Is the New World Order Already Here?

Is the New World Order already in place and we just don't know it yet? On February 17, 1950, James Paul Warburg, the son of Paul Moritz Warburg, nephew of Jacob Schiff, both of Kuhn, Loeb and Company which financed the Russian Revolution through James’ brother Max, banker to the government of Germany, confidently declared to the United States Senate: “We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”

A world government is a world without borders, national sovereignty, constitutions, privacy, autonomy, individual liberties, religious freedoms, private property, the right to bear arms, the rights of marriage and family and a dramatic population reduction (two thirds). A world government establishes a slave/master environment wherein the state controls everything.

Has this latest financial crisis, the subsequent election of Barrack Hussein Obama II as the President of the United and now the massive social spending being pursuing by governments throughout the world been created by the descendants of the the same group of men predicted that World Government will happen by conquest of consent?

Has the consent occurred without the people of the United State of America not even really understanding what they have done? If so, we will start to see more bold statements by President Barrack Hussein Obama II and other world leaders.

In an article titled, "Time for a new world order: PM", by Phillip Coorey, Chief Political Correspondent published on January 31, 2009 on the Sydney Morning Herald website, Mr. Coorey investigates just the kind of bold statements the one would expect to see as proof that this One World Order is either already here or on the way.

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

Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister of Australia, has denounced the unfettered capitalism of the past three decades and called for a new era of "social capitalism" in which government intervention and regulation feature heavily.

In an essay to be published next week, the Prime Minister is scathing of the neo-liberals who began refashioning the market system in the 1970s, and ultimately brought about the global financial crisis.

"The time has come, off the back of the current crisis, to proclaim that the great neo-liberal experiment of the past 30 years has failed, that the emperor has no clothes," he writes of those who placed their faith in the corrective powers of the market.

"Neo-liberalism and the free-market fundamentalism it has produced has been revealed as little more than personal greed dressed up as an economic philosophy. And, ironically, it now falls to social democracy to prevent liberal capitalism from cannibalising itself."

Mr Rudd writes in The Monthly that just as Franklin Roosevelt rebuilt US capitalism after the Great Depression, modern-day "social democrats" such as himself and the US President, Barack Obama, must do the same again. But he argues that "minor tweakings of long-established orthodoxies will not do" and advocates a new system that reaches beyond the 70-year-old interventionist principles of John Maynard Keynes.

"A system of open markets, unambiguously regulated by an activist state, and one in which the state intervenes to reduce the greater inequalities that competitive markets will inevitably generate," he writes.

He urges "a new contract for the future that eschews the extremism of both the left and right".

He mocks neo-liberals "who now find themselves tied in ideological knots in being forced to rely on the state they fundamentally despise to save financial markets from collapse".

He advocates tighter regulation and policing of global finances, and identifies the immediate challenge as restoring global growth by 3 per cent of gross domestic product, the amount it is expected to fall in 2009. Next week, as Parliament resumes, his Government will chip in with a second economic stimulus package.

Mr Rudd commits to keeping budgets in surplus "over the cycle", meaning deficits should be temporary. In a further sign the Government is not contemplating additional tax cuts, which would deliver a permanent hit to revenue, he stresses that stimulus measures have to be paid for when the economy recovers.

Mr Rudd singles out Thatcherism as a culprit, as well as the former Howard government. His essay implicitly attacks the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull, who this week urged the free market be allowed to dictate commercial property values as he slammed a Government measure to prop them up.

Mr Rudd's essay follows the blast Mr Obama gave Wall Street bankers yesterday for awarding themselves $28 billion in bonuses last year at the same time as they were being bailed out by taxpayers.

In a message to Mr Obama and the US Congress, Mr Rudd counselled against erecting trade barriers. "Soft or hard, protectionism is a sure-fire way of turning recession into depression as it exacerbates the collapse in global demand."

The message was reinforced in Davos yesterday when the Trade Minister, Simon Crean, described the "buy American" provisions of the new Obama stimulus package as "very worrying". "On the face of it, it looks like it contravenes commitments made to the World Trade Organization," he said.

Technorati Tags: New World Order,James Paul Warburg,Paul Moritz,Barrack Hussein Obama II,Financial Crisis

LiveJournal Tags: New World Order,James Paul Warburg,Paul Moritz,Barrack Hussein Obama II,Financial Crisis

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.

