Constitution Party Continues Unprecedented Growth

Constitution Party Continues Unprecedented Growth
from Constitution Party Of Missouri by admin

Phil Jose

Communications Director,

Constitution Party of Missouri

(314) 409-2316

www.constitutionpartymo.org

COLUMBIA MO—Constitution Party members from across Missouri gathered this past Saturday to report on the state of the party in their area. Whether they were from Kansas City, Springfield, St Louis, or points in between, all proudly and excitedly spoke of the same thing—the party has grown by leaps and bounds and is poised to gain even more momentum.

Party leaders are reporting record attendance at local meetings. They’re seeing ever-increasing interest in the party by the general public. Most importantly, they’re seeing people stepping up and stepping into leadership roles—at the congressional district, county, and local levels the party is being organized into a force to be reckoned with statewide.

Every member present agreed that the hard organizational work now being done is only the foundation for a greater goal: to run viable candidates in serious campaigns in 2010 and get them elected.

Although this goal will entail great effort, party members believe that it’s attainable and very necessary. This country is drifting farther and farther away from its constitutionally rooted form of government with encroachments on our freedoms and fiscal irresponsibility. More and more voters will be looking for candidates committed to returning us to government where the rule of law is supreme.

The Constitution Party will be ready for the challenge.

Constitution Party Missouri State Chairman Donna Ivanovich is available for further comment at 314-956-6181 or donnaivanovich@constitutionpartymo.org

What is so Great about Christianity

What's So Great About Christianity?

 

For some strange reason, there is a concerted effort underway to teach our nation hostility to religion, particularly Christianity, the very basis upon which Western Civilization was founded. Our children are taught little about the Bible, Christian history, nor religion's actual role in shaping the values and precepts of Western Republicanism and political freedoms. Without Christianity, the USA could not exist.

 

It seems silly to me that some people mistakenly believe Christianity brought on the "Dark Ages", the fall of civilization from the classical age of Greece and Rome, rather than Rome's decadence. "Renaissance" and "Enlightenment" have become meaningless terms. Yet Christian values and institutions are the very root of Western civilization's organization now taken for granted by the west.

 

Our old testament God, a universal foundation figure of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the three most influential religions of all time, introduced a new concept, freedom of conscience, free will. In the Garden, Adam and Eve exercised and paid the price for their will versus God's. At the same time, God is elevated above any human desires occupying a universal heavenly realm, omnipotent but tender and loving.

 

Christianity teaches man exists in two realms, one earthly, one heavenly. Though Christians have dissimilar duties within these two, the ultimate devotion is to the heavenly thus limiting the political authority of our leaders to the temporal and secular. From this idea comes the foundations of limited government; there are some things even elected governments may not control.

 

Our system and constitution dictate that governments are necessarily limited to roles ensuring safety and security but not granted powers to the extent that they intrude upon the private rights of citizens to life, liberty, and pursuits of individual happiness. When intrusions exceed the publics' interests, tyranny exists and the people have the right to oppose and replace it. Fortunately, free states may elect new representatives to change the course of their governments. Captive states such as the Socialist, Communist, Muslim, and pretenders to democracy cannot.

 

It is important to recognize the self-imposed separations of the Christian church and Western government arose and has operated since the beginnings of Christianity. The asinine rhetoric of atheists such as Dawkins that insist separation precludes all references to God is absurd and clearly at odds with individual consciences. Our society and laws do not overlap jurisdictions in such a manner as does Islam where we see women punished for the mere instance of conversation with a man or executed for refusal to wear mandated garb.

 

Our founders were modern thinkers that understood religious tolerance must exist to preclude the very abuses Christianity is falsely accused of today. Tolerance accepts disagreement allowing others their erroneous ways. Was it not true in the US, such as Dawkins could not exist. In fact it is the atheist who is intolerant.

 

The genius of our founders' freedom of conscience kept Government out of the business of religion until modern times. Even Jefferson argued, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" Why then should we try to insulate governments from morality, all of which arises from religion?

 

Factually, morality is necessary for a free society to succeed. No amount of laws can protect people from the amoral thief or murderer but can only punish evil doers. Law reflects societies existing sentiments.

 

Courts today interpret separation to mean religion has no place in the public arena. Morality should not be permitted to shape our laws. Now freedom of expression has become freedom from expression emptying the public discourse of morality so secularists (Socialists) can monopolize conversation with their own views. The first such decision rendered by Hugo Black in the late 40's came only 30 years after the first acceptance of socialism worldwide, ten years after FDR's revolution.

 

In the 1890's Alexis de Tocqueville famously observed all America's varied Christian sects preached a common morality based upon the Laws of God and termed religion America's first political institution. Today, socialists make religious believers 2^nd class citizens distorting the idea of separation promoting social peace and justice into one promoting politically correct injustices and amoral behaviors. Recovering the true sense would greatly benefit both our nation and Western Civilization. There can be no morality outside the concept of God, only ethics which are malleable by the will of men.

 

PL Booth, The Blue Eye View, Blue Eye, Mo. 04/07/09

 

The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions

The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions

 

Have you ever given thought to how we got into our present fascist quagmire? What has brought us to the brink of Socialism where a President can openly fire the CEO of a private corporation and nearly 40% of our nation's residents receive some form of federal monetary aid (notice I said residents, not citizens.) When did we step onto that slippery slope? And how can we get off?

