John McCain claims his many years in the Inner Circle of the Washington elite make him qualified candidate to be the Senator from Arizona.

Who is in McCain's Inner Circle?

When it comes to Illegal Immigration, La Raza and the Democrats are part of the McCain inner sanctum. McCain, LaRaza and the Democrats are all in when it comes to the quest to grant Illegals Amnesty

Who is LaRaza? The Amnesty Lobby! (So much for curbing special interests, Senator McCain!)

Do you remember the McCain-Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill? Do you remember the last time John McCain tried to force Amnesty on America? That was back in 2007... ...After 12 to 40 million illegal aliens had invaded the U.S. from across the Mexican border, John McCain proposed Amnesty! ...When the economy crashed, causing the largest recession and loss of jobs since the Great Depression, John McCain proposed Amnesty (and is still pushing for illegals to come to America and take the jobs that U.S. citizens desperately need.)! ...And as the flow of drugs from South America and Mexico across the U.S. border increased to record levels, John McCain proposed Amnesty! McCain's record of National and "Border INsecurity" continues even today. According to Homeland Security's own reports, thousands of people from 14 "special interest" countries with links to terrorism have already come into the United States illegally.

Do you still doubt what John McCain will do if given another term in the U.S. Senate?(Click here to contribute to the Campaign to make certain that McCain doesn't get another term)

...The REAL John McCain is clear on his Amnesty position.

When John McCain proposed S1433, the McCain-Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill, he promised America: "Amnesty has to be an important part."

...and John McCain hasn't backed down from that position. After losing his presidential campaign to Barack Obama, he immediately tried to broker a new peace with the Obama White House by pledging to work with the president to pass Amnesty.

And, just days ago, John McCain badly pretended to be surprised when he questioned Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in a committee hearing: "...People could come up through our southern border?" and she truthfully responded, "Potentially, yes."

It is outrageous that McCain could even pretend to be surprised when Napolitano continued and said of illegals crossing the border, "On the human trafficking side, it's not solely illegal immigrants coming to work, but the ability of people from countries of special interest to immigrate into Central America and be ferried up to the border and over into the United States."

The bottom line is we just can't trust John McCain on Amnesty. We just can't take another chance!

As long as John McCain is determined to be La Raza's voice in Washington for Amnesty and open borders, he can never be our voice!

BUT... No one questions the Consistent Conservative, JD Hayworth, because his position on Illegal Immigration is, well, consistent. J.D. Hayworth is a national leader in the fight to secure our borders J.D. Hayworth has actually "written the book" on the subject, "Whatever It Takes". When John McCain proposed his Amnesty Plan-the Heritage Foundation said it would cost taxpayers $2.6 Trillion-J.D. Hayworth stood up and fought against it. Taking on a U.S. Senator with nearly 30 years of seniority took courage, but J.D. understood that our economy could not survive the long-term effects of the McCain-Kennedy plan, and that encouraging millions of illegals by granting amnesty to break our laws was a recipe for disaster.

J.D. has led the fight for real border security, interior enforcement, requiring that law our current laws need to be enforced to protect our citizens.

It is no surprise that he has been endorsed by great leaders like Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio whose efforts have captured and detained 25% of all illegals in the US that are returned to Mexico or their home countries.

We believe we have had enough of the kind of experience that John McCain brings to Washington. It is time to Secure the Southern Border of the United States.

The choice is clear. The choice is yours. Choose to help JD restore consistent conservative ideals to America. Make your choice today by Selecting here and donating $10, $20, $50 or even $100.

Sincerely,

JD Hayworth
JDforSenate.com

englishnews@chosun.com / Feb. 25, 2010 08:40 KST

The Japanese government will officially admit that it signed two secret pacts with the U.S. in 1960 and 1972, allowing the U.S. Forces Japan to intervene in a war on the Korean Peninsula without consulting Tokyo and allowing the U.S. to deploy nuclear weapons in Okinawa in a regional emergency.

The Nihon Keizai Shimbun reported Wednesday that an expert committee at the Japanese Foreign Ministry recently investigated the question and recommended admitting the existence of the two secret pacts. They will be made public in March.

The first pact was agreed when the two countries revised the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. The second was concluded before the U.S. returned Okinawa to Japan, and states that the U.S. can bring nuclear weapons to the island after consultations with Tokyo.

Japan had consistently denied the existence of the secret pacts, but the new government, which pursues a policy of greater transparency and reduced dependence on the U.S., launched the investigation since its inauguration last September.

