Thursday, April 30, 2009


The Peaceful Revolution's First 100 Days

By Mark Alexander

Last fall, Barack Hussein Obama pledged that his administration would carry out a "fundamental transformation of the United States of America." Today, as we reflect on the first 100 days of the Obama regime's occupation of the executive branch, with Party allegiance in the legislative branch, it pains me to report that he has exceeded the wildest expectations of his Socialist constituencies.

In the wake of last year's "October Surprise" (the catastrophic meltdown of the nation's largest financial institutions), his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said of Obama's strategy, "Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things."

Indeed, Obama has done BIG things. In the words of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, "Obama's first 100 days have been spectacularly successful. Obama is the strongest domestic Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson. ... In just 100 days, Obama has been devastatingly effective in moving forward swiftly the most radical, government-expanding agenda in American history."

How did that happen?

Some political scientists argue that democracy is a conduit for "peaceful revolutions," including radical shifts in political ideology, without a shot being fired.

I agree, except that our nation is not a "dumbocracy." It is a republic, or at least it was before the once proud Democrat Party became infested with Socialists, who masterfully co-opted the education system along with the modern "opiate of the masses" (television and print media), and re-educated those masses.

So successful has this Leftist strategy been that their dumbed-down constituencies now follow their messianic leader like dullard lemmings.

Consequently, here is an account of a few notable events from the first 100 days of "hope and change."

Under the aegis of "economic stimulus," Obama promptly raided the Treasury and doled it out to his constituencies -- at terrible expense to this and future generations. Asked how one might evaluate the effectiveness of his plan, Obama replied, "I think my initial measure of success is creating or saving four million jobs." Not even Bill Clinton had the hubris to suggest something as slick as "saving four million jobs."

Remarkably, Obama managed to ram that one through Congress without a single Democrat claiming to have read it.

As for his cabinet, a long list of Obama nominees agreed to pay back taxes in return for rubber stamp appointments, including Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who, despite owing more than $40,000 now oversees the IRS.

Poor nominee Tom Daschle, who in a previous life as Demo Senate Majority Leader proclaimed, "Tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter." He was all but confirmed as HHS Secretary until we learned that he had cheated us out of $130,000 in back taxes. Apparently even Obama's hypocrisy knows some limits.

Obama last fall repeatedly promised to end the practice of special interest earmarks. Then, he signed an appropriations bill with more than 8,000 earmarks, including $2 billion for House Appropriations Chairman David Obey's lobbyist son's projects, $3.7 billion for contracts to Sen. Diane Feinstein's husband's company, and $4.19 billion for Obama's favorite voter fraud outfit, ACORN.

When the pork-laden bill passed, Obama had the audacity to proclaim, "I'm proud that we passed a recovery plan free of earmarks."

Obama also converted the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation into instruments for nationalizing the banking system.

Under the pretense of responding to "global warming," Obama has plans to impose almost $2 trillion in cap-and-tax energy taxes -- this despite his oft-repeated pledge that 95 percent of Americans wouldn't see their taxes increased.

Obama's $3.5 trillion 2010 budget includes projections for more than $9 trillion in near-term increases of national debt. Feigning fiscal integrity, Obama demanded budget cuts of $100 million -- which is to say that even while obscenely expanding the size of government, he targeted some spending that was out of line with his ideology. For the record, $100 million represents three one-thousandths of one percent of Obama's FY 2010 budget, or approximately what the central government redistributes every 13 minutes of every hour of every day of every week of...

Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw also offered some perspective on this $100 million spending cut, noting that it's the equivalent of a family with a $100,000 income cutting a $3 latte from their budget.

Of Obama's budget, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi exclaimed, "[F]or the first time in many, many years, we have a president's budget ... that is a statement of our national values. ... It's a very happy day for our country."

Meanwhile, according to The Wall Street Journal, in February, the price of single-family homes in 20 major metropolitan areas fell 18.6 percent from the previous year, after a record 19 percent drop in January.

In the first quarter of 2009, the U.S. economy contracted at a seasonally adjusted 6.1 percent annual rate, and Americans lost more than two million jobs. No doubt Obama's bold and swift action saved four million other jobs.

Perhaps the most dangerous of all the Obama policy shifts, however, is his framing of our foreign policy with atonement for America's past, which he says has been "arrogant," "dismissive" and "derisive." In doing so, he lends credibility to the anti-American attitudes and actions of our enemies.

Some of the most telling examples of Obama's ideology are apparent in the last few of his first hundred days. For example:

Day 97: Obama's White House Military Office appointee, former Clintonista Louis Caldera, authorized a photo shoot of Air Force One over Manhattan, an event which involved the low flight of a large jet plane with two F-16s in pursuit over Ground Zero and points nearby. Because the public wasn't told, many feared another 9/11 attack was in progress.

Indeed, an FAA memo prior to the flight warned of "the possibility of public concern regarding DoD aircraft flying at low altitudes." To which Obama responded, "It, uh, was, uh, a mistake. It, uh, will never, uh, happen again."

The Air Force reported that the flight of the VC-25 (customized Boeing 747) and its two attendant F-16s cost $328,835. However, the actual cost associated with the operation of VC-25 alone, when considering all support and planning for this photo folly, was closer to $775,000 (and who knows how many Al Gore carbon credits had to be purchased to offset this operation).

On the other hand, the one-time purchase of Adobe Photoshop costs around $600.

In January, Obama chastised private sector executives for using corporate jets to commute, most of which cost $3-$5 thousand per hour to operate. The plane we taxpayers fund for Obama costs $260,000 per hour to operate, and Monday, it was cruising around without him.

Day 98: Obama's EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, in an NPR interview about Obama's Orwellian cap-and-tax policy, remarked, "The president has said, and I couldn't agree more, that what this country needs is one single national roadmap that tells automakers, who are trying to become solvent again, what kind of car it is that they need to be designing and building for the American people."

The interviewer asks, "Is that the role of the government? That doesn't sound like free enterprise."

Jackson, obviously in need of her ObamaPrompter, replied, "Well, it, it, it is free enterprise in a way. Um, ah, you know, first and foremost, the free enterprise system has us where we are right this second. And so some would argue that the government has a much larger role to play then we might've when Henry Ford rolled the first cars off the assembly line."

Some might argue that "we are where we are" because government has played "a much larger role since Henry Ford rolled the first cars off the assembly line."

Day 99: After the media fanned the flames about a "swine flu pandemic," Obama warned, "This is obviously a serious situation, serious enough to take the utmost precautions." He then promptly applied his "Rule 1" and asked Congress for $1.5 billion in emergency funding.

Day 100: The Obamaprompter addressed the nation yesterday, and not only did he claim, "We inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. That wasn't me," but once again trotted this one out: "[My recovery act] has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs."

We checked, and Congress sets budgets, the Democrats have controlled the Senate and House for the last two years (which coincides with the housing and financial market collapses) and Obama was in the Senate for two of those years.

รข?¨As for jobs, I am sure that Obama has "saved" all our jobs! Hail Obama! Let's us all bow down to "The One."

House Minority Leader John Boehner correctly surmises, "The president's first 100 days can be summed up in three words: spending, taxing, and borrowing."

Suffice it to say, the list is as long as it is absurd, and you can bask in a litany of examples we've compiled for your reading displeasure at "The First Hundred Days."

