SO THAT WE NEVER FORGET
The Fundamental Transformation of America
When Obama wrote a book and said he was mentored as a youth by Frank, (Frank Marshall Davis) an avowed Communist,
people said it didn't matter.
When it was discovered that his grandparents were strong socialists, sent Obama's mother to a socialist school, introduced Frank Marshall Davis to young Obama,
People said it didn't matter.
When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school and his father and step father were both Muslims,
people said it didn't matter.
When he wrote in another book he authored “I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
people said it didn't matter.
When he admittedly, in his book,said he chose Marxist friends and professors in college, people said it didn't matter.
When he traveled to Pakistan, after college on an unknown national passport,
people said it didn't matter.
When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate,
people said it doesn't matter.
When he sat in a Chicago Church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew hatred for America and preach black liberation theology,
people said it didn't matter.
When an independent Washington organization that tracks senate voting records, gave him the distinctive title as the "most liberal senator",
people said it didn't matter.
When the Palestinians in Gaza set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for his election campaign,
people said it didn't matter.
When his voting record supported gun control,
people said it didn't matter.
When he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign as other candidates had done,
people said it didn't matter.
When he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan and Mummar Kadaffi and Hugo Chavez,
people said it didn't matter.
When it was pointed out that he was a total, newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing,
people said it didn't matter.
When he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals,
people said it didn't matter.
When his voting record in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question,
people said it didn't matter.
When he refused to wear a flag lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry,
people said it didn't matter.
When people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises,
people said it didn't matter.
When he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance,
people said it didn't matter.
When he surrounded himself in the White house with advisors who were pro gun control, pro abortion, pro homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition
people said it didn't matter.
When he aired his views on abortion, homosexuality and a host of other issues,
people said it didn't matter.
When he said he favors sex education in Kindergarten including homosexual indoctrination,
people said it didn't matter.
When his background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him,
people said it didn't matter.
When the place of his birth was called into question and he refused to produce a birth certificate,
people said it didn't matter.
When he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco, a man of questionable character,
who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home,
people said it didn't matter.
When it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected,
people said it didn't matter.
When he started appointing czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist/Communist,
people said it didn't matter.
When he stood before the nation and told us that his intentions were to "fundamentally transform this nation" into something else,
people said it didn't matter.
When it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialist,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed a science czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar and he believes in "Explicit Consent", harvesting human organs with out family consent, and to allow animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual, and organizer of a group called gay, lesbian, straight, Education network, as safe school czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Mark Lloyd as diversity czar and he believed in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth and admires Hugo Chavez,
people said it didn't matter.
When Valerie Jarrett was selected as Obama's senior White House advisor and she is an avowed Socialist,
people said it didn't matter.
When Anita Dunn, White House Communications director said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Carol Browner as global warming czar, and she is a well known socialist working on Cap and Trade as the nations largest tax,
people said it doesn't matter.
When he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as green energy czar, who since had to resign when this was made known,
people said it didn't matter.
When Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for health and human services secretary could not be confirmed, because he was a tax cheat,
people said it didn't matter.
When as president of the United States, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia ,
people said it didn't matter.
When he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness,
people said it didn't matter.
When his actions concerning the middle-east seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel, our long time friend,
People said it doesn't matter.
When he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States,
people said it doesn't matter.
When he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians,
People said it doesn't matter.
When he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops the Field Commanders said we had to have to win,
people said it didn't matter.
When he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off,
people said it didn't matter.
When he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions and individuals that got him elected,
people said it didn't matter.
When he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc.
people said it didn't matter.
When he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government,
people said it didn't matter.
When he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control,
people said it didn't matter.
When he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States
through Cap and Trade,
people said it didn't matter.
When he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State,
people finally woke up........ but it was too late.
Any one of these things, in and of themselves does not really matter. But.... when you add them up one by one you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that our Obama is determined to make America over into a Marxist/Socialist society. All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily. Before you disavow this, do an internet search. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph. Will it read as above or will it be a more happy ending for most of America ? Personally, I like happy endings.
If you are an Obama Supporter, please do not be angry with me because I think your president is a socialist. There are too many facts supporting this. If you seek the truth you will be richer for it. Don't just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth. I did. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalist, Libertarians and what have you, we all need to pull together. We all must pull together or watch the demise of a society that we all love and cherish. If you are a religious person, pray for our nation.
Never before in the history of America have we been confronted with problems so huge that the very existence of our country is in jeopardy. Don't rely on most television news and what you read in the newspapers for the truth. Search the internet. Yes, there is a lot of bad information, lies and distortions there too but you are smart enough to spot the fallacies. Newspapers are a dying breed. They are currently seeking a bailout from the government. Do you really think they are about to print the truth? Obama praises all the television news networks except Fox who he has waged war against. There must be a reason. He does not call them down on any specifics, just a general battle against them. If they lie, he should call them out on it but he doesn't. Please, find the truth, it will set you free.
Our biggest enemy is not China, Russia, or Iran; no, our biggest enemy is a contingent of politicians in Washington, DC.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Courtroom Clowns vs Jihad
Courtroom Cirque du Jihad
by Michelle Malkin
Imagine this nightmare courtroom scenario: Unhinged Jew-bashing, open mockery of American soldiers, juror intimidation and coldly calculated exploitation of U.S. constitutional protections by a suspected al-Qaida defendant. Well, there’s no need to wait for the Gitmo terror trial circuses. New York City is already getting a glimpse of the future.
Jihadi scientist Aafia Siddiqui is on trial right now in a federal Manhattan court for the attempted murder and assault of U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan’s Ghazni province two years ago. She’s an accomplished Karachi-born scientist who studied microbiology at MIT and did graduate work in neurology at Brandeis University before disappearing in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Counterterrorism investigators connected Siddiqui and her estranged husband, anesthesiologist Dr. Mohammed Amjad Khan, to Saudi terror funders. The couple’s bank account showed repeated purchases of high-tech military equipment and apparel, including body armor, night-vision goggles and military manuals. Her second husband, fellow al-Qaida suspect and 9/11 plot helper Ammar al-Baluchi, is one of five Gitmo detainees the Obama administration is planning to transfer to New York for trial.
Siddiqui was identified as an al-Qaida operative, financier and fixer by no less than 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during U.S. interrogations. Al-Baluchi is KSM’s nephew. Mohammed reportedly enlisted Siddiqui in a Baltimore-based plot to bomb gas stations, fuel tanks and bridges, and to poison water reservoirs in the greater Washington, D.C., area. Siddiqui was taken into custody in Ghazni in July 2008 after attempting to shoot U.S. military interrogators and FBI agents.
Now, the savvy “Terror Mom” of three is pulling out all the stops to win a mistrial. Among her Cirque du Jihad antics:
-- Demanding that jurors be genetically tested for a “Zionist or Israeli background” to ensure a fair and impartial jury of her Jew-hating peers.
-- Ranting about 9/11 Israel conspiracies during voir dire.
-- Screaming out loud during the testimony of U.S. Army Capt. Robert Snyder, who was in the room in Ghazni when Siddiqui allegedly grabbed an M-4 rifle and proclaimed, “Allahu Akbar!” and “I hate Americans! Death to America!” Before being ejected from the courtroom, Siddiqui shouted to Snyder, “You’re lying!” She also babbled about torture at a secret prison.
-- Blurting out “I feel sorry for you” to the witness in front of the jury before being led out of the courtroom again.
Siddiqui’s defense team, funded in part by the Pakistani government, asserts that Lady al-Qaida is so mentally ga-ga that she should not be allowed to take the witness stand. Bleeding-heart human-rights groups have dutifully rallied around Siddiqui. She’s Mumia Abu-Jamal in a burqa. Indeed, her supporters have launched their own “Free Aafia” campaign. But two government-retained psychiatrists, working independently, determined last year that Siddiqui’s so-called symptoms of mental illness were attributed to “malingering” and “manipulation.” The judge in the case concluded that she is competent and understands full well the charges against her.
The Crazy Jihadi tactic is in perfect sync with the al-Qaida training manual advising its operatives to claim victimhood status if arrested and put on trial. This act is also in keeping with a long tradition of terror defendants invoking the insanity card -- from “20th hijacker” Zacarias Moussaoui (whose lawyers chalked up his mass-murdering ambitions to a traumatic childhood) to Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan (whose defense will undoubtedly play up his lonely bachelorhood).
To make matters worse, the New York Post reported this week that an “unidentified man in a white headdress” mouthed an obscenity at the Siddiqui trial and cocked his finger like a gun at two jurors. The jurors were let go; it remains unclear whether the thug in white headdress will be charged and what relation, if any, he has to Siddiqui.
Would you answer a jury summons knowing you could end up sitting in front of a jihadi sympathizer on the loose who is mentally painting a target on your forehead? And would you trust the White House ringmasters and Justice Department terror-coddlers to protect you from harm?
These suspects belong in controlled military tribunals, not federal courtrooms that are being turned into al-Qaida P.R. platforms. The O.J. Simpson spectacle of a smirking murder suspect, preening defense attorneys, a showboating judge and the judicial process run amok on cable TV 24/7 was bad enough. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial, which gave the bin Laden network a multimillion-dollar tax-subsidized legal team, free translation services, personal dry-cleaning services, race-baiting defense witnesses and access to information that was allegedly used by jihadists to evade surveillance, was even worse.
The specter of 10, 15, 20 Siddiqui-style courtroom carnivals -- at a cost of at least $1 billion to taxpayers -- threatens to throw our civilian court system into complete chaos. America can’t afford to clown around with national security.
by Michelle Malkin
Imagine this nightmare courtroom scenario: Unhinged Jew-bashing, open mockery of American soldiers, juror intimidation and coldly calculated exploitation of U.S. constitutional protections by a suspected al-Qaida defendant. Well, there’s no need to wait for the Gitmo terror trial circuses. New York City is already getting a glimpse of the future.
Jihadi scientist Aafia Siddiqui is on trial right now in a federal Manhattan court for the attempted murder and assault of U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan’s Ghazni province two years ago. She’s an accomplished Karachi-born scientist who studied microbiology at MIT and did graduate work in neurology at Brandeis University before disappearing in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Counterterrorism investigators connected Siddiqui and her estranged husband, anesthesiologist Dr. Mohammed Amjad Khan, to Saudi terror funders. The couple’s bank account showed repeated purchases of high-tech military equipment and apparel, including body armor, night-vision goggles and military manuals. Her second husband, fellow al-Qaida suspect and 9/11 plot helper Ammar al-Baluchi, is one of five Gitmo detainees the Obama administration is planning to transfer to New York for trial.
Siddiqui was identified as an al-Qaida operative, financier and fixer by no less than 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during U.S. interrogations. Al-Baluchi is KSM’s nephew. Mohammed reportedly enlisted Siddiqui in a Baltimore-based plot to bomb gas stations, fuel tanks and bridges, and to poison water reservoirs in the greater Washington, D.C., area. Siddiqui was taken into custody in Ghazni in July 2008 after attempting to shoot U.S. military interrogators and FBI agents.
Now, the savvy “Terror Mom” of three is pulling out all the stops to win a mistrial. Among her Cirque du Jihad antics:
-- Demanding that jurors be genetically tested for a “Zionist or Israeli background” to ensure a fair and impartial jury of her Jew-hating peers.
-- Ranting about 9/11 Israel conspiracies during voir dire.
-- Screaming out loud during the testimony of U.S. Army Capt. Robert Snyder, who was in the room in Ghazni when Siddiqui allegedly grabbed an M-4 rifle and proclaimed, “Allahu Akbar!” and “I hate Americans! Death to America!” Before being ejected from the courtroom, Siddiqui shouted to Snyder, “You’re lying!” She also babbled about torture at a secret prison.
-- Blurting out “I feel sorry for you” to the witness in front of the jury before being led out of the courtroom again.
Siddiqui’s defense team, funded in part by the Pakistani government, asserts that Lady al-Qaida is so mentally ga-ga that she should not be allowed to take the witness stand. Bleeding-heart human-rights groups have dutifully rallied around Siddiqui. She’s Mumia Abu-Jamal in a burqa. Indeed, her supporters have launched their own “Free Aafia” campaign. But two government-retained psychiatrists, working independently, determined last year that Siddiqui’s so-called symptoms of mental illness were attributed to “malingering” and “manipulation.” The judge in the case concluded that she is competent and understands full well the charges against her.
The Crazy Jihadi tactic is in perfect sync with the al-Qaida training manual advising its operatives to claim victimhood status if arrested and put on trial. This act is also in keeping with a long tradition of terror defendants invoking the insanity card -- from “20th hijacker” Zacarias Moussaoui (whose lawyers chalked up his mass-murdering ambitions to a traumatic childhood) to Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan (whose defense will undoubtedly play up his lonely bachelorhood).
To make matters worse, the New York Post reported this week that an “unidentified man in a white headdress” mouthed an obscenity at the Siddiqui trial and cocked his finger like a gun at two jurors. The jurors were let go; it remains unclear whether the thug in white headdress will be charged and what relation, if any, he has to Siddiqui.
Would you answer a jury summons knowing you could end up sitting in front of a jihadi sympathizer on the loose who is mentally painting a target on your forehead? And would you trust the White House ringmasters and Justice Department terror-coddlers to protect you from harm?
