Tag Archive for: Barack Obama

Obama: The Most Pro-Abortion President in America’s 239 years — Hillary Clinton will be worse!

Hope all is well on this “Feast Day of St. Bonaventure” as we are still trying to recuperate from the appalling video we all witnessed yesterday showing the disgusting Planned Parenthood executive speak about abortion and selling the babies’ body parts. Now, we are talking about extreme outrage and going way over the top…and something needs to be done immediately. I know the good & bold Pro-Life folks from Created Equal are at the steps of the White House as I write this piece. Thank you, Mark Harrington. Thank you, Seth Drayer. You guys make a difference – and our gutless, Pro-abortion President in the White House (who regards Planned Parenthood as “the best thing that ever happened to women”) – needs to be called out on this more than ever. He has a lot at stake here. But, like always – The Emperor will put on his clothes, over-ride this controversy, put out another Executive Order…and literally “get away with murder” once again…

After all, how can the President of the Free World punish an evil organization that he promotes, funds and has great stock in?

Well, we are about 17 months from the Presidential Elections of 2016 and we all really need to digest everything that has occurred in “our” White House during these past 6 plus years that the liberal, Constitution-defying Obama has been occupying it. Just in terms of the atrocities of abortion, I can write volumes. For starters, just last month, he funded Planned Parenthood another 5.6 million dollars! That’s money from tax-payer pockets that he is using to fund PP so that they can kill innocent babies – going against the 5th Commandment, while throwing the Constitution of the United States & the Declaration of Independence out the trash along with these aborted babies as if human rights never existed. And, unborn babies have the same human rights as you and I do…

But, what exactly is an “unborn baby”? How do you define an unborn baby? What is a fetus? What is this “blob of cells” that the Pro-abortion liberals refer to? When does a baby become a human being? When does that baby have a heartbeat? When does an unborn baby begin to have those human rights that I just spoke about? What does “conception to natural death” really mean?

If the experts at Planned Parenthood continue to tell these women that “there is no baby – it is just a blob of cells” – why in GOD’s name are they selling these “body parts” for serious money when it is just a blob of cells? When did a blob of cells ever contain a fully-formed liver or kidney that these degenerates are getting up to $100.00 for? Let that sink in for a moment…

Are these Pro-abortion liberals finally owning up to the fact that this is a real baby – with real living body parts – as opposed to that “blob of cells” that they tell these young ladies about who come in for a desperate abortion? Are they now agreeing with Pro-Lifers that it is “from conception…”?

This argument may just be the one that we Pro-Lifers have been looking for for the past 42 years to maybe reverse the infamous Roe v. Wade decision…

If we Pro-Lifers do not call Planned Parenthood out on this atrocity and take this all the way up to the Supreme Court to bust them outright, then, we are missing a golden opportunity to put a STOP to the killings at these “baby killing chambers”? This particular video on Planned Parenthood that I am referring to was actually taken about a year ago and it shows clear evidence that PP has been committing all types of criminal infractions and this is just as bad as what former Philadelphia baby killer, Kermit Gosnell, did in his heyday to countless babies, who were at least 22 weeks old…Ironically, Killer Kermit is doing “life”, after taking so many…

But, it all begins at the top…And, when the Land of the Free has a radical leader running the country like Obama, who has been embracing, supporting, promoting and funding abortion for decades – where he puts Planned Parenthood up on a pedestal as the solution to this so-called “War on Women” – what can the 317 million Americans in this country do? What can the wholesome, Pro-Life citizens in this country do with this terrific opportunity that came out yesterday with this controversial “selling of baby body parts” by PP in order to take advantage of it? Now, it is time to put pressure on Obama & Planned Parenthood while the iron is hot? Now is the time for us Pro-Lifers to really put the heat on PP and just like we did with Kermit Gosnell (who even the liberal Pro-abortion folks were appalled by) – take this criminal activity to another level and pursue this atrocity like we did with Gosnell and try to put an end to these “killing fields” in locations that are inappropriately called Planned Parenthood…

Friends: We all have to VOTE PRO-LIFE in this up-coming 2016 Presidential Elections to make sure that the even-more, Pro-Abortion Hillary Clinton does not even have a chance in being elected to run our country. That will be a total disaster!! Like I have said many times before – “If we think Obama is evil, liberal and very Pro-abortion – just wait to see what happens to our beloved country if this ‘Witch from Mad-as-Hell County’ gets elected”.

Pastor Rick Warren, author of A Purpose Driven Life, interviews Barack Obama and Senator John McCain in 2008, before the Presidential Elections of 2009. Listen for John McCain’s immediate and to-the-point, answer – “At the moment of conception”. A three second correct answer. What all of us Pro-Lifers would answer with. Then, listen to Obama’s answer…It actually hurts to see this “nobody without credentials” struggle for a gutless answer. And, this is who 53 % of Catholics in this country voted for in our last two elections:

Barack Obama at it again – forcing Religious non-profits to provide abortifacients. The HHS Mandate of 2012 truly destroyed the Religious Freedom that our beloved country enjoyed for so many decades and it’s Obama, himself, who is the main culprit behind it.

Please read this column: Obama administration forces religious nonprofits to provide contraceptives.

Hillary Clinton, also in bed with Planned Parenthood, gets help from a Planned Parenthood CEO to open up an office in Iowa…conflict of interest or what? When there are no rules & regulations for the liberals like Obama & Clinton – how can a “conflict of interest” ever exist? It’s the Outlaws who are running this country – therefore “all laws are out”.

Please read this column: Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz CEO Helps Hillary Clinton Open Iowa Office.

Finally please watch this appalling video of a Planned Parenthood Official Taped Discussing Sale of Aborted Baby Body Parts:

The Ideological Gutting of American Foreign Policy

It was clear on the morning of September 11, 2001, that the United States was at war with Islamic radicals, and while there may have been differences of opinion regarding strategy, there was no denying the need to defeat doctrinal terrorism.  But as the U.S. became mired in foreign wars, critics questioned whether its actions were achieving the goal, and ultimately whether the goal was even justified.  Voices on the left falsely claimed that Arab-Muslim extremism was an understandable response to western chauvinism, and instead of condemning terrorists for their actions, they started blaming the victims for allegedly insulting Islam.

We saw it with the Charlie Hebdo massacre, when progressive pundits blamed free expression for inciting violence instead of the ideology that sanctified the killing of “infidels,” “heretics” and “blasphemers.”  Such attitudes arise from a perverse political correctness that elevates radical sensitivities over western cultural values.  But how can secular apologists defer to a doctrine that repudiates liberal democratic traditions?  How can they dignify claims of blasphemy against those who criticize beliefs they don’t consider sacred?

These questions were discussed at a program in Massachusetts entitled, “Freedom Isn’t Free: From the Greatest Generation to the Challenges of Today,” featuring former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney, former CIA Operations Officer Clare Lopez and retired Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons, Jr., who provided insight into how such issues affect government policy.

Progressives who reflexively condemn religion in politics or any perceived trespass of faith into the affairs of state are strangely silent when the religion is Islam.  Incongruously, they often discourage free speech to avoid insulting radical beliefs.

The panel agreed that such muddled thinking influences the Obama administration’s views regarding national security and foreign policy.  Despite the global threat represented by ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and regardless of the nuclear danger posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, the White House has taken the dangerous road of appeasing the unappeasable.  Since his first days in office, President Obama has turned American foreign policy away from its traditional allies and towards an axis of regimes committed to doctrinal totalitarianism.

He seems driven by the progressive compulsion to validate claims of Arab-Muslim victimhood while denying the extremism and anti-Semitism so common in Islamic society.  Secular liberals often misrepresent Islamist aspirations by claiming that jihad means “introspection” or “inner striving,” and by denying the history of Islamic conquest in the Mideast, Asia, North Africa and Europe.  They also ignore the theological motivations for persecuting non-Arabic and non-Muslim indigenous peoples, such as Copts, Yazidis and Maronites.

Lenin described western leftists as “useful idiots” for supporting communism over their own national interests; the term applies to progressives today who defend or justify Islamism.  Frank Gaffney described the left-wing’s relationship with radical Islam as a “red-green alliance.”

According to Gaffney, the term “jihad” has only one meaning under Sharia, and that meaning is holy war.  He said it motivated the 9/11 attacks, the 1983 bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut, the Fort Hood massacre in 2009, and the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish market in Paris earlier this year.  While not all Muslims support jihad –indeed many come to the West specifically to escape doctrinal extremism – there is no definition of the concept that preaches respect for “infidels” or their beliefs.

Those unable to engage in violent jihad, says Gaffney, are exhorted to engage in “civilizational jihad” by transforming western society from within.  The process includes disseminating propaganda in public schools, promoting sharia courts over civil courts, pursuing sharia-compliant financing requirements, and using societal institutions to assist in spreading the faith.  Gaffney said the existence of the “Civilizational-Jihadist Process” was confirmed in a Muslim Brotherhood documententitled, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” which sets forth mission and strategy.

The success of this program in the West, said Gaffney, is reflected by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s pervasive influence in the United Nations and the establishment of Sharia compliant zones throughout Europe.  This strategy is pursued in the U.S. through initiatives seeking civil recognition of sharia court jurisdiction, the circulation of educational materials produced by Islamist front organizations, legal and illegal immigration, and efforts to gain access to the White House and the security, defense and intelligence establishments.

Islamist intrusion in government (with the complicity of the left) affects national security through the adoption of policies contrary to American strategic interests, said former CIA officer Clare Lopez.  Progressive-Islamist cooperation, she said, was instrumental in purging the FBI’s clandestine library of materials deemed offensive to Islam – though these materials were essential for teaching how to identify Islamist terrorists – and in depriving the military of the means to spot Islamist sympathizers within the ranks.

According to Lopez, the shielding of Islamists from scrutiny is not simply a case of political correctness run amok, but of government policy to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and support its ascendancy in the Mideast.  She said this was the crux of Presidential Study Directive 11 (“PSD 11”), which reportedly called for backing the Brotherhood to force political change in the Mideast and North Africa.  Leaks from this classifieddocument suggest the administration supported the Brotherhood and related groups when they toppled governments in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, she explained.

This policy produced disastrous consequences across the region, said Lopez, observing that “the outcomes [were] chaotic … shortsighted and ignorant.”  These would have been egregious if only caused by negligence.  However, the uprisings misleadingly dubbed the democratic “Arab Spring” were ignited by a strategy that in itself “wasn’t error [but] policy,” she said.  These policy failures were especially glaring after the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

Lopez and the panel believe the Benghazi attack resulted from the administration’s support of militias linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda in their quest to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi (and also the governments in Egypt and Tunisia).  Although Qaddafi had renounced terrorism, relinquished weapons of mass destruction, submitted to nuclear inspections, and jailed terrorists released from Gitmo, Islamist opposition militias in Libya were supported with arms funneled by the U.S. through Benghazi.  After he was overthrown, she said, weapons from Benghazi were redirected to anti-government militias in Syria.

