"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions
are safe."
- Luke 11:21
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Gas Price Increases Are Intentional
Gas Price Increases Are Intentional
By Erick Erickson
At Human Events
Gas prices continue to go up. When George W. Bush was President of the United States, Democrats constantly demanded he open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help lower prices. Some even wanted a temporary suspension of the gas tax.
With Obama?
Crickets.
Why the hypocrisy? It is very simple to understand.
The left knew that George W. Bush was not a fan of their green agenda. The green agenda consists of coal powered cars, urban living, and punitive measures to stop that mythical force known as global warming . . . or climate change depending on what day it is.
Barack Obama buys the agenda hook, line, and sinker.
The left could use gas prices as a political wedge issue against George W. Bush because they knew he did not actually want higher gas prices. Barack Obama, on the other hand, wants higher gas prices.
His Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, wants the same. Chu is on record saying, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Therefore, gas prices will go up and the left will silently cheer the economic disaster befalling us.
There are two reasons gas prices must go up. The first is to get people into coal powered cars. Coal powered cars can only be driven around 40 miles before they must be plugged back into the grid for more coal power. If everyone moves to coal powered cars, the drivers will be forced to live closer to cities.
Living closer to cities will increase urban density and decrease the supposedly anti-environmental impact of strip mall exurban utopias. In the liberal reorganization of society, only farmers should live in rural areas.
Once urban density is increased to European levels, then Barack Obama and the left can finally make a viable case for high-speed rail. There are, after all, two things high-speed rail supporters admit they need for viability: (1) high urban density and (2) high gas prices. Hmmm . . .
See, it is not a conspiracy on Barack Obama’s part. There is no secret. This President and those he surrounds himself with actively want high gas prices. They either do not care or are oblivious to the fact that high gas prices will wreak further havoc on the economy.
They look at Europe with its high gas prices and high-speed trains and they see nirvana. They willfully ignore the high rate of unemployment among the young, bankrupted social welfare programs, and growing immigrant slums.
These people are not fools. They want a world where we all live in big cities and use the sun and wind to run our lives — a return to the 14th century with 21st century hygiene. To get that to happen, gas prices must go up.
Barack Obama does not care about what is happening in the Middle East. He does not care about the cost to you to fill up your car with gas. Because the more you pay through Mid-East turmoil and inaccessible American oil deposits, the sooner his future of coal powered cars and high-speed trains can arrive.
This is an Obama created crisis he wants to make sure does not get wasted. That you and I are forced to relive the golden age known as the Carter Administration is not his concern.
By Erick Erickson
At Human Events
Gas prices continue to go up. When George W. Bush was President of the United States, Democrats constantly demanded he open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help lower prices. Some even wanted a temporary suspension of the gas tax.
With Obama?
Crickets.
Why the hypocrisy? It is very simple to understand.
The left knew that George W. Bush was not a fan of their green agenda. The green agenda consists of coal powered cars, urban living, and punitive measures to stop that mythical force known as global warming . . . or climate change depending on what day it is.
Barack Obama buys the agenda hook, line, and sinker.
The left could use gas prices as a political wedge issue against George W. Bush because they knew he did not actually want higher gas prices. Barack Obama, on the other hand, wants higher gas prices.
His Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, wants the same. Chu is on record saying, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Therefore, gas prices will go up and the left will silently cheer the economic disaster befalling us.
There are two reasons gas prices must go up. The first is to get people into coal powered cars. Coal powered cars can only be driven around 40 miles before they must be plugged back into the grid for more coal power. If everyone moves to coal powered cars, the drivers will be forced to live closer to cities.
Living closer to cities will increase urban density and decrease the supposedly anti-environmental impact of strip mall exurban utopias. In the liberal reorganization of society, only farmers should live in rural areas.
Once urban density is increased to European levels, then Barack Obama and the left can finally make a viable case for high-speed rail. There are, after all, two things high-speed rail supporters admit they need for viability: (1) high urban density and (2) high gas prices. Hmmm . . .
See, it is not a conspiracy on Barack Obama’s part. There is no secret. This President and those he surrounds himself with actively want high gas prices. They either do not care or are oblivious to the fact that high gas prices will wreak further havoc on the economy.
They look at Europe with its high gas prices and high-speed trains and they see nirvana. They willfully ignore the high rate of unemployment among the young, bankrupted social welfare programs, and growing immigrant slums.
These people are not fools. They want a world where we all live in big cities and use the sun and wind to run our lives — a return to the 14th century with 21st century hygiene. To get that to happen, gas prices must go up.
Barack Obama does not care about what is happening in the Middle East. He does not care about the cost to you to fill up your car with gas. Because the more you pay through Mid-East turmoil and inaccessible American oil deposits, the sooner his future of coal powered cars and high-speed trains can arrive.
This is an Obama created crisis he wants to make sure does not get wasted. That you and I are forced to relive the golden age known as the Carter Administration is not his concern.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Do Tyrants Fear America Anymore?
Do Tyrants Fear America Anymore?
President Obama’s timid foreign policy is an embarrassment for a global superpower.
From The UK Telegraph - By Nile Gardiner
Nile Gardner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator. He appears frequently on American and British television and radio, including Fox News Channel, CNN, BBC, Sky News, and NPR.
The débacle of Washington’s handling of the Libya issue is symbolic of a wider problem at the heart of the Obama administration’s foreign policy. The fact that it took ten days and at least a thousand dead on the streets of Libya’s cities before President Obama finally mustered the courage to call for Muammar “mad dog” Gaddafi to step down is highly embarrassing for the world’s only superpower, and emblematic of a deer-in-the-headlights approach to world leadership.
Washington seems incapable of decisive decision-making on foreign policy at the moment, a far cry from the days when it swept entire regimes from power, and defeated America’s enemies with deep-seated conviction and an unshakeable drive for victory.
Just a few years ago the United States was genuinely feared on the world stage, and dictatorial regimes, strategic adversaries and state sponsors of terror trod carefully in the face of the world’s most powerful nation. Now Washington appears weak, rudderless and frequently confused in its approach.
From Tehran to Tripoli, the Obama administration has been pathetically slow to lead, and afraid to condemn acts of state-sponsored repression and violence. When protesters took to the streets to demonstrate against the Islamist dictatorship in Iran in 2009, the brutal repression that greeted them was hardly a blip on Barack Obama’s teleprompter screen, barely meriting a response from a largely silent presidency.
In contrast to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, President Obama fails to see the United States as an exceptional nation, with a unique role in leading the free world and standing up to tyranny. In his speeches abroad he has frequently found fault with his own country, rather than projecting confidence in American greatness.
From Cairo to Strasbourg he has adopted an apologetic tone rather than demonstrating faith in America as a shining city upon a hill, a beacon of freedom and liberty. A leader who lacks pride in his own nation’s historic role as a great liberator simply cannot project strength abroad.
It has also become abundantly clear that the Obama team attaches little importance to human rights issues, and in contrast to the previous administration has not pursued a freedom agenda in the Middle East and elsewhere. It places far greater value upon engagement with hostile regimes, even if they are carrying out gross human rights abuses, in the mistaken belief that appeasement enhances security.
This has been the case with Iran, Russia and North Korea for example. This administration has also been all too willing to sacrifice US leadership in deference to supranational institutions such as the United Nations, whose track record in standing up to dictatorships has been virtually non-existent.
The White House’s painful navel-gazing on Libya last week, with even the French adopting a far tougher stance, is cause for grave concern.
The Obama administration’s timid approach to foreign policy is the last thing the world needs at a time of mounting turmoil in the Middle East, including the growing threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, and Islamist militancy on the rise from Egypt to Yemen.
US leadership is now needed more than ever, but has embarrassingly gone AWOL on the world stage.
_________________
Timid foreign policy?
What foreign policy?
The guy is simply NOT a leader...
It's time to throw him out!
President Obama’s timid foreign policy is an embarrassment for a global superpower.
From The UK Telegraph - By Nile Gardiner
Nile Gardner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator. He appears frequently on American and British television and radio, including Fox News Channel, CNN, BBC, Sky News, and NPR.
The débacle of Washington’s handling of the Libya issue is symbolic of a wider problem at the heart of the Obama administration’s foreign policy. The fact that it took ten days and at least a thousand dead on the streets of Libya’s cities before President Obama finally mustered the courage to call for Muammar “mad dog” Gaddafi to step down is highly embarrassing for the world’s only superpower, and emblematic of a deer-in-the-headlights approach to world leadership.
Washington seems incapable of decisive decision-making on foreign policy at the moment, a far cry from the days when it swept entire regimes from power, and defeated America’s enemies with deep-seated conviction and an unshakeable drive for victory.
Just a few years ago the United States was genuinely feared on the world stage, and dictatorial regimes, strategic adversaries and state sponsors of terror trod carefully in the face of the world’s most powerful nation. Now Washington appears weak, rudderless and frequently confused in its approach.