These suspects belong in controlled military tribunals, not federal courtrooms that are being turned into al-Qaida P.R. platforms. The O.J. Simpson spectacle of a smirking murder suspect, preening defense attorneys, a showboating judge and the judicial process run amok on cable TV 24/7 was bad enough. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial, which gave the bin Laden network a multimillion-dollar tax-subsidized legal team, free translation services, personal dry-cleaning services, race-baiting defense witnesses and access to information that was allegedly used by jihadists to evade surveillance, was even worse.
The specter of 10, 15, 20 Siddiqui-style courtroom carnivals -- at a cost of at least $1 billion to taxpayers -- threatens to throw our civilian court system into complete chaos. America can’t afford to clown around with national security.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Socialism vs Constitution
State of the Union: Obama v. Constitution
By Mark Alexander
"The duty imposed upon him to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will 'preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.' The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose; and without it, be the form of government whatever it may, it will be utterly worthless for offence, or defence; for the redress of grievances, or the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people." --Justice Joseph Story
The ObamaPrompter
In the wake of Barack Hussein Obama's first State of the Union address, much of the critical analysis from Republicans posited that he should do "this" instead of "that."
Unfortunately, when there is no more constitutional authority for a president to do this rather than that, Republicans fail to distinguish themselves from Democrats since both parties are then advocating unlawful extra-constitutional policies.
Obama's SOTU teleprompters fed him a steady stream of poll-tested rhetoric, none of which comports with the authority granted the Executive Branch, unless, of course, one subscribes to the adulterated "living constitution" as amended by judicial diktat.
Predictably, Obama offered only Socialist solutions to all ills, and not a single suggestion that individual responsibility or the private sector economy should shoulder that burden, at least not without government "incentives," a.k.a. centralized social and economic planning.
In 6,200 words (second longest SOTU after Bill Clinton -- two narcissists who just can't hear enough of themselves), Obama referred to himself repeatedly, and alleged that he was the anointed spokesman for "we," the American people, more than 100 times.
On the other hand, he mentioned the Constitution only twice.
First, in his opening remarks Obama said, "Our Constitution declares that from time to time the president shall give to Congress information about the state of our union."
Correct.
Second, he asserted, "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution, the notion that we're all created equal..."
As the Internet meme goes these days: FAIL! Uh, uh, uh, -- that "notion" was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, third paragraph, first sentence. One would think that this alleged professor of "Constitutional Law" at the University of Chicago Law School would have noticed such a simple, yet substantial, error.
Our Constitution is devoted to clearly delineating the limited role of the central government from the unlimited rights of the states and the people.
To that end, James Madison, author of our Constitution, wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Accordingly, Obama mentions freedom only once, and made absolutely no reference to liberty.
Nowhere in our Constitution is there any authority or provision for these key proposals from Obama's SOTU:
1. The power to further centralize regulation of our economy.
2. The power to completely regulate our national health care system. (Note: both the Democrat and Republican proposals lack constitutional authority). Obama even repeated his claim that the American people are just not smart enough to get on board: "I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people."
3. The power to further regulate and tax the production of CO2.
Obama reiterated his claims that the current recession was caused by "Wall Street," and then went on to insist that the only hope for ending the recession was government "investment," a euphemism for taxing money out of the private sector, taking bureaucratic handling fees out, then giving it to political constituencies.
To correctly interpret Obama's SOTU, you need only filter everything he says through his foremost pledge that the his administration's charge is the "fundamental transformation of the United States of America."
That is a line Obama lifted from the primary architect of his Socialist platform, Robert Creamer, who had earlier proclaimed, "If Barack Obama is elected president, then we have the opportunity to fundamentally transform American politics and the economy."
It's likely that you've never heard of Bob Creamer, because Barack Obama is very adept at concealing his association with his Marxist patrons.
In his younger days, Obama was not concerned about such associations: "I chose my friends carefully," he wrote. "The more politically active black students; the foreign students; the Chicanos; the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets."
But when he announced his aspirations to become a U.S. senator in 2004, Obama began to cover his tracks. He stopped associating publicly with Leftist colleagues and mentors such as Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, Bob Creamer and others.
Creamer is a member of Obama's Chicago mob, a fellow "community organizer" and disciple of Saul Alinsky. Like all of Obama's Chicago benefactors, Creamer believes that he is above the law, or, more appropriately, that he is the law in today's age of the rule of men. But like Tony Rezko, another of Obama's slick Chicago political backers, Creamer was caught with his hand in the till and was convicted of a felony (bank fraud) back in 2004 when Obama was a state senator. Creamer got a softball sentence, though: five months in a minimum-security facility for white-collar criminals and another 11 months of house arrest.
With all that time on his hands, Creamer authored a book, "How Progressives Can Win," which, along with Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," serves as the template for Obama's campaign to "fundamentally transform" America.
Obama didn't use the word "transform" in his SOTU, but he did insist that government must "lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth," under the pretense of "reform," in order to "give our people the government they deserve."
"I campaigned on the promise of change, change we can believe in. I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe that I can deliver it. I never suggested that change would be easy ... and when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy."
And well, it should.
Though Obama's efforts to nationalize the nation's health care sector have been temporarily stalled, he has no intention of giving up, announcing that he is redoubling his efforts to expand central government controls over the private sector under cover of "economic crisis." As White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
Leading up to his SOTU, Obama endeavored to portray himself as a fiscal conservative: "We can't continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences, as if waste doesn't matter, as if the hard earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like monopoly money, that's what we've seen time and time again, Washington has become more concerned about the next election than the next generation."
This is subterfuge.
Obama endeavors to portray himself as a constitutional conservative: "We will lead in the observance of ... the rule of law. ... Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it. Don't suggest that it's not American to abide by what the Founding Fathers set up. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years."
This is deception.
Obama endeavors to portray himself as a resolute commander in chief. Regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom he decreed, "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31st, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end." On Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, he declared, "After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home." On the treatment of captive terrorists, he says, "I will restore America's moral standing." On the Long War with Jihadistan, Obama claims, "The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam."
This is farce.
Obama is a dangerous neophyte in matters of national security, and he shows no signs of improving.
If Republicans really want to defeat Obama's Leftist agenda, they need to adopt the tried and true conservative message founded on Essential Liberty. Only then can they truly take control of the debate.
And while Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's response to Obama's SOTU address was encouraging, the current crop of Republican leaders continues to play by Democrat rules, attempting to sell a dangerous and debilitating elixir: "We don't offend the Constitution as bad as they do."
Bottom line: Republicans must refocus on First Principles and govern accordingly.
Republicans can best distinguish themselves from Democrats by, first and foremost, honoring their sacred oath to "support and defend" our Constitution.
To that end, Obama declared, "If you abide by the law, you should be protected by it."
True, but on the other hand, if you are not going to abide by the law, you should be impeached.
P.S. If you are going to seat two police officers next to your wife in the gallery, the two who brought down the Ft. Hood jihadi terrorist, you might at least acknowledge them.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
By Mark Alexander
"The duty imposed upon him to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will 'preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.' The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose; and without it, be the form of government whatever it may, it will be utterly worthless for offence, or defence; for the redress of grievances, or the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people." --Justice Joseph Story
The ObamaPrompter
In the wake of Barack Hussein Obama's first State of the Union address, much of the critical analysis from Republicans posited that he should do "this" instead of "that."
Unfortunately, when there is no more constitutional authority for a president to do this rather than that, Republicans fail to distinguish themselves from Democrats since both parties are then advocating unlawful extra-constitutional policies.
Obama's SOTU teleprompters fed him a steady stream of poll-tested rhetoric, none of which comports with the authority granted the Executive Branch, unless, of course, one subscribes to the adulterated "living constitution" as amended by judicial diktat.
Predictably, Obama offered only Socialist solutions to all ills, and not a single suggestion that individual responsibility or the private sector economy should shoulder that burden, at least not without government "incentives," a.k.a. centralized social and economic planning.
In 6,200 words (second longest SOTU after Bill Clinton -- two narcissists who just can't hear enough of themselves), Obama referred to himself repeatedly, and alleged that he was the anointed spokesman for "we," the American people, more than 100 times.
On the other hand, he mentioned the Constitution only twice.
First, in his opening remarks Obama said, "Our Constitution declares that from time to time the president shall give to Congress information about the state of our union."
Correct.
Second, he asserted, "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution, the notion that we're all created equal..."
As the Internet meme goes these days: FAIL! Uh, uh, uh, -- that "notion" was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, third paragraph, first sentence. One would think that this alleged professor of "Constitutional Law" at the University of Chicago Law School would have noticed such a simple, yet substantial, error.
Our Constitution is devoted to clearly delineating the limited role of the central government from the unlimited rights of the states and the people.
To that end, James Madison, author of our Constitution, wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Accordingly, Obama mentions freedom only once, and made absolutely no reference to liberty.
Nowhere in our Constitution is there any authority or provision for these key proposals from Obama's SOTU:
1. The power to further centralize regulation of our economy.
2. The power to completely regulate our national health care system. (Note: both the Democrat and Republican proposals lack constitutional authority). Obama even repeated his claim that the American people are just not smart enough to get on board: "I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people."
3. The power to further regulate and tax the production of CO2.
Obama reiterated his claims that the current recession was caused by "Wall Street," and then went on to insist that the only hope for ending the recession was government "investment," a euphemism for taxing money out of the private sector, taking bureaucratic handling fees out, then giving it to political constituencies.
To correctly interpret Obama's SOTU, you need only filter everything he says through his foremost pledge that the his administration's charge is the "fundamental transformation of the United States of America."
That is a line Obama lifted from the primary architect of his Socialist platform, Robert Creamer, who had earlier proclaimed, "If Barack Obama is elected president, then we have the opportunity to fundamentally transform American politics and the economy."
It's likely that you've never heard of Bob Creamer, because Barack Obama is very adept at concealing his association with his Marxist patrons.
In his younger days, Obama was not concerned about such associations: "I chose my friends carefully," he wrote. "The more politically active black students; the foreign students; the Chicanos; the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets."
But when he announced his aspirations to become a U.S. senator in 2004, Obama began to cover his tracks. He stopped associating publicly with Leftist colleagues and mentors such as Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, Bob Creamer and others.
Creamer is a member of Obama's Chicago mob, a fellow "community organizer" and disciple of Saul Alinsky. Like all of Obama's Chicago benefactors, Creamer believes that he is above the law, or, more appropriately, that he is the law in today's age of the rule of men. But like Tony Rezko, another of Obama's slick Chicago political backers, Creamer was caught with his hand in the till and was convicted of a felony (bank fraud) back in 2004 when Obama was a state senator. Creamer got a softball sentence, though: five months in a minimum-security facility for white-collar criminals and another 11 months of house arrest.
With all that time on his hands, Creamer authored a book, "How Progressives Can Win," which, along with Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," serves as the template for Obama's campaign to "fundamentally transform" America.
Obama didn't use the word "transform" in his SOTU, but he did insist that government must "lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth," under the pretense of "reform," in order to "give our people the government they deserve."
"I campaigned on the promise of change, change we can believe in. I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe that I can deliver it. I never suggested that change would be easy ... and when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy."
And well, it should.
Though Obama's efforts to nationalize the nation's health care sector have been temporarily stalled, he has no intention of giving up, announcing that he is redoubling his efforts to expand central government controls over the private sector under cover of "economic crisis." As White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
Leading up to his SOTU, Obama endeavored to portray himself as a fiscal conservative: "We can't continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences, as if waste doesn't matter, as if the hard earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like monopoly money, that's what we've seen time and time again, Washington has become more concerned about the next election than the next generation."
This is subterfuge.
Obama endeavors to portray himself as a constitutional conservative: "We will lead in the observance of ... the rule of law. ... Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it. Don't suggest that it's not American to abide by what the Founding Fathers set up. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years."
This is deception.
Obama endeavors to portray himself as a resolute commander in chief. Regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom he decreed, "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31st, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end." On Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, he declared, "After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home." On the treatment of captive terrorists, he says, "I will restore America's moral standing." On the Long War with Jihadistan, Obama claims, "The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam."
This is farce.
Obama is a dangerous neophyte in matters of national security, and he shows no signs of improving.
If Republicans really want to defeat Obama's Leftist agenda, they need to adopt the tried and true conservative message founded on Essential Liberty. Only then can they truly take control of the debate.
And while Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's response to Obama's SOTU address was encouraging, the current crop of Republican leaders continues to play by Democrat rules, attempting to sell a dangerous and debilitating elixir: "We don't offend the Constitution as bad as they do."
Bottom line: Republicans must refocus on First Principles and govern accordingly.
Republicans can best distinguish themselves from Democrats by, first and foremost, honoring their sacred oath to "support and defend" our Constitution.
To that end, Obama declared, "If you abide by the law, you should be protected by it."
True, but on the other hand, if you are not going to abide by the law, you should be impeached.
P.S. If you are going to seat two police officers next to your wife in the gallery, the two who brought down the Ft. Hood jihadi terrorist, you might at least acknowledge them.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Obama Lied About Lobbyists. Surprise, Surprise
Obama Lied About Lobbyists.
By Erick Erickson
Barack Obama said, "To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.
"That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why - for the first time in history - my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that's why we've excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions."
Maybe this explains why his national security policies are so weak. He put William Lynn in the Pentagon as Deputy Defense Secretary. Mr. Lynn was a lobbyist for Defense Contractor Ratheon. I guess the Deputy Defense Secretary is not a policy-making job.
But it isn’t just Lynn:
* Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
* Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
* William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
* William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
* David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
* Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
* Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
* Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
* Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
* Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
* Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
* Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president's assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.
By Erick Erickson
Barack Obama said, "To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.
"That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why - for the first time in history - my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that's why we've excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions."
