WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS
Leftist mastermind puts up big bucks to erase borders
By Aaron Klein
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
Philanthropist billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the global organization that promotes the military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya.
The activist who founded and coined the name of the doctrine, "Responsibility to Protect," sits on several key organizations alongside Soros.
Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.
Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to the doctrine's founder.
According to reports, Power was instrumental in convincing Obama to act against Libya.
The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been described by its founders and proponents, including Soros, as promoting global governance while allowing the international community to penetrate a nation state's borders under certain conditions.
Libya regarded as test of global doctrine
The joint U.S. and international air strikes targeting Libya are widely regarded as a test of Responsibility to Protect – which is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility.
According to the principle, any state's sovereignty can be overrun, including with the use of military force, if the international community decides it must act to halt what it determines to be genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing.
The term "war crimes" has at times been indiscriminately used by various U.N.-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops.
An organization calling itself the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect is the world's leading champion of the doctrine.
Activist Gareth Evans, who sits on the global group's advisory board, is widely regarded as the founder of the Responsibility to Protect principle.
Soros' Open Society Institute is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.
Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have recently made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.
Annan once famously stated, "State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined – not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are ... instruments at the service of their peoples and not vice versa."
During his tenure as Australia's foreign minister, Evans served as co-chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which invented the term "responsibility to protect."
In his capacity as co-chair, Evans also played a pivotal role in initiating the fundamental shift from sovereignty as a right to "sovereignty as responsibility."
Evans presented Responsibility to Protect at the July 23, 2009, United Nations General Assembly, which was convened to consider the principle.
Soros: Right to 'penetrate nation-states' borders'
Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled "The People's Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations."
In the article, Soros said "true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments."
"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.
"In particular, the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict."
Evans sits on multiple boards with Soros, including the Clinton Global Initiative.
Soros is on the executive board of the International Crisis Group, a "crisis management organization" for which Evans serves as president-emeritus.
WND previously reported how the group has been petitioning for the U.S. to normalize ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition in Egypt, where longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was recently toppled.
Aside from Evans and Soros, the group includes on its board Egyptian opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei, as well as other personalities who champion dialogue with Hamas, a violent offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
WND also reported the crisis group has also petitioned for the Algerian government to cease "excessive" military activities against al-Qaida-linked groups and to allow organizations seeking to create an Islamic state to participate in the Algerian government.
Soros' own Open Society Institute has funded opposition groups across the Middle East and North Africa, including organizations involved in the current chaos.
Power pushes doctrine
Doctrine founder Evans, meanwhile, is closely tied to Obama aide Samantha Power, who reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the U.S. president's decision to bomb Libya.
Evans and Power have been joint keynote speakers at events in which they have championed the Responsibility to Protect principle together, such as the 2008 Global Philanthropy Forum, also attended by Tutu.
In November, at the International Symposium on Preventing Genocide and Mass Atrocities, Power, attending as a representative of the White House, argued for the use of Responsibility to Protect alongside Evans.
With research by Brenda J. Elliott
Sponsored Link: “Underground” Video Gets 10 Million Views. A disturbing video has become an Internet sensation. It may forever change the way you think about our country. Watch the full video, free of charge, here...
http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/1011PSIENDVD/PPSIM341/PR
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Glenn Beck warns: 'The perfect storm' is beginning
MEDIA MATTERS
'These are not enemies of man. These are enemies of God'
By Joe Kovacs
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
Media giant Glenn Beck is warning that a "perfect storm" of problems in America and the world has begun, and he's urging people to turn to God to deal with it.
"These problems, as you are beginning to see," Beck said on his radio program this morning, "we are experiencing now the perfect storm, the beginnings of the perfect storm that I outlined to you years ago and now you can see how when I was talking about it and everybody was saying 'Shut up! Who cares? It's not going to happen.'
"You're beginning to see it now and you can know why I was crying all the time. Because I saw this in advance. It doesn't take a genius to do it. You can see it if you would just open your mind."
Islamic Antichrist'? Why Glenn Beck raves about it
Beck, who often invokes God in his commentary, continued, "It is an overwhelming force and it is global in nature and it is evil in nature. You must be as good and as light as the evil is evil, bad and dark. These are not enemies of man. These are enemies of God, and He will sort things out. You must stand in righteousness."
"Here is the most dangerous thing I could say on the radio or on television," Beck said. "God is the only answer. There is no hope, there is no victory without a people that understand light, goodness and God."
Beck then issued a call for listeners to take a stand against any kind of evil in their personal lives.
"If you don't say something now, it's only going to get harder and harder and harder," he said. "You think it's gonna get easier to talk to your friends about God? You think it's gonna be easier to talk to your spouse about, 'Hey, let's clean up our lives'? You think it's gonna get easier to talk to your kids and tell them, 'Hey, knock it off' or 'You don't need all of that stuff?' It's not going to get easier. It's going to get harder because the world is going down in the other direction. You gotta stop now. You've got to turn your life around now."
