Thursday, December 30, 2010

'We no longer have republic subservient to Constitution'

BORN IN THE USA?

Officer: Lakin case is end of 'rule of law'

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A retired military officer who pursued all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court a legal challenge to Barack Obama's occupancy of the Oval Office says the conviction and sentencing of an active duty officer who raised similar questions signals the end of the "rule of law" in the United States.

Cmdr. Charles Kerchner's legal case, handled by attorney Mario Apuzzo, alleged that Congress failed its constitutional duty to examine the legitimacy of a successful candidate during the Electoral College vetting process on Capitol Hill. The Supreme Court ultimately decided not to hear arguments, leaving standing a lower court's dismissal.

Sign a petition to state elections officials demanding they remove the constitutional cloud over the presidency by requiring documentation of candidates' eligibility.

Now Kerchner has attended, and is analyzing, the military's court-martial of now-former Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who refused to deploy to Afghanistan because of concerns that Obama consistently refused to document his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.

His comments came in an interview with Sharon Rondeau of The Post & Email.

The judge in Lakin's case, Col. Denise Lind, ordered that Lakin could not raise the issue of Obama's eligibility, could not seek through the discovery process evidence that would support him, could not bring in evidence to the trial and could not bring in the witnesses he sought.

The conviction, then, was assured before the panel of officers ever deliberated the question.

That means, warned Kerchner, "we no longer have a rule of law and a constitutional republic subservient to the fundamental law of the land, the U.S. Constitution."

He explained how Lakin, before publicly challenging Obama's eligibility to serve as president under the Constitution's "natural born citizen" requirement – an issue that remains undocumented – had gone through every available channel seeking resolution.

"Terry had been questioning Obama's eligibility for over two years, and not only did he go to his elected representatives; he used a formal path available to soldiers, filling out a form or writing a letter, to request a congressional inquiry," Kerchner told The Post & Email.

"If a soldier is having some issue with the military chain of command or for any reason feels that he has been unjustly treated, there is the Article 138 where you can directly ask your senior chain of command about it. He also filed another form or letter to request a congressional inquiry; he requested more than once that an investigation be done about Obama's eligibility because as an officer, he had sworn an oath to the U.S. Constitution. He had great doubts that Obama was eligible, and he wanted them to investigate, and they didn't even answer him," Kerchner explained.

"The Congress did nothing. Terry, as a soldier, had a further right to one, and he didn't even get an answer. For example, if you allege that your commanding officer is mistreating you, Congress investigates those allegations. Terry asked for a congressional inquiry because no one in his chain of command was answering his questions, and they didn't answer him. He felt he was being unjustly treated and ignored by his chain of command in their not addressing or answering his questions about the eligibility of Obama to be the commander-in-chief and president," he said in the lengthy interview with Rondeau.

"Not even statutory laws are being obeyed," he said. "Not even regulations regarding congressional inquiries from soldiers are being obeyed. It's strictly to defend one man, a phony, a fraud, the usurper-in-chief, Obama. Our whole system of government, our whole culture has been corrupted and turned upside-down and completely rotted from the inside out to protect this man. All of our laws are being subverted and ignored because they know the answer: he's not eligible."

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 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."

Some of the challenges question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Several of the cases have involved emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices have declined even to hear arguments. Among the other cases turned down without a hearing at the high court have been petitions by Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Orly Taitz.

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.

Obama wrote in his own book that he was born a dual citizen of the U.S. and Great Britain due to the fact his father was a subject of the British crown when Obama was born.

Lakin announced nearly a year ago that he would not deploy as per Obama's orders until his eligibility to issue such orders was verified. Lakin was stripped of his duties, then court-martialed and now is imprisoned in Ft. Leavenworth for six months.

Lakin supporters have established a fund to support Lakin's legal defense and provide for the needs of his wife and children while he is incarcerated.

Financial contributions should be sent to the Terry Lakin Action Fund, the only fund authorized by Lakin's family. Donate online at Terrylakinactionfund.com using any major credit card, or mail checks made payable to the Terry Lakin Action Fund, PO Box 1116, Bel Air, MD 21014.

Cards and letters, but no packages, can be sent to Lakin at the following address, and should not mention rank: Terrence Lakin #89996, 830 Sabalu Road, Fort Leavenworth, Kan. 66027.

No hospital has admitted Obama was born there, and while state officials in Hawaii say they have confirmed his birth documentation, they refuse to reveal what it states. The type of document posted online by Obama is available to those not born in the state.

Kerchner also said the defense counsel for Lakin should have raised the issue of the so-called Nuremberg defense. That refers to the trials after World War II where Nazi officers explained they simply were following orders, and many ended up convicted for their atrocities.

"I would have brought up the Nuremberg defense and cited the officer(s) tried at Nuremberg who told that court it was not his duty to question orders from the supreme commander, meaning Adolf Hitler, and that your duty is to obey orders, and that man was hanged for that: for blindly accepting all orders from the supreme commander," Kerchner said.

It is up to officers to evaluate orders and follow those that are legal and disobey others, he said.

"And what is a lawful order? That is the officer’s decision to make and ask his superiors and a congressional inquiry to find out if he has a doubt, and he did that, and they ignored him. The Constitution is not a piece of parchment paper down there on display in Washington. It is the fundamental law of the land. The lawfulness of all orders issued by officers and the people above them shall be judged by that law, because his officer's oath is to do just that, to support and defend the Constitution," he said.

For now, hope must rest with Republicans in the new Congress, he said.

"The only thing left is to go back to the political process which failed us the first time and hope that the new Congress, with a Republican-controlled House finally listens to the people and holds a congressional investigation with full subpoena power. We need to force them to do that. They can now justify it by saying, 'The prior Congress made a mistake, but we're not going to do it,'" he said.