From Tehran to Tripoli, the Obama administration has been pathetically slow to lead, and afraid to condemn acts of state-sponsored repression and violence. When protesters took to the streets to demonstrate against the Islamist dictatorship in Iran in 2009, the brutal repression that greeted them was hardly a blip on Barack Obama’s teleprompter screen, barely meriting a response from a largely silent presidency.
In contrast to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, President Obama fails to see the United States as an exceptional nation, with a unique role in leading the free world and standing up to tyranny. In his speeches abroad he has frequently found fault with his own country, rather than projecting confidence in American greatness.
From Cairo to Strasbourg he has adopted an apologetic tone rather than demonstrating faith in America as a shining city upon a hill, a beacon of freedom and liberty. A leader who lacks pride in his own nation’s historic role as a great liberator simply cannot project strength abroad.
It has also become abundantly clear that the Obama team attaches little importance to human rights issues, and in contrast to the previous administration has not pursued a freedom agenda in the Middle East and elsewhere. It places far greater value upon engagement with hostile regimes, even if they are carrying out gross human rights abuses, in the mistaken belief that appeasement enhances security.
This has been the case with Iran, Russia and North Korea for example. This administration has also been all too willing to sacrifice US leadership in deference to supranational institutions such as the United Nations, whose track record in standing up to dictatorships has been virtually non-existent.
The White House’s painful navel-gazing on Libya last week, with even the French adopting a far tougher stance, is cause for grave concern.
The Obama administration’s timid approach to foreign policy is the last thing the world needs at a time of mounting turmoil in the Middle East, including the growing threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, and Islamist militancy on the rise from Egypt to Yemen.
US leadership is now needed more than ever, but has embarrassingly gone AWOL on the world stage.
_________________
Timid foreign policy?
What foreign policy?
The guy is simply NOT a leader...
It's time to throw him out!
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Teachers Union Head Defends Phony Sick-Out Slips & Teacher Fraud
Pretty high and mighty... Dodges Megyn's questions...
Monday, February 14, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
The Elephants in the Room
In the Midst of the Egyptian Upheaval: The Elephants in the Room
By Dan Gordon at American Thinker
As the Middle East is engulfed in a series of often violent pro-democracy demonstrations and counter-demonstrations that have shattered the myth of stability in that region, there are a number of other myths which have been shattered as well -- about which no one has said a word.
These myths are the elephants in the room, and try as hard as some would to turn a blind eye to them, they are now more self-evident than ever. Borrowing from the Letterman Show, here is my own Top Five List, together with a few conclusions.
1. Israel is an apartheid state - Muslim Arabs are demonstrating all across the Middle East to rid themselves of autocratic dictatorships and replace them with true representative democracies. From Algeria to Tunisia, from Egypt to Jordan, from Yemen to the Sudan, and seemingly all points in between, the cause is the same. People want to live in freedom. They want to have their human rights respected. They want democracy. There is seemingly only one place where Muslim Arabs have not taken to the streets against such regimes and in support of such ideals. That place is Israel (even though 20% of Israel's population is Arab). The lack of demonstrations stems from a simple fact: Israeli Arabs already live in a democracy. The rights they enjoy there make them the envy of the Middle East. They live in a nation of laws with one of the most vibrant democracies in the world, complete with a notoriously loud and free press, an independent judiciary, fair and free elections, and a military which is subordinate to the democratically elected civilian government. Simply put, what hundreds of millions of Muslim Arabs are clamoring for throughout the Middle East is what Israeli Arabs already have.
2. Israel's policies toward the Palestinians are the root cause of unrest and instability in the region - The crowds demonstrating in Tunisia and Tahrir Square, in Amman, in the Sudan, and in Yemen, and indeed those protests scheduled to take place in both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas-run Gaza, have nothing to do with Israel. These demonstrations are aimed at the corruption of those governments, including those Palestinian entities which rule over the Palestinians themselves.
3. In the Middle East, Israel has become Goliath, threatening an impoverished and downtrodden Palestinian David - One of the edifying effects of this crisis has been the number of maps of the Middle East which have been shown on the nightly news programs. In those maps, one sees a veritable Islamic sea stretching from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. Hundreds upon hundreds of millions of Muslims in scores of countries, and in their midst there is one tiny dot, so small that its name will not even fit within its borders on the map. That is is why you see "Israel" posted in the Mediterranean alongside the tiny sliver of land which is the Jewish State. The very elements the West fears most as the possible replacement governments for the dictatorships on the brink of collapse, are those that would ally themselves with the most radical elements in the Palestinian camp. Who is David? Who is Goliath? Who's kidding whom?
4. The West has a number of strategic allies and partners in the Middle East and can't sacrifice their strategic interests with those partners because of an intransigent Israel - Looking at those same maps, it must now be abundantly clear that the West has only one reliable ally in the Middle East: Israel.
5. Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel and have gotten nothing to show for it - This is perhaps one of the most tragic myths. Though both of those governments have signed treaties with Israel that ended active hostilities, neither of those governments has taken the steps necessary to educate its people for peaceful coexistence with Israel. Indeed, the Egyptian government has fomented some of the most virulent anti-Semitism imaginable, and literally hundreds of projects between Israel and its neighbors which could have provided tens of thousands of jobs and a new era of prosperity have been shelved in order to cultivate the image of an Israeli boogeyman in order to deflect the shortcomings of those very governments. The tragic truth is that the key to prosperity for both Egypt and Jordan is a warm peace with Israel, full of cooperative regional ventures that could provide the life and livelihood for their citizens which are now being clamored for in the streets of Cairo and Amman.
So what are the conclusions one is to draw from the past month's events?
1. A peace agreement without educating the population toward peace and coexistence is only a piece of paper.
2. In a region without true democracy, there is no true stability. For Israel to survive in the neighborhood in which it lives, there have to be concrete security arrangements that can stand the test of time -- because the peace treaty you sign with one regime today may be ground to dust by the one that takes its place tomorrow.
3. Consider all the arms that the United States has given to Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, and Saudi Arabia. If the demonstrations now boiling over throughout the Middle East topple those governments, or if those governments ally themselves with expansionist Islamist aims, all those weapons can be turned not only against Israel, but against the U.S. -- and her vital interests, as well. For that reason, Israel must maintain a qualitative edge in weaponry. That is not only a vital Israeli interest, but it is also a vital American interest.
4. Don't blame Israel if she thinks that she can't depend upon anyone but herself. That is the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from the unseemly speed with which the United States has shown herself capable of throwing an erstwhile ally under the bus to accommodate "the Arab street."
5. The policy of appeasement, accommodation, and engagement has utterly and completely failed. The U.S. has sought to engage with Iran while tolerating dictatorships with which the U.S. thought she could do business. That policy has sent a message of weakness on the one hand and venality on the other. The U.S. must stand up for her own values with everyone. Of no less importance, however, is the fact that the U.S. can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to policies and incitements that would start with the destruction of Israel but end with the destruction of the West. Those policies, to paraphrase Churchill, have been the equivalent of the vain hopes of being the last in the room to be eaten by the tiger.
______________________________________________
I like Mr Gordon's assessment very much. For the U.S. to have ANY influence in the region we MUST stand tall with Israel... For it is with Israel that friendship can be found. The Arabs cannot be trusted!
By Dan Gordon at American Thinker
As the Middle East is engulfed in a series of often violent pro-democracy demonstrations and counter-demonstrations that have shattered the myth of stability in that region, there are a number of other myths which have been shattered as well -- about which no one has said a word.
These myths are the elephants in the room, and try as hard as some would to turn a blind eye to them, they are now more self-evident than ever. Borrowing from the Letterman Show, here is my own Top Five List, together with a few conclusions.
1. Israel is an apartheid state - Muslim Arabs are demonstrating all across the Middle East to rid themselves of autocratic dictatorships and replace them with true representative democracies. From Algeria to Tunisia, from Egypt to Jordan, from Yemen to the Sudan, and seemingly all points in between, the cause is the same. People want to live in freedom. They want to have their human rights respected. They want democracy. There is seemingly only one place where Muslim Arabs have not taken to the streets against such regimes and in support of such ideals. That place is Israel (even though 20% of Israel's population is Arab). The lack of demonstrations stems from a simple fact: Israeli Arabs already live in a democracy. The rights they enjoy there make them the envy of the Middle East. They live in a nation of laws with one of the most vibrant democracies in the world, complete with a notoriously loud and free press, an independent judiciary, fair and free elections, and a military which is subordinate to the democratically elected civilian government. Simply put, what hundreds of millions of Muslim Arabs are clamoring for throughout the Middle East is what Israeli Arabs already have.
2. Israel's policies toward the Palestinians are the root cause of unrest and instability in the region - The crowds demonstrating in Tunisia and Tahrir Square, in Amman, in the Sudan, and in Yemen, and indeed those protests scheduled to take place in both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas-run Gaza, have nothing to do with Israel. These demonstrations are aimed at the corruption of those governments, including those Palestinian entities which rule over the Palestinians themselves.
