The announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency was clearly timed to build momentum toward an agreement at the international conference on climate change that opened Monday in Copenhagen, Denmark. It signaled the administration was prepared to push ahead for significant controls in the U.S. if Congress doesn’t act first on its own.

The price could be steep for both industry and consumers. The EPA finding clears the way for rules that eventually could force the sale of more fuel-efficient vehicles and require plants to install costly new equipment — at a cost of billions or even many tens of billions of dollars — or shift to other forms of energy. ………. {enough said … garbage, garbage.}

………….

The current USA administration is really trying hard to socialize the USA. They have a big ass of themselves by announcing this “historic eap finding” which everyone in the world today’s know is a big joke.  Maybe next we will find out milk, vegetables, water and similar foods give out some poison and we need to quit eating …. says the Obama Administration.

What is the solution to this joke Administration … IMPEACHMENT !!!

We are getting what we deserve by allowing an illegible person to be president.  Kenya …. PLEASE take him back. You need his hope and change and we don’t want it.

Ray Holt

More than 1.5 million protesters took to the streets of Tehran on Monday, marking the largest anti-regime demonstration Iran has seen since the final days of the shah in early 1979.

Seven people were killed by anti-riot police and roving bands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supporters. Many of those supporters shielded their faces from surveillance videos that plainclothes police were shooting.

The protesters included some unlikely participants: 16 Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps officers pledged to join the people’s movement, according to initial reports from Tehran. That signaled that the once-solid support of the guard corps for Ahmadinejad is beginning to crack.

The 16 officers were arrested after meeting secretly with top regular army officers on Monday night.

Many of the older men and women who took to the streets also demonstrated to bring down the shah 30 years ago, wrote Kaveh Mohseni, who publishes the French-language Web site, Iran-Resist.

Now, “people are waiting for international support,” Mohseni wrote.

That support wasn’t coming — at least not from President Barack Obama’s administration in Washington.

"It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be. We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran," Obama said during the weekend.

He reiterated his long-held position that his administration wants to pursue a "tough, direct" dialogue with Tehran.

For many Iranians, Obama’s words were reminiscent of President Bill Clinton, who washed his hands when reporters asked him on July 9, 1999, whether the United States would come to the aid of Iranian students who were revolting in 18 cities across Iran.

America could do nothing, Clinton said — echoing almost exactly the taunt Ayatollah Khomeini had used repeatedly during the revolution.

The Obama administration’s quandary comes after it covertly threw its support behind the election campaign of former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi.

Mousavi made his first appearance since the election at Monday’s rally.

Many in the crowd wore red scarves, a color favored by supporters of Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former shah.

In two messages in Persian, widely circulated through the Internet during the weekend, Pahlavi called for nationwide nonviolent resistance to the regime — the first time he has called for an open revolt since leaving Iran in 1979.

“I stand united with my fellow Iranians and call for the end of the Islamic Republic, or any other prefix in front of the name of my beloved Iran that indicates theocracy or any other form of disregard for democratic and human rights,” he said in one of the messages.

To some, this latest protest — and similar demonstrations in Shiraz, Kerman, Isfahan, Mashad, Tabriz, Rasht, and other major Iranian cities — shows that the regime finally has awakened Iran’s silent majority.

In Tabriz, there were reports that the city’s business district had shut down on Sunday as a sign of joining the anti-regime protests. Many of the protesters shouted, “Death to the dictator,” a slogan not heard in large crowds of demonstrators for decades.

“The protests are a natural expression of the frustration and insult that have been dealt by the regime,” said Roozbeh Farahanipour, a leader of the 1999 student revolt who now is the spokesman for the nationalist Marze por Gohar (Glorious Frontiers Party). “Iranians will tolerate a lot, as the last 30 years attest to, but being treated as stooges is where they draw the line.”

In Tehran on Monday, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported that former President Mohammad Khatami traveled to Cairo during Obama’s trip there and met with a “senior administration official” to discuss the upcoming Iranian election.

Although Ahmadinejad controls the news agency, Iranian observers believed the report was accurate, because it is hard to openly slander such a public person as a former president even in Iran.

Newsmax asked spokesmen for Obama and Vice President Joe Biden to comment on the allegation but received no reply.

Earlier, there were reports that a senior administration official met with Mousavi’s campaign manager, Mehdi Khazali, in Dubai two weeks before the election to offer support.

In the days before the election, editors at the Voice of America’s Persian Service apologized to anti-regime Iranians they normally invite to their shows, saying they no longer could appear on the air because the editors were under orders to invite only guests who supported “reformist” candidates Mousavi and Mehdi Karrubi.

On Tuesday morning, the Guardians Council in Tehran announced it would engage in only a “limited recount” of individual ballot boxes whose results had been disputed by one of Ahmadinejad’s three opponents, erasing earlier hopes that they might annul the disputed election because of fraud.

Getting the Guardians to examine the election results at all took a great deal of pressure.

When Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei first announced Ahmadinejad’s victory, he defiantly called the election a “divine assessment” and certified the results immediately.

But pressure from within the ruling clerical elite gave him pause.

The next day, former President Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani announced with great fanfare that he was traveling to Qom, 80 miles south of Tehran, to convene the Assembly of Experts, a council of 86 top clerics who have the authority to name the supreme leader, or depose him.

Rafsanjani chairs the Assembly of Experts and said he wanted them to examine Khamenei’s decision to certify the election, giving rise to rumors that he was hoping to depose Khamenei as leader.

Monday’s massive demonstration also suggests that the Iranian people have loosened the shackles of fear, Kaveh Mohseni said.

In a third message to Iranians, Reza Pahlavi called on the police and security forces to “never forget that these demonstrators confronting you in the streets are your brothers and sisters who are fighting for your rights.”

Joining him was his mother, who spoke to the security forces “as a mother and as an Iranian” to encourage them “not to use violence against their brothers and sisters.”

Iranian political activists have long criticized Reza Pahlavi for his inaction, and U.S. government analysts say they doubt that he has many supporters inside Iran.

But the protests inside Iran go way beyond one person, one faction, or one party. They have become a national grass-roots movement, a budding revolt that could soon reach a tipping point. And a regime change could spark reform in other areas.

Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer said, “Our only hope of changing the nuclear issue with Iran is not in the negotiations. It would be in the change of regime.”

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Official: President said Palestinian state with holy city capital ‘in American interest’

JERUSALEM – President Obama and his administration told Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during a meeting last week the U.S. foresees the creation of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, according to a top PA official speaking to WND.

"The American administration was very friendly to the position of the PA," said Nimer Hamad, Abbas’ senior political adviser.

"Abu Mazen (Abbas) heard from Obama and his administration in a very categorical way that a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital is in the American national and security interest," Hamad said.

Read the groundbreaking work that exposes the threats to Israel from within and without in Aaron Klein’s "The Late, Great State of Israel" from WND Books.

Another PA official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told WND today that Obama informed Abbas he would not let Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "get in the way" of normalizing U.S. relations with the Arab and greater Muslim world.

"We were told from this new administration they will not allow a Netanyahu government to hurt their efforts of rehabilitating U.S. relations with the Arab and Islamic world, which is a high priority of Obama," the official said, speaking during a visit to Cairo.

Also in Cairo today, Abbas met with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, where the Palestinian leader briefed Egypt’s president on his recent trip to Washington, saying the U.S. was committed to bringing about an end to Israeli construction in the West Bank.

Hamad’s comments about Jerusalem today come as controversy abounded regarding the U.S. position on Israel’s capital city.

Last week, the State Department refuted a speech in which Netanyahu said Jerusalem never will be divided.

"Jerusalem is Israel’s capital," Netanyahu said at an event marking Jerusalem’s reunification. "Jerusalem was always ours and will always be ours. It will never again be partitioned and divided."

In response, the State Department released a statement that Jerusalem "is a final status issue."

"Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to resolve its status during negotiations. We will support their efforts to reach agreements on all final status issues," the statement said.

Also last week, a top Palestinian Authority official claimed in a WND interview that the Obama administration told the PA that Jerusalem will never be united under Israeli sovereignty.

"Americans said an open Jerusalem – yes. But a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty – no," Hatem Abdel Khader, the PA’s minister for Jerusalem affairs, said in comments to both WND and Israel’s Ynetnews website.

"(The Obama administration) has made clear that Jerusalem must be accessible to everyone – but not united under Israel’s rule," Khader said.

Khader claimed the U.S. is cooperating with the PA to "thwart Israel’s plans in Jerusalem."

"When they collaborate with us in Israeli courts against home demolitions or the confiscation of land we see their attitude," he said.

Khader told WND, "The Americans are very present on the ground, and they are making pressure over Israeli authorities and even municipalities."

"They are acting according to the concept that the failure to establish a Palestinian state would jeopardize U.S. national security interests – and without Jerusalem there is no Palestinian state," he said.

U.S. helps Palestinians live illegally near Temple Mount

Khader’s claim the U.S. is helping the Palestinians gain a foothold in Jerusalem is accurate. In April, WND reported that under intense American pressure and following a nearly unprecedented behind-the-scenes U.S. campaign, the Netanyahu government has decided not to bulldoze Palestinian homes built illegally on Jewish-owned property in Jerusalem.