Beck played audio at times from Nation of Islam founder Louis Farrakhan, and made reference to an end-times Muslim leader known as "the Mahdi."
"This [the uprising in the Middle East] is a sign that the great Mahdi that the Muslim world has been looking for is present in the world," Farrakhan noted.
Beck remarked, ""If you look at the Mahdi / the 12th Imam, he really is the biblical antichrist."
'These are not enemies of man. These are enemies of God'
By Joe Kovacs
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
Media giant Glenn Beck is warning that a "perfect storm" of problems in America and the world has begun, and he's urging people to turn to God to deal with it.
"These problems, as you are beginning to see," Beck said on his radio program this morning, "we are experiencing now the perfect storm, the beginnings of the perfect storm that I outlined to you years ago and now you can see how when I was talking about it and everybody was saying 'Shut up! Who cares? It's not going to happen.'
"You're beginning to see it now and you can know why I was crying all the time. Because I saw this in advance. It doesn't take a genius to do it. You can see it if you would just open your mind."
Islamic Antichrist'? Why Glenn Beck raves about it
Beck, who often invokes God in his commentary, continued, "It is an overwhelming force and it is global in nature and it is evil in nature. You must be as good and as light as the evil is evil, bad and dark. These are not enemies of man. These are enemies of God, and He will sort things out. You must stand in righteousness."
"Here is the most dangerous thing I could say on the radio or on television," Beck said. "God is the only answer. There is no hope, there is no victory without a people that understand light, goodness and God."
Beck then issued a call for listeners to take a stand against any kind of evil in their personal lives.
"If you don't say something now, it's only going to get harder and harder and harder," he said. "You think it's gonna get easier to talk to your friends about God? You think it's gonna be easier to talk to your spouse about, 'Hey, let's clean up our lives'? You think it's gonna get easier to talk to your kids and tell them, 'Hey, knock it off' or 'You don't need all of that stuff?' It's not going to get easier. It's going to get harder because the world is going down in the other direction. You gotta stop now. You've got to turn your life around now."
Beck played audio at times from Nation of Islam founder Louis Farrakhan, and made reference to an end-times Muslim leader known as "the Mahdi."
"This [the uprising in the Middle East] is a sign that the great Mahdi that the Muslim world has been looking for is present in the world," Farrakhan noted.
Beck remarked, ""If you look at the Mahdi / the 12th Imam, he really is the biblical antichrist."
Monday, March 21, 2011
The Obamacare Legacy of Centralization and Bureaucracy
by Kevin Glass
The monstrous Obamacare health law was passed by the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010 and signed into law by President Obama nine days later. Nancy Pelosi said that Congress had to pass the law to find out what was in it. Despite a lengthy debate, new details trickle out seemingly daily about the destructive impact of the law. One year later, a group of conservative health policy wonks have banded together to release a book that comes as close as possible to being the authoritative tome on the full impact of Obamacare.
Grace-Marie Turner, James Capretta, Thomas Miller and Robert Moffitt are co-authors of the new book Why Obamacare is Wrong For America. Turner, President of the Galen Institute (a health policy think tank) and frequent Townhall contributor, made time to talk with Townhall about her new book, Obamacare's continuing repercussions and what Americans can do to make sure their voices are heard.
Townhall: The title is blunt.
Grace-Marie Turner: It is, I know, there's not any question about where we stand on this.
TH: The book was written by you, James Capretta, Thomas Miller and Robert Moffitt, four of the biggest names in health care policy on the Right. How did this project come together?
Turner: You know, it was really clear to us that there needed to be one book that pulled together the key parts of Obamacare, and that we needed a book that really explained the impact of this awful new law. So rather than descriptions of the bill, which is important, we decided that we needed to do a book about the impact on young adults, on seniors, on patients and doctors, employers and employees, taxpayers and citizens whose constitutional rights are in jeopardy because of this legislation. So we offered this to several publishers, and Adam Bell, who's now our editor at HarperCollins, said "I believe we need this book." We produced it in unbelievable record time. We started it at Thanksgiving, and the manuscript was due at the end of December, so it's very, very current. We've continued to update it through January. Everything is in one place for what people need to know about this legislation and its impact on Americans.
TH: The book is perhaps the most comprehensive overview of what's in Obamacare. What would you say is the biggest impact of Obamacare that's still largely unknown by the public?
The monstrous Obamacare health law was passed by the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010 and signed into law by President Obama nine days later. Nancy Pelosi said that Congress had to pass the law to find out what was in it. Despite a lengthy debate, new details trickle out seemingly daily about the destructive impact of the law. One year later, a group of conservative health policy wonks have banded together to release a book that comes as close as possible to being the authoritative tome on the full impact of Obamacare.
