Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens
of the United States that does not apply equally to
the Senators or Representatives, and
Congress shall make no law that applies to the
Senators or Representatives that does not
apply equally to the citizens of the United States.
What do you think? Spread the word, let’s get the ball rolling.
By now, you’ve probably seen the President of the United States bowing before a foreign head of state, Japan’s Emperor Akihito.
You may wonder if this is normal, for visiting dignitaries to bow before Japan’s Emperor.
Let’s take a look:
That’s 47 visiting dignitaries. 46 handshakes and one bow.
When the President of the United States bows before a foreign leader, it is not a sign of respect, it is a sign of weakness. It is the ultimate sign of contrition, of apology. He is saying that he, and by extension, the whole of the United States is inferior to the Japanese Emperor.
This is not the first time he has pulled this stunt. Here he is in April, bowing before the king of Saudi Arabia:
At the time, the White House said that Obama just appeared to bow because of the height difference between he and the king.
That is certainly not what it looks like to the Comment Show Blog. What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
This man is representing you. He is representing the United States of America, and it is very clear that he despises this country and its citizens. Do you remember this picture from the campaign, when he refused to show respect when the Star Spangled Banner was played?
Well take a look at your President at the Tomb Of The Unknown Soldier this past Veteran’s Day 2009, showing the same lack of respect as the National Anthem plays.
This is simply not excusable. After the first national anthem “crotch salute” and after the first bow, his minders must have been all over him, telling him that his actions were simply not acceptable. That the American public expected a higher level of respect from their President. Why then, would he continue to thumb his nose at us, if it were not deliberate?
But, just in case you think he has no priorities at all, there is one thing that the man seems to respect.
Barack Obama, as President of the United States, represents you. He represents your country, your values and your children.
How do you feel about that?
Interestingly enough, Canada gets it. Check out this article from Canada Free Press:
Obama: The Worst President Ever!
By Alan Caruba
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16905
Barack Obama’s deep bow to the emperor of Japan and earlier bow to the Saudi Arabian king is so deeply offensive to America’s history and traditions that it cannot and must not be explained away in any fashion.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution were particularly sensitive to the conditions under which a President could serve or any hint that a privileged, monarchal class might emerge.
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States. And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever from any King, Prince, or foreign state.”
It follows that no U.S. President or office holder shall ever bow to a king, prince or foreign state. Obama has done this twice now in less than a year of taking the oath of office. Stated or unstated, the protocol of such matters precludes bowing.
This protocol is reflected in flag etiquette that prohibits it from being “dipped to any person or thing.”
For a man who allegedly taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, it is doubtful that Obama does not know this. It is doubtful that he cares. His first instinct with foreign leaders and foreign nations is to toady to their perceptions in the belief that America will gain their acceptance.
Any leader, however, knows that it is wiser to be feared than loved. It is the reason the U.S. maintains a powerful military. It is well to remember that our present Department of Defense used to be known as the Department of War.
That is why Obama’s decision to bring the 9/11 perpetrators to the United States and accord them all the rights of the Constitution in a trial for acts of war is a further abomination. This was not Eric Holder’s decision as Attorney General. This was Barack Obama’s decision, completely in line with his continued obeisance to Middle Eastern and Muslim sensibilities.
It is in line with the recent announcement by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano that the Obama administration will push for “immigration reform” which is a euphemism for amnesty to an estimated 14 million illegal aliens. The American public has made it abundantly clear they oppose this.
The majority of Americans oppose healthcare “reform”, a euphemism for a government takeover of one sixth of the nation’s economy and an unholy intrusion into the privileged relationship between doctor and patient. It is socialism.
All Presidents have had to make decisions and take positions that are unpopular with some element of the public. No former President, however, ever increased the national debt more than all the previous presidents combined and did so within months of taking office.
This President simply does not care what Americans want. He does not “represent” Americans and cannot even manage to salute properly when the national anthem is played, though he did stage a photo opportunity to be seen saluting the returning war dead from Afghanistan.
This President may not even be “a natural born citizen” of the United States as required by the Constitution. He may have been born in Kenya. He may have been a citizen of Indonesia as a child and young man. We have no verifiable, authentic records of his early life, even as a college student.
None of his fellow students at Columbia University ever recall knowing him. His records at Occidental College and Harvard University remain sealed from view, as is his alleged Hawaiian certificate of birth there.
Based on his actions since January 20, 2009, he is in my opinion the worst President to ever hold that high office and he may have committed “a high crime or misdemeanor” when he took the oath of office. That is an impeachable offense.
In the meantime, by his actions, he gives every evidence of trying to bring this nation to a state of economic collapse, is deliberately undermining its Constitution, and by giving enemy combatants, terrorists, the stature of U.S. citizens, is encouraging our Islamo-fascist enemies to attack again.
He is an offense to every American and we are on a roller-coaster to a major Constitutional and economic crisis every day he remains in office.
Here is your Democratic-controlled Congress at work. It’s their way or nothing. Watch as John Murtha (D-PA) ignores the vote of the house and rams through the result he wants.
Every citizen of this country should be outraged at this.
(CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Pelosi’s press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.
The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:
CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a “serious question.”
“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”
Currently, each of the five health care overhaul proposals being considered in Congress would command every American adult to buy health insurance. Any person defying this mandate would be required to pay a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service.
In 1994, when the health care reform plan then being advanced by President Clinton called for mandating that all Americans buy health insurance, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office studed the issue and concluded:
“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”
Later on Thursday, CNSNews.com followed up on the question, e-mailing written queries for the speaker to her Spokesman Elshami.
“Where specifically does the Constitution authorize Congress to force Americans to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance?” CNSNews.com asked the speaker’s office.
“If it is the Speaker’s belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?” CNSNews.com asked. “If so, what is that limit?”
Elshami responded by sending CNSNews.com a Sept. 16 press release from the Speaker’s office entitled, “Health Insurance Reform, Daily Mythbuster: ‘Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.’” The press release states that Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.”