As for "peaceful revolutions," John F. Kennedy declared in 1962, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

I would argue this case: "Those who undermine our republican rule of law make violent revolution inevitable."

To that end, there is some good news on the "checks and balances" front, though some may find this a bit disconcerting.

There are now more than 65 million gun-owning Patriots across this nation, many of whom have taken sacred oaths "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

We stand ready to honor that oath, understanding that, in the words of John Adams, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

And the ranks of Patriots are growing.

In the last three months of 2008, Americans bought enough guns to arm the national armies of both China and India -- a total of 12.7 million guns last year. Gun sales in the first three months of 2009 were 27 percent higher year-over-year than the first three months of 2008 (which also recorded record sales).

Perhaps all these gun purchases are coincidental, not consequential. But I doubt it. As Americans begin to awaken to the reality of Obama's Socialist agenda, it will be interesting to see how his next 1,361 days unfold.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin was asked if the delegates had formed a republic or a monarchy. "A republic," he responded, "if you can keep it."

We will see.

by Lamar Alexander
30 April 09

Quote of the Week

"There's something very curious -- even laughable -- about watching the media assemble to offer President Obama a grade after the first 100 days. They weren't exactly a team of dispassionate scientists in a lab. They continue to be what they've been all along -- a rolling gaggle of Obama cheerleaders -- only before it was a campaign, and now it's an administration. So now they're assessing whether their awe-inspiring historic candidate still glows with the luster of victory. Hmm ... let's see. They applied the luster, they boasted of the luster, and you can bet your bottom dollar they'll continue doing both. ... After 100 days, the media still look more like the president's advertising team than the people's watchdog." --Media Research Center president Brent Bozell

On Cross-Examination

"Barack Obama is the frivolous man who concocted his own presidential-looking Great Seal before he was elected. An ego big enough to publicly display a ridiculous 'Vero Possumus' ('Yes, we can' in Latin) motto and a regal eagle with the Obama campaign logo emblazoned on its chest is an ego capable of far more reckless things. Obama orchestrated a grand photo-op in Berlin, Germany, to declare his world citizenship at the Siegessaule -- the Victory Column -- a soaring monument of arrogance championed by Adolf Hitler and Third Reich architect Albert Speer. He manufactured his own Open Temple of The One in Denver for the Democratic National Convention last summer, replete with fake Greek columns." --columnist Michelle Malkin

Open Query

"Obama's very activism these days arrogates to himself the blame for the success or failure of his policies. Their outcome will determine his outcome, and there is no way it will be positive. Why? You can't borrow as much as he will need to without raising interest rates that hurt the economy. The massive amount of spending will trigger runaway inflation once the economy starts to recover. His overhaul of the tax code (still in the planning phases) and his intervention in corporate management will create such business uncertainty that nobody will invest in anything until they see the lay of the land. His bank program is designed to help banks, but not to catalyze consumer lending. And his proposal for securitization of consumer loans won't work and is just what got us into this situation." --political analyst Dick Morris


Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama
is a
because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars).

He is not a Natural Born Citizen
because he was not born of
at the time of his birth.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.

His mother was too young to pass on her US citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.

Check it out:

His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his resignation, his removal
by an amendment to the Constitution
which will never happen.


Abortion rights Catholic
is confirmed HHS Secretary
Two ardent pro-life Catholic Senators vote
to confirm Sebelius - Senator Casey rejects
a request from his Bishop to oppose

The Senate voted 65-31 to confirm Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as President Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services. Just last week Sebelius again denied protection to the unborn when she vetoed a bill that would provide increased regulations on performing late term abortions.
How Did Our Catholic Senators Vote?

Nineteen Catholic Senators supported the Sebelius nomination and six Catholic Senators opposed. Two Catholic senators who are ardently pro-life supported the governor; Senator Sam Brownback and Senator George Voinovich. Senator Brownback announced his support early on which was a surprise and a major disappointment to many in the pro-life movement.

Senator Murkowski, who has a mixed voting record on life issues, voted against Sebelius.

Senator Casey who campaigned in 2006 as pro-life has a voting record on life issues that fluctuates. In January he was publicly admonished by his local ordinary, Bishop Martino, for an anti-life vote opposing an amendment to reinstate the Mexico Policy. In a letter thanking the Senator for his support of a subsequent life issue vote, Bishop Martino called on Senator Casey to oppose Sebelius as HHS Secretary expressing the following concern:

As you must be aware, Governor Sebelius is one of the most militant pro-abortion politicians in the country. She has voted several times against her own legislature in their efforts to prevent late-term abortions. As secretary of HHS, she will be in the position to advance the cause of making abortion a “basic health care service.” This will mean that physicians, nurses and health care institutions will be required to provide abortion even when conscience forbids them to do so. The protection of the right to refuse abortion is essential to the continuation of Catholic health care. Finally, I join Archbishop Naumann in his concern for the spiritual wellbeing of Governor Sebelius and so many other Catholic politicians who support legalized abortion contrary to the clear and consistent teaching of the Catholic Church.

Senator Casey did not heed the request of his local Ordinary. In a statement released by the Scranton Diocese regarding Sen. Casey's vote, Bishop Martino said he was "deeply disappointed." It went on to say that the Bishop would continue to monitor Senator Casey's positions and "if necessary future determinations will be made regarding whether Sen. Casey is worthy to receive Holy Communion. However, at this point Bishop Martino believes it is incumbent upon Sen. Casey to reflect on his actions and ask himself if he should receive the sacrament."

Sebelius' confirmation hearing had been stalled due to a report that she was not forthcoming on her relationship with late term abortionist Dr. George Tiller. The AP revealed that Governor Sebelius underreported the campaign money she had received from the abortionist and the pro-life organization Operation Rescue released a document showiing Dr. Tiller contributed $200,000 to defeat Kathleen Sebelius’ challenger in the 2002 Kansas gubernatorial race.

A strong effort by the pro-life community and conservative family groups to defeat the nomination was met by an equally strong effort on behalf of abortion rights groups. NARAL claimed responsibility for 22,000 messages to senators.

Gov. Sebelius' local Ordinary, Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, concerned about another high profile pro-abortion rights Catholic, made the following comments in an interview with Our Sunday Visitor when her nomination was first announced:

"...I think from the church’s point of view, it’s sad because it places another high-profile, pro-abortion Catholic into national leadership along with Vice President (Joe) Biden and Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi and a raft of others that are in the Congress. And so I think it makes our job as bishops more challenging, because we have to be even more clear that this is not acceptable for a person in public service to say that they are Catholic and then to support these policies that are anti-life, you know go against the most fundamental of all human rights, the preservation of innocent life."

Fr. Euteneuer, President of HLI made the following statment on the Sebelius nomination and Senator Brownback's decision to support her:

The situation is atrocious. An extremist abortion hack (called the most pro-abortion governor in the nation by many), who falsely calls herself "Catholic," is given the opportunity to preside over the nation's healthcare system and normalize abortion even further; this radical is then endorsed by a US senator who also calls himself "Catholic" and who, many believe, wants her job back home when she becomes the abortion queen in DC.

As Secretary of Health and Human Services, Sebelius will no doubt advance abortion rights, and affect policy on conscience protection, embryonic stem cell research and end of life decisions.