Grace-Marie Turner, James Capretta, Thomas Miller and Robert Moffitt are co-authors of the new book Why Obamacare is Wrong For America. Turner, President of the Galen Institute (a health policy think tank) and frequent Townhall contributor, made time to talk with Townhall about her new book, Obamacare's continuing repercussions and what Americans can do to make sure their voices are heard.
Townhall: The title is blunt.
Grace-Marie Turner: It is, I know, there's not any question about where we stand on this.
TH: The book was written by you, James Capretta, Thomas Miller and Robert Moffitt, four of the biggest names in health care policy on the Right. How did this project come together?
Turner: You know, it was really clear to us that there needed to be one book that pulled together the key parts of Obamacare, and that we needed a book that really explained the impact of this awful new law. So rather than descriptions of the bill, which is important, we decided that we needed to do a book about the impact on young adults, on seniors, on patients and doctors, employers and employees, taxpayers and citizens whose constitutional rights are in jeopardy because of this legislation. So we offered this to several publishers, and Adam Bell, who's now our editor at HarperCollins, said "I believe we need this book." We produced it in unbelievable record time. We started it at Thanksgiving, and the manuscript was due at the end of December, so it's very, very current. We've continued to update it through January. Everything is in one place for what people need to know about this legislation and its impact on Americans.
TH: The book is perhaps the most comprehensive overview of what's in Obamacare. What would you say is the biggest impact of Obamacare that's still largely unknown by the public?
Only 9% believe Obama has documented eligibility
WND/WENZEL POLL
Scientific tally shows 2 of 3 like state legislation to require proof
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
Editor's note: This is another in a series of monthly "WND/WENZEL POLLS" conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.
Not even one person in 10 believes Barack Obama has shown that he is eligible to be president of the United States, according to a stunning new scientific poll that also reveals political Independents have less tolerance than even Republicans for his efforts to obfuscate the issue.
"The shocking result in this survey is that just 9 percent said they believe Obama has met the requirements to prove he was born in the United States and is therefore qualified to be president," said Fritz Wenzel, chief of Wenzel Strategies, which conducted the assessment.
"Even when you combine those who say such questions are not valid with those who believe he has satisfied the requirements, it still falls short of equaling the percentage who said he should step forward and prove his birth origin once and for all," he said.
Wenzel Strategies, an independent public opinion research firm based in Ohio, conducted a nationwide telephone poll using a randomly selected sample of all adults. Thesurvey , including 1,095 respondents, was conducted March 15-17, 2011, and carries a confidence interval of 95 percent and a margin of error of +/- 2.93 percentage points.
"The question of whether Barack Obama is eligible to hold the office of president is remarkable in that so many people are aware of the questions that remain unanswered. The survey shows that 77 percent are aware of the issue, and another 12 percent said they are unsure, which likely means they know a little but not enough to articulate details," Wenzel said in his analysis of the results.
"Given the level of interest that the American public now devotes to politics, especially in an off-election year, this finding is remarkable. It speaks volumes about Obama's unwillingness or inability to satisfy this question once and for all," he said.
It was back in June 2009 when Wenzel asked the simple question, "Are you aware of questions raised about Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility for the office of president?" and 51.3 percent responded yes.
This month, 77 percent of the Democrats who responded said they are. Nearly 82 percent of the Republicans are, and almost 69 percent of the Independents. Overall, 76.8 percent said yes, and another 11.7 percent said they were unsure. Only 11.5 percent said there were not aware of the questions.
"Half of those surveyed said they believe these questions about Obama's legitimacy as president are either troubling or should be satisfied by Obama. In fact, more people want Obama to prove his legitimacy – 42 percent – than believe that the lingering questions are not valid – 32 percent," Wenzel said.
That division is 41.9 percent who say Obama should prove his birth story, including 60.9 percent of Independents, 58.6 percent of Republicans and 13.2 percent of Democrats.
Another 7.9 percent the questions are troubling
"What is most interesting is the response on this question of Independent voters: Fully 61 percent of Independents said they want Obama to prove once and for all his birth origin, which is a higher percentage than even among Republicans. Men are also somewhat more skeptical than women," Wenzel said.
"At a time when this country faces dramatic problems both here at home and around the world, it does harm to Obama's credibility and undermines the confidence of the American people to have this question hanging out there," Wenzel explained. "One can only imagine the storm of controversy that might ensue if we discover definitively after his presidency is over that he was not qualified to hold office. The resignation of Richard Nixon would pale by comparison in terms of undermining public confidence in government."
"A corollary issue to the Obama birth certificate is the question about Obama's refusal to release educational records, which could hold some clue as to his birth origin and early citizenship," Wenzel said. "Two-thirds of all respondents want those records released, while the other third of respondents oppose the release of those records. It remains unclear why Obama will not comply with any requests to show those records to the public."
