Liberal Heads will Explode in the First 100 Days of Obama

Now that Barack Hussein Obama II has been elected as the next President of the United States of American, and the long suffering frustrations of the multitudes of liberal causes been heard, you would think that the left leaning mouth pieces change their election style rhetoric. However, you can't turn on the national news, watch one of the useless talking head shows or read any of the mainstream news rags without having to endure the continuing pathetic chant of how bad things have been for the past eight (8) years (i.e. code word for the Bush administration).

Wake up liberals - YOUR GUY WON!! and NOW, YOU HAVE TO GOVERN.

So, what happened or more important to most of your causes, what didn't happen the past eight (8) years is no longer relevant. The real question before the spellbound liberal crowd is what your new leader is going to do in the next four (4) years. Or, probably of more entertainment value to us sidelined conservative Republicans, is what President Barack Hussein Obama II is going to do in his first one hundred (100) days in office.

Following is my prediction:

1. He will announce that it is impossible to get completely out of Iraq anytime soon.
2. He will announce that he is escalating the war in Afghanistan with 60,00 additional US troops.
3. He will announce that he is going to continue providing military assistance to Israel against Hamas in Gaza.
4. He will announce that he will address the UN and ask that all diplomatic and economic ties with Iran, Syria, Russia and Venezuela be suspended until they cease supporting Hamas efforts against Israel and Al-Qaeda terrorist efforts worldwide.
5. He will announce that he is actually going to ask Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts and push for additional tax cuts across the board in an effort to fuel the economy.
6. He is going to announce that he is no longer in favor of supporting the automobile industry's labor unions in their efforts to blackmail the American taxpayer and is going to announce his support to allowing GM, Chrysler and Ford to go into a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
7. He is going to announce that he is suspending his plans for universal healthcare and instead has asked Ted Kennedy and the Congress to investigate a plan in which "everyone" is going to have to pay something for healthcare.
8. He is going to announce that he is no longer going to back any efforts to use global warming as a hammer against the US economy and is going to opt out of the Kyoto Treaty.
9. He is going to announce that it is now clear that this country can no longer afford the costs of illegal immigration and therefore he is going to start and aggressive deportation plan and also deploy the National Guard to our boarders to shutdown the flow on new illegal immigrants.
10. He is going to announce that starting immediately that all welfare recipients over the age of eighteen (18) or anyone over the ages of thirteen(13) that is unwilling to attend school, will be put on national reconstruction work crews to rebuild our national infrastructure until the economy improves and they can find full time employment in the private sector.
11. He is going to announce that he has instructed Congress to draft and pass a very strict line item veto bill and that until it does so, he will refuse to sign any bill that has any pork whatsoever.
12. He is going to announce that he has instructed Congress to draft and pass a term limitations bill of two (2) terms for US Congress and Senate to encourage our Country to go back to the citizen democracy.
13. He is going to announce that he has instructed Congress to pass a bill that would suspend the minimum wage laws to encourage businesses to hire new employees at a market wage.

In summary, the realities of governing in the real world of 2009 as opposed to being a community organizer in Chicago and campaigning under the protection of the world press with little of no scrutiny, will hit President Barack Hussein Obama II and his new administration with hurricane force winds and leave them with very few opportunities, if any, to payback their eagerly waiting liberal mob.

And, I predict that the "show" will be very entertaining as one liberal head after another explodes in anger. It all starts January 20, 2009. Don't miss it as it will be better than network TV.

Will America be the "Last Man Standing"?

In the past 6 months, it has been natural to get all wrapped up in partisan politics. However, during this time when my fellow Americans and most of the world for that matter is getting ready to celebrate the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, I was once again reminded of what we may may be facing as a nation and as the leaders of the free world in the coming years. And, even though it may be higher taxes and redistribution of wealth and an assault on our Constitution and Christian rights, the most important task that we may face is the loss of our friends and allies in Europe to the onslaught of Islamic Fascism. How we support Europe in this crisis and how we stop this threat from gaining a foot hold in the United States is by far the greatest challenge that we will face over the next 25 years.

Following is the speech of Geert Wilders, chairman Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem.

The speech was sponsored by the Hudson Institute on September 25, 2008.

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, that’s new to me.

It’s great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: “The sky over New York and the will of man made visible.” Of course. Without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality.

My short lecture consists of 4 parts.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome’s ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.

But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see – and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear “whore, whore”. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they “understand” the 9/11 attacks.

Muslims demand what they call ‘respect’. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators “settlers”. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.

Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.

Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah’s personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah’s word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.

The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world – by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.

Quran as Allah’s own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means ‘submission’. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam “the most retrograde force in the world”, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.

Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.

I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.

Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.

A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna.

Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to loose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: “Islam has bloody borders”. Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.

It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a ‘right-wing extremists’ or ‘racists’. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.

This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe’s history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: “the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.”

If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.

Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don’t think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.

Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all smililary-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.

Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe’s last chance.

This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.

This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.

This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks tot its location, it is safe from jihad and shaira. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.

These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:

“Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy”.

Liberals are the Real 21st Century Scrooges

From the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times on December 20, 2008, titled, "Bleeding Heart Tightwads" by Nicholas D. Kristof , it appears that Mr. Kristof reluctantly comes to the conclusion that conservatives have always known - Liberals are the Real 21st Century Scrooges.

The full text of Mr. Kristof's comments are as follows:

This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.

Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.

(Looking away from politics, there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays. Researchers believe that is because they are less likely to have rapacious heirs pushing to keep wealth in the family.)

When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.

It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.

According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

So, you’ve guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.

