Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Why Pro-Abortion Is Anti-Science

by Nancy Pearcey


In their “Pledge to America,” Republicans are promising to repeal Obamacare, which has imposed taxpayer-funded abortion on the nation. A Quinnipiac University poll found that 67% of the American people do not want their tax dollars to pay for abortion. A poll of likely voters put the number at 72%.

Liberal counter-attacks are resorting to the old slur that Republicans are anti-science. The current issue of Nature bemoans the “anti-science streak on the American right.”

Now is the time to turn the tables and make the case that it’s the pro-abortion stance that is actually anti-science.

In the past, abortion supporters simply denied that the fetus is human: “It’s just a blob of tissue.” Today, however, due to advances in genetics and DNA, virtually no ethicist denies that the fetus is human—biologically, genetically, physiologically human. Even the arch-radical Peter Singer acknowledges that “the life of a human organism begins at conception.”
How do liberals get around that scientific fact? By denying the relevance of science.

Liberals argue that the sheer fact of being human does not confer any moral worth. Nor does it warrant legal protection. The turning point is said to be when an individual becomes a “person,” generally defined in terms of self-awareness, autonomy, or other cognitive capabilities.

This is called personhood theory, and it implies a dangerously divided view of the human being. On one hand, the physical body, knowable by science, is trivialized as a form of raw material that can be tinkered with, manipulated, experimented on, or destroyed with no moral significance. Human life is reduced to a utilitarian calculus subject only to a cost-benefit analysis.

On the other hand, the concept of personhood has been disconnected from the biological fact of being human, which renders it ultimately arbitrary. Ethicists disagree even on the point when personhood begins: Is it when the fetus starts to exhibit neural activity, or feels pain, or achieves a certain level of consciousness?

Or even after the child is born? According to British bioethicist John Harris, “Nine months of development leaves the human embryo far short of the emergence of anything that can be called a person.”

James Watson of DNA fame recommended giving a newborn baby three days of genetic testing before deciding whether the child should be allowed to live. Singer considers personhood a “gray” area even at three years of age. (After all, how much cognitive functioning does a toddler have?)

Each ethicist draws the line at a different place, according to his or her own personal vision and private values.

Pro-lifers have long been castigated for bringing private values into the public square. But actually it is the pro-abortion position that is based on merely personal views and values.

In First Things, law professor Stanley Fish sets the record straight: “It is pro-lifers who make the scientific question of when the beginning of life occurs the key one.” By contrast, “pro-choicers want to transform the question into a ‘metaphysical’ or ‘religious’ one”—using those terms to mean disconnected from any scientifically knowable reality.

Of course, people are much more than biological organisms. Yet biology gives an objective, empirically detectable marker of human status.

What this means is that pro-choicers have lost the argument on the scientific level—and so they are repudiating science. In the New York Times, Yale professor Paul Bloom informs us that abortion “is not really about life in any biological sense.”

Likewise Jennie Bristow, editor of Abortion Review, dismisses science as irrelevant: “With anti-abortionists pushing ‘scientific evidence’ on fetal viability, it is time to restate the moral case for a woman’s right to choose.” Her article is titled, “Abortion: Stop Hiding behind the Science.”

Liberals bring the same anti-scientific stance to other life issues, such as euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and genetic engineering. According to personhood theory, just being part of the human race is not morally relevant. Individuals must earn the status of personhood by meeting an additional set of criteria—the ability to make decisions, exercise self-awareness, and so on, depending on the ethicist setting the criteria.

Those who do not make the grade are demoted to non-persons, even though they are still biologically human.

The concept of personhood is so malleable that anyone at any stage of life could be demoted to the status of non-person and denied the right to live. Especially if their healthcare is determined by Obamacare boards whose members are committed to a liberal ideology. Sarah Palin’s phrase “death panels” is not misapplied.

If pro-abortionists want to commit intellectual suicide and deny scientific facts, that‘s their problem. But there’s no reason a civilized society should fund their anti-scientific outlook—or accept its inhumane consequences.

This is the third in a series based on Mrs. Pearcey's just-published book, Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning.

_____

Nancy Pearcey
is a bestselling author, editor at large of The Pearcey Report, and fellow of the Discovery Institute. She has published a new book, Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning. To inquire about media interviews, please contact Katie Morgan of the Pinkston Group at 703-260-1915 (email: morgan@pinkstongroup.com).