During this time the Ansar al-Sharia moved near the consulate and called for attacks on Americans.  Lopez explained that when Ambassador Chris Stephens requested increased security, he was denied by Hillary Clinton’s State Department because of optics; with the 2012 election approaching, the administration wanted to continue claiming it had defeated al-Qaeda and won the war on terror.  Thus, despite multiple warnings of impending attack, no reinforcements were provided, the consulate was overrun and four Americans were killed.  According to Admiral Lyons, there were military assets in the region that could have been deployed, but which inexplicably were not.

The White House and State Department thereafter claimed the attack was a spontaneous reaction to a video critical of Islam – although information immediately available showed it was preplanned and unrelated to the video.  The ruse continued for weeks and included Mr. Obama’s statement during a “60 Minutes” interview the next day that it was “too early to know exactly how it came about” and Susan Rice’s repetition of the false video narrative during multiple television appearances.

As the administration supported Sunni militias aligned with the Brotherhood and al-Qaeda in Syria and North Africa, it pandered to Iranian Shiites around the Persian Gulf.  According to Lopez, Obama’s policy was to recognize Iran as the hegemonic power in the Mideast.  He thus snubbed Sunni allies like Saudi Arabia and embraced a Shiite regime that threatens those allies, condemns America as the “Great Satan,” seeks Israel’s destruction, and exports international terrorism.

The courting of extremist Sunnis on one side of the Mideast and apocalyptic Shiites on the other might seem incongruous, but Admiral Lyons sees it as consistent with the goal of fundamentally changing America.  “Never in my lifetime did I think I’d ever see America taken down by our own administration,” he said, observing that challenging U.S. influence is considered a progressive virtue.  Admiral Lyons believes that President Obama always intended to restructure national policy according to progressive ideals that disparage America, Israel and the West, and instead validate Islamist, Iranian and anti-western interests.

He cites as evidence the President’s use of sequestration to cut defense spending and disarm unilaterally at a time when China and Russia are growing in influence, militant Islam is on the rise, and military reductions are viewed as weakness.  “We’re headed for the smallest army since [before] World War II,” he said, noting that military experts are no longer certain the U.S. could prevail in a conventional regional conflict.  The question is how such fundamental changes could have occurred without significant opposition.

The answer, said the panel, lies in the pervasive acquiescence to anti-American priorities and sensibilities.  Nowhere is this more apparent than in the liberal affinity for anti-blasphemy laws that contravene free speech.  The U.N. periodically entertains resolutions seeking to criminalize “slander” of Islam, and these are supported by progressive governments and NGOs.  Moreover, a number of European nations have enacted laws banning criticism of Islam as hate speech.

Though such laws would violate the First Amendment, many American progressives favor them as a way of curtailing “hate-speech” and encouraging diversity.  Even without such laws on the books, liberals often discourage free discourse by accusing those who criticize radical Islam of Islamophobia.  This attitude seems to pervade Obama’s denial of the religious basis of Islamist terrorism, and much of his Mideast policy.

The panel concluded that Obama’s policies have compromised America’s ability to defend itself and lead the worldHe has spurned Israel, appeased Islamists, reduced the military, enabled Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and refused to acknowledge the existential threat of ISIS.  These acts and omissions are not hallmarks of effective leadership, but of submission to a feckless worldview that has damaged U.S. power and influence to a degree that may not be easily reparable.

EDITORS NOTE: This op-ed column originally appeared in Arutz Sheva – IsraelNationalNews.com.

The Industrial Manifesto

In the wake of two recessions following two fleeting, largely service-sector bubbles—the dot-com bubble and the housing/financial bubble—America’s intellectual and political leaders are championing the need for industrial progress.

The ubiquitous Thomas L. Friedman takes on the subject of industrial progress in his latest book, That Used to Be Us, coauthored by political scientist Michael Mandelbaum. The book begins by describing a China full of fast trains, stupendous buildings, and an aura of dynamism—and contrasting it to an America in which repairing a subway is a multi-year project. Such images resonate with readers and voters, who wonder with frustration why so much industrial innovation, production, and job-creation is happening overseas rather than in America.

In President Obama’s recent address on jobs, he angrily complained about the state of American industry:

Our highways are clogged with traffic. Our skies are the most congested in the world. It’s an outrage.

Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us an economic superpower. And now we’re going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads?

Obama is right about this much; the state of American industry is an outrage. America has enormous, incalculable, untapped potential to make industrial progress—to radically increase our standard of living through far greater productivity in energy production, in manufacturing, in construction, in mining, in transportation. Unfortunately, the statist philosophy of Obama, Friedman, et al leads them to speciously attribute the problem to lack of government—despite the unprecedented expansion of government over the last 50 years. They propose still more increases in government spending and controls, as if some magic manipulation is going to spark the next industrial revolution.

At the same time, they ignore the most blatant impediment to industrial progress—an impediment caused by policies they support. This impediment is an open secret readily discoverable by asking American industrialists what is holding them back.

When I do this, I hear one theme repeated over and over: it is ruinously difficult to start new industrial projects because of our anti-industrial, “green” policies.

Consider the plight of the modern industrialist. Whether he wishes to construct a new apartment complex, open a coal mine, site a nuclear power plant, build a new factory, drill for oil, he cannot count on clear, objective laws to protect his right to develop. Instead, he must deal with open-ended environmental laws and near-omnipotent regulatory agencies that can forbid any project that is regarded as insufficiently “green.”

The industrialist is virtually guaranteed to face a labyrinth of opposition by environmental bureaucrats, controls, lawsuits, NIMBYs, and activist groups. Every step of the labyrinth costs time and money, and there is no guarantee a project will emerge alive; vital industrial projects can and have been shut down to preserve the likes of kangaroo rats and two-toed sloths.

Given this industrial climate, it is a wonder that any industrial development occurs in this country. Ask any leader of an industrial project how much opposition he faces in refining the fuel we use to drive, in fracking for the gas that heats our homes, in building the coal or nuclear plants that keep the power on, and you will marvel at the inhuman endurance our industrialists possess—an endurance we can’t, and shouldn’t have to, count on.

The “green” labyrinth goes far beyond traditional environmentalist targets such as coal and oil. The DC Metro subway system that Friedman and Mandelbaum complain about has been enmeshed in controversy for years over adding a new “Purple Line” to its system, with rabid opposition. Any proposed new road in California, the home of some of the country’s worst traffic, faces an uphill, if not impossible, battle.

Even allegedly “green” solar and wind projects frequently face environmentalist opposition. Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the biggest opponent of Cape Wind, a windmill project off the coast of Nantucket. Environmentalists were the first to object to a giant solar project in the middle of the Mojave Desert in California.

What is so remarkable about the “green” opposition to industrial projects is that Americans, who supposedly want industrial progress, are so accepting of it. Based on the “green” movement’s actions, one might expect its goals and policies to be viewed with suspicion if not derision.

Instead, the idea of “going green” has never been more popular, with practically every businessman, schoolteacher, and politician trying to prove his “green” chops, in his personal life or at the ballot box. And thus, countless industrial projects continue to be deferred and destroyed.

If we are to make industrial progress, we need to seriously question the idea of “going green,” and its role in our government.

The “Green” Ideal

What does “green” really mean? It is most commonly associated with a lack of pollution and other environmental health hazards, but this is both far too narrow and highly misleading. Consider the range of actions that fall under the banner of “green.” As industrialists experience, it is considered “green” to object to crucial industrial projects, from power plants to dams to apartment complexes, on the grounds that some plant or animal will be impacted—plants and animals that take precedence over the human animals who need or want the projects.

It is considered “green” to oppose not only fossil fuel plants (which produce 86% of the world’s energy), but hydroelectric plants and nuclear plants—which all told means 98% of the world’s energy production. It is considered “green” to turn off the heat or air-conditioning, even at the price of personal discomfort.

It is considered “green” to do less of anything industrial—from driving to flying to using a washing machine to using disposable diapers to consuming pretty much any modern product (there is now an attack on iPhones for being insufficiently “green” given the various materials that must be mined to make them).

Often the same activity will be characterized as both “green” and non-“green”—just ask the proponents and opponents of any given solar farm. The proponents will say that the installation is “green” because it doesn’t use fossil fuels (except, they evade, to mine, fabricate, transport and assemble it), it isn’t mining the earth’s precious “natural resources” (except, they evade, for enormous amounts of steel, concrete, and various rare and toxic elements), etc. The opponents will point to the fact that solar farms, because they use a diffuse, intermittent energy source, take up an enormous “footprint” on nature, that they require prominent, long-distance transmission lines to take to their customers, that they require large-“footprint” backup systems to store energy or fossil fuel plants to serve as backups, etc.

Clearly, “going green” is not primarily about human health—indeed, in its opposition to just about anything industrial, it threatens the industrial foundations of modern health and sanitation. The essence of “going green,” the common denominator in all its various iterations, is the belief that humans should minimize their impact on nature.

“Green” leaders and followers may disagree on how to implement this ideal, and they certainly do not follow it consistently, but nevertheless it is uncontroversial that minimizing impact is the ideal.

But if we take ideas seriously, then the “green” ideal should be more than controversial. It should be jettisoned, as it is squarely opposed to the requirements of human life, including the requirements of a healthy human environment.

The Industrial Ideal

Human beings survive by transforming nature to meet our needs. The higher our level of survival, the more we must transform nature. In other words, we survive to the extent we depart from the “green” ideal.

Nature does not provide us with the wealth or the environment we need to live long, healthy, happy lives; hence the historical life expectancy of 30. To live and thrive, we must create wealth and create a livable environment.  And every new  act of creation, from building a fire to building an air-conditioned home to building the Internet, requires additional impacting—transforming—nature.

The fundamental reason for today’s incredibly high standard of living is that thanks to industrialization—the pervasive use of man-made power to fuel industrial machines—human beings can do hundreds of times more work to transform nature than we could even 200 years ago. But if our ancestors had followed “green” strictures, industrialization would have never got off the ground.

When the early oil industry turned night into day by making cheap illumination available to millions, they did it by drilling thousands of deep holes in rural Pennsylvania, extracting the black gold beneath, refining it into various useful substances, burning kerosene to create light, and dealing with whatever waste products emerged. J. J. Hill’s Great Northern Railway, a private transcontinental railroad that revolutionized American transportation and commerce, required men to mine iron ore from the ground, to combine it with carbon to make steel, to mine and use coal to power the steel furnace, to pour the mixture into molds, to use the molds to make railroad tracks, to lay the railroad tracks across patches of wilderness, to displace various plants and animals that stood in the way, and many more changes to the status quo.