Of course, given the economic pinch these days, charity isn’t on the top of anyone’s agenda. Yet the financial ability to contribute to charity, and the willingness to do so, are strikingly unrelated. Amazingly, the working poor, who have the least resources, somehow manage to be more generous as a percentage of income than the middle class.

So, even in tough times, there are ways to help. Come on liberals, redeem yourselves, and put your wallets where your hearts are.

Merry Christmas to the 57 Million Conservatives in America

It would be easy for Conservative Americans to wonder what they have to be thankful for in 2008. Our wonderful country has elected a socialist with very little if any executive experience as our next President. We have given Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed even more power in the the US Congress, President Bush and his administration is handing out money and basically nationalizing US industry at a rate that Marx would be proud of, the economic prospects for 2009 and beyond are bleak, the ACLU seems to be winning the war on Christmas and even though we are facing one of the coldest winters in the past 100 years, the Obama administration is planning to place global warming very high on their agenda of issues to address.

However, even in the face of what now appears to be a rejection of conservatism, common sense and overwhelming resistance of all things Christmas, we can't give up on our conservative principles and we can't lose faith in the fact this is still a middle right thinking country. And, most of all, Conservative Americans have plenty to be thankful for.

So, let your faith be your guide and may God bless America like he has always done during this Christmas Season and throughout all of 2009 and beyond.

Barack Hussein Obama's War

If you thought that the Iraqi war was a mess, you haven't seen nothing yet. It was reported today that under the direction of President Barrack Hussein Obama and the Pentagon could double the number of American forces in Afghanistan by next summer to 60,000 - the largest estimate of potential reinforcements ever publicly suggested.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that between 20,000 and 30,000 additional U.S. troops could be sent to Afghanistan to bolster the 31,000 already there.

This year has been the deadliest for U.S. forces in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban for hosting al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Suicide attacks and roadside bombs have become more dangerous, and Taliban fighters have infiltrated wide swaths of countryside and now roam in provinces on Kabul's doorstep.

U.S. commanders have long requested an additional 20,000 troops to aid Canadian and British forces in two provinces just outside Kabul and in the south. But the high end of Mullen's range is the largest number any top U.S. military official has said could be sent to Afghanistan.

Mullen said that increase would include combat forces but also aviation, medical and civilian affairs support troops.

"So some 20,000 to 30,000 is the window of overall increase from where we are right now," he told a news conference at a U.S. base in Kabul. "We certainly have enough forces to be successful in combat, but we haven't had enough forces to hold the territory that we clear."

Overall, there are more than 60,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan. Mullen said any increased U.S. deployment would be directly tied to force levels in Iraq, where U.S. commanders are drawing down troops.

"The Taliban and extremists are more sophisticated and effective," Mullen said. "They haven't won any battles but they certainly have increased the level of violence, and we're very focused on that. That's why the additional forces are so important, to be able to provide security for the Afghan people so these other areas can be developed."

U.S. officials already have plans to send four ground brigades and an aviation brigade to Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has approved the deployment of the aviation brigade, defense officials told The Associated Press. And 10th Mountain Division forces will deploy next month to two provinces that neighbor Kabul - Wardak and Logar, which have seen an influx of militants over the last year.

Mullen said that after the additional U.S. troops are added over the next eight months, only improvements in Afghanistan's governance and economic situation will affect the strength of the insurgency.

But the chairman conceded that the U.S. may have misjudged the central government's ability "to have the kind of impact that we wanted."

Afghanistan, Mullen said, has never been run by a strong central government, and the U.S. may look to communities and tribes in the country's provinces to take on a greater role in future strategy.

He called U.S. goals in Afghanistan "moderate," and said the long-term U.S. vision is for a country that can govern itself while respecting international law, while providing both material and economic security for its people.

United States to Become the "First Underdeveloped Nation"

If you think that the economy has been bad in 2008 and are expecting 2009 to be even worse, you may have no idea how bad it is going to get. Last month, trends forecaster Gerald Celente told Fox News that America will morph into the first "undeveloped" nation of the world by 2012. He said there will be a tax revolution marked by "food riots, squatter rebellion, tax revolts and job marches." He also said by 2012, the holidays will be more about getting food rather than gifts.

Pentagon resources and U.S. troops may be used if needed to quell protests and bank runs during an economic crisis, the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Institute reported.

"Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security," the War College study states.

Incidents of economic collapse, terrorism and disruption of legal order could require deployment of forces within the U.S., it said.

A "strategic shock" could require the nation to use "military force against hostile groups inside the United States."

International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn has warned that advanced nations could face civil unrest during distressful economic times

"[S]ocial unrest may happen in many countries – including advanced economies" if the economic crises are not properly dealt with, Strauss-Kahn said.

He added that violent protests could break out in countries worldwide if the financial system was not restructured to benefit everyone rather than a small elite," London's Guardian reported.

In a recession where consumer spending is plummeting, foreclosures are rampant, workers are losing jobs, credit is tight and markets are strained, some are warning about a worst-case scenario.

According to the Phoenix Business Journal, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson considered the prospect of civil unrest while he pushed for September's Wall Street bailout – even suggesting martial law might be essential.

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Barack Obama's pick for secretary of Homeland Security, would not provide comment to the Business Journal on the possibility of civil unrest during economic crisis. But state and local police indicated that they have trained for such an event.

"The Phoenix Police Department is not expecting any civil unrest at this time, but we always train to prepare for any civil unrest issue. We have a Tactical Response Unit that trains continually and has deployed on many occasions for any potential civil unrest issue," Phoenix Police spokesman Andy Hill said.

"We have well established plans in place for such civil unrest," Scottsdale Police spokesman Mark Clark told the Business Journal.