Sunday, September 19, 2010

'It's time to impeach Obama for high crimes against U.S.'

TAKING AMERICA BACK 2010

President blasted as a Christianity-hating tyrant 'working that anvil right now forging our chains'



By Joe Kovacs
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

MIAMI – An urgent plea to impeach a "Christianity-hating" President Obama for alleged "high crimes and misdemeanors" was issued today at the start of WND's "TTaking America Back Conference" in South Florida.

The call was announced by Floyd Brown, president of the Western Center for Journalism, who asserted in strong terms the commander in chief is deliberately trying to destroy the principles on which the U.S. was founded.

"The Obama presidency is a disease," said Brown. "Article 2, Section 4 (the impeachment clause of the Constitution) is the cure. And it's Obama's hatred of America that makes it absolutely imperative that we take action now."

"Barack Hussein Obama is not some do-gooder that has had his plans go astray," Brown added. "He is not a person of good will just trying his best to make America go the right direction. He is not. Barack Hussein Obama is a liar that absolutely knows what he's doing to the United States of America. He has a plan. He has an agenda. This man knows exactly where he's taking us."

A political innovator, writer and speaker, Brown is now running an online campaign to impeach the president.

"Barack Obama is a very dangerous man," said Brown. "Over the last two years, we have been watching the slow progression of what I call a bloodless coup."

Read all about the grounds for impeachment.

"For the international socialist movement of which Barack Obama is a card-carrying member," he added, "the U.S. must be brought to its knees, and I guarantee you that Barack Hussein Obama is doing everything he can to bring the country to its knees. He wants to bring it to its knees."

Brown warned that a counterculture has risen up, dividing America.

"They don't have the same respect for you as an individual and personal property, and these traditional ideas in the Constitution. That's why they're at war with the Constitution. Everything our forefathers fought and died for to them is just trash to be thrown out on Monday morning."


Brown responded to a common question about what specifically the president has done that rises to the level of impeachment by recalling President Gerald Ford in the 1970s, who indicated an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any given moment in history.

The U.S. Constitution states a president can be impeached for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Brown said the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" essentially means "bad behavior."

He went through a list of what he considered bad behavior, saying Obama has "nationalized the banks. He nationalized GM and Chrysler. He's attacked the 2nd Amendment. He's taken over health care. He wants cap and trade legislation, so he literally taxes the air that you breathe. We breathe out CO2. He appointed czars to control your life without congressional oversight. He apologizes for us abroad. I find it personally offensive that he would apologize for this great land."

Brown said the president has committed actual crimes, including offering jobs in exchange for political favors; firing Inspector General Gerald Walpin who was investigating Obama friend Kevin Johnson for allegedly misusing funds; and is now actively trying to bankrupt America, adding more to the national deficit in nine months than in the first 200 years of U.S. history.

He noted the Congressional Budget Office has warned that unless Obama can control his appetite for deficit spending, accumulated debt could spark a U.S. fiscal crisis similar to recent ones in Greece and Ireland.

Brown then turned to matters of faith, and blasted Obama's contention that he's a Christian.

"Obama hates Christianity," Brown declared. "He is a Muslim. Others will say he's just a godless atheist. The bottom line is that this man hates Christianity."

He said at Georgetown University, Obama forced the school to cover the name of Jesus on the podium, and he paraphrased the president's comments suggesting the U.S. was no longer a Christian nation, but could now be considered a Muslim nation.

"Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers,"
Obama stated.

"He said it!"
exclaimed Brown. "Have you read about it in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal? There is a conspiracy of silence in the mainstream media to cover up this man's hatred of Christianity."

He quoted American leaders of the past, including President Andrew Jackson, who called the Bible "the rock upon which our republic rests," and Patrick Henry, who said, "It is when a people forget God, that tyrants forge their chains."

"Obama is that tyrant and he's working that anvil right now of forging our chains," said Brown.

Brown admitted that there would have to be a change in the leadership of Congress in the upcoming November elections to make impeachment a reality, but said the issue was pressing.

"Do we wait until he's totally ripped our country apart?"
Brown asked.

He closed by invoking President Ronald Reagan, who was noted for saying, "If not us, then who? If not now, when?"

The "Taking America Back Conference" is a three-day event taking place at the Doral Resort in Miami, and includes dozens of speakers including U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., former presidential candidates Alan Keyes and Tom Tancredo, and authors Jerome Corsi, Aaron Klein and David Kupelian.

