“The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990. Thirteen departments and agencies participate in the USGCRP, which was known as the U.S. Climate Change Science Program from 2002 through 2008. The program is steered by the Subcommittee on Global Change Research under the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, overseen by the Executive Office of the President, and facilitated by an Integration and Coordination Office.“
There it is, your tax dollars at work.
Also notice how there is a swarm of social news bookmarking icons at the bottom of each page of their website. Why does a government website need social news bookmarking icons?
Answer: Because they are in the pushing political propaganda business, not in the government research profession!
[Update: In case anyone doesn't yet know; "Global Warming" is an attempt to scam you. See this video if you have any doubts:
[Update: Video is now full length.]
Documentary Video: The Great Global Warming Swindle
As the Senate Dems ram through confirmation of controversial revisionist Judge Sotomayor, the repercussions will likely resonate around the country and create a ground swell of rage among voters the likes of which has not been seen in living memory.
The electorate is already up in arms about the bank bailout, the economy, proposed higher taxes, the nationalization of the auto industry, and the proposed nationalization of the health care industry. The confirmation of a shameless race baiter and self-proclaimed female supremacist to the supreme court will be the last straw and will likely be the last Justice the Democrats in Congress will have an opportunity to confirm. Come election day, the consequences will likely have turned a mild reduction in Democrat holdings on the hill, into a blood bath that could end up as a virtual eradication of the Democratic party from the House of Representatives and a humiliation for Senate Democrats. It is now hard to find any traditional Dem group, that either Obama’s administration, or the Democrat controlled Congress, hasn’t insulted, rolled under the bus, or squelched.
The anger around the country is palpable, though the Democrats and the administration seem oblivious to it. That doesn’t bode well for the Dem’s radical agenda.
Since the Democrats took control of the Congress and the White House, they seem to be on a mission to eliminate the Constitution as the last remaining vestige of the great republic our founders gave us to protect and defend; not only for us, but for our children and grandchildren. The Dem’s oath to it is clearly meaningless for them. They hate it. They are traitors bent on socialist revolution and, just like all socialists, they are bent on installing themselves into oligarchic power over the populace. The Democrat Party has allowed itself to become the National Socialist Party.
The Dems benevolent sounding rhetoric up till now has been that they have been working to eliminate racism and bigotry. I think we can all see now, the facade of their agenda has crumbled away exposing their true intentions, which are quite different. Rather than trying to seek peace between the races, they have been waging a passive-aggressive war on behalf of black supremacists. Rather than trying to seek peace between the sexes, they have been waging a passive-aggressive war on behalf of Nazi Feminist supremacists. Rather than trying to seek peace between homosexuals and churches, they have been waging a passive-aggressive war on behalf of homosexual supremacists. Rather than trying seek peace between Christians and Moslems, they have been waging a passive-aggressive war on behalf of Moslem supremacists. Rather than trying to seek peace between the urban liberals and small town and rural conservatives, they have been waging a passive-aggressive war on behalf of urban supremacists. This is all clear evidence that the Dems don’t want peace, they want total victory and elimination of both their opponents, and the document that limits their power. The United States Constitution.
They are on a fools errand though.
They don’t understand that the Constitution is the only thing that ties our 50 State republics together in a Union. Without the Constitution as the glue, each state will do as it pleases and go it’s own way in an old Soviet Union style break-up and dissolution of the Failed Federal Government. Now you know why they want you taxed into poverty and guns outlawed, they fear a bloody revolt. That fear is well placed and it shows they are not completely insane, just cold and calculating traitors planning to quietly overthrow the Constitution and the freedom and liberty that it was created to protect.
So now that you know what the current battle is all about, and how high the stakes are, it all comes down to this… which side are you going to throw your lot in with, the traitors or the patriots.
It seems like every American should already know this, but just in case there were any questions left…
Democrats are people who believe that the United States of America is, and should be, governed as a Democracy.
Republicans are people who believe that the United States of America is, and should be, governed as a Republic.
That sounds pretty simple doesn’t it? But what does it really mean?
Lets start with defining the terms. Webster defines them thusly:
Democracy -
a: a government by the people ; especially:rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. (underscoring added)
Republic -
a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law. (underscoring added)
Let us notice some seemingly subtle, but quite profound differences between the two.