Maricopa County Sheriff Deputy Chief Dave Trombi concurred: "We're prepared."

Nick Dranias, director of constitutional government at the libertarian Goldwater Institute, told the Phoenix Business Journal declaration of martial law would allow U.S. armed forces to control civilian authorities.

While he said the Posse Comitatus Act limits the military's role in domestic law enforcement, he referenced a 1994 U.S. Defense Department Directive (DODD 3025) that gives military commanders authority during domestic emergencies to "save lives, prevent suffering or mitigate great property damage," according to the report.

"I don't think it's likely," he said. "But it's not impossible."

Who Knew What and When Did They Know It?

With all of the controversy and innuendoes flying around about who may or may not be involved in Blagogate, I think that we should quickly move beyond the local politics of Chicago, immediately convene a congressional hearing and simply take the famous Democratic approach to these types of scandals and ask, "who knew what and when did they know it?".

Then, even if we never really find out who did what or who knew about who was doing what, we can appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and eventually prosecute everyone inolved for purgory and ostruction of justice. And, even if we can't do that, the mere appearance that someone did something should be enough for someone to go to jail?

Further, with the networks cutting back on their programing budgets and since no one willing be working anyway, it would make for great TV to start our Lord Obama's first term and would distract the nation as the economy continues to crumble around us.

The RNC would finally have something to rally around, The DNC could scream right wing conspircacy, the national press could take up the mantle of defense attorney, the evil right wing radio talking heads would have more material then they have had in years and all of the unemployed would have something to watch during the afternoon besides Tom Cruise jumping around on Oprah's stage. Great fun would be had by all!!

The Face of the Obama Whitehouse / Anmial House?

I knew that the Obama campaign was being "manned" by a bunch of young northeast liberal kids or at best northeast liberal wannabes that couldn't afford the northeast education. And, I knew that this past election was more of a game for most of them than about political philosophy (i.e. I hate my parents and I am smater than them, blah, blah, blah).

However, it wasn't until I saw this Animal House picture of Jon Favreau, incoming Obama Whitehouse speech writer, in a blog post by Al Kamen on the washingtonpost.com website, that I realized that some of the immature kids may actually be influencing public policy.

I, like many of the 57 million Americans that voted for John McCain, have tremendous political policy differences with Hillary Clinton. However, very few of us would condone Mr. Favreau's actions. I think that it is time for Barrack to step in, "break this party up" and send all the kids home. I guess that if he doesn't , we all know where he stands. Maybe at the same party just outside the view of this picture?

The full text of Mr. Kamen's post is as follows:

Question No. 58 in the transition team vetting document for the Obama White House asks that applicants: "Please provide the URL address of any websites that feature you in either a personal or professional capacity (e.g. Facebook, My Space, etc.)"

Question No. 63 asks that applicants "please provide any other information ... that could ... be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect."

For a while there this afternoon, President-elect Barack Obama's immensely talented chief speechwriter, 27-year-old Jon Favreau, might have been pondering how to address that question.

That's when some interesting photos of a recent party he attended -- including one where he's dancing with a life-sized cardboard cut-out of secretary of state-designate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and another where he's placed his hand on the cardboard former first lady's chest while a friend is offering her lips a beer -- popped up on Facebook for about two hours. The photos were quickly taken down -- along with every other photo Favreau had of himself on the popular social networking site, save for one profile headshot.

Asked about the photos, Favreau, who was recently appointed director of speechwriting for the White House, declined comment. A transition official said that Favreau had "reached out to Senator Clinton to offer an apology."

Favreau is not the first campaign aide whose online presence has proved awkward. Last March, John McCain aide Soren Dayton forwarded an anti-Obama YouTube video to his private Twitter feed linking Obama with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, leading to his suspension from the campaign. And in 2007, two bloggers hired by former North Carolina senator John Edwards stepped down after blog posts they had written before he hired them became a subject of controversy.

Favreau's case seems unlikely to be so dire; Clinton senior adviser Philippe Reines cast the photos as evidence of increased bonhomie between the formerly rival camps.

"Senator Clinton is pleased to learn of Jon's obvious interest in the State Department, and is currently reviewing his application," he said in an e-mail.

Dead Moose on Auto Bailout Table is Legacy Costs

I find it almost unbelievable that even though most working Americans know that the "Dead Moose" on the auto bailout table is the legacy cost for retired workers, the mainstream media and most of the "discussion" in the congressional hearings is about sub-par quality and lackluster cars, demand shift and uncertain energy policy, the financial meltdown and the global slowdown.

Every car the Big 3 make carries "legacy costs"—the costs of providing healthcare and pensions to scores of retired workers. For every Big 3 auto worker, there are about 10 dependants, which are defined as retired workers and their families.

According to David Cole, Chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, "when the international car companies came to the U.S., the move stuck the domestics with a very large disadvantage related to legacy costs. And that's $2000 a car." That two grand must be built into the sticker price of any new car and truck. And that's money on top of developing, producing and marketing a car—costs that Honda, Toyota and others don't have. It makes competing difficult for the domestic automakers, "like playing basketball with a bowling ball," according to Cole. GM's per-hour labor rate for car assembly is about $75 per hour, compared to $40 to $45 for other car companies. That particular disadvantage, says Cole, will be "gone by the end of next year," when a new labor agreement goes into effect.

The gig is up. It's time for the UAW to stop living in retirement fantasyland and join the real world with the rest of us.

Why the Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate

As the questions about whether or not Barrack Hussein Obama meets the Constitutional requirements to be President of the United States begin to emerge from the shadows of conspiracy theory and into the mainstream arena of legitimate discussion, I wanted to make sure that my readers had the opportunity to review the relevant facts.