I found the following blog post titled, "Opinion of an American Citizen" by Robert B. Murray II, Ph.D. posted on the All About Illegal Immigration Blog on January 23, 2009.

In my opinion our government has not changed, nor is it likely to change, in a way that will eliminate socialistic programs that will bankrupt us. Also, their collusion with corporations to grant the latter freedom to globalize at the expense of our people is likely the root cause of many of our financial problems. They as well have become partners in the government scheme to get illegal aliens firmly entrenched in our country. What better way that allowing them to purchase homes and roam freely throughout the land. My opinion expressed here is more general and expresses the view that the current administration will not cause a change for the better, especially if it continues to push for amnesty and other socialistic programs.

We the people are going to face a real calamity when the bills come due.

FDR was right, “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” Why should any of us believe otherwise? The evidence has mounted since even before his time, those in government colluding with industry, has sought more money and power. The results are undeniable that “we the people” serve no other purpose than to provide treasure for these elites so that they can continue plundering and pillaging the treasury.

The current administration will not provide relief, because the new players are mere operatives in the grand scheme. Although, the elites allowed many candidates to vie for the Presidency, along the way most were eliminated as they did not embrace the proper view. As with recent contests, the two activists who would best serve elitist interests were pitted against one another. As the tragedy unfolded, one was anointed by the media, while the other eagerly accepted his role as loser. The masses were mesmerized by the steady chants of “hope,” “Yes we can,” and “Change we can believe in.” Few understood what they were cheering for nor the consequences they would unleash.

Obviously, our real dilemma is with those who have invaded the government as agents of change, and not for the benefits of the people they supposedly serve. For decades now, our leaders’ visions were counter to our wishes. They have brought forth socialist, communistic, and fascist programs, like social security, welfare, and agricultural subsidies. They control and manipulate the economy by allowing massive influxes of legal and illegal aliens. Their educational programs have corrupted our ability to think and reason, while destroying our will to resist. They have nearly bankrupted the nation and the people through their greed. They have complete authority over our lives, and when their monetary schemes fail “we the people” are told to provide for those that caused the problem.

The corruption has become so pervasive that we have accepted it as normal. Consider, how Presidents have gradually assumed powers not delegated to them by the Constitution. We have allowed Congress to raid the treasury in order to effect the shift from a Republic to a fascist state and never question when the judiciary makes unconstitutional rulings. We have sat idly by when the Constitution or its Amendments have been abused, ignored, or purposely misinterpreted by the President, his administration, Congress, or the Judiciary. Our system of “checks and balances” has been allowed to collapse, as no one in the three branches has courage to challenge the power structure.

Sadly, the majority of the people are apathetic, ignorant, brainwashed, or are accepting of the corruption by leaders in our current system. Most people fail to understand it is their responsibility to protect the Constitution from false interpretations and outright changes through legislation or edict. If your one of the majority consider supporting a change back to a Constitutional government. This is real change I can believe in, not the socialistic programs the current administration will be offering.

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. Thomas Jefferson

Robert B. Murray II, Ph.D.

President Obama Needs to Stop Listening to Karl Marx

I hope that I am not the only American that found President Barack Hussein Obama II's comments yesterday about Rush Limbaugh to be completely inappropriate and unprofessional. President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration. President Barack Hussein Obama II told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. , "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

It is my opinion that these types of sophomoric comments are proof that President Barack Hussein Obama II is an amateur more adept at Chicago style name calling politics and is obviously ill equipped to be the President of the United State of America and leader of the free. We should all be embarrassed and he should apologize to not only the Republican leadership but to the entire nation.

As a response, I would recommend that if President Barack Hussein Obama II thinks that in the spirit of bi-partisan cooperation, the Republican leadership should stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, the Republican leadership should demand that President Barack Hussein Obama II stop following the teachings of the well know communist Karl Marx. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Technorati Tags: President Obama,Karl Marx,Rush Limbaugh

LiveJournal Tags: President Obama,Karl Marx,Rush Limbaugh

Technorati Tags: President Obama,Karl Marx,Rush Limbaugh

Is the Sun Setting on Capitalism?

According to many political and financial experts, President Obama has a unique window of opportunity to institute his brand of Socialism and One World Order. And, as we are still all suffering from the changes brought about by FDR's New Deal and Johnson's War on Poverty, will Obama's changes finally derail the remnants of western capitalism or is this just another bump in the road that the free market system will drive over and continue on its journey to providing the best opportunities for the world to flourish and survive? Only time will tell?