Voting Results: On the Nomination (Confirmation Kathleen Sebelius, of Kansas, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services )
Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Not Voting Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska: Begich (D-AK), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Bennet (D-CO), Yea Udall (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Carper (D-DE), Yea Kaufman (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho: Crapo (R-ID), Nay Risch (R-ID), Nay
Illinois: Burris (D-IL), Yea Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Nay Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota: Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Nay Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Johanns (R-NE), Nay Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Nay Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Udall (D-NM), Yea
New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Nay Hagan (D-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Oregon: Merkley (D-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Nay Graham (R-SC), Nay
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Nay
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Nay Corker (R-TN), Nay
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Virginia: Warner (D-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Enzi (R-WY), Nay
30 April 09


Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama
is a
because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars).

He is not a Natural Born Citizen
because he was not born of
at the time of his birth.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.

His mother was too young to pass on her US citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.

Check it out:

His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his resignation, his removal
by an amendment to the Constitution
which will never happen.


Peace Palace, seat of the ICJ.

Org type

Principal Organ
Acronyms ICJ, CIJ
Head President of the ICJ

Hisashi Owada

Status Active
Established 1945

No era is immune to silliness.
We laugh at the silliness of other ages
but are mostly blind to our own.
It will be the task of future Americans
—assuming any future Americans—
to laugh at the age in which we live.
It is not at all an exaggeration to say
that we moderns are infected with
the greatest superstitions ever conceived.

Many of these errors are part of what we call conventional wisdom; that is, they are believed without question in some form or other by most folks. Those who challenge these wisdoms are viewed as fools or demons or idiots, beneath contempt and beyond the pale—and often suffer professionally or personally for their views. This is especially true for those who criticize Environmentalism and Evolution. These wisdoms are taught in schools, paraded in public and receive government funding. They are part of the established dogma of our time. Most are logically inconsistent and philosophically incoherent.

Here are the most popular errors of our time in no particular order of importance:

Environmentalism: This is actually a religion of sorts, rather a cheap rehash of Babylonian nature worship mixed in with a poor understanding of both the laws of physics and economics. The believers certainly act as if it is a religion, and respond accordingly if their dogmas are questioned. They have been remarkably successful in getting their programs instituted in public schools and their ideas in the media. Hapless middle schoolers around the US engage in recycling, separating trash and cleaning vacant lots, all under the approving eye of their teacher, himself an addled product of such indoctrination. While our kids pick up trash, the Korean kids study math.

Just for fun, ask one of these educators for evidence, say, that recycling actually does what it is supposed to do—save energy, for example—and he will look at you as if you had asked for proof that the world is round. Continue asking for evidence and—I assure you—he will get angry. It would be as if you had questioned his religion, which of course you had.

And for even more fun, check out the claims made by all these eco-types over the past 30 years, everything from population bombs to mass famines to shortages of resources to the disappearing rain forest. None have come true, alas! But this does not stop them. True believers, they carry on in the face of logic and economics.

Global Warming: This is a subset of environmentalism. Practitioners of this silliness weave scary stories of melting ice caps and flooded islands and endangered polar bears so as to frighten children. It is spoken of as if it is a real and present danger to the world. It is presented in schools as if all scientists believe it to be true. This is hardly the case, as any research will show. The global warming types claim to believe that they can predict the world’s climate one hundred years down the road, yet real meteorologists who deal with the real world find it hard to predict the weather from one day to the other.

Population Explosion: Another subset. This is just dusted-off Malthus. The theory is beguiling in its simplicity: population growth will outgrow available resources, thus leading to famines. This theory is true for deer and rabbits but hardly for humans. The believers in this intellectual mess have a rather dim view of their fellow man, who to them is only one more mouth to feed. They ignore that man also has a brain and two hands. This is why these types support population control through condom distributions, abortions, euthanasia and sterilizations. The end result is a hatred for man, which is why those most deeply committed to this stupidity fantasize about a world where all humans have been extinguished.

If their doctrines were true, that too many people leads to poverty, then the most crowded places on the planet would also be the most poor. Sadly for them, the most crowded places are also the wealthiest: Hong Kong, Manhattan, Tokyo-Osaka. More sadness for them, the areas of the world near bereft of humanity are the poorest: Angola, the Congo (or whatever name it goes by this week), Bolivia. It is thus logically coherent to conclude that the more people there are, the more wealth creation there is, as long as there is also capitalism—which is why Mexico City is both packed and poor.

Evolution: This is another religion, and is recognized as such by its more intelligent proselytizers. (Please see The Humanist Manifesto for complete details.) It has been even more successful than environmentalism in gaining acceptance as conventional wisdom. Like environmentalism, it is hammered into the heads of students from elementary to college. No dissenting views are allowed, for any one who speaks against evolution must be—incredible as it sounds in this day and age!—a Christian, or worse, a Fundamentalist version of the same.

The only thing wrong with evolution is that there is little evidence for it. Before you faint, please recall that the late Stephen Jay Gould, the worlds’ pre-eminent evolutionist, recognized this problem. He said that it was “evolution’s little secret.” After all, he should know. Simply stated, the evidence in the fossil layers does not bear out the extravagant claims made by the avatars of evolution. Rather than showing one species becoming another, the record shows the opposite: legions of animals that exist no more, a fantastic zoo of trilobites and mastodons and archaeopteryxes. The fossil record shows extinction, not creation.

Rather than admit error, evolutionists came up with an idea that washes away this lack of evidence. It is called ‘punctuated equilibrium.’ Simply put, they imagine that new species evolved from old ones too suddenly to leave any sign in fossils. That is, the lack of evidence is the evidence. Clever boys!

The total amount of fossil ‘evidence’ as presented by evolutionists would scarcely take up the space on a pool table. Evolutionists and their scholarly brethren, anthropologists go wild with glee when they find a tooth in some God-forsaken African valley. They will spin fanciful tales about the creature whose mouth was once adorned by this tooth. They conjure up lifestyles, settlement patterns, food preferences, mating habits, use of artifacts and on and on. They will hire an artist to design a mouth, then a cranium, then an entire skeletal system for our creature. His picture will be fleshed out with imaginary flesh and the artist will show our creature shambling about amid a background complete with smoking volcanoes and ambling mammoths. Both this and his ‘biography’ will now be published in academic journals, and shazaam!—another Australopithecus is born!

Would you believe it if I told you that both high school and college biology textbooks are loaded with so-called proofs for evolution—tales of peppered moths, Trees of Life, Haeckel’s Embryos—that are false and known to be false even by the evolutionists?

Socialism: This is really just sloppy thinking and gooey sentimentalism. It professes a charming faith in the benevolence of government and human nature. Its basic premise is that citizens are too stupid to spend their wages intelligently, and so the government will have to seize most of it to provide things such as housing, food, education, health care, clothing and retirement. Thus, high taxes to the rescue of an ignorant citizenry. This is the position of the Democrat Party today.

Alas, the evidence of a wise and all-knowing government is sorely lacking in the annals of history. Governments do not create wealth, they either redistribute it or waste it. High taxes destroy taxpayers’ incentive to work. Thus such regimes always exhibit low levels of productivity. Less productivity means fewer taxes to gather. Fewer taxes to gather means less income for government. Less income for government means taxes must be raised to support government programs. Higher taxes means less productivity…and so on.

Those among us who are enamored with socialism forget that all the promises made by socialist governments to their citizens have been supplied for countless millennia to both prisoners and slaves.