Fast forwarding to today, the Chinese airports and buildings that many marvel at also transform nature on a massive scale—from the magnitude of the physical structures themselves to the coal plants, gas plants, factories, mining operations, oil rigs, oil refineries, and heavy machinery that went into building them, not to mention the industrial transportation system that keeps them maintained and stocked with supplies.

Industrial progress is not “green.” “Going industrial” requires a commitment to impacting nature as much as necessary to make it more hospitable to human life. And it is no accident that in generations past, Americans viewed industrial progress, not industrial abstention, as an ideal to strive for. Earlier generations took pride in transforming nature—in being a people that “tamed a continent,” that built new factories, that paved new roads, that drilled new wells, that mined the earth for resources. Whole towns would celebrate when a new bridge was built, when a factory was erected. They would proudly drive their automobiles, fly in planes, support new railroads, build new roads—without a shred of guilt over the fate of the two-toed sloth.

What about “green” support for “green energy” and a “green economy”? Is this not just a new, superior form of industry? Far from it. Any talk of green industry is ultimately contradictory, which is why such industries never materialize on a significant scale. All energy production requires an enormous amount of industrial development, both in its production and in its consumption.

Thus, environmentalists frequently oppose every power source, including solar and wind, for their various impacts. (They complain that solar and wind farms have the largest land “footprint” of any form of energy generation, which is true.) Similarly, for all the talk of “green construction,” “green building,” and “green jobs,” any activity with a major industrial presence will draw “green” opposition—as the valuable website www.projectnoproject.comaptly details.

The more consistent anti-industrialists are explicit about their goal, including its ultimate implication: de-development and depopulation. Stanford environmentalist celebrity Paul Ehrlich, who likens population growth to a “cancer,” “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” Billionaire Ted Turner, a “mainstream” figure, says: “A total [world] population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

The true nature of “green” emerged particularly clearly in a debate over nuclear fusion in the late 1980s. Some uninformed news reports announced that fusion—which, if it worked, would be the cheapest, cleanest, most plentiful source of energy every created—was on its way to commercial reality. Many expected environmentalists to embrace this development. They condemned it.

“It’s the worst thing that could happen to our planet,” said leading environmentalist Jeremy Rifkin. Ehrlich memorably said that allowing human beings to use fusion was “like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.” Environmentalist icon Amory Lovins stresses he would oppose any fusion-like energy breakthrough: “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”

Do not make the mistake of writing off these anti-industrialists as “extremists” who don’t reflect on “moderate” greens. While the “extremists” are more consistent than the “moderates,” they share the same ideal—the anti-impact ideal that destroys industrial progress to whatever extent it is practiced.

But what about the “environmental impact” of industrial development? Isn’t the “green” movement providing a salutary influence us by helping us combat that problem? Again, no.

The idea of “environmental impact” is what philosopher Ayn Rand called an “intellectual package-deal.” Such a concept dishonestly packages together two very different things—the impact of development on the human environment and the impact of development on the non-human environment. Industrial development will certainly often harm various non-human environments—but it is a godsend to the human environment. By lumping together concern with the non-human environment (e.g., displacing some caribou to get billions of barrels of the lifeblood of civilization) and the human environment (e.g., air quality), anti-industrialists are able to dupe Americans into thinking that sacrificing to caribou somehow benefits them.

Historically, industrial progress brought with it a radical improvement of the human environment. Indeed, industrial progress essentially is the improvement of the human environment. The reason we develop is to make our surroundings better so that our lives are better, cleaner, healthier safer—in the face of a natural environment that is often hostile to human life.

Contrary to “green” mythology, man’s natural environment is neither clean nor safe. In a non- industrialized, “natural” state, men face all sorts of health dangers in the air and water, from the choking smoke of an open fire made using plant matter (a cause of over a million deaths a year to this day) to the feces-infested local brook that he must share with farm animals. Industrial development gives men the technology and tools to make their environment healthier—from sanitation systems to sturdier buildings to less onerous job conditions to comfortable furniture to having healthy, fresh food at one’s disposal year round, to the wealth and ability to preserve and travel to the most beautiful parts of nature. And so long as we embrace policies that protect property rights, including air and water rights, we protect industrial development and protect individuals from pollution.

As for the “sustainability” of industrial progress, an accusation that dates back to Marx, this fails to recognize the fact (elaborated on by Julian Simon and Ayn Rand) that man has an unlimited capacity to rearrange nature’s endless stockpile of raw materials into useful resources—which is why the more resources we use, the more resources we have.

Human life requires changing nature on a massive scale. Any cause that holds minimal impact as an ideal is anti-human and an enemy of the human environment.

Today’s anti-industrial movement is not new in this respect. Throughout history, there have been major, anti-industrial groups or movements. The basic premise they have in common is that it is arrogant and wrong for man to transform nature as he sees fit. Man, they believe, should not tame nature but exist in some sort of mystical “harmony” with it (how he is supposed to cope with nature’s dangers and a life expectancy of 30 is rarely specified). Perhaps the iconic anti-industrialist was the 18th Century’s Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who worshiped nature untouched by man and regarded the transformation of nature in his time (let alone the then-unimaginable transformation that is our modern world) as evil.

But the modern-day followers of Rousseau know they cannot succeed by being directly anti-industrial. So they create a false association between themselves and environmental progress, and a false opposition between industrial progress and environmental progress.

Part of this false conceptualization has been achieved by using an old socialist trick to obscure the massive environmental improvement that industrial capitalism brought. The trick is to criticize something by comparison to a nonexistent and impossible utopia.

Socialists used this technique to criticize capitalism for causing poverty, even though capitalism inherited poverty–and cured it. Yet Marxists would attack capitalism’s incredible contribution to human life, including to the life of laborers, by comparing that contribution, not to its predecessors and not to any known alternatives, but to a fictional socialist utopia whose advertised results contradicted everything known (even then) about socialism’s destructive nature.

Environmentalists have done the equivalent to industrial progress. Instead of comparing the human environment pre-industrial and post-industrial, they compared the post-industrial environment to a non-existent pollution-free utopia achieved by man living in “harmony” with nature. They did this in spite of conclusive historical evidence that living in “harmony” with nature means living very briefly. Historically, to the extent humans didn’t mine, didn’t burn fuels, didn’t develop, and were unwilling or unable to control or displace other species where necessary, they died early and often. The modern standard of living is an unprecedented, singular achievement that continues only so long as men are free to command nature on a large scale.

Early environmentalists cursed the coal fumes of newly industrial cities, evading the wood fumes, dung fumes, and starvation coal had replaced–and the work-hours it saved and years of life it added to human life. They cursed smog, evading that it replaced rampant airborne disease from horse-drawn society. And when increased production of coal and oil and natural gas produced the energy and technology to develop ways to radically reduce their pollution, environmentalists took credit–as if laws against pollution weren’t essential to capitalism, the system where protection of all forms of property is sacrosanct.

Development, industrial progress, and capitalism promote a human environment. The anti-industrial “green” movement opposes it. This is a truth that Americans desperately need to understand. At present, the philosophical confusion caused by anti-industrialists causes Americans who are genuinely concerned about their health and well-being to embrace the ideas and policies of those who want to sacrifice that health and well-being to the non-human. We are taught to denigrate fossil fuels, which have doubled the human life expectancy, and to strive for a mythical “green energy” economy, powered by fuel sources that have failed for decades. We are not taught that industrialization has enabled man to be orders of magnitude less vulnerable to climate, but that a degree rise in temperature over 150 years portends catastrophe. With proposals on the table such as 80% cuts in CO2 emissions, “green” confusion could mean economic suicide.

Such is the power of moral idealism and philosophical corruption. The ideal—and the corruption—need to be replaced.

Industrial Progress: A New Cultural Ideal for America

The only solution to a false ideal put forward by philosophical corruption is a true ideal put forward with philosophical clarity.

We need to embrace, unambiguously, the never-ending project that is the industrial revolution: the transformation of nature on a massive scale, with the unlimited potential to produce more energy, create more wealth, create more productivity, increase leisure time, transport things more quickly, conduct more complex scientific experiments, build sturdier, more comfortable places to live. We can travel farther and faster. We can live longer and better.

For the same reasons, we need to embrace, unambiguously, the harmony of industrial progress and the human environment. Industrial progress should be celebrated in classrooms, on YouTube, on t-shirts. Americans should think of fracking with the same excitement they feel for iPhones.

It is a moral embarrassment that in today’s world, where billions die for lack of energy, where Americans still have so much untapped potential, that what passes for idealism is driving a battery-powered car or sorting through one’s trash to make sure everything is in its “proper” bin. What does it say about our cultural self-esteem when we believe it is wrong to do something as necessary as generate trash—which simply amounts to taking some matter from the earth, making profitable use of it, and putting its waste product in a safe place?

For too long, Americans have taken industrial progress for granted, and carelessly embraced “going green” as an ideal–expecting that the unprecedented standard of living we had would automatically continue, even though we permitted environmentalists to oppose new energy production and new development at every turn. Today, we are paying the price, with an economy whose productive fundamentals are less and less sound.

So long as the anti-industrialists have the moral high ground, they can inspire support for their suicidal “green economy,” and inspire guilt to gain power and thwart the opposition. Way too much of free-market criticism of environmentalism bends over backwards to declare itself “green” and mouth environmentalist terminology such as “protect the environment”—as if the kangaroo rat environment and the human environment are interchangeably valuable.

Thus, we must clearly identify and steadfastly reject any trace of the “green” ideal: to sacrifice the human environment to the non-human environment. And any trace of “green” must be removed from politics. The one and only industrial policy that is needed is the proper definition and protection of property rights for individuals and companies. Human ingenuity directed toward the improvement of human life, will do the rest.

In the past, Americans’ unprecedented industrial freedom and growth depended on a certain industrial philosophy. With industrial progress as our ideal, and with policies that fully respect property rights and fully allow free markets, the brilliantly talented individuals of this great country can lead us to the next industrial renaissance and an ever-improving environment.

Don’t “go green.” Go industrial.

Why Natural Born Citizen is Non-Negotiable

Not so long ago, Americans placed little faith and trust in ambulance chasers (a.k.a. lawyers) or politicians, and wisely so according to our Founders who had no faith or trust in any person seeking power and dominion over others. Now, too many Americans place all of their faith in people seeking power and dominion over others, and even worse, a class of people who have already proven most dangerous to the Constitutional Republic and Rule of Law… the lawyer law-makers…

Ever since Barack Obama stole the show at the Kerry Convention in 2004 and rocketed from total obscurity to the most powerful political office in our land four years later, the subject of Article II requirements for the Oval Office has been a subject of great debate, all over three simple words, natural born Citizen (NBC), aka “True Citizen.”