Based on a report from the committee, the Yukio Hatoyama administration will decide what to do with the secret pacts. Of the two, the 1972 nuclear pact is likely to be scrapped since it runs counter to Japan's three anti-nuclear principles banning the possession, production and import of nuclear arms.

The agreement on the USFJ's automatic intervention in a war on the Korean Peninsula could spark heated debate among Japan's neighbors.

But the committee denied the existence of a third pact, also signed in 1960, rumoured to allow U.S. nuclear-powered ships to call at Japanese ports or U.S. aircraft carrying nuclear weapons to pass Japanese airspace. "It is obvious that there were talks on the issue, but there is no evidence that the two countries reached any agreement," the committee concluded.

FOXNews.com
Updated February 20, 2010

Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.

Ron Paul has ended Mitt Romney's three-year run as conservatives' favorite for president, taking 31 percent of the vote in the Conservative Political Action Conference's annual straw poll.

Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.

Romney, former Massachusetts governor and also a 2008 GOP candidate, has won the last three presidential straw polls at the annual conference. This year, he came in second, with 22 percent.

Sarah Palin, who didn't attend the conference, was a distant third in the straw poll, with 7 percent, followed by Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor, and Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana.

The straw poll is not binding -- and not necessarily a good forecaster, given that in 2008, John McCain went on to take the party's nomination over Romney.

Results of this year's poll were announced just as the crowd prepared for the conference's keynote speaker, Fox News host Glenn Beck.

var cnnOmniPartner = "CNET";

var clickExpire = "-1";

Google employees and outsiders tested Buzz before its launch. But privacy concerns became issue after it went live.

(CNET) -- Google may have reached the limits of what it can learn from dog food.

Ask almost any technology company what products and services they use within their own organizations, and most will enthusiastically admit to "dog-fooding" their own products. It's both a show of support for their own technology and an opportunity to test those products for flaws that won't make the light of day before they are fixed.

Google is no different. But something went wrong with the dog-fooding process for Google Buzz, forcing company engineers to scramble over a holiday weekend to calm the outcry over privacy violations with tweaks to the settings and set-up process.

Google now asks Buzz users to manually approve their followers instead of automatically including them on their Buzz lists, and improved the visibility of the privacy controls.

Buzz was just tested inside Google before it launched to the general public, said Todd Jackson, Google Buzz product manager. Several layers of Google employees participated in the process, from the initial design team to wider and wider circles of employees.

And a source familiar with the product development process said Google put Buzz through its usability lab, where it brings in outsiders to evaluate products in secret before they are launched.

However, either no one brought up the privacy concerns that Buzz users raised within a day of its launch, Google didn't ask the outsiders for their thoughts on Buzz privacy, or Google engineers dismissed those concerns as unfounded.

For whatever reason, Google has taken a hit over the Buzz launch from a public that is already skeptical about the search giant's motivations with the enormous amount of personal data it already has accumulated.

It is moving quickly to assuage those fears. Buzz and the issues surrounding its launch quickly became the center of attention at Google's weekly meeting for employees on Friday, where tradition holds that employees can speak freely on anything and everything involving the company.

People familiar with the meeting characterized it as full of "strong feelings" that led to Google's weekend push to improve the set-up options for Buzz.

The furor over the Buzz launch will subside, and Web users will turn their attentions to debating the usefulness of the service. However, the incident exposes a real problem for Google: Does its unique culture really understand the markets in which it wants to participate?

Social media has already been a minefield for Google, with stops and starts amid charges that the engineers who built Google don't understand the wider world of social networking.

By Stephen C. Webster
Tuesday, February 9th, 2010 -- 10:06 pm

In the face of several electoral challenges from tea party-connected candidates, Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul cautioned in a recent interview that "neocon influence" is "infiltrating" the movement he is often credited for creating.

Speaking to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on Tuesday night, Paul first took up for the tea parties as a natural reaction of the people when they are unhappy with government. What they are not, he explained, are entirely adherent to his ideas. Paul suggested that the group only "sometimes" represents his views.

"My message is somewhat different," he said. "The message gets somewhat diluted" with large movements of this nature.

"Everybody likes to join what looks like a popular movement, then they want to come in and influence that movement," Paul continued.

His core issues, such as creating transparency at the Federal Reserve, recalling overseas soldiers and ending the drug war, are "not what is generally heard from the Republican party," he said...

09 Feb, 2010 @ 02:14 pm ET | By Michael Pento
International Business Times

Sarah Palin is missing the nucleus of what the Tea Party activists are all about. They are not looking for another John McCain or George Bush. While I sympathize with much of Palin's platform, she misses the entire isolationist sentiment of the movement.