Maybe this explains why his national security policies are so weak. He put William Lynn in the Pentagon as Deputy Defense Secretary. Mr. Lynn was a lobbyist for Defense Contractor Ratheon. I guess the Deputy Defense Secretary is not a policy-making job.
But it isn’t just Lynn:
* Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
* Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
* William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
* William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
* David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
* Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
* Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
* Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
* Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
* Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
* Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
* Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president's assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.
Stop Illegal Immigration
OPERATION WETBACK
By Jon Christian Ryter
Three times in the history of the United States US Presidents took what would today be considered a politically unpopular position by rounding up and deporting illegal aliens to create jobs for US Citizens. The first attempt occurred shortly after the banker-induced Stock Market Crash of 1929 when President Herbert Hoover ordered the round-up and deportation of illegals by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service. The program, dubbed "Operation Wetback," was carried out without any protests from US government-funded Hispanic advocacy groups—since there were none. The Clintonesque-liberal media political correctness dictionary was still 63 years in the future and the communist-left FDR (America's white Barack Obama) federal bureaucracy was still some 4-years in the making.
The Hoover roundup sent over one million Mexican illegal aliens packing—freeing up jobs for out-of-work US citizens. In addition, some 47 thousand Mexican nationals who were in the country legally, with visas, also opted to leave due to rising animosity by out-of-work Americans for any foreigner in the United States with a job. Operation Wetback was launched in the Southwest: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. But deportees also came from Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, and New York. Since Mexican illegals tried hard to remain under the radar screen, few of them traveled far beyond the border States, thus we can assume that most of the deportees from the States north of the Mason-Dixon line were legal residents. During the Hoover years, immigration to the United States was virtually stopped.
The Hoover deportations caused an outcry from the Mexican government demanding to know what gave Hoover the right to deny Mexican citizens the right to jobs in the United States under what was called the "Good Neighbor Policy." At the end of World War II, President Harry S. Truman was faced with the same problem that plagued Hoover in 1931—no jobs for US citizens. Under Roosevelt's Public Law 78 agri-giants, who needed dirt cheap labor were allowed to import labor from Mexico even though 25% of the American labor force was out of work—and in the dust bowl farm states, unemployment stood at over 70%. Under Public Law 78, when work contracts were fulfilled, the employer was responsible, under law, to transport the migrant worker back to Mexico. As thousands of migrant workers simply vanished into the human landscape, taking what few jobs were available from American workers, Truman's solution was to issue a terse public statement admonishing Congress, and telling the American people that Congress assured him they would fix the problem. (Yeah, we can see how well the buck stopped at his desk.)
During the prosperity of the war years (1943-54), illegal alien immigration increased by 6,000%, triggering Operation Wetback II and III. In 1954, the INS estimated that illegals—not legal migrant workers—were crossing the US border at the rate of one million per year and that they were penetrating much deeper into the nation that in preceding decades because the INS concentrated their efforts only in the border States. The INS, on orders from the White House, went through the motions of rounding up both illegal aliens and migrant workers who overstayed their visas. Truman deported about 30 thousand Mexicans during his seven years in office.
Truman's blamed his poor record on guarding the border on Public Law 78, enacted by FDR's 73rd Congress and S.984, which was enacted by the 82nd Congress (that expanded the use of migratory workers from Mexico) and made it more difficult to expel illegals under Woodrow Wilson's "Good Neighbor Policy" with Mexico.
Truman became one of the three "deportion presidents" not for deporting Mexicans under Operation Wetback II, but under Presidential Proclamation 2655, an edict requiring the deportation of potentially dangerous WWII detainees from the Axis nations. Deported were several thousand men, women and children of German and Italian ancestry who spend most of World War II in internment camps. It appears that only about 900 Pervian Japanese farmers, held by the US government in that country, were deported to Japan at the end of war.
Eisenhower was stuck with cleaning up the mess created by the open door polices 73rd and 82nd Congresses. As Eisenhower took office, illegal immigrants were now crossing at the rate of about 3 million per year. When Eisenhower assumed the Oval Office, illegal alien migration was one of his top priorities. He attributed the lax attitude of Congress about illegal immigration with a relaxation of Congressional ethical standards. A Truman-initiated study on Mexican migratory labor in 1950 found that cotton growers in Texas paid migrant workers about half what a US citizen was paid to chop cotton. As Eisenhower met with current and retired border patrol agents he learned that the big ranchers and farmers who relied on the cheap migrant labor had friends "in high places" in government. Agents were subtlety warned not to arrest the workers employed by what turned out to be powerful campaign donors. When that didn't work, they were very bluntly told to back off, or they were simply transferred where they would become someone else's problem. The two most influential Senators who blocked the efforts of the INS to do their job were then Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson [D-TX] and Sen. Pat McCarran [D-NV].
Eisenhower hired Gen. Joseph May Swing to head the INS and with units of the US National Guard, began what history now views as a quasi-military operation to find and seize illegal immigrants As hard as Johnson tried to get rid of Swing, Eisenhower protected his man in Immigration. On July 15, 1953, the first day of Operation Wetback III, Swing's men arrested 4,800 illegals. After the first day, the INS averaged the seizure of 1,100 illegals per day. The INS devoted 700 men to the project, hoping to scare enough more illegals to flee back across the border. The INS claims that under Eisenhower's Operation Wetback, they deported 1,300,000 illegals. The open-border social progressives insist that all three phases of Operation Wetback were dismal flops, and that only a few thousand people—all of whom, they claim, were legal residents—were deported.
It was Truman who pushed the Federal Immigration and National Act of 1952 through Congress in the closing days of his administration. Under Section 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A)[iv][b](iii) any US citizen that knowingly assists an illegal alien, provides them with employment, food, water or shelter has committed a felony. City, county or State officials that declare their jurisdictions to be "Open Cities, Counties or States are subject to arrest; as are law enforcement agencies who chose not to enforce this law. Police officers who ignore officials who violate Section 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A)[iv][b](iii) are committing a Section 274 federal felony. Furthermore, according to Federal Immigration and National Act of 1952, if you live in a city, county or State that refuses to enforce the law for whatever reason, the officials making those rules are financially liable for any crime committed within their jurisdiction by an illegal alien.
We now have approximately 25 million illegal aliens in the United States (even though the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that number at around 7.3 million). It's time to demand, under threat of impeachment, that Barack Hussein Obama launch Operation Wetback IV, and complete the job started by Hoover and Eisenhower.
Although they think they are, the President of the United States (legitimate or illegitimate), and the members of Congress are not above the law of the land. If Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] and any other member of Congress refuses to enforce Section 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A)[iv][b](iii), they need to be impeached for committing a federal felony, tried and removed from office, and then placed on trial in a US federal court (not of their choosing), and sentenced to federal prison for harboring illegals.
Furthermore, the United States needs to seize all of the assets of those individuals so that the people of the United States who have been robbed, raped or otherwise injured by an illegal alien can be made financially whole from their asset pool.
© 2010 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved
By Jon Christian Ryter
Three times in the history of the United States US Presidents took what would today be considered a politically unpopular position by rounding up and deporting illegal aliens to create jobs for US Citizens. The first attempt occurred shortly after the banker-induced Stock Market Crash of 1929 when President Herbert Hoover ordered the round-up and deportation of illegals by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service. The program, dubbed "Operation Wetback," was carried out without any protests from US government-funded Hispanic advocacy groups—since there were none. The Clintonesque-liberal media political correctness dictionary was still 63 years in the future and the communist-left FDR (America's white Barack Obama) federal bureaucracy was still some 4-years in the making.
The Hoover roundup sent over one million Mexican illegal aliens packing—freeing up jobs for out-of-work US citizens. In addition, some 47 thousand Mexican nationals who were in the country legally, with visas, also opted to leave due to rising animosity by out-of-work Americans for any foreigner in the United States with a job. Operation Wetback was launched in the Southwest: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. But deportees also came from Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, and New York. Since Mexican illegals tried hard to remain under the radar screen, few of them traveled far beyond the border States, thus we can assume that most of the deportees from the States north of the Mason-Dixon line were legal residents. During the Hoover years, immigration to the United States was virtually stopped.
The Hoover deportations caused an outcry from the Mexican government demanding to know what gave Hoover the right to deny Mexican citizens the right to jobs in the United States under what was called the "Good Neighbor Policy." At the end of World War II, President Harry S. Truman was faced with the same problem that plagued Hoover in 1931—no jobs for US citizens. Under Roosevelt's Public Law 78 agri-giants, who needed dirt cheap labor were allowed to import labor from Mexico even though 25% of the American labor force was out of work—and in the dust bowl farm states, unemployment stood at over 70%. Under Public Law 78, when work contracts were fulfilled, the employer was responsible, under law, to transport the migrant worker back to Mexico. As thousands of migrant workers simply vanished into the human landscape, taking what few jobs were available from American workers, Truman's solution was to issue a terse public statement admonishing Congress, and telling the American people that Congress assured him they would fix the problem. (Yeah, we can see how well the buck stopped at his desk.)
During the prosperity of the war years (1943-54), illegal alien immigration increased by 6,000%, triggering Operation Wetback II and III. In 1954, the INS estimated that illegals—not legal migrant workers—were crossing the US border at the rate of one million per year and that they were penetrating much deeper into the nation that in preceding decades because the INS concentrated their efforts only in the border States. The INS, on orders from the White House, went through the motions of rounding up both illegal aliens and migrant workers who overstayed their visas. Truman deported about 30 thousand Mexicans during his seven years in office.
Truman's blamed his poor record on guarding the border on Public Law 78, enacted by FDR's 73rd Congress and S.984, which was enacted by the 82nd Congress (that expanded the use of migratory workers from Mexico) and made it more difficult to expel illegals under Woodrow Wilson's "Good Neighbor Policy" with Mexico.
Truman became one of the three "deportion presidents" not for deporting Mexicans under Operation Wetback II, but under Presidential Proclamation 2655, an edict requiring the deportation of potentially dangerous WWII detainees from the Axis nations. Deported were several thousand men, women and children of German and Italian ancestry who spend most of World War II in internment camps. It appears that only about 900 Pervian Japanese farmers, held by the US government in that country, were deported to Japan at the end of war.
Eisenhower was stuck with cleaning up the mess created by the open door polices 73rd and 82nd Congresses. As Eisenhower took office, illegal immigrants were now crossing at the rate of about 3 million per year. When Eisenhower assumed the Oval Office, illegal alien migration was one of his top priorities. He attributed the lax attitude of Congress about illegal immigration with a relaxation of Congressional ethical standards. A Truman-initiated study on Mexican migratory labor in 1950 found that cotton growers in Texas paid migrant workers about half what a US citizen was paid to chop cotton. As Eisenhower met with current and retired border patrol agents he learned that the big ranchers and farmers who relied on the cheap migrant labor had friends "in high places" in government. Agents were subtlety warned not to arrest the workers employed by what turned out to be powerful campaign donors. When that didn't work, they were very bluntly told to back off, or they were simply transferred where they would become someone else's problem. The two most influential Senators who blocked the efforts of the INS to do their job were then Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson [D-TX] and Sen. Pat McCarran [D-NV].
Eisenhower hired Gen. Joseph May Swing to head the INS and with units of the US National Guard, began what history now views as a quasi-military operation to find and seize illegal immigrants As hard as Johnson tried to get rid of Swing, Eisenhower protected his man in Immigration. On July 15, 1953, the first day of Operation Wetback III, Swing's men arrested 4,800 illegals. After the first day, the INS averaged the seizure of 1,100 illegals per day. The INS devoted 700 men to the project, hoping to scare enough more illegals to flee back across the border. The INS claims that under Eisenhower's Operation Wetback, they deported 1,300,000 illegals. The open-border social progressives insist that all three phases of Operation Wetback were dismal flops, and that only a few thousand people—all of whom, they claim, were legal residents—were deported.
It was Truman who pushed the Federal Immigration and National Act of 1952 through Congress in the closing days of his administration. Under Section 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A)[iv][b](iii) any US citizen that knowingly assists an illegal alien, provides them with employment, food, water or shelter has committed a felony. City, county or State officials that declare their jurisdictions to be "Open Cities, Counties or States are subject to arrest; as are law enforcement agencies who chose not to enforce this law. Police officers who ignore officials who violate Section 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A)[iv][b](iii) are committing a Section 274 federal felony. Furthermore, according to Federal Immigration and National Act of 1952, if you live in a city, county or State that refuses to enforce the law for whatever reason, the officials making those rules are financially liable for any crime committed within their jurisdiction by an illegal alien.
We now have approximately 25 million illegal aliens in the United States (even though the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that number at around 7.3 million). It's time to demand, under threat of impeachment, that Barack Hussein Obama launch Operation Wetback IV, and complete the job started by Hoover and Eisenhower.
Although they think they are, the President of the United States (legitimate or illegitimate), and the members of Congress are not above the law of the land. If Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] and any other member of Congress refuses to enforce Section 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A)[iv][b](iii), they need to be impeached for committing a federal felony, tried and removed from office, and then placed on trial in a US federal court (not of their choosing), and sentenced to federal prison for harboring illegals.
Furthermore, the United States needs to seize all of the assets of those individuals so that the people of the United States who have been robbed, raped or otherwise injured by an illegal alien can be made financially whole from their asset pool.
© 2010 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Fundamentally Changing the United States
PRESIDENT OBAMA ESTABLISHES "COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS"
By Chuck Baldwin
The White House Office of the Press Secretary released a report on the White House web site titled "President Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors." According to the press release, "The President today [January 11, 2009] signed an Executive Order establishing a Council of Governors to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards. When appointed, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."