As such, the most complete overview of this topic can be found in a Blog posting titled "Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate" by Joe the Farmer (similar to Joe the Plumber) on November 26, 2008 on his blog http://lgstarr.blogspot.com/.

So, even if you believe that this issue is just the latest attempt by "right wing whacks" to undo the legitimate and legal 2008 Presidential election of Barrack Hussein Obama, you still owe it to yourself to become more informed regarding the details and to hold judgement until you have done so. On the surface, it does seem like a "tin foil hat" conspiracy theory. However, under the hood, the details transform it into a much more troubling question of how anyone was allowed to even run for President of the United without answering some of these very simple questions about where he was born and why no one in the mainstream media is following this story.

The full text of Joe the Farmers post is as follows:

Does this Barack Obama birth certificate issue bug you because, although improbable, it's possible that he's not a natural born citizen, isn't eligible to be President under the Constitution, and this issue could be bigger than Watergate -- or any other "gate" in history?

Are you afraid that if you were even to raise the subject with your friends that they will think you wear a tinfoil hat, because Factcheck.org, the final arbiter of truth in the universe, said so?

Are you with the news media, and after spending so much money to get Barack Obama elected, you'd hate to ruin your investment?

Are you a talk radio host who thinks that if you say the burden of proof needed to demonstrate one is eligible to be Commander in Chief should be at least as high as, oh, say, the level to be eligible for Hawaiian homestead status (see 1.F. below), that you'd be forced to give equal time to someone who disagrees?

Are you a conservative, libertarian, or any conscientious constitutionalist from any ideological side of life, who's convinced something's not right, but you're afraid your reputation might be tarnished because, after all, this could be one big Saul-Alinsky-style set-up, and the joke would be on you?

Fear not! Joe the Farmer has prepared an outline showing that no matter how this issue is ultimately resolved, you have legitimate concerns, and that Barack Obama should, simply out of respect for the nation he was elected to lead, disclose the sealed vault copy of his birth certificate.

Given the circumstances, if Barack Obama respected this nation, he would prove it by the simplest and easiest of gestures - unless, of course, all this talk about change and hope was just a bunch of bull, and he's just "another politician." Here's the outline:

1. Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.

• From Hawaii's official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country" (applies to adopted children).
• A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.
• Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.
• Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error. See, for example, HRS 338-17.
• Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.
• Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From its web site: "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

2. Contrary to what you may have read, no document made available to the public, nor any statement by Hawaiian officials, evidences conclusively that Obama was born in Hawaii.

• Associated Press reported about a statement of Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Fukino, "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine."
• That October 31, 2008 statement says that Dr. Fukino "ha[s] personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii. Unlikely, but possible.
• The document that the Obama campaign released to the public is a certified copy of Obama's birth record, which is not the best evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is the better evidence. Presumably, the vault record would show whether his birth was registered by a hospital in Hawaii.
• Without accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, we nevertheless know that some people have gone to great lengths, even in violation of laws, rules and procedures, to confer the many benefits of United States citizenship on themselves and their children. Given the structure of the Hawaiian law, the fact that a parent may register a birth, and the limited but inherent potential for human error within the system, it is possible that a parent of a child born out-of-state could have registered that birth to confer the benefits of U.S. citizenship, or simply to avoid bureaucratic hassles at that time or later in the child's life.
  
• We don't know whether the standards of registration by the Department of Health were more or less stringent in 1961 (the year of Obama's birth) than they are today. However, especially with post-9/11 scrutiny, we do know that there have been instances of fraudulent registrations of foreign births as American births.
• From a 2004 Department of Justice news release about multiple New Jersey vital statistics employees engaged in schemes to issue birth certificates to foreign-born individuals: "An individual who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate . . . As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally . . . Bhutta purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates for himself and his three foreign-born children."
• Even before 9/11, government officials acknowledged the "ease" of obtaining birth certificates fraudulently. From 1999 testimony by one Social Security Administration official: "Furthermore, the identity data contained in Social Security records are only as reliable as the evidence on which the data are based. The documents that a card applicant must present to establish age, identity, and citizenship, usually a birth certificate and immigration documents-are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain fraudulently."

3. It has been reported that the Kenyan government has sealed Obama's records. If he were born in Kenya, as has been rumored even recently, the Kenyan government would certainly have many incentives to keep that undisclosed. Objectively, of course, those records may prove nothing. Obama's refusal to release records at many levels here in the United States, though, merely fuels speculation.

4. Obama has refused to disclose the vault copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate. This raises the question whether he himself has established that he is eligible to be President. To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has verified that he ever established conclusively that he meets the eligibility standard under the Constitution. If the burden of proof were on him, perhaps as it should be for the highest office of any individual in America, the more-than-dozen lawsuits challenging his eligibility would be unnecessary.