Tea party activists want a return to the constitution. While they want to fiercely defend our country, they also do not want to conduct any more pro-active wars that bankrupt the nation. They also value the life of our young men and women more than the profits of Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. There are many right leaning independents that will no longer support the use of military force to spread democracy and build nations across the globe.

Here is Mrs. Palin's interview with Chris Wallace on Fox news last Sunday. You could hear the votes dropping from true conservatives across the country when she uttered these words; "Say he decided to declare war on Iran..., which I would like him to do." Her comments were in response to the question how Barack Obama can improve his chances of re-election.

That means that if we elected President Palin, she would most likely declare war on Iran, today! What kind of war Sarah? Many military experts claim that a messy and bloody ground war would be necessary, not just a week of "Shock and Awe" air sorties.

There is a nascent movement in Iran to overthrow Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the citizens of that country are using people like Mir-Hossein Mousavi to change their government's attitude towards Israel and the west.

Our country must vigorously defend attacks against our nation and her allies. But demagoguery and jingoism should not be used as a way to score political points. And war must be viewed as the last option of defense, not a way of life or a political ideal.  

By the way Sarah, the President can't declare war on anybody, only congress can. But if you do get elected, will you remember which country to invade? Iraq or Iran...maybe you can write in on the back of your glasses.

No need to worry Mahmoud, if Palin's platform in 2012 is more Neo-conservatism, she will mush her way back to Alaska.

by Jane Hamsher
February 10, 2010

There's trouble brewing between the Ron Paul libertarians who staged the the first modern tea party in 2007 by dumping tea into Boston Harbor, and the neocon war hawks led by Sarah Palin who are furiously trying to hijack their message.

After I appeared on MSNBC talking about Sarah Palin's appearance at the Nashville tea party convention, several libertarians told me they were unhappy with the exchange.

I said that Sarah Palin's hawkish message on Iran was oddly out of place in a group whose roots belong to the Ron Paul libertarians, particularly as the anti-interventionist Rand Paul is looking strong in the Kentucky Senate Senate race -- and Palin just endorsed him. The woman who appeared with me representing the tea partiers disagreed with that premise, and claimed she was very much an interventionist.

My libertarian friends couldn't imagine what she was doing on TV representing the tea parties in the first place, and thought it was a sad day when the opposition stated their position more fairly than their supposed allies.

But it underscores a rift between the anti-tax, pro-civil rights libertarians who started the tea parties and the corporatist neocon grifters of the GOP who are now trying to swoop in and capitalize on all of the hype. And in the irony of ironies, tea party-identified candidates are now trying to oust Ron Paul from his Texas House seat.

Paul appeared on Rachel Maddow last night to speak about it. Rachel asked him about his relationship to the tea parties, and he said:

I think the message gets a little bit diluted when a lot of people come in and the Republican party wants to make sure that maybe there's a Neocon type of influence.

Ron Paul was reluctant to reject Sarah Palin's endorsement of his son, and mostly tried to change the subject. But this morning Doug Bandow, a Senior Fellow at the Campaign for Liberty, has a piece denouncing the Daniel Pipes foolishness (echoed by Sarah Palin last weekend) which says Obama would help himself politically by bombing the bejesus out of Iran:

There are no good solutions in Iran. The world will be a better place if Iran becomes democratic and abandons any nuclear weapons program. But initiating war likely would inhibit reform in Iraq while making the world a more dangerous place. The disastrous experience of Iraq should teach us many lessons, the most important of which is that war always should be a last resort. That standard is no where close to being met in Iran...

By Jeremy A. Kaplan
February 12, 2010
FOXNews.com

A federal appeals court Friday debated a privacy issue you probably hadn't considered: the government's ability to track your location at any time, if you carry a cell phone.

AP Photo/Seth Wenig

A case being heard by a federal appeals court today aims to investigate the government's ability to track an individual's location based on cellular phone data.

A federal appeals court Friday debated a privacy issue you probably hadn't considered: the government's ability to track your location at any time, if you carry a cell phone.

As cell phones have morphed from cordless communication devices into pocket-sized PCs, cellular providers have developed and honed the ability to pinpoint your location fairly accurately -- potentially to within 150 feet. This helps network operators connect your phone to the nearest cell tower and locate you in an emergency, a federally mandated feature called E9-1-1.

That feature could be a lifesaver if your car runs off a rural road on a dark night. But it also enables the authorities to know your location at all times when you're carrying your phone.