He warned that if that does not happen, other repercussions will follow.

"If they don't, the only thing left is John F. Kennedy's words and the Declaration of Independence: 'Those who make peaceful resolution (to paraphrase; he used the word 'revolution') impossible make violent resolution inevitable.' This is not going to stand with the people forever. It's going to boil over at some point, and what they thought they were preventing – violence in the inner cities if he were properly vetted and revealed he was not eligible – will result in and cause far, far, far worse by what they have done by corrupting every institution and system of our government to protect an ineligible man, a phony, the usurper-in-chief, Mr. Zero."

He pointed out that if Obama's eligibility is not fully documented, "not only should Lakin have his conviction expunged; he should be given the Medal of Freedom."

"The truth always wins. If the truth always comes out and Obama is proven to be a fraud, which we know he is, then justice mandates that Lt. Col. Lakin be vindicated, pardoned, and his kangaroo court conviction record expunged from history and a new history written that he did the right thing in the face of adversity," he said.

Meanwhile, Hawaii's new governor, Neil Abercrombie, is promising he wants to find a way to release Obama's documentation to put the story to rest, which appears to be not going away anytime soon.

According to the Supreme Court's own website, there is scheduled to be a conference Jan. 7, 2011, on a case submitted by Orly Taitz.

This particular case has had a long proceeding; it began as a challenge to the legality of the military orders under Obama, whose eligibility to hold the office of president never has been documented to date. While that officer, Capt. Connie Rhodes, ultimately followed her orders, the attorney was fined $20,000 in the case, and it continued its path through the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and now is pending in Washington.

Whether it will fall by the wayside as have other cases on the same issue that have been submitted to the court remains to be seen. But even if this case falls, it doesn't appear the issue itself will fade.

Consider:

* More than a year ago, polls revealed that a bare half of the people in the United States even knew there was an issue over Obama's eligibility but recent polls have indicated up to 58 percent of Americans now have doubts over that issue.

* Fining attorneys, even jailing defendants, as happened to Lakin, hasn't caused the issue to disappear.

* A billboard campaign that simply asks "Where's the Birth Certificate" has appeared in many dozens of locations, and one billboard company that a year ago concluded it was more or less a settled issue now has asked to be allowed to participate in the campaign.

* Various officials have "verified" Obama's eligibility but have declined to document their statements.

* Extensive examinations of the available record suggest Obama likely is, in fact, ineligible.

* There remains a multitude of lawsuits still making their way toward Supreme Court review:

* In Congress, a pending proposal would require all candidates for the office of president to document their eligibility under the Constitution's requirement that they be a "natural born citizen."

* Similar plans are moving even more quickly at the state legislature level.

* And there even are predictions that Congress will take up the dispute.

Read more: Officer: Lakin verdict is end of 'rule of law' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=245529#ixzz19cjV74Db

Friday, December 17, 2010

Obama's urgent treaty push called 'contempt of Congress'

FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN

Analysts fear START doc holds something prez wants concealed


© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Editor's Note:
The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND. Subscriptions are $99 a year or, for monthly trials, just $9.95 per month for credit card users, and provide instant access for the complete reports.

Concern is mounting among experts in the arena of international treaties that the Obama administration is forcing U.S. senators to ram through a new strategic arms reduction document with the Russians without fully understanding the implications or its provisions – described by critics as unverifiable, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

"(President Barack Obama's) demand that senators approve this defective accord during the few days remaining in the lame-duck session amounts to contempt of Congress," said Frank Gaffney who is president of the Center for Security Policy. "It must not be tolerated, let alone rewarded."

Critics say the treaty could "restrict" the nation's ability to defend itself, and suggest that there may be provisions Obama doesn't want members of the Senate to analyze, and possibly oppose.

Gaffney, a former acting assistant secretary of defense for international security policy, is versed in START treaties; he was involved in arms reduction negotiations during the Reagan administration.

He claims that senators have not had time to review the extensive negotiating record which reflected Russian opposition to U.S. positions while the administration decided to push for its approval anyway.

He and other critics claim that the treaty sets up a Bilateral Consultative Commission that will affect the treaty's terms materially – and make those changes without giving the Senate its constitutionally outlined advise and consent process.

The Senate requires a two-thirds vote, or approval by 67 members, before it is ratified.

Now, the Senate leadership has announced that it will hold a weekend session in an effort to ratify the treaty.

But critics are alarmed the treaty draft establishes a relationship between missile offense and missile defense, and as the U.S. shrinks its inventory of strategic nuclear weapons, it presents less latitude to beef up U.S. defenses against potential missile attacks not just from the Russians but other countries as well.

Critics are concerned that limitations in this treaty will preclude bolstering missile defenses against such countries as North Korea and Iran which are developing their own intercontinental ballistic missiles that soon could reach the U.S.

The net effect of any changes that could occur without U.S. approval would restrict U.S. missile defenses and make other reductions in U.S. nuclear deterrent forces, Gaffney said.

Other former leaders from the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, along with top nuclear weapons and arms control experts, oppose the new START.

In a Dec. 13 letter to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, they raised objections to consideration of START, especially in a lame-duck session, given all of the issues that still persist with the treaty draft.

"It is our considered professional judgment that this treaty and the larger disarmament agenda which ratification would endorse are not consistent with the national security interests of the United States, and that both should be rejected by the Senate," they wrote.

Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

For the complete report and full immediate access to Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, subscribe now. http://g2bulletin.wnd.com/

Thursday, December 16, 2010

The 111th Congress's Final Insult

REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Wall Street Journal

Bluto Blutarsky must have been an Appropriator.

The 111th Congress began with an $814 billion stimulus that blew out the federal balance sheet, so we suppose it's only fitting that the Members want to exit by passing a 1,924-page, $1.2 trillion omnibus spending bill. The worst Congress in modern history is true to its essence to the bitter end.