Other speakers include scientist and Bible teacher Chuck Missler; talk-show host Rusty Humphries,Michael Farris of Home School Legal Defense Association; Robert Knight and Jerry Newcombe of Coral Ridge Ministries; William Murray of the Religious Freedom Coalition and son of notorious atheist Madeline Murray O'Hair; RC Sproul, Jr., author of "Biblical Economics"; "Saturday Night Live" alum Victoria Jackson, author-columnist Erik Rush and author Judith Reisman.


Related offers:

Read all about the grounds for impeachment.

There's a new strategy to get answers to Obama's eligibility questions. See how you can help.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential-eligibility mystery!

Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth-certificate documentation from the Birth Certificate Store!

Send a contribution to support the national billboard campaign that asks the simple question, "Where's the birth certificate?"

Get your yard signs and rally signs that ask the same question – and make sure it's in time for the next tea-party rally

Get your permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers for your car, truck or file cabinet – and join the campaign for constitutional integrity.

Get the most comprehensive special report ever produced on the Obama eligibility issue.

Previous stories:

Read all about the grounds for impeachment.

Retired general: Congress should give Obama ultimatum

Ex-congressman: President a 'threat,' must be impeached

Elections chief: Constitution 'important'

Microsoft Xbox: 'Impeach Obama' off limits

Impeachment suggested to remove 'threats' to America

Call for Obama's resignation cites 'deceit, fraud, dishonesty'

THE FULL STORY: See listing of more than 200 exclusive WND reports on the eligibility issue

Obama's nuke agreements meant to disarm U.S.?

The Case for Impeachment:

- (Special Report)

Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America


By Steven Baldwin


The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America - (Special Report)

By Steven Baldwin

Product Description

The Founding Fathers enshrined the impeachment clause into the United States Constitution because they feared that a president intent on subverting the very principles the American experiment was built on would someday rise to power.

Despite all the checks and balances and obstacles they put in place, the Founders knew a determined cabal could still gain control of all three branches of government and wield this consolidation of power to dismantle our cherished Constitutional principles, and eradicate the freedoms that generations of Americans sacrificed their lives to preserve.

MAKE NO MISTAKE: THAT DAY IS NOW UPON US.


"The Case For Impeachment" is an insightful summary of how President Barack Hussein Obama�s purposeful actions have jeopardized America�s ability to defend herself, and undermined our free enterprise system, corrupted our democratic institutions, and transferred massive amounts of power and wealth from American citizens to extremist special interest groups whose loyalty lies not with our Constitution, but with a global socialist movement. This is the beginning of the end for the United States unless the people exercise their precious remaining liberties and stand and demand that their elected representatives impeach this president before further mortal damage is inflicted upon America.

If the silent majority can summon the indignation, willpower and energy to make their voices heard, there is still a chance our country may survive.

Order a copy of this special report for yourself and one for your representative in Congress! It's time to prepare for the inevitable impeachment process next year.

Product Details

# ISBN: 978-193507122-8
# Page Count: 52

NOTE:


Purchasing "The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America" from WND's online store also qualifies you to receive a FREE 3-month trial subscription to our immensely popular monthly print magazine, Whistleblower. Watch for the FREE offer during checkout.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

That'll Be Another $30 Billion. Thanks, Taxpayers!

by Jillian Bandes

Congress just passed the small business bill, which critics argue could create a permanent class of bailouts for banks and the businesses they serve. "Small" banks -- defined as banks that have less than $30 billion in assets -- can qualify for discounted lending rates (funded by taxpayers), depending on how aggressively they lend to other small businesses. The banks get even lower rates if those small businesses are minority or women owned, or in rural areas. In other words: there is a massive incentive to lend to unqualified borrowers. Stephen Spruiell comments at NRO:

The case against such measures isn’t based on racism or sexism. It’s based on the idea that banks should make lending decisions based on credit risk, period. We are far beyond the point where discrimination was a big enough problem to justify such measures.

This is the same mess that got us into the housing debacle. When it all goes bust, you can thank Republican Senators George Voinovich of Ohio and George LeMieux of Florida, who crossed party lines and enabled the bill's passage. Surprise, surprise: Voinovich is retiring, and LeMieux is a caretaker.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Suit to Overturn Obamacare Hears First Arguments

By: David A. Patten

All eyes will be focused on a Pensacola, Florida courtroom Tuesday as Justice Department lawyers will try to convince a federal district court judge to throw out a lawsuit by 20 states charging that President Obama's healthcare reforms are unconstitutional.

