Unilateral Disarmament |
July 30, 2009 |
OBAMA EMBRACES RUSSIAN SCHEME TO
UNILATERALLY DISARM U.S.
"Obama went to Moscow desperate for the appearance of a
foreign-policy success. He got that illusion – at a substantial
cost to America’s security. …
"He agreed to trim our nuclear-warhead arsenal by
one-third and – even more dangerously – to cut the systems
that deliver the nuclear payloads. In fact, the Russians don’t
care much about our warhead numbers (which will be chopped to a
figure ‘between 1,500 and 1,675’).
"What they really wanted – and got – was a US cave-in
regarding limits on our nuclear-capable bombers, submarines and
missiles that could leave us with as few as 500 such systems, if
the Russians continue to get their way as the final details are
"Moscow knows we aren’t going to start a nuclear war with
Russia. Putin (forget poor ‘President’ Dimitry Medvedev) wants
to cut our conventional capabilities to stage
globe-spanning military operations. He wants to cut us down to
"Our problem is that many nuclear-delivery systems – such as
bombers or subs – are ‘dual-use’: A B-2 bomber can launch nukes,
but it’s employed more frequently to deliver conventional
"Putin sought to cripple our ability to respond to
international crises. Obama, meanwhile, was out for
‘deliverables’ – deals that could be signed in front of the
cameras. Each man got what he wanted.
"Obama even expressed an interest in further nuclear-weapons
cuts. Peace in our time, ladies and gentlemen, peace in our time
. . .
"We just agreed to the disarmament position of the American
Communist Party of the 1950s."
Stop Sotomayor: No Foreign Law |
July 29, 2009 |
Visit our New Stop Sotomayor Website,
SONIA’S FONDNESS FOR FOREIGN LAW IS A
In a Letter to the Editor of The Washington Times
(7/1/09, p. A18), Dennis Teti of Hyattsville, MD, makes the
"Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, explained well why
judges must not use foreign laws to interpret the U.S.
Constitution (‘Our laws, not foreign laws,’ Opinion, Tuesday).
"When Supreme Court justices take office, they take an oath
that includes these words: ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United
States.’ This Constitution, which the justices have bound
themselves to defend, is not anything a justice says it is – any
more than an ordinary criminal might claim that, by his own
interpretation, he didn't violate the law.
"The Constitution is a document with specific and binding
words, and the words are relatively clear, even common sense. A
specific word may become obsolete over time, but its meaning is
"The same Article VI that requires the justices to ‘support
this Constitution’ also declares that ‘This Constitution’ – plus
U.S. laws and treaties – are ‘the supreme Law of the Land.’ This
article forbids justices from following any foreign law instead
of the Constitution and U.S. law exclusively. For a justice to
follow the law of any foreign country is to violate the oath by
which the justice is bound. The majority opinion in the case of
Roper v. Simmons, mentioned by Mr. Sessions, is a good
example of such a violation.
"It is no answer to claim that there are different ‘theories’
of constitutional interpretation. Of course there are. It is
even less of an answer that the Constitution must apply to ‘the
times.’ Of course it must. The question is whether adhering to
foreign law instead of to the Constitution's own provisions is
an impeachable offense.
"Senators and congressmen also bind themselves by a similar
oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.’ Senators
therefore have a duty to ensure that nominees whom they vote to
confirm take their own oaths seriously.
"It would be worthwhile for Mr. Sessions and others to walk
Judge Sonia Sotomayor and every judicial nominee through a
series of questions to test how well they understand that their
official oath prohibits them from following foreign laws when
"It would be worth learning whether Judge Sotomayor believes
that adhering to other countries’ laws is an offense for which a
justice can be impeached. It also would be invaluable to remind
all citizens and officeholders that we owe a moral debt to the
Constitution that has made us, in Mr. Sessions’ fine words, ‘the
freest nation on Earth.’ "
Wall Street in Bed with Obama & Dems |
July 24, 2009 |
WALL STREET WAS KEY TO OBAMA’S SUCCESS
"Wall Street, far from being a stronghold of ‘rich
Republicans’ and ‘laissez-faire capitalists,’ is actually
dominated by liberal Democrats who support, overwhelmingly, the
prosperity-wrecking big-government policies of Barack Obama and
his merry band of neo-socialists.