Where did it come from, what does it mean, why did our Founders limit access to only two political offices in our nation to no one other than a natural born Citizen, and what do we do now that we know Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States? These questions have been the source of much political debate, confusion and anxiety, now threatening the GOP as a result of numerous potential 2016 GOP candidates also failing to meet the requirement.

Some of the most blatantly insane arguments have been floated…

“Well, the constitution does not provide a definition for the term”… which is of course true, since the U.S. Constitution provides no definition for any word found in the document.

“Our naturalization laws define natural born Citizen” (when in fact our naturalization laws only pertain to naturalized citizens, immigrants seeking basic citizen rights from congress).

“The courts will have to tell us what the term means”… despite knowing that it is the courts that created terms of art like “undocumented citizen” (a.k.a. illegal alien) and “Constitutional Rights for non-citizens and even enemy combatants” (while denying American citizen any constitutional protection of natural rights at all) and “social justice” (the opposite of real justice under Constitutional Law).

Others rely upon “legal scholars” also known as lawyers of the political class in line for political appointments and eager to please those in positions to help them ascend to those lofty positions in the judiciary, ignoring the reality that these scholars have powerful political motivations for the opinions they write, and that no opinion has the power to amend the U.S. Constitution except by amendment process.

The simple truth is that Article II of the U.S. Constitution has only been amended once in U.S. history, by Amendment XII extending the requirements for President to the Vice President as well. It has not been otherwise amended, despite at least eight failed attempts by Congress to eliminate the natural born requirement for high office. Further, no amendment has ever mentioned, changed or in any way altered the original meaning of natural born Citizen as intended by our Founders and ratified by all fifty states.

So, the term natural born Citizen means the same today as it did in 1787 when the Founders placed that requirement in Article II… unless you buy into the notion that naturalization statutes or amendments, or scholarly legal arguments carry with them the legal force to amend the constitution – in which case, the term has no meaning at all, and neither does anything else in our Founding documents.

Before Barack Obama arrived on the scene, the nobody from nowhere with a blank résumé and no verifiable past, not too many Americans ever thought about the term. Most Americans assumed that no one would ever be bold enough to attempt such a massive fraud by falsely claiming natural born eligibility, and they assumed that if anyone ever did make such an attempt, our strict election laws, free press and national security agency oversight would surely catch it, expose it and stop it from happening. These assumptions have proven to be wrong… in fact, such attempts are now becoming common place. Barack was the first, but now there are others…

Most Americans have entered the discussion from a purely political purpose, attempting to either qualify their political messiah of choice, or disqualify another. But the natural born Citizen concept is actually far more important to our society than merely who can and cannot hold the office of Commander-in-Chief.

I was recently asked a question I have been asked literally thousands of times since I started writing on the subject, how do I know for sure what the Founders meant by natural born Citizen?

How do we know what any word or phrase means? Most people reach to their book shelf and grab a dictionary when they want to know the true definition of a word of phrase. Most people have never come upon a word or phrase that they needed a lawyer, or a court, or anything more than a dictionary to properly interpret… I find this to be the case here as well.

People don’t have any trouble understanding the word “born” (the moment of birth) or the word “citizen” (a legal member of a society). The word people seem to struggle with is “natural.”

At this moment, a collective effort is underway to claim that the following three words are synonymous… natural – native – naturalized…. Which would make anyone eligible for the Oval Office, including the courts new citizen class the “undocumented citizen.”

People trying to disqualify John McCain in 2008 decided that natural and native are synonymous terms and people now trying to qualify Obama, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are claiming that natural, native and naturalized are all synonymous terms of art. Before they can eliminate the NBC requirement from Article II, they must first make the term ambiguous, potentially having more than one meaning… of course…

Any dictionary will disagree with these claims…

Naturalized – “to admit (a foreigner) to the citizenship of a country.”

Native – “being the place or environment in which a person was born.”

Natural – “existing in or formed by nature.”

Clearly, these three words have three very different definitions and meanings, only one of which is related to the Constitutional requirement for the Oval Office… “Natural.”

As a simple dictionary review confirms, these three words are in no way synonymous. It is not possible for the following three terms to be synonymous, natural born, native born and naturalized. Yet, many will continue to make the false claim that they are… because they believe these claims to suit their political agenda of the moment.

Many know exactly what natural born Citizen means, and still, for political expediency, they refuse to stand on this truth. Just this morning another “political commentator” wrote me this…

“NATIVE BORN CITIZENS ARE DIFFERENT… .. I see the reference to the father’s citizenship alone as determinING the birthright of the child… BUT YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT AINT GONNA FLY today NO MORE THAN DENYING WOMEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE. YOU WILL ALIENATE HALF THE COUNTRY WITH SUCH NONSENSE” – Scott Rohter (exactly as sent to me, yelling caps and all)

As you can see, Mr. Rohter first confirms that he is aware of the truth, before shifting to all CAPS to scream his refusal to stick to the truth, referring to that truth as “nonsense” because that truth will offend some who do not like this truth. It is this practice which has made the NBC term appear “ambiguous,” opening the door for the lawyer law-making political class to enter the discussion with new invented definitions of the term.

As Mr. Rohter confirmed in our exchange, we agree on 99% of the issues… unfortunately, the 1% we disagree on is the most important – of critical importance, especially at this moment in history, when every American must deal only in truth. Mr. Rohter is not alone in his position. Numerous others have made the same false claims for exactly the same reasons.

The Harvard Lawyers are intentionally lying to the people when claiming NBC is synonymous with naturalized citizen at birth. But people like Rohter are also intentionally lying to the people for their set of political reasons. Both are responsible for allowing unconstitutional candidates to seek and hold the most powerful office in our land, that of Commander-in-Chief.

The term natural born Citizen is based on historical concepts as old as all recorded time. If you want to know where and why the Founders borrowed the term for Article II, I cover that in this piece… and if you want to know the true historical definition of the term, I cover that in this piece.

Natural born Citizen is a term based in biblical teachings based upon the concepts of a patriarchal society wherein in the Father is the head of the family unit. The intentional destruction of the family unit has greatly complicated the discussion with scholarly changes in the definition of words like marriage, family and shifting gender roles forced by liberal restructuring of American society, also for political purposes.

14th Naturalization Amendment terms like “citizen at birth” and “birthright citizenship” have been intentionally been tossed into the mix to further complicate the understanding of three basic English words defined in every English dictionary. The purpose of all these efforts is to eliminate the NBC requirement for office by simply redefining the term. But that is not the only purpose…

Setting politics aside for a moment, natural born Citizenship is the inalienable natural right of every child to inherit the country of their natural birth father upon birth, not only due to no application of man-made statute or legal opinions, but inalienable by these means.

When people begin to play with definitions, it is an overt effort to alter our Founding principles and values and Constitutional protections of all inalienable Natural Rights as guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is a much larger issue than who can or cannot occupy the Oval Office, although this is indeed an issue paramount to the sovereignty and security of these United States.

Contrary to the intentional mis-education of American society, we do not enjoy “constitutional rights.” We have long enjoyed “constitutionally protected Natural Rights.”

Beginning in 2008, when folks were trying to disqualify John McCain, born the son of American parentage stationed abroad in Panama on the service of our country with the U.S. Navy, some plucked a single sentence from the proper source of the Founders NBC term, The Law of Nations by Vattel, as if they believe that it was unnecessary for Vattel to take great care to write an entire chapter on the subject, when a single sentence says it all.

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

As already demonstrated above, natives and naturals are in fact two different things, which confirms that the structure of this single sentence is not the definition of any one thing, but rather a general statement about more than one thing… Reference to “parents” does not mean both parents within the family unit, but rather all citizen family units which bear “citizen” children.

Why did these individuals not pluck any of the following single sentences from Vattel, appearing in the same paragraph Section 212 of Chapter XIX of the Law of Nations?

“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

Or this one – “as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.”

Or this one – “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”

Or even this one – “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

When trying to sum up natural born Citizen using a single sentence from Vattel, any of the four sentences above would be accurate. So, why didn’t the people who cherry-picked the unrelated general sentence pluck any of these other single sentences from the same paragraph?

There are two reasons… first, the truth did not suit the political agenda, which was to disqualify John McCain on the basis that although he was born to a citizen father (and mother), he was born in Panama, not on U.S. soil – and second, because the progressive shifting definitions of marriage and family, along with gender roles lead many to believe that the original definition and Founders intent of the term are antiquated and outdated. It leads many to falsely think it is some offense to women’s rights…

The Citizenship Act of 1934 pertaining only to “naturalized citizenship” is the cornerstone of today’s effort to destroy the NBC term and thereby eliminate the requirement from Article II. FDR’s Naturalization Act was the result of an international treaty from a Pan American conference of December 26, 1933, essentially agreeing that there should be no distinction between the sexes as it related to nationality under legislative processes. Of course, this pertained only to “naturalized citizenship” under congressional naturalization legislation.

Still, it has since been improperly used to claim that citizenship and even natural born Citizenship can pass from either Father or Mother, as a matter of alleged gender equality. Yet, this claim pertains only to naturalized citizenship, which is mutually exclusive of natural born Citizenship.

As all governmental power in the United States is limited in nature and derived from the people, nothing beyond what which was ratified by the people in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is under the consent of the people. The people have not consented to any alterations of Article II requirements for high office, so no alterations have been legally made.

Why natural born Citizen is non-negotiable

Much more than a political ambition or agenda is at stake here… The Natural Right of every child to inherit the condition of their birth family, specifically that of the Father (patriarch), the head of the family, is a constitutionally protected Natural Right.

Americans must understand that everything our Founders created was based upon inalienable Natural Rights, not man-made laws via legislative process or judicial review. When anyone begins to mess around with natural born, they are in fact messing around the Natural Law and all Natural Rights, the cornerstone of our Founders creation and any form of freedom and liberty.

If a child born to an American Father is stripped of their Natural Right to inherit the country of their Father, what other Natural Rights can be stripped from the child or the parent by mere man-made statute, court interpretation or Harvard Law Review? The answer is all of them…

In my personal opinion, the three most important words in all of the U.S. Constitution are natural born Citizen… because all Natural Rights flow through this patriarchal social concept and the sovereignty and security of our Constitutional Republic are protected from foreign invasion at the highest level by these three simple words, natural born Citizen.

Once any citizen of any type, by any means, including “undocumented citizens” can occupy the Oval Office, then any foreign entity can occupy that office, controlling the future of this nation and form of freedom and liberty itself as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force on earth.

Mere momentary political interest is not enough reason to let everything die…

I pray that Americans will cease to be so blind and foolish…. quickly!

RELATED ARTICLE: Media Repression on the Question of What is a “natural born Citizen?”

Israel Election Special Video: Bibi Wins, Barack Loses!