According to the report, the Council will be composed of "ten State Governors who will be selected by the President to serve two year terms . . . Once chosen, the Council will have no more than five members from the same party and represent the Nation as a whole."
The press release also states that "Federal members of the Council include the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs, the U.S. Northern Command Commander, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. The Secretary of Defense will designate an Executive Director for the Council."
As with most Presidential Directives or Executive Orders that have the potential to swallow our liberties and expand federal--or even international--police powers, the mainstream media conveniently fails to inform the American people as to what is happening. Such is the case with Obama's EO establishing a Council of Governors (COG). Therefore, it is left to independent writers to issue the alert. Thank God for the Internet!
As with any expansion of the federal government, this new Council of Governors needs to be monitored very carefully by freedom lovers. One blog rightly noted that the COG "clearly represents another assault on Posse Comitatus, the 1878 law that bars the military from exercising domestic police powers, which was temporarily annulled by the 2006 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act before parts of it were later repealed."
Another blogger wisely stated, "As with most government powers, there is always the potential for abuse. In this case, there is cause for serious concern because every bit of this entails expanding traditional Command in Chief powers to the DOD [Department of Defense], spreading troops around the US (potentially not American troops at that . . .) and deciding who has ultimate tactical command over reserves and Guard in the event of 'emergencies,' terrorist attacks, or natural disasters."
Actually, this EO is simply the latest in a series of events going back to the Bush and Clinton years, in which the federal government has taken steps to lay the foundation for extensive military police action within the United States.
Back in 2008, retired lawman Jim Kouri wrote, "In a political move that received little if any attention by the American news media, the United States and Canada entered into a military agreement on February 14, 2008, allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis, according to a police commander involved in homeland security planning and implementation.
"It is an initiative of the Bi-National Planning Group whose final report, issued in June 2006, called for the creation of a 'Comprehensive Defense and Security Agreement,' or a 'continental approach' to Canada-US defense and security.
"The law enforcement executive told Newswithviews.com that the agreement--defined as a Civil Assistance Plan--was not submitted to Congress for debate and approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorists attacks.
"'This is a military plan that's designed to bypass the Posse Comitatus Act that traditionally prohibited the US military from operating within the borders of the United States. Not only will American soldiers be deployed at the discretion of whomever is sitting in the Oval Office, but foreign soldiers will also be deployed in American cities,' warns Lt. Steven Rodgers, commander of the Nutley, NJ Police Department's detective bureau."
Of course, the groundwork for this US-Canadian agreement occurred in 2002 when President G.W. Bush created USNORTHCOM. For the first time in US history, an entire Army division has been tasked with "homeland defense efforts and to coordinate defense support of civil authorities." (Source: USNORTHCOM official web site) Plus, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which passed with almost unanimous bipartisan support, and was signed into law in January 2008 by then-President Bush, required the implementation of the COG.
Then, in June of 2009, USNORTHCOM sent a legislative proposal to Congress requesting "amending Title 10 of USC, expanding the Secretary of Defense's powers to mobilization of the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Navy Reserve, and Marine Corps Reserve to assist civil authorities in disasters and emergencies . . . 'thus enabling a truly Total Force approach to disaster response.'"
Matthew Rothschild at The Progressive penned, "The Pentagon has approached Congress to grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to post almost 400,000 military personnel throughout the United States in times of emergency or a major disaster."
Concerning this, David Mundy at the Texas National Press commented, "If granted, the move would further erode the authority of the states and would minimize the role played by the states' militia . . . in handling domestic issues.
"More ominously, nothing in the Pentagon's request specifies that the troops to be posted in U.S. cities would necessarily be Americans."
The report notes that in September of 2009, USNORTHCOM released its 32-page initial framework for the "Tri Command," referring to NORAD, NORTHCOM, and Canada COM. It is noted that while NORTHCOM AND Canada COM are national organizations, NORAD is set up as a binational force.
It is largely understood, therefore, that the Council of Governors has been established for the purpose of getting the governors' blessing on this newly accumulated power. In other words, the COG is Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Stockton's effort to establish a liaison between the governors, DHS, DOD, and the National Guard.
Of course, as the report suggests, what is not being disclosed is what powers will be conferred upon the 10 gubernatorial council members and what authorities they will be required to cede to the federal government.
Anyone who is not concerned about the ever-increasing encroachment of federal power upon the states and citizenry at large is either not paying attention, or is already a slave at heart. Instead of worrying about whether a gubernatorial or State legislative candidate is a conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, we need to be focusing on whether or not our State governors and legislators have the historical and constitutional acumen and resolve to resist the current dismantling of State sovereignty and personal liberty being orchestrated by this federal leviathan that is known as Washington, D.C.
We can survive hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, looters and thugs, blackouts, and even Muslim terrorists. What we cannot survive--at least not without great cost and effort--is tyranny at the hands of our own government. In this regard, our greatest threat is not foreign terrorists or natural disasters; our greatest threat is Washington, D.C.
So, while DC has an eye on this new Council of Governors, you'd better keep an eye on your governor as well; and keep the other eye on what's left of your liberties, because if those federal foxes come in the middle of the night and run off with them, it will be your governor that opened the door.
By Chuck Baldwin
The White House Office of the Press Secretary released a report on the White House web site titled "President Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors." According to the press release, "The President today [January 11, 2009] signed an Executive Order establishing a Council of Governors to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards. When appointed, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."
According to the report, the Council will be composed of "ten State Governors who will be selected by the President to serve two year terms . . . Once chosen, the Council will have no more than five members from the same party and represent the Nation as a whole."
The press release also states that "Federal members of the Council include the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs, the U.S. Northern Command Commander, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. The Secretary of Defense will designate an Executive Director for the Council."
As with most Presidential Directives or Executive Orders that have the potential to swallow our liberties and expand federal--or even international--police powers, the mainstream media conveniently fails to inform the American people as to what is happening. Such is the case with Obama's EO establishing a Council of Governors (COG). Therefore, it is left to independent writers to issue the alert. Thank God for the Internet!
As with any expansion of the federal government, this new Council of Governors needs to be monitored very carefully by freedom lovers. One blog rightly noted that the COG "clearly represents another assault on Posse Comitatus, the 1878 law that bars the military from exercising domestic police powers, which was temporarily annulled by the 2006 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act before parts of it were later repealed."
Another blogger wisely stated, "As with most government powers, there is always the potential for abuse. In this case, there is cause for serious concern because every bit of this entails expanding traditional Command in Chief powers to the DOD [Department of Defense], spreading troops around the US (potentially not American troops at that . . .) and deciding who has ultimate tactical command over reserves and Guard in the event of 'emergencies,' terrorist attacks, or natural disasters."
Actually, this EO is simply the latest in a series of events going back to the Bush and Clinton years, in which the federal government has taken steps to lay the foundation for extensive military police action within the United States.
Back in 2008, retired lawman Jim Kouri wrote, "In a political move that received little if any attention by the American news media, the United States and Canada entered into a military agreement on February 14, 2008, allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis, according to a police commander involved in homeland security planning and implementation.
"It is an initiative of the Bi-National Planning Group whose final report, issued in June 2006, called for the creation of a 'Comprehensive Defense and Security Agreement,' or a 'continental approach' to Canada-US defense and security.
"The law enforcement executive told Newswithviews.com that the agreement--defined as a Civil Assistance Plan--was not submitted to Congress for debate and approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorists attacks.
"'This is a military plan that's designed to bypass the Posse Comitatus Act that traditionally prohibited the US military from operating within the borders of the United States. Not only will American soldiers be deployed at the discretion of whomever is sitting in the Oval Office, but foreign soldiers will also be deployed in American cities,' warns Lt. Steven Rodgers, commander of the Nutley, NJ Police Department's detective bureau."
Of course, the groundwork for this US-Canadian agreement occurred in 2002 when President G.W. Bush created USNORTHCOM. For the first time in US history, an entire Army division has been tasked with "homeland defense efforts and to coordinate defense support of civil authorities." (Source: USNORTHCOM official web site) Plus, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which passed with almost unanimous bipartisan support, and was signed into law in January 2008 by then-President Bush, required the implementation of the COG.
Then, in June of 2009, USNORTHCOM sent a legislative proposal to Congress requesting "amending Title 10 of USC, expanding the Secretary of Defense's powers to mobilization of the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Navy Reserve, and Marine Corps Reserve to assist civil authorities in disasters and emergencies . . . 'thus enabling a truly Total Force approach to disaster response.'"
Matthew Rothschild at The Progressive penned, "The Pentagon has approached Congress to grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to post almost 400,000 military personnel throughout the United States in times of emergency or a major disaster."
Concerning this, David Mundy at the Texas National Press commented, "If granted, the move would further erode the authority of the states and would minimize the role played by the states' militia . . . in handling domestic issues.
"More ominously, nothing in the Pentagon's request specifies that the troops to be posted in U.S. cities would necessarily be Americans."
The report notes that in September of 2009, USNORTHCOM released its 32-page initial framework for the "Tri Command," referring to NORAD, NORTHCOM, and Canada COM. It is noted that while NORTHCOM AND Canada COM are national organizations, NORAD is set up as a binational force.
It is largely understood, therefore, that the Council of Governors has been established for the purpose of getting the governors' blessing on this newly accumulated power. In other words, the COG is Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Stockton's effort to establish a liaison between the governors, DHS, DOD, and the National Guard.
Of course, as the report suggests, what is not being disclosed is what powers will be conferred upon the 10 gubernatorial council members and what authorities they will be required to cede to the federal government.
Anyone who is not concerned about the ever-increasing encroachment of federal power upon the states and citizenry at large is either not paying attention, or is already a slave at heart. Instead of worrying about whether a gubernatorial or State legislative candidate is a conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, we need to be focusing on whether or not our State governors and legislators have the historical and constitutional acumen and resolve to resist the current dismantling of State sovereignty and personal liberty being orchestrated by this federal leviathan that is known as Washington, D.C.
We can survive hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, looters and thugs, blackouts, and even Muslim terrorists. What we cannot survive--at least not without great cost and effort--is tyranny at the hands of our own government. In this regard, our greatest threat is not foreign terrorists or natural disasters; our greatest threat is Washington, D.C.
So, while DC has an eye on this new Council of Governors, you'd better keep an eye on your governor as well; and keep the other eye on what's left of your liberties, because if those federal foxes come in the middle of the night and run off with them, it will be your governor that opened the door.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
UN Health Plan Worse Than Obama's
U.N.'s World Health Organization Eyeing Global Tax on Banking, Internet Activity
By George Russell
The World Health Organization (WHO) is considering a plan to ask governments to impose a global consumer tax on such things as Internet activity or everyday financial transactions like paying bills online.
Such a scheme could raise "tens of billions of dollars" on behalf of the United Nations' public health arm from a broad base of consumers, which would then be used to transfer drug-making research, development and manufacturing capabilities, among other things, to the developing world.
The multibillion-dollar "indirect consumer tax" is only one of a "suite of proposals" for financing the rapid transformation of the global medical industry that will go before WHO's 34-member supervisory Executive Board at its biannual meeting in Geneva.
The idea is the most lucrative — and probably the most controversial — of a number of schemes proposed by a 25-member panel of medical experts, academics and health care bureaucrats who have been working for the past 14 months at WHO's behest on "new and innovative sources of funding" to accomplish major shifts in the production of medical R&D.
WHO's so-called Expert Working Group has also suggested asking rich countries to set aside fixed portions of their gross domestic product to finance the shift in worldwide research and development, as well as asking cash-rich developing nations like China, India or Venezuela to pony up more of the money.
These would also add billions in additional funds to international health care for the future — as much as $7.4 billion yearly from rich countries, and as much as $12.1 billion from low- and middle-income nations.
But the taxation ideas draw the most interest. The expert panel cites a number of possible examples. Among them:
—a 10 per cent tax on the international arms trade, "which might net about $5 billion per annum";
—a "digital tax or 'hit' tax." The report says the levy "could yield tens of billions of U.S. dollars from a broad base of users";
—a financial transaction tax. The report approvingly cites a levy in Brazil that charged 0.38 percent on bills paid online and on unspecified "major withdrawals." The report says the Brazilian tax was raising an estimated $20 billion per year until it was cancelled for unspecified reasons.
The panel concludes that "taxes would provide greater certainty once in place than voluntary contributions," even as the report urges WHO's executive board to promote all of the alternatives, and more, to support creation of a "global health research and innovation coordination and funding mechanism" for the planned revolution in medical research, development and distribution.
The WHO scheme to transfer impressive amounts of money, technology, patents and manufacturing ability to the developing world in a global battle to conquer disease looks similar in many respects to the calls for huge transfers of wealth and technology that were at the heart of the just-failed U.N.-sponsored conference on lowering greenhouse gas emissions at Copenhagen.
Indeed, the volume of revenues that the experts foresee from their global indirect tax — if it should ever be approved by enough national governments — might well come close to the $30 billion annual wealth transfer that rich nations approved at Copenhagen to hand over to poor countries until 2012.
But a global health tax would go one big step further. And, as the experts point out, one trail-blazing version of their global consumer tax for medical research already exists: a germinating program known as UNITAID, which aims to battle against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
UNITAID, which began in 2006 and is also hosted by WHO, is financed in part by a "solidarity contribution" levy of anywhere from $1.20 to $58 on airline tickets among a group of nations led by France, Brazil, Chile, Norway and Britain. According to the WHO experts report, it has raised around $1 billion since its inception, with 13 countries having already passed the airline tax legislation and "several" others in the process of doing so.