The commentary on this topic was from Dick Morris in a January 20, 2009 post on the Hill.com titled, "The Obama presidency: Here comes socialism". Morris contends that, "So Obama’s name will be mud by 2012 and probably by 2010 as well. And the Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power...But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of healthcare by the government, the surge of unionization and the crippling of talk radio." Let's hope that he is right about the mud part and let's all brace ourselves for the changes that we are going to have to endure for the rest of our lives and pray that they don't effect the lives of our children and grandchildren too dramatically.

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

2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden — a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.

Obama will accomplish his agenda of “reform” under the rubric of “recovery.” Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won’t do much to shorten the downturn — although they will make it less painful — but they will do a great deal to change our nation.

In implementing his agenda, Barack Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Not the liberal mythology of the New Deal, but the actuality of what it accomplished.) When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933, when he took office, to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment in 1938 rose to 17 percent and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, copyright 2007.)

But in the name of a largely unsuccessful effort to end the Depression, Roosevelt passed crucial and permanent reforms that have dominated our lives ever since, including Social Security, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, unionization under the Wagner Act, the federal minimum wage and a host of other fundamental changes.

Obama’s record will be similar, although less wise and more destructive. He will begin by passing every program for which liberals have lusted for decades, from alternative-energy sources to school renovations, infrastructure repairs and technology enhancements. These are all good programs, but they normally would be stretched out for years. But freed of any constraint on the deficit — indeed, empowered by a mandate to raise it as high as possible — Obama will do them all rather quickly.

But it is not his spending that will transform our political system, it is his tax and welfare policies. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever-expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, will now grow to a clear majority of the American population.

Will he raise taxes? Why should he? With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity, since the only people who will have to pay them would be rich Republicans.

In the name of stabilizing the banking system, Obama will nationalize it. Using Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to write generous checks to needy financial institutions, his administration will demand preferred stock in exchange. Preferred stock gets dividends before common stockholders do. With the massive debt these companies will owe to the government, they will only be able to afford dividends for preferred stockholders — the government, not private investors. So who will buy common stock? And the government will demand that its bills be paid before any profits that might materialize are reinvested in the financial institution, so how will the value of the stocks ever grow? Devoid of private investors, these institutions will fall ever more under government control.

Obama will begin the process by limiting executive compensation. Then he will urge restructuring and lowering of home mortgages in danger of default (as the feds have already done with Citibank).

Then will come guidance on the loans to make and government instructions on the types of enterprises to favor. God grant that some Blagojevich type is not in charge of the program, using his power to line his pockets. The United States will find itself with an economic system comparable to that of Japan, where the all-powerful bureaucracy at MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) manages the economy, often making mistakes like giving mainframe computers priority over the development of laptops.

But it is the healthcare system that will experience the most dramatic and traumatic of changes. The current debate between erecting a Medicare-like governmental single payer or channeling coverage through private insurance misses the essential point. Without a lot more doctors, nurses, clinics, equipment and hospital beds, health resources will be strained to the breaking point. The people and equipment that now serve 250 million Americans and largely neglect all but the emergency needs of the other 50 million will now have to serve everyone. And, as government imposes ever more Draconian price controls and income limits on doctors, the supply of practitioners and equipment will decline as the demand escalates. Price increases will be out of the question, so the government will impose healthcare rationing, denying the older and sicker among us the care they need and even barring them from paying for it themselves. (Rationing based on income and price will be seen as immoral.)

And Obama will move to change permanently the partisan balance in America. He will move quickly to legalize all those who have been in America for five years, albeit illegally, and to smooth their paths to citizenship and voting. He will weaken border controls in an attempt to hike the Latino vote as high as he can in order to make red states like Texas into blue states like California. By the time he is finished, Latinos and African-Americans will cast a combined 30 percent of the vote. If they go by top-heavy margins for the Democrats, as they did in 2008, it will assure Democratic domination (until they move up the economic ladder and become good Republicans).

And he will enact the check-off card system for determining labor union representation, repealing the secret ballot in union elections. The result will be to raise the proportion of the labor force in unions up to the high teens from the current level of about 12 percent.

