Are You on the President’s Enemies List?

by Gary Bauer
Posted on Human Events 04/17/2009

Last week, Barack Obama’s message to the world was: “the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam.” This week, Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security’s message to conservatives was: the United States may soon be at war with you.

According to a new report emanating from DHS, it’s no longer Islamic terrorism — or “man-caused terrorism” in the new DHS parlance — that we have to fear most, but small government, anti-tax, pro-life, pro-gun, anti-illegal immigration, pro-military conservatives. In other words, most of the country.

The DHS report’s title is, “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” That’s a mouthful. Right-wing. Extremism. Fueling. Resurgence. Radicalization. The threat is made out to be so sinister and so imminent — it’s enough to make you want to jump into bed and pull the covers over your head.

The report warns of potential terrorist acts from “groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority” as well as “groups and individuals that are dedicated a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

Particularly galling is the report’s lumping together of racists and Americans who take a conservative stance on issues like marriage and the sanctity of life. The assumption seems to be that racist and pro-life views spring from the same mindset. In truth, though, it’s the abortion industry that disproportionately targets black babies and whose largest member, Planned Parenthood, has overtly racist roots.

Potential domestic terrorists are a big concern of the Obama administration. Actual ones aren’t. A year ago Barack Obama and his allies were pooh-poohing his relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers. Obama brushed off the controversy surrounding Ayers, trying to portray him as just a “guy who lives in my neighborhood,” even though he was co-founder of the violent radical leftwing organization the Weather Underground, which conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings, resulting in real deaths.

The report was issued by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis within DHS. With a name like that you’d think the report would include some data, evidence, references — something. But it has very little of any of that. It’s full of abstractions, speculation and out-dated anecdotes of isolated acts of violence. As the report states, DHS has no “specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.”

We have become accustomed to authoritarian regimes in places like China, Burma and Cuba being so afraid of their own people that they see the greatest threat to national security as coming from within. It’s alarming to see inklings of that same mindset from America’s leaders.

If the Department of Homeland Security is serious about cracking down on organized violence, it should look to the Left. The vast majority of instances of political violence occurring over the last decade or so have been committed by leftwing groups.

DHS would do well to investigate the anarchists and communists who stormed the streets of Minneapolis-St. Paul during last year’s Republican National Convention, or the radical animal rights groups that bomb medical labs and threaten university researchers with violence. And it should not forget about the homosexual activists who attacked churches after voters passed Proposition 8 to defend traditional marriage in California.

The report’s most offensive intimation is that our heroes returning from the battlefield are susceptible to “recruitment and radicalization” by other rightwing extremists if they are “disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war…” Would that the Feds placed as much emphasis on combating Muslim radicalization in American prisons and mosques.

The DHS report is sure to reinforce the beliefs of many on the Left. Chris Matthews recently called pro-life advocates “terrorists,” and Rosie O’Donnell once blurted that “Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America…” For this sort of thinking to become policy for a major executive branch department is outrageous.

Obama likes to compare himself to Lincoln, FDR and JFK. But so far he more closely resembles Richard Nixon in one important way. Nixon had his “Enemies List,” whose purpose was to determine, as Nixon White House Counsel John Dean described it bluntly, “how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.”

Like Nixon, Obama has signaled that he will not let opposition to his agenda go unpunished. For Rush and conservative talk radio, there’s the Fairness Doctrine. For gun owners and small government enthusiasts, it’s a DHS official knocking at your door.

Whatever happened to the Obama who claimed during the campaign that he wanted to bring us all together? Nixon never claimed to be a unifier; Obama’s election depended on the idea that he was one.

By issuing this report, DHS betrays an understanding of how radical Obama’s policies are — so radical that they might set off a violent response from disgruntled citizens. But it also betrays an ignorance of the nature of those who fall into the categories described in the report.

Scores of millions of Americans are coming to realize that the country they once knew is quickly being destroyed. Understandably, they are upset and want to take action. But they won’t resort to violence, in part because they know that in a democracy change will come when enough citizens are informed about what’s going on and vote accordingly.

That’s the point of the Tea Parties. Nobody believes Obama or his allies will be much swayed by the outpouring of concern and anger evident at these rallies. But the rallies do help to educate the public about how radical Obama’s agenda is. And they help conservatives blow off a little steam and unite in solidarity around a common cause. What’s so threatening about that?