Think of this as a political version of the final scene in "Animal House," when the boys from the Delta frat react to their expulsion by busting up the local town parade for the sheer mayhem of it. Bluto Blutarsky (John Belushi) did go on to be a U.S. Senator in the film, and a man of his vision must have earned a seat on Appropriations.

Democrats have had 11 months to write a budget for fiscal 2011, which began on October 1. But Majority Leader Harry Reid and Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye have dumped this trillion-dollar baby on Senators at the very last minute, when everyone is busy and wants to go home for the holidays. No doubt that was the plan. The continuing resolution to fund the government expires on Saturday, so Mr. Reid wants to squeeze Senators against the deadline. And with the press corps preoccupied by the tax debate, the spending bill is greased to slide through with little or no public scrutiny.

Defenders argue that the bill is restrained because it freezes overall spending for federal agencies at 2010 levels. But 2010 was an inflated budget with a $1.3 trillion deficit. Paul Ryan, soon to be House Budget Chairman, notes that nondefense discretionary spending rose 24% over those two years. Add stimulus funding and federal agency spending soared to $796 billion in 2010 from $434 billion, an 84% spending increase. (See nearby table.) Republicans have promised to return to 2008 spending levels, and the omnibus will make that much harder.

Then there are the pork and policy riders, such as a food safety bill with new authority for the Food and Drug Administration. The bill's 6,630 earmarks will cost more than $8.1 billion, according to Citizens Against Government Waste. While that's fewer than in 2009, what happened to the earmark ban promised by Republicans and supported by President Obama?

The late John Murtha of Pennsylvania is so powerful he's still getting pork from his grave: $10 million for the John Murtha Foundation. Ted Kennedy also scored a legacy earmark. The omnibus includes $8 million for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute secured by Congressman Ed Markey (D., Mass.). Thad Cochran of Mississippi, one of the GOP Senators who may vote for the bill, secured $6 million for the Mississippi Polymer Institute at the University of Southern Mississippi.
[1omni]

The bill makes a special effort to pad spending for programs likely to be targeted by Republicans next year, so any future cuts will occur off a larger baseline. That includes $36 million more for public broadcasting, $1.5 billion for high-speed rail projects that many states say they can't afford, and $3 billion for green energy pork.

Republicans should be especially upset with the $1.1 billion to implement phase one of ObamaCare. This gives the Administration's bureaucracy a running start and means that Republicans will have to pass new legislation to rescind the funding—which Mr. Obama will veto. Why would Republicans vote for a bill that makes it harder for them to achieve one of their main political goals?

We're told that at least six and perhaps as many as 10 Republican Senators may give Mr. Reid the votes he needs to pass this monstrosity. That list includes Susan Collins of Maine, Mr. Cochran, and looming retirees Kit Bond of Missouri, Bob Bennett of Utah and George Voinovich of Ohio. This is the same Senator Voinovich who yesterday voted against extending the Bush-era tax rates on grounds that they are unaffordable.

Mr. Voinovich is retiring with this Congress, and if there were any justice in politics taxpayers could revoke his pension. As for Mr. Bennett, this vote explains his re-election defeat.

The sliver of good news is that Republican Senators Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma say they'll insist that this epic be read aloud on the Senate floor. That should slow down Mr. Reid and his bipartisan posse for a day or two. Perhaps if voters learn what's in it, they will turn enough Senators against it to save the day. Republicans should hold out for a clean budget with no earmarks that funds agencies at last year's level for an additional 45 to 60 days. They can then get busy cutting in January. If Mr. Obama wanted to help his fiscal credentials, he'd veto the omnibus and demand the same thing.

But don't count on any miracles.
The 111th Congress has shown contempt for taxpayers from its first day, which is why it was so repudiated on November 2 and why Gallup found this week that Congress's approval rating has hit a record low of 13%. Which raises the question: Who are those 13%? At least "Animal House" was funny.

Obama quietly erasing borders

PREMEDITATED MERGER

Dem administration advancing 'North American Union' agenda

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Acting quietly, below the radar of U.S. public opinion and without congressional approval, the Obama administration is implementing a key policy objective of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, to erase the border with Mexico and Canada.

The administration is acting under a State Department-declared policy initiative described in a March 23 fact sheet titled "United States-Mexico Partnership: A New Border Vision."

"Mexico and the United States have a shared interest in creating a 21st century border that promotes the security and prosperity of both countries," the State Department declared. "The U.S. and Mexican governments have launched a range of initiatives that challenge the traditional view of 'hold the line' and are developing a framework for a new vision of 21st century border management."

At the same time, CTV News in Canada has obtained a draft copy of a declaration between the U.S. and Canada entitled "Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Competitiveness," to be implemented by a newly created Canadian-U.S. "Beyond the Border Working Group."

Get "The Late Great USA" and find out how America is giving away its sovereignty

The two documents strongly suggest the Obama administration is pursuing a stealth bureaucratic methodology to establish a common North American border around the continent, encompassing the U.S., Canada and Mexico, while simultaneously moving to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico as well as between the U.S. and Canada.

Under the Bush administration's SPP, the U.S., Mexico and Canada organized some 20 different "shadow government" bureaucratic working groups composed of agency heads and undersecretaries in the three nations. The groups span a wide range of policy areas, from e-commerce, to aviation policy, to borders and immigration, trilateral travel, transportation, energy, environment, food and agriculture, health and financial services.

WND has reported since 2006 that a blueprint published in 2005 by the Council on Foreign Relations entitled "Building a North America Community" called for the establishment of a common security perimeter around North America by 2010 to facilitate the free movement of people, trade and capital between the three nations of North America.