3. In the Middle East, Israel has become Goliath, threatening an impoverished and downtrodden Palestinian David - One of the edifying effects of this crisis has been the number of maps of the Middle East which have been shown on the nightly news programs. In those maps, one sees a veritable Islamic sea stretching from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. Hundreds upon hundreds of millions of Muslims in scores of countries, and in their midst there is one tiny dot, so small that its name will not even fit within its borders on the map. That is is why you see "Israel" posted in the Mediterranean alongside the tiny sliver of land which is the Jewish State. The very elements the West fears most as the possible replacement governments for the dictatorships on the brink of collapse, are those that would ally themselves with the most radical elements in the Palestinian camp. Who is David? Who is Goliath? Who's kidding whom?
4. The West has a number of strategic allies and partners in the Middle East and can't sacrifice their strategic interests with those partners because of an intransigent Israel - Looking at those same maps, it must now be abundantly clear that the West has only one reliable ally in the Middle East: Israel.
5. Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel and have gotten nothing to show for it - This is perhaps one of the most tragic myths. Though both of those governments have signed treaties with Israel that ended active hostilities, neither of those governments has taken the steps necessary to educate its people for peaceful coexistence with Israel. Indeed, the Egyptian government has fomented some of the most virulent anti-Semitism imaginable, and literally hundreds of projects between Israel and its neighbors which could have provided tens of thousands of jobs and a new era of prosperity have been shelved in order to cultivate the image of an Israeli boogeyman in order to deflect the shortcomings of those very governments. The tragic truth is that the key to prosperity for both Egypt and Jordan is a warm peace with Israel, full of cooperative regional ventures that could provide the life and livelihood for their citizens which are now being clamored for in the streets of Cairo and Amman.
So what are the conclusions one is to draw from the past month's events?
1. A peace agreement without educating the population toward peace and coexistence is only a piece of paper.
2. In a region without true democracy, there is no true stability. For Israel to survive in the neighborhood in which it lives, there have to be concrete security arrangements that can stand the test of time -- because the peace treaty you sign with one regime today may be ground to dust by the one that takes its place tomorrow.
3. Consider all the arms that the United States has given to Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, and Saudi Arabia. If the demonstrations now boiling over throughout the Middle East topple those governments, or if those governments ally themselves with expansionist Islamist aims, all those weapons can be turned not only against Israel, but against the U.S. -- and her vital interests, as well. For that reason, Israel must maintain a qualitative edge in weaponry. That is not only a vital Israeli interest, but it is also a vital American interest.
4. Don't blame Israel if she thinks that she can't depend upon anyone but herself. That is the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from the unseemly speed with which the United States has shown herself capable of throwing an erstwhile ally under the bus to accommodate "the Arab street."
5. The policy of appeasement, accommodation, and engagement has utterly and completely failed. The U.S. has sought to engage with Iran while tolerating dictatorships with which the U.S. thought she could do business. That policy has sent a message of weakness on the one hand and venality on the other. The U.S. must stand up for her own values with everyone. Of no less importance, however, is the fact that the U.S. can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to policies and incitements that would start with the destruction of Israel but end with the destruction of the West. Those policies, to paraphrase Churchill, have been the equivalent of the vain hopes of being the last in the room to be eaten by the tiger.
______________________________________________
I like Mr Gordon's assessment very much. For the U.S. to have ANY influence in the region we MUST stand tall with Israel... For it is with Israel that friendship can be found. The Arabs cannot be trusted!
Sunday, January 30, 2011
IS State Eligibility Law Obama's Achilles' Heel in 2012?
State Eligibility Law: Obama's Achilles' Heel in 2012?
By Monte Kuligowski (From American Thinker)
In his recent AT piece, Paul Kengor looks at Obama's aggregate poll numbers and concludes that the president may cruise to reelection in 2012. And Kengor didn't even factor in the additional votes Obama may secure with our tax dollars via entitlements, subsidies, and his ever-increasing army of government workers. Neither did he factor in the effects of widespread voter registration fraud complements of ACORN-type front groups.
On the other hand, it does appear that much of Middle America has awakened to the consequences of electing Obama in 2008. The Tea Party movement is not going away; in fact, it is getting stronger. And based on the amount of fiscal damage the Democrats have already wrought, it doesn't appear that the economy will be lifting Obama at election time.
There is something else that might provide a little optimism: the eligibility laws of the states. Presently, at least ten states are working on election law eligibility requirements for candidates who wish to be placed on their respective 2012 ballots for the presidency.
Two objectives may be obtained via election law requirements. The first is to compel the United States Supreme Court to define one aspect of presidential eligibility. The second is to force Mr. Obama to release his hospital-generated birth certificate.
Getting a definition of "natural born Citizen" -
The Constitution requires "natural born Citizen" status as a requisite for the U.S. presidency. But no one can say authoritatively what the phrase means. The Supreme Court has had no on-point litigation from which to provide a definition. Additionally, in 2008, neither Congress nor the states had any legislation in place defining the phrase.
The historic view of the phrase "natural born Citizen" -- going back to Emmerich de Vattel's "Law of Nations" -- requires a birth in the country and (in our context) U.S. citizen parents at the time of the candidate's birth. Another view is that only U.S. citizen parents are required in order to qualify. And, of course, some believe that the constitutional language is merely referring to a birth in the U.S., irrespective of parental citizenship.
Defending Obama's birthplace narrative and secrecy has become a pop-media standby. But the requirement of citizen parents for eligibility has traditionally been the preeminent question when considering whether one is a "natural born Citizen." Avoiding conflicting interests, influences, loyalties, or allegiances is the undisputed reason for the requirement. A son of a foreign national taking the reins of the U.S. presidency is presumably what the founders wished to prevent.
State legislators should define the phrase "natural born Citizen" in their election eligibility codes, requiring U.S. citizen parents at the time of the candidate's birth as a requisite to being placed on the presidential ballot. With such a law in place, you can rest assured that the issue would make its way to the Supreme Court -- on a fast track.
It's likely, but no one knows for sure whether the Court will agree that a presidential candidate must have been born to citizen parents to qualify as a "natural born Citizen." Either way, a ruling on the issue and a definition of the phrase are what the country needs.
Forcing Obama into transparency-
The other objective that may be achieved via election law requirements would be the release of Obama's hospital-generated birth certificate.
Mr. Obama knows how much money he has spent defending lawsuits to avoid releasing his detailed birth certificate showing his hospital and physician of record. The dollar amount spent to avoid transparency must be staggering.
Recently, Hawaii governor and staunch supporter of Obama Neil Abercrombie announced that he would end the controversy by verifying the existence of Obama's birth certificate. The only problem was that Abercrombie discovered that a detailed birth certificate couldn't be found in the Hawaii vital records.
Regardless of whether the details of the president's birth can be documented, Mr. Obama has a problem. If a detailed birth certificate does exist, it reasonably may be inferred to contain candidacy-ending information. Who believes that Obama would stubbornly refuse to release his records if they contained harmless information?
Mr. Obama has been able to legally avoid releasing information because no eligibility law defining "natural born Citizen" and requiring specific proof was in effect at the time of his election. The states effectively waived their constitutional rights in 2008. But apparently, that mistake will not be repeated.
Additional thoughts for legislators -
The key for state legislators drafting eligibility law for 2012 is specificity. Merely requiring that each candidate submit his/her "birth certificate," or that candidates "prove constitutional eligibility," as many drafts read, is not enough.
The document Mr. Obama posted online, his "Certification of Live Birth," has been referred to by some as a "birth certificate." It is therefore possible that Obama's incomplete certification could pass a state's eligibility requirements under generic wording. If the law merely calls for submission of a "birth certificate" to the state secretary, a court could rule that Obama's certification is sufficient. Legislators drafting eligibility law must be sure to require each candidate to produce a hospital-generated birth certificate showing the hospital and physician of record -- or at bare minimum, medical records showing the same. An Obama-type certification should be acceptable only to document non-hospital births.
After recommendation, one state lawmaker, Rep. Leo Berman of Texas, has already informed me that he will take my advice and add some extra language to his eligibility bill for the reasons stated above.
The new eligibility laws of the states could prove to be quite consequential. Therefore, the laws need to be drafted with precision and with focus, for time is of the essence.
If enough carefully written state eligibility law is passed in time, I believe either that Obama will be stopped or that we will find out what he's been hiding. As a bonus, we might also get a ruling on the definition of "natural born Citizen."
By Monte Kuligowski (From American Thinker)
In his recent AT piece, Paul Kengor looks at Obama's aggregate poll numbers and concludes that the president may cruise to reelection in 2012. And Kengor didn't even factor in the additional votes Obama may secure with our tax dollars via entitlements, subsidies, and his ever-increasing army of government workers. Neither did he factor in the effects of widespread voter registration fraud complements of ACORN-type front groups.
On the other hand, it does appear that much of Middle America has awakened to the consequences of electing Obama in 2008. The Tea Party movement is not going away; in fact, it is getting stronger. And based on the amount of fiscal damage the Democrats have already wrought, it doesn't appear that the economy will be lifting Obama at election time.