"Think I'm exaggerating? Consider the following facts and
"According to an analysis
of Federal Election Commission records by the Center for
Responsive Politics, the 2008 Obama campaign received $12.6
million from Wall Street "Securities and Investment" firms
versus McCain's $7.9 million
● "The top three corporate
employers of donors to Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Rahm
Emanuel were Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and JPMorgan
of Lehman Brothers alone gave Obama $370,000, compared to
about $117,000 to McCain. (No wonder Bush let them go
● "Since 1998, the financial
sector has given a total of $37.6 million to Obama, compared
to $32.1 million to McCain. But Obama ran for his first
national office only in 2004. So McCain got less from the
financial industry in a decade that included two runs for
president than Obama did in four years.
"What's this all about? Well, you see, the financial industry
takes care of Democrats -- and as we've seen in recent months,
the Democrats take care of the financial industry. After all,
it's a lot easier to get rich by taking money from taxpayers
than to do it by choosing consistently profitable investments
for your clients." Source: Human Events, Ann Coulter,
The Pope Endorses a Global Regime |
July 22, 2009 |
POPE BENEDICT PUSHES A NEW WORLD ORDER
"Some in the media are calling it just a statement about
‘economic justice.’ But Pope Benedict XVI's ‘Charity in Truth’
statement, also known as an encyclical, is a radical document
that puts the Roman Catholic Church firmly on the side of an
emerging world government.
"In explicit and direct language, the Pope calls for a ‘true
world political authority’ to manage the affairs of the world.
At the same time, however, the Pope also warns that such an
international order could ‘produce a dangerous universal power
of a tyrannical nature’ and must be guarded against somehow.
"The New York Times got it right this time, noting the Pope's
call for a world political authority amounted to endorsement of
a New World Economic Order, a long-time goal of the old
Soviet-sponsored international communist movement. Bloomberg.com
highlighted the Pope's call for a new world order with ‘teeth.’
"The Pope's shocking endorsement of a ‘World Political
Authority,’ which has prophetic implications for some Christians
who fear that a global dictatorship will take power in the ‘last
days’ of man's reign on earth, comes shortly after the United
Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis
issued a call for global taxes and more powerful global
institutions. U.N. General Assembly President, Miguel D'Escoto,
a Communist Catholic Priest, gave a speech at the event calling
on the nations of the world to revere ‘Mother Earth’ but
concluded with words from the Pope blessing the conference
"Sounding like Obama himself, Pope Benedict says this new
international order can be accomplished through ‘reform of the
United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic
institutions and international finance, so that the concept of
the family of nations can acquire real teeth.’
"The ‘teeth’ may come in adopting the global environmental
agenda, which the Pope warmly embraces.
"Sounding like Al Gore, the Pope said that one pressing need
is ‘a worldwide redistribution of energy resources, so that
countries lacking those resources can have access to them.’ He
adds that ‘This responsibility is a global one, for it is
concerned not just with energy but with the whole of creation,
which must not be bequeathed to future generations depleted of
"‘The Church has a responsibility towards creation and she
must assert this responsibility in the public sphere,’ he
"In a statement that sounds like an endorsement of a new
global warming treaty, which will be negotiated at a U.N.
conference in December, the Pope says, ‘The international
community has an urgent duty to find institutional means of
regulating the exploitation of non-renewable resources,
involving poor countries in the process, in order to plan
together for the future.’
"‘The technologically advanced societies can and must lower
their domestic energy consumption, either through an evolution
in manufacturing methods or through greater ecological
sensitivity among their citizens.’ he declares.