 

 

"It is hard for those who did not live through it to grasp the full force of the worldwide depression. Between 1930 and 1939 U.S. unemployment averaged (editorial note: substitute peaked) 18.2 percent. The economy's output of goods and services (gross national product) declined 30 percent between 1929 and 1933 and recovered to the 1929 level only in 1939. (Ed. Note: The stock market recovered much sooner but GOVERNMENTAL POLICIES stymied recovery.) Prices of almost everything (farm products, raw materials, industrial goods, stocks) fell dramatically. Farm prices, for instance, dropped 51 percent from 1929 to 1933. World trade shriveled: between 1929 and 1933 it shrank 65 percent in dollar value and 25 percent in unit volume. (Ed. Note: Protectionist policies restricting free trade kept business, manufacturing, and agriculture from exporting goods, hence prices and production suffered.) Most nations suffered. In 1932 Britain's unemployment was 17.6 percent. Germany's depression hastened the rise of Hitler and, thereby, contributed to World War II."        --     Robert Samuelson, Encyclopedia Britannica

Mr. Samuelson's history is generally accurate but relies upon Marxist economic theory for his commentary, normal in today's Socialist theology.

 

In his effort to combat the problems of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed, and with the help of the Socialist minded Democratic-controlled Congress passed, many New Deal programs. Within 100 days of taking office in 1933, he and his advisors proposed a series of measures designed to provide relief for the unemployed, recovery of the economy, and reform of the economic and banking systems. In other words, Roosevelt began tinkering with our economic engine. By 1934, the Supreme Court began ruling, correctly, against many of the New Deal programs as unconstitutional. In his second term, Roosevelt, flush from his 1936 landside presidential victory, was outraged and was convinced he had a mandate from the people to continue and expand his New Deal programs. This conflict between the Court and the Executive branches of government led to FDR's court-packing bill in 1937. The court acquiesced joining FDR in his Utopian ideology.

 

 

FDR's Dem Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. Portions of its provisions were correctly ruled unconstitutional by the Court in 1933 which lead to passage of further curative amendments by Congress in the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act in 1936. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 limited the area that farmers could devote to wheat production. (The Soviets had done so well with their own allocation programs we had to as well. Of course, the USSR allowed 30 million peasants to starve to death so Stalin could eat well, a mere statistic.)

 

The stated purpose of the act was to stabilize the price of wheat in the national market by controlling the amount of wheat produced. The motivation behind the Act was a belief by Congress that great international fluctuations in the supply and demand for wheat were leading to wide swings in the price of wheat. Of course, our farmers weren't allowed to export their excesses which led to widespread world hunger and poorer US farmers. Ah, how well the road is paved, eh! Even farmers who grew more than their Government allowed allocations for their own usage were penalized. More Socialism. Why should Government in any form be allowed to tell farmers how much grain they can grow for their own use?

 

 

Wickard v. Filburn was a US Supreme Court decision. It allowed the Fed's to control wheat production. Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. He was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres under a directive, Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted the wheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use. It wasn't sold nor intended to be sold.

 

The Federal District Court ruled in favor of Filburn. The Act required an affirmative vote of farmers by plebiscite in order to implement the quota. (The Dems thought a vote would seem democratic.) Much of the District Court decision related to the way in which the Secretary of Agriculture had campaigned for passage: The District Court had held that the Secretary's comments were improper. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which called District Court's holding against the campaign methods which led to passage of the quota by farmers a "manifest error." The court then went on to uphold the AAA under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

 

Government prosecutors claimed concern lest the Act be held to be a regulation of production or consumption rather than of marketing.  In fact, activities such as 'production,' 'manufacturing,' and 'mining' were considered strictly 'local' except in special circumstances and not regulated under the commerce power because their effects upon interstate commerce were, as matter of law, only 'indirect.'

 

It was supposed no decision of the Court allowed activities to be regulated where no part of the product is intended for interstate commerce or intermingled with the subjects thereof. It doesn't work that way, of course. The issue was not how one characterized the activity as local, but rather whether the activity "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." In simple language, since Filburn didn't have to buy feed from somebody else, his activities infringed on someone else's ability to sell their grain.

 

But the decision held ….even if (a person's) activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'  …..  It was a power grab by FDR and the DEMS to allow them to regulate who could buy and sell. Lot's of flowery language but same result, Fascism. Just exactly the governmental form we went to war to end in Japan and Europe, aided, abetted, and promoted by a populist President same as Obama today.

 

PL Booth, The Blue Eye View, MO 04/02/09

Obama's Christian America

OBAMA: AMERICA NOT CHRISTIAN – BUT ISLAM SHAPED IT FOR THE BETTER
GrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary
By Don Feder
04-14-09

          The we-do-not-consider-ourselves-a-Christian-nation line in Obama's speech to the Turkish parliament reminds me of an old joke: The Lone Ranger and Tonto are surrounded by hostile Indians. The masked man turns to his faithful companion and asks: "What are we going to do now, Tonto?" His sidekick replies: "What you mean we, pale face?"

          Like others on the left, Obama has an unfortunate habit of projecting his delusions onto the American people.

          He was in Turkey as part of his recently concluded America-sucks tour, during which he pandered shamelessly to Euro Anti-Americanism. ("We've been arrogant and we promise not to torture terrorists ever again and to always listen to the 'allies' who almost lost two World Wars the Cold War. And, have I said how sorry I am for Wounded Knee in the last 15 seconds?")