Communism: This is a true religion. It has an eschatology, saints, relics, holy days, holy texts, sacred ceremonies and a variety of cult practices. It is really what Marx called “scientific socialism” to distinguish it from its watery cousin. Scientific, because Marx claimed to have discovered that behind all of History lay economics. Marx used Hegel’s dialectic, mixed it with his journalistic writings, tossed in some Ricardo and added his complete misunderstanding of wealth creation to come up with The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. Never mind that every prediction Marx made has been false, his theory had an incredible run of success from 1917 until today. The reason is that it provides a superb and efficient method for any ruthless class of men to seize power in any state. No political system is immune to this, not even ours. This explains the coming to power of Obama, a true believer if their ever was one.

Communism absolutely hates private property and competing religions, which is why the first things communists do when they gain control of a state is to seize all ownership of production and to imprison priests, pastors and rabbis. It moves on to regarding its citizens as chattel to be used by the government at its discretion. If its subjects do not wish to be treated as such, there are prisons and gulags to be built and then filled with the recalcitrant. Thus are the essentials of a police state created.

Otherwise reasonable people find themselves saying silly things about communism, such as: “Well, communism is a fine theory, it just has not been applied in the right way.” It other words, it fails every time it is tried. There is a word to describe such a theory: false.

No one outside of the Spartans and members of Plato’s Republic would ever live in such a nightmare, so the subjects have a nasty habit of getting the Hell out if they can. They have always in the past come to the US, but as we ourselves are sinking into a communist morass of tyranny and idiocy, there will be no place on earth free from some form of this madness.

Democracy: This is wildly misunderstood even—especially—by the chattering classes of the world. It means “rule by the people,” and can be either in pure form, as Athens was, or in diluted form, as the US is. Most moderns use it in the Athenian form, which is really nothing more dramatic than majority rule. Thus 51 percent of the citizenry can vote to enslave the other 49 percent. This soon devolves into anarchy and thence into civil war and thence into dictatorship.

In 5600 years of history democracy has been around for only about 400 of them. We moderns prattle on that democracy is suitable for every nation on earth, but such a belief is absurd. In Africa democracy has been a complete sham, resulting in “one man, one vote, one time,” and has brought to power those most talented in murder and rapine. Most Latin American democracies are really oligarchic kleptocracies run through and through by mercantilist fantasies—Argentina for example—and ruled by prancing buffoons and medal-festooned felons—Argentina for example. Churchill said that “democracy was the worst form of government—except for all the others.” As such democracy is the best that fallen man can hope for in this world, alas. Recall that Jesus calls us to enter His Kingdom, not His parliament.

All of these errors share a common cause, and that is modern man’s flight from Reason. No such abandonment of rationality could have occurred without an abandonment of Revelation preceding it. We think the Supernatural fanciful, and are thus led to place all our bets upon the natural. This soon becomes a reliance upon man himself to supply all our needs and dispel all our fears and solve all our difficulties. One look at the direction of our own government points this out in magnificent clarity.

The result of our modern age descending into madness will be nothing more exotic than the sort of world government so desired by the avatars of all those errors above. Already these ideas have hold of all our governing and intellectual classes. These creatures are working feverishly to impose their own illnesses upon all of humanity through the mechanism of a global state.

Given enough time and provided with no opposition, they will succeed.

Update: Donald Sensing writes of what lies behind environmentalism. It is a not a pretty read. It was not meant to be.

At bottom, modern environmentalism has discarded scientific rigor to embrace something not much different than Leninism, the desire to control the major components of the way individuals live. From there it is a short step for environmentalism to Leninism’s successor: Stalinism, the desire to control every aspect of the way we live. That’s our future, minus the gulags. We hope.

When has Stalinism not led to gulags?
Errors Of The Age
April 29th, 2009


"We have heard of the impious doctrine in the old world, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the new, in another shape -- that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object."

--James Madison, Federalist No. 45


Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama
is a
because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars).

He is not a Natural Born Citizen
because he was not born of
at the time of his birth.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.

His mother was too young to pass on her US citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.

Check it out:

His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his resignation, his removal
by an amendment to the Constitution
which will never happen.


If there is one thing to be learned
from the debate over President Barack Obama’s
$789 billion stimulus bill,
it is that calling legislation a “compromise”
does not actually make it a compromise.
Of course, that doesn’t stop Republican Sens. Arlen Specter, Pa., Olympia Snowe, Maine, and Susan Collins, Maine,
from running around town calling it as much.

In mid-February, these three “moderate” Republicans joined with their Democratic colleagues in pushing Obama’s stimulus package through Congress. While they touted the bill as a compromise, the final version changed little from the original.

Defending his support for the bill, Specter cited President John Kennedy, who used to say, “In politics, nobody gets everything, nobody gets nothing and everybody gets something.” But the final stimulus bill did not fit Kennedy’s description of a compromise. Looking at the final bill, one has to ask: What did Democrats sacrifice? And what did Republicans get? Most importantly, what are the American taxpayers who will be footing this bill receiving in the alleged negotiation process?

The answer: not much. The bill Obama signed to the “oohs” and “ahhs” of the adoring media remains as fundamentally fl awed as the preceding versions. While Congress shaved off several billion dollars in conference, $789 billion is still a hefty price tag, especially when the country is already burdened by $10.8 trillion in national debt. Like the House and Senate bills, the final bill was stuffed with wasteful projects that don’t have anything to do with stimulating the economy and with programs to further the Democrats’ welfare wish list. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel admitted as much. Early in the stimulus debate, he said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Nor are the tax cuts in the stimulus the kind of pro-growth tax cuts the country’s economy needs right now. Instead of cutting marginal income tax rates or corporate taxes to encourage production and work, the stimulus provides tax credits. To add insult to injury, some of these credits are not even tax cuts at all. They are refundable tax cuts—checks cut to people who don’t pay federal income taxes. There’s a word for that in the dictionary, and it’s not tax cuts. It’s called spending.

In the end, the support from the three “moderates” was crucial to passing the stimulus bill. Because of Sen. Ted Kennedy’s absence, the GOP needed only one more Senate vote to mount a sustainable filibuster. Had even one of the apostates stood strong, Republicans would have been able to fashion a genuine compromise bill.

After all, without the votes in the Senate, President Obama and congressional Democrats would have been forced to go back to the drawing board and actually listen to Republicans. A true compromise would have certainly included plenty of wasteful spending, but it would have also included tax cuts that would actually help our economic recovery. Instead, Specter, Snowe and Collins snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Republicans might be in the minority, but that doesn’t mean they have to be completely powerless. It doesn’t mean they have to relinquish the country’s economy to a left-wing agenda. But in order to protect American taxpayers, Republican leadership in the Senate will have to make sure the so-called moderates don’t wander off the reservation every time Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., comes calling.

The stimulus bill was only the first test of the Republican unity in Congress. President Obama has since announced a bailout of the housing industry and is already talking about the prospect of a second stimulus bill. We also have “card check” and cap-and trade legislation to look forward to in the coming months. And don’t forget Obama’s big plans to remake our health care system in Europe’s image.

The Republican Party’s ability to mount a filibuster is its only weapon in seeking true compromises with the Obama administration. Throughout the campaign trail, the president talked about bipartisanship and change. The Republican Party cannot suffer defectors if it wants to make Obama live up to his campaign pledges.