The issue is critical since the 80 homes in question are located in Silwan, an eastern Jerusalem neighborhood close to the Temple Mount and Jerusalem’s Old City that the Palestinians claim as a future capital. Jewish groups have been working to fortify the community’s Jewish presence. Silwan is adjacent to the City of David, a massive archeological dig just outside the Temple Mount that is constantly turning up Temple artifacts.

Like tens of thousands of other Arab housing projects throughout eastern Jerusalem, the Palestinian homes in Silwan were illegally constructed on property long ago purchased by Jews. The Israeli government ordered the structures’ legal demolition.

But during a visit here in early March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly protested the planned bulldozing.

"Clearly this kind of activity is unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the Road Map," she said. "It is an issue that we intend to raise with the government of Israel and the government at the municipal level in Jerusalem."

The Road Map calls for Israel to freeze Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank but does not bar Israel from dismantling illegally constructed Palestinian homes in Jerusalem.

WND learned that in the weeks since Clinton’s visit here, the U.S. mounted an intensive campaign lobbying the Israeli government against tearing down the illegal Palestinian homes in Silwan. The campaign included letters from the Middle East section of the State Department addressed to various Jerusalem municipalities, with copies of the letters sent to the offices of Israel’s prime minister and foreign minister. The letters called on Israel to allow the illegal Palestinian homes in Silwan to remain and stated any demolitions would not foster an atmosphere of peace.

Also, in a follow-up visit here, State Department officials made it clear to their Israeli counterparts the U.S. opposes the Silwan bulldozing.

According to sources in the Israeli government, including in Netanyahu’s administration, a decision has been made not to bulldoze the illegal Palestinian homes. The sources said the issue of the homes may be raised again in the future, but for the time being the houses will remain intact.

The sources attributed the decision against the bulldozing – which has not yet been announced – to the intense American campaign against the house demolitions.

Said one source in Netanyahu’s administration, "This was very frustrating to us. Can you imagine if a foreign government came in and told a city office in the U.S. not to tear down a house that was illegally constructed on someone else’s property?"

While Clinton opposed the Palestinian house demolitions, informed Israeli officials said the Obama administration is carefully monitoring Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem and has already protested to the highest levels of Israeli government about evidence of housing expansion in those areas.

The officials, who spoke on condition that their names be withheld, said that last month Obama’s Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, oversaw the establishment of an apparatus based in the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem that closely monitors eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods, incorporating regular tours on a daily basis.

The officials said that in recent meetings Mitchell strongly protested Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem. Mitchell also condemned the work of nationalist Jewish groups to purchase property in Jerusalem’s Old City, including in areas intimately tied to Judaism.

Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount – Judaism’s holiest site – during the 1967 Six Day War.

The Palestinians, however, have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital. About 244,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods, out of a total population of 724,000, the majority Jewish.

Europe has basically banded together en masse to reject Obama’s crazy spending ideas and schemes. We’re getting spanked by socialists. The iPod gift to the queen with HIS SPEECHES ON IT wasn’t such a great idea, either. Here’s the text of the official end communique from today . Barry’s about to make his address before the foreign press, (late as usual). Here’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown announcing “The New World Order Is Emerging At The G-20 ″.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Officials at Occidental College in Los Angeles, Calif., have been served with a demand to produce records concerning Barack Obama’s attendance there during the 1980s because they could document whether he was attending as a foreign national – in one of three fronts now established by those contesting the president-elect’s constitutional eligibility for the Oval Office.

The Supreme Court and Congress also both are being challenged to address the worries that Obama doesn’t meet the requirements of the U.S. Constitution that the president be a "natural born" citizen.

WND has reported on a long list of legal cases raising questions over the issue, and several of those have reached the U.S. Supreme Court already. Justices have so far declined to give any of the cases full hearings on their merits, but another conference remains on the Supreme Court docket for Jan. 23 on the issue.

"If Obama is sworn in as president, we will file a Petition for Writ of ‘Quo Warranto,’ a case that will challenge Obama as being ineligible to serve as president because he is ‘not qualified,’" said Philip J. Berg, a lawyer who has brought several cases to court. Berg, whose information is on his ObamaCrimes.com website, indicated the issue isn’t going away.

Orly Taitz, a California lawyer whose dispute remains pending before the high court, agreed, noting that one of the hearings already is scheduled for the days following Obama’s inaugural on Tuesday.

Taitz said her arguments rest on precedents from both the California Supreme Court, which years ago removed a candidate for president from the ballot because he was only 34, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmation of that ruling. The Constitution requires a president to be 35.

In one of the latest developments, Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation petitioned Occidental College with a demand for its records concerning Obama.

"The gravamen of the petition is the question as to whether United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama, of Illinois, is eligible to serve as president of the United States pursuant to the requirements for that office in the Untied States Constitution," he wrote. "The records sought may provide documentary evidence, and/or admissions by said defendant, as to said eligibility or lack thereof."

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 200,000 others and sign the petition demanding proof of eligibility now!

College officials confirmed they had gotten the notice, but had not decided how to respond, a decision that may be removed from their hands because of the team of lawyers Obama has engaged to prevent such inquiries into his past.

"Senator Obama has filed responsive pleadings in this matter and is represented by counsel, and has the opportunity to object to this production, should he so desire," the affidavit from Kreep said.

"Good cause exists for this production under Subpoena Duces Tecum, in that testimony will be elicited from the original records obtained through the witness named herein, and there is no other process available to secure said testimony," he wrote.

The lawsuits allege in various ways Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some allege his birth took place in Kenya, and his mother was a minor at the time of his birth – too young to confer American citizenship. They argue Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time and would have handed down British citizenship.

There also are questions raised about Obama’s move to Indonesia when he was a child and his attendance at school there when only Indonesian citizens were allowed and his travel to Pakistan in the ’80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens.

The lawsuit on which USJF is working was filed on behalf of presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others, and describes the potential damage an ineligible president could create.

"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void," argues a case brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a presidential candidate. "Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."

On his ObamaCrimes.com website, Berg sent his message directly to the U.S. Congress.

He’s asking in an open letter to members of Congress for congressional hearings "to determine the truth regarding qualifications of Barry Soetoro, otherwise known as Barack Hussein Obama…"

"As you must be aware, there are many unresolved questions concerning Soetoro/Obama’s status or lack thereof, as a ‘natural born’ American citizen, as required by ‘our’ U.S. Constitution," he wrote.

He noted the failure by Congress to challenge Obama’s eligibility during the process through which the Electoral College vote was adopted.

"Because of your failure to ‘question’ the eligibility of Soetoro/Obama, we are headed for a ‘Constitutional Crisis.’ Yes, a ‘Constitutional Crisis’ because Soetoro/Obama who appears not to be a ‘natural born’ U.S. citizen is ‘ineligible’ under ‘our’ U.S. Constitution to serve as president," he said.

He cited the document published on the Internet by Obama’s campaign, the "Certification of Live Birth," as no more than an effort to "quash" questions. Other critics have noted the state of Hawaii granted such certifications to parents of children not born in the state at the time.

"Without truthful information concerning Soetoro/Obama’s eligibility to serve as President, ‘We the People’ have been injured," he wrote.

Taitz took a different route, submitting to the U.S. Supreme Court a motion "to declare that by default, the president elect respondent Barack Obama has failed to qualify under [the] U.S. Constitution."

"Does the burden of proof lie with the petitioner to prove standing and evidence lack of qualification by a candidate/president elect, where election officers rely on a candidate’s declaration? OR does the [Constitution] place the burden of proof on the president-elect to provide objective government certified witnessed proofs, with election officers under oath to challenge, examine and declare that the president elect has or has not qualified, enforceable by petition for redress of grievances?"

Not only has the respondent, Obama, "failed to submit proofs … for any of the qualifications," she wrote. "Respondent has hindered discovery."

She argued that having Obama declared ineligible until he would provide documentation would "cause far less political trauma" than allowing his inauguration because it would uphold the constitution.

She also raised the issue of the concealment of Obama’s records.

"Obama has refused to submit certified copies of any of his original long form ‘vault’ birth certificates in Hawaii to any public officer or to any Petitioner. Relevant records in Kenya have also been officially restricted," she said. "Obama has sealed all educational records which might reveal his stated citizenship. These include Punahou High School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School."

Her letter included a warning, too.

"Thirty-three democracies descended into tyranny during the 20th century by failing to uphold constitutional protections," she said. "Petitioner humbly prays this Court evaluate the Petitioner’s case in context of how best to enforce restrictive qualifications for president to preserve the Constitution and Republic from tyranny."

WND twice has organized opportunities for readers to send FedEx letters to the Supreme Court, asking for consideration of the issue on its merits.

The most recent campaign generated 12,096 messages, following the earlier effort that resulted in 60,128 letters.