          In the overwhelmingly Muslim country, Barack Hussein Obama, as he was introduced (now that the election's over, it's okay to use his middle name), declared the concept of "Christian America" a myth.

          Obama: "Although, as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation."

          Really? But didn't the Mayflower Compact proclaim the Pilgrims were establishing their colony for "the advancement of the Muslim faith." And what about "In Allah We Trust" on our coinage and currency, not to mention what's been called our second national anthem, "Allah Bless America"?

          Seriously, if the "we" who don't consider ourselves a Christian nation refers to the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the editorial board of The New York Times, Obama is on target.

          On the other hand, if he means the nation at large, he's had some bad weed.

          An April 3 Newsweek poll showed 62% of us do consider America "a Christian nation." But for those like our president, the nation's mood is determined not by the majority, but by the cultural elite – individuals who, by education and refinement, are entitled to shape the national consciousness for the rest of us.

          Due to ignorance or willful blindness, throughout our history, most Americans, including our leaders, didn't understand that we are a secular republic – one nation under Rousseau, Darwin and the Humanist Manifesto (I and II).

          Patrick Henry remarked: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religions, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

          The Constitution is dated "in the year of our Lord, 1787," in reference not to Allah, Krishna or Buddha, but to Jesus. Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story, in his 1833 treatise on the Constitution, observed that the Founding Fathers believed "that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state."

          In the 1931 case of U.S. v Macintosh (decided before the federal judiciary began to deconstruct the First Amendment), the Supreme Court declared, "We are a Christian people."

          Every President of the United States, including B. Hussein Obama, took an oath to uphold the Constitution on a Bible. In every case save one, it was the King James Version.

          Speaking of Obama's predecessors – clearly less enlightened and worldly than the Messiah-in-Chief and probably in thrall to the religious right – their opinion is unanimous:

          George Washington: "It is impossible to govern rightly without God and the Bible." By the Bible, the Father of our Country was not referring to the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita.

          John Adams: "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…the general principle of Christianity."

          John Quincy Adams: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

          Andrew Jackson: "The Bible is the rock upon which our Republic rests" – again, in reference to the Christian Bible, not the Lotus Sutra.

          Abraham Lincoln: "Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty." The "present difficulty" that Lincoln believed Christianity would resolve favorably was a civil war in which more than 600,000 Americans died.

          Before the McGovernite takeover of the Democratic Party (now under the direction of George Soros), the presidents of Obama's party also sang in the Christian-America choir.

          Woodrow Wilson: "America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify the devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelation of Holy Scripture."

          Franklin D. Roosevelt, speaking of World War II: "Today, the whole world is divided, divided between human slavery and human freedom – between pagan brutality and the Christian ideal."

          Harry S. Truman, writing to Pope Pius XII: "This is a Christian nation. … It is not without significance that the valiant pioneers who left Europe to establish settlements here, at the very beginning of their colonial enterprise, declared their faith in the Christian religion and made ample provision for its practice and support."

          John F. Kennedy, in the midst of the Cold War: "And yet the same revolutionary belief for which our forbearers fought is still at issue around the globe, the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."

          Thomas Jefferson said something strikingly similar: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God."

          Still, the Great Community Organizer can blithely proclaim that America – which is 75% to 80% Christian – is no more a Christian nation than it is a Moslem nation.

          In a 2007 speech, Obama qualified this opinion --"Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation."

          The president thereby allowed for the possibility that America once was a Christian nation, but is no longer. But when did Christianity's dominance over American life end – with the Supreme Court's 1962 school-prayer decision, its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision or Bill Clinton staining an intern's dress with his bodily fluids circa 1995?

          While insisting that "we" do not consider America a Christian nation, Obama praised the religion of peace. "We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country."

          Besides being loopy, Obama's declaration was conveniently vague.

          Shape the world for the better? How? By spreading its creed by the sword? By establishing the concept of dhimmitude – that unbelievers must either convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule? By turning women into chattel? By subjugating the Balkans, Greece, most of Spain and parts of Eastern Europe for hundreds of years? By the destruction of Constantinople and Byzantium, the Eastern Roman empire, expunging the glories of a millennium? By fostering the bloody fanaticism of Shiitism and Wahabism, and monopolizing international terrorism since at least the 1970s?

          Islam has shaped America for the better? At least Obama didn't say "had a profound impact" – like an airliner colliding with a tall building.

          It's hard to imagine a religion which has done less to mold America than Islam, including Zoroastrianism and Scientology. Many of the principles on which America was founded, or came to represent – religious tolerance, democracy, liberty and equality – are abhorrent to traditional Islam.

          In a Washington Post/U.S. News Poll (March 26-29), while a majority approved of Obama's outreach to the Muslim world, 48% confessed to having an unfavorable view of Islam, the highest percentage since 9/11.

          In the same survey, 55% said they lacked a basic understanding of the religion of peace.

          Knowledge will breed contempt. As the Muslim population of the United States (now estimated to be around 1 million) grows, Americans increasingly will encounter the rich religious/cultural heritage the followers of Mohammed are bringing to these shores – like honor killings.

          Last year, in the Atlanta suburb of Jonesboro, a Pakistani immigrant strangled his 25-year-old daughter with a bungee chord, for trying to escape an arranged marriage.

