Search This Blog

Friday, December 26, 2008

Climate-Warming Myth Unravelling--And None Too Soon

Dare attack the Eco-Movement high priests, and you may find yourself out in the cold.

Enter Dr. Will Happer: A Princeton University physicist and a fellow of the American Physical Society and the Nat'l Academy of Sciences, Dr. Happer had been Dir. of Energy Research (1990-1993) during the Clinton Administration until fired by Al Gore for "refusing to go along with Gore's alarmism" about global warming. Dr. Happer asserts that "he had been told in 1993 that science was not going to intrude on policy." He went on to point out that "fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past."

Continuing to scan a plethora of climate warming-related articles, it has become more than obvious that the man-made climate change myth is driven by ideological and political agendas, greed and power. Nothing more.

Blithely ballyhooed by the media, the man-made climate change mythology has been perpetrated by the effete liberal elites and their willing political cohorts in Washington. The short of it is that the "climate warming movement", a religious movement in its own right, is probably every bit as dangerous to the modern world as is Islamofascism, both being clear and present dangers to our liberty and our very way of life.

Dr. Happer joins a large number of respected scientists who are courageously countering the global warming hoax, and their ranks are growing exponentially. And while climate warming elites in America embark on what could be a sweeping and costly program to counter man-made global warming, Europe, a hotbed of socialist drivel, is already backing off Kyoto and the economically debilitating cap-and-trade program. Will America learn from Europe's mistakes? Right now, I'd say it's a better than even chance it won't. To paraphrase George Will, "The one surefire lesson of history is that we don't ever seem to learn from it."

No doubt, we've all heard that dissenting scientists around the world have been scorned, shunned and their livelihoods often threatened for their apostasy. These folks are owed an immense debt of gratitude for bucking the alarmist tide and for speaking up against global warming true-believers.

In addition to the 31,000 scientists from the Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine whose urgent petition to both the White House and Congress in May 2008 stated that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of Earth's climate," in 2007 and 2008 over 650 additional climatologists and other reputable scientists around the world have similarly and openly debunked the myth. Among them, and some of their more revealing comments, these notables as well:

1. Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize Winner for Physics: "I am a
skeptic. Global warming has become a
new religion
2. Dr. Joanne Simpson, Atmospheric Scientist, formerly of
NASA: "Since I am no longer receiving funding, I can
speak frankly
...As a scientist I remain skeptical
of global warming."
3. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Environmental Physical Chemist: "When people come to know what the truth is,
they will feel deceived by science and scientists."

4. Dr. David Gee, Geologist, Uppsala University of
Sweden: "For how many years must the planet cool before
we begin to understand that the planet is not warming."
5. James A. Peden, Atmospheric Physicist: "Many
scientists are now searching for a way to back out quietly
(from promoting climate warming fears), without having
their professional careers ruined."

6. Prof. Delgado Domingos, Environmental Scientist: Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide
is dangerous nonsense. The present alarm on climate change
is an instrument of social control."

7. Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, Vice-Chancellor, Institute of Science
& Technology, Chubu University: "Every scientist
knows that CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one
way or another, but it doesn't pay to say so."

8. Dr. Bruce West, US Army Chief Scientist: "Sun, not man, is
driving climate change."
9. Dr. David Deming, Geophysicist & Assoc. Prof. Arts &
& Sciences, Univ. of Oklahoma: "It is time to file this
theory (global warming) in the ashbin of
history. Alarmists are in denial and running
for cover."
10. Dr. E. Wegman, Nat'l Academy of Sciences, Prof. H. Tenehes,
Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, Dr. A. Zichini,
reknowned Physicist, Dr. Z. Jaworowski, world expert on
ancient ice cores, Prof. T.V. Segalstad, University of
Oslo's Geological Museum, Dr. Claude Allegre, US Nat'l
Academy of Sciences, have all joined in "rejecting global warming theory as scientifically unsound,
impluasible, fraudulent."

And these tidbits from scientific studies:

1. Europe's cap-and-trade program has been a disaster, yet
an Obama Administration is nonetheless committed to Kyoto
and cap-and-trade. Duh...
2. Since the release of High Priest Gore's "Inconvenient
Truth", the earth's temp has dropped by 1/3 degree Celcius.
3. If the US reduces carbon emissions by 75% by 2050, it
would result in just .013 degree Celcius of "prevented"
warming by 2050.
4. Without India and China participation, even if the U.S,
Europe & Japan were to take every vehicle off the
the road and shut off every power plant, atmospheric
CO2 would still climb from the current 35 parts per
million to 450 ppm by 2070.
5. Had the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade plan been imple-
mented, economists determined it would cost the US
economy $4-8 trillion in GNP and a net loss of 1 million
jobs by 2030.

I thought Doug Giles of nicely summed it up this way: "The specious science of global warming establishes truth not by facts but through non-stop repetition." Now, where have we seen that familiar strategy before? He goes on to say that "everything is being blamed on global warming from summer frost in Africa, snow storms in Las Vegas, freezing penguin chicks, poorly rising bread dough, forest fires in California, hurricanes, impoverished fashion houses and the recent economic downturn suffered by whorehouses in Belgium." Amazing. More to the point, INSANE!

Could anything be plainer: on the matter of global warming, there is NO scientific consensus. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Thus, before our leadership commits our fast-dwindling fortunes to fighting windmills, shouldn't the entire subject be openly, honestly and objectively discussed by a Commission of respected SCIENTISTS representing all points of view on the subject? Only then should we contemplate draconian spending programs to reduce our so-called "carbon footprint." Is that really too much to ask? Unfortunately for us all, in these politically days of politically correct times of "governing by soundbites & repetition" I suspect a majority of us will blindly follow like sheep to their slaughter..........

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

More Reflections on SCOTUS-POTUS

A contributor, one Matt L, to the, a priceless source of commentary on Constitutional issues/questions, replied to my posting in this way: "The most relevant and compelling sources of law (notably the relevant legal treatises penned during the colonial period by de Vattel and von Bar) appear to demonstrate that what our framers intended when they inserted the term "natural born citizen" into Art II, Sec 1 [Presidential Clause], and what the ratifiers of the original Constitution (together with the first ten amendments) understood when presented with the final document, is that the office of POTUS was unavailable to any otherwise qualified individual who cannot also show that he or she was both: 1) born on U.S. soil, and 2) born to a mother who, as of the moment the individual in question is born, was either a) married to a U.S. citizen, or b) an unmarried U.S. citizen."

He goes on to point out that, therefore, McCain, born in a Panamanian hospital, and Obama, born of a British citizen, failed prong 1 and prong 2 of the above test respectively. Thus, the unsettling and very real possibility that this year's GOP and Democratic candidates were BOTH constitutionally unqualified to be President.

As already alluded to in my previous posts, Chester A. Arthur, who assumed the Presidency after the assassination of Pres. James Garfield in 1881, was born of a British citizen and presided over the country until 1885. Mike L again raised the lingering question as to whether or not any laws, treaties and executive orders promulgatged during Arthur's presidency can be legitimately "drawn into question." Still a rather sobering consideration.

And for the sport buffs among you, Mike L relied upon this descriptive analogy to describe the ineligibility problem: " doesn't matter how much glory a stadium full of fans heaps on the slugger who hits the game-winning, walk-off grand slam. If you fail to touch first base on your leisurely trot around the bases, and the pitcher chooses to toss the ball to the first baseman, who then steps on the bag, you will be called out. No questions asked..."

On this subject, Matt L. lamented the silence of "luminaries and high public officials" who certainly know better, but who most likely fear scrutiny and the jeopardy of their lofty positions should they publicly raise the possibility of Obama's being ineligible for the Presidency.

I related to Matt L. that I had studied this issue and am deeply concerned about its ramifications for the country. I also pointed out that "I have also been discussing this issue with some friends who are either unfazed, perplexed, burdened with the belief that all is lost anyway, those who are fearful of the consequences in the streets should the issue be seriously raised, and those who think early dementia is setting in on my part."

I went on to say that while I might admit to possible dementia, "I won't admit that so many bright, stable guys, as Mike L, are nincompoops, blindly partisan hacks or deeply troubled conspiratorial theorists either. It is a burning issue which deserves the full light of day." And I still believe this to the very marrow of my being.

As I commented to Mike L, in the malaise in which our country now finds itself, it clearly appears that the Constitution is no longer sacrosanct. It's a prop for those seeking high office and privilege. "Oaths to uphold the Constitution have become empty the-ends-justify-the-means words. Power alone is their God; that I see it day in and day out on the news channels and C-Span; that my stomach is in knots watching and listening to our political leaders double-speak and obfuscate."

I, for one, have contacted my congressinal "reps" and asked them to openly question the constitutional eligibility of Obama, not yet the President-elect, to assume the Presidency on January 20th. If but one Senator and one Congressperson step up, the issue can be dealt with head-on--and constitutionally--before inauguration on January 20th. But, again, I don't see that level of courage present in those once honorable and venerable halls of Congress.

An even-handed, bi-partisan approach to this issue is needed. And, therein lies the challenge for the power elite in D.C.

In one's headlong pursuit of power these days, it seems now that nothing is sacred. Nothing is off-limits. Unfortunately, that cynicism is rampant on both sides of the proverbial aisle.

