments, it was an open invitation to financial disaster.

Those who warned of the dangers had their warnings dismissed. Now, apparently, we need more politicians intervening in more industries, if you believe the politicians and the media.

 

It’s good to see folks finally coming along side President George W. Bush, and showing what a good and decent man he really is. Take a big deep breath or two or three if you have to, and hold your nose if you see the need, but please read with an attitude other than hatred for the man. The first one is in stark contrast to the transition the President faced in 2000.

Best regards,

Don

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122610402937009955.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html

 

I am beginning to fear greatly the harm that this man, our president

can do to our country. Please, inform yourself, and don't be afraid to

hear a view what may be contrary to what you think is going on.

Listen to the dreaded "Right Wing Talk Show" hosts such as Rush

Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Dennis Pregger, Hugh Hewitt and others. You

might find them to be quite informative, and actually concerned about

the fate of our nation.

 

 I took my first look at the "Stimulus" bill the other night, and have

 intentions to dig into it deeper. From what I see so far, and with

 many years of working as a Government contractor, I can see that we

 are in for one gigantic mess. First of all, the money is to be doled

 out to Government agencies, and all of the red tape that's involved.

 My first concern is that we will have a bunch of opportunists, both in

 and out of the Government, lurching for the easy pickings of a massive

 pot of gold, much like the gold rush days. Those that can work the

 system (and believe me there are many), will prey on the easy

 pickings. The Government will not have enough employees to handle this

 massive flood of new "opportunities", and will have to go on a hiring

 spree, as well as re-hiring retired Government workers (this is

 spelled out in the bill). So, many of the new jobs will go to those

 who will administer the contracts. Under the guise of "Transparency

 and Accountability", the plan also has provisions for requiring weekly

 reports.

 What army of federal bureaucrats is going to wade thru this massive

 amount of paperwork, and to what purpose? Will it stimulate anything productive?

 And what army of bureaucrats is going to enforce the abuses (real and

 manufactured) that will arise from this? Why oh why was this published

 one night close to midnight, and voted on the next day? This is an

 insane (or

 worse) way to run a government.

 

 I have seen first hand fraud and waste within one of the most

 respected military labs in the country, so don't ever get the idea

 that Government can be trusted, it can't. As Ronald Regan said,

 "Government is not the solution to our problem, Government is the

 problem."

 

 There is a reason why we have the governmental structure we have. The

 founders knew and understood that Government can not, and should not

 be trusted. Thus they set up a Federal system with political powers

 divided between the states and the federal government; three branches

 of government, with divided powers; a bill of rights to assure that

 the peoples God given rights are not trampled by an out of control

 government.

 

 I have faith in this system, and it has been quite sturdy over the years.

 However, we must be vigilant in protecting our liberties, especially

 in times like this where executive and legislative powers are

 concentrated in one party and world view, and the danger that the

 judicial system could also shift in the same direction. Couple that

 with the main stream media that has been in love and actively

 promoting the new president, during the campaign, and now following

 the inauguration. There is now talk of invoking the "Fairness

 Doctrine", which would be a blatant trampling of the first amendment

 of free political speech.

 

 Yes folks, I am truly concerned about the future of this Greatest

 nation on God's Green Earth.

 

 Get engaged. Inform yourselves. Vote. And lastly, don't drink the cool

 aide no matter the eloquence and charisma of he who is mixing it.

 Regards,

 Don Johnson

  http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mr-president-turn-back-while-theres-still-time/2/ 

 

I don't normally watch CNBC, in fact it is not even on my favorites button on my remote. However, we had guests and Dick wanted to check CNBC to see how the markets were doing. We never got around to that, because we stumbled on to a special report called "A House of CARDS". This is an astounding report, and I encourage you to watch it if you can. It's not any kind of political program, but rather a look into the so called "Sub-prime" mortgage meltdown. The program is heavy with interviews with a number of players in this meltdown; from some of the principle movers and shakers, Alan Greenspan, some real estate buyers of these sub-prime mortgages, and even a few politicians along the way. A scary, but I feel a very informative look into what happened that has affected many of us.