Only 26 percent strongly opposed the release of the records. Nearly 50 percent strongly favored release and another 17 percent said the president should release the records.
"The bottom line on these early-life records of Obama is that this issue lives on, regardless of how derisive some have been toward the so-called 'birther' movement," Wenzel said. "Obama supporters, particularly those in the national news media who have protected the president on this issue, have tried to ostracize those who still have doubts about Obama's birth, but try as they might, they have done little to quell the questions in the minds of the American public. This issue is far from over."
"Evidence of that springs from the strong support that the national telephone survey found among Americans for state laws that require candidates for president to prove they are constitutionally qualified to hold the office – before they will be allowed to appear on that state's presidential ballot," Wenzel said.
"Fully 65 percent said they support such state bills, while just 24 percent said they oppose such state measures. Huge majorities of both men and women agree with these state proposals and it is popular in every region of the nation," he said.
"The clear implication from this polling data is that Americans like the idea that, in the absence of full disclosure by presidential candidates and a press corps interested enough to ask and pursue tough questions, state governments will do their own vetting of presidential candidates," he said.
WND has reported that such proposals already have been made in 13 states, although several of the initiatives have been detoured by politics inside of committee meeting rooms.
Another recent poll, of only members of the GOP, said only about 30 percent believe Obama was born in the U.S.
The Public Policy Polling found that only 28 percent of the Republicans surveyed believe Obama was born in the U.S. while 51 percent do not. Another 21 percent say they are not sure.
"Any thought that the birther theory has been put to rest can be thrown out the window," Dean Debnam, the president of the Democratic-leaning polling firm, told Politico at the time.
"That view is still widely held in Republican circles," he said.
Other polls in recent months have shown Americans to be increasingly skeptical of Obama's official narrative:
* A survey by Angus Reid Global Monitor, a division of Vision Critical Group, in October 2009 found three in 10 people in the U.S. believed Obama to be a foreigner.
"While only 13 percent of Democratic Party supporters believe Obama was not born in the U.S., the proportion rises to 25 percent among independents and 51 percent among Republican Party backers," the report said.
* Then in January 2010, another WND/Wenzel Poll revealed on the one-year anniversary of Obama's tenure in office that fully one-third of Americans refused to believe Obama was a "legitimate president," with another 15.8 percent saying they were not sure.
Barely half the voters, 51.5 percent, said they believed the president legitimate even though he had not yet produced the documentation proving his constitutional eligibility. Even 14.6 percent of the Democrats said they did not consider him legitimate.
* In May 2010, a WND/Wenzel Poll revealed that 55 percent of Americans wanted Obama to release all records relating to his childhood and his education, including "college records, Harvard Law School papers, passport records, travel records, and other similar documentation."
"Asked what should be done should it be found that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president, 59 percent said he should be removed from office, and 35 percent said all bills signed into law by Obama should be repealed," the poll's analysis revealed.
* By last June, other media were beginning to put their toes in the waters of the controversy. A 60 Minutes-Vanity Fair poll revealed only 39 percent of respondents believe Obama was born in Hawaii as he claimed in his book.
"A shocking 63 percent – very nearly two-thirds of us – went out on a limb and stated for the record that we believe in the United States. It's enough to make you proud to be an American – or 63 percent proud, at any rate."
But that figure included those who said they believe he was born in Kansas or some other unknown state, which still would conflict with Obama's story.
* Last August, a poll by CNN said 6 of 10 people were uncertain Obama was born in the U.S. The poll said only 42 percent believe Obama "definitely" was born in the U.S.
The CNN report said that, "Hawaii has released a copy of the president's birth certificate – officially called a 'certificate of live birth.' And in 1961 the hospital where the president was born placed announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers regarding Obama's birth."
However, the online image released by the Obama campaign during his presidential race actually is called a "Certification of Live Birth," and those documents under the rules in the state of Hawaii were available for children not born in the state.
The Constitution requires a president to be a "natural-born citizen," which is not the same as a "citizen."
Other Wenzel Poll questions revealed a large majority of Americans – nearly 66 percent, including 86 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of Independents – believe the country is on the wrong track.
They also give Obama a "poor" grade for his job performance, by about the same margin.
And they believe many of the drilling and energy production restrictions in the U.S. now should be lifted and are split on the idea of more nuclear plans.
If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Fritz Wenzel about this story, please e-mail.
Read more: Only 9% believe Obama has documented eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=276865#ixzz1HFhv6pGj
Scientific tally shows 2 of 3 like state legislation to require proof
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
Editor's note: This is another in a series of monthly "WND/WENZEL POLLS" conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.