The idea, as with the "indirect" taxes that WHO is about to consider, is that a relatively small consumer levy, once implemented, is a low-profile and relatively painless way to create a global health-care tax system.
UNITAID's board chairman, Philippe Douste-Blazy , a former French Cabinet Minister and currently special advisor to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on "innovative financing for development," is also a member of the WHO expert working group.
The global financial mechanism that the experts have been exploring is the keystone to WHO's entire program for the transformation of the world's health industry, which was endorsed as a "global strategy and plan of action" by the health organization's World Assembly in May 2008.
The plan includes more than 100 specific actions across the areas of research and development, technology transfer and intellectual property rights, among others, according to an update that will also be presented to the executive board next week.
New regional and national networks for medical innovation and development are being planned in Asia, Latin America and Africa — where, for example, there will be "African-led product research and development innovation," including delivery of drugs based on traditional medicines.
Another major effort is the transfer of technology to poorer countries to produce vaccines. One example: H1N1 flu vaccine, which is being manufactured in China, India and Thailand under licensing arrangements created under WHO auspices.
After WHO issued repeated warnings of a serious H1N1 influenza pandemic over the past two years, countries such as Britain and France ordered hundreds of millions of dollars worth of vaccine, only to decide that they were unnecessary, leading to mass cancellations of orders. WHO is reviewing how it handled the crisis.
According to the WHO update, the U.N. organization is already promoting transfers of new medical products for vaccines against rabies, even though that disease is now something of a rarity in the West.
A significant aim of the WHO effort is expanding production and distribution of remedies for what it calls "neglected diseases," mainly meaning those that are more common in poor, underdeveloped countries than in richer ones. These include a variety of parasitic ailments, including trypanosomiasis, or sleeping sickness.
Behind all of the effort is the "persistent and growing concern," as the expert's paper puts it, that "the benefits of the advances in health technology are not reaching the poor," which the paper calls "one of the more egregious manifestations of inequity."
As with "climate change" at Copenhagen, the WHO's experts see that health inequity as a malady that innovative and permanent forms of global taxation are just the right thing to help cure.
By George Russell
The World Health Organization (WHO) is considering a plan to ask governments to impose a global consumer tax on such things as Internet activity or everyday financial transactions like paying bills online.
Such a scheme could raise "tens of billions of dollars" on behalf of the United Nations' public health arm from a broad base of consumers, which would then be used to transfer drug-making research, development and manufacturing capabilities, among other things, to the developing world.
The multibillion-dollar "indirect consumer tax" is only one of a "suite of proposals" for financing the rapid transformation of the global medical industry that will go before WHO's 34-member supervisory Executive Board at its biannual meeting in Geneva.
The idea is the most lucrative — and probably the most controversial — of a number of schemes proposed by a 25-member panel of medical experts, academics and health care bureaucrats who have been working for the past 14 months at WHO's behest on "new and innovative sources of funding" to accomplish major shifts in the production of medical R&D.
WHO's so-called Expert Working Group has also suggested asking rich countries to set aside fixed portions of their gross domestic product to finance the shift in worldwide research and development, as well as asking cash-rich developing nations like China, India or Venezuela to pony up more of the money.
These would also add billions in additional funds to international health care for the future — as much as $7.4 billion yearly from rich countries, and as much as $12.1 billion from low- and middle-income nations.
But the taxation ideas draw the most interest. The expert panel cites a number of possible examples. Among them:
—a 10 per cent tax on the international arms trade, "which might net about $5 billion per annum";
—a "digital tax or 'hit' tax." The report says the levy "could yield tens of billions of U.S. dollars from a broad base of users";
—a financial transaction tax. The report approvingly cites a levy in Brazil that charged 0.38 percent on bills paid online and on unspecified "major withdrawals." The report says the Brazilian tax was raising an estimated $20 billion per year until it was cancelled for unspecified reasons.
The panel concludes that "taxes would provide greater certainty once in place than voluntary contributions," even as the report urges WHO's executive board to promote all of the alternatives, and more, to support creation of a "global health research and innovation coordination and funding mechanism" for the planned revolution in medical research, development and distribution.
The WHO scheme to transfer impressive amounts of money, technology, patents and manufacturing ability to the developing world in a global battle to conquer disease looks similar in many respects to the calls for huge transfers of wealth and technology that were at the heart of the just-failed U.N.-sponsored conference on lowering greenhouse gas emissions at Copenhagen.
Indeed, the volume of revenues that the experts foresee from their global indirect tax — if it should ever be approved by enough national governments — might well come close to the $30 billion annual wealth transfer that rich nations approved at Copenhagen to hand over to poor countries until 2012.
But a global health tax would go one big step further. And, as the experts point out, one trail-blazing version of their global consumer tax for medical research already exists: a germinating program known as UNITAID, which aims to battle against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
UNITAID, which began in 2006 and is also hosted by WHO, is financed in part by a "solidarity contribution" levy of anywhere from $1.20 to $58 on airline tickets among a group of nations led by France, Brazil, Chile, Norway and Britain. According to the WHO experts report, it has raised around $1 billion since its inception, with 13 countries having already passed the airline tax legislation and "several" others in the process of doing so.
The idea, as with the "indirect" taxes that WHO is about to consider, is that a relatively small consumer levy, once implemented, is a low-profile and relatively painless way to create a global health-care tax system.
UNITAID's board chairman, Philippe Douste-Blazy , a former French Cabinet Minister and currently special advisor to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on "innovative financing for development," is also a member of the WHO expert working group.
The global financial mechanism that the experts have been exploring is the keystone to WHO's entire program for the transformation of the world's health industry, which was endorsed as a "global strategy and plan of action" by the health organization's World Assembly in May 2008.
The plan includes more than 100 specific actions across the areas of research and development, technology transfer and intellectual property rights, among others, according to an update that will also be presented to the executive board next week.
New regional and national networks for medical innovation and development are being planned in Asia, Latin America and Africa — where, for example, there will be "African-led product research and development innovation," including delivery of drugs based on traditional medicines.
Another major effort is the transfer of technology to poorer countries to produce vaccines. One example: H1N1 flu vaccine, which is being manufactured in China, India and Thailand under licensing arrangements created under WHO auspices.
After WHO issued repeated warnings of a serious H1N1 influenza pandemic over the past two years, countries such as Britain and France ordered hundreds of millions of dollars worth of vaccine, only to decide that they were unnecessary, leading to mass cancellations of orders. WHO is reviewing how it handled the crisis.
According to the WHO update, the U.N. organization is already promoting transfers of new medical products for vaccines against rabies, even though that disease is now something of a rarity in the West.
A significant aim of the WHO effort is expanding production and distribution of remedies for what it calls "neglected diseases," mainly meaning those that are more common in poor, underdeveloped countries than in richer ones. These include a variety of parasitic ailments, including trypanosomiasis, or sleeping sickness.
Behind all of the effort is the "persistent and growing concern," as the expert's paper puts it, that "the benefits of the advances in health technology are not reaching the poor," which the paper calls "one of the more egregious manifestations of inequity."
As with "climate change" at Copenhagen, the WHO's experts see that health inequity as a malady that innovative and permanent forms of global taxation are just the right thing to help cure.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Truth About The Religion Of Piece
ISLAM explained in laymans terms.
(Adapted from Dr. Pete r Hammond's book:
Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat)
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well..
Here's how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- Muslim 0..6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
This is happening in:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims.They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.
This is occurring in:
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population.
But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers.
Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.
(Adapted from Dr. Pete r Hammond's book:
Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat)
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well..
Here's how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- Muslim 0..6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
This is happening in:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims.They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.
This is occurring in:
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population.
But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers.
Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.
Why Aren't We Profiling?
Profiling
1.1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
a.. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c.. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davey Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid, Islam convert, also known as Abdul Raheem and Tariq Raja, born 1973 in Bromley South London attempted to blow up American Airlines Flight 63 Paris to Miami with a shoe bomb. The 6 foot 4 inch (193 cm) Reid was eventually subdued by passengers on the airliner, using plastic handcuffs, seatbelt extensions, and headphone cords. He was a:
a. A Democrat
b. A Republican
c. A Baptist
d. A Muslim male extremist mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
13. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
14. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people.. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling.
Foot note: Fort Hood Texas ......another Muslim 39 years old killed 13 people and wounded 30 some odd others... Does this fit the profile!
NOW OUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IS TELLING EVERYONE THAT THE YOUNG MUSLIM THAT ATTEMPTED TO BLOW
UP A NORTHWEST - DELTA JET AS IT APPROACHED DETROIT ON CHRISTMAS DAY WAS (QUOTE) "AN ISOLATED INCIDENT"..
YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!! MY FATHER USE TO SAY: "PLEASE DON'T PISS ON MY LEG AND TELL ME IT'S RAINING."
1.1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
a.. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c.. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davey Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid, Islam convert, also known as Abdul Raheem and Tariq Raja, born 1973 in Bromley South London attempted to blow up American Airlines Flight 63 Paris to Miami with a shoe bomb. The 6 foot 4 inch (193 cm) Reid was eventually subdued by passengers on the airliner, using plastic handcuffs, seatbelt extensions, and headphone cords. He was a:
a. A Democrat
b. A Republican
c. A Baptist
d. A Muslim male extremist mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
13. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
14. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people.. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling.
Foot note: Fort Hood Texas ......another Muslim 39 years old killed 13 people and wounded 30 some odd others... Does this fit the profile!
NOW OUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IS TELLING EVERYONE THAT THE YOUNG MUSLIM THAT ATTEMPTED TO BLOW
UP A NORTHWEST - DELTA JET AS IT APPROACHED DETROIT ON CHRISTMAS DAY WAS (QUOTE) "AN ISOLATED INCIDENT"..
YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!! MY FATHER USE TO SAY: "PLEASE DON'T PISS ON MY LEG AND TELL ME IT'S RAINING."
Unions Screw America, Again
Behind Closed Doors, Unions Win, You Lose
President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and nine other lawmakers met face-to-face for seven hours to resolve differences between the House and Senate health care bills. At the same time these talks were going on, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern and United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger met with other Obama administration officials in a separate room in the White House. This all comes after these same labor leaders met personally with Speaker Pelosi yesterday, and after they met face-to-face with President Obama in the White House on Monday. Despite then-candidate Barack Obama's explicit promises to the American people, absolutely none of these meetings were open to the public or televised on C-SPAN. In fact, Politico reports: "Those involved in the talks sought to keep details of their progress under wraps."
And just what deals were Big Labor, the leftist majorities in Congress and the Obama administration making behind closed doors? How to pay for President Obama's likely $1 trillion health care plan without raising taxes on one of the President's most loyal constituencies: labor unions. Specifically, Big Labor reportedly has struck a deal with health care negotiators to exempt union members from the 40% excise tax on high-priced health insurance premiums. By some estimates, the tax would hit one in four union members. Now Big Labor will get all of the big government health care spending they always wanted, but they will not have to pay for it.
And Obamacare's Big Labor handouts don't end there. The legislation also sets aside $5 billion to subsidize the costs of employer health benefits for early retirees. As Heritage fellow James Sherk notes, few nonunion employers, of course, pay pension and health benefits for workers to retire at 55. And then there's the small business exemption from the employer mandate for businesses with less than 50 employees. At first this applied to all small businesses, but after aggressive lobbying by Big Labor, non-unionized construction businesses were unexempted. Big Labor lobbyists explicitly admitted they wanted to use Obamacare's job-killing employer mandates as a competitive advantage to drive non-unionized firms out of business.
So where does the White House and Congress propose to regain the revenue lost from exempting unions from the health care excise tax? The people who fund job creation: investors. The Obama administration wants to apply the Medicare payroll tax not just to wages but to capital gains, and for the first time ever, to dividends and other forms of investment income. This tax will hit seniors the hardest since many of them live off their dividend and interest income, in addition to their pension and Social Security checks. But it also hurts us all since high taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest and business income increase the cost of capital, thus depressing investment at the very time the economy needs new investment to grow and create jobs.
Big Labor's high wages and inflexible work rules have already bankrupted our nation's once proud automobile industry. Across the country, their early retirement and exorbitant pensions are bankrupting states. The health insurance excise tax was once the signature health care spending cost cutter of Obama's entire health care plan. Now it has been gutted at the altar of Big Labor power. The big loser in all of these cases is you, the American taxpayer.
President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and nine other lawmakers met face-to-face for seven hours to resolve differences between the House and Senate health care bills. At the same time these talks were going on, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern and United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger met with other Obama administration officials in a separate room in the White House. This all comes after these same labor leaders met personally with Speaker Pelosi yesterday, and after they met face-to-face with President Obama in the White House on Monday. Despite then-candidate Barack Obama's explicit promises to the American people, absolutely none of these meetings were open to the public or televised on C-SPAN. In fact, Politico reports: "Those involved in the talks sought to keep details of their progress under wraps."
And just what deals were Big Labor, the leftist majorities in Congress and the Obama administration making behind closed doors? How to pay for President Obama's likely $1 trillion health care plan without raising taxes on one of the President's most loyal constituencies: labor unions. Specifically, Big Labor reportedly has struck a deal with health care negotiators to exempt union members from the 40% excise tax on high-priced health insurance premiums. By some estimates, the tax would hit one in four union members. Now Big Labor will get all of the big government health care spending they always wanted, but they will not have to pay for it.
