WND Exclusive
BORN IN THE USA?
Protester charges Obama a 'tyrannical dictator' bent on bringing down U.S.
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
The woman who burst out with "except Obama" when New Jersey Democrat Rep. Frank Pallone today read in Congress the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural born Citizen" says she felt compelled to let representatives know of the absence of proof for Barack Obama's eligibility.
Theresa Cao, who was arrested by Capitol police, given a court date and then released, told WND in a telephone interview after her release, while she was standing in front of the Hart Office Building near the Capitol, that the only hope for the United States is a return to the faith of the Founding Fathers.
And that direction, she said, is opposite from the one Obama is leading the nation, citing his "socialism," such as a nationalized health-care system and the takeover of private companies including banks, insurance companies and car companies.
Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency
She said she had come to the U.S. House chambers to see the launch of the new Congress under the leadership of the Republicans. She said she was overwhelmed when the Constitution was being read, which came about as part of an effort by the new GOP majority to return the nation to a sense of its founding principles.
Pallone was reading Article II, Section 1, regarding the required qualifications for the president, which demand that the president be a "natural born Citizen," when she burst out, "except Obama."
"Literally if this question of the natural born citizenship, if this question does not get answered, then I am allowing a tyrannical dictator – the spirit of the anti-Christ, the new world order system that has their plans right this second to collapse the U.S. economy, and we know their plan, the new world order system's plan is to literally destroy humanity," she said.
She said "God made sure" that such a message "got out to every single American leader and every leader [now] knows the truth.
"He [Obama] has fought it not only for two years, not only has he fought it pre-election but historically all of his connections, every single connection [has been] blacked out."
Her description of the day's events was permeated with explanations of her belief that the God of the Bible is being abandoned by America, especially under Obama's rule because of his leanings toward "one-world" endeavors, through the United Nations and other channels.
"It's prophesied this new world order system will devastate America and the world, and Satan's plan is to take as many people to hell with him as he can," she said.
"God is saying, 'no way,'" she said.
Cao told WND she obtained tickets for the House gallery a day early, and was impressed by the idea that a House speaker would be dedicated to doing "the will of the people," following California Rep. Nancy Pelosi's tenure at the speaker's desk, which included forcing the Obamacare mandate on Americans even though a majority oppose it.
"I knew that this was truly a historic moment in the history of America. … I heard John Boehner, the new House speaker. It was overwhelming to understand and know finally we have a House majority leader who will make it a priority to do the will of the people."
She said she saw in the incoming Congress what her own ministry, "Heaven's bailout," has been working on for several years.
"It's all about defending God, country and the Constitution."
"I understood that I as an American [needed] to do my part to defend God's country and the Constitution, that when and if America does become a nation that is going to be really not just socialist, fascist or communist, but really controlled by a dictator, if I, TC from DC, personally did not do something to 'change' what was going on for the good and to bring true 'hope,' I would have failed."
It was almost a year ago when she was profiled in WND as a lone woman evangelist delivering the message that "heaven is offering a 'bailout' far greater than dollars."
At the time, Cao told WND, "I have a standard location literally right in front of the White House" – encouraging people to follow the Bible to see God's miracles on earth and its companion warning of punishment for those who disobey.
The message applies not only to individuals but to nations, she believes.
"Most Americans really are asleep concerning what's taking place," she said then. "People are willing to hand over their God-given rights and the Constitution to the prevailing wicked forces."
The video reveals she shouted what sounded like, "except Obama, except Obama," and "Help us Jesus."
She said officers grabbed her arm and took her out of the chamber. She was processed, cited and released after several hours, she said.
She also has been an staunch advocate for former Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, the Army doctor who challenged Obama's eligibility to be president by refusing to deploy to Afghanistan. After a military judge ruled he would not be allowed to seek evidence to support his case because it could "embarrass" the president, could not argue his case in court, could not bring in evidence and could not call the witnesses he sought, he was court-martialed.
"I took a personal responsibility knowing that if I did not speak what was so deep in my heart … I would first and foremost be responsible to the God of Israel," Cao told WND.
She warned that the leaders of the U.S. repeatedly have rejected requests that Obama's eligibility be documented.
"You have been brought up to become leaders of this nation," she said. "You have not defended God, country and the Constitution."
Cao has her ministry work posted at GotHeavensBailout.blogspot.com.
In an interview with NBC not long after the interruption, House Speaker John Boehner said he wouldn't question Obama's eligibility, but he also wasn't going to dictate what other people believe.
Asked by NBC, "It was to express doubt over the president's American citizenship. Provided you believe the president is an American citizen, you've got 12 members co-sponsoring legislation that does about the same thing, it expresses doubt. Would you be willing to say, 'This is a distraction, I've looked at it to my satisfaction. Let's move on?'"
"The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there. That's good enough for me," Boehner said.
But when NBC asked, "Would you be willing to say that message to the 12 members in your caucus who seem to either believe otherwise or are willing to express doubt and have co-sponsored legislation?," Boehner said, "When you come to the Congress of the United States, there are 435 of us. We're nothing more than a slice of America. People come, regardless of party labels, they come with all kinds of beliefs and ideas. Uh it's, it's the melting pot of America. It's not up to me to tell them what to think."
Actually, state officials in Hawaii have claimed they have seen Obama's birth documentation, but they never have revealed what it says. The "Certification of Live Birth" that was posted online by Obama's campaign is a computer-generated form that can be obtained by non-residents.
The reading of the Constitution was described by those on the left as being done because of a "fetish."
That's how it was put by Dahlia Lithwick of Slate.com, who wrote, "Read It and Weep: How the tea party's fetish for the Constitution as written may get it in trouble."
"The way some people rub Buddha and they think the magic will come off, I think there's a longstanding tradition in this country. We're awfully religious about the Constitution," she later told MSNBC. "I think there is this sort of fetishization that is of a piece with the sort of need for a religious document that's immutable and perfect in every way."
She added: "Part of what's a little bit fraud about this conversation is that the same people who are fetishizing the document as written, as framed by the framers – and bracket the idea that there wasn't one framer and there was no one agenda embodied in this – but even if you bracket that idea, I think there's a real problem with the idea that we're trying to sort of fetishize the document at the same moment that we're falling over ourselves to amend and change the parts we don't like."
Lithwick's remarks came under heavy fire from Rush Limbaugh, the top-rated radio host, who ripped into that sentiment.
"They're perverts themselves," Limbaugh said. "These are perverts perverting the founding documents. If the Constitution's not that big a deal, how come the same people had such a cow when they thought Christine O'Donnell didn't know what she was talking about regarding the Constitution? If it's so unimportant, how come Obama's so proud to have been a constitutional lawyer or professor or lecturer, whatever he was?
"Abraham Lincoln. They hate him? Abraham Lincoln had a fetish for the U.S. Constitution? Here's what Lincoln said among many other things: 'We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.' That's Lincoln. Is he a pervert? Lincoln have a fetish? Lincoln also said, 'Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.'"
Syndicated columnist and commentator Charles Krauthammer said the objection to reading the Constitution aloud by many on the left "is truly astonishing."
He said on Fox News that in the 1960s, "Liberals got in trouble for being on the wrong side of the flag," and are now in danger of being on the wrong side of the Constitution, which he called "the essence of America." He noted for liberals to think there's an advantage in dismissing the public reading of the document "is real bad politics."
Members of the U.S. House rotated by party as they read short parts of the Constitution. The House also for the first time this session is requiring members to document the constitutionality of their plans when they are proposed.
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 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 Mario Apuzzo, 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 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.
Friday, January 7, 2011
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
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/
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.
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."
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)