Not even one person in 10 believes Barack Obama has shown that he is eligible to be president of the United States, according to a stunning new scientific poll that also reveals political Independents have less tolerance than even Republicans for his efforts to obfuscate the issue.
"The shocking result in this survey is that just 9 percent said they believe Obama has met the requirements to prove he was born in the United States and is therefore qualified to be president," said Fritz Wenzel, chief of Wenzel Strategies, which conducted the assessment.
"Even when you combine those who say such questions are not valid with those who believe he has satisfied the requirements, it still falls short of equaling the percentage who said he should step forward and prove his birth origin once and for all," he said.
Wenzel Strategies, an independent public opinion research firm based in Ohio, conducted a nationwide telephone poll using a randomly selected sample of all adults. Thesurvey , including 1,095 respondents, was conducted March 15-17, 2011, and carries a confidence interval of 95 percent and a margin of error of +/- 2.93 percentage points.
"The question of whether Barack Obama is eligible to hold the office of president is remarkable in that so many people are aware of the questions that remain unanswered. The survey shows that 77 percent are aware of the issue, and another 12 percent said they are unsure, which likely means they know a little but not enough to articulate details," Wenzel said in his analysis of the results.
"Given the level of interest that the American public now devotes to politics, especially in an off-election year, this finding is remarkable. It speaks volumes about Obama's unwillingness or inability to satisfy this question once and for all," he said.
It was back in June 2009 when Wenzel asked the simple question, "Are you aware of questions raised about Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility for the office of president?" and 51.3 percent responded yes.
This month, 77 percent of the Democrats who responded said they are. Nearly 82 percent of the Republicans are, and almost 69 percent of the Independents. Overall, 76.8 percent said yes, and another 11.7 percent said they were unsure. Only 11.5 percent said there were not aware of the questions.
"Half of those surveyed said they believe these questions about Obama's legitimacy as president are either troubling or should be satisfied by Obama. In fact, more people want Obama to prove his legitimacy – 42 percent – than believe that the lingering questions are not valid – 32 percent," Wenzel said.
That division is 41.9 percent who say Obama should prove his birth story, including 60.9 percent of Independents, 58.6 percent of Republicans and 13.2 percent of Democrats.
Another 7.9 percent the questions are troubling
"What is most interesting is the response on this question of Independent voters: Fully 61 percent of Independents said they want Obama to prove once and for all his birth origin, which is a higher percentage than even among Republicans. Men are also somewhat more skeptical than women," Wenzel said.
"At a time when this country faces dramatic problems both here at home and around the world, it does harm to Obama's credibility and undermines the confidence of the American people to have this question hanging out there," Wenzel explained. "One can only imagine the storm of controversy that might ensue if we discover definitively after his presidency is over that he was not qualified to hold office. The resignation of Richard Nixon would pale by comparison in terms of undermining public confidence in government."
"A corollary issue to the Obama birth certificate is the question about Obama's refusal to release educational records, which could hold some clue as to his birth origin and early citizenship," Wenzel said. "Two-thirds of all respondents want those records released, while the other third of respondents oppose the release of those records. It remains unclear why Obama will not comply with any requests to show those records to the public."
Only 26 percent strongly opposed the release of the records. Nearly 50 percent strongly favored release and another 17 percent said the president should release the records.
"The bottom line on these early-life records of Obama is that this issue lives on, regardless of how derisive some have been toward the so-called 'birther' movement," Wenzel said. "Obama supporters, particularly those in the national news media who have protected the president on this issue, have tried to ostracize those who still have doubts about Obama's birth, but try as they might, they have done little to quell the questions in the minds of the American public. This issue is far from over."
"Evidence of that springs from the strong support that the national telephone survey found among Americans for state laws that require candidates for president to prove they are constitutionally qualified to hold the office – before they will be allowed to appear on that state's presidential ballot," Wenzel said.
"Fully 65 percent said they support such state bills, while just 24 percent said they oppose such state measures. Huge majorities of both men and women agree with these state proposals and it is popular in every region of the nation," he said.
"The clear implication from this polling data is that Americans like the idea that, in the absence of full disclosure by presidential candidates and a press corps interested enough to ask and pursue tough questions, state governments will do their own vetting of presidential candidates," he said.
WND has reported that such proposals already have been made in 13 states, although several of the initiatives have been detoured by politics inside of committee meeting rooms.
Another recent poll, of only members of the GOP, said only about 30 percent believe Obama was born in the U.S.
The Public Policy Polling found that only 28 percent of the Republicans surveyed believe Obama was born in the U.S. while 51 percent do not. Another 21 percent say they are not sure.
"Any thought that the birther theory has been put to rest can be thrown out the window," Dean Debnam, the president of the Democratic-leaning polling firm, told Politico at the time.
"That view is still widely held in Republican circles," he said.