Out of Context

In Washington, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification" when people realize what was said. The clearly racist comments made by Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the Berkeley campus in 2001 have forced the spinmasters to resort to their last-ditch excuse, that it was "taken out of context."

*** Special Offer ***

If that line is used during Judge Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearings, someone should ask her to explain just what those words mean when taken in context.

What could such statements possibly mean-- in any context-- other than the new and fashionable racism of our time, rather than the old-fashioned racism of earlier times? Racism has never done this country any good, and it needs to be fought against, not put under new management for different groups.

Looked at in the context of Judge Sotomayor's voting to dismiss the appeal of white firefighters who were denied the promotions they had earned by passing an exam, because not enough minorities passed that exam to create "diversity," her words in Berkeley seem to match her actions on the judicial bench in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals all too well.

The Supreme Court of the United States thought that case was important enough to hear it, even though the three-judge panel on which Judge Sotomayor served gave it short shrift in less than a page. Apparently the famous "empathy" that President Obama says a judge should have does not apply to white males in Judge Sotomayor's court.

The very idea that a judge's "life experiences" should influence judicial decisions is as absurd as it is dangerous.

It is dangerous because citizens are supposed to obey the law, which means they must know what the law is in advance-- and nobody can know in advance what the "life experiences" of whatever judge they might appear before will happen to be.

It is absurd because it flies in the face of the facts. It was a fellow Puerto Rican judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals-- Jose Cabranes-- who rebuked his judicial colleagues for the cavalier way they dismissed the white firefighters' case.

For sale on eBay: Obama's 'Kenyan birth certificate'

---

---

BORN IN THE USA?


Seller claims Mombasa document 'certified copy'

---

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

With dozens of lawsuits filed over access to Barack Obama's certified long-form birth certificate, many more lawyers working on his behalf to keep it secret and the validity of the U.S. Constitution hanging in the balance, guess where a "certified copy" of the original Mombasa "document" has been found?

On eBay.

Item No. 160344928067, at least as of today, is described as "a certified copy of President Barack Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate."

The seller, identified by the user name " colmado_naranja," states, "President Barack Hussein Obama II was born in The Coast Provincial Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya at 7:24 PM on August 4th, 1961."

eBay offer for Obama's Kenyan birth certificate

The suspicion that Coast Provincial is, in fact, Obama's birth hospital is not new, with the subject having been discussed on both Internet blogs and forums already.

But the seller, who according to the eBay rankings has completed dozens of transactions on the behemoth auction site without difficulties, said this is the real deal.

The seller, who did not respond to a WND request for an interview, said online he was traveling in Kenya and repeatedly heard stories that Obama actually was born in Kenya.

"Kenyans were amused at how gullible Americans could be when it came to obvious things like the fact that Kenyans overtly admit to Barack Jr's Kenyan birth, yet the Americans continue to believe that they know better," the seller writes.

"I delved further and found that a birth certificate was on file at The Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa," said the seller, who claims the certificate is in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

"I know several American expats that reside in Kenya. I asked the three that I could reach if they were aware of President Barack Obama's Kenyan birth. All three said that they were most obviously aware of his Kenyan birth. I was shocked. They went to further say that they weren't much concerned with it, after all they'd left the U.S. to start a new life abroad and didn't have much interest in what was taking place in the States. Besides, they said, who would believe them anyway?

"Along with my Congolese brother Andylenny (brother in heart, not blood) and a 1993 BMW with only one working door I was off to Mombasa to get myself a copy (certified I hoped) of Barack Jr's birth certificate," the seller reported.

Actual details of how the "certificate" was obtained are not reported.

Throw the Bums Out

By David Limbaugh

Here they go again -- our faithful representatives in Washington, that is. They're about to pass, without reading its 1,200-plus pages, an incredibly expensive and destructive cap and trade bill, which has little prayer of accomplishing what it sets out to accomplish but satisfies their urgent need to pay homage to their liberal ideology and secular humanist worldview.

Do you remember when Barack Obama was forced to give an answer to justify his advocacy of a capital gains tax increase in view of such taxes' history of actually decreasing revenues? The revenue reductions are worth it because it's a matter of "fairness," he said. Spread the misery. Likewise, with cap and trade, Obama and his congressional cohorts will wreak untold destruction on the economy and get little benefit in return.