In his 2001 book, "Toward a North American Community," American University professor Robert Pastor, a co-chair of the CFR blue ribbon committee that authored "Building a North American Community," called for the creation of a North American Commission, a North American Parliament, and a North American Court on Trade and Investment.

The language of the documents declaring "A New Border Vision" with Mexico and Canada could easily have been lifted directly from the CFR report or Pastor's book.

The 2005 CFR report "Building a North American Community" called on page xvii of the Foreword for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security perimeter, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter."

CTV News reported that the language of the draft agreement specified that "A New Border Vision" for the U.S. and Canada would involve "a perimeter approach to security, working together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries in a way that supports economic competitiveness, job creation and prosperity, and in a partnership to enhance our security and accelerate the legitimate flow of people and goods between our two countries."

Similarly, the U.S. State Department fact sheet calling for "A New Border Vision" with Mexico specified five areas of "joint border management, co-responsibility for cross-border crime, and shared commitment to the efficient flow of legal commerce and travel," namely: enhancing public safety, securing flows of people and goods, expediting legitimate commerce and travel, engaging border communities, and setting policy.

Under "setting policy," the State Department fact sheet with Mexico called for achieving rapid policy change through "an agile inter-agency process within each country as well as a means by which both governments can easily coordinate at a bi-national level."

This provides additional support for the conclusion that the bureaucratic "working groups" established under SPP in the Bush administration will continue to operate under Obama administration.

CTV News reported that the draft declaration of "A New Border Vision" with Canada similarly also specified a cross-border policy agenda, including:

* An integrated cargo security strategy;

* A joint approach to port and border security and screening;

* Cross-border sharing of information between law enforcement agencies;

* A closer working relationship between the two militaries in the event of emergencies;

* A new level of collaboration on preventing and recovering from counter attacks.

Affirming the continuance of the working group process, the draft declaration with Canada specifies the U.S. and Canada "intend to address threats at the earliest point possible, including outside the perimeter of our two countries."

The origin of the SPP can be traced to a trilateral summit meeting in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005, between President George W. Bush, then-Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.

At the end of the Waco summit, the three leaders simply declared that the U.S., Mexico and Canada were now in the Security and Prosperity Partnership, without the signing of any international agreement between the three countries or the ratifying of any trilateral treaty by the U.S. Senate.

The SPP in the administration of President Bush appeared designed to replicate the steps taken in Europe over a 50-year period following the end of World War II to transform an economic agreement under the European Common Market into a full-fledged regional government, operating as the European Union, with its own currency, the euro, functioning as the sole legitimate currency in what has become known as "the eurozone."

The concern was that under the SPP, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, could evolve into a regional government, the North American Union, with a regional currency, the Amero, designed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Mexican peso and the Canadian dollar.

WND has reported analysts have believed the North American integration plan will proceed incrementally, largely below the radar, since the SPP was declared "dead" by one of its chief architects, American University Professor Robert A. Pastor, who for nearly 15 years has been a major proponent of building a "North American Community."

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Memo to Conservatives: Quit Apologizing for Capitalism

by David Limbaugh

Everywhere we turn these days, it seems, leftists are undermining and attacking capitalism on moral grounds. Their criticisms are directed not at merely certain corrupt corporations or individuals who abuse the system, but at the system itself.

Sadly, few conservatives, even conservative Christians, are willing or prepared to defend capitalism's virtues. Rather than tout it in terms of liberty, they sheepishly apologize for its allegedly inherent greed.

It's a testament to the power of propaganda and the appeal of emotion over reason that a system that has produced the greatest prosperity in world history is castigated on moral grounds, while those systems that have proliferated abject misery, poverty, tyranny and subjugation are hailed as morally superior.

Granted, most leftists don't openly confess their hostility to capitalism, but they come close, especially in their endless waging of class warfare.

Surely you've heard Obama say, preposterously, "A free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it." No one actually supports this straw man argument. American capitalism has always been subject to the rule of law. Even the fiercest free market proponents don't defend the license to steal or economic anarchy.

Hidden in Obama's statement (and more apparent in some of his other statements) are unmistakable implications that those who thrive in our system are immoral and don't deserve it and that the less successful have been cheated out of their just desserts. This doubtlessly proceeds from his leftist view of the relationship between government and the people.

The left doesn't seem to comprehend the indispensability of private property to liberty or the necessity of liberty to achieve prosperity. To them, it is not individuals operating in a climate of liberty who produce prosperity. Government produces (or magnanimously permits) the creation of wealth and is the most appropriate vehicle for distributing that wealth and delivering the greatest good to the greatest number of people.

America's gross national product first belongs to the government, and only that portion the government allows you, in its beneficence, to keep after taxes is your money. But even then, it is not wholly your money, for you are not free to transfer it by gift (lifetime or death) to whomever you'd like without penalty. And interest you earn on it will also be taxed.
____

David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of new book Crimes Against Liberty, the definitive chronicle of Barack Obama's devastating term in office so far.

Friday, December 10, 2010

Palin And The Ryan Roadmap

by John Hayward


Writing for the Wall Street Journal today, Sarah Palin unfurls the fiscal “road map” prepared by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, and likes where it leads.

She didn’t much care for the recommendations of the President’s bipartisan deficit reduction panel, co-chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, although she commends the authors for taking the problem seriously. “The report shows we're much closer to the budgetary breaking point than previously assumed,” Palin says. “The Medicare Trust Fund will be insolvent by 2017. As early as 2025, federal revenue will barely be enough to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on our national debt. With spending structurally outpacing revenue, something clearly needs to be done to avert national bankruptcy.”

I personally think 2017 and 2025 are generous assessments of the fiscal “doomsday” date, because those dates don’t properly account for the dynamic affects of a shrinking economy as fiscal collapse approaches. If we don’t get on a road map to fiscal sanity very soon, we’re going to arrive in 2017 on a roller coaster, picking up speed as it rattles down the tracks.