There is something else that might provide a little optimism: the eligibility laws of the states. Presently, at least ten states are working on election law eligibility requirements for candidates who wish to be placed on their respective 2012 ballots for the presidency.
Two objectives may be obtained via election law requirements. The first is to compel the United States Supreme Court to define one aspect of presidential eligibility. The second is to force Mr. Obama to release his hospital-generated birth certificate.
Getting a definition of "natural born Citizen" -
The Constitution requires "natural born Citizen" status as a requisite for the U.S. presidency. But no one can say authoritatively what the phrase means. The Supreme Court has had no on-point litigation from which to provide a definition. Additionally, in 2008, neither Congress nor the states had any legislation in place defining the phrase.
The historic view of the phrase "natural born Citizen" -- going back to Emmerich de Vattel's "Law of Nations" -- requires a birth in the country and (in our context) U.S. citizen parents at the time of the candidate's birth. Another view is that only U.S. citizen parents are required in order to qualify. And, of course, some believe that the constitutional language is merely referring to a birth in the U.S., irrespective of parental citizenship.
Defending Obama's birthplace narrative and secrecy has become a pop-media standby. But the requirement of citizen parents for eligibility has traditionally been the preeminent question when considering whether one is a "natural born Citizen." Avoiding conflicting interests, influences, loyalties, or allegiances is the undisputed reason for the requirement. A son of a foreign national taking the reins of the U.S. presidency is presumably what the founders wished to prevent.
State legislators should define the phrase "natural born Citizen" in their election eligibility codes, requiring U.S. citizen parents at the time of the candidate's birth as a requisite to being placed on the presidential ballot. With such a law in place, you can rest assured that the issue would make its way to the Supreme Court -- on a fast track.
It's likely, but no one knows for sure whether the Court will agree that a presidential candidate must have been born to citizen parents to qualify as a "natural born Citizen." Either way, a ruling on the issue and a definition of the phrase are what the country needs.
Forcing Obama into transparency-
The other objective that may be achieved via election law requirements would be the release of Obama's hospital-generated birth certificate.
Mr. Obama knows how much money he has spent defending lawsuits to avoid releasing his detailed birth certificate showing his hospital and physician of record. The dollar amount spent to avoid transparency must be staggering.
Recently, Hawaii governor and staunch supporter of Obama Neil Abercrombie announced that he would end the controversy by verifying the existence of Obama's birth certificate. The only problem was that Abercrombie discovered that a detailed birth certificate couldn't be found in the Hawaii vital records.
Regardless of whether the details of the president's birth can be documented, Mr. Obama has a problem. If a detailed birth certificate does exist, it reasonably may be inferred to contain candidacy-ending information. Who believes that Obama would stubbornly refuse to release his records if they contained harmless information?
Mr. Obama has been able to legally avoid releasing information because no eligibility law defining "natural born Citizen" and requiring specific proof was in effect at the time of his election. The states effectively waived their constitutional rights in 2008. But apparently, that mistake will not be repeated.
Additional thoughts for legislators -
The key for state legislators drafting eligibility law for 2012 is specificity. Merely requiring that each candidate submit his/her "birth certificate," or that candidates "prove constitutional eligibility," as many drafts read, is not enough.
The document Mr. Obama posted online, his "Certification of Live Birth," has been referred to by some as a "birth certificate." It is therefore possible that Obama's incomplete certification could pass a state's eligibility requirements under generic wording. If the law merely calls for submission of a "birth certificate" to the state secretary, a court could rule that Obama's certification is sufficient. Legislators drafting eligibility law must be sure to require each candidate to produce a hospital-generated birth certificate showing the hospital and physician of record -- or at bare minimum, medical records showing the same. An Obama-type certification should be acceptable only to document non-hospital births.
After recommendation, one state lawmaker, Rep. Leo Berman of Texas, has already informed me that he will take my advice and add some extra language to his eligibility bill for the reasons stated above.
The new eligibility laws of the states could prove to be quite consequential. Therefore, the laws need to be drafted with precision and with focus, for time is of the essence.
If enough carefully written state eligibility law is passed in time, I believe either that Obama will be stopped or that we will find out what he's been hiding. As a bonus, we might also get a ruling on the definition of "natural born Citizen."
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Abercrombie Admits There Are No Obama Birth Records In Hawaii
But. then he takes it all back...
Celebrity Journalist: I Never Spoke to Hawaii Gov About Obama Birth Certificate
A celebrity journalist now claims he misspoke when he said last week that Hawaii’s governor told him he was unable to find President Barack Obama’s original birth certificate after a search of state and hospital archives.
Mike Evans told FoxNews.com on Wednesday he was remorseful and embarrassed that he appeared to have given the impression that he had discussed the search for Obama’s birth certificate with Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie.
Evans, who says he has been a close friend of Abercrombie since the 1980s, appeared on Minnesota’s KQRS radio last week and said he’d been told by the governor himself that Obama’s birth certificate was nowhere to be found. Evans told KQRS on Jan. 20:
"Yesterday, talking to Neil's office, Neil says that he searched everywhere using his powers as governor ..... there is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii. Absolutely no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii."
But that’s no longer Evans’ story.
“Only this I can you tell you is 100 percent fact: that Neil never told me there was no birth certificate,” Evans told Fox News. “I never talked to him.”
Last week’s radio interview was part of Evans’ syndicated five-minute feature, “On the Road with Mike Evans,” which is broadcast on 34 stations across the country each morning.
On the morning of Jan. 20, Evans says he accidentally told one of those radio stations -- KQRS -- that he’d spoken directly with Gov. Abercrombie about the Obama birth certificate.
“I was on 34 radio stations that morning. That was the only station where I said, instead of saying ‘the hospital said there’s no birth certificate’ I misspoke and said Neil said that,” Evans said. “I misspoke and I apologize for that. I apologize to Neil.”
Abercrombie’s spokeswoman did not respond to Fox News e-mail and phone requests for comment.
Evans says he first noticed the story on Jan. 18, when he was reading an online article with the headline, “Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate.” The article cites an interview with a former Honolulu elections clerk who says records of Obama’s birth could not be found at either Honolulu hospital.
“Halfway down the story it said the long form certificate was not on file at the two hospitals,” Evans said. “It says the hospitals say there’s no birth certificate and says Neil says he couldn’t find it.”
Evans said he continued reading other reports online, including one that quotes a former Honolulu election official as saying no hospital has been able to find Obama’s original long form birth certificate.
Evans says he then placed a call to Abercrombie’s office in Hawaii to follow up on the reports.
“I called Neil, but Neil never called me back,” Evans told Fox News. “I haven’t talked to Neil since he’s been governor.”
In 2008, the Obama campaign provided a certification of live birth -- a shorter form document that bears the same legal weight as the more detailed original certificate of live birth -- to prove his eligibility to be president. That has not quelled calls by those who have asked for the president’s original, longer form birth certificate, which they maintain would more clearly prove his status as a natural-born American citizen.
The U.S. Constitution stipulates that only “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 the President.”
Monday, January 24, 2011
We Lost A Legend...
Fitness Guru Jack LaLanne Dies at 96
Published January 24, 2011 AP
LOS ANGELES -- Jack LaLanne was prodding Americans to get off their couches and into the gym decades before it was cool. And he was still pumping iron and pushing fruits and vegetables decades past most Americans' retirement age.
The fitness fanatic ate well and exercised -- and made it his mission to make sure everyone did the same -- right up to the end at age 96, friends and family said.
LaLanne died Sunday at his home in Morro Bay on California's central coast, longtime agent Rick Hersh said. The cause was respiratory failure due to pneumonia.
"I have not only lost my husband and a great American icon, but the best friend and most loving partner anyone could ever hope for," Elaine LaLanne, LaLanne's wife of 51 years and a frequent partner in his television appearances, said in a written statement.
Lalanne, who had heart valve surgery two years ago, maintained a youthful physique and joked in 2006 that "I can't afford to die. It would wreck my image."
"He was amazing," said 87-year-old former "Price is Right" host Bob Barker, who credited LaLanne's encouragement with helping him to start exercising often.
"He never lost enthusiasm for life and physical fitness," Barker told The Associated Press on Sunday. "I saw him in about 2007 and he still looked remarkably good. He still looked like the same enthusiastic guy that he always was."
LaLanne credited a sudden interest in fitness with transforming his life as a teen, and he worked tirelessly over the next eight decades to transform others' lives, too.
"The only way you can hurt the body is not use it," LaLanne said. "Inactivity is the killer and, remember, it's never too late."
His workout show was a television staple from the 1950s to the '70s. LaLanne and his dog Happy encouraged kids to wake their mothers and drag them in front of the television set. He developed exercises that used no special equipment, just a chair and a towel.
He also founded a chain of fitness studios that bore his name and in recent years touted the value of raw fruit and vegetables as he helped market a machine called Jack LaLanne's Power Juicer.
When he turned 43 in 1957, he performed more than 1,000 push-ups in 23 minutes on the "You Asked For It" television show. At 60, he swam from Alcatraz Island to Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco -- handcuffed, shackled and towing a boat. Ten years later, he performed a similar feat in Long Beach harbor.