          On New Year's Day, 2008, the bullet-riddled bodies of Sarah and Amina Said (ages 17 and 19) were found in an abandoned taxi. Their father, Egyptian immigrant Yaser Abdel Said, was arrested for the murders. Said had reportedly threatened to kill his daughters for having boyfriends. The hussies!

          Muzzammil Hassan, of the Buffalo-area, was the very model of a modern, moderate Muslim. In 2004, Hassan founded Bridges TV to counteract negative images of Islam and showcase the many stories of "Muslim tolerance, progress, diversity, service and excellence." Stop, you're killing me! – an unfortunate turn of phrase when discussing Islam.

          Hassan was such a credit to his faith that, in April 2007, he received the first annual excellence-for-pulling-the-wool-over-the-infidels'-eyes award of the Pennsylvania chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations, some of whose leaders have been tied to terrorism. Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell was present and Congressman Joseph Stestak the guest speaker.

          On February 12, 2009, the paradigm of moderate Islam was arrested and charged with decapitating his wife, who claimed he was physically and emotionally abusive, and was in the process of divorcing him. The motto of Bridges TV is: "Connecting people through understanding" – ironic, in that Aasiya Hassan's head is no longer connected to her body.

          According to The Female Genital Cutting Education and Networking Project, genital mutilation – practiced in some Muslim societies to keep women submissive by making it impossible for them to experience sexual pleasure – has arrived in the U.S.

          In November 2006, Khalid Adem, an Ethiopian living in Atlanta, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for cutting off the clitoris of his two-year-old daughter.

          In a video posted on YouTube, taken covertly at a mosque in Nashville Tennessee, a 7-year-old tearfully tells how girls are beaten during shariah class. The child also speaks of her "husband." The mainstream media only cares about allegations of abuse when the Catholic Church is involved.

          Pedophilia and child-abuse aren't the only quaint customs practiced in Muslim houses of worship.

          Of the more than 2,300 mosques and Islamic schools in America, over 80% of those constructed in the last 20 years were built with Saudi money, which also financed the 9/11 terrorists.

          The Center for Security Policy sent Arabic-speaking operatives around to over 100 of these institutions. It found 3 out of 4 infected with extremism and preaching hatred of America, Jews and Christians.

          Thus is Islam shaping America for the better – bang-bang, swoosh, smack.

          If we aren't a Christian nation, what are we? Obama told the Turks, "We consider ourselves nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

          Values aren't free-floating. They must have a point of origin.

          Throughout our history, most Americans were never in doubt about the origins of our national ethos – Sinai, Jerusalem, The Ten Commandments, The Sermon on the Mount, The Torah, The New Testament – collectively known as our Judeo-Christian heritage .

          For the secular left, which now occupies the White House, America's heritage is not found in the Bible, the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution (in its original sense), but in secular humanism, collectivism and multiculturalism – values based not on timeless standards but on prevailing cultural norms, as determined by a political/media/academic elite.

          Obama doesn't want us to consider ourselves a Christian nation because the Judeo-Christian ethic conflicts with his worldview.

          Whatever Joel Osteen and Rick Warren tell us (Pastor Ken Hutcherson calls them "evan-jellyfish"), Obama is not a Christian – unless you consider the hate-filled ravings of his former pastor, at the church he attended for 19 years, to be Christianity.

          Christian America does not condone civil unions or same-sex marriage. (It does not regard as equal all sexual acts.) Obama's America does.

          Judeo-Christian America believes in the defense of innocent human life – including the most defenseless, the unborn. Obama's America does not – witness the reputation he's acquiring as the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history, and his votes against an anti-infanticide bill as a member of the Illinois Senate.

          Christian America believes in limited government. It does not mistake government for God. Obama's America believes there's nothing the state can't do, no power the state shouldn't have and no limitations on its power to tax, spend and control.

          Christian America understands the Biblical mandate to support Israel.

          Obama's America views the Palestinians (anti-Semitic, anti-American, bloodthirsty, exalting jihad) as the moral equivalent of the Israelis (democratic, pro-American, governed by the rule of law). Obama's fantasy of Israel and Palestine living "side by side in peace and security," is either delusional or a euphemism for a temporary settlement which will lead to the demise of the Jewish state.

          Like Lincoln's proverbial house divided, these two America's can't coexist forever. During his presidency, Obama means to bury Christian America, with an imam presiding at the memorial service.

          I can hardly wait for the president's next magical mystery tour. As former House Speaker Joe Cannon is reputed to have said of a colleague, "Every time the man opens his mouth, he subtracts from the sum total of human knowledge." (Editor's note: I believe he was speaking about VP Itty Bitty Biden at the time.)

A disturbing pattern

A disturbing pattern

By Robert Romano

A disturbing pattern is emerging with Barack Obama. He is routinely forgetting who America's friends and allies are, and finding common cause with those who would wish us great harm.

As ALG News reported, the Department of Homeland Security "rightwing extremism" memo was nothing more than a witch hunt. It lists numerous potential ideological causes for violent acts but does not report on any known attacks or any groups planning attacks, or any groups with a prior history of violence that are currently conducting any types of operational recruitment, meeting, or planning attacks.

What's worse is it broadly defined "rightwing extremism" such that the memo targeted tens of millions of Americans across the country without cause. For example, if you were pro-life, believed in protecting the borders from infiltration, or were a Constitution-loving federalist-or even attend "Tea Parties," you are a real or imagined enemy of the state. And if you are a returning veteran, you are a prime target for Big Government's eye in the sky. It also targeted returning veterans as potential targets for recruitment by unnamed "rightwing extremist" groups.