I'm not exaggerating here. Doesn't it make sense that before enacting legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the purpose of reducing man-made global warming, Congress would investigate whether significant man-made global warming is occurring (as opposed to watching Al Gore's propaganda film and simply declaring, by fiat, that scientists have reached a consensus on the issue when they clearly have not)?

And if, after a thorough and balanced inquiry, they determine that it is occurring, shouldn't they next examine whether their proposed legislative remedy is likely to significantly ameliorate the problem?

But they not only have not conducted a bona fide examination of the man-made warming issue but also have not attempted to examine, in any remotely scientific way, how much their proposed bill would reduce global warming (assuming it exists to the extent they contend) or whether any such reductions would make any difference at all to humanity's short- or long-term health or happiness or anything else.

All of this would be outrageous enough if there were no economic costs associated with their proposal. But in fact, the costs would be astronomical and way beyond the calculations they are presenting -- fraudulently -- to the American people to stunt the opposition they'd encounter if the truth were revealed.

The truth is that there is no crisis, and all the hysteria they're generating is solely for the purpose of ramrodding this odious bill through Congress before the public realizes it has, once again, been duped and betrayed.

Obama implores Senate to pass climate bill

By Charles Babington

Hours after the House passed landmark legislation meant to curb greenhouse gas emissions and create an energy-efficient economy, President Barack Obama on Saturday urged senators to show courage and follow suit.

The sharply debated bill's fate is unclear in the Senate, and Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address to ratchet up pressure on the 100-seat chamber.

"My call to every senator, as well as to every American, is this," he said. "We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past. Don't believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth."

Obama said the bill would create jobs, make renewable energy profitable and decrease America's dependence on foreign oil.

"It will spur the development of low-carbon sources of energy _ everything from wind, solar and geothermal power to safer nuclear energy and cleaner coal," he said.

House Democratic leaders said the bill helped accomplish one of Obama's campaign promises and would make the U.S. a leader in international efforts to address climate change when negotiations take place in Copenhagen later this year.

"We passed transformational legislation, which will take us into the future," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., after the 219-212 vote.

"For some it was a very difficult vote because the entrenched agents of the status quo were out there full force, jamming the lines in their districts and here, and they withstood that," Pelosi said.

The vote marked the first time either house of Congress has passed legislation to curb global warming gases. The legislation, totaling about 1,200 pages, would require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83 percent by mid-century.

Success will be tougher in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid says he wants to take up the legislation by the fall. Sixty 60 votes will be needed to overcome any Republican filibuster.

The "razor-thin vote in the House spells doom in the Senate," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the top Republican on the Senate's environment panel.

Reid, D-Nev., was more optimistic.

"The bill is not perfect, but it is a good product for the Senate," Reid said. "Working with the president and his team, I am hopeful that the Senate will be able to debate and pass bipartisan and comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation this fall."

Supporters and opponents agreed that the legislation would lead to higher energy costs. But they disagreed on the impact on consumers.

Democrats pointed to two reports _ one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency _ that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year. But Republicans and industry groups say the real figure would much higher.

The White House and congressional Democrats argued the bill would create millions of green jobs as the nation shifts to greater reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and development of more fuel-efficient vehicles _ and away from use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.

It will "make our nation the world leader on clean energy jobs and technology," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who negotiated deals with dozens of lawmakers in recent weeks to broaden the bill's support.

Republicans saw it differently.

This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," declared Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.

In the Republicans' weekly radio and Internet address, House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio said, "By imposing a tax on every American who drives a car or flips on a light switch, this plan will drive up the prices for food, gasoline and electricity."

But Obama said the measure would cost the average American about the price of a postage stamp per day.

"It is paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions," the president said. "It provides assistance to businesses and families as they make the gradual transition to clean energy technologies."

In California alone, Obama said, 3,000 people will be employed to build a new solar plant that will create 1,000 permanent jobs.

___

Associated Press writers Dina Cappiello and H. Josef Hebert contributed to this report.

The Climate Change Climate Change

The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Associated Press

Steve Fielding

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.

Write to kim@wsj.com