Obama has claimed in his autobiography and elsewhere that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 to parents Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Kenyan national, and Stanley Ann Dunham, a minor. But details about which hospital handled the birth and other details provided on the complete birth certificate have been withheld by Obama despite lawsuits and public demands for release.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi went to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn’t simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Original Story

The Bush-bashers still feign outrage that the US lost 4,226 heroes liberating Iraq.
Of course, they weren’t too upset about military losses when the Clinton’s were in charge.

Numbers from Iraq Coalition Casualties and CRS report to Congress (pdf)
The Iraq War historically has been a great success.
The Telegraph reported today:

The number of American troops killed during the eight years of the War against Terror has been fewer than those slain capturing two islands in the Second World War, and in Britain we have lost fewer soldiers than on a normal weekend on the Western Front. As for civilians, there have been fewer Iraqis killed since the invasion than in 20 conflicts since the Second World War.

Vice President Cheney talked more about the success in Iraq with Jim Lehrer today on the "News Hour":

THE VICE PRESIDENT: We now find ourselves in the situation where we’re five years later; we’ve achieved most of the objectives that you would have set out in the spring of ’03 when we launched into Iraq. We’ve got the violence level down to its lowest level since ’03. We’ve had three national elections, a constitution written, a new government stood up, new army recruited and trained, the Iraqis increasingly able to take on responsibility for themselves. And we’ve now entered into a strategic framework agreement with the new Iraqi government that will provide for the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. forces.

You could not have asked for much more than that in terms of the policies that we started on in ’03.

Q But Mr. Vice President, getting from there to here, 4,500 Americans have died, at least 100,000 Iraqis have died. Has it been worth that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think so.

Q Why?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Because I believed at the time what Saddam Hussein represented was, especially in the aftermath of 9/11, was a terror-sponsoring state so designated by the State Department. He was making payments to the families of suicide bombers. He provided a safe haven and sanctuary for Abu Nidal and other terrorist operations. He had produced and used weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological agents. He’d had a nuclear program in the past. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. And he did have a relationship with al Qaeda.

We’ve had this debate that keeps people trying to conflate those arguments. That’s not to say that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. It is to say as George Tenet, the CIA Director, testified in open session in the Senate, that there was a relationship there that went back 10 years. This was a terror-sponsoring state with access to weapons of mass destruction. And that’s the greatest threat we faced in the aftermath of 9/11, that the next time we found terrorists in the middle of one of our cities, it wouldn’t be 19 guys armed with airline tickets and box cutters, it would be terrorists armed with a biological agent, or maybe even a nuclear device.

And so I think given the track record of Saddam Hussein, I think we did exactly the right thing. I think the country is better off for it today.

It’s too bad that Cheney wasn’t out giving that same talk each week.
It is also too bad that the media continues to keep this information from the American public.

Today there is a democracy in the Middle East where there was once a brutal regime.
Was it worth it?

Here is the Vice President discussing the War in Iraq and amazing progress that has occurred since the Bush Surge in 2007:

Click here to view the embedded video.

See Original Article

Five Democratic governors are asking the federal government for a $1 trillion bailout package, including $250 billion for education and $150 billion in middle class tax cuts. “Money In Motion”, people. Watch it, and it’s ever-present buddy corruption, as the cash grab continues. These guys have decided to try to score more bucks than even Barry’s been pushing for. The gypsies are definitely in the palace now.

The governors from Wisconsin, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Ohio on Friday said they have presented their plan to President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team as well as congressional leaders. They said that they need this much federal aid to deal with unprecedented state budget shortfalls in 41 states and in D. C., that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says will be $42 billion for the current fiscal year alone. The Center pegs the total 2010 and 2011 shortfall at $350 billion.

Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle said congressional leaders and the Obama team have been receptive to the governors’ ideas. “That’s not to say they’ve told us this is what they’ll do or they’re with us all the way,” Doyle said. He also said other governors were involved in creating the plan, which grew out of an early December meeting that Obama had with the nation’s governors. Obama’s aides and congressional leaders have been talking about a package roughly half the size of the two-year plan the five governors proposed Friday.

Over two years, $1 trillion is equal to more than 3 percent of the gross domestic product, the U.S. economy’s total output. A package of that size will hopefully draw significant opposition from congressional Republicans and concern from moderate and conservative Democratic lawmakers who oppose large budget deficits.

We MUST let our voices be heard in Washington on this. The madness has to stop! Like we’ve said so many times before, we can NOT deficit-spend our way out of this mess. The bailouts are only making the global economic situation worse.

In addition to the money for education and tax cuts, the governors said their plan includes $350 billion for road construction and other infrastructure projects and $250 billion for social service programs such as Medicaid. The governors all said their states are facing unprecedented budget shortfalls that will require deep cuts to services and possibly irreparably harm their education systems.

“We aren’t crying wolf,” Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland said. “These are real circumstances, unprecedented situations we are facing.” L.O. effin’ L. I have a bridge to sell anyone who buys this crap. It is all an attempt to quickly line pockets with ill-thought-out plans, just like the ORIGINAL bailout was. The banks skated with that cash, and we will NEVER see it again, nor will they ever have to tell us what they did with it. That might be “disruptive” to some banks, according to Treasury Secretary Paulson.

Here’s the fear the Gov’s are schlepping: Ohio’s budget deficit could grow to $7.3 billion even after $1.9 billion was cut from its current budget, Strickland said. New York Gov. David Paterson said his state faces a $15.4 billion deficit. Wisconsin’s budget is expected to be $5.4 billion short by mid-2011. New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine said he had just left a meeting with state legislative leaders where he proposed $2.1 billion in cuts on top of $600 million that’s already been cut from the budget. Yada, yada, yada.

Strickland said the federal stimulus is needed to help bridge the gap from the current recession to when there’s a rebound. (Which will be delayed by all of the spending, brainiacs.) Even with the money, states will have to make deep cuts, he said. “We are not, any of us, talking about federal money to expand spending, expand programs, to do new things,” Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick said.

Can we get that in writing?!

Original story

A second conference has been posted on the docket for the U.S. Supreme Court over the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the White House, this one scheduled a week after Congress is to review the Electoral College vote tabulation.

The latest issue posted is a request for an injunction on the election results pending the resolution of a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by attorney Philip J. Berg, a case that is docketed for a similar conference among the justices on Jan. 9.

Berg’s original case raises questions about Obama’s eligibility and his injunction request first was filed early in December. It was submitted to and rejected by two different justices before it came before Justice Antonin Scalia on Dec. 18. Then just before Christmas the docket was updated to reflect that the motion had been "distributed for conference of January 16, 2009."

On Berg’s Obama Crimes.org website, he said Congress is scheduled to hear the Electoral College results on Jan. 8. Then on Jan. 9 there’s the conference scheduled on Berg’s case itself, with the injunction issue to be addressed a week later.

WND has reported Berg’s case, one of the first legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility to reach the Supreme Court, alleges he cannot constitutionally be inaugurated.

"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.

"Obama knows he is not ‘natural born’ as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest ‘hoax’ attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a ‘crisis’ situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg’s statement continued.

"The Supreme Court has listed the case of Berg vs. Obama for ‘conference’ on January 9," the website said.

"I am appalled that the main stream media continues to ignore this issue as we are headed to a ‘Constitution Crisis,’" Berg wrote. "There is nothing more important than our U.S. Constitution and it must be enforced. I am concerned that our courts have not yet decided to look into the merits of our allegations."

WND previously reported on a case brought by Cort Wrotnowski. It fell by the wayside when the justices heard about it in conference but refused to give it a further hearing. That was the same fate handed to a case brought by Leo Donofrio. Both challenged Obama on essentially the same issue: allegations that dual citizenship based on a father who was a British subject and a mother who was an American minor disqualified him for office.

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 190,000 others and sign up now!

The high court previously turned down a request from Berg to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president until Obama documents his eligibility for the office.

As WND has reported, more than a dozen lawsuits have been filed over Obama’s eligibility to assume the office of the president, many have been dismissed, while others remain pending.

The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

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

Several details of Obama’s past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family’s move to Indonesia when he was a child, his travel to Pakistan in the ’80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens and conflicting reports from Obama’s family about his place of birth.

A partial listing and status update for several of the cases surrounding Obama’s eligibility to serve as president is below:

* Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama’s original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Supreme Court conferences on the case and its motions are scheduled Jan. 9 and 16.

* Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

* Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

* Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public’s support.

* Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

* Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.

* In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

* In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.

* In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injuction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

* California attorney Orly Taitz also has brought a complaint alleging Obama is not a "natural born" citizen and has written an open letter to the Supreme Court asking for the issue to be resolved.

Last month, WND reported the worries over a "constitutional crisis" that could be looming over the issue of Obama’s citizenship.

"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void," argues the Alan Keyes case pending in California, "Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."

With such high stakes potentially at risk, WND earlier launched a letter campaign to contact Electoral College members and urge them to review the controversy.

That followed a campaign that sent more than 60,000 letters by overnight delivery to the U.S. Supreme Court when one case contesting Obama’s eligibility for the Oval Office was pending.

A separate petition, already signed by more than 190,000 also is ongoing asking authorities in the election to seek proof Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn’t simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors. The image his campaign posted online has been rejected by critics since it is a "certification of live birth," not a birth certificate, and under Hawaii law at the time such certifications were given to parents of children born outside the state.