Palin judges the deficit commission’s report inadequate because it leaves three major financial tumors largely untreated: Social Security, ObamaCare, and our incredibly convoluted tax system. The commission would address Social Security by raising the retirement age, long after the point where the system would have become insolvent – and even at that, it would be making an already rotten deal for future retirees even worse. Ryan’s “Roadmap For America’s Future,” on the other hand, offers a program for younger workers to opt into a private retirement account, while preserving existing benefits for those 55 and older. There is, quite frankly, no other approach that will save the system.

“On health care,” Palin continues, the Roadmap “would replace ObamaCare with a new system in which people are given greater control over their own health-care spending. It achieves this partly through creating medical savings accounts and a new health-care tax credit - the only tax credit that would be left in a radically simplified new income tax system that people can opt into if they wish.” It also reforms Medicare for those under 55 into a “voucher with which people can purchase their own care.” The one thing we’ve never tried to do, in the course of “reforming” health care, is give individuals more control over it, coupled with more incentives for health care providers to win their business through competition.

On taxes, the Ryan plan would “replace our high and anticompetitive corporate income tax with a business consumption tax of just 8.5%. The overall tax burden would be limited to 19% of GDP (compared to 21% under the deficit commission's proposals).” From World War II to the 1970s, the government spent less than 20% of GDP. Our fiscal health went terminal when that limit was exceeded. There is a school of economic thought that suggests it’s essentially impossible for any government to indefinitely sustain spending beyond the 20% threshold, as the recessive effects of excessive taxation and spending cause the economy to begin deflating. I think we’ve gotten close enough to proving this theory to suspend the experiment.

Ryan’s plan also simplifies the tax system to two rates, 10% for single filers up to $50,000 or joint filers up to $100,000, and 25 percent for higher amounts, with a generous standard deduction. It eliminates double taxation on savings, investments, and estates, taxing only income. Aside from the health care credit, the rest of the complex maze of deductions, subsidies, and penalties that turn our current tax code into an instrument of social control are eliminated.

“Together these reforms help to secure our entitlement programs for the 21st century,” Palin concludes. “According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Roadmap would lead to lower deficits and a much lower federal debt. The CBO estimates that under current spending plans, our federal debt would rise to 87% of GDP by 2020, to 223% by 2040, and to 433% by 2060. Under Rep. Ryan's Roadmap, the CBO estimates that debt would rise much more slowly, peaking at 99% in 2040 and then dropping back to 77% by 2060.”

It’s important to see one of the most popular figures in the conservative movement throwing her weight behind a carefully thought-out set of proposals like Ryan’s. As Palin concedes, the Roadmap for America’s Future isn’t perfect, but it’s clearly not a bunch of cockamamie ideas Ryan tossed out in a beer-fueled rant after realizing he couldn’t handle Speaker Nancy Pelosi for one more instant. Ryan’s ideas are also consonant with a lot of interesting things Mike Pence has been saying lately.

The common liberal knock on the Tea Party movement in general, and Sarah Palin in particular, is that they have no ideas, only complaints and sound bites. Palin expresses her own concrete proposals on a regular basis, and now she’s signing on to the reinforced concrete of Paul Ryan’s comprehensive plan. As Americans watch the Democrats dissolve in a petulant meltdown over their own childish demands, economic fantasies, and utter irresponsibility, they would do well to learn that people like Palin, Ryan, and Pence are the adults in the room.

____

John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS, and author of the recently published Doctor Zero: Year One. Follow him on Twitter: Doc_0. Contact him by email at jhayward@eaglepub.com.

Federal Reserve's 'money magicians' exposed

DEAL OF THE DAY

Ron Paul: 'Be prepared for 1 heck of a journey through time and mind'
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Thousands of readers consider it simply the best, most understandable, yet most mind-boggling and comprehensive expos̩ ever written on the Federal Reserve System, and today only, WND readers can get G. Edward Griffin's legendary 608-page blockbuster, "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve," for only $4.95 Рa savings of almost $20!

Where does money come from? Where does it go? Who makes it? All of these questions and more are revealed in this mesmerizing book as the money magicians' secrets are unveiled. We are invited to take a close look at their mirrors and smoke machines, and their pulleys, cogs, and wheels that create the grand illusion called money.

Banking and the Federal Reserve ... a dry and boring subject? Don't believe it! Once you pick up this book you'll be hooked in five minutes. This book reads like a detective story – which it really is; but it's all true. "The Creature from Jekyll Island" is about the most blatant scam of all history. You'll find it all here: the cause of wars, boom-bust cycles, inflation, depression, prosperity and more.

"A superb analysis deserving serious attention by all Americans. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind."U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, member, House Banking Committee

"What every American needs to know about central bank power. A gripping adventure into the secret world of the international banking cartel."Mark Thornton, assistant professor of economics, Auburn University Coordinator of Academic Affairs, Ludwig von Mises Institute

"A magnificent accomplishment – a trainload of heavy history, organized so well and written in such a relaxed and easy style that it captivated me. I hated to put it down." – Dan Smoot, publisher/editor, Dan Smoot Report

"The Creature from Jekyll Island"
will change the way you view the world, politics, and money. After you finish this book, your world view will have changed forever. You'll never trust a politician again – or a banker.

That's right. Your eyes are not deceiving you. Right now, you can save almost $20 off the cover price of G. Edward Griffin's masterpiece, "The Creature from Jekyll Island."

Until tonight at 10 p.m. Pacific tonight, you can get your copy for only $4.95 by taking advantage of this special offer, exclusively from WorldNetDaily.

But wait – it gets better. There's another part to this deal. When you order "The Creature from Jekyll Island " for $4.95, we will also send you, FREE, three sizzling issues of WND's critically acclaimed monthly magazine, Whistleblower.