In an amazing come-from-behind moment, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party was victorious in a “landslide” and thus ensuring Netanyahu remains Prime Minister. This victory goes against most of the pollsters, pundits and Obama operatives efforts to defeat Bibi.

Today we feature several key subject-matter experts who add their thoughts and views to a very exciting and interesting show!

Tune in and watch, Jack Abramoff, Michael Ganoe, Dr. Martin Sherman, Scott Spages and Arie Egozi. Now, the hard work of national security continues in Israel.

Netanyahu’s Profile in Courage

Regardless of your “political affiliation,” you must admit Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu made a firm case as to why President Obama and the United States has no business entering into negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran — then again, perhaps Iran is not Islamic.

Is there any debate that Iran is the number one state sponsor of Islamic terrorism? Is there any debate that Iran has extended its hegemonic designs in the Middle East — controlling four capitol cities, Baghdad, Sanaa, Damascus, and Beirut? Is there any debate that it is Iran leading an offensive operation to retake the city of Tikrit in Iraq? And this comes after what is now a massive embarrassment for the Obama administration and our USCENTCOM to have divulged that America working with the Iraqis will have to push back its plans to take Mosul to later in the year.

Is there any doubt that Iran has shown no change in its militant Islamic behavior and rhetoric? Iran is still the same country that overran our embassy and held Americans hostage — when a previous American president displayed weakness and paralysis.

This is the same Iran that worked through Hezbollah to slaughter nearly 250 Marines, Sailors, and Soldiers in Beirut. Iran continues to hold an American Pastor — Saeed Abedini — and we want to negotiate?

But according to our president — there was “nothing new” — and I must agree Mr. President, there is nothing new about Iran and its belligerence. As well, there is nothing new about President Obama who sadly — along with many members of the Democrat party — acted like a petulant child, angry because someone didn’t give in to him. For someone to tell the Prime Minister of Israel to go home showed a complete lack of regard, respect, and displayed unadulterated disdain.

Why? Why is the truth was so frustrating?

The supposed “deal” with Iran only lasts for ten years; afterwards, Iran is free to pursue its nuclear intentions — and if any of you don’t believe Iran has those designs, you’re as naïve as Sir Neville Chamberlain or his modern reincarnation, Barack Obama.

Or perhaps Obama isn’t naïve after all?

There is a contest in the Islamic world for the new hegemony. The traditional state that has filled that role has been Saudi Arabia where the most holy sites in Islam reside — Mecca and Medina. The challenger is the last Islamic empire, the Ottoman, Turkey, where President Recip Tayyip Erdogan has rejected the original secular Muslim state vision of Kemal Ataturk.

But the new kid on the block is not Sunni, but Shia: Iran. And as Prime Minister Netanyahu stated, “we can focus on ISIS and beating them, but if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, we will have won a battle but lost a war.” And it seems the Obama administration is more than happy to sit back and allow the Iranian Republican Guard and Shiite militias to fight ISIS.

You ask me why should you care?

Because in the end, as Netanyahu stated, “the enemy of my enemy is my enemy.” Shall we sit back and disregard our own security but more so abandon Israel and its survival?

And consider the growing anti-Semitism in Europe that is forcing Jewish communities to disappear. Who of you will look into the eyes of Elie Wiesel and not understand the meaning of the words, “Never again?” This is not about a little skirmish with no ramifications for the future of liberty and freedom – it is a seminal battle for the soul of Western civilization. That’s neither over the top, nor fear mongering hyperbole. It is the hard truth.

Yes, I hear the detractors: we are war weary and we don’t want to fight; this is just an example of foreign entanglements and President George Washington in his farewell speech warned against this. Something tells me General George Washington would not allow militant Islam — Sunni or Shiite — to thrive.

Do I have a strategy? Sure.

  1. First of all it is insanity to have vetoed the Keystone XL Pipeline. We should be developing our energy resources enabling us to keep prices minimal in order to spur on economic growth. Then we should be exporting excess energy resources so that Europe does not have to depend upon Iranian sources.
  2. Reinstitute the crippling economic sanctions against the Islamic regime — it was working, so why would Obama let up on the gas? In the military we had a saying, “Why do you kick a man when he’s down? Because he’s close to your foot.” We should have kept kicking Iran, not offering them a hand helping them up — they have a knife ready.
  3. We should form an alliance with Egypt, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, and the Kurdish Regional Government to defeat militant Islamic terrorism in the region. Arm the Kurds and promise them what they truly deserve and have always wanted — a sovereign homeland. A homeland that extends from northern Iran to Iraq to Syria. Enable them to be a bulwark against Iran, Turkey and Syria, while pressuring Hezbollah in Lebanon. Yes, this is an opportunity for leadership to reshape the Middle East into strong allies that can assist in defeating the jihadists.
  4. And we need to fully support our best ally, Israel, and support their play against the array of Islamic terrorist groups who wish their destruction.

President Obama is hiding something. There is no other reason why he has issued a veto threat to the Congress for any legislation requiring his approval from the legislative body on his Iranian deal. So it seems the only enemy Barack Obama sees is the American Congress — I forgot, it is GOP-controlled, but none of this is political, right?

I just want everyone reading this to ask yourselves a question. You saw Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech yesterday. You heard President Barack Obama’s response to his speech (and his State of the Union address).

I ask you which one is a leader who loves his country? Let me give you a hint — in ten years, Iran will be free to become a nuclear power because of a deal that one of those two men wants very badly.

Who is Natural Born, Who is Not?

Now that the Iowa Freedom Summit has officially kicked off the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, it’s time that, as a matter of party policy, Republicans agreed on who is a natural born citizen and who is not.  Three conservatives… Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA), and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)… are prominently mentioned as potential candidates.  But the question arises, are they eligible to serve?  And if not, are conservatives and Republicans willing to turn their backs on the U.S. Constitution, cloaking themselves in the specious argument that, if the Democrats could get away with it for eight years, why shouldn’t they?  In other words, are Cruz, Jindal, and Rubio supporters willing to make the case that two wrongs make a right… the Constitution be damned?

If Republicans wish to avoid embarrassment and a potential constitutional crisis midway through a presidential campaign, party leaders would be well-advised to resolve the question before the issue blows up in their collective faces.  By doing so, they can kill two birds with one stone: 1) they can prove to the American people that, unlike Democrats, Republicans still honor the words and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, and 2) they can permanently stain the Obama legacy by shining the light of day on his ineligibility… eight years too late, but better late than never.

Some Republicans may be foolish enough to think that Democrats, after nominating and electing  an ineligible candidate in 2008 and again in 2012, would hesitate to make a political issue out of the “natural born” status of Cruz, Jindal, or Rubio.  Those who make that assumption simply don’t know Democrats.  As former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld remarked in his book, Rumsfeld’s Rules, “Never assume the other guy would never do something you would never do.”

When the Founders drafted Article II of the U.S. Constitution, they were highly concerned that the chief executive of the United States should not, under any circumstance, be even remotely subject to or encumbered by foreign influences.

On July 25, 1787, John Jay, a member of the Continental Congress and the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, sent a letter to General George Washington, president of the Constitutional Convention, expressing his concern over the prospect that an individual with some level of potential foreign allegiance, however remote, might be elected to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy.  He wrote: “Permit me to hint whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander-in-chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen (italics added).”

On March 12, 1788, in Federalist Paper No. 68, Alexander Hamilton expressed the widely held fear of foreign influence on the president of the United States.  He wrote, “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.  These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.  How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy (presidency) of the Union?

It should be noted that the Framers did not require the president and vice president to be devoid of all friends and acquaintances in foreign lands; they did not choose to limit the presidency and the vice presidency only to those without living relatives in foreign lands; nor did they limit the presidency and the vice presidency only to those without material offshore assets.  But they did produce language in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution requiring that all candidates for president and vice president must be “natural BORN.”

Accordingly, the final product of the Constitutional Convention contained the following language, unchanged and unchallenged in the past 227 years.  Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution reads as follows: “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

As the Constitution was being drafted, southern Democrats demanded, as a means of increasing their representation in the U.S. Congress, a provision that allowed each slave to be counted as three-fifths of a person.  However, nearly a century later, the states ratified the 14th Amendment, a Republican-sponsored proposal granting full citizenship to all persons born on U.S. soil.

While the amendment was designed to give full citizenship to emancipated slaves, the authors could not have foreseen an age in which international travel would be so commonplace that expectant foreign women could travel to the U.S. just to have their babies born on U.S. soil, creating a class of citizens known as “anchor babies.”  Had they been able to predict the future, they would likely have limited the amendment to full time legal residents of the United States, almost all of whom were emancipated slaves.

The 14th Amendment does not confer, nor was it ever intended to confer, “natural born” status on children of emancipated slaves or on today’s “anchor babies” because, like our first seven presidents… Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, and Jackson… none of whom were “natural born” citizens, those infants were born to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of their birth.  And while none of our first seven presidents were natural born, all were “citizens” on the day the Constitution was ratified and were “grandfathered” under the phrase, “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.”    

Most Obama apologists, while insisting that Obama is a “natural born” citizen, even though he was born to an American mother and a Kenyan father, will agree that Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, is not a “natural born” citizen because he was born in Austria to Austrian parents and became a “naturalized” citizen after emigrating to the U.S.

When an alien seeks to become a naturalized citizen, he/she must demonstrate that they have been of good moral character for the statutory period prior to filing for naturalization.  Then,

upon being found suitable for U.S. citizenship, applicants must swear the following oath:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

As a “citizen of Kenya by birth,” under terms of the August 4, 2010 Kenyan constitution, Barack Obama has failed to renounce his Kenyan citizenship and is required to obey the laws of Kenya whenever he happens to visit that country.  Therefore, he has not “absolutely and entirely renounced and abjured all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty…”  Nor has he shown himself to be a man of good moral character.

Any investigation into who is natural born and who is not, must have as its starting point, a realization that there are only two jobs in the entire United States, public sector or private sector, that require the incumbents to be “natural born” citizens.  Those who are naturalized citizens or regular citizens can serve in state and local office, in state courts, in the U.S. Congress, and in the federal courts.  They are even eligible to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, but they may not serve as president or vice president of the United States.

The Framers obviously intended the qualifications for president and vice president to be far and above the qualifications for any other office in the land.  As such, those who insist that the terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are synonymous have an obligation to explain to the rest of us exactly what they see as the exclusivity factor that make eligibility requirements for president and vice president different from those of all other offices.

The acid test for those who claim natural born citizenship involves two factors, and two factors alone.  The first is “place” and the other is “parentage.”  Individuals born in a foreign land, to alien parents, can become “naturalized,” but never “natural born” citizens; “anchor babies” born to one or more non-citizen parents on U.S. soil can be “citizens,” but never “natural born” citizens; and those born anywhere on Earth to one American citizen and one who is not, can be American “citizens” with dual nationality, but never “natural born” citizens.