The release further states: “On the shared responsibility requirement in the House health insurance reform bill, which operates like auto insurance in most states, individuals must either purchase coverage (and non-exempt employers must purchase coverage for their workers)—or pay a modest penalty for not doing so. The bill uses the tax code to provide a strong incentive for Americans to have insurance coverage and not pass their emergency health costs onto other Americans—but it allows them a way to pay their way out of that obligation. There is no constitutional problem with these provisions.”
Here’s a feel-good video, guaranteed to cheer you up.
What a debate that would have been!
Try this yourself: It’s not easy to squeeze six* major lies into one minute and forty seven seconds Wow! Not one element of truth in there. Not one. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
How many votes did these few words get him?
Show this to your friends and ask them if this is the type of rhetoric that caused them to vote for Obama.
And then ask them what they think of these six promises now.
But be supportive and be understanding, because Barack Obama’s supporters have been betrayed beyond measure.
* In fairness, the Comment Show Blog disagrees with the the assessment that “Lie#2″ is actually a lie. Justice Brandeis’ actual quote was “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.” While the words aren’t precise, we believe that Obama had the spirit and the intention of the quote correct, so we don’t consider that one a lie.
However, it should be clear to anyone following the news these days, that Obama considers the quote to be a bunch of B.S.
By Jim O’Neill Saturday, October 17, 2009
First published October 12, 2009
Rewritten and re-published October 17, 2009
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. …The real enemy then is humanity itself.
Democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead.”—From the Club of Rome’s “The First Global Revolution” p. 71,75 1993
“Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.”—John Donne (1572-1631)
The death knell for freedom has been tolling for some time, and only now are people starting to hear it. It started tolling faintly, decades back, and has slowly progressed in volume, until today its tolling is impossible to ignore.
The United States of America—that “shining city on a hill”—had a good run of it, and made a gallant effort at establishing liberty for all. But as the old saw would have it, all good things must come to an end.
Liberty, after all, is an aberration in mankind’s history—a light that has flared here and there over the centuries, only to dissolve back into the darkness.
America is barreling towards becoming a bit player on the world’s stage, and its vaunted middle class—once the envy of the world—is on the verge of being eliminated.
For the good of the planet, for the good of Gaia. for the good of the collective.
In a little over a month from now, Obama intends to sign away U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations at a conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.
It will be the occasion of the U.N.‘s COP 15 —meaning the 15th meeting of the 1992 signatories (Council of Parties) to Agenda 21.
Al Gore has said, ”This treaty must be negotiated this year. Not next year. This year.”
Freedom will irrevocably be replaced by servitude, capitalism by socialism, and property rights by “sustainable development.”
America has been set up like a bowling pin, and is about to take a fall. We are at the “end game” point.
And the Globalists know it. Why do you think the Democratic (and many Republican) political hacks on Capitol Hill are so dismissive of the American people?
They are essentially putting on a “dog and pony show” for public consumption, while the final pieces for America’s defeat are slid into place. No, they are not worried about upcoming free elections.
To a great extent the Globalists own the mass media, the entertainment industry, our schools, and the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches of government.
Why should they worry?
Already, several generations have been indoctrinated, via our school systems, to value globalization and “social justice,” over personal responsibility and free enterprise.
They have been repeatedly sold the idea that they should, “Think globally, act locally.”
God has been demeaned, marginalized, and eradicated, at every turn. Our religions are, in many cases, a watered down and diluted mimicry of true spirituality.
The “religion” of the Globalists preaches the worship of Gaia—Mother Earth (shouldn’t that be Mother/Father Earth?). They do not worship God.
The Globalists have come out from the closets, the woodwork, and from under rocks. They know that their time of hiding is at long last over. They are brazen about, and proud of, their anti-American/pro-global stance. Their arrogance and hubris is palpable.
Call them Communists, Marxists, Fascists, or Globalists—call them what you will, they are collectivists who despise America’s middle class, capitalism, and free enterprise.
They have been duplicitous, Machavellian, clever, and patient. And it has paid off; the trap has been sprung.
How did this happen?
America got hit high, and America got hit low. We suffered sudden catastrophic sneak attacks from without, and insidious long-term betrayal from within.
We were hit low by Alinskyesque “community organizers” in our streets, and propagandists in our schools. We were hit high by “think tanks” like the Trilateral Commission, the CoR (Club of Rome), and the CFR (Council for Foreign Relations).
They have divided us with special interest groups, vociferous “talking point” attacks, and identity politics. They have infiltrated our schools, and indoctrinated our children.
They have opened floodgates using the Cloward-Priven Strategy—overwhelming our judicial system, banking establishment, and border security.
They have encouraged corruption and greed at the lowest and highest levels of government.
They have twisted and perverted the U.S. Constitution.
They have promoted and encouraged anything and everything that would help bring America down.
They intend on taking over the planet, but first they needed to destabilize, and then destroy, the United States of America. Because we were a powerful bulwark of freedom, we had to go first.
And to a large extent, go we have.
In this article, I will focus on the contributions made by the CoR and Agenda 21, to America’s defeat.
The Club of Rome (CoR) was founded 1968, in Italy, by Aurelio Peccei, an Italian scholar and industrialist, and Alexander King, a Scottish scientist.
Over the years the list of its members has included ex-presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, diplomats, and billionaires. Its membership roster reads like a “who’s who” of the world’s “movers and shakers.” It includes U.N. bureaucrats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe
After its inception, it split into two more branches: The CoB (Club of Budapest), and the CoM (Club of Madrid). The CoB focuses on social and philosophical issues, while the CoM concentrates on political issues. In addition, there are over thirty affiliated organizations in other countries—such as the USACoR in America.
It is worth noting that the CoM was founded by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, and Diego Hidalgo, who co-founded the ECFR (European Council on Foreign Relations) with George Soros.
The CoR first garnered public attention with its 1972 report “The Limits to Growth,” which went on to become the best selling environmentalist book of all time. Simply stated, its main thesis is that economic growth cannot continue indefinitely, because of the limited availability of natural resources, particularly oil. It’s sort of an industrialized version of a Malthusian nightmare.
Twenty years later, the CoR published “The First Global Revolution”—a quote from the book appears at the start of this article. This book also made a big splash, and helped to re-energize and expand the whole environmentalist movement.
Another quote from the book worth keeping in mind is, “It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary…such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose….”