This one speaks for itself.

Why I cannot vote for Barack Obama

I start with a paraphrase from one of our founding fathers; I think it was Alexander Hamilton.
"The proper function of Government is to rightfully adjudicate the tension between Liberty and Law.”
In other words, too much law and you have tyranny, while too much liberty results in chaos and anarchy, resulting in tyranny.
Much of my political thinking is based on that premise.
As the framework for my analysis I am going to use Family Values Voter Information, which contrasts the candidates on a wide variety of issues. I will use this framework to frame my positions on the issues presented by the guide on the presidential candidates, but following, I will add thoughts on other issues related to the presidency.
California “Traditional Marriage Amendment – Prop 8
Obama Opposes
McCain Supports
My Opinion I support this proposition. Here I apply the principle noted above, because this issue is a classic case of a tension between liberty and law, and here I come down on the side of law. Marriage between a man and a woman has been a fundamental cornerstone of societal harmony and strength, in the majority of most secular and well as religious communities and civilizations. I also support the traditional definition of marriage from a religious point of view in that the Bible clearly endorses this definition, and in fact states that none other than God himself established the definition at the Creation. Further, the Bible has some rather harsh things to say about homosexuality.
I also support Prop 8 from a family and a public health perspective. First let me address the public health issue; It has been widely acknowledged that male homosexuality is a high risk endeavor, with potentially deadly consequences. Therefore legalizing same sex marriage has the effect of a societal endorsement and embracement of a high risk, potentially deadly activity. This then spills over into the family arena where highly impressionable teens are given false information and impressions concerning some very personal and difficult questions about their own sexuality. I personally recall some of my own struggles as a young teen back in the 50’s and 60’s. I believe the seduction of many young people into the homosexual lifestyle is tragic, fraudulent and for the most part unnecessary.
One last thought is from the scientific perspective. It is claimed that homosexuality is a genetic rather than a behavioral thing. I reject this line of reasoning as not being based on science. I ask you to do a “scientific” experiment of the mind as follows: Line of 1,000,000 naked males and 1,000,000 naked females, and note the percentage of males having male genitalia, and unable to bear children approaches 100%. Do the same with the females, and you will see that that the percentage of females having female genitalia and able to bear children approaches 100%.