"I never think of my age, never," LaLanne said in 1990. "I could be 20 or 100. I never think about it, I'm just me. Look at Bob Hope, George Burns. They're more productive than they've ever been in their whole lives right now."
Fellow bodybuilder and former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger credited LaLanne with taking exercise out of the gymnasium and into living rooms.
"He laid the groundwork for others to have exercise programs, and now it has bloomed from that black and white program into a very colorful enterprise," Schwarzenegger said in 1990.
In 1936 in his native Oakland, LaLanne opened a health studio that included weight-training for women and athletes. Those were revolutionary notions at the time, because of the theory that weight training made an athlete slow and "muscle bound" and made a woman look masculine.
"You have to understand that it was absolutely forbidden in those days for athletes to use weights," he once said. "It just wasn't done. We had athletes who used to sneak into the studio to work out.
"It was the same with women. Back then, women weren't supposed to use weights. I guess I was a pioneer," LaLanne said.
The son of poor French immigrants, he was born in 1914 and grew up to become a sugar addict, he said.
The turning point occurred one night when he heard a lecture by pioneering nutritionist Paul Bragg, who advocated the benefits of brown rice, whole wheat and a vegetarian diet.
"He got me so enthused," LaLanne said. "After the lecture I went to his dressing room and spent an hour and a half with him. He said, 'Jack, you're a walking garbage can."'
Soon after, LaLanne constructed a makeshift gym in his back yard. "I had all these firemen and police working out there and I kind of used them as guinea pigs," he said.
He said his own daily routine usually consisted of two hours of weightlifting and an hour in the swimming pool.
"It's a lifestyle, it's something you do the rest of your life," LaLanne said. "How long are you going to keep breathing? How long do you keep eating? You just do it."
In addition to his wife, he is survived by two sons, Dan and Jon, and a daughter, Yvonne.
Published January 24, 2011 AP
LOS ANGELES -- Jack LaLanne was prodding Americans to get off their couches and into the gym decades before it was cool. And he was still pumping iron and pushing fruits and vegetables decades past most Americans' retirement age.
The fitness fanatic ate well and exercised -- and made it his mission to make sure everyone did the same -- right up to the end at age 96, friends and family said.
LaLanne died Sunday at his home in Morro Bay on California's central coast, longtime agent Rick Hersh said. The cause was respiratory failure due to pneumonia.
"I have not only lost my husband and a great American icon, but the best friend and most loving partner anyone could ever hope for," Elaine LaLanne, LaLanne's wife of 51 years and a frequent partner in his television appearances, said in a written statement.
Lalanne, who had heart valve surgery two years ago, maintained a youthful physique and joked in 2006 that "I can't afford to die. It would wreck my image."
"He was amazing," said 87-year-old former "Price is Right" host Bob Barker, who credited LaLanne's encouragement with helping him to start exercising often.
"He never lost enthusiasm for life and physical fitness," Barker told The Associated Press on Sunday. "I saw him in about 2007 and he still looked remarkably good. He still looked like the same enthusiastic guy that he always was."
LaLanne credited a sudden interest in fitness with transforming his life as a teen, and he worked tirelessly over the next eight decades to transform others' lives, too.
"The only way you can hurt the body is not use it," LaLanne said. "Inactivity is the killer and, remember, it's never too late."
His workout show was a television staple from the 1950s to the '70s. LaLanne and his dog Happy encouraged kids to wake their mothers and drag them in front of the television set. He developed exercises that used no special equipment, just a chair and a towel.
He also founded a chain of fitness studios that bore his name and in recent years touted the value of raw fruit and vegetables as he helped market a machine called Jack LaLanne's Power Juicer.
When he turned 43 in 1957, he performed more than 1,000 push-ups in 23 minutes on the "You Asked For It" television show. At 60, he swam from Alcatraz Island to Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco -- handcuffed, shackled and towing a boat. Ten years later, he performed a similar feat in Long Beach harbor.
"I never think of my age, never," LaLanne said in 1990. "I could be 20 or 100. I never think about it, I'm just me. Look at Bob Hope, George Burns. They're more productive than they've ever been in their whole lives right now."
Fellow bodybuilder and former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger credited LaLanne with taking exercise out of the gymnasium and into living rooms.
"He laid the groundwork for others to have exercise programs, and now it has bloomed from that black and white program into a very colorful enterprise," Schwarzenegger said in 1990.
In 1936 in his native Oakland, LaLanne opened a health studio that included weight-training for women and athletes. Those were revolutionary notions at the time, because of the theory that weight training made an athlete slow and "muscle bound" and made a woman look masculine.
"You have to understand that it was absolutely forbidden in those days for athletes to use weights," he once said. "It just wasn't done. We had athletes who used to sneak into the studio to work out.
"It was the same with women. Back then, women weren't supposed to use weights. I guess I was a pioneer," LaLanne said.
The son of poor French immigrants, he was born in 1914 and grew up to become a sugar addict, he said.
The turning point occurred one night when he heard a lecture by pioneering nutritionist Paul Bragg, who advocated the benefits of brown rice, whole wheat and a vegetarian diet.
"He got me so enthused," LaLanne said. "After the lecture I went to his dressing room and spent an hour and a half with him. He said, 'Jack, you're a walking garbage can."'
Soon after, LaLanne constructed a makeshift gym in his back yard. "I had all these firemen and police working out there and I kind of used them as guinea pigs," he said.
He said his own daily routine usually consisted of two hours of weightlifting and an hour in the swimming pool.
"It's a lifestyle, it's something you do the rest of your life," LaLanne said. "How long are you going to keep breathing? How long do you keep eating? You just do it."
In addition to his wife, he is survived by two sons, Dan and Jon, and a daughter, Yvonne.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
The Tucson Tragegy! Did We Learn?
I wasn't going to post about this mess... But it seems that EVERYONE is glued to their TVs and are talking about it on their I-Phones, in the parking lots, in the malls, and even the supermarkets accross America.
Frankly... I'm shocked that such a small, insignificant terrorist event has gained so much momentum!
I guess this is to be expected when the man that ran The White House for the last 2 years had a motto: "Never Let A Good Crisis Go To Waste"
They have certainly jumped on this one!
OK. Lets' talk about it.
The shooter, some 'whacked out nut job'(my characterazation), being characterized by his friends as a 'loaner', one who did NOT watch TV, or listen to talk radio, BUT is now being touted as a 'decisiple' of 'right wing radio'! HUH?
Am I the only one that senses a severe disconnect here?
This guy didn't have a political agenda... HELL, he had a hard time spelling 'adgenda'!(sic)
And politics seemed to be a foreign language to him!
This is what we know... He was a 'whack job' from the dregs of society!
He liked to rebel, to grow his hair long, smoke pot, and get rowdy about what he thought was important to him... Mainly local drug laws and what he perceived as 'a freedom to do as he wished!" And he liked to 'play the media' - eg. The staring eyes!
I remember those days... ah yes... no worries, no bills, just the clouds... zzzzzzzz..... "More drugs!!! zzzzzzz....
I don't know about you, but I have seen these guys since the 60's.
It's all about 'the self', about 'power'... a desire to rule.
They attempt to obtain a sense of power, with little understanding of the trappings of any of the accompanying responsibilities. Then there's the sudden understanding that 'ruling' takes a heck of a lot of education, and even much more connectivity with your constituants! - You know... those like minded individuals that can help you achieve your goals! They don't care at all...
It's scary! One just doesnt just strike out on their own and say, "LISTEN TO ME! - "I KNOW!"
They MUST be able to back it up! They MUST be able to PERFORM!
Heck, You need a plan, an organization, and certainly a lot of support. Evidently something this fellow sorely needed... And didn't think about, And Did NOT Have...
So what do we say about the assassin? Yeah he was BRUTAL!
Was he a lone gunman acting on his own?
Was he a part of a terrorist plot to undermine the American Way Of Government?
Was he an angry indidivual that felt it necessary to strike out as an act of protest?
Or, did he just dislike Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' so much that he felt putting a bullet in her brain was ther way to bring this suffering to an end?
Do you know? I'm not sure ANY of us know right now???
So... Here we are... A murderur in custody... Law enforcement investigating... Media speculating about motive and opportunity and rationalle.
Brilliant! Trial by media... Trial by NBC... Trial by CBS... Trial by......... zzzzzzzzzzzzz
When does it stop!
You know who's FAULT it is?
YOURS!
When did you stop to help a lady across the street? When did you last go to a shelter and change the linins? When did you last volunteer to drive an invilid to the hospital?
Yeah,,, I know, I know.... You all have excuses... You were busy!
Well those times are over!
You need to get up off you're arse, get connected to your local neighborhood 'help organizations' - I don't care if they're Gov't subsidized or privately funded... DO IT!
We don't have much leadership in Washington, so the task is falling to us, the private citizen... We can no longer 'Let George Do It"... We have to do it ourselves...