"In terms of how this new ‘world political authority’ should
look, the Pope says that it, too, should have ‘teeth’ in the
form of ‘the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions
from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted
in various international forums.’ Pope Benedict declares that
‘such an authority would need to be universally recognized and
to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for
all, regard for justice, and respect for rights.’
"But the document, which is more than 30,000 words long, is
contradictory in that it pretends that a world government can
co-exist with freedom and democracy. For example, the statement
calls for ‘a greater degree of international ordering, marked by
subsidiarity, for the management of globalization.’ The term
‘subsidiarity’ is usually defined as having matters handled by
local authorities, not international bureaucrats.
"In another example of double-speak, the Pope declares that
‘Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses
the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued.
This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and
stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it
is to yield effective results in practice.’
"He doesn't explain how it will be possible for citizens to
influence or control this ‘world political authority’ when they
are under its bureaucratic control.
"In the statement about how the New World Order could turn
into a tyranny, the Pope is also contradictory, declaring that
‘...the principle of subsidiarity is particularly well-suited to
managing globalization and directing it towards authentic human
development. In order not to produce a dangerous universal power
of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization
must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers
and involving different levels that can work together.’
"Against, he doesn't explain how people on the local or even
national levels will be able to resist this tyranny.
"In a strong endorsement of foreign aid, the Pope says that
‘In the search for solutions to the current economic crisis,
development aid for poor countries must be considered a
valid means of creating wealth for all.’
"But there must be more. He says that ‘...more economically
developed nations should do all they can to allocate larger
portions of their gross domestic product to development aid,
thus respecting the obligations that the international community
has undertaken in this regard.’
"This statement seems to be an urgent call for fulfillment
[sic] of the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals, which involve
an estimated $845 billion from the U.S. over a ten-year period.
"The Pope goes on to say that the social order should conform
to the moral order, but the fact is that on moral issues such as
abortion and homosexuality, the agenda of the United Nations is
opposed to that of the Catholic Church. Even on capital
punishment, there is disagreement. The U.N. opposes it while
traditional church teaching (Section 2267 of the Catholic
Catechism) allows it in certain cases.
"In his statement, the Pope declares that ‘Some
non-governmental Organizations work actively to spread abortion,
at times promoting the practice of sterilization in poor
countries, in some cases not even informing the women concerned.
Moreover, there is reason to suspect that development aid is
sometimes linked to specific health-care policies which de
facto involve the imposition of strong birth control
measures. Further grounds for concern are laws permitting
euthanasia as well as pressure from lobby groups, nationally and
internationally, in favour of its juridical recognition.’
"What he doesn't mention is that some of these groups operate
through and with the support of the United Nations." Source:
Accuracy in Media, Cliff Kincaid, 7/7/09
Ginsburg's "Undesirables" |
July 20, 2009 |
JUSTICE GINSBURG FAVORS USE OF ABORTION TO
"In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing
abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate
undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it
‘populations that we don’t want to have too many of.’ …
"The 16-year veteran of the high court was asked if she were
a lawyer again, what would she ‘want to accomplish as a future
feminist legal agenda.’ …
"Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will
never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just
seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their
abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not
going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor
women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this
hasn’t been said more often. …
"Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris
v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment,
which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly, I
had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was
concern about population growth and particularly growth in
populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that
Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for
abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into
having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the
court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And
then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether
wrong." Source: www.WorldNetDaily.com, 7/8/09
Obama to Push NAU at Secret Summit |
July 15, 2009 |
NAU SUMMIT SET FOR AUGUST 8 IN MEXICO
"The White House is completely mum on the fifth annual summit
of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North
America, now operating under the title of the North American
Leaders' Summit, scheduled on the State Department calendar to
occur in Mexico next month.
"A WND call to the White House for information was referred
to the National Security Council, where a spokeswoman told WND
that the NSC has not issued any announcement about the Aug. 8-11 meeting and was uncertain whether any plans were in the
works to make an announcement anytime in the near future.