Finally, he will use the expansive powers of the Federal Communications Commission to impose “local” control and ownership of radio stations and to impose the “fairness doctrine” on talk radio. The effect will be to drive talk radio to the Internet, fundamentally change its economics, and retard its growth for years hence.

But none of these changes will cure the depression. It will end when the private sector works through the high debt levels that triggered the collapse in the first place. And, then, the large stimulus package deficits will likely lead to rapid inflation, probably necessitating a second recession to cure it.

So Obama’s name will be mud by 2012 and probably by 2010 as well. And the Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.

But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of healthcare by the government, the surge of unionization and the crippling of talk radio.

Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage. To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com. To order a signed copy of their new best-selling book, Fleeced, go to dickmorris.com.

BuzzNet Tags: Dick Morris,One World Order,CFR,President Obama,Socialism,Capitalism

Technorati Tags: Dick Morris,One World Order,CFR,President Obama,Socialism,Capitalism

del.icio.us Tags: Dick Morris,One World Order,CFR,President Obama,Socialism,Capitalism

Who Was the First 44th President of the United States?

Beyond the fact that it provided a small amount of humor in an otherwise boring inauguration (American Idol beat coverage of the inauguration), the "flub" by Chief Justice Roberts and President Elect Obama during the swearing-in ceremony may have had much deeper significance.

According to a comment posted by "Ted" on my Blog earlier this week, Joe Biden was actually the President for a short period of time, may still be President and this whole mess with whether or not Obama is actually even eligible to be President is going to end with Hillary Clinton as the next President.

The full text of Ted's post is as follows:

FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?

ANSWER: Joe Biden.

Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution’s Article 2 or the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his ‘oath’ at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath “before he enter on the execution of his office,” then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in ‘commencing’ an ‘Obama Presidency’ — rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time — is confirmed by the re-take of the ‘oath’ by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first ‘oath’ was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.)This is significant because at such time that the Supreme Court finally rules on the merits on Obama’s disqualification as not being an Article 2 “natural born citizen” (clearly he is NOT), Biden’s automatic status (without needing to take a separate Presidential Oath) of being President would be predicated upon four different bases: First, having been Vice President under Article 2; second, having been Vice President-elect under the 20th Amendment; third, having been actual President in the hiatus before Obama took the ‘oath(s)’; and fourth, retroactively deemed President during the full period of the Obama usurpation so that the acts of the Federal Government under the usurpation can be deemed authorized and/or ratified by Biden’s legitimacy.

SECOND QUESTION: Who will be the 45th President?

ANSWER: Hillary Clinton.

One must assume that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been aware of all of the above. Biden’s wife recently “let the cat out of the bag” on the Oprah Show that both Biden and Hillary had considered alternatively Veep or Secretary of State, in either case, setting up Hillary to be President on a vote of the Democratic Congress if need be.

THIRD QUESTION: Is Obama an unwitting victim of this troika or a knowing participant?

ANSWER: Yet undetermined.

Technorati Tags: Obama,Hillary Clinton,Bill Clinton,Chief Justice Roberts,Inaguration,44th President of the United States,Joe Biden

BuzzNet Tags: Obama,Hillary Clinton,Bill Clinton,Chief Justice Roberts,Inaguration,44th President of the United States,Joe Biden

President Obama Misses Mark with World Press with Inauguration Address

I thought that President Obama's inauguration address was fine. It stated the obvious in regards to our current economic crisis, gave an appropriate amount of praise to the fact that the United States has elected its first African American President and set the tone for a bi-partisan based hope for the future. However, it was definitely not his best effort in regards to providing his special brand of hollow hope. And, I would also suspect that it probably didn't hit hard enough on what the left considers the failings of the Bush administration (They would have probably enjoyed an old fashion lynching after the speech). Further, he average speech ( on the Obama scale) probably began to set the stage for the inevitable realization by many of devote left that Obama is just another President and he is not the second coming and he is not going to lead anyone to the promised land. And, the best that any of us can hope for is that he is going to somehow develop and implement an economic policy that will subdue our raging economic crisis and not get us into too much more trouble on the international scene.

An excellent example of how the world is viewing our new president can be found in a January 20, 2009 post on the Telegraph Blog by Alex Spillius, titled, "Barack Obama inauguration: his worst speech". Whether or not Alex is being fair or not is up to you to decide. However, it appears that for most part, the honeymoon is already over. The full text of Mr. Spillius's post is as follows:

QUITE a day, but not much of speech unfortunately. Obama got where he is by speechifying, but this effort would not have won him many votes. It was his worst on a grand stage, though still better than most politicians could muster.