Many readers consider Whistleblower to be simply the world's best news magazine. Each issue focuses like a powerful laser on a single topic – from how to survive financial meltdown to understanding the secret agendas of America's establishment elite – explored thoroughly, and with facts and insight such as you've never seen anywhere else. Recent issues include "SHADOW GOVERNMENT: Inside the mad, mad, mad, mad world of Obama's czars," "MEDICAL MURDER: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers," "THE GREAT AWAKENING: How tea partiers are setting a new course for America," "NARCISSIST IN CHIEF: Experts explain what makes Barack Obama tick" and "BLACK HOLE: The shocking truth about the U.S. economy – and what you can and must do."

So, for $4.95 you get a copy of "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin, plus you get three sample issues of Whistleblower – in hopes, of course, that you will do what most people do, which is to become a long-term Whistleblower subscriber.

(Note: This offer does not apply to current Whistleblower subscribers or those living outside the U.S. However, if you are already a Whistleblower subscriber, or if you want to subscribe now, we have an outstanding offer for you to check out!)

Important: For this very special $4.95 offer, you will receive G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island" as well as three free issues of Whistleblower magazine. Also included with your free issues will be a renewal notice for a one-year Whistleblower subscription. If you wish to renew, do nothing, and your credit or debit card will be charged the low annual renewal rate of $39.95. (There's no risk, because at any time you can cancel your subscription for a full refund on the unused portion.) If you don't want to renew, simply cancel by calling 1-800-4WNDCOM (800-496-3266) or by emailing canceltrial@wnd.com before the charge date printed on the renewal card you'll receive. Either way, the book and the 3 free issues are yours to keep. (Only one copy of " The Creature from Jekyll Island" at this price per household. Offer good only in the U.S.)

Please note: If you like your three free Whistleblower issues and renew, when your Whistleblower subscription eventually expires, you'll receive another renewal notice from us. To keep Whistleblower coming, do nothing and we'll renew your subscription automatically at the low prevailing rate by charging your credit or debit card. As always, there's never any risk, as you may cancel at any time for a full refund of the unused portion of your subscription.

"This is an amazing offer, one that sounds almost too good to be true," said WND Editor Joseph Farah. "But it is true – our way of giving loyal WND readers a fantastic bargain, while at the same time introducing them to our monthly magazine."

"I urge readers to take advantage of this special deal now, because we can only offer it for a short time," Farah added.

Order your copy of "The Creature from Jekyll Island" for only $4.95! Special offer ends tonight at 10 p.m. Pacific.

If you prefer to order by phone rather than online, call our toll-free customer service line at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Central.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

McCain: 264,600 may quit military

THE GAY-ING OF AMERICA

3 top commanders warn Senate: Don't accept open homosexuality, 'reprogramming' rejected

By Brian Fitzpatrick© 2010 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – As the commanders of the Army, Air Force and Marines cautioned the U.S. Senate against abruptly repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, critics are also warning that accepting open homosexuality and pro-homosexual "reprogramming" could drive massive numbers of troops out of the service.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., pointed out during the first day of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on Thursday that according to a survey conducted for the Pentagon, repealing DADT could create an "alarming" troop retention problem at a time when the military is already shorthanded.

Get the inside story on what's happening to America, in "HOW EVIL WORKS: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America"

Said McCain, "If 12.6 percent of the military left earlier, that translates into 264,600 men and women who would leave the military earlier than they had planned … Do you think that's a good idea to replace 265,000 troops … in a time of war?"

Military analyst Bob Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and senior fellow for national security at the Family Research Council, said the real number could exceed half a million.

"Twelve-point-six percent is just the people who said they would leave," Maginnis told WND. "If you add in the number who said they 'might' leave, you get 23.7 percent. That would be 528,000, when you count both active duty and reserves.

"And that's only if you trust their numbers," Maginnis continued. "They have a real problem with their numbers. It's skewed toward noncombatants, and the Air Force had much larger proportional participation than the Army, so the numbers are totally unreliable.

"They spun their questions in a way that's absolutely bizarre. They literally have distorted the truth, it's all about repeal, not about what's good for the service," he said..

"I don't think people understand how they have spun these numbers. Not only is the survey biased, the way they combined their percentages is skewed. They say 50 or 55 percent of the troops support repeal, but that's not true. The big slice of that 55 percent is 'mixed', some positive, some negative." The truth is, it was 30 percent negative, and 15 or 20 percent positive."
Maginnis said the results of the survey consistently show that two service members oppose DADT repeal for every supporter.

Marine Corps commandant Gen. James Amos acknowledged Friday that a clear majority of combat Marines oppose permitting open homosexuality in the ranks.

"Their message is that the potential exists for disruption of the successful execution of our current combat mission should repeal be implemented at this time," said Amos.

In addition to compromising combat effectiveness, repealing DADT would also threaten unit cohesion and combat readiness, according to Amos.

"If the law is changed, successfully implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual Marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level," Amos testified. "It will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat." >"[I] would not recommend going forward at this time, given everything the Army has on its plate," said Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey. "I believe the law should be repealed eventually." Casey said DADT could be repealed with "moderate risk to our military effectiveness and the long-term health of the force.".

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz advised delaying any change until 2012, to give the military enough time to implement "training and education programs."

Only Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead recommended repealing DADT this year, parroting an argument made Wednesday by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that the risks involved in allowing open homosexuality in the ranks could be overcome by "leadership."

"I believe these concerns can be effectively mitigated through engaged leadership," said Roughead.