However, the memo does not actually report any active recruitment by "right-wing extremists" of veterans or anybody else. By implication the DHS does not have any intelligence that any groups actually are recruiting.

Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD)-no conservative by any construction of the definition-believes that the memo was presumptuous. He said in a recent interview with the Washington News Observer in response to a question about the memo that "you don't label people because you disagree with their views or they do things that are unpopular as threats. You have to have credible information."

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano only went as far to ostensibly apologize "for any offense to our veterans caused by this report…" but offered nothing for the millions of gun-owners, border advocates, pro-lifers, or believers in states' rights. By omission they must assume they are still targets.

Napolitano has stated that the Department has "fixed the internal process that allowed this document to be released before it was ready." Americans for Limited Government is not so sure. ALG President Bill Wilson recently filed a freedom of information request precisely to find out what that process was. Millions of Americans have a right to know why the government sworn to protect them has chosen to target them instead.

But that's only the beginning of a set of policies that can only come to a bad end.

While targeting political opponents at home, Barack Obama is also systematically dismantling the CIA charged with targeting enemies abroad.

Through first politicizing intelligence gathering techniques that have arguably saved the lives of thousands of Americans, maligning the U.S. detention of prisoners of war, and appearing poised to prosecute those who have risked much to protect their nation, the Obama Administration's turning a blind eye to those who actually mean the homeland great harm by hamstringing those who could stop the sword before it falls.

Writes Ronald Kessler for Newsmax.com, "Obama has demonized CIA officers for following instructions from the highest levels of the U.S. government. He has raised the specter of prosecutions, saying it would be up to Attorney General Eric Holder whether to charge those who gave legal opinions authorizing the tactics." This in turn, according to Kessler, has a paralyzing effect on intelligence officers, who now cannot be certain if their operations carried out today will not be utilized in a political witch hunt tomorrow.

This is a lot like the Obama Administration's posture to foreign affairs: making friends with America's enemies while insulting or abandoning America's allies. Whether Obama is cuddling up with Hugo Chavez, coddling the Castro Brothers, winking at Daniel Ortega, or nodding to Mahmoud Ahmadhinejad, he is applying the soft soap in areas where a hard line has been essential to survival.

At the same time, seemingly entranced by the dulcet tones of his own voice, Obama offers proclamations that are narcissistically naive. For example, why is he advocating for nuclear disarmament worldwide while giving little but lip service to North Korea's rush towards a Doomsday scenario. Why extend an olive branch to Iran while the mad mullahs brandish the lash towards our Israeli ally? And why open the door to Cuba while the Castro brothers slam it shut in his face?

In the meantime, one has to question whether Taiwan or South Korea will be safe from aggression from communist regimes in China or North Korea. Or how far the U.S. under Obama will let Russia go in dominating Europe economically, politically, or even militarily. Will Georgia long remain a democracy when the Russian hierarchy is eyeing up its oil? What about the other former Soviet satellites? They may only be as well off as those in the CIA who thought freedom was worth the fight.

All of which paints a rather bleak picture of the nation's attitude towards security under a man who is naïve at best-and icily indifferent at worst.

Taken together, this disturbing pattern emboldens America's enemies abroad, senselessly dismantles America's intelligence capability and demoralizes those in its community, and turns its surveillance apparatus against its own citizenry.

Henry Kissinger once warned that the only thing more dangerous than being America's enemy is being America's friend. Or, under Barack Obama, being America, itself.

Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of ALG News Bureau.

http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1153

---

Nancy Pelosi the Queen of Torture

By Bill Smith / Ozark Guru: Nancy Pelosi knows what torture is because she has been practicing it for years. You might be saying, wait a minute, isn't she the the "Speaker" against torture at least with respect to what allegedly was used against the enemy combatants who brutally attacked and killed Americans and sought to destroy our American way of life. Don't be distracted by her pathological ability to adjust the truth to something that it is not or to shield the truth from shinning forth.

Let's define of the word torture using the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Noun: 1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3: distortion or over refinement of a meaning or an argument: straining

For this discussion, let's forget the extreme view that would tear down the fabric of America while claiming self-righteous indignation in seeking the truth about a physical torture of people that had planned, aided or assisted in either potential attacks or the 9-11 attack our country which and killed almost 3000 people. Have we forgotten the deaths would have been far more if the planes had hit the World Trade towers an hour later, or if the planes had hit the center of the Pentagon or had hit another locations in D.C.? Also, let's forget the extreme fringe that believes that their own government is behind everything bad in our country and blew up the World Trade Towers instead of terrorists flying the airplanes that many of us observed hitting the buildings.

Let's focus on Nancy Pelosi. First, note her recent episode of pathological adjustment of truth, wherein she attempts to divert attention from herself by boldly claiming she knew nothing about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and then buffets her claim by stating that she could not recall being told that the the enhanced interrogation techniques were or would be used. Well, most of us know this is not the truth.

Consider the following article by The Women On the Web which addresses this situation and the reaction of at least one person who was present with Nancy Pelosi in 2002 during briefings by the CIA :

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears to be on the defensive over what exactly she knew — and when she knew it — about the Bush administration’s "enhanced interrogation" techniques. The California Democrat befuddled some reporters, Republicans and others last week when she gave what Politico says were some "convoluted answers" to reporters about the interrogations. Now Republicans have jumped at the chance to pummel Pelosi’s insistence that she didn’t know what was going on. CIA Chief Porter Goss said she must be suffering from "amnesia" — since he was with her in 2002 when they were briefed by the CIA on the techniques.