The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject. At one point a Kenyan ambassador said Obama’s birthplace in Kenya already was being recognized.

A pro-life group in Washington has launched a campaign to oppose what it calls president-elect Barack Obama’s planned $1.5 billion "bailout" of the abortion industry.

Last week, the Obama-Biden Transition Project posted a report on its website that calls for dramatic policy reversals on abortion, including $1 billion in taxpayer money for international abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. The report, titled "Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration," also calls for a 133-percent increase in funding for the Title X program, which funds Planned Parenthood clinics across the country.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, is hoping a Republican-led effort in the Senate will block Obama’s plan to substantially increase taxpayer funding of Marjorie Dannenfelserthe abortion industry.

"This billion-dollar bailout of the abortion industry comes at a time, number one, when the economy is suffering dramatically with true need. And number two, it communicates an incredible depth of arrogance, especially when you consider that the vast majority of Americans — men and women, no matter who you talk to — they don’t believe that people who don’t believe in abortion should be funding it," she contends. "Most Americans don’t believe that we should be funding abortions, especially in a time of economic crisis."

The Susan B. Anthony List has started a "Stop the Abortion Bailout" campaign designed to recruit thousands of activists to send letters to their senators "with the goal of securing the 41 votes necessary to sustain a Senate filibuster of the abortion bailout."

Story from OneNewsNow

Jesse Jackson Jr. has been acting as an informant for the Federal Government and the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Northern District of Illinois for a decade, according to his spokesman Kenneth Edmonds. 2 sources close to the Congressmen also said that, in 2002, Jackson’s wife Sandi was up for an appointment by Governor Rod Blagojevich to be the lottery commissioner, and Blago wanted a $25,000 campaign contribution in return. Jackson refused, and she didn’t get the job. Reportedly, Blago came up to Jesse Jr. in 2003 and said “see what $25,000 could have gotten you?!”

Jesse Jackson Jr. has been informing the U.S. Attorney’s office on all KINDS of corruption going on in Illinois, particularly in Chicago, including Blagojevich shenanigans. He waited about 3 years after the “job offer” to his wife, but began reporting on Blago when, during Tony Rezko’s trial, many similar “$25,000 donation” offers were brought to light. Jackson blew the whistle on the pay-to-play. PUNK, Hot Rod! Tellingly, Jackson did NOT endorse Blago for governor.

Jackson has been fighting for his reputation since the federal complaint revealed his supporters were willing to raise money for the governor, if Jackson was appointed to the Senate. Could this get any stranger? Obviously Jesse Jr. was on to Blago, AND knew the Feds were on to him too. The new information appears to support Jackson’s vigorous claim that he was not involved in a scheme to buy a U.S. Senate seat. No wonder JJJ’s panties were in a twist at being “Senate Candidate #5.”

It isn’t clear whether Jackson has been acting as an informant in this latest twist of the Blagojevich scandal being prosecuted by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. This story is breaking, and Rightsoup will be updating it as more becomes available.

For the complete article …

Religious – Muslim Star & Crescent ANN ARBOR, MI – A federal lawsuit was filed this morning against U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. and the Federal Reserve Board to stop all bailout funds from going to American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”).  According to the lawsuit, the U.S. government, through its ownership of AIG, is not only violating the Constitution, but also promoting and financing the destruction of America using American tax dollars.

The basis of the lawsuit is that AIG intentionally promotes Shariah-compliant businesses and insurance products, which by necessity must comply with the 1200 year old body of Islamic canon law based on the Quran, which demands the conversion, subjugation, or destruction of the infidel West, including the United States.  To help achieve these objectives and with the aid of federal tax dollars, AIG employs a three-person Shariah Advisory Board, with members from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Pakistan.  According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority “is to review operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and investments.”

Of particular significance is the Pakistani Board member, Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani.  Dr. Usmani is the son and devoted disciple of Sheik Mufti Taqi Usmani, the leading authority on Shariah financing who, in 1999, authored a book dedicating an entire chapter on why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country – even if Muslims are given equality and freedom to practice their religion and to proselytize.

The lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of Kevin J. Murray, a former Marine infantryman who served two tours of duty in Iraq.  Murray is represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and David Yerushalmi, an associated attorney who specializes in litigation and is an expert on Shariah law and Shariah compliant financing.  Mr. Yerushalmi also serves as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C.

According to the lawsuit, use of taxpayer funds to acquire ownership of a business that intentionally promotes, endorses, supports, and funds Shariah-based Islamic religious practices violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “This lawsuit not only raises significant constitutional issues, it also shines a light on serious national security issues that our own government has created by direct financial support and ownership of a business that supports anti-American, radical Islamic activities.  Make no mistake, there is an internal cultural jihad underway against our great nation, and I fear that many of our political leaders are unwittingly complicit in it.”

On September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists, guided by principles of Shariah-mandated jihad against “infidels, ” attacked and killed thousands of innocent American civilians.  Shortly thereafter, the U.S. went on the offensive by engaging Islamic terrorists overseas in Iraq and in Afghanistan.  As in the past when our Nation faced great crisis, American servicemen were called to action, and Kevin Murray answered the call.  From March to October 2003, Murray – a U.S. Marine – was deployed overseas in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Yet today, Murray’s federal tax dollars are being used to advance the very cause of global jihad he and his fellow servicemen were placed in harm’s way to overcome.  Shariah explicitly demands the murder of infidels like Kevin Murray and the destruction of the United States, which Murray took an oath to defend.  Shariah is the same law that is used to justify beheadings, stonings, and amputation for petty crimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan, which Americans deplore.

Nevertheless, AIG acknowledges and boasts its promotion of Shariah law and Shariah-based business practices.  AIG itself describes “Sharia” as “Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet .”

In further support of the federal government’s endorsement of Shariah, the U.S. Treasury department co-sponsored a seminar in November of this year entitled “Islamic Financing 101” to promote Shariah financing among American institutions. Click here to read documents from the seminar. The Seminar was jointly sponsored by Harvard University, one of the many American universities and colleges receiving millions of dollars from oil-producing countries to influence their Middle East programs, which are often staffed with professors who are anti-American, anti-Israeli, and pro-Islamic.

“It is clear, ” said Thompson, “oil money is purchasing the sovereignty of the United States and whatever loyalty to America these greedy financial institutions, corporations, and universities have left.  It’s up to the American people to take back their country from those who so easily betray its interests.”

The federal lawsuit challenges that portion of the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the United States government’s majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that are anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-American.

According to the lawsuit, through the use of taxpayer funds, the U.S. government acquired a majority (79.9%) ownership interest in AIG, and as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated and expended an additional $40 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities.  AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in Shariah-compliant financing, which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion.  This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities.

An important element of Shariah-compliant financing is a form of obligatory charitable contribution called zakat , which is a religious tax for assisting those that “struggle for Allah.”  The amount of this tax is between 2.5% and 20%, depending upon the source of the wealth.  The zakat religious tax is used to financially support Islamic “charities, ” some of which have ties to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the United States and all other “infidels, ” which includes Christians and Jews.

The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, recently convicted for providing material support to Islamic terrorist organizations, is an example of an Islamic “charity” that qualifies for receipt of the zakat .  Thus, as a direct consequence of the taxpayer funds appropriated and expended to purchase and financially support AIG, the U.S. government is now the owner of a corporation engaged in the business of collecting religious taxes to fund interests adverse to the United States, Christians, Jews, and all other “infidels” under Islamic law.

Continued Thompson, “This lawsuit is as much about protecting constitutional principles as it is about protecting our national security and preventing another 9/11 – whether it be overt through flying planes into buildings or covert through appropriating taxpayer money to fund an Islamic cultural jihad .”

The lawsuit seeks a court order to stop the taxpayer funding of AIG and its Islamic-based businesses and activities.

The Thomas More Law Center has been involved in several cases dealing with the insidious threat of radical Islam.  Law Center attorney Robert Muise, who is handling this case involving AIG, is also one of the Law Center’s attorneys defending LtCol Jeffrey Chessani, USMC, the senior officer charged in the so-called “Haditha Massacre” case.  Those charges were dismissed by a military judge, and the government has appealed that ruling.  Muise is also representing former Marine Jesse Nieto, whose anti-Islamic terrorism message was recently banned by military authorities at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune because of some unknown complaints.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life.  It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America.  The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org .

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]

Full Senate Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…

A hint of what the upcoming report contains:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #

In addition, the report will feature new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a heavy dose of inconvenient climate developments. (See Below: Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? – Warming Fears in ‘Dustbin of History’)

The Senate Minority Report is an update of 2007’s blockbuster U.S. Senate Minority Report of over 400 dissenting scientists. See here: This new report will contain the names, quotes and analyses of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears in just 2008 alone. The chorus of scientific voices skeptical grow louder as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses and real world data challenge the UN and former Vice President Al Gore’s claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." The original 2007 U.S. Senate report is available here: Full Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…
Meanwhile, while the UN climate conference is in session here in Poznan, the bad scientific news for promoters of man-made climate alarm just keeps rolling in. Below is a very small sampling of very inconvenient developments for Gore, the United Nations, and their promoters in the mainstream media. Peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and prominent scientists continue to speak out to refute climate fears. The data presented below is just from the past week.