And Obamacare's Big Labor handouts don't end there. The legislation also sets aside $5 billion to subsidize the costs of employer health benefits for early retirees. As Heritage fellow James Sherk notes, few nonunion employers, of course, pay pension and health benefits for workers to retire at 55. And then there's the small business exemption from the employer mandate for businesses with less than 50 employees. At first this applied to all small businesses, but after aggressive lobbying by Big Labor, non-unionized construction businesses were unexempted. Big Labor lobbyists explicitly admitted they wanted to use Obamacare's job-killing employer mandates as a competitive advantage to drive non-unionized firms out of business.
So where does the White House and Congress propose to regain the revenue lost from exempting unions from the health care excise tax? The people who fund job creation: investors. The Obama administration wants to apply the Medicare payroll tax not just to wages but to capital gains, and for the first time ever, to dividends and other forms of investment income. This tax will hit seniors the hardest since many of them live off their dividend and interest income, in addition to their pension and Social Security checks. But it also hurts us all since high taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest and business income increase the cost of capital, thus depressing investment at the very time the economy needs new investment to grow and create jobs.
Big Labor's high wages and inflexible work rules have already bankrupted our nation's once proud automobile industry. Across the country, their early retirement and exorbitant pensions are bankrupting states. The health insurance excise tax was once the signature health care spending cost cutter of Obama's entire health care plan. Now it has been gutted at the altar of Big Labor power. The big loser in all of these cases is you, the American taxpayer.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Copenhopen
Post-Copenhagen: picking up the pieces
One of the defining issues of the first decade of the century has been climate change. The IPCC, set up to "... assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation" produced its 3 rd and 4 th Assessment Reports in 2001 and 2007.
Although some of the earlier more extreme projections for temperature rises and negative impacts were revised downwards in the most recent report, the certainty of the panel's conclusions on the human impact on climate has increased:
" Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica )."
But we should not forget that the evidence for this is essentially circumstantial. The logic which gets the IPCC to this conclusion is
* There has been a general rise in averaged measured surface temperatures over the past century.
* At the same time, atmospheric concentrations of so-called 'greenhouse' gases, particularly carbon dioxide, have been rising. All the evidence points to the net increase being caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
* Computer models of the climate (General Circulation Models) cannot account for the temperature changes on the basis of known natural variability in climate.
* Therefore, the additional 'anthropogenic' carbon dioxide must be the primary driver of this change.
On this unproven argument, a whole climate change industry has been built; academic researchers, civil servants, carbon traders, environmental and development NGOs, taxpayer-subsidised renewable energy companies and, of course, UN agencies beaver away in the shared assumption that this logic is compelling and demands concerted action.
Fittingly, the last month of the decade saw this effort culminate in the event which had, until recently, been billed as the last chance to save the world from a climatic disaster: the Copenhagen summit, or 15 th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to give it its full name. As we now know, it failed to produce anything of substance. While thousands of registered delegates were unable to get into the venue - a spectacular breakdown of planning by the Danish government - ill-tempered and undiplomatic exchanges were taking place behind closed doors, particularly between China and the USA.
Despite the hype, despite the pressure exerted from so many quarters, this key summit, - marking the end of what might come to be seen as the decade of climate change - exposed the deep rifts between the countries of the world. Far from being united to fight a single crucial problem, each country looked after its own interests and there was no way that the final accord could be spun as diplomatic coup.
The failure to reach agreement was not because of lack of effort. Neither was there insufficient top-level commitment: far more heads of state and government attended the closing sessions than originally expected. With so much political capital and personal credibility at stake, it is difficult to see any other factors which could have led to an agreement. For the same reason, allowing more time to translate the aspirational accord into a binding agreement in Mexico or elsewhere is not likely to increase the chances of success.
The secondary issue of possible disruption to marine life because of ocean acidification is also unlikely to tip the balance in favour of drastic emissions cuts. As the nightmare scenarios of 4 or 6 degree temperature rises painted by activists depend on hypothetical and undemonstrated positive feedback mechanisms, so a breakdown of oceanic food chains is based on one interpretation of an incomplete knowledge of mixing and buffering in seawater. If the prospect of catastrophic floods and droughts has not been enough to get an agreement, it is hardly likely that the possible effects on sealife will be decisive.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this marks the end of the first phase of the climate change story. Whatever the rhetoric - and virtually no mainstream national politician has so far been willing to express public doubts about the official IPCC line - key policymakers have ultimately placed their national interests above the need for immediate, concerted action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
For the climate change issue, the new decade looks like being one of realpolitik rather than the idealism which was aspired to until Copenhagen. Having failed to reach the binding agreement which they claimed was essential, politicians will have to look hard at what is possible.
In democratic societies, governments will only be able to go as far as electorates will tolerate. This is currently very clear in the USA where members of both houses of Congress are heavily influenced by what their own constituents find acceptable. But the same influences are at work in Europe and even the behaviour of China 's leaders, who are unlikely to be worried about the ballot box for many years to come, is heavily dependent on delivering continued rapid growth for their citizens.
The failure of Copenhagen will not see the issue of climate change fade from view. Even if, as some predict, the world continues to cool rather than warm, any long-term trend will still be difficult to define by 2020. Supercomputers will by then be capable of modelling the Earth's atmosphere at a much finer scale, but the output will still be meaningless unless the underlying processes and drivers of weather patterns and climate are properly understood. Large uncertainties will still remain, and there will almost certainly still be a body of opinion calling for precautionary reductions in emissions.
But politicians will continue to put national and regional interests first, and energy and food security will be top of their list. Any action to reduce carbon intensity will not be at the expense of these. The first decade of the 21 st Century has been defined by the world obsession with climate change; the second is likely to see the focus shift to energy security.
The Scientific Alliance
St John's Innovation Centre, Cowley Road, Cambridge CB4 0WS
Tel: +44 1223 421242
One of the defining issues of the first decade of the century has been climate change. The IPCC, set up to "... assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation" produced its 3 rd and 4 th Assessment Reports in 2001 and 2007.
Although some of the earlier more extreme projections for temperature rises and negative impacts were revised downwards in the most recent report, the certainty of the panel's conclusions on the human impact on climate has increased:
" Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica )."
But we should not forget that the evidence for this is essentially circumstantial. The logic which gets the IPCC to this conclusion is
* There has been a general rise in averaged measured surface temperatures over the past century.
* At the same time, atmospheric concentrations of so-called 'greenhouse' gases, particularly carbon dioxide, have been rising. All the evidence points to the net increase being caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
* Computer models of the climate (General Circulation Models) cannot account for the temperature changes on the basis of known natural variability in climate.
* Therefore, the additional 'anthropogenic' carbon dioxide must be the primary driver of this change.
On this unproven argument, a whole climate change industry has been built; academic researchers, civil servants, carbon traders, environmental and development NGOs, taxpayer-subsidised renewable energy companies and, of course, UN agencies beaver away in the shared assumption that this logic is compelling and demands concerted action.
Fittingly, the last month of the decade saw this effort culminate in the event which had, until recently, been billed as the last chance to save the world from a climatic disaster: the Copenhagen summit, or 15 th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to give it its full name. As we now know, it failed to produce anything of substance. While thousands of registered delegates were unable to get into the venue - a spectacular breakdown of planning by the Danish government - ill-tempered and undiplomatic exchanges were taking place behind closed doors, particularly between China and the USA.
Despite the hype, despite the pressure exerted from so many quarters, this key summit, - marking the end of what might come to be seen as the decade of climate change - exposed the deep rifts between the countries of the world. Far from being united to fight a single crucial problem, each country looked after its own interests and there was no way that the final accord could be spun as diplomatic coup.
The failure to reach agreement was not because of lack of effort. Neither was there insufficient top-level commitment: far more heads of state and government attended the closing sessions than originally expected. With so much political capital and personal credibility at stake, it is difficult to see any other factors which could have led to an agreement. For the same reason, allowing more time to translate the aspirational accord into a binding agreement in Mexico or elsewhere is not likely to increase the chances of success.
The secondary issue of possible disruption to marine life because of ocean acidification is also unlikely to tip the balance in favour of drastic emissions cuts. As the nightmare scenarios of 4 or 6 degree temperature rises painted by activists depend on hypothetical and undemonstrated positive feedback mechanisms, so a breakdown of oceanic food chains is based on one interpretation of an incomplete knowledge of mixing and buffering in seawater. If the prospect of catastrophic floods and droughts has not been enough to get an agreement, it is hardly likely that the possible effects on sealife will be decisive.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this marks the end of the first phase of the climate change story. Whatever the rhetoric - and virtually no mainstream national politician has so far been willing to express public doubts about the official IPCC line - key policymakers have ultimately placed their national interests above the need for immediate, concerted action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
For the climate change issue, the new decade looks like being one of realpolitik rather than the idealism which was aspired to until Copenhagen. Having failed to reach the binding agreement which they claimed was essential, politicians will have to look hard at what is possible.
In democratic societies, governments will only be able to go as far as electorates will tolerate. This is currently very clear in the USA where members of both houses of Congress are heavily influenced by what their own constituents find acceptable. But the same influences are at work in Europe and even the behaviour of China 's leaders, who are unlikely to be worried about the ballot box for many years to come, is heavily dependent on delivering continued rapid growth for their citizens.
The failure of Copenhagen will not see the issue of climate change fade from view. Even if, as some predict, the world continues to cool rather than warm, any long-term trend will still be difficult to define by 2020. Supercomputers will by then be capable of modelling the Earth's atmosphere at a much finer scale, but the output will still be meaningless unless the underlying processes and drivers of weather patterns and climate are properly understood. Large uncertainties will still remain, and there will almost certainly still be a body of opinion calling for precautionary reductions in emissions.
But politicians will continue to put national and regional interests first, and energy and food security will be top of their list. Any action to reduce carbon intensity will not be at the expense of these. The first decade of the 21 st Century has been defined by the world obsession with climate change; the second is likely to see the focus shift to energy security.
The Scientific Alliance
St John's Innovation Centre, Cowley Road, Cambridge CB4 0WS
Tel: +44 1223 421242
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Dem's Determined To Keep Us Energy Dependent
Salazar Slips Energy Policy In Reverse
As energy prices surge to uncomfortably high levels, a top administration official wants to make it harder for U.S. companies to get more oil and gas. Once again, we're shooting ourselves in the foot on energy.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar couldn't have picked a worse time to announce that he's placing new barriers on the development of oil and gas resources. Last year's rise in oil was the largest in a decade, and crude prices today have topped $82 a barrel.
Yet Salazar on Wednesday announced plans, as the energy news service Greenwire put it, that "will require more detailed environmental reviews, more public input and less use of a provision to streamline leasing."
In short, private energy development efforts are going backward.
Worse, Salazar has politicized energy to an unseemly degree. In unveiling his new plans and trying to lay blame somewhere else for recent energy price jumps, he said: "The previous administration's 'anywhere, anyhow' policy on oil and gas development ran afoul of communities, carved up the landscape and fueled costly conflicts that created uncertainty for investors and industry."
This isn't the first time Salazar's turned our energy future into a political debate. In November, he lashed out at the oil and gas industry, accusing it of "behaving like an arm" of the Republican Party and decrying the industry's "untruths."
"Trade groups need to understand that they do not own the nation's public lands," he said.
He's right. They don't own it. We do. And because of Salazar's unwise and even hostile energy stewardship, we will likely suffer through years and years of higher prices for crude oil, natural gas and other badly needed resources.
As the chart shows, oil jumped from $44 a barrel at the start of 2009 to $83 a barrel at Wednesday's close. It's no accident.
Salazar's latest move partly reverses the clear intent of a 2005 law, passed by a Republican Congress that would speed up and streamline permits for energy projects on public lands. In effect he's pawning our energy future to political expediency.
The U.S. is sitting on an immense supply of oil and gas, probably larger than anywhere else in the world. We have at least 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas offshore. As much as 35 billion barrels of oil lies waiting to be tapped in Alaska and the Chukchi Sea. A massive 2.2 trillion barrels of energy lies in our oil shale deposits in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado.
As energy prices surge to uncomfortably high levels, a top administration official wants to make it harder for U.S. companies to get more oil and gas. Once again, we're shooting ourselves in the foot on energy.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar couldn't have picked a worse time to announce that he's placing new barriers on the development of oil and gas resources. Last year's rise in oil was the largest in a decade, and crude prices today have topped $82 a barrel.
Yet Salazar on Wednesday announced plans, as the energy news service Greenwire put it, that "will require more detailed environmental reviews, more public input and less use of a provision to streamline leasing."
In short, private energy development efforts are going backward.
Worse, Salazar has politicized energy to an unseemly degree. In unveiling his new plans and trying to lay blame somewhere else for recent energy price jumps, he said: "The previous administration's 'anywhere, anyhow' policy on oil and gas development ran afoul of communities, carved up the landscape and fueled costly conflicts that created uncertainty for investors and industry."
This isn't the first time Salazar's turned our energy future into a political debate. In November, he lashed out at the oil and gas industry, accusing it of "behaving like an arm" of the Republican Party and decrying the industry's "untruths."
"Trade groups need to understand that they do not own the nation's public lands," he said.
He's right. They don't own it. We do. And because of Salazar's unwise and even hostile energy stewardship, we will likely suffer through years and years of higher prices for crude oil, natural gas and other badly needed resources.
As the chart shows, oil jumped from $44 a barrel at the start of 2009 to $83 a barrel at Wednesday's close. It's no accident.
Salazar's latest move partly reverses the clear intent of a 2005 law, passed by a Republican Congress that would speed up and streamline permits for energy projects on public lands. In effect he's pawning our energy future to political expediency.