"Most people don't understand they are carrying a tracking device in their pockets," Kevin Bankston, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Newsweek. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia heard arguments on Friday in a case that centers around Philadelphia FBI agent William Shute, who testified that he obtained records 150 times in recent years to track the location of federal fugitives.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union argued in court Friday that the practice raises serious privacy issues. And third U.S. Circuit Judge Dolores Sloviter seemed to share that concern...

by Chuck Baldwin
February 12, 2010

As far as grassroots activism goes, the surge in Tea Parties across America is one of the more encouraging developments to recently take place. It reminds me of the "Conservative Revolution" of 1994, when the GOP reclaimed both the US Senate and House of Representatives. At that time, it had been over 40 years since the Republican Party controlled both the US House and Senate. And, between the two, the House victories were the most significant.

Spurred mostly by the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, a host of young, energetic freshman Republicans marched into Washington, D.C., determined to return a burgeoning and out-of-control federal leviathan to the constitutional precepts of limited government. I'm talking about then-freshman House members such as Helen Chenoweth, Steve Largent, Bob Barr, Joe Scarborough, Sonny Bono, John Shadegg, J.C. Watts, etc. These young conservatives went to Washington, D.C., determined to reduce the growth and size of the federal government.

The vehicle used to transport these young conservatives from grassroots activism to US House and Senate seats was the highly touted "Contract with America" (CWA), which was orchestrated by House Speaker-to-be, Newt Gingrich. The CWA included a promise to the American people that if they would give the GOP a majority in Congress, they would eliminate up to 5 federal departments--such as the Departments of Energy and Education--and many federal agencies.

Obviously, not only did the GOP-controlled Congress not eliminate a single federal department or agency--or even shrink the size of the federal government at all--it expanded the size and scope of the federal government at every level. And there is one reason for it: Big Government neocons posing as champions of conservatism co-opted and destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994.

If one wants to put names to these treasonous wretches (and I do), I'm talking about charlatans such as Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. Anyone who thinks that Newt Gingrich is a real conservative or that he will do anything to reduce the size and scope of the federal government needs to speak with any of those Republican members of the freshman class of 1994. (Sadly, too, some of the members of that great freshman class went on to become Big Government toadies themselves. Such is the power of that Putrid Province by the Potomac.)

The Tea Parties of 2010 remind me very much of the Conservative Revolution of 1994. And if the Tea Party Nation is not very careful, they will succumb to the same fate. The signs of a silent takeover of the movement are already appearing.

First of all, the Tea Parties were actually born during the Presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas in 2007 and 2008. For all intents and purposes, the Tea Parties and the Ron Paul Revolution were one and the same. These were (mostly) young people, who were sick and tired of the same old establishment Republican Party. They were tired of establishment Republicans selling out the principles of limited government; they were tired of the US Constitution being ignored and trampled by both Republicans and Democrats; they were tired of an incessant interventionist US foreign policy that keeps sending US forces overseas to advance a burgeoning New World Order (NWO); they were tired of perpetual war; they were tired of the bank bailouts; they were tired of the Federal Reserve; etc.

I know this because I met--and spoke before--the Tea Party Nation in State after State as I campaigned for Dr. Paul during the Republican primaries back in 2008. And I met them again all over America, as I was running as an Independent candidate for President--with Ron Paul's endorsement, no less. I was with them in scores of meetings (big and small) from Washington, D.C., to Spokane, Washington, and all points in between.

But now many of the Tea Parties are distancing themselves from Dr. Paul and embracing establishment players such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Even Newt Gingrich is being courted. Watch out, Tea Party Nation: you're in danger of losing your soul! Newt Gingrich is not one of you. He is not your friend. He is an imposter. He will destroy you just like he almost single-handedly destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994.

Plus, be careful about Sarah Palin and other establishment Republicans. Palin is currently playing both sides. She is promoting Big Government neocons such as John McCain on the one hand, and sincere conservative-libertarians such as Rand Paul on the other hand. But if one wants a real barometer of Palin's true colors, look no further than her endorsement of Rick Perry in Texas.

Perry is the quintessential establishment Republican. Perry has been in office for some 9 years, and what has he done to thwart the NWO in Texas? Nothing! Perry is even a Bilderberg Group attendee. What has he done for State sovereignty in Texas? Nothing! In fact, he supports the North American Union and the NAFTA superhighway. What has he done to resist Obama's universal health care proposals? Nothing! What has he done to protect the citizens of Texas against an emerging Police State? Nothing! What has he done to fight illegal immigration? Nothing!...