Democracy:
“The people”. Who are “the people”? They are exactly what it says, “the people”, everyone; not a people, not some people, not our people, it means ALL of the people on the land. Generally that definition includes illegal aliens, resident aliens, temporary foreign workers, felons, prisoners, traitors, children, the insane, the severely mentally handicapped, and any enemy invader. It means everyone.
How are decisions made in a democracy? By majority, period.
Does the minority get a say in anything? No. the majority rules supremely and absolutely.
Is the majority constrained by law? No.
Is the majority constrained by the separation of powers? No.
Is the majority constrained by ethics or morality? No.
Is the majority required to recognize the rights or needs of the minority? No.
Can the majority change any rule or law or constitution or right or tradition? Yes.
Can the majority completely change the form of government to anything they want? Yes.
Republic:
“A body of citizens entitled to vote”. Who are they? They are, first of all, citizens. Non-citizens have no say in the way a republic is governed. Second, they are citizens who have been entitled to vote.
Are there citizens who are not entitled to vote? Yes there are. Illegal aliens, resident aliens, temporary foreign workers, felons, prisoners, traitors, children, the insane, the severely mentally handicapped, and enemy invaders are examples of people not entitled to vote.
Are there any rules that govern who can vote and who cannot? Yes, the law governs who can vote and who cannot vote; not the “majority”.
Who makes the law? The legislature.
Is the legislature constrained by the law? Yes. The Law written in the Constitution.
Is the legislature constrained by separation of powers? Yes.
Does the legislature make decisions democratically? Contrary to popular belief, No they don’t. They vote on them, but the minority gets to voice their opinions and ideas and may add amendments to bills and block legislation by procedures and filibusters.
And after a bill passes in the legislature, is it then law? No. It must pass both houses (if a two house system) and it must be signed by the elected head of state, then it becomes law; but if challenged in court, it must be held constitutionally sound, lawfully enacted, and jurisdictionally operable and functionally possible and not in conflict with existing superior law. If it doesn’t hold up in court, according to the law, then it is not law.
Is the legislature constrained by ethics and morality? If either or both are existing in the law, then yes.
Is the majority in the legislature required to recognize the rights and the needs of the minority? Yes.
Can the majority in the legislature change any rule or law or constitution or right or tradition? No. The majority may only change the law when both houses agree and the head of state consents, or if the head of state does not consent, then a super majority is required to over-ride the head of state. Even then it may still be challenged in court and found unconstitutional, inoperable, impossible, or in conflict with existing superior law.
Can the legislature change the constitution on its own? No. The legislature may begin the process, but it cannot act alone. The constitution may only be changed by a super majority of the States, or a super majority of the people acting in convention. The head of state has no role in this process.
Can the legislature or the head of state, or the courts or all of them together, eliminate, or suspend, the constraints of the constitution, or the whole constitution itself and thereby change the form of government to something else? No, they may not. To do so would be treason and the penalty for treason under the law is death.
Now, after considering all of the above, and looking at my own beliefs, conviction, positions on legislation, opinions expressed, voting patterns and desires for the future of my nation. I conclude that I fall solidly into the Republican camp.
How about you; and how about the people you know? Where do they fall?
Let’s be honest here. If you were to be on trial using the above as the litmus test, and after weighing all the evidence, do you think a jury of your peers would hand down a verdict of Democrat, or Republican for you? And what is your confidence level on that? If your confidence level is not high, or very high, then perhaps you should study on the subject some more. (the below video may help)
So, why do I ask this question?
Because being a Republican or a Democrat is not just a party name, or the equivalent of a home team sports loyalty, or a family tradition. Being a Republican or a Democrat means something, and that something has consequences if you don’t understand what is at stake or what is “in play”.
This nation was founded by some very intelligent and learned men and they did their best to give us a nation that would remain strong and vital for us, their children, and for those who would come here and desire to stand beside us in maintaining that great gift.
So the next time you hear someone throwing around the word “democracy”, a red flag should go up and you would do well to judge carefully what may lie beneath the surface of that the person’s agenda.
What did the founders have to say about it?
Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, entitled “Republican government” states:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”
All of the other sections of the US Constitution describe a republican form of government for our national government as well, and the word “democracy” never appears, nor does any variation of it. The founders didn’t approve of democracy and feared it. We would be wise to do the same.
James Madison said:
“Such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.“
Thomas Jefferson said:
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.“
And on this subject I now offer you this excellent but brief video presentation entitled:
An attorney in California, Orly Taitz, has filed a motion in the US District Court of California to authenticate a document that appears to be a “Certified Copy of Registration of Birth” originating from “The Office of the Principal Registrar, Coast Province, Republic of Kenya“.