• Had he disclosed his vault copy in the Berg v. Obama lawsuit (which was the first lawsuit filed on the question of his eligibility to be President), and it was established he was born in Hawaii, that would have constituted res judicata, and acted to stop other similar lawsuits being filed. Without res judicata (meaning, the matter is adjudged and settled conclusively) he or government officials will need to defend other lawsuits, and valuable court resources will be expended. Strategically from a legal standpoint, therefore, his refusal to disclose doesn't make sense. Weighing factors such as costs, resources and complexity of disclosing versus not disclosing, he must have reason of considerable downside in disclosing, or upside in not disclosing. There may be other reasons, but one could speculate that he hasn't disclosed because:
  
• He was not born in Hawaii, and may not be eligible to be President;
• He was born in Hawaii, but facts that may be derived from his vault copy birth certificate are inconsistent with the life story he has told (and sold);
• He was born in Hawaii, and his refusal to provide the best evidence that he is a natural born citizen is a means by which to draw criticism of him in order to make him appear to be a "victim." This would energize his supporters. This would also make other charges about him seem suspect, including his concealment about ties to Bill Ayers and others of some infamy. Such a clever yet distasteful tactic would seem to be a Machiavelli- and Saul-Alinsky-style way to manipulate public opinion. But while this tactic may energize his supporters, it would convince those who believe him to be a manipulator that he's not only just that, but a real pro at it. This would indeed be the basest reason of all, and would have repercussions about his trustworthiness (both here and abroad), which Americans know, is a characteristic sorely lacking in its leaders.
  
• His motion to dismiss the Berg case for lack of standing could be viewed as contemptuous of the Constitution. See, "Who Enforces the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen Clause?" Are we to expect yet another White House that hides behind lawyers, and expects Americans to swallow half-truths on a just-trust-me basis?
• This issue poses the potential for a constitutional crisis unlike anything this country has seen. Disclosure at this stage, however, could even result in criminal sanctions. See, "Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down." Thus, he has motive not to disclose if he were ineligible.

The question not being asked by the holders of power, who dismiss this as a rightwing conspiracy, is what's the downside of disclosing? This is a legitimate issue of inquiry because Barack Obama has turned it into one. The growing number of people who demand an answer in conformance with the Constitution are doing their work; the people's watchdogs aren't.

The Voice of 57 Million is Being Heard on Shariah Law

As an example of how "The Voice of 57 Million Americans" will be heard and will influence the future of the United States of America, I wanted my readers to have the opportunity to read the article titled "Campaign warns Americans about looming Shariah code" posted by Bob Unruh on November 28, 2008 on http://www.woldnetdaily.com/.

Many a foreign leader has indicated over the last 232 years that America would eventually fall through incremental cultural corruption without a single shot being fired. And, led by the ACLU, funded by The Communists and embraced by the 60's radicals, we have seem this "incremental cultural corruption" at work in our public educational systems through the NEA, governmental agencies, our legal system through appointment of liberal judges and the mainstream media.

However, I believe that the voices of the 57 million conservatives and maybe even some of less radical and more mainstream thinkers from "the other side", will draw the line at the rapidly accelerating attempts to enact Shariah Law in this Country.

Just Remember, who would have thought that God and the celebration of the birth of Christ would be gone from our public schools? And, who would have thought that these same public schools are actually accommodating Muslim religious practices?

If we don't want to loose this country without a single shot being fired, we need to say vigilant and keep up the good fight!!

The full text of Mr. Unruh's post is as follows:

Shariah, or Islamic law, may be spreading around the world, but it isn't going to be established in the United States without opposition, vow members of the United American Committee.

Officials with the non-profit have erected a 48-foot-long billboard just outside of Detroit, home to one of the largest groups of Muslims in the U.S. "SHARIA LAW THREATENS AMERICA," warns the sign.

The UAC says it's "dedicated to awakening the nation to the threats of radical Islam" and works to "educate Americans on the nature of Islamic extremism."

The group's mission is to battle against "the ideological aspects of the war on terror to counter elements of radical Islam in America."

"Shariah law is a legal system recognized in many Islamic countries such as the former Taliban regime of Afghanistan, and currently Saudi Arabia, and is a legal system which dictates beheadings, stonings, and other punishments for what are listed as crimes under Shariah such as homosexuality and adultery, and according to critics views women as inferior granting them little rights," the organization stated.

Tom Trento, a spokesman, said, "Muslims are the biggest victims of Shariah law in the world. We hope this message inspires the Muslims of America who came to this country to escape Shariah to stand up against it."

The organization's website, whose address is featured on the billboard, highlights a video of Wafa Sultan, a Syrian Muslim who escaped the Middle East and has become a fierce critic of Islam and Shariah.

"At times, it feels to me that Shariah is following me to the United States," Sultan says in the video, referring to radical Islamic charities and organizations operating in the U.S.

Sultan also points out that in Britain and France Shariah is being enforced in various ways in certain communities. Britain recently sanctioned the establishment of Shariah courts for civil matters among Muslims, the UAC noted.

"Our Constitution is not compatible with Shariah," Sultan said. Under the religious rules, "Women and children are deprived of rights we in the West take for granted."

"Homeless in America is more attractive to me than living as a woman under Shariah," she added. "I don’t want to face again the hell that I had kicked off 20 years ago. My biggest obligation is to preserve the free spirit of this wonderful country and not allow destructive forces to ruin it."

The UAC billboard is in Luna Pier, 10 miles north of Toledo and 20 miles south of Detroit on Interstate 75, officials said.

The announcement about the sign comes as Islam expert Daniel Pipes warns in a report in the Jerusalem Post Shariah is advancing one step at a time into Western Europe and North America.

Pipes cited the recent case of a Scottish judge who "bent" the law to acknowledge a polygamous household, a status allowed under Shariah.

"The case involved a Muslim male who drove 64 miles per hour in a 30 mph zone – usually grounds for an automatic loss of one's driving license. The defendant's lawyer explained his client's need to speed: 'He has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow and sleeps with one one night and stays with the other the next on an alternate basis. Without his driving license he would be unable to do this on a regular basis,'" Pipes reported.

"Sympathetic to the polygamist's plight, the judge permitted him to retain his license," he said.

The report said the ruling suggests monogamy, "long a foundation of Western civilization, is silently eroding under the challenge of Islamic law."