If the GOP cannot unite, then the stimulus bill will not be the only defeat Republicans will snatch away from the Democrats.
Those Republican Apostates
by Pat Toomey
President, Club for Growth
Wednesday, April 29, 2009


Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama
is a
because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars).

He is not a Natural Born Citizen
because he was not born of
at the time of his birth.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.

His mother was too young to pass on her US citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.

Check it out:

His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his resignation, his removal
by an amendment to the Constitution
which will never happen.



ON EARTH DAY last week,
Consumer Reports offered some recommendations to motorists
looking for ways to make "greener automotive choices."
At the top of its list: "drive a more fuel-efficient car or SUV."

Consumer Reports wasn't the only one making that suggestion.

* In his Earth Day proclamation, President Obama advised Americans to "drive fuel-efficient cars" and stressed his own commitment "to increasing fuel economy standards" as part of a campaign to "reduce greenhouse gases" and "lessen our dependence on foreign oil." To underscore the point, US automakers were invited to exhibit fuel-efficient vehicles on the White House grounds.

* The editors of National Geographic, fielding questions online, heard from one reader troubled by the fact that "transportation is our largest consumer of oil and thus our largest emitter of carbon." Editor Dennis Dimick replied that "buying and driving cars that get better fuel efficiency can only help" in cutting US fuel consumption, along with "driving less and using mass transit more."

* At the Huffington Post website, prolific commenter Philip Taylor listed what he called "the equations of conservation," including this one: Autos [Get] 40-65 MPG = Oil Demand Goes Way Down = Oil Prices Go Down.

* NASCAR announced that a Toyota Camry Hybrid would be the pace car for the Coca-Cola 600 at Lowe's Motor Speedway next month. "I'd prefer a stock car, knowing how exciting it is to hear the engine roar," said driver Denny Hamlin, "but I think NASCAR drivers are embracing the green outlook of hybrids."

▪ ▪ ▪

It seems intuitive: Increasing the fuel-efficiency of automobiles -- or anything else that runs on gas -- should lower the demand for oil. If one driver can cut his consumption of gasoline by switching to a higher-mileage vehicle, doesn't it stand to reason that getting millions of drivers to make the switch would sharply reduce the nation's appetite for oil?

It was with precisely that expectation that Congress enacted the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in 1975, following the Arab oil embargo. At the time, US oil imports amounted to a little more than one-third of consumption. Today we import two-thirds. After more than three decades of CAFE standards, intensified environmental awareness, and steady improvements in fuel efficiency and engine technology, America's demand for oil is greater than ever. In 1975, highway fuel consumption amounted to 109 billion gallons, according to the Federal Highway Administration. By 2006 it had climbed to 175 billion.

"It seems obvious that rising efficiency in cars, furnaces, and lawn mowers should, in the aggregate, significantly curb demand for energy," write Peter Huber and Mark Mills in The Bottomless Well, their perceptive 2005 book on the supply, demand, and pricing of energy. "Sad to say, however . . . efficiency doesn't lower demand, it raises it."

Why? Because improvements in fuel economy are tantamount to making fuel less expensive, and when costs fall, demand tends to rise. As driving has grown cheaper in recent decades, people have done more of it -- choosing to drive to work instead of taking the bus, for example, or buying a second car, or moving to a house requiring a longer commute, or sending the kids to college with cars of their own. Between 1983 and 2001, data from the Energy Information Administration show, the annual amount of driving by the average American household rose from 16,800 vehicle-miles to more than 23,000.

"Efficiency may curtail demand in the short term, for the specific task at hand," Huber and Mills acknowledge. "But its long-term impact is just the opposite. When steam-powered plants, jet turbines, car engines, light bulbs, electric motors, air conditioners, and computers were much less efficient than today, they also consumed much less energy. The more efficient they grew, the more of them we built, and the more we used them -- and the more energy they consumed over all."

This counterintuitive phenomenon -- greater efficiency leads to greater consumption -- is sometimes called the Jevons Paradox, after the 19th-century mathematician who first articulated it. In his 1865 book, The Coal Question, Jevons explained that more efficient use of coal would increase -- not decrease -- the demand for coal. "It is a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption," he wrote. "The very contrary is the truth."

Does this mean you shouldn't drive a more fuel-efficient automobile? Not at all: If you crave better mileage or you want to make an environmental statement or you think a hybrid can save you money, by all means get a more efficient car. Just don't expect to see fuel consumption decrease. New technology is often wondrous, but that's one miracle it can't perform.
The efficiency paradox
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
April 29, 2009
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)


Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama
is a
because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars).

He is not a Natural Born Citizen
because he was not born of
at the time of his birth.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.

His mother was too young to pass on her US citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.

Check it out:

His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his resignation, his removal
by an amendment to the Constitution
which will never happen.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009


Barack Hussein Obama
is a closet Muslim.

His father was a Muslim.

His step-father was a Muslim.

He was a student in a Mosque in Indonesia.

He visited Muslim Pakistan on an Indonesian passport.

Until he offers proof to the contrary, it is probable
that he attended Occidental College in California
as a foreign Muslim student.

He remained a Muslim until his mentors in Chicago and Columbia University began grooming him for his entrance into elected political office.

Knowing that his political career would only go just so far if
he remained a Muslim, he became a member of the Christian
Church in Chicago the pastor of which was Jeremiah Wright.

The 'gospel' preached in that Church was not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it was the gospel of hatred for America typified by the speechs of
Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan.

Louis Farrakhan

Born May 11, 1933 (1933-05-11) (age 75)
The Bronx, New York
Occupation Head of the Nation of Islam
Religious beliefs Nation of Islam
Spouse(s) Khadijah Farrakhan
Children Mustapha Farrakhan

As the elected president of the United States he bowed
to the King of Saudi Arabia, protector of Mecca and Medina,
the holiest shrines of Muslims. Only a muslim would
bow to the King of Saudi Arabia.

When, on his European trip he visited Turkey, he unbelievably
told the Turkish Parliament that America and the West are
deeply indebted to Islam for its contributions to our culture.

Before he recently spoke at Georgetown University his staff required the University to remove all Christian symbols from the stage where he would speak.

Because Muslims revere Mary as holy he has agreed to wear the speaker's gown decorated with her image at the Notre Dame commencement,
but he surely would not have agreed if the gown was decorated with symbols of Christ.

He has nominated for a Federal judgeship Judge Hamilton who recently issued an injuction ordering that in public prayers at governmental functions the name of Jesus Christ could not be mentioned, but that it was ok to mention the name: ALLAH.

If you want to look into the future of the United States
after four/eight years under
watch this video:


Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama
is a
because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars).

He is not a Natural Born Citizen
because he was not born of
at the time of his birth.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.

His mother was too young to pass on her US citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.

Check it out:

His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his resignation, his removal
by an amendment to the Constitution
which will never happen.



Headline: Senator Arlen Spector leaves GOP.

Better Headline: Senator Awful Spectre
Follows the Money.

In his public appearances yesterday Senator Awful Spectre repeatedly said that in switching from the Republican to the Democrat Party he was
"just following his conscience."

It would have been more accurate for him to have admitted that he is just following the money.
The Democrats have TRILLIONS of tax dollars
to throw away (it will soon be QUADRILLIONS).

He broke ranks with the Republicans and voted for the 700+ billion dollar stimulus bill which neither he nor any other senator had had an opportunity to read before voting for it.