My motto is something I read by Adrian Rogers from the '30s:
"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Adrian Rogers, 1931
______________________
Get to work!
NOW!
Frankly... I'm shocked that such a small, insignificant terrorist event has gained so much momentum!
I guess this is to be expected when the man that ran The White House for the last 2 years had a motto: "Never Let A Good Crisis Go To Waste"
They have certainly jumped on this one!
OK. Lets' talk about it.
The shooter, some 'whacked out nut job'(my characterazation), being characterized by his friends as a 'loaner', one who did NOT watch TV, or listen to talk radio, BUT is now being touted as a 'decisiple' of 'right wing radio'! HUH?
Am I the only one that senses a severe disconnect here?
This guy didn't have a political agenda... HELL, he had a hard time spelling 'adgenda'!(sic)
And politics seemed to be a foreign language to him!
This is what we know... He was a 'whack job' from the dregs of society!
He liked to rebel, to grow his hair long, smoke pot, and get rowdy about what he thought was important to him... Mainly local drug laws and what he perceived as 'a freedom to do as he wished!" And he liked to 'play the media' - eg. The staring eyes!
I remember those days... ah yes... no worries, no bills, just the clouds... zzzzzzzz..... "More drugs!!! zzzzzzz....
I don't know about you, but I have seen these guys since the 60's.
It's all about 'the self', about 'power'... a desire to rule.
They attempt to obtain a sense of power, with little understanding of the trappings of any of the accompanying responsibilities. Then there's the sudden understanding that 'ruling' takes a heck of a lot of education, and even much more connectivity with your constituants! - You know... those like minded individuals that can help you achieve your goals! They don't care at all...
It's scary! One just doesnt just strike out on their own and say, "LISTEN TO ME! - "I KNOW!"
They MUST be able to back it up! They MUST be able to PERFORM!
Heck, You need a plan, an organization, and certainly a lot of support. Evidently something this fellow sorely needed... And didn't think about, And Did NOT Have...
So what do we say about the assassin? Yeah he was BRUTAL!
Was he a lone gunman acting on his own?
Was he a part of a terrorist plot to undermine the American Way Of Government?
Was he an angry indidivual that felt it necessary to strike out as an act of protest?
Or, did he just dislike Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' so much that he felt putting a bullet in her brain was ther way to bring this suffering to an end?
Do you know? I'm not sure ANY of us know right now???
So... Here we are... A murderur in custody... Law enforcement investigating... Media speculating about motive and opportunity and rationalle.
Brilliant! Trial by media... Trial by NBC... Trial by CBS... Trial by......... zzzzzzzzzzzzz
When does it stop!
You know who's FAULT it is?
YOURS!
When did you stop to help a lady across the street? When did you last go to a shelter and change the linins? When did you last volunteer to drive an invilid to the hospital?
Yeah,,, I know, I know.... You all have excuses... You were busy!
Well those times are over!
You need to get up off you're arse, get connected to your local neighborhood 'help organizations' - I don't care if they're Gov't subsidized or privately funded... DO IT!
We don't have much leadership in Washington, so the task is falling to us, the private citizen... We can no longer 'Let George Do It"... We have to do it ourselves...
My motto is something I read by Adrian Rogers from the '30s:
"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Adrian Rogers, 1931
______________________
Get to work!
NOW!
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Happy Hollidays Everyone!
I've taken some time away from the blog to try defeat some minor illness and re-energize my physche, and... just maybe create a somewhat clearer view of the world.
I really don't know if it has worked... But in due time we certainly will either begin to see a difference or we will not!
But rest assured, irreverance will always be a large part of our répertoire.
An older farmer gave this advice to a younger farmer:
"Ask God to show you what to plant and when to plant.
Then plant the best seed you can buy. Ask God to grow the seeds.
Then cultivate the ground, pull the weeds, and fertilize the plants as they grow.
Ask God to produce a great harvest.
Then go out and gather the harvest when it is ripe.
Ask God to show you how to market your produce.
Then take your produce yo market.
Don't try to do God's part. And don't expect God to do yours.“
_______________________________
I really don't know if it has worked... But in due time we certainly will either begin to see a difference or we will not!
But rest assured, irreverance will always be a large part of our répertoire.
An older farmer gave this advice to a younger farmer:
"Ask God to show you what to plant and when to plant.
Then plant the best seed you can buy. Ask God to grow the seeds.
Then cultivate the ground, pull the weeds, and fertilize the plants as they grow.
Ask God to produce a great harvest.
Then go out and gather the harvest when it is ripe.
Ask God to show you how to market your produce.
Then take your produce yo market.
Don't try to do God's part. And don't expect God to do yours.“
_______________________________
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Swindle of the Year
Swindle of the Year
By Charles Krauthammer
Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 — and House Democrats don’t have a clue that he did.
In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years — which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election.
This is a defeat?
If Obama had asked for a second stimulus directly, he would have been laughed out of town. Stimulus I, was so reviled that the Democrats banished the word from their lexicon throughout the 2010 campaign. And yet, despite a very weak post-election hand, Obama got the Republicans to offer to increase spending and cut taxes by $990 billion over two years — $630 billion of it above and beyond extension of the Bush tax cuts.
No mean achievement.
After all, these are the same Republicans who spent 2010 running on limited government and reducing the debt. And this budget-busting occurs less than a week after the president’s deficit commission had supposedly signaled a new national consensus of austerity and frugality.
Some Republicans are crowing that Stimulus II is the Republican way — mostly tax cuts — rather than the Democrats’ spending orgy of Stimulus I.
That’s consolation?
This just means that Republicans are two years too late.
Stimulus II will still blow another near–$1 trillion hole in the budget.
At great cost that will have to be paid after this newest free lunch, the package will add as much as one percent to GDP and lower the unemployment rate by about 1.5 percentage points. That could easily be the difference between victory and defeat in 2012.
Obama is no fool. While getting Republicans to boost his own reelection chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, tea-party, this-time-we’re-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility.
And he gets all this in return for what?
For a mere two-year postponement of a mere 4.6-point increase in marginal tax rates for upper incomes. And an estate-tax rate of 35 percent — it jumps insanely from zero to 55 percent on Jan. 1 — that is somewhat lower than what the Democrats wanted.
No, cries the Left: Obama violated a sacred principle.
A 39.6 percent tax rate versus 35 percent is a principle?
“This is the public-option debate all over again,” said Obama at his Tuesday news conference.
He is right.
The Left never understood that to nationalize health care there is no need for a public option because Obamacare turns the private insurers into public utilities.
The Left is similarly clueless on the tax-cut deal: In exchange for temporarily forgoing a small rise in upper-income rates, Obama pulled out of a hat a massive new stimulus — what the Left has been begging for since the failure of Stimulus I, but was heretofore politically unattainable.
Obama’s public exasperation with this infantile leftism is both perfectly understandable and politically adept. It is his way back to at least the appearance of centrist moderation. The only way he will get a second look from the independents who elected him in 2008 — and who abandoned the Democrats in 2010 — is by changing the prevailing (and correct) perception that he is a man of the Left.
Hence that news-conference attack on what the administration calls the “professional Left” for its combination of sanctimony and myopia. It was Obama’s Sister Souljah moment. It had a prickly, irritated sincerity — their ideological stupidity and inability to see the “long game” really do get under Obama’s skin — but a decidedly calculated quality, too.
Where, after all, does the Left go?
Stay home on Election Day 2012?
Vote Republican?No, says the current buzz, the Left will instead challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination.
Really now? For decades, African-Americans have been this party’s most loyal constituency. They vote nine-to-one Democratic through hell and high water, through impeachment and recession, through everything. After four centuries of enduring much, African-Americans finally see one of their own achieve the presidency. And their own party is going to deny him a shot at reelection?
Not even Democrats are that stupid.
The remaining question is whether they are just stupid enough to not understand — and therefore vote down — the swindle of the year just pulled off by their own president.
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist.
© 2010 The Washington Post Writers Group.
Go get 'em Charles! We can always count on you for clarity and solid reasoning!
THANKS!
By Charles Krauthammer
Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 — and House Democrats don’t have a clue that he did.
In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years — which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election.
This is a defeat?
If Obama had asked for a second stimulus directly, he would have been laughed out of town. Stimulus I, was so reviled that the Democrats banished the word from their lexicon throughout the 2010 campaign. And yet, despite a very weak post-election hand, Obama got the Republicans to offer to increase spending and cut taxes by $990 billion over two years — $630 billion of it above and beyond extension of the Bush tax cuts.
No mean achievement.
After all, these are the same Republicans who spent 2010 running on limited government and reducing the debt. And this budget-busting occurs less than a week after the president’s deficit commission had supposedly signaled a new national consensus of austerity and frugality.
Some Republicans are crowing that Stimulus II is the Republican way — mostly tax cuts — rather than the Democrats’ spending orgy of Stimulus I.
That’s consolation?
This just means that Republicans are two years too late.
Stimulus II will still blow another near–$1 trillion hole in the budget.