So, where do little guys like you and I turn? What recourse do we really have? Those are the truly burning questions for me and others who sincerely care about America's roots from which we have derived our liberties, and without which we could never have become the bulwark of freedom, industry and prosperity in the world--Mankind's greatest political achievement.

Take away the roots, gut, erode or otherwise abandon the sanctity of the Constitution, and we can kiss America good-bye. It's really that simple.

("The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." Samuel Adams)

Saturday, December 20, 2008

SCOTUS-POTUS Legal Summary

Despite my 22 years of immigration counseling experience, trying to accurately and clearly summarize the issue of Obama's eligibility--or ineligibility--for the Presidency has been especially challenging and time-consuming. Though I have managed to compact much within this summary, I apologize in advance for the unavoidable length. Hope it proves to be a useful exercise.

CONTENTION: Obama, born in 1961 of a US Citizen mother and a British Citizen (born in Kenya); however, since Obama's father was not a US Citizen, thus not "attached to the US", Obama, even if born of a US Citizen mother within the jurisdiction of the US, is not, by definition and Constitutional intent, a "natural born citizen" as is specifically required by Artile II, Sec 1 (Presidential Clause) of the US Constitution, and is, therefore, ineligible to assume the Office of the President.

British citizenship was conferred to Obama at birth by act of British law. Thus, he was born of dual citizenship.

Art II, Sec 1 of the Constitution, the so-called Presidential Clause, stipulates that "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Within the context of the Framers' actual meaning (letter of the law) and the Framers' express purpose (intent), being a "natural born citizen" requires that citizenship must be passed on by the constitutionally pertinent principle of natural law (see Law of Nations by E. Vatel-1758 which profoundly influenced the Framers' intent when fashioning the Constitution) and which assumes that citizenship is inherited from one's father's citizenship. To wit, Vatel stated that "natives", or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens", and that "as society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their right." Again, the accent is on the father's citizenship status at the time of the child's birth.

The intent of the Framers with respect to the meaning of "natural born citizen" (vs "born in the US" or "US Citizen") within the context of the Presidential Clause specifically takes into account the father's allegiance and citizenship at the time of a child's birth. Thus, the father's citizenship and, thus, his "attachment to the US" at the time of the child's birth, carried more weight than merely the geographic location of the child's birth. Why? Still reeling from British rule, the Framers, as represented by the words of John Jay in a July 1787 letter to George Washington, the latter who presided over the Constitutional Convention, wanted to avoid dual citizenship or dual loyalties of any future Commander-in-Chief by declaring expressly "that the Commander-in-Chief...shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen", this to insure future leadership's freedom from foreign influences.

This correspondence directly influenced how Art II, Sec 1 was subsequently written, which holds that "no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President." (Notice the distinction.)

The first Nationality Act in 1790 declared that "the children of citizens [plural]of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." (Notice what appeared to be the central importance of the father's status--even if both parents were US Citizens at the time of the child's birth.)

However, the Naturalization Act of 1795 stated that children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the United States but are not legally considered "natural born citizens" of the United States. ( A more exclusionary definition which adds the geograhic requirement as well.)

Also, we should note that the primary author of the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard, declared that the citizenship clause of the Amendment was, again, by virtue of "natural law" and not by "act of law" (statute). This would mean that a child born to a US Citizen father was "natural born".

In 1871, Rep. John Bingham, a Framer of the 14th Amendment, stated that a child is a US Citizen if born of naturalized parents inasmuch as a naturalized father as part of the naturalization oath "absolutely renounces and abjure all allegiance and fidelity" to other sovereignties, thus establishing his firm "attachment to the United States" as well. (So, born of US Citizen parents within the jurisdiction are the overriding factors in determining "natural born citizenship.")

Note too that US Title 8 Sec 1401 provides that US Citizenship alone is not sufficient to qualify one for President or Vice President, the clear inference being that he or she must be natural born.

In 1800, Charles Pinkney, a Framer of the Constitution and, later, the S.C. Governor, said that the Presidential Clause was designed to firmly "insure attachment to the country." (No dual loyalties on the part of either parent.)

Art IV, Sec 2 provided that no act of Congress was required to make citizens of the individual states citizens of the US; only State Legislatures had authority to grant State citizenship which, in turn, conferred upon them US Citizenship.

Further, in Savage vs Umphries (TX) 118 S.W. 893, 909, the court ruled that "as a man is a citizen of the country to which his father owes allegiance, it is incumbent on one alleging in an election contest that a voter is not a citizen of the US to show that such voter's father was not a citizen thereof during his son's minority."

In 1820, Rep. A. Smith (VA), stated that "when we apply the term citizens to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him."

And what does the 14th Amendment have to say about this?

The primary author of the citizenship clause in the 14th, Sen. Jacob Howard, declared that the citizenship clause of the Amendment was, again, by virture of "natural law" and not by "act of law". This would mean that a child born to a US Citizen father is, therefore, "natural born".

In 1866, per the 14th Amendment, the terms "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" was defined as meaning "not owing allegiance to any other sovereignty." In the same year, Sec 1992 of US Revised Statutes declared that "all persons born in the US and not subject to any foreign power, exluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the US."

In 1871, Rep. John Bingham, a framer of the 14th, stated that a child is a US Citizen if born of naturalized parents inasmuch as a naturalized father as part of the naturalization oath "absolutely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity" to other sovereignties, thus establishing his firm "attachment to the United States" as well. So, it would seem that born of US Citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the US are the overriding and defining factors in determining "natural born citizenship".

In Sec. 1992, Rep. John Bingham, stated that "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents [plural] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." (Very definitive for purposes both of the 14th Amendment and the Presidential Clause.)

*See Perkins vs ELG, US 325 (1939) ruling which provides the two criteria expressed by Rep. John Bingham must exist before one can be called a "natural born citizen."

On June 22, 1874, Congress issued a joint resolution that stated the "United States has not recognized a double allegiance."

Of contemporaneous interest is that according to the US State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual (7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency), "the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute ["natural born citizen" and "by statute" is incongruous) does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes." The incongruity created by the statement's use of "natural born citizen" and "by statute" notwithstanding, it appears that a naturalized citizen (by law/statute) is not eligible to assume the office of the President, but it seems to be generally agreed that children born within the jurisdiction of the US of naturalized parents are considered to be "natural born citizens" since that child's parents are, as part of the naturalization process, required "to renounce and abjure any allegiance or fidelity to any foreign sovereignty" and, thus, are, at the time of the child's birth, "attached to the US." Similary, and more obviously, a child born within US jurisdiction of two US citizen parents is also considered a "natural born citizen".

So, it appears that there is no better way to insure "attachment to the US" then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship from his US Citizen father or, at the very least, from both his parents. The Framers' rationale for this would be that any child born in the US of an alien father, or a father of dual allegiance, can be removed by their father to be raised in another country only to be returned later in life bringing with him/her foreign influences. Thus, for purposes of complying with the Presidential Clause, a person born of dual citizenship/allegiance cannot be said to be a natural born citizen. Again, and within the context of the Presidential Clause, the child inherits natural born citizenship from the father alone because, through the laws of nature, the child inherits the condition of the father.

Within the meaning of the Presidential Clause, one can accurately say that there are essentially two types of citizenship: 1) "natural born citizenship" meaning one who, by operation of nature (descent), was born of an American citizen father, or, as further expanded upon in successive legislation and opinion, was born of two US Citizen parents, and 2) a "US Citizen" meaning one who, through operation of law (statutory) was granted citizenship through naturalization, either automatically at time of birth or voluntarily some time after birth. (See John Bingham opinion above.)

The recent Wrotnowski vs Bysiewica stay request which was denied by SCOTUS on 12/15/08 asserts that Pres. Chester A. Arthur's father was a British citizen at the time of Chester's birth--and the facts appear to clearly substantiate that assertion--and that, therefore, Chester A. Arthur was ineligible under Art II, Sec 1 to assume the office of President. And since the facts of the Arthur case were very similar to that of Obama's, it was plantiff's hope to force the Court to review Obama's eligibility to be President as well.

So, even if Obama verifies his birth within the jurisdiction of the US, he is a US Citizen by virtue of his mother's American citizenship, but he is not a natural born citizen because he was born of an alien father and is, therefore, not, by definition and intent of the Presidential Clause, a natural born citizen.

And if Pres. Chester A. Arthur was ineligible to be President because his father was a British citizen at the time of Chester's birth, should the Supreme Court rule Chester Arthur's breach of law a defensible precedent for granting Presidential eligibility to Obama since his father too was a British citizen at the time of Obama's birth in 1961? On this question, the Framers' method for repairing the breach is per constitutional amendment. Clearly, the Framers did not want a President at birth to be born of dual citizenship. As someone much smarter than I said, "making errors in the past does not mean that we need to repeat them in the future."

From this summary of law, I think it can be most reasonably concluded that since a child derives his attachment to the US from his US Citizen parents, a child born of US Citizen parents within the jurisction of the US, inclusive of those US parents who were naturalized US citizens at the time of the child's birth, is very clearly a "natural born citizen".

Finally, this form Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Judge Wm. Johnson in 1823: "On every question of construction of the Constitution, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probably intent in which it was passed."

And this from Pres. George Washington in his Farewell Address in 1796: "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular way wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by ursurpation; for through this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governements are destroyed."