Other polls in recent months have shown Americans to be increasingly skeptical of Obama's official narrative:
* A survey by Angus Reid Global Monitor, a division of Vision Critical Group, in October 2009 found three in 10 people in the U.S. believed Obama to be a foreigner.
"While only 13 percent of Democratic Party supporters believe Obama was not born in the U.S., the proportion rises to 25 percent among independents and 51 percent among Republican Party backers," the report said.
* Then in January 2010, another WND/Wenzel Poll revealed on the one-year anniversary of Obama's tenure in office that fully one-third of Americans refused to believe Obama was a "legitimate president," with another 15.8 percent saying they were not sure.
Barely half the voters, 51.5 percent, said they believed the president legitimate even though he had not yet produced the documentation proving his constitutional eligibility. Even 14.6 percent of the Democrats said they did not consider him legitimate.
* In May 2010, a WND/Wenzel Poll revealed that 55 percent of Americans wanted Obama to release all records relating to his childhood and his education, including "college records, Harvard Law School papers, passport records, travel records, and other similar documentation."
"Asked what should be done should it be found that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president, 59 percent said he should be removed from office, and 35 percent said all bills signed into law by Obama should be repealed," the poll's analysis revealed.
* By last June, other media were beginning to put their toes in the waters of the controversy. A 60 Minutes-Vanity Fair poll revealed only 39 percent of respondents believe Obama was born in Hawaii as he claimed in his book.
"A shocking 63 percent – very nearly two-thirds of us – went out on a limb and stated for the record that we believe in the United States. It's enough to make you proud to be an American – or 63 percent proud, at any rate."
But that figure included those who said they believe he was born in Kansas or some other unknown state, which still would conflict with Obama's story.
* Last August, a poll by CNN said 6 of 10 people were uncertain Obama was born in the U.S. The poll said only 42 percent believe Obama "definitely" was born in the U.S.
The CNN report said that, "Hawaii has released a copy of the president's birth certificate – officially called a 'certificate of live birth.' And in 1961 the hospital where the president was born placed announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers regarding Obama's birth."
However, the online image released by the Obama campaign during his presidential race actually is called a "Certification of Live Birth," and those documents under the rules in the state of Hawaii were available for children not born in the state.
The Constitution requires a president to be a "natural-born citizen," which is not the same as a "citizen."
Other Wenzel Poll questions revealed a large majority of Americans – nearly 66 percent, including 86 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of Independents – believe the country is on the wrong track.
They also give Obama a "poor" grade for his job performance, by about the same margin.
And they believe many of the drilling and energy production restrictions in the U.S. now should be lifted and are split on the idea of more nuclear plans.
If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Fritz Wenzel about this story, please e-mail.
Read more: Only 9% believe Obama has documented eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=276865#ixzz1HFhv6pGj
Friday, March 18, 2011
Atlas Shrugged 2011: Businesses Buck Obama
by Roger Hedgecock
Two years in to the Obama term, American companies are reacting to his anti-free market regime in one (or more) of four ways: by becoming wards of the federal government, fleeing offshore, fleeing to business-friendly states, or fighting back.
The “too big to fail” banks and insurance giants, and “ Government Motors” and Chrysler have become extensions of the regime, playing lap cat Mr. Bigglesworth to Obama’s Dr. Evil.
Some American businesses continue to flee to business-friendly foreign locales, hollowing out their North American operations and staying afloat with overseas profits.
Other companies (with lots of overlap with point two) seek (additional) refuge by relocating in whole or part to more biz-friendly states within the U.S. Over the last 40 years, for example, California witnessed an exodus of old industrial companies (manufacturing, chemicals, logging, mining, etc.) Today that exodus has picked up speed as California tech, biotech, and even renewable energy firms crowd the exit lines seeking lower taxes, less regulation, and lower costs in Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Texas, and Mississippi.
But the most interesting phenomenon is the companies and their owners who have chosen to fight back against a government-directed economy. Before explaining that statement, I acknowledge that the government has become too powerful to ignore at every level, if you are in business in the United States.
Lobbying directly or through trade associations is a ubiquitous feature of business life today. Campaign contributions are even more so, especially if you are a business dependent on government contracts. But even if you’re not, government tax policy and compliance with regulation tsunamis that affect every business take up an increasing amount of a business owner’s or executive’s time.
Here's what’s new in the resurgence of Atlas Shrugged moments.
Take the example of Amazon.com, Overstock.com, and other Internet sales sites' reactions to state sales-tax policies.
States are caught between a growing demand for services, skyrocketing costs of unfunded liabilities for state workers’ pensions and health plans, and declining revenues.
Some states turn to economic growth for the answer: North Dakota boasts a balanced state budget, low taxes, and a biz-friendly atmosphere. Her 672,000 residents enjoy a 3.8% unemployment rate. Farmers are prosperous, ditto for miners. High-tech companies swarm the Red River Valley. But the North Dakota economy really kicked into high gear with the oil boom. Private land out of reach of the Obama moratoria yielded more than $12 billion in oil sales last year.