“One invented for the purpose.” Enter “climate change”and greenhouse gases.
But something even more important happened the year before “The First Global Revolution ” came out.
At the instigation of the CoR, and their ilk, in 1992 the United Nations held the Conference on Environment and Development—informally known as the Earth Summit—in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
.
At the Earth Summit, 178 nations signed an agreement called Agenda 21—so called because it dealt with the United Nation’s agenda for the 21st century.
It consists of numerous chapters detailing the role that different parts of society should play in implementing “sustainable development.” There are chapters for central governments, local governments, businesses, and community organizations.
George Bush senior, then President of the United States, flew down and committed the United States to the U.N. FCCC (Framework Convention on Climate Change) agenda.
Ever since then, the Executive Branch—Republican and Democrat—has been bypassing Congress, and passing “soft laws” foisting Agenda 21 on the American public.
Check out the U.S. Department of Energy website.
Check out the U.S. Department of Agriculture website.
Check out the U.S. Department of the Interior website.
No matter where you go, environmentalism permeates the U.S. Government bureaucracy. Sometimes it’s blatant and out front; other times you may need to dig a little—but it’s always there.
The Agenda 21 Globalists wine and dine each other, and hold conventions and conferences around the world. They give each other praise, pats on the back, and prestigious awards.
The Norwegian Globalists just gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, and for the same reason that they gave one to Al Gore—heavily pushing Agenda 21.
Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” also received an Oscar from the Hollywood elite. These honors have been bestowed on Gore, not for exposing the truth—for “An Inconvenient Truth” is merely a slickly packaged lie—but because the film spreads the falsehoods of Agenda 21 so well.
It can only be shown to school children in the U.K. if accompanied by a disclaimer. The U.K.‘s “The Daily Mail” reports that “…teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming, and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film.”
The Daily Mail also noted that the lawyer who successfully sued to have the disclaimer attached, said it did not go far enough. “He said ‘no amount of turgid guidance’ could change the fact that the film is unfit for consumption in the classroom.”
Yet American students see it over, and over. With no disclaimer.
This past June, NASA said that global warming is caused by solar cycles—i.e. the sun, not Co2. Unsaid was the fact that the greenhouse gas theory is full of holes. Actually it’s a fairy tale, a convenient lie to force the world to bend to the will of the Globalists.
Al Gore, the CoR, the U.N., and all of the environmental organizations and their adherents, don’t care what the truth is. They couldn’t care less about what causes global warming. They don’t even care if there is global warming.
They have their “outside enemy…invented for the purpose,” and they are not about to let go of it.
Nonetheless, you should be aware that the entire “climate change” controversy is a myth, a fabrication, a lie. It’s designed to bring the industrialized nations to their knees, and redistribute their wealth globally—“social justice” for the world.
The Globalists actually tried Global Cooling first, but for various reasons it didn’t fly. Look at page 22 in the 1974 Annual Rockefeller Report, and you’ll find the mention of a conference called to investigate “…the future implications of the global cooling trend now underway….” Things sure warmed up in a hurry.
So what is the “purpose?” What’s really behind all the global warming hoopla?
Power. It’s the same old Marxist/Communist/Fascist collectivist schtick, dressed up in new clothes.
“Climate change” is all about a power grab by a wealthy elite and their collectivist sycophants—using the U.N. as a cover and tool.
As always, there are numerous “useful idiots” who swallow the party line whole. Some of them are simply misguided idealists, and some of them are nuts—dangerously nuts.
Behind it all, is a relatively small group of people who are manipulating the world for their own sick, narcissistic ends.
It’s a perfect cover. Think about it—who doesn’t feel that fresh air, clean water, and healthy environments are admirable ends to work towards? Any sane person supports such ideals.
But hidden in back of the admirable goals are some diabolical designs.
Don’t take my word for it, and please don’t dismiss me without research. We all need to know what’s headed our way shortly.
If you aren’t aware of these facts already, then educate yourself on the internet. At least The Green Agenda, and check out Freedom Advocates.
What I’ve been discussing in this article is not “conspiracy theory” nonsense—look at those two websites I just mentioned (maybe watch a Michael Shaw video or two), and decide for yourself.
What have we seen since the Obama Administration took over?
The brainiacs in charge of America’s finances have been ignoring our debts, and eagerly proposing ways to sink us deeper into the financial quagmire. A lot deeper.
At first I thought that they were simply corrupt, venal, self-serving idiots—all of which is undoubtedly true, but they’re also destroying America’s financial foundation, cleverly and intentionally.
They want the American dollar replaced by a new global currency. They want America’s middle class to hang in the wind, and die on the vine.
They’re Globalists, and they want to see America fail. It’s so easy to see, once you realize what’s going on.
Why else would they add trillions to an already staggering debt? Why else would they try to rush through a Cap and Trade bill that will, in Obama’s words, make electricity prices “skyrocket.” Why else would they try to jam government-run ObamaCare down America’s throat? Why else would Obama say he’d bankrupt anybody who built a new coal plant?
Once you grasp Agenda 21, and the sly machinations of the United Nations and globalizing NGOs like the CoR, it all makes sense.
It’s “The Plan.” Ruin America’s economy, destroy her middle class, and put a stranglehold on her energy grid.
At the U.N. Summit at Rio in 1992, the Conference Secretary-General, Maurice Strong, said “Isn’t the only hope for this planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
He also said, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class—involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning, and suburban housing—are not sustainable.”
Club of Rome member, multi-billionaire George Soros, echoed Strong’s statement last fall, when he told an Australian newspaper, “America, as the center of the globalized financial markets, was sucking up the savings of the world. This is now over. The game is out,’ he said, adding that the time has come for ‘a very serious adjustment’ in American’s consumption habits.”
We will be forced to do their will. Count on it.
Forced to cut back on fossil fuel consumption. Forced to cut back on water usage. Forced to give up our property. Forced to eat less. Forced to warm or cool our homes less. Forced to give up driving. Forced to give up these, and many other things that we currently take for granted. It’s “The Plan”—you had better believe it.
Look at what’s happening to California’s Central Valley—once “the world’s breadbasket,” and now a dust bowl. All due to Agenda 21.