Pipes reported at least six Western jurisdictions now accept harems, including Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Australia and Canada. Canada, for example, acknowledges "a marriage that is actually or potentially polygamous, if it was celebrated in a jurisdiction whose system of law recognizes it as valid."

WND reported just days ago a Heritage Foundation expert's warning the U.S. also needs to maintain active opposition to plans for "religious anti-defamation" laws both within its borders and on an international scale or face consequences.

In a report published on the foundation's website, Steven Groves said the U.S. "must remain wary of continuing efforts by U.N. member states to gain wider acceptance of the 'defamation of religions' concept." The proposal primarily targets any criticism of Islam.

Proponents "will continue to push the 'defamation of religions' agenda at the U.N. Human Rights Council, the U.N. General Assembly, and at other international forums such as the April 2009 Durban Review Conference," Groves warned.

Groves is the Heritage Foundation's Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies.

He also said within its own borders, the U.S. should refuse to recognize "a new legal cause of action that bans insults or criticism of religion," because it would provide no benefit whatsoever.

States already have laws to condemn religious discrimination and prosecute acts of incitement to violence, he argued. The federal government "should tread extremely lightly where disputes over religious doctrine are concerned. The U.S. does not need a national speech code that would restrict the First Amendment rights of Americans, no matter how offensive that speech may be to any particular religious denomination."

Groves cited the 2005 attempt by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., who wanted to require that the Islamic holy book, the Quran, be treated with "dignity and respect."

"Any attempt to establish a criminal or civil 'defamation of religions' law in the United States … must be strongly opposed," Groves said. "Attempts to introduce such legislation may be incremental – notably, in May 2005, when a group of U.S. congressmen sponsored a resolution," he said. "Such piecemeal legislation must be closely guarded against."

WND previously reported the original U.N. plan that could turn ordinary Christians in America into international criminals.

WND also has reported the Treasury Department has announced it will teach "Islamic finance" to U.S. banking regulatory agencies, Congress and other parts of the executive branch.

According to its announcement, the "Islamic Finance 101" forum is "designed to help inform the policy community about Islamic financial services, which are an increasingly important part of the global financial industry."

The Treasury Department has collaborated with Harvard University's Islamic Finance Project to coordinate its instructions.

Revealingly, a recent report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND, said Britain's MI6 intelligence service identified a group that raises funds with impunity in London as the organization whose militia members in Somalia imposed a Shariah death sentence on a 13-year-old rape victim.

The report describes how the group recently imposed the brutal punishment on a child in the Somalian town of Kismayo.

A 13-year-old girl, described in an intelligence report as "little more than a pretty child," was sentenced to be stoned to death by the all-male court.

It imposed the sentence on Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow after she had complained to the local Shariah court that she had been gang-raped by, among others, her cousins.

But the court found her guilty of adultery and sentenced her to death by stoning.

She was taken from the courthouse to a local sports stadium. There she was buried up to her neck in sand and then stoned in front of a 1,000-strong crowd.

Let's Just Hold Hands and Sing Kumbaya

In light of the current and pending world disasters facing the the next President of the United States, a couple of thoughts come to mind when thinking about the pending Barrack Hussein Obama Presidency. In regards to all of the President Bush / Vice President Cheney Bashing that has been going by the Obama campaign, liberals, most of the Democratic party and even some republicans (RINOS), it reminds me of the fact that THE OLDER THAT I GET THE SMATER MY PARENTS BECOME. I wonder how "stupid" President Barrack Hussein Obama will think President George Bush was once he is "driving the bus" and has the same pressures and same limited options?

Further, when I was young and idealistic it was normal to think that we should all just be able to get along. And, no matter what our differences, we should be able to sit down, talk and work out our differences. However, as I got older, I became less and less naive and realized that "some people" don't want to sit down, talk and get along.

So, I wonder how long it will take President Barrack Hussein Obama to realize that very few if any of the problems that his administration is going to face will be able to be solved by holding hands and singing Kumbaya? Hopefully, he will realize this even before he takes office!!

In addition to the obvious financial crisis, the headline issues facing President George Bush on November 26, 2008 are follows:

Mumbai rocked by deadly shootings

Russia building 'Berlin Wall' in Georgia

Feds Warn Of Terror Plot Against NYC Subways

Iran says it now runs more than 5,000 centrifuges

Venezuela's Chavez welcomes Russian warships

Let's all pray that President Barrack Hussein Obama grows up and becomes a president that we can all be proud of. Because if he doesn't we are all in trouble.

Anti-American Rhetoric from Senator John Kerry

Liberal Massachusetts Senator John Kerry was quoted in an article by Kevin Mooney posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 on cnsnews.com titled 'America is Back' as a Leader on Climate Change.

With the world economy in the midst of the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes, leave it to the liberal democratic senator from Massachusetts to signal that it is time for America to take the lead on global warming.  The literal translation of these comments is "lets make it even more difficult for the United States and the world to recover from this economic crisis."  Wouldn't you think that he would be able to find something more pertinent to the current economic crisis to talk about?  Or, is he really that oblivious to what is going on?  Or, does he know exactly what he is talking about and really does want to destroy any hope of a free economic system in the world? 

The full text of the article by Kevin Mooney, Staff Writer for cnsnews.com is as follows: 

After eight years of resisting cap-and-trade proposals as offered in the Kyoto Protocol, for instance, America is back as a leader on the issue of climate change and will press ahead with policy changes that address environmental and economic challenges that are now interlinked, according to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)

Kerry, the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made those comments in speaking with reporters during a conference call Tuesday. The call was organized to address an upcoming climate change conference (Dec. 1-12) in Poznan, Poland.
With scientific evidence weighing in favor of the idea that global warming is man made, it is imperative for the global community to shift away from dependence on fossil fuels and to a green economy as a matter of survival, Kerry said.