Absent the Electors' having denied Certification of the Election or individual lawmakers demanding verification of Obama's eligibility, it is properly left to SCOTUS or the amendment process to determine the constitutional eligibility of Obama to assume the Office of the President. Allowing this constitutional issue to fester could have unintended and very unsettling consequences for our country in the future. If the Constitution is to be ignored or cavalierly misinterpreted, our Republic is surely doomed.

Until this issue is authoritatively and constitutionally resolved, we have a problem. A real problem!

Wednesday, December 17, 2008


As some of you may know already, on 12/8 and 12/15 respectively, the Donofrio and Wrotnowski stay requests (to stop Electors from casting their ballots on 12/15)were denied by SCOTUS. Though a setback for the Constitution, the setback may be reversible within the next several weeks.

It may be worth mentioning that neither stay request was specifically denied certiorari, i.e. a full Court hearing, by SCOTUS, apparently because judicial review is allowd only after the Electors vote on 12/15/08 AND only after Congressional Certification (approval of election results) on 1/9/09.

If certiorari is eventually granted, which is at this point doubtful, judicial review, if any, may occur only after the Congressional process has run its course.

The 20th Amendment provides guidance as to how to proceed if a President-elect (which, despite Mr. Obama's impressive podium seal, he is not until 1/9/09) is rendered qualified.

As indicated previously, a President-elect's eligibility can be properly challenged during "the time prior to inauguration" (1/20/09)1/20/09--but, of course, in a free society such as ours legal challenges to his qualifications are allowed long after if the issue of his eligibility remains unresolved. And in the works are scores of other suits with that challenge in mind.

Per 12th Amendment and 3 USC 15, the objection of one Senator and one Representative is all that is required to prevent Congressional Certification. So, if safeguarding the Constitution is important to us--and I know that it si--we need to start contacting our Senators and Congressmen NOW--before 1/9/09--and urge them to raise constitutional oobjetions to Obama's eligibilti before Inauguration Day.

If interested in contacting your congressional delegation on this subject, here is a sample letter I recently ran across somewhere on the internet which spells it out perfectly:

"Dear Representative/Senator

Article II, Sec 1 of the US Constitution reads: "No Person except a natural born citizen of the United States, or a citizen at the time of the Adoption of Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President, neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years resdient of the United States."

There are numerous questions as to Mr. Obama's citizenship status which raise suspicions and doubt about his constitutional qualifications to be president. To settle this question, Mr. Obama must produce proof of citizenship.

Documents that must be produced include:

1. certified copy of "vault" (original long form version)birth certificate
2. certified copies of all re-issued and sealed birth certificates in the the names of Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham
3. certified copy of Certificate of Citizenship
4. certfified copy of Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity
5. certified copies of admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard University Law School
6. certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing his name form Barry Soetoro

It is reasonable that these documents should be produced considering that his father is Kenyan, his adoptive father is Indonesian, and his grandmother claims to have been present at this birth in Kenya. If he is a natural born citizen of the United States then producing these documents should not be any problem.

The suspicions regarding his qualifications to assume the Office of the President of the United States will not go away until Mr. Obama produces proof of his citizenship to federal authorities and the public. If he will not do so voluntarily, he must be compelled by every means available. You, as a representative of the People, have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

We the People are demanding that you, as our representative, make every effort, both public and private, to resolve this fundamental Constitutional question before January 20, 2009.


For God's sake, Mr. Obama, show us your Birth Certificate--not a worthless "certification" of live birth! If there's nothing to hide, put this distressing and potentially explosive constitutional issue behind us once and for all! Don't allow a dark cloud of toxic suspcion to cloak the legitimacy of your Presidency and Administration. Do the right thing before it spins out of control.

(NOte: After many hours of digging, I finally managed to pull together a rather comprehensive--though certainly not exhaustive--sequential summary of the law since 1790 as it specifically relates to the "natural born citizen' requirement. Though unavoidably lengthy, I felt that since the legal challenges are far from over, my having something of a legal summary handy might be helpful. If interested in reviewing the summary, on 12/20 it will appear on this blog under the heading "SCOTUS-POTUS Legal Summary". And since there are so many issues out there just screaming for attention, after these two SCOTUS-POTUS posts I will refocus my energies. Besides, I need a break. But, I will also keep my eye on S-P developments as well. Of that you may be certain.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Obama's Birth Certificate Still Mysteriously Off-Limits

Further to my two previous posts regarding this seminal matter, I thought these related items might be of more than passing interest to you as well.

While awaiting a SCOTUS decision--probably on Monday, the date the Electors vote--as to whether or not the full Court will hear the Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz suit questioning Obama's constitutional eligibility to be President, it should be noted that Sec 3 of the 20th Amendment stipulates that the Electoral College is the place and time to challenge a candidate's credentials and that the Electors, for whom we actually voted, have the right and responsibility to do so if, course, there is cause. In a real sense, they have been described as the "gatekeepers" in such matters.

The Amendment identifies "the time prior to inauguration" for challenges to be made to the qualifications of both Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. Thus, the Electors have the specific constitutional right to request a candidate's credentials in Court and also before the Electoral College with Congress acting as adjudicators. SOOOO, even if SCOTUS disallows a full hearing of the Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz suit, there is still ample time to pursue legal avenues to compel Obama to verify his constitutional qualifications to be President.

You may recall that Obama and his team of three law firms has steadfastly refused to produce the "vaulted" copy of his original Birth Certificate in Hawaii. Doing so, of course, would clarify the matter of his birth once and for all. Unfortunately, he has deigned to produce only a "Certificate of Live Birth" which, even if it's not a fake, omits the name of the hospital where he was born, the name of the attending physician, witnesses, etc.

To further complicate evidentiary matters of his birth, I found that S.338.17.8 of Hawaii's Revised Statutes, in effect, allows Hawaii's Director of Health to issue "Certificates of Live Birth" to children not even born in Hawaii so long as the legal parents have "declared the State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year preceding the birth or adoption of such child." Proof of residency is left up to the discretion of the Director of Health. Questions, anyone?

By way of review, Article I, Sec 2, the so-called Presidential Clause of the Constitution, requires that a Presidential candidate be a "natural born citizen", that he be 35 years of age, and that he has resided in the US for at least 14 years.

Further, US Title 8 Sec 1401 provides that US citizenship alone is not sufficient to qualify one for President or Vice President. He or she MUST be a natural born citizen without, of course, any question of dual loyalties or citizenship.

On 10/31/08, Hawaii's Director of Health verified that he had "personally seen" OBH's orginal Birth Certificate. So we know it exists. However, in his sworn statement, the Dir. of Health did not at any time verify OBH's place of birth or any other pertinent info regarding the document--only that he had personally seen the document.

Cannot it be reasonably inferred that Obama's refusal to produce the original birth certificate or certified long form of same mean that he was not born in the US? In the absence of verifiable proof to the contrary, then the inferrence is, to me, entirely defensible.

And when his choice of Secretary of Commerce, Gov. Bill Richardson, stated to a throng of Hispanic supporters that "Barack Obama is an immigrant," should that not also be cause for justifiable concern? Or was it just follhardy campaign exuberance. Who really knows?

And when OBH's paternal grandmother said she was present during Barack's birth in Kenya, and when OBH's sister, Maya Soetoro, named two different Hawaiian hospitals where Obama may have been born, are not these items cause for concern as well?

And when young Obama was taken to Indonesia by his adoptive Indonesian parent, Leo Soetoro, where he attended a school to which only Indonesian citizens were permitted to enroll and where school records list OBH's citizenship as Indonesian, shouldn't a reasonable person be expected to ask questions? Or was that simply a matter of fraudulent enrollment? Who knows?

Where or where is that elusive Birth Certificate, President-elect Obama? Now, would a good 'ole polished Chicago politican like you be hiding something fro us little 'ole hayseeds? IF NOT, then, as they say in Missouri,"show me!" (Sorry. Couldn't resist that jab. I, like you, don't like being toyed with.)

And to complicate the matter further, as if that's even remotely possible at this juncture--EVEN IF he can prove he was born on US soil, thus a US Citizen, that is but ONE of two eigibility hurdles he must overcome. From a Constitutional standpoint, he may still NOT a "natural born citizen" as required by the Presidential Clause. Since he was born of a US Citizen and an alien father, the latter from which, according to the Constitution's meaning, he derives his "attachment" or "loyalty", and since his faher was a British citizen at the time of Obama's birth in 1961, this would render Obama an ineligible "dual citizen" of the US and Great Britain, most certainly a constitutional no-no within the context of Art I, Sec 2.

As I research this subject further, I will share pertinent "notes" with you. Your comments, questions would be greatly appreciated. They make me think and dig more deeply. And in such sobering matters, thinking and digging are exactly what's required. Not just whimsical ideological blathering and parsing.)

Friday, December 12, 2008

Obama's "Natural Born Citizenship" Issue Still Very Much Alive

Further to my previous post regarding Obama's constitutional eligibility--or ineligibility--to be President and the two more prominent suits filed with the Supreme Court which took issue with his eligibility, if the purpose of the news media is to objectively report the facts, thereby educating "we the people", then the reporting we read in the Democrat & Chronicle's December 9th issue was, as we might have anticipated, very disappointing, indeed.