I assure you that the globalists will not help the farmers. They want the land unplowed. They want it to go “back to nature.” They want to increase the price of food. They want to ruin the middle class farming community. It’s all part of “The Plan.”
It is not just America this is happening to, of course. Australia, Great Britain, Japan, Canada, Germany… Every country is on the verge of being converted into a vassal state—part of a global hegemony run by the U.N and a power elite.
All this will be more easily accomplished with a greatly reduced population.
Behind all the warm and fuzzy terminology about “smart growth,” “sustainable development,” and “think green,” lies a very chilling fact. The people behind Agenda 21 want to reduce the earth’s population—substantially.
In 1996, Club of Rome member and CNN founder, Ted Turner, told Audubon magazine, “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” A 95% reduction.
Recently he has said that getting rid of a mere two thirds of the world’s population would suffice. Getting mellow in his old age no doubt.
The hard-core environmentalists are all bio-centrists. That is, they believe that humanity is no more important than any other species on this planet. In fact, to hear them tell it, the world would be much better off without any people at all.
Anthropologist and anarchist David Graber put it like this in an L.A. Times book review, “Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. … We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. …Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
Talk about joie de vivre, huh? Speaking of virus, don’t you find it a little odd that the U.N’s WHO (World Health Organization) is making such a big deal out of what is essentially a run-of-the-mill flu?
Given the Globalist penchant for population reduction, I’m much more leery of the U.N.‘s vaccines, than the flu. But I digress.
At any rate, because these Globalists are bio-centrists, most of them don’t believe in a divine spark in man, or unalienable rights, or God for that matter. In short, they don’t have many qualms about killing people. Something else to keep in mind.
The Globalists place an extremely low value on human life.
You know the sardonic comment “Well excuse me for breathing?” These people will take that statement literally—and probably won’t excuse you. After all, you’re adding to the earth’s carbon dioxide level every time you exhale.
ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability—I know, don’t ask) even has a personal Co2 calculator you can use. ICLEI (pronounced “ick-lee”) believes you should know, and of course want to know, the amount of “your yearly direct personal carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.” To which I say, directly and personally, “Get lost,” or words to that effect.
My favorite eco-friendly slogan is “Save the Planet—Kill Yourself.”
The tenets of Agenda 21 are subtly anti-human, and so are a number of its proponents. Some of these misanthropes are not so subtle at all.
There’s something deeply disturbed, and disturbing, about too many of these folks. For example, Yale professor Lamont Cole, is of the opinion that “To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.”
Jesus wept.
You might do yourself a favor and peruse the quotes on Free Republic’s “So you’re an environmentalist…” web-page. If you don’t come away convinced that most of these folks are nuttier than a “Payday” candy bar, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Many of these “useful idiots” may be crazy and harmless, but they can also be crazy and deadly.
Behind them, pulling the strings, and waiting to take over, are the Global Elite and their one world government.
Do you honestly think that America will last as a free republic until the 2012 presidential elections? I don’t think it will last until the 2010 elections. It may not last out the year.
In addition to the U.N.‘s Copenhagen Treaty, there are numerous other scenarios that could be put into play by the Globalists, involving H1N1, the collapse of the dollar, war in the Middle East, or some other curve ball from Far Left field.
So America goes down the drain on our watch. It’s nothing to be proud of, that’s for sure.
Is there no hope then?
If there are still enough patriotic Americans who value personal integrity and freedom —there’s a chance we can still turn this thing around, but it won’t be easy. Far from it.
Make no mistake, if we lose this one, America and the world will sink into an abyss of tyranny for a very, very long time.
Laus Deo.
Addendum:
This video of Lord Monckton is well worth watching.
A couple of PDFs that might be of interest. One is from my home town on the East Coast, and the other one’s from a friend on the West Coast. Think Green.
Here’s the PDF of the U.N.‘s Copenhagen Treaty.
And here’s the link to the U.N. Website copy.
This is one of those things that is good to watch every now and then. And great to share with those who haven’t seen or heard it. You’ve heard Paul play it on the show, now watch as Red Skelton recalls his elementary school principal’s explanation of the Pledge of Allegiance. When he was a student, there were 2 fewer states and 2 fewer words in the pledge.
by Gov. Sarah Palin, 10/17/2009, 11:57pm
Now that the Senate Finance Committee has approved its health care bill, it’s a good time to step back and take a look at the long term consequences should its provisions be enacted into law.
The bill prohibits insurance companies from refusing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and from charging sick people higher premiums. [1] It attempts to offset the costs this will impose on insurance companies by requiring everyone to purchase coverage, which in theory would expand the pool of paying policy holders.
However, the maximum fine for those who refuse to purchase health insurance is $750. [2] Even factoring in government subsidies, the cost of purchasing a plan is much more than $750. The result: many people, especially the young and healthy, will simply not buy coverage, choosing to pay the fine instead. They’ll wait until they’re sick to buy health insurance, confident in the knowledge that insurance companies can’t deny them coverage. Such a scenario is a perfect storm for increasing the cost of health care and creating an unsustainable mandate program.
Those driving this plan no doubt have good intentions, but good intentions aren’t enough. There were good intentions behind the drive to increase home ownership for lower-income Americans, but forcing financial institutions to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them had terrible unintended consequences. We all felt those consequences during the financial collapse last year. Unintended consequences always result from top-down big government plans like the current health care proposals, and we can’t afford to ignore that fact again.
Supposedly the Senate Finance bill will be paid for by cutting Medicare by nearly half a trillion dollars and by taxing the so-called “Cadillac” health care plans enjoyed by many union members. The plan will also impose heavy taxes on insurers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, and clinical labs. [3] The result of all of these taxes is clear. As Douglas Holtz-Eakin noted in the Wall Street Journal, these new taxes “will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums.” [4] Unfortunately, it will lead to lower wages too, as employees will have to sacrifice a greater percentage of their paychecks to cover these higher premiums. [5] In other words, if the Democrats succeed in overhauling health care, we’ll all bear the costs. The Senate Finance bill is effectively a middle class tax increase, and as Holtz-Eakin points out, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation those making less than $200,000 will be hit hardest. [6]
With our country’s debt and deficits growing at an alarming rate, many of us can’t help but wonder how we can afford a new trillion dollar entitlement program. The president has promised that he won’t sign a health care bill if it “adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade.” [7] But his administration also promised that his nearly trillion dollar stimulus plan would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. [8] Last month, our unemployment rate was 9.8%, the highest it’s been in 26 years. [9] At first the current administration promised that the stimulus would save or create 3 to 4 million jobs. [10] Then they declared that it created 1 million jobs, but the stimulus reports released this week showed that a mere 30,083 jobs have been created, while nearly 3.4 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was passed. [11] Should we believe the administration’s claims about health care when their promises have proven so unreliable about the stimulus?