By contrast, high tax, regulation-happy states such as Illinois and California continue to wonder why they can’t balance their budget by raising taxes, mandating a “prevailing wage,” promising even higher public-sector wages and benefits, and imposing more “protections” through regulation.
In Illinois, the reelected Democrat governor and Democrat-dominated state legislature seek relief for the state budget by raising all taxes—by taking more money from every worker’s already-stretched-thin budget.
For a company to legally be forced to collect state sales tax on sales within Illinois, the company must have a “nexus” within the state—usually an office, store, etc.
Amazon did not have a physical nexus in Illinois. The state defined the 6,000 Amazon affiliates' websites as a sufficient “nexus” and asked Amazon to start collecting sales tax on items sold to Illinois residents. The affiliate websites host ads for Amazon on their sites and get a commission when shoppers click through to buy on Amazon.com.
Amazon continued direct online sales to Illinois residents but cut affiliate ties with the 6,000 Illinois-based websites, with the result that the state doesn’t get the sales tax revenue and 6,000 affiliates lose income.
California is contemplating passing the same “Amazon” tax. Amazon has threatened to sever ties with more than 10,000 California affiliates' sites, calling the law unconstitutional and a threat to California jobs.
Last year, Texas demanded $269 million dollars in uncollected sales tax from Amazon, this time because Amazon owned (through a subsidiary) a physical nexus—a warehouse in Irving, Tex.
In response, Amazon closed the warehouse, fired the warehouse workers, and refused to pay the Texas sales tax. States are now suing Amazon. Amazon is standing its ground.
At long last, there is hope that the producers and innovators will demand their rights in a country and an economy where their rights to private property are routinely violated.
In 2011, will Atlas shrug?
Two years in to the Obama term, American companies are reacting to his anti-free market regime in one (or more) of four ways: by becoming wards of the federal government, fleeing offshore, fleeing to business-friendly states, or fighting back.
The “too big to fail” banks and insurance giants, and “ Government Motors” and Chrysler have become extensions of the regime, playing lap cat Mr. Bigglesworth to Obama’s Dr. Evil.
Some American businesses continue to flee to business-friendly foreign locales, hollowing out their North American operations and staying afloat with overseas profits.
Other companies (with lots of overlap with point two) seek (additional) refuge by relocating in whole or part to more biz-friendly states within the U.S. Over the last 40 years, for example, California witnessed an exodus of old industrial companies (manufacturing, chemicals, logging, mining, etc.) Today that exodus has picked up speed as California tech, biotech, and even renewable energy firms crowd the exit lines seeking lower taxes, less regulation, and lower costs in Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Texas, and Mississippi.
But the most interesting phenomenon is the companies and their owners who have chosen to fight back against a government-directed economy. Before explaining that statement, I acknowledge that the government has become too powerful to ignore at every level, if you are in business in the United States.
Lobbying directly or through trade associations is a ubiquitous feature of business life today. Campaign contributions are even more so, especially if you are a business dependent on government contracts. But even if you’re not, government tax policy and compliance with regulation tsunamis that affect every business take up an increasing amount of a business owner’s or executive’s time.
Here's what’s new in the resurgence of Atlas Shrugged moments.
Take the example of Amazon.com, Overstock.com, and other Internet sales sites' reactions to state sales-tax policies.
States are caught between a growing demand for services, skyrocketing costs of unfunded liabilities for state workers’ pensions and health plans, and declining revenues.
Some states turn to economic growth for the answer: North Dakota boasts a balanced state budget, low taxes, and a biz-friendly atmosphere. Her 672,000 residents enjoy a 3.8% unemployment rate. Farmers are prosperous, ditto for miners. High-tech companies swarm the Red River Valley. But the North Dakota economy really kicked into high gear with the oil boom. Private land out of reach of the Obama moratoria yielded more than $12 billion in oil sales last year.
By contrast, high tax, regulation-happy states such as Illinois and California continue to wonder why they can’t balance their budget by raising taxes, mandating a “prevailing wage,” promising even higher public-sector wages and benefits, and imposing more “protections” through regulation.
In Illinois, the reelected Democrat governor and Democrat-dominated state legislature seek relief for the state budget by raising all taxes—by taking more money from every worker’s already-stretched-thin budget.
For a company to legally be forced to collect state sales tax on sales within Illinois, the company must have a “nexus” within the state—usually an office, store, etc.
Amazon did not have a physical nexus in Illinois. The state defined the 6,000 Amazon affiliates' websites as a sufficient “nexus” and asked Amazon to start collecting sales tax on items sold to Illinois residents. The affiliate websites host ads for Amazon on their sites and get a commission when shoppers click through to buy on Amazon.com.