Judges Who Interpret the Law, Not Make It
Obama Opposes
McCain Supports
My Opinion I support this issue. Where there is a sufficiently adequate record of the original intention of law makers, then judges should base decisions based on that record, and not create an interpretation of law based on what they would rather the law say, or the prevailing societal thinking. This is especially important when determining the constitutionality of a law. In the case of the main body of the US Constitution, there is such a record of the original intention of the drafters of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers written by Hamilton, Madison and Jay were drafted primarily as arguments in favor of ratification, and were distributed following the final drafting of the document, and prior to the state by state vote for ratification. There was also a smaller body of argument against such ratification, but Hamilton et al, prevailed.
Unfortunately, there is not an equivalent record concerning the Amendments to that Constitution, so it is more difficult to get into the minds of the drafters. However, judges should make every effort to do that wherever possible. There are many good resources on this subject; one I am currently reading is Liberty’s Blueprint, by Michael I. Meyerson.
Curriculum that promotes Homosexuality
Obama Supports
McCain Opposes
My Opinion I oppose Curriculum that promotes Homosexuality. I have covered this issue above, but refer you to an excellent book on the subject, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, by Jeffery Satinover, a former Fellow in Psychiatry and Child Psychiatry at Yale University and a past president of the C. G. Jung Foundations.
Expanded Drilling for Oil
Obama Opposes
McCain Supports
My Opinion I support more drilling. While development of alternative energy is certainly a good thing if pursued wisely. However, such alternatives do not address the immediate problem of dependence on foreign sources. Furthermore, not all forms of alternative energy are equal or desirable for the long term. Take Ethanol and Bio-Diesel for example, where we consume many acres of productive food crops and thus raise the price of food worldwide, worsening food shortages and famine in poor nations around the world. Destruction of forests is another consequence of these fuels.
Wind and solar, while seemingly an abundant and free source of power, result in the eye pollution of having these ugly devices all over the place. Furthermore they are not so free as one might expect, as noted by Patrick J. Michaels in his article Energy Policy Snake Oil, in this months issue of Townhall magazine. Michaels points out, among other things, that wind energy is twice as costly as coal fired electricity, and lavish subsidies have not closed that gap.
Oil, coal and Nuclear power are with us now, and I would like to see continued development of these resources in a environmentally and economically responsible way; I believe we can do that.
Assault Weapon Ban
Obama Supports
McCain Opposes
My Opinion I am conflicted by this. My reading of the 2’nd Amendment tells me that I have the personal right to bear arms. I just don’t know where the practical “public good” limitations of that right lie.
Social Security with Individual Investment Accounts
Obama Opposes
McCain Supports
My Opinion I Support such accounts. Even with the recent market problems, the market record of investments far exceeds the returns of the Social Security program. SS was not intended to be the totality of retirement funding, and I see around me people whose sole source of income is SS, and that is indeed a bare bones income in today’s world. SS itself is in trouble, and in the near future will be in crisis. President Bush (yes that dreadful man), attempted to address this issue early in his term, but was rebuffed at every turn, with nothing offered as an alternative to his plans.
Raise Capital Gains and Dividend Tax Rates
Obama Supports
McCain Opposes
My Opinion I oppose such tax increases for two reasons: One is that in many cases such increases hurt retirees that are counting on the dividends as part of their retirement strategy. Secondly, such tax increases hurt the very engine of our economy; companies large and small use these tax law benefits to create wealth and jobs.
Universal Healthcare
Obama Supports
McCain Opposes
My Opinion I oppose universal health care. I believe the private sector is better equipped to handle health care. The percentage of Americans without health insurance is 15.3%, lower than it was a decade ago. We should examine that group, and see what the real needs are before we embark on a very expensive and (guaranteed to be) inefficient government program.
The Surge in Iraq
Obama Opposes
McCain Supports
My Opinion I supported the surge. The surge is not simply the application of 30,000 more troops, but was coupled by a fundamental shift in strategy as led by General Petraus. The surge has worked, and peace and victory are on the horizon. The best reporting I have found on the surge is from the independent embedded journalist Michael Yon, and his magnificent book Moment of Truth in Iraq available also from Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Michael Yon lives day by day with the troops on the ground in Iraq, as well as the local Iraqi citizens.
The surge has been roundly and widely derided by the left, and incredibly even today many still deny it’s success and cling to their discredited opinions. Many of these un persuaded critics reside in the US House and Senate, as well as in the main stream media. The denial from the left is chronicled quite completely in this month’s Commentary magazine, in the article Liberals and the Surge, I encourage you to read it.
Parental Choice in Schools
Obama Opposes
McCain Supports
My Opinion I support parental choice in schools. In choices that are not legal or moral in nature, I support free choice for families and individuals. The choice of schools should be in neither category, so I feel parents should (and do) have choice in this matter. However, the choice is between Government (read public) schools, and expensive private schools. Parents who choose private schools should not be doubly taxed to support both the public system and the private school of their choice.
Parental Notification Law
Roe v. Wade
Partial Birth Abortion
Human Cloning
Obama Supports
McCain Opposes
My Opinion I have lumped these together because it is appropriate to address all as a single issue. The scientific and constitutional arguments regarding abortion, and life are, in my opinion, simple issues. The complexity is in the very real emotional and human factors, and I admit to this. Let me address the factual aspect of these issues first.
Scientifically, the question of when human life begins is answered unequivocally. Life begins “At the moment of fertilization, your baby's genetic make-up is complete, including its sex. Since the mother can provide only X chromosomes (she's XX), if a Y sperm fertilizes the egg, your baby will be a boy (XY); if an X sperm fertilizes the egg, your baby will be a girl (XX).” Three things come into play here:
1. The new entity is derived from a mother and a father, and is neither the mother nor the father but a uniquely new entity.
2. The uniquely new entity is alive, and has never been dead.
3. The uniquely new entity is human. It is not a fish, bird, ape, worm or any other species. It is human, and nothing else.
Therefore, at conception we have a live human being.
This leads to the legal/constitutional issue; is abortion constitutional?
Many constitutional scholars believe that Roe v. Wade is bad law, and abortion is indeed unconstitutional. I agree with this.
If you give the same constitutional assumption of the innocence of the criminally accused to the new unborn human child, and then apply many Articles and Sections of the Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence to the issue, you come away with a clear understanding that abortion is unconstitutional. Try it yourself, and see if I am right.
This concludes my analysis of these issues, now I would like to offer up a couple of observations:
What does Barack mean when he says “In just 5 days we will fundamentally transform the United States of America”? This is a freighting statement! I believe that the United States of America is fundamentally defined by our founding documents, and those should not be fundamentally transformed except by way of the amendment process prescribed in the Constitution. Is Barack’s statement and pledge consistent with our founding documents? It’s hard to tell, but I for one am not willing to take the chance.
Militarily, I am troubled by Barack’s behavior and rhetoric.
1. I don’t see his name on any Armed Services committee or subcommittee, nor has he taken advantage of any briefings from General Petraus or Ambassador Crocker when they testified (twice) before the Congress. On the contrary, his mind is made up, and he decrees himself to be correct in his views.
2. He has visited Iraq and Afghanistan only twice during his Senate tenure, and these were very brief, and did not include any meaningful interaction with the commanders, or the troops. Contrast this with John McCain who has visited the war theaters 8 times, each time spending time with the troops and commanders in order to get a personal assessment of the actual situation.
3. I believe President Bush to be a good, honorable man, and a good president. I also believe that his responsibility was to protect the United States of America. In the case of Iraq, the President was faced with the tragic attack of 9/11. Intelligence showed that Iraq was a gathering threat and could very likely unleash weapons of mass destruction on it’s neighbors, and through terrorist organizations, catastrophically damage the United States. If you have questions about Iraqi and Al-Qaeda, I invite you to read Shadow War by Richard Miniter, especially, Appendix D where Miniter shows the connections that led President Bush to the decision to topple the Hussein regime. I don’t believe that Barack has the character to make such decisions, tough decisions that have to be made based on an assessment of the threat based on the best information available.
There’s much more, but I close now.