Headlined "Court Rejects Latest Obama Suit", the writer, one David Savage of the Chicago Tribune, noted that the Donofrio-Wells suit had been turned down by the Supreme Court on December 8th.And so it had.

Savage went on to explain that the basis for the Donofrio suit was "a provision in the Constitution that says no person except a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the office of the president."

In the next stand-alone paragraph, Savage simplistically and misleadingly asserted that "Any person born in this country is considered under U.S. law to be a natural born citizen." Wow! So who needs the Supreme Court when we have David Savage! There you have it, folks. A done deal. What more is there to say about this subject? Savage is our constitutional savant, the Man!

Arrogance and shoddy journalism at its best. And we wonder why Americans are so uninformed. But, hey, the heretofore off-limits story was at least covered and with fairly bold headlines to boot. That alone borders on the momentous and is justifiable cause for celebration in these halcyon days of political correctness and self-imposed timidity. So, I suppose we should count our blessings as well.

As discussed in my previous post on December 7th, accurately defining "natural born citizen" within the context of one's eligibility to serve as President or Vice President is much more elusive and complex than Savage would have us believe. Clearly, the 'ole boy is a lousy investigative and/or legal journalist. Thus, if finding the truth is our goal, Savage's story most certainly reminds us how very important it is that we supplement any newspaper reading with some careful research of our before drawing any educated conclusions--on ANY subject of ANY value or importance.

By way of update, regarding the Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz case which I discussed in Update #5 of my previous post, as of tonight there is no word as to its fate at the Supreme Court. Having been rejected by Justice Ginsberg, it was taken up and referred by Justice Scalia to private Supreme Court conference this morning, December 12th. A ruling on whether or not it will be heard by the full court won't be rendered until Monday, December 15th.

Like the Donofrio suit which was rejected after review by Supreme Court conference on Mondy, December 8th, it should be carefully noted that if these suits were frivolous, they would have both been immediately rejected by the court from the outset, thus denying them the dignity of a Supreme Court conference review by all Justices. So, clearly, folks, the facts of these cases are not without merit.

With as much brevity as possible, and as clearly as possible, I will keep you updated on developments as this issue unfolds. Word has it that there could be as many 100+ suits out there being prepared for filing with the Supreme Court. So, it's not over, folks. Not by a long shot.

(For a little more detail and give-and-take regarding this issue, you might want to check out the commentary following my December 7th post on of same title as my post below.)

Will keep you updated.

Saturday, December 6, 2008

Murky Birth Certificate Issue Still Unresolved

This will surely ruffle some feathers. So be it.

Nagging and compelling questions regarding Obama's legal qualifications to become Commander-in-Chief continue to pop up on the internet--and not merely on the blogging fringes, but on what appear to be entirely credible and reputable sites as well. The media, of course, is, in typical fashion, entirely ignoring the story. At the considerable risk of being labelled a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist or poor Conservative loser, I thought the matter warranted at least a brief summary here.

FACT: Seventeen law suits in 12 states are underway to compel Obama to provide an "authentic & verifiable U.S. Birth Certificate" to prove he meets all constitutional eligibility rquirements to become President. So far, the Obama team has succcessfully rebuffed these attempts. Why? That's the really nagging question for me.

Currently spearheaded by the U.S. Justice Foundation (USJF), these suits don't appear to be ill-conceived, arbitrary, mean-spirited, myopically partisan efforts to merely disgrace the President-elect or to unfairly invalidate his election by over 60 million American voters. To me anyway, USJF's suit, among others, appears to be a straightforward, fact-based effort to force Obama to validate that he is a natural-born American citizen, one of 3 criteria mandated by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. Unfortunately, and quite mysteriously, a similar effort on the part of 17 petitioners around the country is still being rigorously resisted by the Obama legal team. Why?

To date, individual court actions, e.g. the more well-known Berg vs Obama/DNC suit in Pennsylvania, have failed owing to court rulings that the petitioners "lack standing"--NOT that the facts of the suits themselves are without merit or in dispute. And that's an important distinction to bear in mind as this matter unfolds.

If the courts rule that USJF, a well-established entity which one can readily assume possesses sufficient "standing" and stature to bring suit, also "lacks standing" to bring suit in this matter, then shouldn't we all be concerned that "we the people" likely "lack standing" as well? And if we "lack standing" to bring suit on such a seminal issue, then who does? Surely a sobering question.

Should it be discovered that President-elect Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be President well after he has assumed that role, would not all laws, treaties or executive orders he may have had a hand in be constitutionally invalid--in effect, null and void? Not at all a pleasant prospect.

Still at issue, then, is whether Obama is, in fact, and in accordance with the Constitution and prevailing Immigration & Naturalization Service rules and regulations, a natural-born citizen and, if he is, that he has not lost that citizenship when his biological mother married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia.

As of this writing, it should be further noted that the Certificate of Live Birth posted on the internet by the Obama team earlier this year does not--according to the Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands--authenticate Obama's Hawaiian birth. Shouldn't that raise reasonable doubts as to Obama's eligibility? Of course it should. So, why is the Obama team still refusing to produce Obama's birth certificate? If it exists, produce it. If it doesn't exist, explain why.

If it is true that Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be President, much less a Senator from Illinois, the ensuing constitutional crisis will be like none other in our history. Not even the drama of Watergate and Nixon's resignation could compare. And the specter of a possible Biden presidency--if, in fact, that would be constitutionally allowed--with Nancy Pelosi next in line doesn't sit well with me at all.

Since USJF's suit and the others will take years to litigate, of special interest is a little known suit inititated on November 3rd by one Leo Donofrio, a retired lawyer, asking the New Jersey Secretary of State to prohibit Obama AND McCain AND the Socialist Worker Party candidate, Roger Calero, from appearing on the NJ Presidential Ballot on the grounds that none of them had met the natural-born citizenship test to run for President. On December 5th, just 10 days before the Electoral College votes, all U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS)Justices will have met privately to discuss Donofrio's case. (Keep your ear to the ground, folks, and let's honestly hope a constitutional crisis can be averted. Worse, of course, would be a cover-up. We can weather a constitutional crisis, but, in my opinion, a cover-up would be an unmitigated disaster for the Republic.)

Still, the lingering question is why won't the Obama team simply produce the Birth Certificate being requested? Why?

(UPDATE #1: Today, none other than the Washington Times reports that a spokesperson for SCOTUS said a decision on whether to hear Donofrio's case will likely be announced next week. A very interesting development. In other words, SCOTUS hasn't refused to consider the case; it has delayed its decision on the matter. Note: for SCOTUS to consider the case, at least 4 Justices must be on board. Will keep you posted. Again, for the good of the country, let's hope all is on the up-and-up.)

(Update #2: As I delve more deeply, the constitutional ramifications become increasingly fascinating. My cursory research suggests that if Obama is rendered ineligible, either the Electors--for whom we actually voted on Nov 4th--will elect a President, or the election of a President will be left to the House of Representatives. Whichever the case, again let's hope that the facts of the case will determine the electoral outcome, and not political machinations, intrigue and ideology. Let's hope that the Justices, both liberal and conservative, will uphold our Constitution to the letter.)

(Update #3: A new twist: while Donofrio's suit concedes OBH was born in Hawaii, he contends that since his Kenyan father was a British citizen at the time of OBH's birth in 1961 that OBH is a British citizen and not a "natural born U.S. citizen". Note: Kenya was ruled by Britain as British East Africa until its independence in 1963. Donofrio advises other petitioners that the Lolo Soetoro issue is but a distraction. Very interesting.)

(UPDATE #4: without comment, SCOTUS today (12/8) turned down Donofrio's appeal. Thus, a legally binding definition of the Constitution's "natural born citizen" provision as may have been intended by the Framers vs "born in the USA" remains in doubt and is conveniently left for another day, another suit and another Supreme Court. Good luck and Godspeed, President-elect Obama.)

(Update #5: Wow! This is becoming like that proverbial suspense novel one simply can't put down. Anyway this: fast on the heels of Donofrio's suit is the Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz suit, an end-run to compel SCOTUS to render Obama ineligible for the Presidency. In short, this suit questions the validity of and urges SCOTUS to decide upon the merits of the suit's claim that Pres. Chester A. Arthur was ineligibile to be President on the grounds that his father was, under prevailing US law, a British citizen. Carbon copy of the Donofrio vs Wells claim. If SCOTUS decides against Arthur, then it must decide against Obama. Justice Scalia has reviewed this new suit and is distributing it to whole conference on December 12th, 3 days before the Electors meet. The plot thickens.)

Monday, November 17, 2008

Questions About Bailouts & the Threat of Socialism

What's wrong with offering loans to US automakers on the condition that they commit themselves to immediate chapter 11 reorganization? It seems to me that in doing so the principal sources of their insolvency, i.e. overpaid union workers, princely benefits plans and defective management, can be cut down to manageable size. Result: the industry will finally become more competitive with Toyota, among other auto makers, and American jobs will be protected. Am I being simplistic or is this just plain 'ole commonsense? And especially in these trying times, can or should the unions and managers in Detroit have their frosted cake and eat it too? In short, should failure be rewarded in a free market?

Also, at a time when national solvency itself is at risk, why are the President-elect and his congressional minions pressing for passage of the Jubilee Act (S.2166) and the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), all in an effort to help implement the UN Milennium Development Goal.