In January 2008, presidential candidate Obama promised not to negotiate behind closed doors with health care lobbyists. In fact, he committed to “broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are. Because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process. And overcoming the special interests and the lobbyists…” [12] However, last February, after serving only a few weeks in office, President Obama met privately at the White House with health care industry executives and lobbyists. [13] Yesterday, POLITICO reported that aides to President Obama and Democrat Senator Max Baucus met with corporate lobbyists in April to help “set in motion a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, primarily financed by industry groups, that has played a key role in bolstering public support for health care reform.” [14] Needless to say, their negotiations were not broadcast on C-SPAN for the American people to see.
Presidential candidate Obama also promised that he would not “sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days.” [15] PolitiFact reports that this promise has already been broken three times by the current administration. [16] We can only hope that it won’t be broken again with health care reform.
All of this certainly gives the appearance of politics-as-usual in Washington with no change in sight.
Americans want health care reform because we want affordable health care. We don’t need subsidies or a public option. We don’t need a nationalized health care industry. We need to reduce health care costs. But the Senate Finance plan will dramatically increase those costs, all the while ignoring common sense cost-saving measures like tort reform. Though a Congressional Budget Office report confirmed that reforming medical malpractice and liability laws could save as much as $54 billion over the next ten years, tort reform is nowhere to be found in the Senate Finance bill. [17]
Here’s a novel idea. Instead of working contrary to the free market, let’s embrace the free market. Instead of going to war with certain private sector companies, let’s embrace real private-sector competition and allow consumers to purchase plans across state lines. Instead of taxing the so-called “Cadillac” plans that people get through their employers, let’s give individuals who purchase their own health care the same tax benefits we currently give employer-provided health care recipients. Instead of crippling Medicare, let’s reform it by providing recipients with vouchers so that they can purchase their own coverage.
Now is the time to make your voices heard before it’s too late. If we don’t fight for the market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven reform plan that we deserve, we’ll be left with the disastrous unintended consequences of the plans currently being cooked up in Washington.
- Sarah Palin
[1] See http://tinyurl.com/yjs3mgf
[2] See http://tinyurl.com/yfuw3k3
[3] See http://tinyurl.com/yfxq8ca
[4] See http://tinyurl.com/ykefsk6
[5] See http://tinyurl.com/ygf42fj
[6] See http://tinyurl.com/ykefsk6
[7] See http://tinyurl.com/lkvgsp
[8] See http://tinyurl.com/nx4nh6
[9] See ibid.
[10] See http://tinyurl.com/yhhr56v
[11] See ibid.
[12] See http://tinyurl.com/yhzhkvg and http://tinyurl.com/lhyr9o
[13] See http://tinyurl.com/yksd6h3
[14] See http://tinyurl.com/yl9gg27
[15] See http://tinyurl.com/yknpxd6
[16] See http://tinyurl.com/d2k5hb
[17] See http://tinyurl.com/yf8qmfh
As published on Fightin’ Words Blog
The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.
A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.
Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:
At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
[laughter]
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.
So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.
But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.
So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:
Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:
Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.
I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.
Question: Is it really irrevocable if that treaty is signed? Suppose it’s signed by someone who does not have the authority, as I – I have some, a high degree of skepticism that we do have a valid president there because I -
I know at least one judge who shares your opinion, sir, yes.
I don’t believe it until I see it. … Would [Obama's potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?
I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able to get anywhere with that. Besides, once he’s signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once he’s signed it and ratified it – your Senate ratifies it – you’re bound by it. But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they won’t be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what they’ve worked out is this – and they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that – and here you have a point – is that is, thank God, reversible. So I want you to pray tonight, and pray hard for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new] Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal it.
Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.
Edited to add @ 8:31 am:
Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
World Government (heading added)
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)
b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.With Enforcement Authority (heading added)
© The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].
The Comment Show Blog encourages readers to check the atricle at Fightin’ Words Blog for further updates.
Here is a link to the Copenhagen Treaty from the United Nations website.
UPDATE 10/16/09 10:07PM: Here is a video of Lord Monkton speaking at the conference.
UPDATE 10/18/09 8:33PM: I’ve heard a rumor that Glenn Beck Twittered that he was reaching out to Lord Monkton for Monday’s show. Anybody following Glenn on Twitter that can confirm this?
Originally published at Canada Free Press
By JB Williams Thursday, October 15, 2009
In case you don’t know, after the terror attacks of 9/11/01, there were indeed a few Americans who honestly believed that the federal government was so corrupt that it was behind and responsible for the events of September 11th. Even though we all watched in shock, as hijacked planes flew into the twin towers, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field, these folks imagined that someone in Washington DC might have blown up those buildings instead.
Not that our federal government isn’t capable of such things, mind you… but they are not likely to pull off such a thing without anyone spilling the beans sooner or later.
These believers were labeled “truthers”—and were often the same folks who claimed to have seen UFOs or even to have been abducted by aliens from outer space at some point in their lives.
Most Americans passed these folks off as crackpots—mentally unstable individuals in need of help, not a seat in congress.
So when very normal people starting asking who this grand nobody from Chicago was, who appeared out of thin air with a blank résumé and a billion dollar campaign fund from donors around the globe, they were labeled “birthers” for questioning the “Natural Born Citizen” status of a mystery messiah seeking the Oval Office.
Every mainstream media outlet in America has either ignored the question, or joined the chorus of pro-Obama propagandists in discrediting “birthers” as the same crackpots known as “truthers.”