Regards,
Don Johnson

My blog has been dark for quite some time now, but since the immediate future of the United States, to a large extent, will be to in the hands of one of two quite different world views, it's time to make my voice heard once more.

I’ve listened and followed with interest the Democrat primary battles, and will start my new effort with a critique of the nomination speech of Barack Hussein Obama. Like many other observers, I am struck by the messianic tone of the entire Obama phenomenon, and what appears to me to be the amazing arrogance and ignorance of the messiah and his followers.

Let me take just a snippet of the nomination speech:

America, this is our moment. This is our time, our time to turn the page on the policies of the past…

(APPLAUSE)

Since he didn’t have the grace to restrict this remark to President Bush and the current administration, I’m wondering how far back he is talking about, and will assume the worst case. How much of American history is he turning his back (page) on?  The past policies of the past, both Democrat and Republican, have made the American Civilization the greatest in the history of man. Turn the page if you will, but learn and absorb the lessons of the past, grow from them and gain wisdom. The implication here is; the page will be turned, never to be opened again.

… our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face, our time to offer a new direction for this country that we love.

Agreed, we need to bring new energy and ideas …, but the idea of a new direction gives me pause and concern. The vector (direction) of American history has been one of liberty, justice and progress since the founding. We have been on the right course since those patriots of old shook off the yoke of the British tyranny. What we need on occasion is a course correction to keep us on the course of continually seeking “a more perfect union”.  The course the Democrat party seems eager to shift to is the course of socialism, which recent history shows us ends up on the rocks.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge — I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations, but I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people.