In January 2009 and again in January 2013, it was the obligation of congressional Republicans to question Barack Obama’s eligibility when they met in joint session to certify the votes of the Electoral College, but they lacked the courage to do so.  Nor did they have the courage or the political will to hold public hearings on the question.  Now they have the opportunity to shine the light of day on the question of Obama’s ineligibility by openly questioning the eligibility of three Republicans.  Such hearings will show that, in terms of eligibility for the highest office in the land, Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio are all “birds of a feather.”

Harry loves Gruber — Watch Reid lauding Gruber as the greatest economist and other lies about Obamacare

Not one of the trifecta publicly seen as the political leaders of the Democrat Party; Reid, Pelosi, and Obama never knew who Gruber was. The incredible, consistent, sociopathic lying by these three would be horribly appalling if it were not so damn serious. The sociopathic lying by Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, if not called-on and checked by someone who has the platform by which to do so, will collapse this nation.

The American People shouted loudly a couple of weeks ago: “STOP!” The American People overwhelmingly shouted: “SAVE OUR COUNTRY!” The American People shouted at the polling booths: “STOP the transformation of our country; STOP the Marxism dressed-up in all sorts of rags to make it look appealing!” The American People gave the Republican Party grand permission to STOP Reid, Pelosi, and Obama and call them on all their lies!”

Reid, Pelosi, and Obama are racing all over the place telling anyone who will listen, “I (We) didn’t know Gruber, or “he was not on staff” or other lies, lies, lies! STOP IT!! Someone needs to wash their mouths out with soap!! Sociopathic liars all. Just look at the youtube site below where…you guessed it, Reid is praising Gruber all over the place. Obama doesn’t know him, but he was in private meetings in the Oval with Obama. Gruber made close to $6-million dollars being paid to be this all-knowing, all-wise, political and economic consultant, as well as health-care expert. ENOUGH! Enough lies and other sociopathic behaviors. ENOUGH!

Harry Reid is all over the place claiming he doesn’t know Gruber. Well, heck, Harry…just watch the YouTube video below and listen to your own bellicose praising of the guy. By-the-way Harry, the date of your admiration speech was December 1, 2009, I believe it was a Tuesday.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Inside the Comic Book Jonathan Gruber Wrote to Sell Obamacare to America

Obama Just Stepped In A Pile Of Gruber (+video)

There’s NO PLACE like UTOPIA! – The Movie

President Obama, in Wizard of Oz fashion, is a progressive fraud hiding behind a wrinkled curtain spinning dials and fooling people with his destructive socialist policies! This is a key point of Producer / Director Joel Gilbert in his brilliant new documentary, “There’s NO PLACE like UTOPIA.” We discuss with Joel the key points of this humorous, yet serious analysis of Progressive politics.

In particular, Joel will answer the question: Why did Dorothy follow the yellow brick road?

Listen and watch Joel as he journeys across America to find out what’s at the end of the Progressive rainbow – Utopia or something far worse? From the ruins of Detroit to the slums of Chicago’s South Side, and from Denver’s illegal immigration invasion to Newark’s urban removal project, Gilbert pulls back the curtain. He confronts Progressives on his quest, and takes us deep into their political fantasy of paradise on earth.

There’s No Place Like Utopia is a humorous and horrifying exploration of Progressivism, amnesty for illegals, race relations, Islam in America, political correctness, and Barack Obama himself, who promises to “remake the world as it should be.” But is Utopia a real destination for America? Or, does the true path to happiness still remain faith, family, and hard work – back home in Kansas?

Charlie Crist — A National Security Risk!

The United West team analyzes the national security capability of Charlie Crist and concludes that he is a national security risk for the State of Florida.

Evidence is presented that proves Crist’s failures on understanding the threat of Islamic jihad, the threat of the cultural jihad and his possible negligence by falling into the control of the Muslim Brotherhood supporters of the Obama Administration.

Before you cast your vote in the 2014 Florida election, be sure to watch this critically important expose.

Soviet Socialism in the 21st Century: A Malignant regime of Political Correctness

Don’t you think that Political Correctness is getting people killed? I believe it does. If you are watching the discussions on TV and radio today, you will be overwhelmed by the variety of opinions on how to deal with Terrorism, Ebola, ISIS, Syria, Iraq, and Ukraine. Yet, all the participant doctors, generals, politicians, and journalists are missing the major topic, the root cause of all events – Russia and its Political Correctness. Do you know the significance of the subject? Do you have an idea of the author and architect of it? We, the people who immigrated from Russia and other former Socialist countries know well Political Correctness – we lived through it half of our adult lives.

Political Correctness is a Stalinist policy, driven by the political agenda, a skillfully crafted design and a long-term strategy of war against Western civilization and creation of One World Government.

When my language allowed me to grasp current politics, I was stunned by how deeply rooted Political Correctness was in America. How could that happen? Where was the usual common sense of the nation? Where were all American intelligence agencies? If logically Knowledge is Power, unfortunately, as a result of Political Correctness, today Ignorance reins in America… And that makes me angry, because I have spent twenty-five years of my life and money to give you needed knowledge about Russia to warn you, but our Intelligence Service sabotaged my books and my numerous articles to block the information conveyed in them. Yet nothing can stop me in my mission to provide you with the Truth, because I believe in an upcoming major American re-awakening.

So, you are perhaps asking yourself: What does Political Correctness has to do with Ebola, the military, or with everyday life of the American people?

It has to do with everything and it affects the life of each citizen of America, because Political Correctness is a central part of the ongoing WW III. To present a credible explanation, I had to go to the internet to find a linguistic and historical definition of Political Correctness. It was not an easy task: the vast majority of people from academia presented only a surface commentary and a vague interpretation on the matter. Finally, I found more or less close to reality explanation of political correctness that gave the concept itself and the time of the history it was born. Timing is the key issue to comprehend the subject: “In the early-to-mid 20th century, contemporary uses of the phrase ‘Politically Correct’ were associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between formal Communists (members of the Communist Party) and Socialists.”

In order to have an understanding of the topic, you have to know the Soviet History of those days, the real history, not the history presented in the Soviet books.

As you know, I am a child of Stalinism, I lived through that history. The timing–”In the early–to mid 20th century” is telling you almost everything— at the time, Stalin was building his cult of personality and one party system in the country. All the methods and devices were directed to those goals… For your information, Russia had numerous political parties in the early 20th century. After Lenin’s death in 1924, Stalin began the immediate elimination of a political opposition–leaders and people from different parties with political agendas contrary to his. Nobody could compete with him in the art of double-dealing and intrigues. Trotsky was the first target and he was exiled by 1927. The liquidation of other leaders was going on full speed. I do not need to present the list of them, the history of that time is telling you the methods, tools, and devises the Stalinist regime used to liquidate millions – Show Trials, Purges, imprisonments, Gulags, deportations to Siberia and Central Asia, and many other horrifying methods.

I was a tiny girl, when my Mother was imprisoned. At the time I did not know politics and I loved Stalin, but later, somewhere in the end of the forties or in the beginning of the fifties, thanks to my Father, my political education had begun. The radio was the only source of information for the masses of people; it was on in our room from early morning to a late evening. The entire country was sitting frozen, listening to Stalin speak, being afraid of missing a word from his speech. So, I too was listening to Stalin. I knew his voice well, the timbre and the manner of developing the address very slowly. Listening to the radio one day I heard Stalin using some strange words spoken by a very different intonation and tone. I cannot tell you the exact year and time of a day; I remember only the strange and unusual, to me, intonation in his voice. The phrase was very simple: “those Comrades are politically incorrect.” The intonation in his voice kind of surprised me; it was a combination of threat and sarcasm at the same time. Perhaps for this reason I remember the phrase. It stayed in my mind for a long time, however not knowing the political system of human liberty, I was unable to identify the exact meaning of the term.

If you haven’t read my books, to conceive the predicament we lived in, please just remember, that we lived in a highly centralized, one party system of total corruption in the vertical of power. All Soviet media was the property of the government; there was not a single private or independent source of information in the country. Each media unit had Department of Agitation and Propaganda and censorship. The Russian writer of the time Lidia Chukovskay wrote about our lives that we were indeed “poisoned by lethal gas” of lies and deception. She was right. To indoctrinate us in the Stalinist ideology, an arsenal of different devices was used: lies, fraud, deceit, distortion, fabrication, perjury, and so on to substitute the promising result with a process…

At the time, the predicament in Russia was so constant that I did not know how to evaluate, explain and identify the system we lived under. I knew that it was the central part of the ideology, a modus operandi in our lives, when perverted truth was putting logic up-side-down. That way Russia became a model of goodness and America became a rotten country. If at the beginning Political Correctness served as a method of fighting political oppositions, the ultimate goal was much wider–mind control, manipulation of human psyche in a variety of its methods.

Only after coming to America I was able to grasp the essence of the lethal matter – Political Correctness designed by Stalin. So, living in America, I began searching for the first official indication of the use of the term Political Correctness in Russia. The internet allowed me to go far back in political history of the world. However, my understanding of politics in America began with the Presidency of Ronald Reagan and the first surprise came with Bill Clinton–he lived in Russia with a family of KGB members. That told me a lot. Unfortunately; his presidency was not firmly investigated. You can read about my suspicions in the Epilogue, What is Happening to America?, Xlibris, 2012. In Clinton’s politics, I found a lot of methods that could have been qualified as a policy of Political Correctness with usage of the arsenal of the devices indicated above–the true components of it. Clinton was surrounded by other Democrats resembling the Soviet Mafia a great deal. That told me that the transformation of the Democrats had started before Clinton….I had to go back in history to find the first official usage of the term Political Correctness.

Meanwhile, being in the process of writing my second book The Russian Factor: From Cold War to Global Terrorism, Xlibris, 2006, I had attempted to present the concept of Political Correctness, I called it–Sovietization of America. My American friends asked me what it meant Sovietization. So the term remained in dark. It took me many months to find the first official usage of the term Political Correctness. I wasn’t successful in my search; internet did not give me the answer. The answer came quite unexpectedly. My favorite TV show is Jeopardy, I try not to miss any of them. Watching the show a couple of months ago, I got the answer. The participants couldn’t answer the question and the anchor gave the answer: the first time the words Political Correctness were published by the Soviet official newspaper Izvestia in 1933. I jumped as if cold water had awakened me–the answer came in such a simple way! The time was correctly identified by the Encyclopedia! The answer also confirmed my vision of Political Correctness. The year 1933 was a preparation to Show Trials and Purges, as you know, no one governmental newspaper could publish the words of a new policy without Stalin’s awareness or by his order.