He began his political career 30 years ago as a Democrat but when he saw power of the Reagan tide, he switched and joined the Republicans.
Now, seeing the power of the Obama tide,
he has switched and joined the Democrats.

It is obvious that he lacks personal integrity.

His switching Parties lends validity to Harry Truman's wise observation that there is no difference between
Congress and a brothel.

Please God, Pat Toomey will be elected Senator from Pennsylvania to succeed the Awful Spectre.
Here is Pat Toomey's statement:


Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party
has implications on a personal and national scale.

For Pennsylvanians,
who must decide who will represent us in the U.S. Senate next year, the stakes are personal.
A central question will be whether Mr. Specter can be trusted on anything.

In recent weeks, Mr. Specter has made numerous statements about how important it is to deny Democrats the 60th seat in the U.S. Senate and how he intended to remain a Republican to prevent one-party dominance in Washington. What Pennsylvanians have to ask themselves now is whether Mr. Specter is, in fact, devoted to any principle other than his own re-election.

On that question, there is much evidence. Mr. Specter began his political career as a Democrat, switched to the Republican side out of political convenience and has switched back for the same reason. On issue after issue, he has changed his position over the years to benefit his political calculations.

The most recent example is card check, which denies workers a secret ballot in labor-union elections. First Mr. Specter supported it, then he opposed it when faced with Republican primary opposition, and now, who knows? That's something Pennsylvania Democrats will have to contend with. Do they really want to nominate someone who will switch his principles on a dime?

If Mr. Specter's political expediency were only a personal matter, it would hardly be worth noting. However, the national implications are more serious. By switching parties, Mr. Specter guarantees the very thing he has vocally warned against: a one-party Democratic monopoly of the federal government.

Just a few months ago, Mr. Specter said avoiding one-party dominance was vital for our country. He was right then. Unfortunately, his desire for political self-preservation trumped his previously stated view of the vital interests of our country.

But Pennsylvania voters will have the ability to correct this situation in next year's election. I believe the Democratic Congress' reaction to the current recession has brought our country to a crossroads. On one path, we have the most massive growth in federal spending in our nation's history. The biggest debt in history. Taxpayer-funded bailouts of failed Wall Street firms and Detroit automakers, the likes of which we have never before seen. And the promise of massive tax increases next year.

Mr. Specter, of course, voted in favor of all of this when he was still a Republican, so in that sense, not much will change. But he will embolden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to take our country even further down the road to a European-style welfare state.

The other path is more familiar to Americans. It is the path of limited government, free enterprise and personal responsibility, which have been the hallmarks of America's success for generations. That is the path that will lead us to economic recovery. It is the path I will advocate in my campaign for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania.

I do not believe that the rejection of the Republican Party in the 2006 and 2008 elections was a rejection of those principles. Rather, too many Republicans in Washington became enamored with, and indeed corrupted by, big government. After all, the "Bridge to Nowhere" was a Republican-sponsored earmark.

Voters threw the Republicans out of Congress because they didn't like the Republicans' performance. And there was much to dislike.

Unfortunately, the pendulum has swung much too far in the other direction, with record-shattering wasteful spending increases. Now, the Specter-empowered Democratic supermajority will go even further.

In 2010, voters will say "Enough is enough." In the parlance of economics, there will be a "market correction." Americans who voted for the nice-sounding but content-free notion of "change" in 2008 will vote again to say "not so fast; even more power in the hands of Washington politicians is not the change we had in mind." And when Pennsylvanians look at Arlen Specter's role in this political power grab, they will reject him, too.
by Pat Toomey
29 April 09
Pat Toomey is a former Republican member of the House of Representatives and is a candidate for his party's nomination to the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania.


"In finally abandoning the Republican Party, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter showed his true colors not just ideologically, but personally. It's all about the liberal Specter maximizing his own power. The climax Tuesday of Arlen Specter's long, drawn-out betrayal of his party may seem like it came out of nowhere -- especially since it was only last month that he said he'd seek re-election as a Republican. But why be shocked when a hardened Machiavellian does what comes naturally after doing the math? As a Democrat, Sen. Specter will now be Washington's king power broker, since he is poised to be the 60th vote for Democrats in the U.S. Senate, constituting a filibuster-proof majority at a time when the federal government is undergoing an unprecedented expansion in size and power. No one is falling for Specter's hand-wringing rationale that "since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right." He was just as uncomfortable with Reaganism back then as he is now, all along relishing his role as RINO -- Republican In Name Only -- whose vote was up for sale. ... As vote No. 60 in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body (assuming vote No. 59 belongs to comedian Al Franken of Minnesota), Specter will be owed an incalculable debt by congressional Democrats and President Obama. There will be no threats of party discipline against him on the occasions when he votes with Republicans, no warnings that campaign funds will be kept from him. ... Each and every big vote in the Senate will be a bargaining opportunity for Specter. Riches and favors will be showered upon him for the power he prostitutes. ... Reserve a space for a new addition to history's Rogues' Gallery."
--Investor's Business Daily


Everyone Loves Arlen

To his friends, Arlen Specter is adaptable. "He doesn't suffer from a desperate desire to be popular," the late Thacher Longstreth, who ran for mayor of Philadelphia in the 1970s with Mr. Specter as his campaign manager, said once. "He suffers from a desperate desire to be elected."

To his critics, Mr. Specter is a rank opportunist. His party switch yesterday was a shock to few. After all, he was a Democrat until age 35. He only became a Republican in 1965 when the Democratic machine in Philadelphia turned down his request that he be nominated for district attorney. The GOP nomination was his for the asking, but he also covered his bases: He changed his party registration only after he had won.

Mr. Specter finds such tactical nimbleness useful because his personality is so notoriously off-putting, leading him to be dubbed by various Senate colleagues as "Snarlin' Arlen" or "The Arlenator." Mr. Specter himself has recognized his deficit in human relations. After he once narrowly lost a race for mayor of Philadelphia, a friend advised him that he needed more warmth. "Okay, I'll get some," he replied.

-- John Fund

Specter Dancing on the Head of a Pin

In 2001, Arlen Specter took a dim view of senators who switched parties. In fact, he proposed banning senators from engaging in the practice if their move disrupted the Senate.

At the time, the Pennsylvania Senator was chairman of the Veteran's Affairs Committee and enjoyed the perks and power of that job. He was therefore furious when his moderate GOP colleague, Jim Jeffords of Vermont, became an independent and began to caucus with the Democrats. The Jeffords move swung control of the closely divided Senate to the Democrats, depriving Mr. Specter of his chairmanship. Yet Mr. Specter's own party switch yesterday brings Democrats to the threshold of the 60 votes they would need to shut off debate on key issues -- potentially having an equally dramatic impact on the country's governance.

After Mr. Jeffords defected from the GOP in 2001, an angry Mr. Specter told colleagues in a floor speech: "I plan to propose a rule change which would preclude a future recurrence of a Senator's change in parties, in midsession, organizing with the opposition, to cause the upheaval which is now resulting." The Pennsylvania senator's efforts were quickly spurned by his colleagues, but his arguments at the time are an ironic commentary on his current party switch.

Mr. Specter told colleagues that when he learned that Mr. Jeffords might switch parties, his reaction was shock: "It shouldn't happen -- it won't happen -- it can't happen. Well, I was wrong." He described in detail the efforts he made to dissuade the Vermont Senator: "We first pleaded with him, saying his change would disrupt the Senate, it would change the balance of power in the Federal Government generally, it would severely weaken the Republican Party -- of which he was a lifelong member -- it would hurt his Senate friends, and likely cause many staffers to lose their jobs."