At great cost that will have to be paid after this newest free lunch, the package will add as much as one percent to GDP and lower the unemployment rate by about 1.5 percentage points. That could easily be the difference between victory and defeat in 2012.
Obama is no fool. While getting Republicans to boost his own reelection chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, tea-party, this-time-we’re-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility.
And he gets all this in return for what?
For a mere two-year postponement of a mere 4.6-point increase in marginal tax rates for upper incomes. And an estate-tax rate of 35 percent — it jumps insanely from zero to 55 percent on Jan. 1 — that is somewhat lower than what the Democrats wanted.
No, cries the Left: Obama violated a sacred principle.
A 39.6 percent tax rate versus 35 percent is a principle?
“This is the public-option debate all over again,” said Obama at his Tuesday news conference.
He is right.
The Left never understood that to nationalize health care there is no need for a public option because Obamacare turns the private insurers into public utilities.
The Left is similarly clueless on the tax-cut deal: In exchange for temporarily forgoing a small rise in upper-income rates, Obama pulled out of a hat a massive new stimulus — what the Left has been begging for since the failure of Stimulus I, but was heretofore politically unattainable.
Obama’s public exasperation with this infantile leftism is both perfectly understandable and politically adept. It is his way back to at least the appearance of centrist moderation. The only way he will get a second look from the independents who elected him in 2008 — and who abandoned the Democrats in 2010 — is by changing the prevailing (and correct) perception that he is a man of the Left.
Hence that news-conference attack on what the administration calls the “professional Left” for its combination of sanctimony and myopia. It was Obama’s Sister Souljah moment. It had a prickly, irritated sincerity — their ideological stupidity and inability to see the “long game” really do get under Obama’s skin — but a decidedly calculated quality, too.
Where, after all, does the Left go?
Stay home on Election Day 2012?
Vote Republican?No, says the current buzz, the Left will instead challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination.
Really now? For decades, African-Americans have been this party’s most loyal constituency. They vote nine-to-one Democratic through hell and high water, through impeachment and recession, through everything. After four centuries of enduring much, African-Americans finally see one of their own achieve the presidency. And their own party is going to deny him a shot at reelection?
Not even Democrats are that stupid.
The remaining question is whether they are just stupid enough to not understand — and therefore vote down — the swindle of the year just pulled off by their own president.
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist.
© 2010 The Washington Post Writers Group.
Go get 'em Charles! We can always count on you for clarity and solid reasoning!
THANKS!
Friday, December 10, 2010
MSU Stands By Professor!
The story begins at Michigan State University(MSU), with a mechanical engineering professor named Indred Wichman.
Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association.
The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.
The group had complained the cartoons were 'hate speech.'
Enter Professor Wichman.
In his e-mail, he said the following:
____________________________
Dear Muslim Association,
As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU, I intend to protest your protest.
I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called 'whores' in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.
This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Muslims to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile 'protests.'
If you do not like the values of the West - see the First Amendment - you are free to leave.
I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option.
Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.
Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
________________________________
As you can imagine, The Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well.
They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded, that the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty, And mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.
Now, the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray.
CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion.
For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman,
Saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.
We are in a war!
This political correctness crap is getting old and its killing us!
_________________
From my good friend...
AND... MY sentiments exactly!
Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association.
The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.
The group had complained the cartoons were 'hate speech.'
Enter Professor Wichman.
In his e-mail, he said the following:
____________________________
Dear Muslim Association,
As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU, I intend to protest your protest.
I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called 'whores' in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.
This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Muslims to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile 'protests.'
If you do not like the values of the West - see the First Amendment - you are free to leave.
I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option.
Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.
Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
________________________________
As you can imagine, The Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well.
They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded, that the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty, And mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.
Now, the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray.
CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion.
For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman,
Saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.
We are in a war!
This political correctness crap is getting old and its killing us!
_________________
From my good friend...
AND... MY sentiments exactly!
Saturday, December 4, 2010
More Information On The 2nd Amendment!
This information was forwarded to me and I feel it is VERY important to share with all my loyal visitors!
I did some research and found good references to the authenticity of the information:
1) At The American Military History web site - Chapter 16 -(351) to be more precise... HERE
2) At The Army National Guard Archives... HERE
3) At The National Archives - #4.51... HERE
And,
4) A Congressional Biography of Charles William Frederick Dick... HERE
Follows is the message that was forwarded to me:
____________________________________________
The "DICK ACT of 1902" . . .
CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable.
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for, are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.
The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right, and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; To do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; To suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”
The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
(Earlier)- During the war with England, an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.
The fact is, that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states.
Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.
Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: “The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.”
In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “... that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; And thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”
“This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”
The Honorable William Gordon
With over 300 Million guns in the United States, the federal CORPORATE government (federal gov't defined as corporation under 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (15) and the states are subdivisions of the corporation, 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (10), cannot ban arms or stop people from defending themselves against a tyrannical government.
I read somewhere that just the State of North Carolina can call up 20-30 divisions of unorganized militia (would be about 200,000-300,000 armed North Carolinians) on a moment's notice. Imagine the State of Texas or Oklahoma if that's the case?
Amazingly, even if the US tries to ban all arms through backdoor measures like domestic violence laws (Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 922 (g)) or through an unconstitutional U.N. declaration adopted by our current Marxist unconstitutional Congress, no treaty can supercede the Constitution!
"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution?
Keep reading.
The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,
"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution."
Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’
"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result..."
"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions." (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."
Do you understand what the Supreme Court said here?
No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution.
- FACT.
No question!
At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that... "The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent."
"Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it."
The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:
"This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument."
The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear:
TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!!
CASE CLOSED.
_____________________
Time to do some reading folks!
I did some research and found good references to the authenticity of the information:
1) At The American Military History web site - Chapter 16 -(351) to be more precise... HERE
2) At The Army National Guard Archives... HERE
3) At The National Archives - #4.51... HERE
And,
4) A Congressional Biography of Charles William Frederick Dick... HERE
Follows is the message that was forwarded to me:
____________________________________________
The "DICK ACT of 1902" . . .
CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable.
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for, are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.
The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right, and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; To do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; To suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”
The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
(Earlier)- During the war with England, an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.
The fact is, that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states.
Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.
Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: “The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.”
In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “... that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; And thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”
“This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”
The Honorable William Gordon
With over 300 Million guns in the United States, the federal CORPORATE government (federal gov't defined as corporation under 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (15) and the states are subdivisions of the corporation, 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (10), cannot ban arms or stop people from defending themselves against a tyrannical government.
I read somewhere that just the State of North Carolina can call up 20-30 divisions of unorganized militia (would be about 200,000-300,000 armed North Carolinians) on a moment's notice. Imagine the State of Texas or Oklahoma if that's the case?
Amazingly, even if the US tries to ban all arms through backdoor measures like domestic violence laws (Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 922 (g)) or through an unconstitutional U.N. declaration adopted by our current Marxist unconstitutional Congress, no treaty can supercede the Constitution!
"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution?
Keep reading.
The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,
"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution."
Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’
"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result..."
"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions." (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."
Do you understand what the Supreme Court said here?
No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution.
- FACT.
No question!
At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that... "The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent."
"Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it."
The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:
"This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument."
The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear:
TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!!
CASE CLOSED.
_____________________
Time to do some reading folks!
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Assault Weapons and The Truth
Assault Weapons and The Truth
From a post by Jarhead, over at NoWeWont...
The Obama administration has nominated an anti-gun zealot as the U.S.’s top gun cop.
The Obama administration is moving into high gear in putting gun-control advocates into important government positions.
The administration’s nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), Andrew Traver, should be of particular concern.
His attacks on the civilian use of so-called 'assault weapons' raise real questions about his willingness to distort the truth for political purposes. The person nominated to be the nation’s top gun cop shouldn’t use inaccurate descriptions to scare people into supporting gun control.
Mr. Traver is the special agent in charge of the BATFE’s Chicago field division. Therefore, he knows what was covered by the federal assault-weapons ban that sunset in 2004.
But in November 2009, NBC interviewed Traver and reported: “Traver says the power and randomness of the heavy caliber, military-style weapons make them so dangerous not only to people, but to police. They’re so powerful, body armor can’t withstand a hit, and they’re so difficult to control, their bullets often get sprayed beyond the intended targets, striking innocent victims even when they’re in their own homes.”
The list of problems with Mr. Traver’s claims is very long.
If he really believes that these weapons fire unacceptably “heavy caliber” bullets, he is going to have to ban virtually all rifles.
(Including...) Small-game rifles — guns designed to kill squirrels and rabbits without destroying too much meat — typically fire .22-caliber bullets, which are only slightly smaller than the .223-caliber bullets fired by the M16 (used by the U.S. military since Vietnam) and the newer M4 carbine (used in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars). Deer-hunting rifles fire rounds that are very similar to those used by the AK-47.
Speaking of M16s, M4s, and AK-47s, Traver is correct when he states that the guns covered by the federal assault-weapons ban were “military-style weapons.”