“You can’t be half-pregnant on this issue,” he said. “You can’t accept the science and say ‘yes, global warming is man made and yes, climate change is happening faster than the scientists in fact thought it was going to,’ and then not accept the same scientific conclusions with respect to what that impact is and what we’re already witnessing.”
Kerry expressed concern over melting ice caps, rising ocean levels, weather pattern changes, forest migration, agricultural changes and potential draughts.

The PolandClimate Change Conference should be viewed as a “steeping stone” to help set up a framework for future discussions and is not meant as a substantive negotiation session, said Kerry. The December meetings will instead lay the groundwork for the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark where a treaty could be produced, he said.

“We cannot repeat the mistakes of the Kyoto Protocol where disagreement over the structure resulted in the president signing a treaty the Senate would never ratify,” Kerry said. “We intend to be a full partner with the administration in defining the contours of a global agreement and leading the global community in addressing this challenge.”
With President-elect Barack Obama coming out openly in favor of a cap-and-trade system in combination with “additional votes” in the House and Senate, Kerry said he is encouraged about the future prospects for climate change legislation.

“It’s a very exciting time, it’s a moment we’ve been waiting for, for many of us, for some period of time – well, for eight years to be blunt,” he said. “We intend to pick up the baton and really run with it here.”

Under cap and trade, electric utilities, manufacturers, and other firms would be limited in the amount of carbon dioxide they could release in the air. Companies that emitted more than the limit prescribed to them would then have to buy “carbon allowances” in a government-contrived system from companies that had carbon credits. Those companies would largely include “green” firms that are environmentally friendly in their production and what that they produce, e.g., possibly solar-powered generators.
The Kyoto Protocol of 1997, named after the Japanese city where it was formulated, called for participating countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by about 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2012.

In a video message to governors attending a two-day summit (Nov. 18-19) on global warming in California, organized by Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state’s Republican governor, Barack Obama outlined his own federal proposal.

“We will establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 level by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 percent by 2050,” Obama said. Further, we will invest $15 billion each year to catalyze private sector efforts to build a clean energy future.”

Kerry commended Obama for setting a specific goal and target for 2050 and said that in the intervening years it would be important for law-makers to “recognize the reality of the science.”

In the question-and-answer session on the conference call, Kerry was asked about the possibility of obtaining concessions from countries like China and India, which are also reliant on fossil fuels as an engine of economic growth.
Kerry said that would be a challenge in light of current economic conditions. But he was optimistic about the prospect for international partnerships. Because the “science is compelling,” industrialized nations like the United States must be willing to make investments that will translate into better economic returns over the long term and a safer environment, he said.

Negotiations with the Chinese have been particularly difficult over the years, Kerry observed. However, he did detect and a change in attitude the U.N. environmental summit held last year in Bali, Indonesia.

“I’ve been meeting with the China delegation going all the way back to the first meetings,” he said. “Usually, we just stare at each other and sort of have conversation, which was not a conversation. They just wouldn’t hear of anything. They saw any of this effort as a Western conspiracy to prevent them from growing.”

But that changed in Bali, Kerry recalled, when one environmental minister from communist China arrived ahead of his delegation to discuss new initiatives.

There is now a significant transformation effort underway that involves “green roof houses” and emissions controls, Kerry said. The leadership in developed countries such as China now recognize that there is a genuine danger connected with climate change, he observed.

Russian Analyst Seriously Predicts the Decline and Breakup of the United States of America

Drudge reported on Tuesday Nov 25 2008 at 09:04:22 ET that a leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.

Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily IZVESTIA published on Monday: "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."

The paper said Panarin's dire predictions for the U.S. economy, initially made at an international conference in Australia 10 years ago at a time when the economy appeared strong, have been given more credence by this year's events.

When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: "It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator."

When asked who would replace the U.S. in regulating world markets, he said: "Two countries could assume this role: China, with its vast reserves, and Russia, which could play the role of a regulator in Eurasia."

Asked why he expected the U.S. to break up into separate parts, he said: "A whole range of reasons. Firstly, the financial problems in the U.S. will get worse. Millions of citizens there have lost their savings. Prices and unemployment are on the rise. General Motors and Ford are on the verge of collapse, and this means that whole cities will be left without work. Governors are already insistently demanding money from the federal center. Dissatisfaction is growing, and at the moment it is only being held back by the elections and the hope that Obama can work miracles. But by spring, it will be clear that there are no miracles."

He also cited the "vulnerable political setup", "lack of unified national laws", and "divisions among the elite, which have become clear in these crisis conditions."

He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.

He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all."
Professor Igor Panarin, 60, is a Doctor of political sciences, professor of the Diplomatic Academy Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russia. He is the author of nine books, "Infowar and power”, “Infowar and world”, “Infowar and election”, and others, and of many political essays published in various journals.

Professor Igor Panarin often take part in different political discussions on the Russian TV on the main problems of Russian policy, development of relationships between USA and Russia and many others. His main interests are history, philosophy, psychology, computer science, communication, election technology, conceptual problems of globalization, the theory and practice of infowar.

Click Here for the CIA Factbook on Russia.

Struggling Banks Paid President Clinton $2.1 million

In a Tuesday, November 25, 2008 article on CNSNews.com by Matthew Hadro titled "Struggling Banks Paid President Clinton $2.1 million for Speeches", the relationship between the Washington power establishment and the financial industry is such that it is highly unlikely that we are ever going to see the type of oversight necessary to overt another melt down like we now have in 2008. There is just too much money to be made and doled out to the appropriate power brokers to ensure continued collaboration.