#

Peer-reviewed study: Half of recent warming was solar! – December 10, 2008

Excerpt: In this dose of peer-reviewed skeptical climatological literature, we follow Climate Research News. The blog was intrigued by a new article in Geophysical Research Letters that was accepted on Friday, December 5th. Eichler, A., S. Olivier, K. Henderson, A. Laube, J. Beer, T. Papina, H. W. Gäggeler, and M. Schwikowski: Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing – Recall that the Siberian Altai Mountains are found at the intersection of Russia, China, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan. The authors looked at 750 years worth of the local ice core, especially the oxygen isotope. They claim to have found a very strong correlation between the concentration of this isotope (i.e. temperature) on one side and the known solar activity in the epoch 1250-1850. Their data seem to be precise enough to determine the lag, about 10-30 years. It takes some time for the climate to respond to the solar changes. It seems that they also have data to claim that the correlation gets less precise after 1850. They attribute the deviation to CO2 and by comparing the magnitude of the forcings, they conclude that "Our results are in agreement with studies based on NH temperature reconstructions [Scafetta et al., 2007] revealing that only up to approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun." Well, the word "only" is somewhat cute in comparison with the "mainstream" fashionable ideology. The IPCC said that they saw a 90% probability that "most" of the recent warming was man-made. The present paper would reduce this figure, 90%, to less than 50% because the Sun itself is responsible for 1/2 of the warming and not the whole 50% of the warming could have been caused by CO2 because there are other effects, too. Note that if 0.3 °C or 0.4 °C of warming in the 20th century was due to the increasing CO2 levels, the climate sensitivity is decisively smaller than 1 °C. At any rate, the expected 21st century warming due to CO2 would be another 0.3-0.4 °C, and this time, if the solar activity contributes with the opposite sign, these two effects could cancel. Even if you try to stretch these numbers a little bit – but not unrealistically – you have to become sure that the participants of the Poznan conference are lunatics.

Flashback: New scientific analysis shows Sun “could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature” (LINK) & (LINK)

Dr. Bruce West, A U.S Army Chief Scientist, Says Sun, Not Man, Is Driving Climate Change – June 3, 2008 – (LINK)

21 spotless days and solar magnetic field still in a funk – Meteorologist Anthony Watts Excerpt: We are now at 21 days with no sunspots, it will be interesting to see if we reach a spotless 30 day period and then perhaps a spotless month of December.

New Arctic ice analysis reveals ‘No clear evidence of a delay in the start of the later summer/early fall freeze up or the start of the late winter/early spring melt’ – Excerpt: Based on analysis by William Chapman, author of The Cryosphere Today website, graciously prepared an analysis of the dates of the minimum and maximum Arctic sea ice coverage since 1979.

Oscillation Rules as the Pacific Cools – December 9, 2008 Excerpt: A cool wedge of lower-than-normal sea-surface heights continues to dominate the tropical Pacific, ringed by a horseshoe of warmer waters. The continuation of this long-term cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation stacks the odds against a wetter-than-average winter/spring in the southwestern United States. The latest image of sea-surface height measurements from the U.S./French Jason-1 oceanography satellite shows the Pacific Ocean remains locked in a strong, cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a large, long-lived pattern of climate variability in the Pacific associated with a general cooling of Pacific waters. […] Sea-surface temperature satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration mirror Jason sea-surface height measurements, clearly showing a cool Pacific Decadal Oscillation pattern, as seen at: http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/sst/sst.anom.gif . "This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can cause La Niña-like impacts around the Pacific basin," said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. […] This cool phase will likely persist this winter and, perhaps, beyond.

Report: Sea Level rise ‘has stumbled since 2005′ – Meteorologist Anthony Watts – December 5, 2008 Excerpt: We’ve been waiting for the UC web page to be updated with the most recent sea level data. It finally has been updated for 2008. It looks like the steady upward trend of sea level as measured by satellite has stumbled since 2005. The 60 day line in blue tells the story. From the University of Colorado web page: “Long-term mean sea level change is a variable of considerable interest in the studies of global climate change. The measurement of long-term changes in global mean sea level can provide an important corroboration of predictions by climate models of global warming. Long term sea level variations are primarily determined with two different methods.” – Yes, I would agree, it is indeed a variable of considerable interest. The question now is, how is it linked to global climate change (aka global warming) if CO2 continues to increase, and sea level does not?

Peer-Reviewed Study: Recent worldwide land warming’ NOT ‘a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land’ – WorldClimateReport.com – December 3, 2008 ‘Rethinking Observed Warming?’ Key quote: “Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.”

Alert: 2008 will be coolest year of the decade!- December 5, 2008 Excerpt: This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07. [Note: For evidence of the panic apparently gripping the promoters of man-made climate fear, read the quotes in the article from the warming partisans absolutely assuring everyone that cool temperatures are “absolutely not" evidence that global warming is on the wane. Those same voices are usually absent when it comes to linking heat waves to global warming. ]

Flashback: Global Cooling? – ‘Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof’ – National Post – October 20, 2008

Report: NASA’s James Hansen "adjusts" a cooling trend into a warming trend – December 9, 2008 Excerpt: "[H]ere is what the data looks like before and after NASA GISS adjusts it. These are the USHCN “raw” and “homogenized” data plots from the GISTEMP website. The before and after is quite something to behold. … What was down, is now up." "How not to measure temperature, part 79"

Geophysist: ‘It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history’ – ‘Alarmists are in denial and running for cover’- Washington Times

By Geophysicist Dr. David Deming, associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma who has published numerous peer-reviewed research articles. Excerpt: Environmental extremists and global warming alarmists are in denial and running for cover. Their rationale for continuing a lost cause is that weather events in the short term are not necessarily related to long-term climatic trends. But these are the same people who screamed at us each year that ordinary weather events such as high temperatures or hurricanes were undeniable evidence of imminent doom. Now that global warming is over, politicians are finally ready to enact dubious solutions to a non-existent problem. […] To the extent global warming was ever valid, it is now officially over. It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history, next to Aristotelean physics, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, phlogiston, and a plethora of other incorrect scientific theories, all of which had vocal and dogmatic supporters who cited incontrovertible evidence. Weather and climate change are natural processes beyond human control. To argue otherwise is to deny the factual evidence.

Climate Chancellor’ No More – Der Spiegel Excerpt: Angela Merkel is facing withering criticism for remarks she made on Monday that seemed to back away from her earlier commitment to tackling climate change.

Alert: Under the Weather: Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices – Fox News – December 4, 2008

Excerpt: As more than 10,000 delegates and observers gather in Poznan, Poland, to discuss the next phase in the battle against "climate change," a U.N. agency at the center of that hoopla badly needs to do some in-house weather-proofing. […] But the WMO, the $80 million U.N. front-line agency in the climate change struggle, and the source for much of the world’s information in the global atmosphere and water supply, has serious management problems of its own, despite its rapidly expanding global ambitions. The international agency has been sharply criticized by a U.N. inspection unit in a confidential report obtained by FOX News, for, among other things, haphazard budget practices, deeply flawed organizational procedures, and no effective oversight by the 188 nations that formally make up its membership and dole out its funds. The inspection was carried out by a member of the United Nations Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), a small, independent branch of the U.N. that reports to the General Assembly and is mandated to improve the organization’s efficiency and coordination through its inspection process. […] WMO did not respond to a series of questions from FOX News regarding its future programs, sent on the eve of the Poznan meeting.

16-year-old suggests sheep dung can help save planet Card business has really dung good – Daily Post North WalesExcerpt: The company makes its products at the Twll Golau Papermill in Aberllefenni Slate Quarry using sustainable fuel and materials. Every sheet of paper is made from recycled materials, including sheep dung, waste paper and discarded rags, using processes designed to affect the natural environment as little as possible. […] Katie 16, from Tal-y-Bont, Conwy, was appointed to help spread the word on how Wales can reduce its carbon footprint and is urging other North Wales businesses to follow Creative Paper Wales’ example and adopt innovative approaches to the design and manufacture of products and the delivery of services.

Lord Christopher Monckton: ‘Companies could be sued over climate change’ Excerpt: The alarmist faction knows that, if it were to bring a case against a corporation whose executives were not minded merely to believe in the extremist presentation of "global warming" just because it is temporarily in fashion, they would lose. The case of Dimmock v. Secretaries of State for Education and for the Environment in the UK in 2007 was a very clear warning. The UK Government threw all of the resources of the taxpayer and of the Meteorological Office at the case, attempting to defend Al Gore’s sci-fi comedy horror movie against the plaintiff’s allegation that it was serially and seriously inaccurate. The Government failed and was humiliated. The judge, having heard both sides, said bluntly of Al Gore, and particularly of his unscientific allegation that sea level was about to rise by 20 feet, that "the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view". A few more judgments like that and the "global warming" fantasy would rapidly collapse. End of scare.