Far from easing the transition to a "gay"-friendly military, the "training and education" recommended by Schwartz could actually amplify recruitment and retention problems, according to Maginnis. "You'll sit through mandatory classes and someone tells you what you can and cannot do. Criticism of homosexuality will receive zero tolerance. Sex and gender equality will be embedded in every basic officer training course all the way up to the war colleges." "'Re-education,' that's a good term … or call it 'reprogramming,'" said Maginnis. "Ever since George Washington the military has been programmed to believe homosexuals are disruptive to morale and unit cohesiveness, and are a readiness problem. You have to expunge all those negative thoughts you have about homosexuality and replace them with what you're told by the chain of command about what's right and wrong. "If you have strongly held religious beliefs you'll have cognitive dissonance, and it'll be very difficult to overcome. The military is ignoring privacy concerns, and you'll be told you'll have to room with a homosexual. Your commander will tell you that you will never be propositioned and your roommate will never leer at you, so your deeply held religious beliefs will be of no consequence," he said.

"You have a disproportionate number of evangelicals in the armed forces today. Retention among that population is going to be hit. >"Recruitment is the big elephant in the living room,"
Maginnis added. "The report says enlistment could decline by seven percent. That's serious. What they don't tell you is we recruit from the south and the mountain west states, which have the highest Protestant numbers of any of the states. We also find they come from families with a history of service. It's the fathers or grandfathers who recommend them to join the service. FRC looked at these vets, and they're decisively against these changes." McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a leader of anti-repeal senators, claimed on Friday that enough senators oppose repealing DADT to block a vote on the issue during the current lame duck session. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., leader of the pro-repeal forces, reportedly has said enough senators will support a vote to override a filibuster.

The House has already passed legislation to repeal DADT, and President Obama is vigorously supporting the repeal.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

The Blue Bloodbath

by John Hayward

In a recent interview, former First Lady Barbara Bush said of potential presidential candidate Sarah Palin: “I sat next to her once, thought she was beautiful, and I think she’s very happy in Alaska… and I hope she stays there.”

This prompted Palin to respond, in a radio interview with conservative host Laura Ingraham, "I don't think the majority of Americans want to put up with the blue bloods. And I say it with all due respect - because I love the Bushes - but the blue bloods want to pick and chose their winners, instead of allowing competition to pick and choose the winners."

This prompted Meghan McCain, improbably employed as a professional writer by The Daily Beast, to declare she had never heard the term “blue bloods” before, so she had to Google it, and found herself boiling with rage by the time the page finished loading. Actually, the first hit returned by Google for the search phrase “blue bloods” is a link to watch the CBS cop drama of the same name, so maybe Meghan paused to enjoy Tom Selleck’s fine performance as a police chief (whose name, coincidentally, is “Reagan”) before she began seething. Here’s a sample of the fiery stew slopping over the edge of her literary pot:

“I actually had to Google what the meaning of ‘blue bloods’ was, although I could surmise that it was some kind of knock against education and coming from a family of some success. Yes, in essence that is what this statement meant. Families that work hard and achieve a long line of successful people are ‘blue bloods’ and thus, she implied the opinions of said people are jaded and elitist, even if that family lineage has a long history of public service and leadership within Republican Party.

[…] None of this is all together surprising except for the fact that historically it is the moderates - or people like yours truly - who get accused of starting party infighting and this statement from Sarah Palin showcases that on a very basic level the underlying cultural separation in this country is also happening within the Republican party itself.”

McCain seems to have lost track of who “started” this round of “party infighting,” but leaving that aside, this is not just a case of cultural separation. “Blue blood” is a term that resonates with a frustrated nation, weary of serving at the pleasure of an insular ruling class. The inheritance of power, through family or party machinery, is of far greater concern to middle-class Americans than the inheritance of wealth.

Meghan McCain makes a show of willfully misinterpreting “blue bloods” as a slam at educated people from successful families. It is actually a derogatory term for unearned privilege. The phrase does not conjure images of a new generation skillfully managing inherited wealth and running productive family corporations. The defining characteristic of the blue blood is their immunity from consequence. They don’t live in the same world as the rest of us. They are not crushed in the gears of a system they control from above.

For example, a group of super-wealthy liberals recently made news by openly begging for the government to raise their taxes. They spoke in support of a system that drains only a few drops of blood from their ample financial arteries, while plunging needles directly into the hearts of the middle class. Tax increases, short of outright confiscation, will not destroy an opulent lifestyle, especially for those who can afford the finest accountants and lawyers… but they’re murder on the humble lives of all the people those billionaires could hire, if they kept their money and invested it, rather than handing it over to the government. Soaring tax rates won’t make the rich live in poverty, but they will prevent the middle class from becoming rich.

The Bushes were painted as blue bloods long ago, when the Clinton campaign hammered George Bush with a phony story that he’d never seen bar code scanners in grocery checkout lines before. It wasn’t true, but voters recoiled from the perception that Bush was disconnected from their hardships in a down economy. If there had been absolutely no substance to the caricature, Bush would have overcome it easily.

What Barbara Bush said about Sarah Palin is equally out of touch. Palin’s Facebook page is brimming with substantial essays, including a letter to freshman Republicans packed with policy ideas, and serious criticism of the monetary policy known as “quantitative easing.” Treating her like a pretty little bumpkin that should stay put in the hinterlands feeds a Democrat narrative that will suppress her ideas, by ensuring the public doesn’t take her seriously enough to listen to them. Mrs. Bush is under no obligation to support her, but she isn’t doing the Tea Party-infused Republican base any favors with her sneering dismissal.

The larger point about aristocracies forming like barnacles around family fortunes, lifetime congressional seats, and ancient bureaucracies is important. We all labor under the dead hand of the past, forced to pay for commitments made before we were born. The way things are going, it will be even worse for our children. The modern Democrat Party is one huge, useless royal family, gaping in helpless amazement as the “family business” they inherited comes crashing down around them. The last thing the Republicans should do to compete in 2012 is trot out the latest tired old scion from their own political dynasties. It isn’t money, a venerable family name, or time spent in exclusive schools that make a “blue blood.” The key ingredients are arrogance and inertia.