[ Note: the above link is being flagged by Google/Firefox as an "attack site", this could be bogus politics or a genuine hack attack on the site, Taitz says its a politically motivated attack in her blog and that no malicious software exists on her site. i have anti-virus software running on my system so I just ignored the warning and nothing happened. You may want to make sure your system is protected and updates have been installed before testing the link. I wouldn't put it past the radical left to hack into a blog server and install a nasty little worm. ]
The document appears to contain an official embossed (raised ) seal and a signature of the Deputy Registrar dated “17th day of February, 1964“.
The document appears to show that a male child who’s “Christian Name” is “BARACK HUSSEIN II” was born to “Barack Hussein OBAMA” and “Stanley Ann OBAMA, formerly Dunham” on “4th August, 1961at Coast General Hosplital Mombasa“, in the East African nation of Kenya.
The informant (the person who supplied the information to the registrar) is shown as “B. H. OBAMA, Father“, of “Honolulu, Hawaii, UNITED STATES“; the date of registration appears as “5th August, 1961″.
The document also shows that the birth is recorded in the Province’s Birth Registry in “Book No. 44B “and “Page No. 5733“. Which, if correct, should be quite easy to verify.
Here is a link to view an image of the document that Taitz has apparently submitted to the court.
[You know, there is a conspiracy regarding Barack Obama's birth certificate. And producing diaries like this is the primary goal of it. Folks, don't waste our bandwidth like this. - Moe Lane]
Some people of late have been talking about “the abortion debate” and the law. Let’s have a look at one legal argument that I haven’t heard anyone make before.
Since it is easily proven that an unborn child has human DNA from conception, there is no doubt that the child is legally a human being. Likewise, since the child has DNA that is distinct from both parents, there can be no doubt that the child is legally not an integral part of the body of either parent; and since the child has her own beating heart and active brain waves and can move her limbs under her own control there can be no doubt that she is alive. So until birth, a child lives in a legal state not unlike that of a pre-emancipation negro slave living on a plantation with the Mother acting the role of the Master with the power over life and death of the subject property.
It would seem to make sense under the law that a child in the womb is not the exclusive property of the mother, but is joint-property entrusted to the mother until birth. Since the child is not legally a ‘person’ until birth, it seems logical that the child would fall under the legal definition of ‘live stock’ property as slaves did, with the owners being the two parents who contributed DNA to form the child. Normally a marriage contract would be written evidence of this trust, however even in the absence of a marriage contract, an implied contract still exists under the law and takes the form of an implied Trust agreement where the mother is the trustee and at the same time one of the beneficiaries of that Trust.
However, this is not the 19th century, we have laws today to protect human dignity, human rights, and we also have laws to insure that even live stock are treated humanely and not tortured or allowed to suffer unnecessarily. We also have laws that protect other interested parties in a Trust from abuse or neglect or loss of the property by an act of a trustee, in this case the father would be the other interested party. His property rights also exist and should be protected and if they are not protected, he should prevail in a civil case to recover damages and the loss of his half of the property entrusted to the trustee/mother. On top of that, cruel and inhumane treatment of ‘live stock’ can be a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment and/or a fine.
But yet again we see the Democrats on the wrong side of a human rights issue. They were on the wrong side of the slavery issue, they were on the wrong side of the black voting rights issue, they were on the wrong side of the segregation issue, and now they are on the wrong side of the abortion issue. The undeniable fact is that the unborn are living beings with human DNA and as such they already have human rights and because they are lives that are entrusted to the care of people living under the law, they already have the right to be treated humanely and with respect and dignity and not be tortured and their rights deserve to be vigorously defended by the State, the United States and the Supreme Court of the United States every bit as much as the rights of any other human being and every bit as much as any domestic live stock animal or Zoo animal is protected from harm and cruelty.
So, here is where the abortion debate ends. If a Zoo keeper had a chimpanzee that she didn’t want and hired a man to end that chimpanzee’s life by a method of lassoing the chimp’s arms and legs through the bars of the cage and viciously pulling them off one by one and then finally smashing the chimp’s skull with a hammer so it would fit through the bars and then pulled the dead body out through the bars for disposal in a garbage bag, who would say this man and the Zoo keeper who hired him were innocent of any crime? Who would say these people were just providing a necessary service to the community? What I have just described is what abortion is in all of its bloody truth and all of it’s agonizing horror and all of its vicious inhumanity.