OOPS, We Forgot Siberia! (M4GW) – Weather Stations in Coldest parts No Longer Reporting

Excerpt: The thing that these skewed chart never take into account is that when the Soviet Union fell in 1990 the number of reporting weather stations went form a high of 15,000 in 1970 to 5,000 in 2000. This takes some of the coldest places on the planet out of the equation like Siberia. # #

Related Links:

UN Data shows ‘Warming has Stopped!’ – Climate Fears Called ‘Hogwash’ – ‘Global Carbon Tax’ Urged – December 3, 2008

‘Planet Has Cooled Since Bush Took Office’ & Global Warming Theory has ‘failed consistently and dramatically’ – November 20, 2008

Original Article Here …

After President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee let a Dec. 1 deadline slip by without responding to Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg’s petition for writ of certiorari demanding Obama produce a legitimate birth certificate, the attorney is now filing a motion to stop Obama from taking office in January.

Berg has filed an emergency motion for immediate injunction, America’s Right blogger and legal writer Jeff Schreiber reports. Berg is asking the court to stop state certification of electors to keep the Electoral College from meeting Dec. 15 and casting votes for Obama. He is also seeking to postpone the official vote count Jan. 6 until the court reaches a decision on his appeal.

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. and thus a "natural-born American" as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign WND’s petition demanding the release of his birth certificate.

"It is my firm belief, my one thousand percent firm belief," Berg told Schreiber, "that he does not meet the natural born qualifications, that he should not be voted for by the electors, and that he should not be sworn in this January unless he shows his credentials … which he of course cannot, simply because he does not have them."

Berg filed his petition Oct. 30, and according to procedure, a response from the defendants was due yesterday. While the Federal Election Commission waived its right to respond to the complaint Nov. 18, there has been no word from Obama or the DNC.

The parties are not legally required to respond, and Berg said he doesn’t expect them to do so. He believes the defendants will argue that he lacks standing.

"If they were going to respond, I get the feeling that it would have been in there by now," Berg told Schreiber. "The feeling may be that, if they respond, they could hold themselves out for perjury later on when we’re successful. That’s why, in the lower court, they just relied on a motion to dismiss based on standing. Here, they may not want to file an actual, specific response in the Supreme Court

for fear they’ll be held to it later."

Berg referenced nationwide efforts to demand Obama produce an original birth certificate.

"We’re finding that there is a great interest across the United States," Berg said. "I’ve been on talk show after talk show, and the more the case is discussed, the more people are made aware of it and are disgusted by the fact that Obama just won’t simply produce the credentials showing he’s qualified. Hopefully, some authority will demand it."

Original story …

Texas Congressman Ron Paul has warned that international forces are planning the creation of a global central bank that will see a new fiat monetary system come to dominate the world economy.

The 2008 presidential candidate also warned that Barack Obama’s administration will only represent a change in faces and not in policies.

Speaking about the recent G20 meeting Paul told Russia Today:

"I think something will come of it but you probably didn’t hear about it yet. There was some pomp and ceremony that the public knew about, but behind the scenes they were talking about the future and what they are going to do to try to internationalize all regulations, going in the opposite direction of free market and more towards international regulations. I’m sure they even talked about an international central bank."

Paul also pointed out that global bankers have been holding their own talks on the same matter:

"At the same time the G20 was meeting, we also had the central banks meeting in Europe. Bernanke was over there, and they are doing the same type of planning, so real planning will not be out in the open, until they want us to know about it." the Congressman said.

"The system that we have today where the fiat dollar is a reserve currency of the world, it’s losing that status and they have to replace it. Hopefully they’ll have enough sense to realise that another international agreement along the Bretton Woods will be no more successful than the last one." Paul continued.

The Congressman argued that more regulations administered by central banks, rather than placed on to central banks, represents a dangerous move away from the free market.

"We could restructure by getting rid of all the central banks, then you would have honest money come up because nobody could commit fraud. Governments get away with committing fraud – that’s what fiat money is." Paul commented.

The Congressman warned that an Obama presidency offers no alternative to the economic policies that have led the U.S. and the world to the brink of economic meltdown. Paul Described the kind of change Obama offers as:

"Just change in faces and change in party labels. Both parties represent the same special interests, they both have to represent big business. Obama’s supposed to be a man of the people, well he collected $750 million, more money than anybody else ever collected. Wall Street supported him, the media supported him, all the big money supported him, so his change is not going to be much change at all. He’s not talking about changing monetary policy, the Federal Reserve or getting rid of the income tax or bringing our troops home."

Paul also commented that he does not believe Obama will withdraw troops from Iraq and pointed out that he has never said he will close down the military bases throughout the country and eliminate the huge embassy in Baghdad.

"Policy will remain interventionist," the Congressman warned. "We will remain in the middle east and we will not be coming home, we’ll stay in Korea, we’ll stay in Europe, we’ll be in eastern Europe, we’ll be doing all these things. Even though Obama benefited tremendously from ‘change’, all we are changing is the face of our government."

Paul also warned that the stage has been set for fresh terrorist attacks in the U.S. as a consequence of a sustained interventionist foreign policy.

[EPAdmin: Revelation 13:16-17 (NIV) He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.]

Ron Paul Interview Here

One after another, we are learning the names of the future Obama Administration. Behold, they are not new faces, nor are they the change agents that Obama’s campaign rhetoric promised. Instead, we are seeing Clinton retreads and a surprising move toward the political center. Rather than the far left team of new faces and new politics that the President-elect’s supporters dreamed about when they cast their ballots for the "change" they could believe in, we are seeing familiar faces and experienced pols. More than a few Obama fans are experiencing buyer’s remorse as they discover that "The One" seems to be abandoning them and their policies.

When confronted with the far left’s disappointment over the first appointments to be announced, one of the Transition team members responded, "An Obama White House will be focused on meeting the next challenge, not winning the next election."

Well, that response does not pass the laugh test! Or perhaps the correct translation is, "We’re so sure we’ll win the next election, we don’t even have to take that into consideration."

Clearly, Obama intends to be more than a one-term president; even before his Inauguration, he is already starting his next campaign. He is putting his chief competition, Senator Hillary Clinton, safely inside his camp and working to dispel any evidence that he is an extremist. Rather than come in and clean house, the President-elect seems to be embracing politics as usual.

The "insult" added to previous "injury" came with an announcement over the weekend that Obama’s White House will continue the political office that was held by Karl Rove in the Bush White House. During his campaign, of course, Mr. Obama vowed to keep politics out of the White House. He criticized the Bush Administration for its partisanship and accused President Bush of running a "perpetual campaign." The Obama Administration, he promised, would end what he called "politics as usual."

But he is appointing the usual – a bevy of inside-the-beltway politicians.

Thus far, there are no new faces and no one who will obviously push for new policies. Eric Holder (nominee for Attorney General) and Rahm Emanuel (Chief of Staff) bring lots of Clinton-era baggage; Tim Gaithner (Treasury Secretary) is part of New York’s big-money establishment. Tom Daschle, (HHS Secretary) is welded into the Senate’s good ‘ole boy network. Further, Obama helped to protect Joe Lieberman’s Senate committee chairmanship even though Lieberman crossed party lines to actively campaign for John McCain. The leftist Bible, The Nation, noted recently that "not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive" has even been mentioned for the Obama Cabinet.

The Far Left contends that Barack should be dancing with the ones that brought him to the White House. Those on the right who treasure our traditional America values of personal responsibility and freedom have far more serious cause for worry.

While Obama is filling top slots of his Administration with politicians from the center, his agenda will be thrust forward by the Schedule C minions in the lower levels of government who will be able to work under the radar to push his far left ideology. That is the bottom-up strategy that he learned as a community organizer and a strategy that links him with his primary season competitor, Hillary Clinton, who promoted the feminist goals of the Beijing Platform for Action through various task forces set up in the federal agencies following the U.N.’s Beijing World Conference on Women. Both of these leftist politicians have learned to speak the language of the masses while working behind the scenes on the policies of the radical true believers.

Thus, Obama’s appointments are sending a signal that his administration will be far more hawkish than his campaign rhetoric indicated. In addition to the likely appointment of Senator Clinton as Secretary of State, there are other signs that President-elect Obama is changing his stance on the war in Iraq — despite official assurances that his position on Iraq hasn’t changed and won’t change. He seems to be leaning toward retaining Robert Gates, President Bush’s Defense Secretary. Also, he is leaning toward a McCain backer, General James Jones, former NATO commander, as National Security Advisor and Janet Napolitano, governor of Arizona and a supporter of the Iraq war, for heading the Homeland Security Department. These possible appointments appear to signal a weakening of his promise to withdraw troops over the next 18 months.

The possible appointment of Mrs. Clinton to the top foreign policy position also raises questions about the U.S. position on Iran and Israel. During the campaign, Senator Clinton held to a hard line regarding Iran and Senator Obama famously talked about sitting down to negotiate "without preconditions." Senator Clinton has been a steadfast supporter of Israel (not any surprise in light of her numerous Jewish constituents in New York) and some pundits think that she would aggressively pursue a Middle East peace deal if she were Secretary of State.