The multi-state lawsuit has been led by Florida's Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican.

The Obama administration has claimed that the states have no legal standing to bring their legal action.

The central issue in the hearing: Whether the states are legally empowered to challenge the fines in the individual mandate that gives Obamacare its bite.

In an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview, Attorney General McCollum says the federal government has exceeded its constitutional authority.

"We are arguing that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to tell you, if you are just sitting in front of your TV set, or doing nothing in the way of real economic activity, that you have to buy a health insurance policy or pay a penalty," McCollum tells Newsmax.

"That's just not in the Constitution," he adds. "The Founding Fathers didn't enumerate any powers that appear to us to give them the right to say this."

The stakes could hardly be higher.

If the administration prevails, it would deal a major blow to conservatives' hopes of using the courts to block the administration's signature piece of legislation.

If the judge rejects the administration's motion, it would mark the second time in as many months that anti-Obamacare forces have won a major court battle on the unpopular bill that most Democrats would prefer voters forget.

The federal government is expected to argue that the "individual mandate" -- essentially a demand that every citizen buy private health insurance or suffer a fine levied by the IRS -- is actually a tax. Only taxpayers can argue the legality of a tax, they contend, and even then only after the assessments take effect in 2015.

The administration also will cite its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, along with its responsibility to provide for the public's general welfare.

Those are the same arguments the federal government made in a Virginia hearing on the other state-level lawsuit filed against healthcare reform, which was filed by Virginia GOP Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

After hearing from both sides in that case, federal Judge Harry E. Hudson in August rejected the federal government's request to have the case dismissed.

Virginia's case, however, was bolstered by a law the Old Dominion adopted making it illegal to require its citizens to purchase health insurance.

"Unquestionably, this regulation radically changes the landscape of health insurance coverage in America," wrote Judge Hudson in his 32-page opinion.

Hudson also said the federal government's authority to regulate commerce had never been extended so far before.

McCollum says the penalty the federal government seeks to impose is not a tax.

"Even if it's a tax, we think there's no provision in the Constitution allowing this kind of tax," McCollum tells Newsmax. "When President Obama advocated this legislation, he said there was no tax involved in it. So the government's being a little disingenuous, but they're going to make that kind of an argument in this hearing."

McCollum estimates the expansion of Medicaid in the president's healthcare reforms will cost Florida $1 billion a year. He says he feels "pretty confident" that the judge will allow the case to move forward.

Two taxpayers as well as the nation's leading small-business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), have joined his lawsuit. If any one of them is found to have standing, McCollum says, the entire lawsuit would move forward.

McCollum says the healthcare reform legislation could be especially vulnerable once the case reaches the trial phase, because Democrats did not place a severability clause in the bill. That's a common boilerplate provision included in many Congressional bills stipulating that if one provision of a new law is ruled illegal, the remaining parts of the legislation remains in force.

"It certainly is a fact that they have no severability clause," McCollum says. "If at any time we win on any portion of this, then the whole law goes down. I think that the courts are going to look at this as more of a whole. They're going to say, 'How is this all going to interplay?'"

According to The Associated Press, some legal experts believe the 20 states will find it difficult to convince the judge they have been harmed by a law that won't take effect for years. But the NFIB says several of its members have already suffered, because their insurance companies altered policies, and even discontinued them, in anticipation of the new law taking effect.

"We would agree with the government that the individual mandate is the key to the entire healthcare law," said NFIB Executive Director Karen Harned. "But we think the entire healthcare law is bad."

Tuesday's hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. and each side will have 45 minutes to present its case before U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson.

Vinson is not expected to announce his ruling tomorrow. Both sides in the dispute have indicated the case will eventually come before the U.S. Supreme Court — perhaps before the 2012 presidential election.

Monday, September 13, 2010

The Size of Government and the Choice This Fall

In polls, Americans overwhelmingly prefer small government and low taxes to the alternative. Yet they've been given big government, one program at a time.

By ARTHUR C. BROOKS AND PAUL RYAN

As we move into this election season, Americans are being asked to choose between candidates and political parties. But the true decision we will be making—now and in the years to come—is this: Do we still want our traditional American free enterprise system, or do we prefer a European-style social democracy? This is a choice between free markets and managed capitalism; between limited government and an ever-expanding state; between rewarding entrepreneurs and equalizing economic rewards.

We must decide. Or must we?