Goss wrote over the weekend: "I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as ‘waterboarding’ were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience." . . .

Now back to Nancy Pelosi and her use of torture. Note the definition of the word "torture" included "anguish of body or mind: agony" and "distortion or over refinement of a meaning or an argument: straining." While Pelosi may not as yet be pulling out fingernails in the basement of Congress, she has become a master in the use of these other two definitions of the word torture. Her extreme actions, her ridiculous self-proclamations, her bullying of the members of her own party, her tyrannical exclusion of the elected members of the minority party, and her constant declarations of lies as truth and distortion of truth. All of these bring anguish to the mind and hearts of Americans and definitely distorts and "over refines" the meaning of any argument. Pelosi has been wielding the whip of torture via her tongue and via the authority of her position as Speaker of the House. A gracious women she is NOT. She is not even a voice of propaganda for the liberal cause because even liberals know she cannot be trusted. In deeds, words, and actions, Nancy Pelosi is the Queen of Torture.

While it may not matter what Republicans think of Pelosi, it does matter that American voters do not trust her. One month ago, Rasmussen Reports that "60% of U.S. voters now have an unfavorable opinion of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, including 42% Very Unfavorable and that a growing number of her doubters seem to be fellow Democrats." Abuse and torture yield these kind of results from free-thinking people. And these results are presently polar opposite of the ratings for President Obama.

There is a growing dissent with Pelosi not only among Democrats in general but more importantly among House Democrats who have been forced to endure Pelosi's torturous ways. Bowing and scrapping by once joyous party members to the Queen Speaker does not bode well for future favorable support of the Obama administration. She has outworn her welcome as Speaker of the House by her lack of graciousness and her torturous ways. For the good of the country, it is time for a favorably nod to a more "enlightened" and sanguine" person to be the Speaker. It is time for Nancy Pelosi, the Queen of Torture, to be removed as Speaker of the people's House.

Climate Change? Global Warming? or Natural Climatology

This is a bit long but well worth reading. It'll change your mind concerning global warming and its effects. Please look at the websites listed herein. Our nation's future depends on present poorly supportable actions.

 

[+] Monday, April 20, 2009 Talking Climate Change with Anthony Watts by Bill Steigerwald Text [-]

 

 

 

 

Medved: Brutal Winter Weather Defeats "Global Warming" and Brings on "Climate Change"

Prager H3: Green Panic

 