Moreover, knowing Stalin’s connection to the Muslim culture, his long-term strategy had included Islam as a vehicle and physical doer in implementing Political Correctness. Please, remember the words of the KGB Chairman Yuri Andropov in1972 about a mechanism of training and turning the Muslims into the arms of Stalin’s strategy. The Soviets were very successful in using them in WWIII–today Jihad is an ideological movement around the world. I believe, I am right–Stalin is the author of Political Correctness and to prove his long-term strategy, let me give you the document confirming that. If you haven’t read my books, but know the history, here is the official Soviet document with my small preamble to it.

At the end the 1940, after the Germany’s defeat, Stalin gave an order to the KGB and the military to study the effects of drugs on human psyche. The effects of drugs were analyzed by scientists from the Soviet Academy of Sciences and the conclusions were that the drugs trafficking would be extremely effective and the most vulnerable countries would be the United States, Canada, France, and West Germany. This study was approved in 1955 by the Soviet Defense Council. It was the first formal Soviet decision to launch narcotics trafficking against the bourgeoisie and especially against the American capitalists. Here is the document:

“Soviet strategy for revolutionary war is a global strategy… narcotics strategy is a sub-component of this global strategy. …First was the increased training of leaders for the revolutionary movements—the civilian, military, and intelligence cadres. The founding of Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow is an example of one of the early actions taken to modernize the Soviet revolutionary leadership training. The second step was the actual training of terrorists. Training for international terrorism actually began as ‘fighters for liberation.’ …The third step was international drug and narcotics trafficking. Drugs were incorporated into the revolutionary war strategy as a political and intelligence weapon to use against the bourgeois society and as a mechanism for recruiting agents of influence around the world.” p.128 What is Happening to America?, by Simona Pipko, Xlibris, 2012.

There were the fourth and fifth steps in the strategy, you can read about both and see when an undeclared war began. Please pay attention to the words:” recruiting agents of influence.” Do you know how many of them have been recruited in the last 60 years? To answer the question, you should know who is practicing Political Correctness and all components of it. In this respect, it is important to remember what party was against the Soviet politics, and what party was soft on it. The Democrats were not only soft to the Soviets for a long time, moreover, they have employed the components of Political Correctness and used them against the Republicans very successfully for the last forty-fifty years. By their softness and incompetence they gave the opportunity to the Soviet Mafia to grow and spread the venom of ideology across the world, to Balkanize America and the globe. This is the reason we are witnessing dramatic changes in our culture and within the Democratic Party–the party of President Truman is dead…Do you know what ideology the Democrats are adhered today?

Unfortunately, the politicians and our Media are focused on ideology and the agenda of Saul Alinsky, who is only one example of an agent of influence on the surface. In fact, there are thousands of them, spreading and implementing the Stalinist concept. Look at our culture: what we used to define as the greatness of America now is under a siege–the heroes became criminals now, the criminals became heroes.

Remember the essence and devices of Political Correctness:

“[T]o propagate us in Stalinist ideology an arsenal of different devices has been used: lies, fraud, deceit, distortion, fabrication, perjury, and so on to substitute the promised result with the process.”

Just look at the Obama administration and you will find the exact formula of the Stalinist Political Correctness in the 21st century.

If you remember, I have already introduced you to the Obama/Putin joined venture named Destruction of the American Republic. Do you know that people from former Soviet Republics are joining ISIS? The field commanders of ISIS are Chechen or the former Saddam’s security operatives, both were trained by the Russian security forces. Did you notice a pattern of being late to many important issues of our days by Obama? ISIS, Syria, Iraq, Iran, IRS, Benghazi, Ukraine: You know the list of the so-called scandals in Washington. In fact, those events are the components of ideology working against the interests of America. And again as you can see; Putin is up, and America is down. Obama is not lazy, stupid or incompetent, as some suggested, on the contrary he is very successful in his joined venture implementing Political Correctness. Just watch!

The last event is Ebola, a threat known since March 2014. It is a real danger to America and the entire world–a mortality rate is 70%, according to World Health Organizations. The disease requires fast and decisive actions by the government. Instead you will see a continuation of Political Correctness: Ron Klain, a man from the Clinton political circle, a political operative, without any background in medicine has been appointed as the Ebola Czar in October, 2014. The task of the administration is to enforce loyalty to the Obama Democratic Party not the health of the Americans. A logical response to the predicament is a travel ban to America from West Africa countries, but it is still only on discussion, when the time is a matter of life and death. A highly qualified specialist-epidemiologists must be involved in the process. Even Nigeria stopped the epidemic of Ebola by enforcing quarantine–a travel ban.

For those who blame America for instability in the world, I would recommend to read my books and articles to learn about a real aggressor and a sponsor of global terrorism–Russia. Mr. Romney was right in 2012, naming Russia as our geopolitical foe No.1. Fortunately, NATO begins to grasp some truth about Russia, the truth, I have been writing about for the last twenty-five years. Please read Financial Times, Friday August 29, 2014: Russia’s new art of war.

“NATO has struggled to counter Moscow’s tactics in a conflict where traditional military force is only one part of the fight…” NATO is still underestimated the role of Political Correctness–that insidious evil of the world…

The midterm election in November is upcoming and I’d like to point out some politicians who are taking our country in the wrong direction and blaming everybody else for their mistakes. Look at Obama, Charlie Christ, Al Sharpton, the leader of the Democrats “poor Debby,” and many others. They are constantly changing their minds and definition of words. Incompetent and arrogant, they are frequently lying to survive politically. They are promising the successful results for six years; you know that they failed in all aspects of our lives; foreign policy, economy, education, national security, social tranquility, job creation, and so on. They are lying to us like good salesmen. Do you know what they are selling? Don’t you think that they replicate the Stalinist strategy and surrender to the New World Order and One World Government?

Political Correctness cannot be spread by air or wind–people do that. My heart bleeds for my America. To prevent a catastrophe, I want to punish evil and heal our land. That is the reason I am writing about the Party called Democratic. Dr.Martin King Jr. was a Republican and so Frederick Douglass, who said; ”It’s not about color: it’s about values. ”Yes, it’s about values and, in this respect, I’d like to give you very important information to think about…

Another Russian author Daniel Estulin had written a book titled: The True Story of the Bilderberg Group. On page 52 of this book, I learned that on June 9, 1991, two-and-a half months before announcing his candidacy for the U.S. Presidency, Bill Clinton flew to Moscow and had a meeting with the KGB Chairman. The Arkansas Democrat ran the story under the headline “Clinton Has Powerful Buddy in the U.S.S.R.—New Head of KGB. Do not be surprised as Clinton helps Obama in the upcoming election–they are adhered to the same ideology and have the same political agenda.

To be continued www.simonapipko1.com

The “Malaise” Has Returned

The joke is that Jimmy Carter is happy that Barack Obama has replaced him as the worst President of the modern era. It is a supreme irony that Obama’s campaign theme was “Hope and Change” when Americans have lost a great deal of hope about their personal futures and the only change they want is to see Obama gone from office.

Elected by a narrow margin in 1976, Carter managed in his one term to see his approval ratings fall to twenty-five percent by June 1979. The lesson Americans have to learn over and over again is that liberal policies and programs don’t work.

In six years, the kind of dependence on the government to take care of people from cradle to grave has left the nation with 92 million unemployed or who have stopped looking for a job, entitled 45 million to food stamps, and there is still talk of a “minimum wage” in the interest of “fairness” that simply kills jobs, especially those that used to be filled by young people just entering the workplace. The worst part of Obama’s presidency is the lies he tells in the belief, apparently, that most Americans are so stupid they won’t see through them.

On July 15, 1979, in an effort to encourage a greater sense of confidence, Jimmy Carter delivered a speech that became known as the “malaise” speech, but which did not include that word. What it did, however, is double down on all the bad policies Carter had pursued and blamed Americans for not accepting them. By then the economy was in decline, gasoline prices and interest rates had climbed to record levels, and the voters were understandably pessimistic. Iranians had taken U.S. diplomats hostage and they would not be released until Ronald Reagan took the oath of office.

Carter’s speech began by asking “Why have we not been able to get together as a nation to resolve our serious energy problem?” Quite literally there was no need then or now for an energy problem because, as recently noted by the Energy Information Administration, the United States has enough coal to last more than 200 years! With the development of hydraulic fracturing, fracking, we now have access to more oil than exists in Saudi Arabia.

Obama literally came into office saying he intended to wage a war on coal and he has; using the Environmental Protection Agency to institute regulations that have led to the closing a mines and the shutdown of coal-fired plants that used to produce 50% of the nation’s electricity; now down to 40%. He resisted allowing the drilling for oil in the huge reserves on our east and west coasts. He has refused to permit the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. These policies have led to the loss of thousands of jobs during the time that followed the 2008 financial crisis.

In his speech, Carter said, “The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.” We would do well to remember that we have been through periods like this before and corrected course.

In 1980 Ronald Reagan would be elected to replace Carter and America prospered through his two terms, returning to being a major superpower, economically and militarily. That’s what conservatism produces.

Carter, however, blamed Americans for the problems of his times. “Two-thirds of our people do not even vote. The productivity of American workers is actually dropping, and the willingness of Americans to save for the future has fallen below that of all other people in the Western world.”

One of Obama’s earliest acts was to visit foreign nations and blame America for many of the world’s problems. Militarily he pulled our troops out of Iraq and he intends to do the same in Afghanistan. He has cut the military budget to the bone and has now defined its mission as one to address “climate change”, not the enemies of our nation.

Obama spent his entire first term blaming George W. Bush for every problem that he did nothing to correct. Indeed, Obama has never seen himself as the real problem, finding anyone else to blame.

Those Americans watching Carter deliver his speech must surely have cringed as he announced that he intended to set import quotas on foreign energy resources. He said he wanted Congress to impose a “windfall profits” tax on the very energy firms that he wanted to get us out of the doldrums and dependency that was causing the problem. He wanted the utility companies to “cut their massive use of oil by fifty percent within a decade.” He wanted them to switch to coal and now we live in a nation whose President doesn’t want our utilities to use coal. Why? Despite massive evidence to the contrary, he has advocated “renewable” energy, wind and solar, neither of which can ever meet the nation’s needs.

“In closing, let me say this: I will do my best, but I will not do it alone. Let your voice be heard,” said Carter.

In the 1980 election the voter’s voice was heard. Carter was gone and Reagan was our President. With him came his infectious patriotism and optimism. By late 1983 his economic program had ended the recession he inherited from Carter. A similar program would have put an end to what is now routinely called Obama’s Great Recession.

We are at a point not dissimilar from the days of Jimmy Carter and with an even greater sense of dissatisfaction and distrust of Barack Obama.

I reach back in our recent history to remind you that on November 4th in our midterm elections and in the 2016 presidential election we can repeat history by ridding the nation of those members of Congress that voted for ObamaCare and have supported President Obama. We must wait to see who the GOP will offer as a presidential candidate, but we have time for that.