_____

John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS, and author of the recently published Doctor Zero: Year One. Follow him on Twitter: Doc_0. Contact him by email at jhayward@eaglepub.com.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Obama's IRS accused of targeting Jews

THE POWER TO DESTROY

'Special Policy' demands: 'Does your organization support existence of Israel?'

By Eugene J. Koprowski
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

An attorney for an educational organization called Z Street says there's now evidence Internal Revenue Service agents under the direction of the Obama administration intentionally are targeting the free speech and religious rights of American Jews.

WND reported only weeks ago when the IRS delayed approval of a tax-exempt status for a private organization and was reviewing its educational work after explaining it must be examined by Washington because its activities may "contradict the administration's public policies."

That allegation was contained in a federal lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Z Street, a Merion Station, Pa., group that educates on the statehood and status of Israel.

Now Jerome M. Marcus, an attorney for Z Street, has revealed to WND that additional documents have been found demonstrating how the IRS has moved "beyond the pale" by cracking down on education groups that focus on Israel.

Marcus, of the firm Marcus & Auerbach in suburban Philadelphia, said such "viewpoint discrimination" is a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

He said the government isn't allowed to weigh the religious viewpoints of educational organizations when deciding whether to grant them tax exempt status under federal charity laws.

Marcus has filed a memorandum opposing the government's motion to dismiss the case and it includes new evidence: a letter sent to another Jewish organization which raised questions about political beliefs similar to those that were asked of Z Street.

The brief, which has been posted online, challenges the IRS' motives and methods.

"This shows that what happened to my client was not anomalous, not just an agent [IRS agent Diane Gentry] who didn't understand that Z Street was an educational organization," Marcus told WND. "This information indicates that this is a policy that the IRS is pursuing. It is not an appropriate inquiry asking about someone's religious beliefs or political beliefs."

A hearing may be held in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia to probe the questions raised by the evidence, Marcus said.

"That should be interesting," he said.

The IRS did not comment on the matter. A spokeswoman in the Washington, D.C., office referred a journalist to the agency's Philadelphia contact and the contact there told WND he could not comment.

Marcus said the IRS had an initial deadline this week to respond to last week's filing for Z Street, but asked for an extension of the deadline due to the Thanksgiving holiday and Z Street agreed.

'Wildly Improper'

In his brief, Marcus details the "wildly improper" questioning by the IRS of yet another Jewish organization.

Marcus wrote: "As detailed in the Declaration of Jerome M. Marcus, Z STREET's counsel in this case, after the instant Complaint was filed, Plaintiff learned that another organization – this one simply Jewish and without any publicly stated positions on political issues affecting the State of Israel – applied for a charitable exemption. While the application was pending, its representative received a letter from the IRS, all but the first page of which appears as Exhibit 1 to Mr. Marcus's declaration. The letter, sent not by Agent Gentry, who was handling Plaintiff's application, but by a different IRS agent, inquires of the applicant: 'Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel? Describe your organization's religious belief system towards the land of Israel.'"

Marcus continued, "Can one imagine that an application for tax exemption could – constitutionally – be affected in any conceivable way by the answer to these questions?"

In his brief last week, Marcus also noted that the fact the answers are being demanded makes it clear beyond doubt that IRS officials have taken the time to determine that this is a useful line of inquiry; have obtained approval for this conclusion; disseminated this conclusion to agents processing applications for 501(c)(3) exemption; drafted questions designed to ferret out the answers the government needs to apply this policy; and then spent more time posing the questions, and then weighing their significance to determine the answers' impact on whether exemptions from tax should be granted.

'Israel Special Policy'

The IRS is executing its "Israel Special Policy" which agent Gentry informed Marcus about orally during talks about the non-profit application before the case was filed, Marcus said, noting that IRS has also established a "special unit" in its offices in Washington, D.C., to examine Jewish groups that may advocate policies contrary to those espoused by Barack Hussein Obama.

"This is not an appropriate inquiry – what are your religious beliefs," Marcus told WND. "As long as one's beliefs are factually based, IRS has no business questioning them. Inquiring into the substance of one's political beliefs is beyond the pale. It's pure viewpoint discrimination and a violation of the First Amendment."

Lori Lowenthal-Marcus
, founder of Z Street, said in an interview that the group was formally organized during the summer of 2009, and applied for charitable tax exempt status from IRS last fall. The IRS' delay in granting 501c3 status has "damaged" the fundraising of the group, as large donors usually want to have their donations be tax deductible.

"We have no problem getting membership fees, which are $18," Lowenthal-Marcus told WND. "But those are small donations. People don't worry about tax deductions for small donations."

Lowenthal-Marcus said that other Jewish groups are starting to acknowledge viewpoint discrimination as well in postings online, including a posting by a man identifying himself as a "CPA" on the blog Isra-Pundit on Nov. 28, 2010.

The poster stated, "IRS policy has completely changed regarding Jewish organizations. We see with every inquiry. It is scary. We had a case that was verbally approved by a given agent. And then pulled away for additional questions."

Even tax law professors are outraged, according to a posting on the blog for tax lawyer and professors which asks the question, "is failure to support Obama administration's foreign policy grounds to deny tax exempt status?"

Said Lowenthal-Marcus: "Other people are starting to come out of the woodwork. The same thing is happening to them."

She told WND earlier the organization has met all of the requirements to be granted tax-exempt status. But the approval was delayed because of a "Special Israel Policy that requires greater scrutiny of organizations which have to do with Israel, in part to determine whether they espouse positions on Israel contrary to those of the current administration."