Beyond questions of policy, critics are concerned that Obama is shaping a third Clinton term. The sheer drama of appointing Hillary, with the added soap-opera potential of husband Bill’s antics, is cause for apprehension to many of Obama’s supporters who fear that his agenda will be overshadowed by the Clintons’ egos.

To repeat: what Obama’s critics are overlooking is that he is a former community organizer; he prefers to work under the radar, starting from the grassroots. Those who are looking at the top layer of the Obama Administration wanting to see a sign of the "second coming of Saul Alinsky" (as one blogger put it), are going to be disappointed. Those who watched First Lady Hillary Clinton set up little fiefdoms in all the government agencies to push the policies of the Beijing Platform for Action and those who observed Senator Barack Obama utilize ACORN to build a political machine that spread from Chicago throughout the nation will recognize the strategy and tactics of master manipulators.

Even though they differ on many other fronts, Barack and Hillary are kindred spirits when it comes to using the government’s legendary "soft power" and the national "bully pulpit" to achieve their personal and political ends. So, while the nation is lulled into thinking that Barack is moving to the center, his minions who are actually carrying the water will be hard-core "progressives" moving the leftist agenda forward largely out of the public’s sight in the mid-level management positions of the government’s sprawling bureaucracy. Much of the real action will happen behind the scenes in thousands of small decisions and initiatives that will remain nearly invisible until — like the explosion in the number of mother-only families that followed from Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty — the transformation of their cumulative effects begins to emerge.

Concerned Women for America
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806

A lawyer who is playing a key role in a California lawsuit urging officials to prevent the state’s 55 Electoral College votes from being recorded for Barack Obama until questions about his citizenship are resolved says he’s organizing plans to challenge, even after the inauguration, every order, every proposal, every piece of paperwork generated by Obama.

Barack Obama

"We will file lawsuits on his actions, every time. As long as we have money , we will keep filing lawsuits until we get a decision as to his citizenship status," Gary Kreep, chief of the United States Justice Foundation, told WND today.

"We’re already talking to groups who are willing to be plaintiffs," he said.

As WND reported, Kreep filed the California challenge with presidential candidate Alan Keyes as a plaintiff.

The complaint urges the California secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast until Obama’s citizenship and related eligibility to hold office is resolved.

It is just one of more than a dozen legal challenges brought forward so far over Obama’s citizenship. The cases all cite Obama’s clouded history and the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen.

Sign the petition to insist on release of birth certificate.

There have been allegations he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as his campaign has reported, that he could be considered a British subject because of his father’s residency in what then was a British protectorate that later became Kenya, and that the "Certificate of Live Birth" posted on his website simply shows his mother registered his birth in Hawaii after he was born but does not document a location.

There also have been questions raised about his travels as a youth, including the years he spent registered as a Muslim in an Indonesian school, and his later travels to Pakistan at a time when U.S. passports weren’t welcome in that nation.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists, simply hasn’t ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born, while a video posted on YouTube features Obama’s Kenyan grandmother Sarah claiming to have witnessed Obama’s birth in Kenya.

The California action was filed on behalf of Keyes, as well as Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson, both California electors.

"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal," the action challenges.

Kreep told WND today he’s now working with several groups that could serve as plaintiffs to challenge Obama’s actions, even from the Oval Office, should the issue remain in dispute.

"There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process," the complaint said, when in fact the only documentation currently required is a signed statement from the candidate attesting to those qualifications.

The issue is much more important than a single candidate, said Judge Roy Moore, the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and a WND columnist. He now runs the Foundation for Moral Law.

Moore had his own constitutional confrontation when he was removed from his position Alabama Supreme Court chief justice after he refused to remove from state grounds a monument recognizing the Ten Commandments as the foundation for U.S. law.

"We can survive four years of any president; we cannot survive without a Constitution," he told WND. "This calls for a major investigation. Our Constitution is at stake."

Moore said the requirement for a president to be a natural-born citizen is clear in the Constitution. The document, he added, provides procedures to amend the requirement, but that hasn’t been done.

"We live under the rule of law," he warned, "If we start ignoring that. …"

A WND reader agreed in a letter to the editor.

"If Obama is allowed to take office without proving his citizenship, then we have no Constitution. America as it’s been will be dead. If an easy to understand rule is ignored, then the others harder to understand will be easy to ignore," wrote Tony Costello.

Moore said, "If a person is not qualified, he’s not qualified. It doesn’t matter who it is, Republican, Democrat, black or white, rich or poor."

He added the members of the Electoral College have an obligation to verify Obama’s qualifications before voting for him.

But he said the dispute may end up with court action, too.

"The courts are there to uphold the law. People have a right to change the Constitution. But until then it’s the rule of law," he said.

"I don’t see any reason a candidate who has such a serious question would not come forward with the truth about where he was born," Moore said.

"The Supreme Court has to answer this. They have to do it by law and not by the popularity of a person. If we do that, we might as well throw the Constitution out the window," Moore said.

"[Obama] has the answer. He knows where he was born. If he tells something that’s untrue that’s another matter. It’s not an Obama issue, it’s an American issue. It’s about the Constitution of the United States."

U.S. State Department officials declined to respond to WND inquiries about the process for keeping a U.S. citizenship while attending schools in Indonesia, or the possibility of a U.S. citizen keeping that status while traveling on another nation’s passport.

But several online "fact" sites have reported that the concerns over Obama’s citizenship are much ado about nothing.

Factcheck.org, for example, has posted an image described as Obama’s "birth certificate." But within the image can be seen the words "Certificate of Live Birth," which is not the same document. In Hawaii at the time Obama was born the state would issue a "Certificate of Live Birth" to a parent registering a birth, but it does not indicate the location of the birth.

"FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate," the group said in a statement accompanying the image of the "Certificate of Live Birth."

Snopes, also, attested to Obama’s U.S. citizenship, citing information from the campaign itself.

However, WND columnist Janet Porter, who has investigated the dispute, wrote in her column today that there are too many questions to ignore.

"In Hawaii, a Certification of Live Birth is issued within a year of a child’s birth to those who register a birth abroad or one that takes place outside a hospital," she said.

She cited the work of Ron Polarik, who holds a Ph.D. in instructional media and specializes in computer graphics with over 20 years experience with computers, printers and typewriters.

"Polarik has submitted a signed affidavit and has now released his findings on video at www.ObamaForgery.com with his identity masked and voice altered to guard against the carrying out of threats, which he has already received," Porter wrote.

"The Summary: The Certificate of Live Birth documents posted on Mr. Obama’s website www.fightthesmears.com , Daily Kos (a pro-Obama blog) and factcheck.org, (a pro-Obama political research group), were found to be altered and forged," she said.

The researcher cited problems with pixels in the image and a fold line and a blurry border. He asserts the border is a 2007 version while the seal and signature are from 2008.

She also cited issues beyond the birth certificate.

"There’s the matter that Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan, Southern India and Kenya in 1981. He said he went to Indonesia to see his mother. This seemed plausible, except for the fact that his mother returned to Hawaii in August of 1980 to file for a divorce from her second husband, Lolo Soetoro. Unless she went back to pal around with the man she divorced, she wasn’t there at the time of Obama’s visit," Porter wrote.

"There’s another problem. No record of Obama holding an American passport prior to the one he received once becoming a U.S. senator has been found. If he traveled to Pakistan with an American passport, he wouldn’t have been allowed in – since Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and under martial law. It was also on the State Department’s travel ban list for U.S. citizens," she wrote.

"If he couldn’t get into Pakistan with a U.S. passport, perhaps he went there with an Indonesian passport. But the only way you can get one of those is if you are an Indonesian citizen ," she wrote.

Porter encouraged residents to contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee with a request to hold congressional hearings and write to the U.S. Supreme Court to request a ruling.

On the FederalistBlog the writers concluded:

"A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father."

Obama’s mother held U.S. citizenship, but his father never did.

WND also reported that Herb Titus, the Constitution Party’s running mate to Howard Phillips in 1996 and recognized authority on the U.S. Constitution, said it is up the electors from the 50 states to make certain Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen before they cast votes for him in the Electoral College Dec. 15.

"If they do their duty, they would make sure that if they cast a vote for Mr. Obama, that Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," he told WND.

"I think it should be resolved. The duty is in the Electoral College. Every Obama elector that is committed to casting a vote on the 15th of December, they have a constitutional duty to make certain whether Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," he said.

If the electors fail their duty and Obama proves ultimately to fail the eligibility requirement of the U.S. Constitution, there would be only the laborious, contentious and cumbersome process of impeachment available to those who would wish to follow the Constitution, he suggested.

On WND’s new forum page, the level of frustration was rising. Dozens contributed their thoughts immediately after the forum was posted:

"What makes Obama non-respon[sive] to the simplest of requests?" asked one reader. "Does he think that it is politically incorrect to ask for authentication of the myriad of facts about himself … Is he testing the grounds to see how far he can play with this charade?"