The full text of Mr. Hadro's article is as follows:

Four major banks, including one that collapsed, two that received federal bailout money and one that filed for bankruptcy this past September, paid former President Clinton $2.1 million for 13 speeches he delivered on their behalf between 2004-2007, according to Senate financial disclosure statements filed by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Citigroup paid Bill Clinton $700,000; Goldman Sachs paid $950,000; Lehman Brothers paid $300,000 and Merrill Lynch paid $175,000 to the former president for speeches during that time period. Sen. Clinton’s 2008 financial disclosure reports are not yet available.

Though some of the investment banks were able to entertain the former president more than once, each was eventually affected by the credit crunch.

Lehman Brothers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in September. The bank’s stock had been slipping as it looked for a buyer, while the federal government promised no aid. Merrill Lynch was purchased by Bank of America in mid-September for $50 billion. The bank’s share price and liquidity had been falling as it looked to sell, just days before the federal bailout of Wall Street.

The highly-regarded investment firm Goldman Sachs had reportedly possessed some of the largest private equity and hedge funds in the market.

But after its largest trading partner, AIG, received an $85 billion emergency government loan, Goldman Sachs shares fell. One week after Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy and Bank of America purchased Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs asked the Federal Reserve to modify its status to that of bank holding company – a move that brought tough regulations and close government supervision. In addition, Goldman Sachs became a recipient of $10 billion of the federal bailout money.

Citigroup recently received $25 billion of the federal bailout and is now expected to receive a $20 billion cash injection from the Treasury Department. In addition, the Treasury and the FDIC have promised to back most of the losses the bank might suffer, from its $306 billion pool of risky loans and mortgages. The bank’s shares dropped 60 percent last week.

The Constitution of the United States of America

Given the current financial crisis, our approaching transition to single party socialist rule and our deteriorating standing in the world, I thought that it would be a good time to re-examine our roots. Therefore, I would encourage everyone to read the following posting of The Constitution of the United States of America and pass it on to your friends:



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article. I.

Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [Modified by Amendment XIV]. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section. 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof [Modified by Amendment XVII], for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies [Modified by Amendment XVII].

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Section. 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December [Modified by Amendment XX], unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Section. 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section. 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Section. 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; -- And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section. 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws; and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article. II.

Section. 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President [Modified by Amendment XII].

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

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.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected [Modified by Amendment XXV].

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: -- "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article. III.

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; -- to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; -- to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; -- to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; -- to Controversies between two or more States; -- between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; -- between Citizens of different States; -- between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article. IV.

Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due [Modified by Amendment XIII].

Section. 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article. VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

The Word, "the," being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines of the first Page, The Word "Thirty" being partly written on an Erazure in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words "is tried" being interlined between the thirty second and thirty third Lines of the first Page and the Word "the" being interlined between the forty third and forty fourth Lines of the second Page.

Attest William Jackson
Secretary

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

Go. WASHINGTON -- Presidt.
and deputy from Virginia

New Hampshire {

JOHN LANGDON
NICHOLAS GILMAN

Massachusetts {

NATHANIEL GORHAM
RUFUS KING

Connecticut {

WM. SAML. JOHNSON
ROGER SHERMAN

New York . . . .

ALEXANDER HAMILTON

New Jersey {

WIL: LIVINGSTON
DAVID BREARLEY.
WM. PATERSON.
JONA: DAYTON

Pennsylvania {

B FRANKLIN
THOMAS MIFFLIN
ROBT MORRIS
GEO. CLYMER
THOS. FITZ SIMONS
JARED INGERSOLL
JAMES WILSON
GOUV MORRIS

Delaware {

GEO: READ
GUNNING BEDFORD jun
JOHN DICKINSON
RICHARD BASSETT
JACO: BROOM

Maryland {

JAMES MCHENRY
DAN OF ST THOS. JENIFER
DANL CARROLL

Virginia {

JOHN BLAIR
JAMES MADISON

North Carolina {

WM. BLOUNT
RICHD. DOBBS SPAIGHT
HU WILLIAMSON
J. RUTLEDGE

South Carolina {

CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY
CHARLES PINCKNEY
PIERCE BUTLER

Georgia {

WILLIAM FEW
ABR BALDWIN

In Convention Monday, September 17th, 1787.

Present

The States of

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, MR. Hamilton from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

Resolved,

That the preceeding Constitution be laid before the United States in Congress assembled, and that it is the Opinion of this Convention, that it should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification; and that each Convention assenting to, and ratifying the Same, should give Notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled. Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Convention, that as soon as the Conventions of nine States shall have ratified this Constitution, the United States in Congress assembled should fix a Day on which Electors should be appointed by the States which have ratified the same, and a Day on which the Electors should assemble to vote for the President, and the Time and Place for commencing Proceedings under this Constitution. That after such Publication the Electors should be appointed, and the Senators and Representatives elected: That the Electors should meet on the Day fixed for the Election of the President, and should transmit their Votes certified, signed, sealed and directed, as the Constitution requires, to the Secretary of the United States in Congress assembled, that the Senators and Representatives should convene at the Time and Place assigned; that the Senators should appoint a President of the Senate, for the sole purpose of receiving, opening and counting the Votes for President; and, that after he shall be chosen, the Congress, together with the President, should, without Delay, proceed to execute this Constitution.

By the Unanimous Order of the Convention

Go. WASHINGTON -- Presidt.
W. JACKSON Secretary.