The Jubilee Act forgives $75 billion in debts owed to the USA with little convincing proof that recipient countries will not again irresponsibly slip into onerous debt.

And with the idealistic goal of reducing by 1/2 the proportion of people worldwide who live on less than $1/day, the Global Poverty Act dramatically increases US foreign aid by $845 billion over a 13-year period. This is over and above the $65 billion/yr in foreign aid the USA already spends. Can we afford this profligacy? Or is this old humanitarian worker just being cheap and uncaring?

Ultimately, can a vibrant and essentially self-correcting free market operating within the realm of natural economic laws sustain itself without the infusion of legislative mandates and gargantuan financial stimulants? And can untested governmental interventions, aka "fixes", unintentionally (or otherwise) imperil the efficacy of a free market? In our politicians' haste to fix the economy's financial problems, will our free market economy irreversibly morph into Socialism?

My not being an economics major, I'm just not sufficiently knowledgeable to adequately answer these questions myself. Anyone out there have any instructive comments?

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

My Discouraging Chat with Rep. Slaughter

During a vet recognition luncheon yesterday, I briefly spoke with Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), an invited speaker.

Following the usual pleasantries and before the festivities were underway, I asked Louise what she thought about Sen. Schumer's characterization of conservative talk radio as "pornography", and whether or not that was symptomatic of Democrats' wanting to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine which, to me, was tantamount to breaching free speech. Her carefree demeanor morphed into a decidedly defensive posture and she quickly countered that the doctrine had been around since 1939 and that it was nothing to worry about. (Her logic was interesting. Slavery was the law of the land for a very long time too before that abysmally odious practice was outlawed.) She proceeded to quickly deny that Sen. Schumer said what he had reportedly said and went on to pronounce that the airwaves belong to the people and that equal time for both points of view was needed. Calmly maintaining eye contact and without wavering, I politely pointed out that the free market belonged to "us" all as does "our" choice as to which station "we" can tune in. I asked if she had any problem with "our" exercising "free choice" in this regard and informed her that I periodically listen to Air America, but that owing to the station's sophomoric and mean-spirited dialogue I could never stomach more than 10 minutes at a time and invariably switched to other stations for balance and information. She appeared a tad taken aback by my unwillingness to allow her "congressional awe" to deter me. She countered by saying that the Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with free speech. "Of course it does," I gently countered.

I then asked her if she planned to push the Fairness Doctrine. She dodged and tried to drift away from me. I asked her to please reflect carefully if that is her position and intention; that her decision should be based upon "country first" and not "party first", noting that that's what we veterans are all about.

Though obviously discomfited by my polite determination, we briefly touched on other subjects, like Obama and how genuinely fearful I am of his presidency. Trying to reassure me on that score, she said that I should just listen to what he says. "If you listen to what he says you have nothing to worry about," she confidently asserted. Momentarily speechless by her exasperatingly vacuous pronouncement, I quickly and calmly assured her that "unlike too many Americans, I HAVE very carefully listened to him and have very carefully examined his record, and that that's precisely why I AM worried."

Realizing she wasn't making any headway on that score, she then asked if I didn't like Medicare and Social Security. I responded that I did, noting that both needed reform and that without proper reform they are both additional train wrecks in the making. As anticipated, she asked if I would have been happy "had the Republicans gotten their way by privatizing Social Security." I courteously parried by noting that the GOP was advocating that only a small percentage of one's social security deduction was to have been privatized, and then only if the taxpayer chose to do so, and that, for me, it's a free choice issue and that I would be surprised if others would have a problem with a person's exercising his or her free choice.

She finally managed to gracefully and deftly drift away. We courteously bid each other farewell, and she took her seat at the head table and I mine with my vet colleagues in the audience.

Unfortunately, this brief exchange served only to reinforce my concerns about the left. For Rep. Slaughter and so many others like her in D.C. I am convinced that narrow ideological interests and party pre-eminence will ALWAYS trump common sense and country. This exchange further convinced me that whenever we have an opportunity to speak with our reps, we should go out of our way to do so. And we should never feel intimidated by their lofty station in life. We should bear in mind that they are but folks not unlike most others we know in our daily lives. They don't have the corner on wisdom, intelligence or reality. But, for these exchanges to be reasonably constructive, no matter how brief they may be, one should always be courteous and certain of one's positions.

Frankly, I wish our exchange yesterday had been heard by everyone in the room. Indeed, everyone in the county. It was revealing and, yes, so very, very unsettling.

Friday, November 7, 2008

Hope & Prayer are Good, But Vigilance is Best

With the heady presidential election behind us, and still somewhat numb and battered from the drubbing, I've just a few things to say for now.

Given the "financial meltdown" erroneously attributed to the GOP, it is nothing short of remarkable that McCain garnered 46% of the vote. Thus, there are at least 55 million Americans who remain deeply skeptical and profoundly concerned about what an Obama presidency might really mean for our country. The truth is that for both Democrats and Republicans alike the president-elect is still very much an unknown quantity, a wild card, an enigma.

Unquestionably, being unified as Americans is always in our best interests. But goody-two-shoes demonstration of unity around this President-elect would be patently myopic and irresponsible. While respectful of the office of the presidency, sensible Americans should continue to be justifiably wary. Being depressed is not in our therapeutic best interests in any event.

Clearly We the People now, more than ever, constitute the only viable check on any socialist excesses which the Obama administration may wish to perpetrate. After all is said and done, a filibuster-proof Senate remains a menacing possibility. So, in the end, it's going to be up us to keep the new administration and congress on an even keel.

My sincerest hope is that Obama will be as pragmatic in his governance as he was in his uniquely successful campaigning, and that fears of his socialist and/or Marxist proclivities have been grossly misguided. Could it be that the hardcore leftist ideological mentoring in his earlier years may not have motivated his single-minded drive to occupy the White House. If true, then perhaps we can reasonably hope that his disturbingly radical associations were either anomalies or merely naive adolescent flirtations, and that they will in no way fundamentally shape his stewardship over the freest, most powerful and most economically vibrant country in the world today.

Let us pray that American traditions and values will be rigorously safeguarded by the new President and that far-left demands and influences will be given short shrift. Let us also pray that Obama's revisionist interpretation of our Constitution, which he will swear to preserve, protect and defend, will not hold sway.

More specifically, it is hoped that Obama, the President, confronted with the harsh reality of national leadership, a faltering economy, and a host of dangerous enemies, will reverse his campaign pledge to slow or drastically curtail new weapons development and the further diminution of our anti-missile defense capability. Let us hope that campaign pledges of tax increases will be either postponed or abandoned, thus ensuring that recession doesn't morph into preventable economic depression.

Among other critical issues, let us also hope that he will in no way help re-impose the God-awful "Fairness Doctrine", unilaterally extend to illegals and terrorists unwarranted and inappropriate rights and privileges, champion debilitating cap-and-trade legislation, or approve passage of the loathsome "Employee Free Choice Act". And let's hope for a commonsense "all-of-the-above" energy policy to free us from foreign energy dependence once and for all.

Ironic that it is now the turn of "country-first" Americans to hope--hope that the "change" about which Obama so eloquently spoke means more than his own personal ambition to be elected President. Let us hope, but let us be ever-vigilant and prepared to stop cold any socialist excesses and heavy-handedness. We've much to lose as a country and, therefore, much to protect.

("The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Thomas Jefferson)

("I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson)

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Insidious Socialist Tide Likely Unstoppable--The Last Gleaming

Since America seems to have been inexorably drawn to the left for a long time now, perhaps the ascendancy to the Oval Office of the most far-left and disturbingly enigmatic politician in our nation's history should not be altogether surprising. Spurred on by the financial market meltdown, the socialist ascendancy in America has, unfortunately, occurred far sooner than I could have anticipated.

How far left have both the political parties moved over the years? Were JFK be alive today, particularly in the area of economic policy, his decidedly conservative governing priniciples would be in stark contrast to the uninspired and progressive big government approach of both political parties today. While JFK would be stunned with the gargantuan size and scope of the federal government today, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would be utterly staggered and brokenhearted.

Dominated by the elitist and progressive Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumverate, the transformation begun on January 20, 2009 to more intrusive big government, suffocatingly higher taxes and spending, further expansion of already bloated bureaucracies and domineering unions, and to the globalist and environmentalist deconstruction of America will be on a fast track. And, of course, our military and weapons development programs, e.g. the anti-missle defense system, will again be eviscerated in order to pay for expanded government giveaways and other vote-mining programs, again rendering our country vulnerable to attack and to Islamofascist subversion from within.

But that's not all. To consolidate power, every attempt, surreptitious and otherwise, will be made by the socialist overseers in D.C. to more aggressively silence opposing political viewpoints and to indoctrinate our youth in socialist precepts. (That process has already been underway with the help of BHO sycophants in public schools and professorial burn-outs from the 60's era.) Political correctness will be more than a nuisance. It will take precedence over commonsense.

Newly appointed Supreme Court justices will be in the Ginsberg, aka ACLU, mold, and efforts will be made to once again curtail our 2nd amendments rights, a unborn babyies right-to-life, and to suppress secret ballot rights of workers. Illegal immigrants will get a free ride (at our expense) and terrorists will be further coddled to the detriment of effective law enforcement and our own security.