Anyone who regularly tunes into WattsUpWithThat.com, the popular climate-science blog operated by Anthony Watts, will never make fun of TV weathermen again. Watts - who was a TV meteorologist for 25 years - provides a steady diet of smart, always interesting and sometimes deeply complex scientific information and opinion about global climate change. Watts is also the founder of surfacestations.org, a project that for nearly two years has been quality-checking each of the 1,200-plus weather stations of the U. S. Historical Climate Network (USHCN) to see if they are set up and maintained properly. So far, Watts and his volunteers have checked about 820 of the weather stations, which have been in place for about 100 years and are the source for the country's official average annual temperature. Watts has found that temperature data from nearly 70 percent of the stations is of questionable accuracy because the stations do not adhere to the USHCN's own quality-control guidelines. I talked to Watts April 16 by phone from his office in Chico, Calif. Q: Why do you do your blog WattsUpWithThat? A: Well, it's just an extension of what my life has been up until the last few years. I was a broadcaster on television - a meteorologist - for 25 years. I look at the blog as really no different. I did a daily broadcast each day in television. A blog is really just a daily broadcast in a different form. Q: Who is your target audience? A: I never really thought about a target audience. I took the same philosophy from broadcasting. I made it to reach as broad an audience as possible and the demographics that I get from it tell me I am doing that job successfully. I've got everything from people with high school educations to people that are Ph.Ds who are reading and commentating and sometimes even submitting articles. Q: Sometimes it gets pretty deep - lots of scientific charts and data. A: It does. But that is to be expected because of the broad audience we have. My job is to try to make everything understandable, even for people who are not in tune with some of the more technical details of climate. Q: Have you become more politicized since you began blogging? Or are you primarily still a man of science? A: Well, my main interest always has been the science. I am still of the belief that you should let the data tell you what the real story is. As far as the blog goes, the only thing I can say that I've become a little more critical of in terms of politics is that we have some people now who should be sticking to science, such as Jim Hansen (head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, going out and advocating things such as civil disobedience (at coal-fired power plants). That concerns me. Q: What is your basic position on the question of global warming? Are you a believer? A skeptic? Somewhere in between? A: I would call myself what some people describe as a "lukewarmer" in that the CO2 effect that people have done thousands of studies on is in fact real. However, it is not a crisis. The reason it is not a crisis is because most people do not understand the logarithmic nature of the CO2 response in our atmosphere. Q: And that means? A: It's like salting soup. If you have a bowl of soup in front of you and you put a little salt in it to salt it to taste, you say, "Well, maybe it needs just a tad more." So you add some more salt and you think, "Maybe not quite enough." Then you add some more, and all the sudden it's too salty. Now if you were to add additional salt to the soup, you could not determine that it was any more salty than it already was. And if you continue to add salt, you can't tell the difference. CO2 is much like that in the way that our atmosphere responds to long-wave outgoing radiation, or trapping of heat. At some point when you get to a certain level, like a doubling of CO2, and then you add a second doubling of CO2, the response halves. It's logarithmic. Then it halves again and then halves again after that. So much of the effect that we would expect to see from CO2 -- because of this logarithmic response -- has already happened. In essence, our soup is already fairly well salted and additional salting is not to make a whole lot of difference. Q: What is the most harmful "fact" - quote unquote - about global warming that everyone believes but which is probably not true or at least uncertain? A: There is a belief out there that we will get into a runaway condition where at some point a tipping point would occur and that at that point there is no turning back and then the world would destroy itself. That is being pushed in the media a lot and it is flat wrong. As we go back into history, into past millennia, we can see that our atmosphere has in fact had much more CO2 - up to 6,000 parts per million, compared to the 380 parts per million that we have now - and it has responded and it has settled. Earth didn't destroy itself. It didn't burn up and boil off the oceans. So the comparison that we see with runaway global warming and the turning of Earth into Venus, things of that nature, are probably the most dangerous and wrong ideas that are being pushed. Q: Are your troubled or annoyed by the way global warming is being discussed or covered by the mainstream media? A: I am. And mainly because it's getting a free pass for almost every problem that's brought up. There's a Web site in the UK called Number Watch (numberwatch.com) that maintains a list of literally thousands of things in the media that are blamed on global warming. It's almost like "The Devil made me do it." The idea here is that, yeah, we have an issue and the issue is that there is some warming of the atmosphere.. That warming however is not catastrophic. It has occurred in the past and the Earth has survived. So the blaming of global warming as a catchall for every problem that we see in our environment is a disservice to science and to the people. Q: My grandchildren ask me if the polar ice in the Northern Hemisphere is going to disappear? A: I would say that the polar ice has disappeared in the past. Certainly there seems to be evidence of past climate situations where we may have had virtually no or none during the summertime. In the immediate future, however, I don't think we are going to see that. In fact, we're going through a rebound right now. If you look at the current Arctic ice extent from the Japanese agency which tracks the Arctic ice, you'll find that it is very near normal at this point and it is rebounding well from the last couple years. Antarctic ice is above normal. And the global total amount of sea ice is above normal. So it's not disappearing any time soon. Q: What's the story with the Sun? It's been described as being asleep or in a state of "slumber" because it has had virtually no sun spots for a long time. What's going on? A: Well, the Sun is driven by dynamic magnetic cycles. There are 11-year and 22-year cycles that have been identified and there are longer cycles that have been theorized. In every kind of a cycling endeavor there are always lulls and there are giant peaks. We've seen both in the past. We've seen lulls in the Maunder Minimum (1645 to 1715) and the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830), when virtually no sun spots appeared. Coincidentally, during those periods the weather and climate on Earth got colder. The period that we are currently in now is what appears to be the beginning of an extended solar cycle that may now be as long as 12 1/2 years, compared to the normal 11. The current state of the Sun appears to be a similar kind of situation being set up to what it was right before the Dalton Minimum. So the possibility exists that we may find ourselves in a period of cooler weather in the next 20 to 30 years. The missing link, however, between solar activity and Earth's climate is "What is the amplification factor?" The total solar irradiance, or TSI, has shown to be very small and when you look at the amount of watts per meter that is delivered to the Earth's surface, the amount of change in total solar irradiance doesn't appear to be enough to cause such differences in the climate of the Earth. However, what people are looking for now is an amplification factor - sort of a climatic transistor, if you will. A transistor takes very small signals and amplifies them so they are audible - which is why radios work. The theory has been bandied about that the same kind of process occurs in Earth's climate. A very small change in signal related to solar activity - and we don't know which signal yet; it could be total solar irradiance, it could be ultraviolent; it could be magnetic; it could be cosmic rays; there are number of things that are being looked at -- gets amplified in Earth's natural processes and changes. That's what needs to be identified before a complete causal relationship is established between changes on the Sun's solar cycle and changes in Earth's climate. Q: When we know the immense size of the Sun and power of the Sun and relative tininess of Earth, doesn't the Sun just scream out as being the chief culprit of climate change on Earth? A: On the surface -- on a simple analysis -- one would think that. But again, the missing link is, what is the true causal relationship between changes in the Sun's solar cycle and Earth climate. Where's the amplification factor? Because just the change in the amount of sunlight that occurs doesn't appear to be enough to account for the observed changes in the past. So we are looking for that link. However, I would say that the Sun really is the Big Kahuna of all the climate on earth. We would not have any climate. We would not have any weather. We would not have any ocean currents. We would not have life. We would have nothing if it were not for the Sun. So the Sun is this central point from which everything on Earth springs. We should not ignore that fact. Q: Is a period of global cooling coming? And if so, what would you point to as evidence of that? A: Well, there is a post on my blog today (April 16) about the computer models (of future global average temperatures) starting to diverge from the climate reality. This is something that is really kind of unexpected. The models continue to go up in (global temperature) but the climate reality and the current (global temperature) measurement starts to go down. They are diverging and have been diverging since 2006. There are a number of things that have aligned that make me think that perhaps we are in for a cooling period. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation, for example, has shifted from its warm regime to its cold regime last year. NASA JPL certified this. The last time it switched -- in 1978 -- it switched from a cool regime to a warm regime. We've been riding that warm period all the way since then. Q: Is there a quick way to explain what the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is? A: It has a larger influence that either El Nina or El Nino. It is a broad swath of water that extends from the Equator up into Alaska that changes the character of the surface temperatures of the Pacific over that broad swath of water. It was discovered by looking into changes in fishery stock by the University of Washington. The fishing stocks were changing and they had no explanation for it. They starting looking for it and they discovered it was linked to the food supply. And the food supply - krill and phytoplankton and all that sort of stuff - was linked to the changes in the temperature of the water. So they discovered this pattern. So it's a broad, wholesale change in the structure of the surface temperature of the Pacific. Q: That has obvious influences over the whole climate for years afterwards. A: Particularly the United States, because the weather flows from west to east. And particularly California. California had a fairly cool climate prior to 1978. And during the warmer period from 1978 to last year, agriculture boomed in California. Grapes began to be grown in places they haven't been grown before. The wine industry expanded. Agricultural expanded. And it expanded under a warmer climatic regime. Now that warmer climatic regime is in danger of shrinking again. So we may find growing seasons and growing places reduced back to areas that they were historically at in 1978. Q: What is the most important, irrefutable truth about the climate of Earth that you wish every schoolchild and every elected official in Washington understood? A: That the climate has always changed. It has never been static. In the past it has seen extremes hotter and colder than what we experience today. So change is normal. Q: Since you are a meteorologist, I'll put you on the spot. Ten years from now what will we be talking about, global warming or global cooling? A: I believe it will be global cooling, based on the fact that there are several things aligning - like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the solar patterns and so forth -- to make it appear that we might be in for a period of global cooling. However, I am also prepared to say that I may be completely wrong.