Now look at the people in the Democrat Party who defend and protect and legitimize and justify this kind of horrific act done against our own species, our own kind, our own fellow Americans. Is there any word that comes to mind for them other than Nazi? Is there any crime against humanity that compares with it’s 50 Million American dead? Yes, you read that number right. Is there any doubt that this is genocide? Is there any doubt that the guilty must be stopped and brought to justice in a Nuremberg style trial and the organizations that funded it, promoted it, defended it, and carried it out should be shut down, seized of all of their property and records and dissolved permanently, including the Democratic Party and all the people who are responsible for running it? Is there any doubt that the places where these horrific crimes took place should be made into national memorials for the dead and educational museums for the living so that our children can be taught that this kind of horror should never ever happen again?
If there is doubt, then what right did we have to stop the Nazi’s from executing innocent Jews, Poles, and Gypsies? After all it was legal for them to do so under German law at the time. Indeed, have we as a nation not willfully blinded ourselves just as the German people turned a blind eye to the Nazi genocide as it happened right in their midst? Worse yet, have we as a nation not already followed in the foot steps of the Nazi killing machine? In fact are we not even better and more efficient than the Nazis were at lying about it, justifying it, and building it into an industrial killing machine?
So the next time someone wants you to debate them on the abortion issue, just tell them the debate is over, abortion is genocide. If they deny it, you have every right to call them a Nazi. End of debate.
Listed below is this writers compiled list of reasons why Obama Supreme Court pick Sonia Sotomayor should not be allowed to practice law much less sit on any court in America:
1. Sotomayor has admitted her activist nature to “make policy” by legislating from the bench, usurping the power of legislatures to make law and crossing the line between the separation of powers in government.
2. Sotomayor supports the butchering of innocent human beings by affirming the Roe v. Wade decision that has snuffed out 50 MILLION American lives at the hands of abortionists. (Note that even ‘Roe’ who won that case has been arrested for protesting Sotomayor as too extreme on abortion.)
3. Sotomayor has supported the right of government to ban and confiscate privately owned guns, which violates the Second Amendment to United States Constitution.
4. Sotomayor has ruled for an extremist view of ‘affirmative action’ by favoring race or gender over merit in the promotion of employees.
5. Sotomayor has written in favor of promoting international law over American law, violating her oath to support and defend the United States Constitution.
There are more reasons, but these are the top five that matter most.
Frankly, I can’t come up with a name for someone who would be a less qualified pick for a Justice than Sonia Sotomayor.
We would be better served by a person who was chosen at random from the phone book.
[Note to Democrats - This nomination is too extreme and too reckless, even for liberals. It is quite clear to us in middle America that your party leadership is out of control and driving the party as fast as they can down a dead end.]
Republican Florida Senator Mel Martinez announced his support for controversial Obama supreme court nominee and Latina supremacist Sonia Sotomayor on his own Senate web site yesterday:
“Given her judicial record, and her testimony this week, it is my determination that Judge Sotomayor is well-qualified to serve as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
“Judge Sotomayor is knowledgeable of the law, would be a fair and impartial judge, and seems to have a good understanding of the limited role the judiciary plays in our democracy.
“Judge Sotomayor’s rise to the Supreme Court is testimony to the fact that the American dream continues to be attainable. As an Hispanic American, I take great pride in Judge Sotomayor’s historic achievement. Given her qualifications and testimony this week, I intend to vote in favor of her confirmation.”
Compare that to what Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell had to say about Obama’s Court pick:
“From the beginning of this confirmation process, I’ve said that Americans expect one thing when they walk into a court room, whether it’s a traffic court or the Supreme Court – and that’s equal treatment under the law. Over the years, Americans have accepted significant ideological differences in the kinds of men and women that various presidents have nominated to the Supreme Court. But one thing Americans will never tolerate in a nominee is a belief that some groups are more deserving of a fair shake than others. Nothing could be more offensive to the American sensibility than that. Judge Sotomayor is a fine person with an impressive story and a distinguished background. But above all else, a judge must check his or her personal or political agenda at the courtroom door and do justice even-handedly, as the judicial oath requires.”