In response to what each of us has written in the preceding months, we have heard again and again that the choice we pose is too stark. New York Times columnist David Brooks (no relation) finds our approach too Manichaean, and the Schumpeter columnist in The Economist objected that, "You can have a big state with a well-functioning free market."

Data support the proposition that Americans like generous government programs and don't want to lose them. So while 70% of Americans told pollsters at the Pew Research Center in 2009 they agreed that "people are better off in a free market economy, even though there may be severe ups and downs from time to time," large majorities favor keeping our social insurance programs intact. This leads conventional thinkers to claim that a welfare state is what we truly want, regardless of whether or not we mouth platitudes about "freedom" and "entrepreneurship."

But these claims miss the point. What we must choose is our aspiration, not whether we want to zero out the state. Nobody wants to privatize the Army or take away Grandma's Social Security check. Even Friedrich Hayek in his famous book, "The Road to Serfdom," reminded us that the state has legitimate—and critical—functions, from rectifying market failures to securing some minimum standard of living.

However, finding the right level of government for Americans is simply impossible unless we decide which ideal we prefer: a free enterprise society with a solid but limited safety net, or a cradle-to-grave, redistributive welfare state. Most Americans believe in assisting those temporarily down on their luck and those who cannot help themselves, as well as a public-private system of pensions for a secure retirement. But a clear majority believes that income redistribution and government care should be the exception and not the rule.

This is made abundantly clear in surveys such as the one conducted by the Ayers-McHenry polling firm in 2009, which asked a large group of Americans, "Overall, would you prefer larger government with more services and higher taxes, or smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes?" To this question, 21% favored the former, while 69% preferred the latter.

Unfortunately, many political leaders from both parties in recent years have purposively obscured the fundamental choice we must make by focusing on individual spending issues and programs while ignoring the big picture of America's free enterprise culture. In this way, redistribution and statism always win out over limited government and private markets.

Why not lift the safety net a few rungs higher up the income ladder? Go ahead, slap a little tariff on some Chinese goods in the name of protecting a favored industry. More generous pensions for teachers? Hey, it's only a few million tax dollars—and think of the kids, after all.

Individually, these things might sound fine. Multiply them and add them all up, though, and you have a system that most Americans manifestly oppose—one that creates a crushing burden of debt and teaches our children and grandchildren that government is the solution to all our problems. Seventy percent of us want stronger free enterprise, but the other 30% keep moving us closer toward an unacceptably statist America—one acceptable government program at a time.

This process has led to a visceral type of dissatisfaction with the current direction of our country. The president's job approval has fallen almost linearly since he took office (standing today at 45%, according to Gallup; 41%, according to Rasmussen) despite the fact that his policies are precisely what he promised when he handily won the 2008 election. Rasmussen finds that only 29% believe we are headed in the right direction as a nation and two-thirds say they are angry about current policies of the federal government. Majorities believe that "big government" poses the greatest threat to our country, according to Gallup.

Millions of Americans instinctively look to our leaders for a defense of our culture of free enterprise. Instead, we get more and more publicly funded gewgaws and shiny government novelties to distract us. For example, the administration stills touts the success of programs such as "Cash for Clunkers" in handing out borrowed money to citizens while propping up a favored industry. Yet Rasmussen found 54% of Americans opposed the program (only 35% favored it). Plenty of people may have availed themselves of that notorious boondoggle, but a large majority understand we were basically just asking our children (who will have to pay the $3 billion back) to buy us new cars—and that's not right.

More and more Americans are catching on to the scam. Every day, more see that the road to serfdom in America does not involve a knock in the night or a jack-booted thug. It starts with smooth-talking politicians offering seemingly innocuous compromises, and an opportunistic leadership that chooses not to stand up for America's enduring principles of freedom and entrepreneurship.

As this reality dawns, and the implications become clear to millions of Americans, we believe we can see the brightest future in decades. But we must choose it.

----

Mr. Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America's Future" (Basic Books, 2010).

Mr. Ryan is a Republican congressman from Wisconsin and the author of "A Roadmap for America's Future" (www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov).

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Cabinet member hits alarm over Obama's colossal debt

DISSENSION IN THE RANKS

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivers remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington on September 8, 2010.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the U.S. military joint command are now both on record that rising levels of U.S. national debt pose a national security threat.