Other comments included:

* "Obama won his first election ever by getting three Democratic opponents thrown off the ballot? He’s all for using the law to help himself win. Wouldn’t it be ironic if he is not allowed to serve as president due to the law? … Turn around is fair play!
* "Even the left-wing liberal news media is beginning to ask the question: ‘Who is this man we have elected? We really do not know much about him.’"
* "Obama’s refusal to produce the ORIGINAL given birth certificate gives us all pause. His silence on these allegations is deafening. The anointed one believes that if he can hold us all back until he’s in the Oval Office he’s hit a home run and he’s ‘safe.’ Ah, not so! Check your law, Obama, and you will see that even if were to make it to the White House you will no longer be able to hide behind those red velvet ropes."
* "There must be something that would have caused him great harm prior to the election, and would have stopped him from becoming elected. What could that little piece of information be?"

Original story here …

In one month of legislation and one diplomatic meeting, the United States has unilaterally abdicated all the gains for the concept of free markets won by the Reagan administration and surrendered, in total, to the Western European model of socialism, stagnation, and excessive government regulation.

Sovereignty is out the window. Without a vote, we are suddenly members of the European Union. Given the dismal record of those nations at creating jobs and sustaining growth, merging with the Europeans is like a partnership with death.

At the G-20 meeting, Bush agreed to subject the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and our other regulatory agencies to the supervision of a global entity that would critique its regulatory standards and demand changes if it felt they were necessary. Bush agreed to create a College of Supervisors.

According to The Washington Post, it would "examine the books of major financial institutions that operate across national borders so regulators could begin to have a more complete picture of banks’ operations."

Their scrutiny would extend to hedge funds and to various "exotic" financial instruments. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), a European-dominated operation, would conduct "regular vigorous reviews" of American financial institutions and practices.

The European-dominated College of Supervisors would also weigh in on issues like executive compensation and investment practices.

There is nothing wrong with the substance of this regulation.

Experience is showing it is needed. But it is very wrong to delegate these powers to unelected, international institutions with no political accountability.

We have a Securities and Exchange Commission appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, both of whom are elected by the American people. It is with the SEC, the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve that financial accountability must take place.

The European Union achieved this massive subrogation of American sovereignty the way it usually does, by negotiation, gradual bureaucratic encroachment, and without asking the voters if they approve.

What’s more, Bush appears to have gone down without a fight, saving his debating time for arguing against the protectionism that France’s Nicolas Sarkozy was pushing.

By giving Bush a seeming victory on a moratorium against protectionism for one year, Sarkozy was able to slip over his massive scheme for taking over the supervision of the U.S. economy.

All kinds of political agendas are advancing under the cover of responding to the global financial crisis.

Where Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism by regulating it, Bush, to say nothing of Obama, has given the government control over our major financial and insurance institutions. And it isn’t even our government!

The power has now been transferred to the international community, led by the socialists in the European Union.

Will Obama govern from the left? He doesn’t have to.

George W. Bush has done all the heavy lifting for him. It was under Bush that the government basically took over as the chief stockholder of our financial institutions and under Bush that we ceded our financial controls to the European Union.

In doing so, he has done nothing to preserve what differentiates the vibrant American economy from those dying economies in Europe.

Why have 80 percent of the jobs that have been created since 1980 in the industrialized world been created in the United States? How has America managed to retain its leading 24 percent share of global manufacturing even in the face of the Chinese surge?

How has the U.S. GDP risen so high that it essentially equals that of the European Union, whose population is 50 percent greater?

It has done so by an absence of stifling regulation, a liberation of capital to flow to innovative businesses, low taxes, and by a low level of unionization that has given business the flexibility to grow and prosper.

Europe, stagnated by taxation and regulation, has grown by a pittance while we have roared ahead. But now Bush — not Obama — Bush has given that all up and caved in to European socialists.

The Bush legacy? European socialism. Who needs enemies with friends like Bush?

© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Read the full story here.

The Iranian Six has again failed to come to terms on new UN sanctions against Iran. The question was discussed at the political director level of the foreign ministries of France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia, and the United States. As usual, the United States and its European allies wanted to expand sanctions and make Tehran halt its uranium enrichment, whereas Russia and China were against further sanctions. The sides decided to continue consultations.

Strange as it seems, this result was predetermined by the UN Security Council’s recent resolution (1835) on Iran, which imposed no new sanctions.

On the one hand, the resolution calls on Iran to "comply fully and without delay with its obligations" under the past resolutions and cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), but on the other, it reaffirms the need for a "dual-track approach to the nuclear issue," and its "commitment within this framework to an early negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear issue…"

It is clear that the resolution’s "dual-track approach" does not make sense in terms of the ultimatum to stop uranium enrichment "without delay" and return to the negotiating table. The Six are not likely to reach a compromise position although the United States and its European allies (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom) have every reason to ask Russia and China: how long does it make sense to pressure Iran when there is no response? Iran does not listen to mandates, or even ultimatums.

There is little reason to listen. Today, the Six are drafting the sixth UN Security Council resolution on Iran in only two years. In July 2006 the Security Council adopted Resolution 1696, urging Iran to stop nuclear enrichment and return to the negotiating table. This document provided for sanctions against Iran if it failed to do so.

Since then, the situation has consistently repeated itself, and resolutions differ from each other only in minor details. Resolution 1696 was followed by resolutions 1737, 1747, 1803, and finally, 1835, but sanctions were imposed only by Resolution 1737. The others simply threaten Iran with tougher sanctions if it fails to halt uranium enrichment.

Nevertheless, this meeting of the Six had some intrigue linked with Barrack Obama’s election as U.S. president. He promised to open the door to direct talks between America and Iran. Now many wonder how he will build U.S. relations with Iran.

Obama prefers not to reveal his cards, but he has defined his position clearly: Iran should not be allowed to become a nuclear power. However, there are still more than two months before Obama’s inauguration, and President George W. Bush is not likely to soften his stance with Iran.

Literally within a couple of days of Obama’s impressive victory, the United States toughened economic sanctions against Iran. The U.S. Treasury Department prohibited banks with U.S. licenses from making transit payments, which the Iranian government and banks were allowed to conduct under certain terms. Washington’s action closed Iran’s last loophole into the U.S. financial system. Tehran did not take it well.

Finally, Bush signed a decree extending Executive Order 12170 freezing Iranian government assets held in the United States under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which was adopted by President Jimmy Carter almost thirty years ago, on November 14, 1979, shortly after the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The Treasury Department was instructed to bloc all Iranian government assets in the United States, in all American banks and their foreign affiliates. Bush explained his decision by, among other things, the lack of normalized relations with Iran.

Under different circumstances, this decision might have gone unnoticed. But the devil is in the details. Bush met with Obama before signing the decree, and it is likely, they discussed the Iranian problem, including the general configuration of bilateral relations. Specifically they likely discussed the Executive Order’s cancellation at the appropriate time. It seems obvious that Bush would not have decided to extend it, knowing that Obama would cancel it after his inauguration.

Incidentally, various analysts are giving Obama almost diametrically opposite recommendations on Iran. Some insist on the five principles, which provide for the toughest policy on Iran, while others recommend that he should soften U.S. stance.

A report of a group of 20 prominent scientists and diplomats will be published on November 18. But it was revealed on Thursday (when the Six met) that these analysts do not believe in the effectiveness of military or economic threats against Iran. They see no advantages in an armed action against Iran which would accomplish little, and urge the start of high-level diplomatic talks with Iran.

What concept will Obama choose? In December, the IAEA director general will issue one more report on the Iranian nuclear program. The UN Security Council will adopt the next resolution on Iran based largely on the report. Will it maintain sanctions against Iran in terms of a U.S. interpretation? The answer to this question will indicate Obama’s decision.

More …

Click here to view the embedded video.

Prime minister determines in emergency meeting Israel will not put up with rocket fire, said Prime Minister Ehud Olmert following an emergency meeting regarding recent rocket barrages from Gaza, on Friday. Fifteen rockets were launched at Israel from Gaza since Friday morning.

"The Israeli government sees the firing of missiles and attacks from Gaza as a basic violation of our ceasefire understanding and we will not tolerate it, he said in the meeting.

The prime minister emphasized that Israel will not allow the Palestinians to resume pre-ceasefire tactics, stating: "It’s unacceptable that the population in Israel, in particular in the Gaza vicinity communities, will be subjected to a situation of such uncertainty, such as there was several months ago, prior to the ceasefire."

In this capacity, Olmert said that current military operations and presence in the Gaza vicinity community and the homefront command would be increased. Additionally, he said, the government would continue to pressure Hamas via issues like the crossings.

Senior political officials noted that "we have not yet crossed the point of no return. If Hamas will stop the rockets, it will be possible to return to a ceasefire" but if Hamas violates the ceasfire, "it will pay a price."

For its part, Hamas announced that, whether the ceasefire is terminated now or as planned on December 19th, they will not renew a ceasefire agreement under current conditions. They said they would demand guarantees against closure of crossings and request that the ceasefire extend to the West Bank.

Earlier, Defense Minister Ehud Barak visited Sderot and promised to "respond with force" in order to protect Israeli civilians and soldiers.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3623137,00.html