“Judge Sotomayor’s record of written statements suggest an alarming lack of respect for the notion of equal justice, and therefore, in my view, an insufficient willingness to abide by the judicial oath. This is particularly important when considering someone for the Supreme Court since, if she were confirmed, there would be no higher court to deter or prevent her from injecting into the law the various disconcerting principles that recur throughout her public statements. For that reason, I will oppose her nomination.”
[ click here to read more of McConnell's press release. ]
Are they talking about the same person here?
Martinez seems to have no clue what his choice will do to his own political career back here in Florida, unless he plans on defecting to the Democrat Party. Thanks a lot Mel. With Republicans like you, we don’t need Democrats. I wonder what is driving Martinez.
Momentum for the controversial bill now seems to be picking up. There are currently nine co-sponsors who have signed on to Representative Bill Posey’s (R-FL) proposed amendment (HR-1503).
The bill amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and would require candidates for President of the United States to provide among other things, “…a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate…”.
The Ten Representatives now supporting the bill are:
-
Rep. Bill Posey (R-Florida) (sponsor)
Rep. John R. Carter (R-Texas)
Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas)
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas)
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virgina)
Rep. John Campbell (R-California)
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee)
Rep. Dan Burton (R- Indiana)
Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) and
Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas)
Posey’s bill is controversial because there are those on both sides of the political spectrum who oppose the idea that a candidate for President or Vice-President should have to submit a copy of his or her birth certificate for inspection. The reasoning behind this opposition remains unclear.
The bill reads:
“To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.”.
and
“Congress finds that under section 5 of article II of the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years.”
If enacted, the amendment would be in force during the upcoming 2012 U. S. Presidential election.
Thebillhas been referred to committee in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Sarah Palin commands the respect and the adoration of millions, something not seen in a conservative woman since Margaret Thatcher. She is adept at turning Political Correctness back upon the liberals and the media and it drives them batty. She is a courageous champion for herself, her family, her lifestyle, her values, and her party. She loves the outdoors and hunting and frontier life. All reminders of our twenty-sixth president, Teddy Roosevelt
The media’s wishful speculation about her reasons for leaving office aside, It seems likely that she has decided to do a speaking tour of the lower 48 and understood that the vast distance back to Alaska wouldn’t let her continue as Governor and her absence wouldn’t be fair on Alaskans either. So she did the right thing in stepping down. She chose the path that would allow her to do the most good for the conservative cause.
Whether or not her speaking turns into political fund raising for higher office will be decided by her fans as they turn out to see her. Which I am sure they will. And as they do, the media will surely have fits over it and her.
Why?
Because they hate her.
Why would they hate her?
Because the very existence of a popular pro-life, pro-gun, pro-drilling, pro-family conservative woman blows a hole as big as Alaska in the lie that the Dems and their media stooges have been feeding women in this country for decades. The lie that the Dems are the only party that represent women, the only party that gives them a voice, and the only party that elects them to office. The Dems have built their largest party demographic (women voters) on the strength of this particular lie. But now conservative women have a voice in Sarah Palin, and it signals the end of the left’s domination of women’s politics. The media’s propoganda cannot take hold if Sarah Palin stands up and calls them out on their lie because she is the embodyment of the kind of woman that the Dems told everyone doesn’t exist, and yet she does exist and they can’t ignore her. That is why the leftists have decided that they must destory her any way they can. She represents a nuclear destabilization threat to the core of their political power base. That is why every time she speaks they have go into full scale damage control.
Colin Powell reportedly defended Obama supreme court nominee Sonja Sotomayor saying that she has,
“an open and liberal bent of mind, but that’s not disqualifying.”
In so saying, Powell has revealed that he himself is a defender of the liberal definition of affirmative action and the “reverse racism” (read racial prejudice against people who happen to have white skin) policies of the Democrats. Therefore, even if Powell has a GOP voter registration card, it means that he is just attempting to fool everyone, including himself.
It is apparent that in his heart, Powell believes in Democrat policies, and supports the Democrat liberal agenda and cares not for the preservation of the Constitution as the Founders intended.
He therefore has no respect for a bunch of “dead white guys”, or their design for a fair and just constitutional republic, and he has no respect for the rule of law or equal protection, or the supremacy of Constitution law. He supports the Democratic ideology that some groups of people deserve special privileges and protection over other groups of people on the basis of skin color, and that if it takes corrupt judges to preserve those privileges, then so be it.
Powell is a de facto Democrat. There can be no doubt anymore.