The message to the commander-in-chief now from both the secretary of state and the U.S. joint military command appears to have been delivered loud and clear – continuing U.S. federal budget deficits measured in the trillions of dollars makes Americans less safe to threats posed by foreign enemies.

Addressing the Council on Foreign Relations today in Washington, D.C., Clinton said the U.S. budget deficit under the Obama administration poses a national security threat and projects a "message of weakness" internationally.

Responding to a question from CFR President Richard Haas, Clinton said rising U.S. debt levels pose a national security threat in two ways: "It undermines our capacity to act in our own interest, and it does constrain us where constraint may be undesirable."

Clinton continued, "I mean, it is very troubling to me that we are losing the ability not only to chart our own destiny but to, you know, have the leverage that comes from this enormously effective economic engine that has powered American values and interests over so many years."

America's wealth is being intentionally killed off. Find out how to protect your own right now!

In an apparent effort to blame President George W. Bush for the federal budget deficit problem, Clinton said, "I mean, you know, it is – we don't need to go back and sort of re-litigate how we got to where we are, but it is fair to say that, you know, we fought two wars without paying for them, and we had tax cuts that were not paid for either."

U.S. military agrees


Clinton's message on the debt echoed a message issued by the American military last March.

The Joint Operating Environment 2010 report, or JOE 2010, released March 15 by the United States Joint Forces Command, or USJFCOM, warned that "even the most optimistic economic projections suggest that the U.S. will add $9 trillion to the [national] debt over the next decade, outstripping even the most optimistic predictions for economic growth upon which the federal government relies for increased tax revenue."

The USJFCOM expressed concerns that the burgeoning U.S. national debt represented a threat to U.S. national security.

"Rising debt and deficit financing of government operations will require ever-larger portions of government outlays for interest payments to service the debt," the JOE 2010 cautioned. "Indeed, if current trends continue, the U.S. will be transferring approximately 7 percent of its total economic output abroad simply to service its foreign debt."

To underscore its concern, the USJFCOM cited an alarming litany of historic examples, including the following:

* Habsburg Spain defaulted on its debt 14 times in 150 years and was staggered by high inflation until its overseas empire collapsed;

* Bourbon France became so beset by debt due to its many wars and extravagances that by 1788 the contributing social stresses resulted in its overthrow by revolution;

* Interest ate up 44 percent of the British government budget during the interwar years 1919-1930, inhibiting its ability to rearm against Germany.

"Unless current trends are reversed, the U.S. will face similar challenges, anticipating an ever-growing percentage of the U.S. government budget going to pay interest on the money borrowed to finance our deficit spending," the JOE 2010 concluded.

The USJFCOM expressed concern that U.S. current account and federal budget deficits will inevitably mean fewer dollars available to spend on defense.

In 1962, defense accounted for approximately 49 percent of total U.S. government expenditures, but by 2008 defense spending dropped to 20 percent.

"Following current trend lines, by 2028 the defense budget will likely consume between 2.6 percent and 3.1 percent of GDP – significantly lower than the 1990s average of 3.8 percent," the JOE 2010 stressed, noting that by 2028 the Department of Defense could shrink to less than 10 percent of the total federal budget.

"The fundamental issues for the Joint Force are the long-term sustainability of our current allocation of the federal budget and how we can contribute to continuedsecurity while operating within the fiscal constraints that are unfolding."

Unsustainable

With U.S. national debt topping $13.45 trillion this month and U.S. gross domestic product forecast to be $14.6 trillion in 2010, the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is at 92 percent.

The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio historically only exceeded 100 percent once, in the years immediately following World War II.

WND previously reported that a blue-ribbon panel that included three former heads of the Congressional Budget Office told President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress in January that the debt level of the United States is "not sustainable."

Studying the growth in three major entitlement programs – Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security – the report entitled "Choosing the Nation's Fiscal Future" concluded that spending was far outpacing tax revenue such that "any efforts to rein in future deficits must entail either large increases in taxes to support these programs or major restraints on their growth – or some combination of the two."

Unless action is taken immediately, the study warned the U.S. "faces the risk of a disruptive fiscal crisis."

In an alarming chart, the study projected that, assuming tax rates stay near their current level, federal debt would be more than seven times the nation's GDP in 75 years if no action is taken to constrain or offset the growth of SocialSecurity, Medicare, and Medicaid.

The report predicted a frightening fiscal future for the U.S. should the Obama administration and the Congress fail to act.