In his 2001 floor speech, Mr. Specter specifically raised the issue of whether Mr. Jeffords, his close friend, had made any arrangements for special consideration from Democrats in exchange for his switch. He argued that this question had "an ethical context." As for his own view of party switching, Mr. Specter was emphatic. He noted that from his first election to the Senate in 1980, he believed he owed loyalty to the Republican Party that had supported him: "I have believed the organizational vote [to control the Senate] belonged to the party which supported my election."

Mr. Specter was asked about his 2001 statements yesterday and responded that the circumstances regarding the Jeffords party switch and his own were completely different. "My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats than I have been for the Republicans," he said. "Unlike Sen. Jeffords' switch, which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote."

So he says now. We will just have to wait and see if that is indeed the case.

-- John Fund




29 APRIL 09


Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama
is a
because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars).

He is not a Natural Born Citizen
because he was not born of
at the time of his birth.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.

His mother was too young to pass on her US citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.

Check it out:

His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his resignation, his removal
by an amendment to the Constitution
which will never happen.


Monday, April 27, 2009


William McGurn

The precipitate cause of our gathering tonight is the
honor and platform our university has extended to a
President whose policies reflect clear convictions
about unborn life, and about the value the law ought
to place on protecting that life. These convictions are
not in doubt. In July 2007, the candidate spelled them
out in a forceful address to a Planned Parenthood
convention in our nation’s capital.

Before that audience, he declared that a woman’s
“fundamental right” to an abortion was at stake in the
coming election. He spoke about how he had “put
Roe at the center” of his “lesson plan on reproductive
freedom” when he was a professor – and how he
would put it at the center of his agenda as president.
He invoked his record in the Illinois state senate,
where he fought restrictions on abortion, famously
including one on partial-birth abortion. He said that
the “first thing” he wanted to do as President was to
“sign a Freedom of Choice Act.” And he ended by
assuring his audience that “on this fundamental
issue,” he, like they, would never yield.

These were his promises as a candidate. His actions
as President – his key appointments, his judicial
nominees, his lifting of restrictions on federal funding
for abortion providers overseas, the green light given
to the destruction of human embryos for research, his
targeting of “conscience clause” protections for
healthcare workers – all these actions are fully
consistent with his promises. It is precisely this
terrible consistency that makes it so dispiriting to see
our university extend to this man her most public
platform and an honorary doctorate of laws. There
are good men and women working for an America
where every child is welcomed in life and protected by
law – and when they lift their eyes to Notre Dame,
they ought to find inspiration.


In a nation wounded by Roe … in a society that
sets mothers against the children they carry in their
wombs … we come here tonight because however
much our hearts ache, they tell us this: Our church,
our country, and our culture long for the life witness of
Notre Dame.

What does it mean to be a witness? To be a witness,
an institution must order itself so that all who look
upon it see a consonance between its most profound
truths and its most public actions. For a Catholic
university in the 21st century, this requires that those
placed in her most critical leadership positions – on
the faculty, in the administration, on the board of
trustees – share that mission. We must concede
there is no guarantee that the young men and women
who come here to learn will assent to her witness –
but we must never forget that the university will have
failed them if they leave here without at least
understanding it. That is what it means to be a

This witness is the only real reason for a University of
Notre Dame. We believe that there are self-evident
truths about the dignity of each human life, and that
this dignity derives from our having been fashioned in
our Creator’s likeness. In this new century, these
beliefs make us the counterculture. One does not
need to be a Catholic to appreciate that abortion
involves the brutal taking of innocent human life. To
argue that this is a Catholic truth, or even a religious
truth, is to overlook what science and sonograms tell
us – and to insult the Protestants, Jews, Hindus,
Buddhists, Muslims and, yes, even some atheists,
who appreciate that a civilization which sanctions
abortion as a human right is in some essential way
writing its death warrant.

Over the years, the whole idea of truth – much less
our ability to know it – has been rendered doubtful by
the slow advance of a soft agnosticism that has itself
become orthodoxy at so many universities. Not so at
Notre Dame. All across this wondrous campus, we
pass imagery that sings to us about the hope born of
a Jewish woman in a Bethlehem stable. Yet we kid
ourselves if we believe these images are self-
sustaining. Without a witness that keeps these
signposts alive, our crosses, statues, and stained-
glass windows will ultimately fade into historical
curiosities like the “Christo et ecclesiae” that survives
to this day on buildings around Harvard Yard and the
seal that still validates every Harvard degree.

For most of her life, Notre Dame has served as a
symbol of a Catholic community struggling to find
acceptance in America – and yearning to make our
own contributions to this great experiment in ordered
liberty. We identify with those who are poor and
downtrodden and on the margins of acceptance
because that is where the Gospel points – and
because we remember whence came our own
parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents.


For years this university has trumpeted her lay
governance. So what does it say about the Notre
Dame brand of leadership, that in the midst of a
national debate over a decision that speaks to our
Catholic identity, a debate in which thousands of
people across the country are standing up to declare
themselves “yea” or “nay,” our trustees and fellows –
the men and women who bear ultimate responsibility
for this decision – remain as silent as Trappist
monks? At a time when we are told to “engage” and
hold “dialogue,” their timidity thunders across this
campus. And what will history say of our billions in
endowment if the richest Catholic university America
has ever known cannot find it within herself to mount
a public and spirited defense of the most defenseless
among us?

In the past few weeks, we have read more than once
the suggestion that to oppose this year’s speaker and
honorary degree is to elevate politics over the proper
work of a university. In many ways, we might say that
such reasoning lies at the core of the confusion. As
has become clear with America’s debates over the
destruction of embryos for scientific research, over
human cloning, over assisted suicide, and over other
end-of-life issues, abortion as a legal right is less a
single issue than an entire ethic that serves as the
foundation stone for the culture of death.

With the idea that one human being has the right to
take the life of another merely because the other’s life
is inconvenient, our culture elevates into law the
primacy of the strong over the weak. The discord that
this year’s commencement has unleashed – between
Notre Dame and the bishops, between members of
the Notre Dame community, between Notre Dame
and thousands of discouraged Catholic faithful – all
this derives from an approach that for decades has
treated abortion as one issue on a political scorecard.
This is not the road to engagement. This is the route
to incoherence, and we see its fruit everywhere in our
public life.

Twenty-five years ago, on a similar stage on this
campus, the then-governor of New York used his
Notre Dame platform to advance the personally-
opposed-but defense that countless numbers of
Catholic politicians have used to paper over their
surrender to legalized abortion. Eight years after
that, the school bestowed the Laetare Medal on a
United States Senator who had likewise long since
cut his conscience to fit the abortion fashion.

Today we have evolved. Let us note that the present
controversy comes at a moment where the
incoherence of the Catholic witness in American
public life is on view at the highest levels of our
government. Today we have a Catholic vice
president, a Catholic Speaker of the House, a
Catholic nominee for Secretary of Health and Human
Services, and so on. These are America’s most
prominent Catholics. And they have one thing in
common: The assertion that the legal right to
terminate a pregnancy – in the chilling euphemism of
the day – must remain inviolable.