The delivery, as ever, was first class, but the message was wasn't clear enough and the language not insufficiently inspiring.

As soon as the applause had died down, an African American standing man near me on the Mall said to his friend: "I thought the speech was shit." Another woman said, correctly, that "we had heard it all before at other events".

In a way Obama was a victim of his own success. Having given so many dynamic speeches he had set his own bar very high. What he tried to do at his inauguration was tell Americans that they had to sacrifice to make gains, while making them believe this was well within their capabilities. The emphasis on sacrifice was too weak however.

To the disappointment of many black people in the crowd, he also made but one reference to the enormity of a black man occupying the White House for the first time. Obama has never laboured the issue of his race, but on this historic day the issue needed more.

Jon Favreau, his co-writer, recently admitted that he had been pouring over previous inaugural speeches. That might have been a bad idea. Obama seemed weighed down by the past, and failed to seize the moment.

The Face of the Obama Administration

I realize that everyone doesn't have to always be serious. And, I also realize the both the more serious WWII and the Baby Boomer generations have served and now it is time for the less serious and more flippant X Generation to take over and lead our nation. However, I would think that the Inauguration of the 44th and first African American President of the United States would instill some sense of dignity in his administration. As is evidenced by this photo of incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, I guess we may be in for a long "Animal House" type of administration.

Finally, since I am sure that they were all watching, I wonder if this is how Rahm plans to ingratiate the Obama administration to the world?

Technorati Tags: Rahm Emanuel. Obama. X Generation,Inaguration

Barack Hussein Obama II is no Abraham Lincoln

Obviously the liberal talking points regarding the wish for Barrack Hussein Obama II to be compared to Abraham Lincoln were distributed this past week to everyone in the willing world media. And, just as most of these intellectual wannabes relied on Cliff Notes and plagiarism to get through college (for those that actually attended college), they on this talking point like a "white on rice" and are trying their level best to ensure that most Americans are at least marginally confused (not hard to do) about who is actually being inaugurated on January 20, 2009 - Abraham Lincoln or Barrack Hussein Obama II.

Not having any control over the world media's latest attempt at once again proving their irrelevance in regards to staging an intellectual discussion, nor even really wanting to stop the ongoing source of enormous entertainment at at time when we could all use some comic relief, I have no other outlet than to post my disdain for this ridiculous and insulting comparison and point out the even though I obviously didn't know Abraham Lincoln, I have ready about him extensively, and have some to the conclusion, as have many others, that, "Barrack Hussein Obama II is no Abraham Lincoln." And, no amount of "repeating the big lie" by the world media is going to make it so.

And, as a way of at least providing a "fair and balanced" look at this issue, I am including an excellent overview of the ranting's of the Obama supporters as well as some interesting opinions as they were reviewed in an article by Hans Nichols on the Bloomberg Website on January 17, 2009, titled, "Obama Inaugural Strains Lincoln Comparisons While Inviting Them". Please note that I don't necessarily agree with much of what is said in this piece. However, it does a great job of framing the varied aspects of the claims and provides a good foundation for any knowledgeable scholar to form their own opinion. The full text of Hans' article are as follows:

Barack Obama’s inauguration is dedicated to the proposition that all presidencies are not created equal.

In ways big and small, Obama is trying to summon Abraham Lincoln’s spirit to the proceedings.

Obama will roll into Washington’s Union Station today by train, duplicating part of Lincoln’s railroad journey from Illinois for his swearing in. The president-elect is to appear at a concert tomorrow at the Lincoln Memorial, and will take the oath of office Tuesday with one hand on the Bible that Lincoln used in 1861. Inaugural planners drew so many ties between the Illinois legislators-turned-presidents that Obama may risk straining the comparison.

“Everyone wants to be Lincoln,” says Harold Holzer, who has written or edited more than 20 books on Lincoln and the Civil War. “Is Obama overdoing it? Maybe.”

For most of the 144 years since Lincoln’s death, presidents of all political persuasions have tried to enlist Lincoln’s reputation for honesty and courage in support of their own ambitions. Leaders “see in Lincoln’s suffering validation of the criticism they have to endure,” Holzer says.