What had “birthers” done that was so over the top? They asked to see Barack Obama’s birth certificate, and to date, they have been denied that “crazy” request. In fact, multiple law suits have been filed across the country in numerous forms, simply seeking access to Obama’s personal history, and most recently, a judge has fined one of those attorney’s $20,000 for “filing frivolous law suits” on the matter.
Meanwhile, taxpayers have picked up the tab for over $1.5 MILLION in Obama legal defense fees, used to keep Obama’s birth certificate, his school and college records, his passport and travel records and his law practice files Top Secret. So far, the “transparent president” is anything but “transparent.” He is the ONLY president in US history to hide his entire past.
Now, how reasonable is Obama’s behavior, and how unreasonable is the behavior of the so-called “birther?”
Article II—Section I—Clause 5 of the US Constitution requires that ONLY a “natural born citizen” hold the office of President. It’s no secret what they meant or why that clause exists. It is a matter of national security.
Lets not play any games here… too many games have been played with this phrase already. It’s a very simple term that anyone with a dictionary can figure out.
Not just any ole “citizen…”
Not Native—“belonging to a particular place by birth”
Not Naturalized—“to confer the rights of a national on; especially : to admit to citizenship” (as with an immigrant)
But NATURAL—“Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power.”
The US Senate got it exactly right in 2008 in their unanimous resolution proclaiming John McCain a “natural born citizen” of the Unites States of America, based upon the well-known fact that BOTH of his parents were indeed legal citizens of the United States at the time of John’s birth. In other words, by “divine power” and the “laws of growth,” “produced by nature” of the fact that his parents were US citizens, so was John McCain, by birth right via natural ancestry. (see related story: Comment Show Blog Special Report: Does Patrick Leahy Believe That Obama Is Constitutionally Qualified To Be President?)
However, no such Senate resolution concerning Barack Obama exists, and the standard applied to John McCain is NOT being applied to Barack Obama.
Obama supporters like Snopes and FactCheck claim to have a copy of Obama’s birth certificate, but they do NOT. I challenge any reader of this column to send me a certified copy of Obama’s actual birth certificate and I will gladly disclose it to the public along with a retraction of this statement.
I won’t get one, because no such document has ever been released by Obama. End of story!
Officials in Hawaii have issued their “opinion” that Obama is a “natural born citizen” of the United States. But they have thus far refused to make public the documents used to arrive at that opinion, and until they do so, their “opinion” is nothing more than inadmissible hearsay from a third party NOT present at the time of Obama’s birth, and they are, therefore, unable to support such a claim.
Not one, but THREE different COLBs, (Certification of Live Birth, not to be confused with an actual birth certificate) have been posted online by Team Obama, Snopes and FactCheck. But none of the three contain any verifiable information necessary to vet the documents and since three have been offered, all must be treated as forgeries until one of them can be authenticated.
Some “birthers” believe Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. That’s because Obama’s Kenyan relatives have stated under oath, that they were present at Obama’s birth in Kenya.
But where he was born isn’t so important. The fact that he was born to a father who was at no time a citizen of the United States, is the problem. On this basis alone, Obama is NOT a “natural born citizen” of the United States and that makes him an “unconstitutional president” at best!
Other than the three different COLBs posted online by Obama, Snopes and FactCheck, Obama has offered NO other proof of legal US citizenship, much less “natural born” status as required by Article II of the Constitution. NONE! If you think I’m wrong, send me the proof you have!
We know that he traveled to Pakistan, among other places in the Middle East, during his college years, and that he did NOT hold a US passport at that time. We know that he received his first US passport as a “diplomat,” while he was a state senator in Illinois, which also allowed him to bypass the normal process of getting a US passport.
But because he will not open up his records, we do NOT know what passport he traveled on during those college trips to the Middle East.
We know he attended three of the most expensive colleges in the United States. But we do NOT know how he was able to pay his tuition without any job, why he changed schools, or why former Black Panther Godfather Dr. Khalid al-Mansour (aka Donald Warden, Saudi Royal Family front man) and New York Panther Percy Sutton, helped him into Harvard.
Bottom line, Obama is one great big secret mystery!
The BIG deal is national security! Like it or not, the Unites States has enemies, some of them obvious and others less overt in their strategies.
After nine months of Marxist agenda advancements at odds with most Americans, leaving Obama with record sinking approval ratings in the states, no imagination is required when wondering what damages can be done to the USA from within the halls of our corrupt federal government.
So, how crazy are those “birthers” to ask a question as basic as a birth certificate?
Not only has Obama never passed any standard security clearance, he has never been asked to apply for such clearance and couldn’t pass that clearance if his life depended on it.
Yet, he is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America, the highest office in our land and the most powerful office in the world, without so much as a simple birth certificate to prove his eligibility for the lofty office he holds.
What if he had to pass security clearance before having access to Top Secret information, as any other American citizen would have to pass?
The security check will begin with you filling out a 17-page questionnaire. Most of the questions seek information that can be investigated, such as past residences and employment. It will also ask for contact information for people who know you. Fill out the form thoroughly and honestly. Providing false information on a U.S. security form is punishable with a fine, jail time and/or a dishonorable discharge if you are in the military.
None of this information has been made available on Barack Obama… He has filled out no such form, has no “employment history”—won’t discuss any of the people he spent twenty years hanging out with, some of whom are known terrorists, all of whom have a very funny view of America.
Next, the actual security check…
A security check involves investigation of your life, including federal records, criminal checks and credit checks. Higher level checks will also involve field interviews not only with you, but with people who know you. Investigators will be looking into your character, criminal history, emotional stability, trustworthiness, loyalty and reliability to see if you should be allowed to access confidential information, most notably national security information. So you don’t want to have committed serious crimes, be deep in debt or associate with groups that act against the government.
Oops!—- No record of how he paid for college, where he traveled or on what passport, or why. Twenty years in the pew of a racially charged anti-American church run by an overtly racists preacher. Friends like Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, Saudi Royal front man Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, criminal Tony Rezko, Communist Frank Marshall Davis, and many—MANY more!