But he fails to note that this really just deals with style — the cosmetics of the guns, not how they actually operate. The guns covered by the ban were not the machine guns actually used by the military, but civilian, semi-automatic versions of those guns.
The civilian version of the AK-47 may look like the guns used by militaries around the world, but it is different. It fires essentially the same bullets as deer-hunting rifles at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage.
On penetrating body armor, Mr. Traver leaves out one important detail: Rifles in general are often able to penetrate body armor simply because their bullets travel faster than those fired from handguns. The same can be said for going through the walls of houses.
But if he had said that deer-hunting rifles can often penetrate walls and lower-level types of body armor, it is unlikely that his comments would have generated the same fear.
Unfortunately, Mr. Traver has done more than make clearly inaccurate claims about so-called “assault weapons.”
He has supported banning .50-caliber rifles, and regulations that would force many gun shows to close down, and the Chicago handgun ban, and repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which protects sensitive trace data from being misused in frivolous municipal lawsuits against gun makers.
He also worked with the Joyce Foundation, which has funded gun-ban groups such as the Violence Policy Center, on the “Gun Violence Reduction Project.”
The fact that Mr. Traver uses the same misleading claims as groups such as the Brady Campaign shouldn’t make it too surprising that gun-control groups are applauding his nomination.
Nor is Traver’s nomination very surprising after President Obama appointed two strong anti-self-defense members to the Supreme Court.
But Mr. Traver’s nomination is dangerous.
Making up claims about guns to demonize them is beyond what is acceptable for someone who wants a position in which he will be regulating American gun ownership.
Jarhead’s Comment; First of all, The Joyce Foundation, which has funded gun-ban groups such as the Violence Policy Center is sponsored and supported by "guess who?"...... "George Soros."
Now the truth; For the third year in a row, violent crime has declined in the United States while increasing numbers of American citizens own firearms and are licensed to carry, a trend that belies predictions of anti-gunners that more guns will result in more crime, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Preliminary data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows that the violent crime rate went down 5.5 percent in 2009, compared to statistics from 2008. This covers all four categories of violent crime: murder, robbery, aggravated assault and forcible rape. Violent crime went down 4 percent in metropolitan counties and 3 percent elsewhere, according to the FBI.
At the same time, the agency’s National Instant Check System reports continued increases in the number of background check requests and the National Shooting Sports Foundation has reported increased federal firearms excise tax allocations to state wildlife agencies, an indication that more guns and ammunition are being purchased.
“This translates to one irrefutable fact,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “There are more guns in private hands than ever before, yet crime rates have declined.
In plain English, this means that gun prohibitionists have been consistently wrong. Higher rates of gun ownership have not resulted in more bloodshed, as the gun ban lobby has repeatedly forecast with its ‘sky-is-falling’ rhetoric.
“According to the FBI,” he continued, “the murder rate fell last year 7.2 percent in larger cities. Robbery declined more than 8 percent and forcible rape was down 3.1 percent.
It might just be that criminals are less likely to attack someone out of fear their intended victim is armed. Robbers might be discouraged by the growing potential that the clerk behind the counter is willing to fight back. Maybe would-be rapists are deterred by the possibility that they might get shot.
“For many years,” Gottlieb observed, “anti-gunners made all kinds of wild predictions that higher rates of gun ownership and the expansion of shall-issue carry permits would leave neighborhoods awash in blood. The data proves otherwise. America should turn its back on the gun prohibition lobby and their insidious policy of victim disarmament.”
This is what they do not want you to see, they want the anti-gun establishment to bolster tp the ignorant masses that crime goes up when there are more weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Nothing could further from the truth.
View the statistics from 1990 to 2009 here;
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html
__________________________________________
More from 'Jarhead'... HERE
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
From a post by Jarhead, over at NoWeWont...
The Obama administration has nominated an anti-gun zealot as the U.S.’s top gun cop.
The Obama administration is moving into high gear in putting gun-control advocates into important government positions.
The administration’s nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), Andrew Traver, should be of particular concern.
His attacks on the civilian use of so-called 'assault weapons' raise real questions about his willingness to distort the truth for political purposes. The person nominated to be the nation’s top gun cop shouldn’t use inaccurate descriptions to scare people into supporting gun control.
Mr. Traver is the special agent in charge of the BATFE’s Chicago field division. Therefore, he knows what was covered by the federal assault-weapons ban that sunset in 2004.
But in November 2009, NBC interviewed Traver and reported: “Traver says the power and randomness of the heavy caliber, military-style weapons make them so dangerous not only to people, but to police. They’re so powerful, body armor can’t withstand a hit, and they’re so difficult to control, their bullets often get sprayed beyond the intended targets, striking innocent victims even when they’re in their own homes.”
The list of problems with Mr. Traver’s claims is very long.
If he really believes that these weapons fire unacceptably “heavy caliber” bullets, he is going to have to ban virtually all rifles.
(Including...) Small-game rifles — guns designed to kill squirrels and rabbits without destroying too much meat — typically fire .22-caliber bullets, which are only slightly smaller than the .223-caliber bullets fired by the M16 (used by the U.S. military since Vietnam) and the newer M4 carbine (used in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars). Deer-hunting rifles fire rounds that are very similar to those used by the AK-47.
Speaking of M16s, M4s, and AK-47s, Traver is correct when he states that the guns covered by the federal assault-weapons ban were “military-style weapons.”
But he fails to note that this really just deals with style — the cosmetics of the guns, not how they actually operate. The guns covered by the ban were not the machine guns actually used by the military, but civilian, semi-automatic versions of those guns.
The civilian version of the AK-47 may look like the guns used by militaries around the world, but it is different. It fires essentially the same bullets as deer-hunting rifles at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage.
On penetrating body armor, Mr. Traver leaves out one important detail: Rifles in general are often able to penetrate body armor simply because their bullets travel faster than those fired from handguns. The same can be said for going through the walls of houses.
But if he had said that deer-hunting rifles can often penetrate walls and lower-level types of body armor, it is unlikely that his comments would have generated the same fear.
Unfortunately, Mr. Traver has done more than make clearly inaccurate claims about so-called “assault weapons.”
He has supported banning .50-caliber rifles, and regulations that would force many gun shows to close down, and the Chicago handgun ban, and repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which protects sensitive trace data from being misused in frivolous municipal lawsuits against gun makers.
He also worked with the Joyce Foundation, which has funded gun-ban groups such as the Violence Policy Center, on the “Gun Violence Reduction Project.”
The fact that Mr. Traver uses the same misleading claims as groups such as the Brady Campaign shouldn’t make it too surprising that gun-control groups are applauding his nomination.
Nor is Traver’s nomination very surprising after President Obama appointed two strong anti-self-defense members to the Supreme Court.
But Mr. Traver’s nomination is dangerous.
Making up claims about guns to demonize them is beyond what is acceptable for someone who wants a position in which he will be regulating American gun ownership.
Jarhead’s Comment; First of all, The Joyce Foundation, which has funded gun-ban groups such as the Violence Policy Center is sponsored and supported by "guess who?"...... "George Soros."
Now the truth; For the third year in a row, violent crime has declined in the United States while increasing numbers of American citizens own firearms and are licensed to carry, a trend that belies predictions of anti-gunners that more guns will result in more crime, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Preliminary data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows that the violent crime rate went down 5.5 percent in 2009, compared to statistics from 2008. This covers all four categories of violent crime: murder, robbery, aggravated assault and forcible rape. Violent crime went down 4 percent in metropolitan counties and 3 percent elsewhere, according to the FBI.
At the same time, the agency’s National Instant Check System reports continued increases in the number of background check requests and the National Shooting Sports Foundation has reported increased federal firearms excise tax allocations to state wildlife agencies, an indication that more guns and ammunition are being purchased.
“This translates to one irrefutable fact,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “There are more guns in private hands than ever before, yet crime rates have declined.
In plain English, this means that gun prohibitionists have been consistently wrong. Higher rates of gun ownership have not resulted in more bloodshed, as the gun ban lobby has repeatedly forecast with its ‘sky-is-falling’ rhetoric.
“According to the FBI,” he continued, “the murder rate fell last year 7.2 percent in larger cities. Robbery declined more than 8 percent and forcible rape was down 3.1 percent.
It might just be that criminals are less likely to attack someone out of fear their intended victim is armed. Robbers might be discouraged by the growing potential that the clerk behind the counter is willing to fight back. Maybe would-be rapists are deterred by the possibility that they might get shot.
“For many years,” Gottlieb observed, “anti-gunners made all kinds of wild predictions that higher rates of gun ownership and the expansion of shall-issue carry permits would leave neighborhoods awash in blood. The data proves otherwise. America should turn its back on the gun prohibition lobby and their insidious policy of victim disarmament.”
This is what they do not want you to see, they want the anti-gun establishment to bolster tp the ignorant masses that crime goes up when there are more weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Nothing could further from the truth.
View the statistics from 1990 to 2009 here;
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html
__________________________________________
More from 'Jarhead'... HERE
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