"If remedial action is postponed for even a few years, a large and increasing federal debt will inevitably limit the nation's future wealth by reducing the growth of capital stock and of the economy," the panel advised. "It will also increase the nation's liabilities to investors abroad, who currently hold about one half of the federal government's debt."

Increasing debt to GDP levels also exacerbate the increased interest payments U.S. taxpayers in the future will be obligated to pay just to finance current budget deficits.

"Increasing debt also may contribute to a loss of international and domestic investor confidence in the nation's economy, which would, in turn, lead to even higher interest rates, lower domestic investment and a falling dollar," the panel said.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

General: Obama records 'critical' to 'our republic'

BORN IN THE USA?

McInerney:
Eligibility issue 'of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined'

A retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant general who commanded forces armed with nuclear weapons says the disclosure of Barack Obama's documentation proving his eligibility to be commander in chief is critical not just to the defense of an officer challenging the president's status, but to the preservation of the nation itself.

The vehement statements came in an affidavit from retired Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, a Fox News military analyst, that was disclosed today by an organization generating support for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin.

Lakin had invited his own court-martial because he is unable to follow orders under the chain of command with Obama at its head unless the president's eligibility is documented.

A hearing is scheduled in Lakin's court-martial case Thursday at which a ruling is expected on defense requests for the very evidence that McInerney is citing.

The general, who retired in 1994 after serving as vice commander in chief of USAF forces in Europe, commander of the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing and assistant vice chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, among other positions, said the chain of command issue is critical, since officers are obligated both to follow orders and to disobey illegal orders.

"Officers in the United States military service are – and must be – trained that they owe their highest allegiance to the United States Constitution," he said in the affidavit.

"There can be no question that it is absolutely essential to good order and discipline in the military that there be no break in the unified chain of command, from the lowliest E-1 up to and including the commander in chief who is under the Constitution, the president of the United States. As military officers, we owe our ultimate loyalty not to superior officers or even to the president, but rather, to the Constitution."

He continued, explaining, "good order and disipline requires not blind obedience to all orders but instead requires officers to judge – sometimes under great adversity –whether an order is illegal."

"The president of the United States, as the commander in chief, is the source of all military authority," he said. "The Constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined."

Lakin is being supported by the American Patriot Foundation, which said the affidavit is for use in Lakin's trial, scheduled Oct. 13-15, as well as Thursday's hearing on the evidence to be allowed in the case.

The group said McInerney is the highest-ranking officer yet to lend public support to Lakin.

A recent poll showed that only about 4 in 10 Americans believe Obama's story of being born in Hawaii.

McInerney's affidavit "acknowledges widespread concerns over the president's constitutional eligibility and demands the president release his birth records or the court authorize discovery," the foundation said.

Lakin's defense counsel has asked for the president's school records as well as a deposition from the custodian of Obama's birth records that may exist in Hawaii.

The hearing is scheduled at 11 a.m. Thursday at Ft. Meade, Md., at the courthouse at 4432 Llewellyn Ave., inside the military base. The court is open to the public.

Lakin is a physician and in his 18th year of service in the Army. He posted a video asking for the court-martial to determine Obama's eligibility.

He is board certified in family medicine and occupational and environmental medicine. He has been recognized for his outstanding service as a flight surgeon for year-long tours in Honduras, Bosnia and Afghanistan. He was also awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan and recognized in 2005 as one of the Army Medical Department's outstanding flight surgeons.

McInerney commanded forces equipped withi nuclear weapons.

"In my command capacity I was responsible that the personnel with access to these weapons had an unwavering and absolute confidence in the unified chain of command, because such confidence was absolutely essential – vital – in the event the use of those weapons were authorized," the general wrote.

"I cannot overstate how imperative it is to train such personnel to have confidence in the unified chain of command. Today, because of the widespread and legitimate concerns that the president is constitutionally ineligible to hold office, I fear what would happen should such a crisis occur today."

He said Lakin is acting "exactly" as "proper training dictates."

"It is my opinion that LTC Lakin's request for discovery relating to the president's birth records in Hawaii is absolutely essential to determining not merely his guilt or innocence but to reassuring all military personnel once and for all for this president whether his service as commander in chief is constitutionally proper.

"He is the one single person in the chain of command that the Constitution demands proof of natural born citizenship," he continued. "This determination is fundamental to our republic.

"According to the Constitution, the commander in chief must now, in the face of serious – and widely-held – concerns that he is ineligible, either voluntarily establish his eligibility by authorizing release of his birth records or this court must authorize their discovery. The invasion of his privacy in these records is utterly trivial compared to the issues at stake here," McInerney wrote.