Still, the election of America’s first black president, from the same state as the leader who issued the Emancipation Proclamation, gives Obama a stronger claim than most predecessors to Lincoln’s legacy, says Tom Schwartz, a historian at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library in Springfield, Illinois.

‘Clear Thread’

There’s a “very clear thread that connects the two,” says Schwartz, who describes Obama’s history-making election as “a kind of bookend to Lincoln’s legacy in the Civil War.”

Obama will be sworn in at noon on Jan. 20, just three weeks before the bicentennial of Lincoln’s birth on Feb. 12, 1809, an anniversary to be accompanied by museum exhibits, ceremonies, and new books planned long before Obama’s victory. “There’s a serendipity to it,” Schwartz says.

“Both of them were born to modest circumstances,” says former Democratic New York Governor Mario Cuomo, an amateur Lincoln historian. “Both of them wrote well, both of them spoke well, and neither of them is an ideologue.”

Obama’s childhood, as the son of a single mother who sometimes relied on food stamps, is a modern analogue of Lincoln’s log-cabin upbringing. Both presidents studied law and bested better-known U.S. senators from New York for their parties’ presidential nominations.

Strength of Oratory

Each man rocketed from relative obscurity on the strength of oratory, in Obama’s 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address and Lincoln’s 1860 anti-slavery speech at New York’s Cooper Union.

A week after moving his family to temporary quarters in a Washington hotel, Obama took his wife and two daughters for a moon-bathed visit to the Lincoln Memorial, where a 19-foot-tall statue of the first Republican president looks down on the National Mall where throngs of visitors will watch Obama’s inaugural address.

The four-day inauguration schedule starts this morning in Philadelphia, where Obama boards a train to trace the last segments of Lincoln’s route, stopping in Wilmington, Delaware, to pick up Vice President-elect Joe Biden.

Gilding a Lily

“The inaugural train may turn out to be one gilding of the lily,” Holzer says, noting that the Obamas came to the capital two weeks ago. “Backtracking north to come south may be bit of an artifice.” Obama also plans a public event in Baltimore, which Lincoln slipped through in disguise, under cover of darkness, after learning about an assassination plot there.

The 44th president will be sworn in with an 1853 printing of the Bible, bound in burgundy velvet, purchased for Lincoln’s first inauguration in 1861. After his speech, Obama will join members of Congress in the Capitol’s Statuary Hall for lunch, served on china that duplicates the dishware first lady Mary Todd Lincoln picked for the White House.

Obama is following a well-worn precedent in comparing himself to Lincoln. Earlier this week, at his final news conference, departing President George W. Bush said his most- vocal critics remind him of fierce opposition that Lincoln endured: “There’s some pretty harsh discord when it came to the 16th president, just like there’s been harsh discord for the 43rd president.”

Obama announced his candidacy on the steps of old state capitol building in Springfield, noting that he and Lincoln both served in the state legislature. In May, as he was pulling away from New York Senator Hillary Clinton in the fight for the Democratic nomination, Obama suggested that -- like Lincoln --he would consider stocking his Cabinet with former rivals.

‘One of My Heroes’

“I’m a practical-minded guy,” he said. “And you know one of my heroes is Abraham Lincoln.”

Obama did nominate Clinton for secretary of state, the same post Lincoln assigned to William Seward, a New York senator who was considered a frontrunner for the 1860 Republican nomination. For vice president, Obama tapped Biden, a Delaware senator and former presidential candidate.

Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the capital’s George Washington University, says that overplaying the Lincoln connections may raise false expectations. “At this point I would pull back a little,” Hess says.

Some efforts to link Obama and Lincoln may now be out of Obama’s control. The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies picked “A New Birth of Freedom” as the official inauguration theme, lifting a phrase from the Gettysburg Address. For the post-inauguration lunch, the committee is serving dishes that Lincoln is believed to have liked, including a seafood stew, duck and pheasant.

“Some of his supporters go much too far,” says Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz. “Basically, a lot of it is twaddle, but it’s harmless twaddle.

“To the extent that he’s emulating any president, Lincoln is about as good as it’s going to get,” Wilentz says. “If he was trying to emulate Calvin Coolidge, that would be a problem.”

Is Barack Hussein Obama II a US Citizen or Not?