A clean sweep of the White House and Congress by an emboldened Democratic Party hijacked and bankrolled by the far-left will usher in the greatest expansion of government since FDR. Our Founding Fathers' principles of small government, states rights, personal liberty and free enterprise will have been dealt a devastating blow from which the nation may not easily--if at all--recover. But fully recover, it probably never will.

If the Democratic Party takeover is complete, failed Euro-style socialism and secularist dominion will have been democratically embraced by a starry-eyed, what's-in-it-for-me electorate seduced by soaring, yet empty and misleading, messianic rhetoric.

An empty-headed pop culture in combination with a craven appetite for bread-and-circuses (entitlements) will have conspired to effectively weaken the very foundations of a once thriving and dynamic experiment in private enterprise and individual freedom. In short, a gullible and misguided American electorate may well have given away all that has made America so profoundly exceptional and uniquely successful. And we'll ALL get hurt in the aftermath.

In the absence of a responsible, dutiful, properly informed and vigilant electorate, the only check on this abuse of power will be conservative talk radio and other divergent media outlets which the Progressive apparachicks are already plotting to shut down with the re-imposition of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. That done, the takeover will be virtually complete. The gallant American experiment, the envy of the world, will be on its way to disrepute and ruin. Like the mighty Roman Empire, our nation's unraveling will have come from within--not from without. We will be our own undoing.

Because most Americans are dominated by wild-eyed emotion, misplaced fears, and/or stubbornly shortsighted ideology, the helm of state is slowly but surely slipping into the hands of self-serving and entirely opportunistic Washington bureaucrats, lobbyists, unionists, environmentalists, and career politicians, many of whom are hostile to America's rich traditions and values and solely dedicated to preserving and expanding their political power at the expense of "we the people". With the complete Democratic takeover in November 2009, the helm of state may have irretrievably slipped from our hands altogether.

As for me, I'm deeply and unashamedly troubled by the prospect of the far-left's occupation of the once venerable Oval Office. The ascendancy of Speaker Pelosi was difficult enough to endure. But, my White House being defiled by a socialist occupation is simply too painful to bear. After the count is in and the left's victory--and America's defeat--is confirmed on November 4th, my flag, which has proudly and prominently flown non-stop from atop my 30-ft flag pole for the last 8 years, will be mercifully, respectfully and quietly retired. I will sorely miss her. Replacing her will be the historical Culpeper Flag ("Give me Liberty or Give me Death, Don't Tread on Me"). Old Glory will again be proudly unfurled on my property only when I can be confident that America has properly cleansed itself of the socialist contagion. Demonstrable and convincing respect on the part of this government for America's cherished traditions and values must be satisfactorily restored before She flies again.

God bless America.

("The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing what happened." Norman Thomas, Socialist Party of America, circa 1925)

("That government which is big enough to give all you want is big enough to take it all away; that government is best which governs least, because the people discipline themselves." Thomas Jefferson)

("Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it's a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington)

Hello, out there! Is anyone listening to these guys?

Monday, October 13, 2008

McCain Must Take His Own Advice--"Fight!"

The next three weeks will be acutely unsettling for those who are hoping for a McCain-Palin victory on November 4th.

Although it's difficult to foresee with any certainty the outcome of this seminal election, intuitively it looks like an Obama victory. In view the deeply troubling economic upheavel, a 2-term GOP presidency to conveniently blame for it, an electorate historically predisposed to voting against the party whose leader has occupied the WH for any consecutive 8-year period, and a disturbingly starry-eyed electorate especialy susceptible to promises of bread-and-circuses and other entitlements, it seems preposterous to believe that Mickey Mouse himself, were he the Democratic candidate, would fail to prevail at the ballot box in November.

However, with so very much on the line this time, i.e. the end of an America our Founding Fathers had intended and for which so much precious American blood has been shed, I can only hope that for the sake of the country--and not merely his candidacy--Senator McCain will take the proverbial gloves off during the debate on October 15th and lay it all on the line for us all to see. He owes that to America. To paraphrase him, "I'd rather lose an election than a war." Fine. But, let's hope that he's also willing to risk losing this election to save his country from an Obama-Pelosi-Reid socialist tyranny.

So neatly packaged and insulated from scutiny by six masterful PR marketing firms and a fawning media, Obama's unprecedentedly sinister associations become all the more important, and properly so. A man's character, judgement, philosophy and worldview must be manifest to the electorate before the reins of presidential power are consigned to his care. For this reason, I sincerely believe that our very survival as a free market democracy depends upon Sen McCain's "fighting" for us as never before. Yes, Sen. McCain should speak plainly about his economic plan to help rescue the country from its credit excesses and congressional corruption, but more than ever before it is encumbent upon Sen. Reach-Across-the-Aisle McCain to expose Obama once and for all. To my way of thinking, it is his sacred and patriotic duty to do so--come what may. Frankly, he has nothing to lose by doing so, and America has much to gain if it's successfully done.

We have a country to lose if Sen McCain fails to honestly and forthrightly step up by forcing the character issue on Wednesday. I pray he does the right thing.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Beware "Employee Free Choice Act"

With private sector union membership at a 50-year low (7.4% of workers), labor bosses understand that the secret ballot will no longer serve their parochial interests. But, fear not--the Democrats are coming to their rescue again. For the Dem leadership, any accommodation is possible if it means more political contributions and an expanded voter base.

Though public opinion solidly supports federally supervised secret ballot elections to form unions, to curry union boss favor liberals are now pushing for passage of the deceptively-named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) which will replace secret ballot elections with a "card check" system. Under attack by none other than Senator George McGovern, this undemocratic "card check" system will enable union organizers to elicit a worker's support for unionizing merely by persuading the worker to publicly sign an "authorization card". And so long as a simple majority of workers have publicly signed a card, the union is a fait accompli. (Note: even the U.S. Supreme Court has opined--understatedly--that the card check system is "inferior to the election process.")

If passed, EFCA would strip workers of their right to privacy and free choice and would surely expose them to intimidation, deception and coercion from both their peers and outside union organizers.

Always the suspiciously vocal champion of individual rights and the "little guy", behind the scenes the Dems are again assailing Americans' personal liberties, this time in the workplace.

Among a wide array of excesses, be prepared for reimposition of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", repeal of the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) and, of course, unfettered abortion "rights" should the Dems take over in January.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Serious Energy Policy a Top Priority

Posted/Published D&C October 8, 2008

On September 23rd, the Dems conceded defeat in their cynical bid to extend the 1981 offshore drilling ban which mercifully expired September 30th.

While the concession doesn't portend imminent federal sale of offshore oil and gas leases, for the moment it does hold at bay foreign oil producers and those pesky speculators who were hoping for an extension of the ban and a corresponding short-term spike in oil prices.

However, still very much missing is passage of a "comprehensive, all-of-the-above energy bill" without which emergy prices will surely soar once the ameliorating effect of the ban's expiration has subsided.

Without a serious and timely "comprehensive energy policy", consumers and an economy already shaken by years of grotesque government mismanagement and intrusion in the free market could soon be facing insurmountable economic challenges. (Looming still are Medicaid and social security, two more government-induced disasters in the making.)

To restore our economic vitality, let's vote for a President who will push for aggressive offshore drilling and a country-first Congress which will quickly pass a comprehensive energy bill.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Obama's "95% Tax Cut" Ruse

As we patiently listen to Sen. Obama's tedious torrent of socialist mantras like "economic fairness" and "leveling the playing field", we would all do well to clearly remember just who pays the taxes in these United States.

When speaking about tax policy with Obama disciples, we must intellectually challenge them with, among other truths, this verifiably indisputable FACT:

"According to the IRS, 75% of tax filers in the top
5% income bracket are small busniness owners who create
75% of new jobs in America."

To help lead our liberal friends further into the light, here's a breakdown of what portion of total taxes collected is already paid by the various income brackets:

Top 5%..........60%
Top 10%.........70%
Top 25%.........86%
Top 50%.........98%
Bottom 50%.......0%

This straightforward IRS breakdown means that Obama's oft-repeated and seductive promise of a "tax cut" for 95% of taxpayers is shamelessly misleading. (In impolite circles it would be called a "lie".) Simply put, since 50% of low and middle income earners pay no tax, then 50% of Obama's 95% figure will NOT get a tax cut. What they will get is a bread-and-circuses, vote-buying welfare check. Again, not a "tax cut".

Finally, history has proven over and over and over again that taxing business stymies job growth and economic prosperity. Thus, imposing higher taxes on the top 5%--75% of whom are small businesses which create 75% of new jobs--would severely hurt the very people whom the liberals loftily profess they so desperately want to help. Unblievable. The twisted logic of socialism.

Now that this is off my chest, let the Obama chicanery resume--but, in part, pre-exposed this time around. And let's none of us be reluctant to enlighten those Obamaniacs who, despite the intrusion of facts in their lives, opt to see and "feel" otherwise.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Dems Concede Defeat on Drilling Ban Extension

We count our blessings while we can.

With prospects of Senate passage of HR 6899 dim and anticipating a Bush veto if it were, yesterday the Dems dropped their bid to extend the 1981 offshore drilling ban which expires on September 30th. A singular victory for American consumers and a tribute to the dogged determination of the Republican minority on the otherwise infamous Hill.