Blue Eye View Editor's Remarks in Blue

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Parting Company

by Walter E. Williams

---

Could Texas Secede from the Union? Watch Video

Once again Mr. Williams has it correct, on several levels. And in answer to the question, Could Texas secede?, yes, legally, as it did during the War of Northern Aggression, it could again. Why, because the rules, passed by Congress at the time bringing Texas into the Union, allowed Texas to remove itself or break into three seperate states should it choose to do so. The law was never repealed so it is still in force. You can see the documents on display in a glass case within the Texas State Capitol building unless the Dem Libs have recently removed them. Simply because many thousands died to to force the will of the N on the S does not negate the force of law.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry rattled cages when he suggested that Texans might at some point become so disgusted with Washington's gross violation of the U.S. Constitution that they would want to secede from the union. Political hustlers, their media allies and others, who have little understanding, are calling his remarks treasonous. Let's look at it. When New York delegates met on July 26, 1788, their ratification document read, "That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same." On May 29, 1790, the Rhode Island delegates made a similar claim in their ratification document. "That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness: That the rights of the States respectively to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same." On June 26, 1788, Virginia's elected delegates met to ratify the Constitution. In their ratification document, they said, "The People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will." As demonstrated by the ratification documents of New York, Rhode Island and Virginia, they made it explicit that if the federal government perverted the delegated rights, they had the right to resume those rights. In fact, when the Union was being formed, where the states created the federal government, every state thought they had a right to secede otherwise there would not have been a Union. Perry is right when he says that there is no reason for Texas to secede. There are indeed intermediate actions short of secession that states can take. Thomas Jefferson said, "Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." That suggests that one response to federal encroachment is for state governments to declare federal laws that have no constitutional authority null and void and refuse to enforce them. Here again, Williams is right. Several times since the "Civil War", states have refused to enforce Federal Laws and several times the Feds have illegally forced compliance. Former Gov. Orvil Faubus of AR didn't refuse to allow black children into AR public schools because of his color prejudice, he refused because it was against AR LAW and as Gov. he was sworn to uphold AR Law, not the dictates of a Federal Judge. We might think Faubus was merely prejudiced and therefor morally wrong but legally, he was correct. Gov. Perry is also correct and I expect BO would ask the NatGd or Federal Troops to enforce his dictates should TX get too uppity and refuse to enforce Federal Laws. Not doubt Bo could point to several Supreme Court rulings that say Federal Laws supercede state and local laws to support his actions. Would this cause another Civil War? I doubt it because I doubt sufficient will of the average brainwashed american to resist Federal Dictatorial powers. Williams is right but I believe nothing will occur except rhetoric. While the U.S. Constitution does not provide a specific provision for nullification, the case for nullification is found in the nature of compacts and agreements. Our Constitution represents a compact between the states and the federal government. As with any compact, one party does not have a monopoly over its interpretation, nor can one party change it without the consent of the other. Additionally, no one has a moral obligation to obey unconstitutional laws. That's not to say there is not a compelling case for obedience of unconstitutional laws. That compelling case is the brute force of the federal government to coerce obedience, possibly going as far as using its military might to lay waste to a disobedient state and its peoples. Finally, here's my secession question for you. Some Americans accept and have respect for the Tenth Amendment, which reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Other Americans, the majority I fear, say to hell with the Tenth Amendment limits on the federal government. Which is a more peaceful solution: one group of Americans seeking to impose their vision on others or simply parting company? I vote for the latter but just don't believe it will happen. However, Mr. Perry, should you ask your legislature to secede, I will support you and would even return to Texas to fight for that right even though it might weaken the nation as a whole. Our current national path leads to destruction, damnation, and decreasing strength anyway. Perhaps Texas could rise again. PL Booth, The Blue EYe View, MO