As we approach the historic inauguration of the second coming of Lincoln and Gandhi and the dawn of a new era of hope and prosperity in the World, the questions and associated law suites of whether or not President elect Barrack Hussein Obama II is a natural born United States Citizen or not continue to gain momentum.

As this question begins to rise up the conspiracy rankings of whether or not there are UFO's and an Area 51; there were two (2) gunman that shot President Kennedy; and, Elvis is still alive, it is beyond my ability to comprehend why the "Obama team", with all of its talents for public relations and controlling the media, have not silenced this "story" with irrefutable proof that the Lord and Savior is in fact a natural born US Citizen. With access to the resources of the world, I can't image that it would be that hard for them to do. And then, they could move on to more important issues such as addressing climate change, formulating grass routes socialism disguised as community volunteer events and laying the foundation for the new American fascism by dismantling term limits and enabling the President of the Unites States to stay in office indefinitely. Could it be that this is story is true?

An excellent overview of the current status of this "issues" can be found in an article by Bob Unruh, posted on January 18, 2009 on the WorldNetDaily website, title, "Eligibility battle rages on 3 fronts - Court, Congress and college challenged on constitutionality". The full text of Bob's post is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Her letter included a warning, too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Obama "has four years to save Earth" by Dismantling the Evil Capitalist Society

I hate to really even waste my frozen breath over this topic. However, with the recent announcement by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California that the democratically controlled Congress would act quickly on global warming, I could resist at least throwing a small snowball at wacky left over this. Isn't "Global Warming" yesterday's news and don't we have more important issues to deal with Mr. Waxman?

Anyway, with his most recent ranting over the past couple of days that President Barack Hussein Obama only has four (4) years to save the Earth, Al Gore's friend and so called climate expert, Jim Hansen, has once again proven that he is a certifiable nut.

And, as an interesting point to ponder as we all sit inside this weekend around the fireplace watching the NFL playoff games or are frozen to our seats in Pittsburgh, it seems that Al and the boys have been taken under the wings of the Obama mass marketing / focus group crowd and changed the name of global warming to "climate change". I guess that enables them to predict the end of the world as we know it with the immediate dismantling of the evil capitalist society whether the temps go up or go down?

An excellent overview of Mr. Hansen's predictions can be found in a January 18, 21009 article by Robin Mckie on the UK Observer website titled, "President 'has four years to save Earth', US must take the lead to avert eco-disaster" . The full text of Robin's article on Mr. Hansen is as follows:

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.

Soaring carbon emissions are already causing ice-cap melting and threaten to trigger global flooding, widespread species loss and major disruptions of weather patterns in the near future. "We cannot afford to put off change any longer," said Hansen. "We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."

Hansen said current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming. Yet the levels are still rising despite all the efforts of politicians and scientists.

Only the US now had the political muscle to lead the world and halt the rise, Hansen said. Having refused to recognise that global warming posed any risk at all over the past eight years, the US now had to take a lead as the world's greatest carbon emitter and the planet's largest economy. Cap-and-trade schemes, in which emission permits are bought and sold, have failed, he said, and must now be replaced by a carbon tax that will imposed on all producers of fossil fuels. At the same time, there must be a moratorium on new power plants that burn coal - the world's worst carbon emitter.

Hansen - head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies and winner of the WWF's top conservation award - first warned Earth was in danger from climate change in 1988 and has been the victim of several unsuccessful attempts by the White House administration of George Bush to silence his views.

Hansen's institute monitors temperature fluctuations at thousands of sites round the world, data that has led him to conclude that most estimates of sea level rises triggered by rising atmospheric temperatures are too low and too conservative. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says a rise of between 20cm and 60cm can be expected by the end of the century.

However, Hansen said feedbacks in the climate system are already accelerating ice melt and are threatening to lead to the collapse of ice sheets. Sea-level rises will therefore be far greater - a claim backed last week by a group of British, Danish and Finnish scientists who said studies of past variations in climate indicate that a far more likely figure for sea-level rise will be about 1.4 metres, enough to cause devastating flooding of many of the world's major cities and of low-lying areas of Holland, Bangladesh and other nations.

As a result of his fears about sea-level rise, Hansen said he had pressed both Britain's Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences to carry out an urgent investigation of the state of the planet's ice-caps. However, nothing had come of his proposals. The first task of Obama's new climate office should therefore be to order such a probe "as a matter of urgency", Hansen added