While the Democratic concession doesn't portend imminent federal sale of offshore oil and gas leases, it likely stems any immediate speculative spikes in oil prices and certainly buoys the spirits and aspirations of the "drill here, drill now" crowd.

So, for the moment, American consumers can breathe a sigh of relief. Now if D.C. can but untangle the morass of bureaucratic red tape to expedite actual drilling operations.

One step at a time, I guess. And we'd best watch our backs: the ever-ruthless party-first Pelosi-Reid diumverate will continue to shamelessly conspire against any actual drilling operations and any commonsense and comprehensive "all of the above" energy policies as well. Loyalty to their enviro-lobbyist buddies still very much outweighs their loyalty to country.

Monday, September 22, 2008

Pelosi's Energy Bill a Shameless Hoax

Without floor debate or committee discussion, on Tuesday, September 16th, Nancy Pelosi, in her usual tyrannical and heavy-handed manner, ramrodded HR 6899 through the House of "Representatives".

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) labeled the Pelosi bill a "bait and switch" which "won't produce one drop of oil for many years to come."

The American Petroleum Institute (API) characterized the bill as "a dry hole for the American consumer...[which] will make Americans more dependent on foreign energy."

Looks like our Machiavellian me-first San Fran Nan and her liberal "party-first" minions have done it again: swindled "we the people". Let's pray for cooler heads in the Senate where this preposterous bill is headed.

Passing along essentially party lines, this so-called "compromise, comprehensive, all-of-the-above energy bill" permanently prevents America's accessing 80%--that's 80%!!!--of its offshore energy reserves, prohibits exploration in nearly 90% of the outer continental shelf, blocks energy production in the Western US, and, for the first time, prohibits energy production in arctic Alaskan waters. It also prohibits construction of any nuclear plants and, the coup de grace, levies $18B in taxes on the oil industry, the cost of which will, of course, be passed on to American consumers. And, yes, folks, there is pork. It's just too tantalizing for our "reps" on the Hill to resist.

In effect, this travesty of an energy bill extends the current moratorium on domestic drilling which would otherwise have expired on September 30th.

More specifically, the fine print imposes a 50-mile coastal ban on drilling where the largest known energy supplies exist, and allows drilling within 50-100 miles of the coast--but only with state approval and without any incentivizing revenue sharing mechanism in place to ensure state buy-in. Beyond the 100-mile range where there is precious little energy to be had, drilling is mercifully allowed by Politburo Chief Pelosi.

Nancy's environmental lobbyist contributors must be positively giddy and already feverishly scibbling checks for the DNC. And, of course, they must all be salivating in anticipation of a White House and Congress controlled by Dems and their socialist allies in November.

During these profoundly precarious economic times, wouldn't you think the Dems would try to do what's best for America first and not their environmentalist contributors? Or have they really shown their true colors for all to see? And, once again, those colors aren't red, white and blue! Imperiously ignored by autocratic congressional "leadership" once again, just when will the American people rise up and toss Comrade Pelosi and her elitist socialist bums on the street where they belong!

Better that Congress, the sop of special interests, were still on vacation than be allowed to perpetrate this debilitating hoax on America. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia, among other oil producers--and those pesky speculators lurking in the shadows--are most certainly buoyed by this outrage. Look for higher oil prices soon if the Senate rubberstamps this or a similarly odious energy bill.

Boy, are we in trouble. When our own "representatives" work at cross purposes with those they are supposed to represent--YOU and ME--what is our recourse?

("The citizen can bring political and governmental institutions back to life, make them responsive and accountable, and keep them honest. No one else can." John Gardner)

("The surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colours breaking through." Alexis de Tocqueville)

("A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." Edward R. Murrow)

Friday, September 19, 2008

Just What is a "Community Organizer"?

Bland though the subject may be, in view Sen. Obama's claim to community organizing fame, I felt it personally compelling to more precisely define what a Community Organizer really is. Allow me to share my meager findings.

When asked by his college classmates what a community organizer (CO)is, Sen. Obama is quoted in his autobiography as having stated "I couldn't answer them." Since my research is unable to develop an accurate, authoritative and widely accepted definition either, his reply, though unenlightening, is nonetheless some source of solace.

Though being protested, here is Wikipedia's tentative definition of "community organizing": "a process by which people living in close proximity to each other are brought together to act in their common self-interest. CO's act as area-wide coordinators of programs for different agencies in an attempt to meet community needs for various services. CO's work actively, as do other types of social workers, in community councils of social agencies and in community action groups. At times the role of CO's overlap that of social palnners."

Though Wikipedia is having a devil of a time defining CO and seems to concede that the definition may ultimately be a subjective exercise, it's important to note that the U.S. Occupational Outlook handbook doesn't list "community organizer" as a job listing. However, according to the U.S. government CO's "come under paid for nonprofits" and are defined as "activists [who] recruit and organize members of a common community to work for a cause, they publicize and lead community gatherings and discussions and meet with government agencies and the leaders of nonprofits."

(You may now stretch.)

Though this is probably more than you ever wanted to know about the subject, by the Wikipedia definition I gather that the local military recruiter could be said to be a CO. For that matter, a godfather of organized crime could be considered a CO. And though never self-identifed as such, Mahatma Ghandi, Marthin Luther King Jr., Christ, albeit our savior, and leaders of gay rights and anti-war activists could also be described as CO's.

So, after all is said and done, it appears that CO's are, in shorthand, "activists who recruit and organize members of a community to work for a cause." Just what cause is entirely up to the CO in question, and in Sen. Obama's case my research exposes precious little in the way of specific, substantive or otherwise remarkable accomplishments. (Perhaps CO accomplishments are not measureable, but who really knows.) So, how his CO experience has any significant relevance to his presidential qualifications is, at best, still painfully elusive.

Of special interest and concern to me, however, is the fact that during my research "community organizing" as a regimen/field/discipline/occupational speciality, especially as it relates to Chicago's South Side, appears to be built upon the socialist philosophy of one Saul Alinsky, a radical socialist who wrote "Rules for Radicals" (1971) and "Reveille for Radicals"(1946).

Alinsky championed "social reform", aka "change", which had as its aim the destruction of the upper and middle classes through political struggle and the redistribution of income. Alinsky's name continually popped up in my CO research, for it was his socialist activities and principles that guided the Developing Communities Project in Sough Side/Chicago for which Sen. Obama worked in 1985 for a $13K salary and the use of an automobile.

So, is it mere serendipity that such populist and seductive terms such as "change", "fairness", "economic security" and "social justice" are at the very core of Sen. Obama's presidential campaign rhetoric? I think not. For when one considers his choice of radical associations over the years and the strong expressions of support, outright endorsements and praise extended to him by the likes of the Democratic Socialists of America, Fidel Castro, Hamas, George Galloway,, Daily Kos, Louis Farrakhan, ACORN, Daniel Ortega, Hollywood elites, Qaddafi, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden and the Communist Party USA, among other far-leftists, the obvious answer to my query is academic. And it is on that basis that I believe America's got a very serious problem, perhaps insuperable, on its hands, i.e. a stealthy socialist takeover of the American government in November by a wily CO.

With the toxic specter of an Obama Administration in league with a Democratically-dominated Congress before us, it looks like all we can do is pray and work very hard to elect decent and well-grounded Republicans and Conservatives to Congress, continue to expose the excesses and chicanery of the Democratic elites at every turn, and to soundly defeat Obama at the polls. Let's wish ourselves and this great nation, already under seige, copious good fortune in this challenging endeavor.

Monday, September 15, 2008

McCain Proposes a "League of Democracies "

During a speech before the Hoover Institution on May 1st, Sen. McCain spoke about the formation of a "League of Democracies" which would enable "democratic friends and build a new global order of peace...that can last...for a century: and "where the dangers and threats we face diminish and where human progress reaches new heights."

Call me a wild-eyed idealist--of the conservative genre, of course--but such a pioneering concept in these treacherous and transformative times is, for me, very appealing and definitely worth exploring. Despite cynical detractors both on the left and the right, it's my belief that new challenges call for new approaches and, hopefully, remedies. For that reason, formation of the League is definitely worth pursuing.

Though I was unable to cull a lot of spedific information on this proposal, from what I've gleaned such a league is intended to be a viable and constructive alternative to a UN rife with parochial interests, corruption and ineptitude. It appears that the League would not supplant the UN; rather, it would, in parallel, independently supplement UN capabilities.

The theory goes that the nearly 100 democracies which would comprise this coalition would share common values and similar viewpoints on important matters, thus better ensuring more effective unified action on international issues and challenges of common concern. And, of course, as long as we don't delude ourselves in believing that such a league would morph into a "Grand Alliance" or otherise diminish the need for existing military alliances, such as they are, then a League of Democracies just might make the positive differences on the world scene McCain is hoping for.

Though international organizations have been inherently and notoriously ineffective, the League's greatest asset would be its constructive example which might well help to invigorate burgeoning democracies while encouraging a UN woefully in need of major reform to do so.

As a respectable international watchdog of sorts--with credible ecoomic, political and military leverage to boot--the League would be unconstrained by unconstructive and pftem irresponsible Security Council vetoes. Chances are probably better than even that a League of Democracies would be able to more effectively and quickly intercede in acute humanitarian crises like the Rwanda massacres and Darfur. As an international aid worker in my past life, possessing an aggressive humanitarian capability (my words) alone would render the League's formation well worth the effort. I suspect that the UN's role would be appropriately reduced to that of handling those humanitarian crises with which it would be more adept and familiar, e.g. UNICEF, UNHCR and less politically challenging disaster relief and peacekeeping operations worldwide. And, of course, the UN would continue to be a venue where international crises and concerns would be discussed--just not the only one.