For those who think this a partisan point, let us
stipulate for the record one of the curiosities of the
Republican Party. Notwithstanding the party’s prolife
credentials, at the level of possible Presidential
contenders, the most prominent pro-choice voices in
the GOP arguably belong to Catholics: from the
former Republican mayor and governor of New York,
to the Republican Governor of California, the
Republican former governor of Pennsylvania, and so
on. Notre Dame must recognize these realities – and
the role she has played in bringing us to this day by
treating abortion as a political difference rather than
the intrinsic evil it is.

In his writings, Pope John Paul II noted the awful
contradiction of our times, when more and more legal
codes speak of human rights while making the
freedom to deprive the innocent of their lives one of
those rights. Several times he uses the word
“sinister” to characterize the enshrinement of abortion
as a legal right. And he states that all pleas for other
important human rights are “false and illusory” if we
do not defend with “maximum determination” the
fundamental right to life upon which all other rights


This is not a popular witness. In our country, those
who take it must expect ridicule and derision and a
deliberate distortion of our views. In our culture, so
many of our most powerful and influential institutions
are hostile to any hint that abortion might be an
unsettled question. And in our public life, one of the
most pernicious effects of the imposition of abortion
via the Supreme Court is that it has deprived a free
people of a fair and open debate. Notre Dame
remains one of the few institutions capable of
providing a witness for life in the fullness of its beauty
and intellectual integrity – and America is waiting to
hear her voice.


My friends, the good news is that the witness for life is
alive at Notre Dame. We see this witness in the good
work of teachers here in this room. We see this
witness in the new Notre Dame Fund to Protect
Human Life. I have seen this witness in a very
personal way, on the cold gym floor of a suburban
parochial school on the outskirts of Washington –
where 200-plus students spent a freezing January
night just so they could raise the Notre Dame banner
at the annual March for Life. These are but a handful
of the wonderful things going on at this campus. And
we know that this witness exists too in the other,
unheralded acts of love designed to ensure that the
unwed sophomore who kneels before the Grotto with
an unexpected pregnancy weighing on her mind has
a better choice than the cold front door of a Planned
Parenthood clinic.

Unfortunately, people across this nation – and
perhaps even here at this university – know little of
these things. And they do not know because the
university keeps this lamp under a basket. In her
most public witness, Notre Dame appears afraid to
extend to the cause of the unborn the same
enthusiasm she shows for so many other good works

If, for example, you click onto, you will
often find a link for the Office of Sustainability, which
happily informs you about all the things Notre Dame is
doing to be green-friendly. You will find another link
that defines the university with a series of videos that
ask, “What would you fight for?” Each home game
during the football season, NBC broadcasts one of
these videos. They are more than a dozen of them –
each highlighting members of the Notre Dame
community who are fighting for justice, fighting for
advances in medicine, fighting for new immigrants,
and so forth.

Imagine the witness that Notre Dame might provide
on a Fall afternoon, if millions of Americans who had
sat down to watch a football game suddenly found
themselves face to face with a Notre Dame professor
or student standing up to say, “I fight for the unborn.”

Even more important, imagine the larger witness for
life that would come from putting first things first. So
often we find support for abortion rights measured
against decisions involving war, capital punishment,
and so on. All these issues deserve more serious
treatment. But the debate over these prudential
judgments loses coherence if on the intrinsic evil of
abortion we do not stand on the same ground. What
a challenge Notre Dame would pose to our culture if
she stood united on this proposition: The unborn
belong to no political party … no human right is safe
when their right to life is denied … and we will accept
no calculus of justice that seeks to trade that right to
life for any other.


Tonight I ask our prolifers to open up the dialogue to
your professors and classmates. Invite them in. Say
to them: “Brothers! Sisters! We are not perfect, and
we will be much improved by your participation. We
are holding a place for you on the front lines. Come
join us – and let us walk together in our witness for

I appreciate that for some people, the idea of Notre
Dame as an unequivocal witness for the unborn
would be a limit on her work as a Catholic university.
The truth is just the opposite. The more frank and
forthright Notre Dame’s witness for life, the more she
would be given the benefit of the doubt on the many
judgment calls that the life of a great university
entails. At this hour in our nation’s life, America
thirsts for an alternative to the relativism that leaves
so many of our young people feeling empty and
alone. This alternative is the Catholic witness that
Notre Dame was created to provide … that Notre
Dame is called to provide … and that in many ways,
only Notre Dame can provide.


My young friends, this night I ask you: Make yours
the voice that affirms life and motherhood. Be to
those in need as the words of our alma mater: tender
… strong … and true. And in your every word and
deed, let the world see a reflection of the hope that
led a French-born priest in the north woods of Indiana
to raise Our Lady atop a dome of gold.

God bless you all.


“A Notre Dame Witness for Life”
William McGurn
April 23, 2009

Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture

The Notre Dame Fund to Protect Human Life


April 27, 2009
The Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
University of Notre Dame

Dear Father Jenkins,

When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.

Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.

First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:

• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”

• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.

It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.

Yours Very Truly,

Mary Ann Glendon

[Mary Ann Glendon is Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.
She served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican from 2007 to 2009.]


Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama
is a
because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars).

He is not a Natural Born Citizen
because he was not born of
at the time of his birth.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.

His mother was too young to pass on her US citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.

Check it out:

His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his resignation, his removal
by an amendment to the Constitution
which will never happen.

Sunday, April 26, 2009


In the preceding post, Scipio pointed out that ruling elites and their lackeys in the media have little regard for ordinary people, usually viewing them merely as recipients of government largess. The intolerance that Mark Steyn writes about in this post is illustrative of that. One cannot help but also think of the intolerance of the left-liberals, in and out of the MSM, toward Sarah Palin.


My old editor, Charles Moore,
has a piece in the London Telegraph
on the 30th anniversary of Mrs Thatcher's arrival in Downing Street.
Very pertinent, as Britain regresses to the basket-case Seventies.
But this passage, I think, has relevance to the American elite's view of the current Tea Parties.
Charles quotes the leftie writer Hanif Kureishi's condescending dismissal -
"Thatcher, like the Queen, is basically vulgar" - and adds:

Without having Hanif Kureishi's exalted, exquisite, Nancy-Mitford-style
sensitivity for class distinctions,
I do see that the combination of Mrs Thatcher's beliefs and her social origins (and perhaps also her sex) is toxic for people like him.

People like Mrs Thatcher –
state-educated, lower-middle-class, provincial, female –
were not supposed to question the 1945 state-socialist settlement.
To its architects, such people were of no account.
They were neither poor enough to attract romantic sympathy,
nor grand enough to be entitled to power.
They were expected to know their place.

There's a lot of that in that CNN reporter's
coverage of the Tea Parties:

You'll be getting your $400 Obama "tax credit". So what's your beef? Why don't you know your place?

These people also
are "neither poor enough to attract romantic sympathy,
nor grand enough to be entitled to power".
Which is why the media feel free to sneer.

In the long run, a society can function without Susan Roesgen,
but not without a small-business sector
and a middle-class that's able to retain the fruits of its labors.
by Mark Steyn
25 April 09


Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama
is a
because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars).

He is not a Natural Born Citizen
because he was not born of
at the time of his birth.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.

His mother was too young to pass on her US citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.

Check it out:

His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his resignation, his removal
by an amendment to the Constitution
which will never happen.