The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines. The adjudicative process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person concept. Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination. In evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the adjudicator should consider the following factors:
a. The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct;
b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation;
c. The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d. The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e. The voluntariness of participation;
f. The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavioral changes;
g. The motivation for the conduct;
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and
i. The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
When information of security concern becomes known about an individual who is currently eligible for access to classified information, the adjudicator should consider whether the person:
a. Voluntarily reported the information;
b. Was truthful and complete in responding to questions;
c. Sought assistance and followed professional guidance, where appropriate;
d. Resolved or appears likely to favorably resolve the security concern;
e. Has demonstrated positive changes in behavior and employment;
f. Should have his or her access temporarily suspended pending final adjudication of the information.
Maybe “birthers” are nuts! They have only asked for a simple birth certificate, which any other legal American citizen with nothing to hide would have released immediately upon request! Maybe it is “crazy” that “birthers” are only concerned with the missing birth certificate at this late date?
Most American citizens have a job, a bank account, a post office box, a driver’s license, and some even have high level security clearances. What was asked of you before you can have any of these things?
Something more than a simple birth certificate, yes?
Yet somehow, it isn’t Obama who is in trouble here, but rather those crazy “birthers” who simply want to know who in the hell this mystery messiah from Kenya is and why he is so damned anti-American, and anything but transparent?
The “birthers” aren’t crazy. They’re right! The Constitution either means what it says or it means nothing at all. If it means nothing at all, then the people are on their own and the time to alter or abolish has arrived.
This documentary is one of the best pieces of evidence of election law violations by AKA Obama and his thugs stealing the primaries in Texas! . If you haven’t seen this documentary it is available on YouTube. This extensive collection of evidence was done by Democrats who were primary workers in Texas. Which just goes to prove that Democrats also recognize when they are being worked over by a Chicago con-man political gangster.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=8DCB2412F6E4F7ED
The creator of this shocking video is a long time loyal Texas Democrat named Gigi Gaston. Be sure to read her comments
Readers might also find this of interest:
The Seven Noahide Laws are G-D’s laws for ALL PEOPLE.
What’s wonderful in using these basics to teach all people about
G-D is that no one, in any religion, can deny what G-D says.
If (and when) all people follow the Seven Noahide Laws we will
have world peace. Jews believe that we don’t even have to wait
for all people to do this. We believe, In fact, that even ONE person
at any time who does ONE more mitzvah (one of G-D’s commandments),
could be one of the Seven Noahide Laws (commandments), will tip
the scale and bring Olam Habah (the World to Come).
Olam Habah is a good thing!!
Not to be feared (evil people might disagree).
A COMMENT SHOW BLOG SPECIAL REPORT
“Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy in an April 10, 2008 Senate Hearing debating Senate Resolution SR511 which claimed that John McCain was a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and thereby qualified to be president. (The full text of his statement can be found on his Senate website here.)
His stated requirement, being born to American Citizen parents, has been part of the accepted definition of Natural Born Citizen since the founding of our country.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution states:
“No person except a Natural Born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
With the exception of Chester A. Arthur, who hid from the public the fact that his father was a British citizen when he was born, every single President and every single Vice President born after the ratification of the Constitution have been born in this country to American Citizen parents.
Until Barack Obama.
The 2008 election is the first time in American history that America knowingly elected a post-1787-born President whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.
When Barack Obama was born, his father was a citizen of Kenya, at that time a British colony. His father was not then, nor at any time, an American citizen.
Obama posted an image of a Hawaiian “Certification Of Live Birth” on his website to prove that he was born in Hawaii and therefore a citizen of this country. However, further down on the same page, he makes this eye-opening statement:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.” (emphasis added)
We must ask ourselves: How can someone whose citizenship status at birth was governed by a foreign country be considered a “Natural Born Citizen?”
And there you have the true crux of the issue now before the nation. For, in truth, all of the hoopla surrounding the Birth Certificate is a smokescreen; because in the end, it doesn’t matter. The place of his birth is a moot point. He is already ineligible because of his father’s foreign citizenship and because Obama therefore held dual citizenship at birth. The very concept of dual citizenship is at odds with the intent of natural born citizen. Consider the following, from The Obama Administration’s own State Department policy with regard to dual citizenship:
“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance. However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.“ (Emphasis added.)
As we shall see, the natural born citizen requirement was expressly inserted into the Constitution to preclude any foreign allegiance from birth.
It may be helpful to review the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen and why the framers of the constitution used the wording they did for the presidential requirement.
The presidential natural born citizenship requirement originated with John Jay, who recommended it in a letter to George Washington: “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” (John Jay letter to George Washington, 25 July 1787)
This letter was written on July 25, 1787. It is in direct response to Alexander Hamilton’s suggested Presidential requirement appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton – five weeks earlier – on June 18, 1787 submitted the following:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
Hamilton’s original drafted presidential requirement was rejected by the framers. Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen.
John Jay believed, and the Founding Fathers agreed, that anyone who is subject to foreign influence should be barred from the presidency. There was a tradition in Europe, which lasted through the middle of the 19th Century, for monarchs to install their relatives on the throne of weaker countries. The natural-born citizen requirement arose, in part, from the fear that such a usurper would become president. The constitution allows citizens to become Senators and Congressmen, however for the office of the Presidency, it rightly places a more stringent requirement, the natural born citizen clause. Through this clause, the Founders sought to guarantee that the ideals for which they fought would be faithfully preserved for future generations of Americans. The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military was free of all foreign influence and that its holder has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this.
The phrasing and meaning of natural born citizen can be found in Emmerich de Vattel’s 1758 book The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law :
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19) (emphasis added)
So, a “citizen” is simply a member of the civil society. To become a “citizen” is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society.
Vattel’s book was an important reference for the founding fathers as evidenced in this letter by Benjamin Franklin: “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations” (Letter 459: Benjamin Franklin to Charles William Frederic Dumas)
Many defenders of Obama’s eligibility erroneously point to the 14th Amendment of the constitution as proof that he is a natural born citizen. However, The 14th Amendment only provides that persons born in the United States and all naturalized citizens under naturalization legislation are citizens of the United States, provided they are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the United States. Nowhere within the 14th Amendment is the term natural born citizen used or implied.
In fact, on March 9, 1866, Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, said the following in a speech before House of Representatives: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
In 1874, six years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen”, while confirming (in the first sentence of the following excerpt) that the 14th Amendment did not define natural born citizen:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)
In 1898, in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court reexamined the “citizenship-by-birthplace-alone” theory, but did not decide whether it applied to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen, but did not rule that he was a natural born citizen. Chief Justice Melville Fuller states the following:
“The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. . . . The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction.