We have time to “hope” for a better future and we have the means to make the “change” to achieve it.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Is Charlie Crist Barack Obama light?

There is a standing joke in Florida which goes something like this: A Republican, Independent and Democrat walk into a bar. The bartender says, “And what can I get you Mr. Crist.”

Charlie Crist is making Florida history as the first politician to run for the same seat as a Republican and Democrat. Crist has changed his campaign strategy to keep from talking about his previous political positions, rather he is trying to talk about his opponent, and sitting Governor, Rick Scott.

A recent Crist fundraising email shows how much he has embraced Barack Obama’s  pro-Pot, pro-Gay, pro-Big Government, and pro-Abortion agenda.

Jessica Clark, Deputy Campaign Manager Charlie Crist for Governor, in a fundraising email states, “What would Rick Scott do with four more years and no electorate to face? With no reason to temper himself, we’d find ourselves with an even more extreme version of Rick Scott.”

The questions Clark asks are ones many Americans are asking about Barack Obama. Americans see what a Democrat can do with “four more years and no electorate to face.” America now finds itself with a “ever more extreme” Barack Obama with “no reason to temper himself.”

Clark states, “He [Rick Scott] cut $1.3 billion from our schools. He signed bills requiring medically-unnecessary ultrasounds for women seeking abortions. He limited access to the polls, and absolutely savaged our beautiful state. And that’s all when he knew he’d have to face the voters again.”

Clark refers to Governor Scott exclusively but her accusations are highly questionable.

Charlie Crist wants to spend more money on public education. However, the amount of federal tax dollars poured into public education since 1970 has failed to change student performance (see the below chart).

doedataonfunding

Federal spending on education compared to student achievement. For a larger view click on the chart.

free abortion tattooed womanCrist opposes women having an ultra-sound before having an abortion. Crist is worried that if women have an ultrasound it will show a live fetus, a baby, moving in the womb. Why? Because he supports and is supported by those few radical Planned Parenthood members who demand free abortions without limits, on demand and without apology. It does not matter that a study by Dr. Priscilla Coleman and Dr. David Reardon of nearly 500,000 pregnant women reveals abortion is much more dangerous to women than giving birth.

Crist is against any of Florida’s sixty-seven Supervisors of Elections updating voter rolls as required by law, period. Crist wants dead people, felons and illegals aliens on the voter rolls. Why? They vote Democrat.

Crist makes the absurd statement that Governor Scott “absolutely savaged our beautiful state.” Why? As Joseph Goebbels wrote, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Charlie Crist believes in the power of the state, the truth be damned.

Finally, Charlie Crist does not want to talk about his boss John B. Morgan, head of the Morgan & Morgan law firm. Why? Well just watch this video titled, “Crist-Morgan for Florida“:

You see Charlie Crist is depending on the pot head vote.

crist-morganAna Cruz, former executive director of the Florida Democratic Party, said, “I wish that it didn’t take medical marijuana on the ballot to motivate our young voters. But listen, we’ll take it any way we can get it.”

Ben Pollara, a Democratic fundraiser and campaign manager for the United for Care group, stated, “We want to be able to have our stereotypical, lazy pothead voters to be able to vote from their couch.”

Crist is considered by many as the white Barack Obama. When Obama ran for president in 2008 he had positions much different than those he has today. Crist has fully embraced Obama and his political positions. Any questions?

RELATED ARTICLE: Doubling Down on Pot: Buffett Sells Upper Deck, Room to Grow – Bloomberg

The ISIS Bucket Challenge

Raising awareness, one drop at a time.


The ISIS Bucket Challenge: A life-saving activity involving dumping buckets of piss on the heads of Western pacifists with “Coexist” bumper stickers to raise their awareness about them actually having those heads, at least until ISIS shows up and chops them off.

Fake Biden is a RACIST

Offline

Biden Uses ‘Take Back America’ Phrase Obama And Holder Think is Racist

America’s National Treasure, Joe Biden has been replaced!

Federal policy on safety and consumption of marshmallows

Offline

Government publishes detailed instructions on how to safely roast marshmallows

Unrest in the Middle East, terrorism, immigration, healthcare, unemployment, Rethuglikkan gridlock, none of this is interesting, especially when Dear Leader is developing a dangerous hook with his 3 wood, but the citizens and new immigrant guests can rest easy this Labor Day weekend knowing that the Federal Government has pooled its talents and established policy in the best interest of the Children™.

USSA Citizens Ordered to Stop Using Pinkies

Offline

pinkie3.jpg

Socialist Democrat Party officials today announced that all Citizens of the USSA must, beginning next Tuesday, refrain from using their ‘pinkie’ fingers while holding objects.Following the example of Comrade Party Chairman Barack Barackovich Obama, citizens are to either curl the pinkie finger or lift it sufficiently so as not to make contact with any objects being grasped. For those workers and peasants having difficulty understanding the concept, they are ordered to visualize ‘playing tea’ with a five-year-old girl… indefinitely.

Those ‘Dead Americans’ in the Cali-Fate of Feckless Funk


From the desk of our friend Marion DS Dreyfus With a modicum of sociological parsing, can anyone doubt what the gangsta rappers and career losers bouncing to Syria and Islamic State “to fight” for these beasts of intransigent death are really after? Let’s see…

Defeat ISIS in the comfort of your own home

A three-step political fantasy to protect Americans and help Islam finally to become a religion of peace


President Obama’s White House statement on Aug. 28 was clear on two things: “ISIS must be defeated” and “we don’t have a strategy yet.”

With this in mind, let me offer a modest proposal that requires no military escalation, no additional defense spending, and no sacrifice of the American troops in the Middle East.

Solution to the immigration issue

Offline
ISIS_Nidal_Hassan.jpg
The issue of undocumented voters pouring across the southern border has a simple solution: brought to Party attention – from of all places – death row, Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas.

Obama to Create Five Year Plan for Iraq in 5 Years

Offline

The White Fortress has announced that it will be unveiling a new Five-Year Plan for dealing with matters in Iraq in five years.

Without strategy there will be no war

Offline


Our Dear Leader takes action against war on ISIS in a preemptive neutrality. No strategy means no war right?

The Times: Pavlovian Technology at Work in Newsrooms


The Internationalist Information Services Office #19 (commonly known as the The Times of Londonabad) is now using cutting edge technology based on the scientific discoveries of Comrade Ivan Pavlov to increase productivity.

Major League Goofball

Offline

Social Media To Be Monitored and Cleansed by Party


The National Socialist Science Foundation has contributed nearly a million People’s Dollars to Indiana Workers’ University for the development of a new program to eliminate bourgeois thought from Social Media.

Brown’s Funeral, the Exploiters and America’s Police

Though skillfully orchestrated to transform convenience store robber Michael Brown into a heroic martyr for civil rights, his funeral was hijacked into becoming a platform for the evil and obscene slander of police and America, perpetrated by the usual deplorable suspects; Al Sharpton, Democrats and the MSM.

Candidly, as a black man, it is easy to feel a little like odd man out; consistently finding myself taking the opposite side than a majority of black Americans. In 2008, over 96% of blacks voted for Obama. I did not.

While I am familiar with black Republican author, orator, and advisor to U.S. Presidents, Booker T. Washington, I only recently came across this amazing quote from him which nailed the Rev. Sharptons and Rev Jacksons of America back in 1911.

“There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs – partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

Wow! Booker T. Washington had these low life scoundrels figured out way back then. He perfectly described the shameful despicable exploitation of the goodness of the American people on display at the Michael Brown funeral.

Folks, in a nutshell, the Left’s selective outrage over Brown’s death is about getting paid and ginning up rage-based black voter turnout for Democrats in November. Apparently, the Democrats and MSM only consider a young black male’s life of value when it is taken by a white person. Epidemic black on black shootings only get a yawn from Dems and the MSM while sipping their mocha lattes.

Insidiously, irresponsibly and strategically, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder even threw in their anecdotal two cents, sharing their uncomfortable experiences with police as black males.

Allow me to offer a few of my numerous anecdotal encounters with police.

In the 1970s, my cousin who lived in a low income neighborhood in Baltimore had a nervous breakdown. He held his two toddler sons hostage in his basement, threatening to kill himself and his kids. Shortly after I arrived on the scene, two white cops responded to my cousin’s wife’s emergency phone call.

In seconds, the young slim fit cop dashed up the ten front steps into the house. He then waited for his partner’s instructions. His much older obese partner moved a bit slower. After negotiating the steps, he waddled to the open basement door.

Upon catching his breath, with wisdom, experience and compassion, the seasoned police officer talked my cousin out of the basement. “C’mon son, I know you’re hurtin’. But, you don’t wanna do this.”

Fearful for my cousin’s life, I was extremely relieved. The incident totally contradicted what my militant black college associates said to expect from white “pigs”; shoot the n***** and ask questions later.

On another occasion, my wife and I were surrounded by police cars at a traffic light and ordered out of our car. A bank robbery had just taken place. The perpetrators were an interracial couple driving a car very similar to ours. Mary and I were calm and cooperative. Upon checking us out, the police apologized for the inconvenience and were quickly on their way.

There were other opportunities for an over zealous or racist cop to act like a jerk; it never happened.

Am I saying that bad cops do not exist? Of course, not. Man is a fallen sinful creature. Consequently, bad players show up in every area of the human experience; bad cops, priests, teachers and so on. Jesus had a 12 man crew. One was a bad apple.

I am saying that the Left’s narrative that police departments across America are dens of “institutional police brutality” is hogwash; as bogus as their mythical “Republican war on women”. Neither are white cops using black boys for target practice. According to FBI stats, out of 12 million yearly arrests, only 400 resulted in fatal shootings; many justified.

Another disgusting aspect of the Left’s political exploitation of Brown’s death is the cruel crucifixion of Officer Darren Wilson without a trial.

thank a police officer daySeveral years ago, I visited a buddy at work at the police station. He was a black veteran Baltimore City police officer and talented musician; a gentle giant. On the occasion of my visit, he was working lock up. My friend greeted me with his signature big smile and easygoing personality. During my visit, I witnessed his personality fluidly flow between easygoing musician to tough cop mode when dealing with criminals and prisoners.

He later explained that policing 101 requires that you always take control of the situation; less you risk getting caught off guard and stabbed in the back by a suspect’s weepy old gray-haired mom or a girlfriend.

People who are second guessing and criticizing Officer Wilson for not tazing or shooting Brown in a non fatal area of his body are just plain clueless.

I wish to offer my sincere heartfelt, thanks, prayers and support to all of our brave men and women who protect and serve us; police, troops, firefighters, veterans and border parole agents. God bless.

EDITORS NOTE: September 20, 2014 is national Thank a Police Officer Day. If you wish to make a video thanking your local police force or sheriff visit the Whole Truth Project.