Lakin is represented by military counsel and by Paul Rolf Jensen, a civilian attorney from California who has been provided to him by the American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution.

The foundation says the Army's opinion of Lakin was made clear in an evaluation just before Lakin raised the issue of eligibility.

From Col. Dale Block: "Dr. Lakin is an extremely talented, highly knowledgeable senior Army clinician ... he can always be counted on to provide me with expert advice. ... LTC Lakin is clearly one of the top clinicians in the Northern Regional Medical Command. He has superb clinical skills, rapport with patients and staff. ... Terry is the best choice for tough assignments. ... Already on the promotion list to colonel, he should be groomed for positions of greater responsibility."

But Lakin, the foundation says, has been compelled to act because he swore an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. Obama's eligibility to be president has been questioned, he argues, and Obama has refused all efforts to obtain documents that could determine his eligibility.

The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

A number of challenges and lawsuits have been based on the constitutional requirement, some alleging Obama does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims. Others say he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen of the U.S. and the United Kingdom when he was born, and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.

Complicating the issue is the fact that besides Obama's actual birth documentation, he has kept from the public documentation including his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records.

Lakin declined to follow deployment orders after he tried through military channels to affirm the validity of orders under Obama's command and was rebuffed. He had been scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan again.

Lakin is not the first officer to raise questions. Others have included Army doctor Capt. Connie Rhodes and Army reservist Maj. Stefan Cook.

In at least one of the earlier disputes, the Army simply canceled the orders rather than allow the argument to come to a head.

Lakin's attorneys have said they now are demanding "discovery" of Obama's records, and that in such a dispute that information is critical. The multitude of civil cases that have been brought over the Obama eligibility dispute all have failed to reach that process because of federal judges who have ruled on issues generally involving "standing." The judges have concluded that damages from an ineligible president suffered by the plaintiffs would not be more for them than any other member of the public, so there is not a specific damage or danger.

Lakin's counsel, Jensen, has explained that the Lakin case is different, since his client is being processed on criminal charges over the issue – a status that puts him in imminent danger of specific and personal "damages."

The courts already have shown a weakness on the subject of Obama's records. The discovery-of-evidence issue previously was raised in court by attorney John Hemenway, who was threatened by a federal judge with sanctions for bringing a court challenge to Obama's presidency.

Hemenway is serving in emeritus status with the SafeguardOurConstitution website. Hemenway brought a previous court challenge, now on appeal, on behalf of a retired military officer, Gregory S. Hollister, who questioned Obama's eligibility.

The Hollister case ultimately was dismissed by Judge James Robertson, who notably ruled during the 2008 election campaign that the federal legal dispute had been "twittered" and, therefore, resolved.

Robertson sarcastically wrote: "The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his commander in chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven – to the colonel's satisfaction – that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be president.

"The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court," Robertson wrote.

Then the judge suggested sanctions against Hemenway for bringing the case. Hemenway responded that the process then would provide him with a right to a discovery hearing to see documentation regarding the judge's statements – not supported by any evidence introduced into the case – that Obama was properly "vetted."

Hemenway warned at the time, "If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past.

"The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery," Hemenway said.

The court ultimately backed off its threat of sanctions.

In a separate case, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threatened sanctions against attorney Mario Apuzzo. The court quickly backed off, however, when Apuzzo noted that under the rules of court procedure, being subjected to sanctions and penalties would give him the right to discovery in the case, possibly including Obama's birth certificate.

The Constitution requires a president to be a "natural born citizen," and, while the term is not defined in the Constitution, many legal analysts believe at the time it was written it meant a person born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents. Critics say Obama clearly does not qualify under that definition, since he has admitted in his book his father never was a U.S. citizen. Some legal challenges have argued he wasn't even born in Hawaii.

Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for Honolulu, has said there "definitely" are problems with Obama's Hawaii birth story.

"As of the time I was in Hawaii working in the elections office we had many people who were asking about the eligibility of Senator Obama to be president. I was told at the time there is no long-form birth record, which would have been the case if President Obama was born in [a] hospital in Honolulu. There is no such form in Hawaii," he said.

Lakin had posted a YouTube video challenging the Army to charge him over the issue.

As WND reported, Lakin posted the video of his challenge to Obama to document his eligibility March 30.