“To what nation a person belongs is by the laws of all nations closely dependent on descent; it is almost an universal rule that the citizenship of the parents determines it — that of the father where children are lawful, and, where they are bastards, that of their mother, without regard to the place of their birth, and that must necessarily be recognized as the correct canon, since nationality is, in its essence, dependent on descent.”
In the same case, Justice Horace Gray said the following:
“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’”
In the last line of this passage Justice Gray states that a person born in this country is as much a citizen as a child of a citizen, which he refers to as a “natural born citizen.” Both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens. But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child, because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to natural born citizen status.
The distinction between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. As we have seen, this definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by United States Supreme Court decisions. Neither the 14th Amendment, nor Congressional Acts, nor any case law has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Congressional Acts and case law, like the 14th Amendment, have all only dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a “citizen.” Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a “natural born Citizen” prevails today. It is this definition of “natural born Citizen” which gives the Constitutional Republic the best chance of having a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States.
So, back to Senator Leahy…
Patrick Leahy of course knows all of this. He was a lawyer and has been a United States Senator since 1974. He is well versed in the meaning of natural born citizen, as evidenced by the statement which began this report, and also by the following exchange, which took place at a judiciary committee hearing on April 3, 2008, in which Senator Leahy asked then Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who was a former Federal Judge, the following:
Chairman Leahy: You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he [John S. McCain] is constitutionally eligible to become President?
Secretary Chertoff: My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
Chairman Leahy: That is mine, too. Thank you.
Here again Leahy states his belief that the citizenship of the parents is the deciding factor in determining natural born citizenship, not the place of birth. In fact, the bulk of testimony for SR511 relied on the premise that Senator McCain’s parents were both United States citizens, and the central question of the resolution was to whether the place of his birth – The Panama Canal Zone – precluded his eligibility. It appears on the face of it, that the resolution in part defines natural born citizenship as one who is born to United States citizen parents, and it may therefore seem a bit curious that while the Senate considered it worth their while to pass a resolution addressing the doubts surrounding Senator McCain’s eligibility, no such resolution was proposed concerning the doubts surrounding Senator Obama’s eligibility.
More curious still, one of the co-sponsors of the resolution was none other than our Senator Leahy, who we have seen defines natural born citizen as being born to citizen parents. One wonders, why did he ask the senate to consider an issue about which he had “no doubt,” but completely ignore an issue about which he almost certainly has doubts. For, how can he not have doubts about Obama’s eligibility based on the father’s foreign citizenship, when he states over and over that a natural born citizen is born to citizen parents? In other words, if the citizenship of the parents trumps the location of the birth in Senator McCain’s case, how can the location of the birth trump the citizenship of the parents in President Obama’s case?
So why has he never expressed doubts about Obama’s eligibility?
The only argument that that he could possibly rely upon is that ONE citizen parent is enough to establish natural born citizenship. But even a cursory review of the framers’ stated intent, and of the supreme court cases through the years, shows this argument to be deeply flawed. For how can one know with any degree of certainty that someone would feel a greater allegiance to the country of one parent over the country of another. Senator Leahy might believe that Obama’s sole allegiance lies with the country of his mother because that is the country he grew up in, but don’t forget, Obama lived for much of his childhood in Indonesia. At best Senator Leahy has to guess and make conjectures. That is not the way the natural born citizen clause should work, and he knows it. A natural born citizen should be self evident: a person born in America to American citizen parents is a natural born American citizen and is most likely of all people to owe his full allegiance to America.
So perhaps the real question isn’t, does he believe he is qualified, but why he doesn’t speak out concerning his doubts? What holds him back? What is more important to Senator Leahy than the United States Constitution? The very first words of the oath that he swore to become a Senator state that he “will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. How does he reconcile that oath with his silence on the eligibility of the man who holds the office of President?
Unlike Senator Leahy, the vast majority of the people in this country are blissfully unaware of the crisis that currently surrounds the Presidency. At most they are aware of “conspiracy theorists” and “birthers” railing about a birth certificate. But the truth has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, but with a straightforward matter of law.
The presidency is in crisis. Our very constitution is in crisis. The constitution that was created to protect the people from the government MUST be defended! Senator Leahy and the other members of congress must honor their oaths to defend the constitution. The issue of Obama’s eligibility cannot be ignored any longer. We cannot allow a precedent to be set by allowing an ineligible citizen to hold the office of the President, because, frankly, we don’t know who the next one will be. If we give up our protections today, we will not have them tomorrow.
At his Farewell Address, George Washington spoke of the very situation our country now finds itself in:
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…
George Washington’s fears have come true.
It is time for Senator Leahy to stand up for the constitution.
It is time for us all to stand up.
A funny clip from the Tonight Show, Michelle Obama visits Sesame Street and gets confronted by Big Bird. It’s good to see the eligibility issue start to get a little more mainstream.
EDIT Sunday 10/04/09 8:22PM: So much for going mainstream. Did anyone see this week’s “Huckabee” show on Fox News? He played this clip, but EDITED OUT the reference to the birth certificate! There seems to be a policy in place at Fox News that Obama’s eligibility is NOT to be questioned. There’s your Fair and Balanced.
Click here for the censored clip. They Report (what they want you to hear), You Decide.
Ingredients
Directions
serves 6
Join Loreen every Monday morning at about 7:20 for the Monday Morning Recipe. If you have questions for Loreen, e-mail her at loreen.cooking@myfairpoint.net
Ladies and gentlemen, your President is a robot. Or a wax sculpture. Maybe a cardboard cutout. All I know is no human being has a photo smile this amazingly consistent.
On Wednesday, September 23, 2009, the Obamas hosted a reception at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, during which they stood for 130 photographs with visiting foreign dignitaries in town for the UN meeting.
The President has exactly the same smile in every single shot. See for yourself — the pictures are up on the State Department’s flickr (link below). And, of course, above, compressed into 20 seconds, for your viewing pleasure.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/statephotos/sets/72157622444106644/
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Nov | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