In any event, I hope this concept has legs. Though it hasn't been talked about much by either Sen. McCain or the media, I believe it has genuine merit. If nothing else, it would serve to reinvigorate America's international diplomatic purpose and clout while enhancing the Free World's collective security as well. One would hope so anyway.

("Freedom lies in being bold." Robert Frost)

Sunday, September 7, 2008

Obama's Policy Positions a Clear and Present Danger

Over the past several months, I've attempted three times to responsibly outline Obama's policy positions, and despite his myriad "clarifications" and outright reversals I believe I have managed to pull together what is--today, at least--a fairly accurate picture of where he stands on many key issues.

Because of his more unscrupulous and nimble flip-flops on public financing, NAFTA, Iran, Iraq, Jerusalem, special interests, Cuba, gun control, wiretapping, illegal immigration and the decriminalization of marijuana, I have necessarily and heavily relied upon his actual voting record and his verifiable public pronouncements to more accurately gauge what are most likely his core beliefs, principles and positions. For better or for worse, here it is:

During his tenure as a state legislator in Illinois, he supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of hand guns and opposed the right to carry concealed weapons; he opposed a bill which would have prohibited anyone other than a parent to accompany a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion; he voted against SB 1661 which would protect a child born alive during an abortion from being denied medical care after birth; and he voted in favor of HB 3396 which would deny the right to a secret ballot to organize a union if 50% of eligible workers publicly supported unionization.

During his time as a U.S. Senator, he opposed listing Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization; he voted to restore habeas corpus rights to GITMO detainees; he pledged to remove all troops from Iraq by March 2008 (irrespective of the conditions on the ground); he supports the imposition of socialized/universal health care; he opposes school vouchers; he voted against banning partial birth abortions; he supports "alternative sentencing” and rehabilitation; he voted against the Bush tax cuts and repealing the Death Tax; he opposes declaring English as the official language of the U.S. government; he voted against confirming justices Alito and Roberts (and expressed his preference for justices like Ginsberg); he supports extending welfare, health care and social security benefits to illegal aliens; he pledges huge cuts in defense spending inclusive of funding for the anti-missile defense system and most other weapons research and development programs; he favors increasing the upper income tax bracket to 40% and supports levying a 12.5% FICA tax on ALL incomes, thus effectively rendering a 60% tax bracket for incomes over $250,000, the third highest rate in the world; he would nearly double the capital gains tax to 28% and nearly double the dividend tax; he supports passsage of the Global Poverty Act (an $845 billion boondoggle supported by the U.N. which insanely believes that such a gargantuan expenditure by American taxpayers will magically eliminate poverty in the developing world); he would require Homeland Security to notify terror suspects they are under investigation within seven days of starting an investigation; he would prohibit Homeland Security's search and seizure of documents unless there is "probable cause that the targeted individual is linked to a specific terror group" (vs the current standard that the search be "relevant to a terror investigation"); he opposes nuclear power, shale conversion, ANWR and offshore oil drilling.

I can already hear the flight of American capital as it flutters into offshore accounts and overseas investments.

Historically, the economic positions he champions have proven over and over again to be unworkable and economically destructive. The economic disincentives his policies would create and his massive spending plans would effectively debilitate America's economic competitiveness and, by most estimates, would increase the current deficit to a stifling $1 trillion by 2011!

To achieve his economic and political makeover of America, the scope and power of the government would also be grossly expanded well beyond even the limits advocated by the most progressive interpreters of the Constitution.

Apparently, his far left-wing formula for ostensibly improving Americans'lot in life is premised on what clearly appears to be his elitist and alien belief that individuals are incapable of helping themselves (despite all the evidence to the contrary), that the middle class needs to be bought off (with dollars exprpriated from the "wealthy"), and that the "upper income" class should be cut down to size, all in a Marxist effort to achieve "fairness" and "equality" through income redistribution and tighter government control over Americans' lives. (For verification of his socialist game plan, listen for the endless socialist code words "fairness" and "equality" in his florid and otherwise vapid rhetoric.)

Saul Alinksy, Karl Marx and liberal elites both in DC and on the ivy league circuit will be immensely proud of Obama, their student, if he can pull this off in November.

The crucial question is this: will enough Americans see the socialist which lurks beneath Obama's shiny veneer in time to save themselves and their country from him? Incredibly, it's still too early to tell.

Many Americans are loathe to allow a socialist takeover of an America whose traditions and values are so deeply ingrained and honored and for which so many friends and relatives have died defending.

Thank God the 2nd Amendment--though always under assault--is still alive and well.

("The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing what happened." Norman Thomas, Socialist Party of America, cir 1925)

("[Saul Alinsky] taught [community organizers] to ridicule opponents when the arguments of their opponents could not be refuted by logic, evidence, or argument; for Alinsky, the middle class was a pawn with which he could produce his desired "change" [aka social revolution] by convincing the middle class to side with him in its own destruction; Alinsky taught that power was everything and that image, words, and positioning were just methods to capture power, working from communities up." Dr. Jerome Corsi)

Friday, September 5, 2008

Critique of Obama's 9/4 Interview with O'Reilly

In short, you didn't miss a thing. It was totally uninformative and nauseatingly predictable. Obama's responses were hackneyed and characteristically nuanced. I honestly believe the man is either viscerally incapable of telling the truth or has been so blinded by his own shortsighted ideology that he cannot see the truth.

A prisoner of his finely honed talking points, Obama still couldn't bring himself to unambiguously admit the screamingly obvious fact that the "surge" has worked. And, as revealing, he again refused to admit that his opposing the surge was a mistake. So much for political courage and honor.

With a platform invested from the beginning in America's defeat in Iraq, he also disingenuously implied that the seminal Anbar "awakening"(rejection of AQI) was nothing more than a fortuitous phenomenon totally unrelated to the surge and to Gen. Patreaus's enormously successful counterinsurgency strategy.

And, of course, when queried about our enemies in the world, noticeable was his studious avoidance of the term "Islamofascism."

Yup. The "community organizer" and flimflam man from Illinois remains an accomplished spinmeister with the character of an asp.

Monday, September 1, 2008

Global Warming or Global Cooling?

Though difficult, one can still cull authoritative information which scientifically contests politically correct viewpoints regarding global warming. And with costly global warming-friendly legislation such as cap-and-trade threatening us all, we should do our best to stay informed.

In my June 9th post, I reported on the May 2008 submission of a petition to Congress and the President by 31,000 scientists representing the Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine which debunked doomsday global warming scenarios (such as those advanced by Gore and his political allies) and which warned against ill-conceived legislative fixes.

Now these latest tidbits from the scientific community:

1. Canadian climatologist T. Ball warns that "if we are facing a [global climate] crisis at all, it is that we are preparing for warming when we should be preparing for cooling."

2. Australian scientist Peter Harris asserts that "the Earth is nearing the end of the typical interglacial cycle and is due for a sudden cooling climate change." He goes on to say that "based upon careful analysis we can say that there is a 94% probability of imminent global cooling and the beginning of the coming ice age." He notes that climate is currently unstable and that "most of the natural climate processes we are witnessing now are interdependent and occur at the end of each interglacial period, ultimately causing sudden long-term cooling."

3. Noting that over the last 500,000 years there is a 100% correlation between gravitational cycles to the beginning and ending of global warming cycles, in his book, Global Warming - Global Cooling, Natural Causes Found, the culmination of 19 years of research, meteorologist D. Dilley writes that "by 2023 global climate temperatures will become similar to colder temperatures in the

4. The Russian Academy of Sciences warns that "Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells which started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate and no such thing as the hothouse effect." In a companion story, Oleg Sorakan of the Academy notes that "carbon dioxide is not to blame for global change," and goes on to say that "solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind."

5. Victor Herrera, a Mexican geophysicist, reports that global warming prognostications "are incorrect because they are based solely upon mathematical models and present results from scenarios that do not include solar activity." He concludes that "in 2 years or so there will be the beginnings of a little ice age that will last 60-80 years" and that "the immediate consequences of this will be drought."

6. UK astrophysicist P. Corbyn asserts that "there is no evidence that CO2 has ever driven or ever will drive world temperatures and climate change. Worrying about CO2 is irrelevant." And where have we heard that before?

7. A recent U.S. Senate committee report highlighted Russian physicists' collective projection that "global temperatures will cool--not warm--within the next decade."

So, despite the politicization of the subject, and the beltway's general acceptance of global warming as an incontrovertible fact of life, what is actually occurring in our global climate is still hotly contested among rank and file scientists.

On such a weighty subject, transparent and responsible scientific discussion of the subject at the national level should be demanded. A "climate change commission" comprised of scientists--not political hacks--who represent a variety of scientific viewpoints and perspectives on the subject of climate change should be immediately convened to develop a coherent body of data and recommendations for the consideration of both Congress and the President. Our government's attempting to legislate without the benefit of intelligent, apolitical scientific discussion is both shortsighted and insane. The damage to the country caused by the lethal mix of politics with science could be incalculable.