… this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…

Need I say more about profound humility?

 

Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless…

(APPLAUSE)

I just saw a TV ad for the St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. As you will see when you link to them, that “All patients accepted for treatment at St. Jude are treated without regard to the family's ability to pay.”  Apparently the Messiah has not heard of St. Jude, nor has he ever read the periodic reports from U.S News And World Report on the best hospitals in the U.S. This nation has a stellar record on health care. Can we do better? Yes, and I see day by day, year by year, that we are doing just that.

The jobless… The free market system that undergirds the American economy has, over the decades, provided the best possible opportunity for maximizing job opportunities for all. Is it perfect? No, and never will be. But with a win-win partnership between business and limited government, we can optimize the opportunities by getting unreasonable government intrusion off the backs of the American economic machine.

… this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…

(APPLAUSE)

At this point I am reminded of Moses and the parting of the sea. And of Jesus, walking on the Sea of Galilee. I’m sorry, your holiness, but forgive me if I don’t see you in the same light as these.

… this was the moment when we ended a war, and secured our nation, and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.

I beg to differ, your holiness, but I believe that Commander in Chief, President Bush and our military is right now, today, bringing the war to a successful conclusion. A conclusion that is in America’s best interests, as well as the best interests of the Iraqi people and of the region, and of the world.

Let me digress here just a moment to express my gratitude and admiration to the American military. In my opinion, the soldier, sailor, Marine airman and sailor serving in Iraq has the best job in the world. They have, and are, bringing liberty to millions. I can’t imagine a more rewarding and honorable job.

The quote from Lincoln, “the last, best hope on Earth”, is a good one, it was given by President Lincoln in 1862. The Civil War was still raging, and the remark was intended to preserve that very vision for future generations. However, in order to accomplish that, he had to bring the war to a successful conclusion, one that would indeed preserve the union, and preserve that vision. A century later, President Reagan brought that same vision to his presidency amidst the long struggle against the tyranny and threat of Soviet Communism. As with Lincoln, there was a war that had to be successfully concluded in order for that vision to be preserved. President Bush likewise, is on the course of preserving that vision. If there is failure in this quest, then it will be that much harder for oppressed people to look for, much less see …a last, best hope on Earth.

(APPLAUSE)

This was the moment, this was the time when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals

Again, your holiness, I beg to differ with your eloquence. I see many moments in the history of my America which have, and even now reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.

A few post back I posted a link to a serman series by David Jeremiah on Biblical prophesy and it's connection to to the world we live in today.

The following is a summary I wrote quite a number of years ago, not too long after I had become a Christian. I have had it tucked away for many years, but now I would like to share it with you.

Signs of the times:
The Bible claims to be able to predict the future. If this claim be tru, then consider the following descriptions of what the Bible refers to as the "End Times":

1. Many claiming to be Christ.
2. Wars & rumors of wars.
3. Famines.
4. Pestilences (Devistating diseases and epidemics).
5. Earthquakes in various places.
6. Many false prophets.
7. Mich evil (wickedness).
8. The Gospel preached in all the world.
9. Restoration of the temple in Jeruselem (future).
10. Violation of the sanctity of that temple (future).
11. Destruction worse than the world has ever seen, or ever will see. This destruction is so bad that it has the potential of killing all of mankind.
12. False Christs appearing.
13. The restoration of the nation Israel in its historic homeland.
14. Many people ignoring the Biblical warnings.
15.      Matthew Ch 24

Ralph Peters offers a good history lesson in this article. I urge you to read this, especially if you are inclined to listen to the likes of the the leadership of the Democrat party.
http://www.legion.org/?section=publications&subsection=pubs_mag_index&content=pub_mag_warmyths_1107

The following are from a free lance embedded  reporter in Iraq.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/iraqi-islamic-party-says-al-qaeda-is-defeated.htm

And finally,  global warming comments from a 0.0001%  Nobel Laureate http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html