The U.S. is sitting on an immense supply of oil and gas, probably larger than anywhere else in the world. We have at least 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas offshore. As much as 35 billion barrels of oil lies waiting to be tapped in Alaska and the Chukchi Sea. A massive 2.2 trillion barrels of energy lies in our oil shale deposits in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Climategate Demands Investigation
Hurricane Chief: Probe Climategate
A former director of the National Hurricane Center called Sunday for an investigation into the “scientific debauchery revealed by ‘Climategate,’” citing the way global warming skeptics have been marginalized by the mainstream media.
The emails not only are troubling because of what they reveal about how some scientists played with data, according to Neil Frank, who directed the National Hurricane Center for over a decade, but for the flawed assumptions they make about the role of CO2’s effects on warming. Frank called for the investigation Sunday in an article in the Houston Chronicle.
Climategate is the scandal that began when hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. One of the top climate research centers in the world, CRU has been the source for much of the evidence supporting climate change theory.
But any of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. in the emails suggested that data that didn’t support the global warming theory was being altered or ignored.
“Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases,” wrote Frank, who was director of the National Hurricane Center from 1974 to 1987.
“Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic,” Frank wrote. “The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.”
The science isn’t settled, Frank wrote, despite what “climate alarmists” would lead you to believe. They also attack skeptics by painting them as tools of Big Oil or questioning their qualifications. But they are “numerous and well qualified,” Frank wrote.
“Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people's endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March,” Frank wrote.
“They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel's report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.”
“Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to ‘strongly reconsider’ her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS' true position.”
The skeptics do agree that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. But they question the cause, Frank wrote. Believers think the warming is created by man, but skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic.
And skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. They cite numerous field experiments that have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas, they believe. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.
Finally, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly over predicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, Frank wrote. “We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world,” he added.
“Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate,” he concluded.
A former director of the National Hurricane Center called Sunday for an investigation into the “scientific debauchery revealed by ‘Climategate,’” citing the way global warming skeptics have been marginalized by the mainstream media.
The emails not only are troubling because of what they reveal about how some scientists played with data, according to Neil Frank, who directed the National Hurricane Center for over a decade, but for the flawed assumptions they make about the role of CO2’s effects on warming. Frank called for the investigation Sunday in an article in the Houston Chronicle.
Climategate is the scandal that began when hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. One of the top climate research centers in the world, CRU has been the source for much of the evidence supporting climate change theory.
But any of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. in the emails suggested that data that didn’t support the global warming theory was being altered or ignored.
“Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases,” wrote Frank, who was director of the National Hurricane Center from 1974 to 1987.
“Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic,” Frank wrote. “The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.”
The science isn’t settled, Frank wrote, despite what “climate alarmists” would lead you to believe. They also attack skeptics by painting them as tools of Big Oil or questioning their qualifications. But they are “numerous and well qualified,” Frank wrote.
“Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people's endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March,” Frank wrote.
“They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel's report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.”
“Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to ‘strongly reconsider’ her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS' true position.”
The skeptics do agree that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. But they question the cause, Frank wrote. Believers think the warming is created by man, but skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic.
And skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. They cite numerous field experiments that have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas, they believe. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.
Finally, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly over predicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, Frank wrote. “We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world,” he added.
“Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate,” he concluded.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Unconstitutional Healthcare
Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional
If the government can mandate the purchase of insurance, it can do anything.
By ORRIN G. HATCH, J. KENNETH BLACKWELL AND KENNETH A. KLUKOWSKI
President Obama's health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.
First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.
In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.
Some have argued that Congress may pass any legislation that it believes will serve the "general welfare." Those words appear in Article I of the Constitution, but they do not create a free-floating power for Congress simply to go forth and legislate well. Rather, the general welfare clause identifies the purpose for which Congress may spend money. The individual mandate tells Americans how they must spend the money Congress has not taken from them and has nothing to do with congressional spending.
A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators. Some of those deals do involve spending programs because they waive certain states' obligation to contribute to the Medicaid program. This selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. The welfare it serves is instead very specific and has been dubbed "cash for cloture" because it secured the 60 votes the majority needed to end debate and pass this legislation.
A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.
This violates the letter, the spirit, and the interpretation of our federal-state form of government. Some may have come to consider federalism an archaic annoyance, perhaps an amusing topic for law-school seminars but certainly not a substantive rule for structuring government. But in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court struck down two laws on the grounds that the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. That is, by drafting and by deliberate design, exactly what this legislation would do.
The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.
This hardly exhausts the list of constitutional problems with this legislation, which would take the federal government into uncharted political and legal territory. Analysts, scholars and litigators are just beginning to examine the issues we have raised and other issues that may well lead to future litigation.
America's founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality.
If the government can mandate the purchase of insurance, it can do anything.
By ORRIN G. HATCH, J. KENNETH BLACKWELL AND KENNETH A. KLUKOWSKI
President Obama's health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.
First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.
In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.
Some have argued that Congress may pass any legislation that it believes will serve the "general welfare." Those words appear in Article I of the Constitution, but they do not create a free-floating power for Congress simply to go forth and legislate well. Rather, the general welfare clause identifies the purpose for which Congress may spend money. The individual mandate tells Americans how they must spend the money Congress has not taken from them and has nothing to do with congressional spending.
A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators. Some of those deals do involve spending programs because they waive certain states' obligation to contribute to the Medicaid program. This selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. The welfare it serves is instead very specific and has been dubbed "cash for cloture" because it secured the 60 votes the majority needed to end debate and pass this legislation.
A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.
This violates the letter, the spirit, and the interpretation of our federal-state form of government. Some may have come to consider federalism an archaic annoyance, perhaps an amusing topic for law-school seminars but certainly not a substantive rule for structuring government. But in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court struck down two laws on the grounds that the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. That is, by drafting and by deliberate design, exactly what this legislation would do.
The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.
This hardly exhausts the list of constitutional problems with this legislation, which would take the federal government into uncharted political and legal territory. Analysts, scholars and litigators are just beginning to examine the issues we have raised and other issues that may well lead to future litigation.
America's founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality.
Friday, January 1, 2010
A New Civil War?
Obama Orders 1 Million US Troops to Prepare for Civil War
Russian Military Analysts are reporting to Prime Minister Putin that US President Barack Obama has issued orders to his Northern Command’s (USNORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to “begin immediately” increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter.
According to these reports, Obama has had over these past weeks “numerous” meetings with his war council about how best to manage the expected implosion of his Nations banking system while at the same time attempting to keep the United States military hegemony over the World in what Russian Military Analysts state is a “last ditch gambit” whose success is “far from certain”.
And to Obama’s “last ditch gambit”, these reports continue, he is to announce in a nationwide address to his people this coming week that he is going to expand the level of US Military Forces in Afghanistan by tens of thousands of troops, while at the same time using the deployment of these soldiers as a “cover” for returning to the United States over 200,000 additional American soldiers from the over 800 bases in over 39 countries they have stationed around the Globe bringing the level of these forces in America to over 1 million, a number the US Military believes will be able to contain the “explosion of violence” expected to roil these peoples when they learn their economy has been bankrupted.
These reports further state that at the same time Obama will be attempting to keep his Nation from violent disintegration, the tens of thousands of additional troops he will send to Afghanistan are to be ordered to Kandahar where the Americans and their NATO allies will begin their final attempt to secure their TAPI (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India) pipeline, which without the Western Nations, due to their grave lack of alternative energy resources, and being cut off from these vast Central Asian supplies (which both Russia and China are seeking to insure), are warned will totally collapse.
Making the American’s (and by extension the West’s) situation even worse are new reports coming from the International Energy Agency stating that “under pressure” from the US government they have been “deliberately underplaying” a looming Global oil shortage for fear of triggering panic buying and raising the Americans fear over the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to our World’s last remaining oil resources.
To the scariest “end game” maneuvers being made by Obama, in his attempt to protect Americas Global hegemony, is his record shattering move in plunging the United States $3.5 Trillion further into debt, and which raises the total amount owed by the United States, to its citizens and the World, to the unprecedented height of over $106 Trillion.
So alarming has Obama’s actions become (especially since they are being imitated by all of the Western powers) that the managing-director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Dominique Strauss-Kahn, warned this past week that the “stimulus actions” of the West (which in essence is nothing more than the printing of money with nothing to back it up) has now become a “threat to democracy” as millions of people are expected to erupt in violence against their governments over the theft of their money and their futures.
Most unfortunately for the American people though is that this IMF warning fell on “deaf ears” in the United States with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President, James Bullard, saying this week that the US would continue its “stimulus actions” because they “would give more flexibility to US policymakers”, a most absurd statement especially when viewed in the light of the unprecedented debt payments currently looming over the American economy they have no ability whatsoever to pay.
To the ability of the West’s banking giants to save their Nation’s economies, even worse news came this week with the US ratings giant Standards & Poors issuing a warning that “every single bank in Japan, the US, Germany, Spain, and Italy included in S&P’s list of 45 Global lenders remain unsafe”, a warning which then lead to one of Europe’s largest banks, Société Générale, warning its clients to prepare for a “total Global Economic Collapse”.
To the fears of Obama over the United States erupting into civil war once the full extent of the rape and pillaging of these peoples by their banks and government becomes known to them, grim evidence now shows the likelihood of this occurring much sooner than later, especially in new poll figures showing that Obama’s approval rating among white Americans has now fallen to 39%. A number made more significant when one realizes that the white population of the United States comprises 74% of their estimated 398 million citizens, or put more ominously in these reports as “over 220 million American people armed to the teeth and ready to explode”.
And so fearful has the white population of the United States become that upon the election of Obama to the Presidency he was named as the “Gun Salesman of the Year” by the Outdoor Wire, the US’s largest daily electronic news service for the outdoor industry, who report “panic buying” of weapons and ammunition by those fearful of the destruction of their country at the hands of man they believe is not even an American citizen and had been foisted upon them by their elite classes seeking to enslave them.
Though the coming civil war in the United States is being virtually ignored by their propaganda media, the same cannot be said of Russia, where leading Russian political analyst, Professor Igor Panarin has long warned that the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the US is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.
Professor Igor Panarin further stated in his warning that “the US Dollar is not secured by anything. The country’s foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse.”
What remains to be seen, and these reports do not speculate upon, is if the citizen-soldiers of the United States will fire upon and kill their fellow countrymen during the coming conflict, but if history is to be our guide clearly shows this will be the case as the once great American Nation continues its headlong plunge into the abyss of history. May God have mercy upon all of them.
Russian Military Analysts are reporting to Prime Minister Putin that US President Barack Obama has issued orders to his Northern Command’s (USNORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to “begin immediately” increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter.
According to these reports, Obama has had over these past weeks “numerous” meetings with his war council about how best to manage the expected implosion of his Nations banking system while at the same time attempting to keep the United States military hegemony over the World in what Russian Military Analysts state is a “last ditch gambit” whose success is “far from certain”.
And to Obama’s “last ditch gambit”, these reports continue, he is to announce in a nationwide address to his people this coming week that he is going to expand the level of US Military Forces in Afghanistan by tens of thousands of troops, while at the same time using the deployment of these soldiers as a “cover” for returning to the United States over 200,000 additional American soldiers from the over 800 bases in over 39 countries they have stationed around the Globe bringing the level of these forces in America to over 1 million, a number the US Military believes will be able to contain the “explosion of violence” expected to roil these peoples when they learn their economy has been bankrupted.
These reports further state that at the same time Obama will be attempting to keep his Nation from violent disintegration, the tens of thousands of additional troops he will send to Afghanistan are to be ordered to Kandahar where the Americans and their NATO allies will begin their final attempt to secure their TAPI (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India) pipeline, which without the Western Nations, due to their grave lack of alternative energy resources, and being cut off from these vast Central Asian supplies (which both Russia and China are seeking to insure), are warned will totally collapse.
Making the American’s (and by extension the West’s) situation even worse are new reports coming from the International Energy Agency stating that “under pressure” from the US government they have been “deliberately underplaying” a looming Global oil shortage for fear of triggering panic buying and raising the Americans fear over the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to our World’s last remaining oil resources.
To the scariest “end game” maneuvers being made by Obama, in his attempt to protect Americas Global hegemony, is his record shattering move in plunging the United States $3.5 Trillion further into debt, and which raises the total amount owed by the United States, to its citizens and the World, to the unprecedented height of over $106 Trillion.
So alarming has Obama’s actions become (especially since they are being imitated by all of the Western powers) that the managing-director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Dominique Strauss-Kahn, warned this past week that the “stimulus actions” of the West (which in essence is nothing more than the printing of money with nothing to back it up) has now become a “threat to democracy” as millions of people are expected to erupt in violence against their governments over the theft of their money and their futures.
Most unfortunately for the American people though is that this IMF warning fell on “deaf ears” in the United States with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President, James Bullard, saying this week that the US would continue its “stimulus actions” because they “would give more flexibility to US policymakers”, a most absurd statement especially when viewed in the light of the unprecedented debt payments currently looming over the American economy they have no ability whatsoever to pay.
To the ability of the West’s banking giants to save their Nation’s economies, even worse news came this week with the US ratings giant Standards & Poors issuing a warning that “every single bank in Japan, the US, Germany, Spain, and Italy included in S&P’s list of 45 Global lenders remain unsafe”, a warning which then lead to one of Europe’s largest banks, Société Générale, warning its clients to prepare for a “total Global Economic Collapse”.