Amazon continued direct online sales to Illinois residents but cut affiliate ties with the 6,000 Illinois-based websites, with the result that the state doesn’t get the sales tax revenue and 6,000 affiliates lose income.
California is contemplating passing the same “Amazon” tax. Amazon has threatened to sever ties with more than 10,000 California affiliates' sites, calling the law unconstitutional and a threat to California jobs.
Last year, Texas demanded $269 million dollars in uncollected sales tax from Amazon, this time because Amazon owned (through a subsidiary) a physical nexus—a warehouse in Irving, Tex.
In response, Amazon closed the warehouse, fired the warehouse workers, and refused to pay the Texas sales tax. States are now suing Amazon. Amazon is standing its ground.
At long last, there is hope that the producers and innovators will demand their rights in a country and an economy where their rights to private property are routinely violated.
In 2011, will Atlas shrug?
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Doubting Donald? Now Trump wonders about Obama eligibility
BORN IN THE USA?
Tells ABC: 'The reason is because he grew up and nobody knew him'
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
Now flamboyant billionaire Donald Trump, whose name has been surging past lesser-knowns among rumored candidates for the GOP's 2012 presidential nomination, says he has reason to wonder about Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
Questions about Obama's qualifications under the U.S. Constitution's demand that a president be a "natural born Citizen" have been around since before he was elected: multiple cases have been filed in court, a military officer has been sent to prison over the issue and significant numbers of the American population have major doubts about his story of being born in Hawaii.
Trump has told an interviewer for ABC that he'll be making a decision on his possible candidacy probably in June.
Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency
Then he said his doubts about Obama stem from the fact that so little information is available regarding his background.
"He grew up and nobody knew him. You know! When you interview people, if ever I got the nomination, if I ever decide to run, you may go back and interview people from my kindergarten. They'll remember me. Nobody ever comes forward [about Obama]. Nobody knows who he is until later in his life. It's very strange. The whole thing is very strange," he said.
While much of the concern rests with Obama's birth certificate – he's refused to release his original document, substituting instead a computer-generated summary of information purportedly in the Hawaii state archives – there are a multitude of other documents that remain unavailable.
These are the types of records that typically are available for major political leaders such as someone occupying the Oval Office. They include his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
According to CNN, Trump said, "Let me tell you, I'm a really smart guy. I was a really good student at the best school in the country. The reason I have a little doubt, just a little, is because he grew up and nobody knew him."
Neil Abercrombie, the current Hawaii governor, promised some weeks ago when he took office to investigate the issue of Obama's birth records in the state and release information to prove his eligibility status.
However, he said later he could not do that, raising even more questions since an earlier governor had made public statements that the president's birth records were on file "in accordance" with Hawaii law and had been inspected.
Read more: Doubting Donald? Now Trump wonders about Obama eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=276269#ixzz1Gs5cILB3
Tells ABC: 'The reason is because he grew up and nobody knew him'
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
Now flamboyant billionaire Donald Trump, whose name has been surging past lesser-knowns among rumored candidates for the GOP's 2012 presidential nomination, says he has reason to wonder about Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
Questions about Obama's qualifications under the U.S. Constitution's demand that a president be a "natural born Citizen" have been around since before he was elected: multiple cases have been filed in court, a military officer has been sent to prison over the issue and significant numbers of the American population have major doubts about his story of being born in Hawaii.
Trump has told an interviewer for ABC that he'll be making a decision on his possible candidacy probably in June.
Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency
Then he said his doubts about Obama stem from the fact that so little information is available regarding his background.
"He grew up and nobody knew him. You know! When you interview people, if ever I got the nomination, if I ever decide to run, you may go back and interview people from my kindergarten. They'll remember me. Nobody ever comes forward [about Obama]. Nobody knows who he is until later in his life. It's very strange. The whole thing is very strange," he said.
While much of the concern rests with Obama's birth certificate – he's refused to release his original document, substituting instead a computer-generated summary of information purportedly in the Hawaii state archives – there are a multitude of other documents that remain unavailable.
These are the types of records that typically are available for major political leaders such as someone occupying the Oval Office. They include his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
According to CNN, Trump said, "Let me tell you, I'm a really smart guy. I was a really good student at the best school in the country. The reason I have a little doubt, just a little, is because he grew up and nobody knew him."
Neil Abercrombie, the current Hawaii governor, promised some weeks ago when he took office to investigate the issue of Obama's birth records in the state and release information to prove his eligibility status.
However, he said later he could not do that, raising even more questions since an earlier governor had made public statements that the president's birth records were on file "in accordance" with Hawaii law and had been inspected.
Read more: Doubting Donald? Now Trump wonders about Obama eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=276269#ixzz1Gs5cILB3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)