To the fears of Obama over the United States erupting into civil war once the full extent of the rape and pillaging of these peoples by their banks and government becomes known to them, grim evidence now shows the likelihood of this occurring much sooner than later, especially in new poll figures showing that Obama’s approval rating among white Americans has now fallen to 39%. A number made more significant when one realizes that the white population of the United States comprises 74% of their estimated 398 million citizens, or put more ominously in these reports as “over 220 million American people armed to the teeth and ready to explode”.
And so fearful has the white population of the United States become that upon the election of Obama to the Presidency he was named as the “Gun Salesman of the Year” by the Outdoor Wire, the US’s largest daily electronic news service for the outdoor industry, who report “panic buying” of weapons and ammunition by those fearful of the destruction of their country at the hands of man they believe is not even an American citizen and had been foisted upon them by their elite classes seeking to enslave them.
Though the coming civil war in the United States is being virtually ignored by their propaganda media, the same cannot be said of Russia, where leading Russian political analyst, Professor Igor Panarin has long warned that the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the US is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.
Professor Igor Panarin further stated in his warning that “the US Dollar is not secured by anything. The country’s foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse.”
What remains to be seen, and these reports do not speculate upon, is if the citizen-soldiers of the United States will fire upon and kill their fellow countrymen during the coming conflict, but if history is to be our guide clearly shows this will be the case as the once great American Nation continues its headlong plunge into the abyss of history. May God have mercy upon all of them.
NEA- Teach Social Change
Texas teachers warned against being 'heterosexist'
'We must help people to become committed to social change'
By Bob Unruh
Candidates for certification to teach in public schools in Texas are being told that they will be held accountable for any "heterosexist" leanings and must become agents working to change society, according to one candidate who was alarmed by the demands.
The applicant, who requested anonymity for fear of repercussions, told WND part of the teachings on multiculturalism required him to read several online postings about the issue inside the education industry.
One warns that "teachers and administrators must be held accountable for practices deemed to be racist, sexist, heterosexist, classist, or in any other way discriminatory." And a second warned that educators must not define education as the basic skills.
"How do we create a better world? How do we do more than simply survive? As educators, we must help people to become committed to social change," the article demanded.
The teacher candidate told WND the studies were mandated by the Region 10 service center for the public school educators' program.
The center had a recording that it was closed throughout the holidays and officials could not be reached by WND.
________________________________________
________________________________________
Texas teachers warned against being 'heterosexist'
'We must help people to become committed to social change'
________________________________________
Posted: December 31, 2009
11:10 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Texas Education Agency
Candidates for certification to teach in public schools in Texas are being told that they will be held accountable for any "heterosexist" leanings and must become agents working to change society, according to one candidate who was alarmed by the demands.
The applicant, who requested anonymity for fear of repercussions, told WND part of the teachings on multiculturalism required him to read several online postings about the issue inside the education industry.
One warns that "teachers and administrators must be held accountable for practices deemed to be racist, sexist, heterosexist, classist, or in any other way discriminatory." And a second warned that educators must not define education as the basic skills.
"How do we create a better world? How do we do more than simply survive? As educators, we must help people to become committed to social change," the article demanded.
The teacher candidate told WND the studies were mandated by the Region 10 service center for the public school educators' program.
The center had a recording that it was closed throughout the holidays and officials could not be reached by WND.
But spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe at the Texas Education Agency said the state rules require teacher preparation programs to cover 17 curriculum topics, but not multiculturalism.
The corrupt state of U.S. colleges exposed, now at the WND Superstore!
"Although the training should address educating special populations such as English language learners and children with disabilities," she added.
"While we establish the broad rules that are to be followed, we do not write or approve a training program's curriculum," she said.
She said the articles, if part of the program, were chosen at the region level.
One of the articles was on the EdChange Multicultural Pavilion and discussed defining "multicultural education."
There it states that there are several focuses for such programs, including those that insist "on education change as part of a larger societal transformation in which we more closely explore and criticize the oppressive foundations of society and how education serves to maintain the status quo – foundations such as white supremacy, capitalism, global socioeconomic situations, and exploitation."
The article demands, "Schools must be active participants in ending oppression of all types, first by ending oppression within their own walls, then by producing socially and critically active and aware students."
"The underlying goal of multicultural education is to affect social change. The pathway toward this goal incorporates three strands of transformation: 1. The transformation of self; 2. The transformation of schools and schooling; and 3. The transformation of society," the teaching material said.
The traditional teaching approaches, it continued, "must be deconstructed to examine how they are contributing to and supporting institutional systems of oppression."
It demands that the "transformation of society" be part of a school's goals.
"It is not enough to continue working within an ailing, oppressive, and outdated system to make changes, when the problems in education are themselves symptoms of a system that continues to be controlled by the economic elite."
A second article that was assigned to the student, the candidate told WND, was "Multicultural Education and Developmental Education: A Conversation About Principles and Connections with James A. Banks," and included the same concepts of change.
"In the Pedagogy of the Oppressed [the author] says that we must teach students to read the word, which is basic skills, but we also must teach them to read the world, and that is to critique and change society," the article said.
"One of the things that is happening in this assessment mania that is going on is that we've defined education too narrowly. We've defined it as only basic skills: reading, writing, and arithmetic. We're missing that the biggest problem of humankind is not basic skills but how to get along. How do we create a better world? How do we do more than simply survive? As educators, we must help people to become committed to social change," it stated.
The article also warned instructors must lead their students in a specific social direction.
"I think it is essential that students acquire basic skills and I don't think they're neutral. The skills are as value laden as the commitments we want students to share. Although it's essential that students acquire basic skills, this alone is clearly not sufficient for them to become effective citizens in a global society. They must also develop the commitment and ability to critique and change society," the article said.
A similar issue of demanding a specific social perspective arose recently at the University of Minnesota.
Officials at the school there backed off a proposal after publicity about its planned requirements to examine teacher candidates about "white privilege" as well as provide "remedial re-education" for those who hold the "wrong" views.
That case was taken up by the the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which promotes civil liberties on the campuses of America's colleges and universities.
Fire officer Adam Kissel said the report from the Race, Culture, Class, and Gender Task Group apparently would involve screen teacher applicants for "wrong" views and withholding their degrees if "the university's political re-education efforts proved ineffective."
By any "nontotalitarian" standards, he wrote, the plans being made so far by the school are "severely unjust and impermissibly intrude into matters of individual conscience."
In Minnesota, among the issues discussed in the plans, are requirements that teachers would be able to instruct students on the "myth of meritocracy" in the United States, "the history of demands for assimilation to white, middle-class, Christian meanings and values," and the "history of white racism."
Those demands appeared to be similar to those promoted earlier at the University of Delaware.
As WND reported, the Delaware university's office of residential life was caught requiring students to participate in a program that taught "all whites are racist."
School officials immediately defended the teaching, but in the face of a backlash from alumni and publicity about its work, the school decided to drop the curriculum, although some factions later suggested its revival.
FIRE, which challenged the Delaware plan, later produced a video explaining how the institution of the university pushed for the teachings, was caught and later backed off:
Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten said the Minnesota plan would have required teachers to "embrace – and be prepared to teach our state's kids – the task force's own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic."
She wrote, "The first step toward 'cultural competence,' says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize – and confess – their own bigotry. Anyone familiar with the re-education camps of China's Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi.
"What if some aspiring teachers resist this effort at thought control and object to parroting back an ideological line as a condition of future employment?" she posed. "The task group has Orwellian plans for such rebels: The U, it says, must 'develop clear steps and procedures for working with nonperforming students, including a remediation plan.'"
'We must help people to become committed to social change'
By Bob Unruh
Candidates for certification to teach in public schools in Texas are being told that they will be held accountable for any "heterosexist" leanings and must become agents working to change society, according to one candidate who was alarmed by the demands.
The applicant, who requested anonymity for fear of repercussions, told WND part of the teachings on multiculturalism required him to read several online postings about the issue inside the education industry.
One warns that "teachers and administrators must be held accountable for practices deemed to be racist, sexist, heterosexist, classist, or in any other way discriminatory." And a second warned that educators must not define education as the basic skills.
"How do we create a better world? How do we do more than simply survive? As educators, we must help people to become committed to social change," the article demanded.
The teacher candidate told WND the studies were mandated by the Region 10 service center for the public school educators' program.
The center had a recording that it was closed throughout the holidays and officials could not be reached by WND.
________________________________________
________________________________________
Texas teachers warned against being 'heterosexist'
'We must help people to become committed to social change'
________________________________________
Posted: December 31, 2009
11:10 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Texas Education Agency
Candidates for certification to teach in public schools in Texas are being told that they will be held accountable for any "heterosexist" leanings and must become agents working to change society, according to one candidate who was alarmed by the demands.
The applicant, who requested anonymity for fear of repercussions, told WND part of the teachings on multiculturalism required him to read several online postings about the issue inside the education industry.
One warns that "teachers and administrators must be held accountable for practices deemed to be racist, sexist, heterosexist, classist, or in any other way discriminatory." And a second warned that educators must not define education as the basic skills.
"How do we create a better world? How do we do more than simply survive? As educators, we must help people to become committed to social change," the article demanded.
The teacher candidate told WND the studies were mandated by the Region 10 service center for the public school educators' program.
The center had a recording that it was closed throughout the holidays and officials could not be reached by WND.
But spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe at the Texas Education Agency said the state rules require teacher preparation programs to cover 17 curriculum topics, but not multiculturalism.
The corrupt state of U.S. colleges exposed, now at the WND Superstore!
"Although the training should address educating special populations such as English language learners and children with disabilities," she added.
"While we establish the broad rules that are to be followed, we do not write or approve a training program's curriculum," she said.
She said the articles, if part of the program, were chosen at the region level.
One of the articles was on the EdChange Multicultural Pavilion and discussed defining "multicultural education."
There it states that there are several focuses for such programs, including those that insist "on education change as part of a larger societal transformation in which we more closely explore and criticize the oppressive foundations of society and how education serves to maintain the status quo – foundations such as white supremacy, capitalism, global socioeconomic situations, and exploitation."
The article demands, "Schools must be active participants in ending oppression of all types, first by ending oppression within their own walls, then by producing socially and critically active and aware students."
"The underlying goal of multicultural education is to affect social change. The pathway toward this goal incorporates three strands of transformation: 1. The transformation of self; 2. The transformation of schools and schooling; and 3. The transformation of society," the teaching material said.
The traditional teaching approaches, it continued, "must be deconstructed to examine how they are contributing to and supporting institutional systems of oppression."
It demands that the "transformation of society" be part of a school's goals.
"It is not enough to continue working within an ailing, oppressive, and outdated system to make changes, when the problems in education are themselves symptoms of a system that continues to be controlled by the economic elite."
A second article that was assigned to the student, the candidate told WND, was "Multicultural Education and Developmental Education: A Conversation About Principles and Connections with James A. Banks," and included the same concepts of change.
"In the Pedagogy of the Oppressed [the author] says that we must teach students to read the word, which is basic skills, but we also must teach them to read the world, and that is to critique and change society," the article said.
"One of the things that is happening in this assessment mania that is going on is that we've defined education too narrowly. We've defined it as only basic skills: reading, writing, and arithmetic. We're missing that the biggest problem of humankind is not basic skills but how to get along. How do we create a better world? How do we do more than simply survive? As educators, we must help people to become committed to social change," it stated.
The article also warned instructors must lead their students in a specific social direction.
"I think it is essential that students acquire basic skills and I don't think they're neutral. The skills are as value laden as the commitments we want students to share. Although it's essential that students acquire basic skills, this alone is clearly not sufficient for them to become effective citizens in a global society. They must also develop the commitment and ability to critique and change society," the article said.
A similar issue of demanding a specific social perspective arose recently at the University of Minnesota.
Officials at the school there backed off a proposal after publicity about its planned requirements to examine teacher candidates about "white privilege" as well as provide "remedial re-education" for those who hold the "wrong" views.
That case was taken up by the the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which promotes civil liberties on the campuses of America's colleges and universities.
Fire officer Adam Kissel said the report from the Race, Culture, Class, and Gender Task Group apparently would involve screen teacher applicants for "wrong" views and withholding their degrees if "the university's political re-education efforts proved ineffective."
By any "nontotalitarian" standards, he wrote, the plans being made so far by the school are "severely unjust and impermissibly intrude into matters of individual conscience."
In Minnesota, among the issues discussed in the plans, are requirements that teachers would be able to instruct students on the "myth of meritocracy" in the United States, "the history of demands for assimilation to white, middle-class, Christian meanings and values," and the "history of white racism."
Those demands appeared to be similar to those promoted earlier at the University of Delaware.
As WND reported, the Delaware university's office of residential life was caught requiring students to participate in a program that taught "all whites are racist."
School officials immediately defended the teaching, but in the face of a backlash from alumni and publicity about its work, the school decided to drop the curriculum, although some factions later suggested its revival.
FIRE, which challenged the Delaware plan, later produced a video explaining how the institution of the university pushed for the teachings, was caught and later backed off:
Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten said the Minnesota plan would have required teachers to "embrace – and be prepared to teach our state's kids – the task force's own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic."
She wrote, "The first step toward 'cultural competence,' says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize – and confess – their own bigotry. Anyone familiar with the re-education camps of China's Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi.
"What if some aspiring teachers resist this effort at thought control and object to parroting back an ideological line as a condition of future employment?" she posed. "The task group has Orwellian plans for such rebels: The U, it says, must 'develop clear steps and procedures for working with nonperforming students, including a remediation plan.'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)