"The U.S. Department of State did not return WND's phone call
asking for comment on this story.
"The only mention of the Mexico summit that WND could find on
a U.S. government website is on a calendar on the U.S.
Department of State site that lists only: ‘August 8-11, North
American Leader's Summit, Mexico,’ with no additional
"Formerly known as the Security and Prosperity Partnership of
North America Annual Summit, WND has previously reported that
the last annual SPP summit, held in New Orleans in April
2008, made a determined public relations effort to drop
the SPP designation completely in order to defuse criticism.
"The SPP website maintained by the U.S. Department of
Commerce makes no mention of the upcoming Mexico summit. In
fact, the ‘Joint Statement’ link from North American Leaders'
Summit logo in New Orleans meeting now links to a White House
page that no longer makes any reference to the SPP, the North
American Leaders' Summit or the Joint Statement that was issued
at the New Orleans meeting. " Source: WND, Jerome R. Corsi,
HowardPhillips.com are YOUR sources for the latest news and
action on the North American Union (NAU); please return
The Truth About Honduras & Venezuela |
July 13, 2009 |
OBAMA SIDES WITH CHAVEZ RE HONDURAS
"The idea of Venezuela dictator Hugo Chavez sending his Army
to invade Honduras may sound far-fetched, but it’s not!
Chavez is threatening to invade Honduras and force the
nation to reinstate former President Manuel Zelaya, who was
removed from office last Sunday. Chavez is very angry that
Zelaya was removed because Zelaya had been pushing Honduras
into the Communist sphere of influence. …
"If you have been reading about the alleged ‘military coup’
in Honduras, I want to warn you that almost everything you
have read in the mainstream media in the United States is untrue.
Our own President, Barack Obama, has painted a completely
false picture of what is happening in Honduras.
"Here are the facts: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is a
tyrant who is turning Venezuela into a one-man Communist
dictatorship. He has been using oil money to elect other
extreme leftists to power in Bolivia, Ecuador, and
Nicaragua. Chavez partners with Fidel Castro of Cuba and
wants to impose his brand of corrupt authoritarianism in
all of Latin America. Chavez has also allied himself with
Iran and other outlaw nations around the world. In 2005,
Chavez used oil money to help narrowly elect Manuel Zelaya as
president of Honduras.
"Since taking office in 2006, Zelaya has attempted to turn
Honduras into a Chavez-type dictatorship. However, his
extreme corruption, alliance with drug smugglers, and disdain
for the Constitution and laws of Honduras brought him into
conflict with every institution of Honduran society – the
press, the church, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the
military, and, most important of all, the people.
"The most recent constitutional crisis caused by Zelaya
occurred last week. Under the Honduran Constitution, any
proposed constitutional amendment or constitutional reform must
first be passed by the Honduran Congress. One of the most
sacred provisions of the Honduran Constitution is that the
President of the Republic can only serve for one four-year
term. This is in the Constitution to prevent the kind of
one-man dictatorship that has happened too often in the history
of Honduras and other Latin America countries.
"Zelaya wanted to repeal term-limits for President but
instead of submitting the proposed constitutional amendment to
Congress for approval, he called a public referendum on the
proposal on his own. Congress denounced his unconstitutional
action, but Zelaya proceeded with the ‘election.’ The
Electoral Council, which conducts elections in Honduras, ruled
that the election was illegal and would not be held. The
Council refused to print the ballots. So Zelaya pulled an
amazing maneuver: He had Chavez print the ballots in Venezuela
and ship them to Honduras!
"Under Honduran law, the military is supposed to preserve
the ballots before an election and distribute them to the
polling places. The Venezuelan-printed ballots were stored
at a Honduran Air Force base in anticipation of last Sunday’s
sham election. However, the Supreme Court ordered Gen.
Velasquez, the commander of the armed forces of Honduras, not to
distribute the ballots. So Zelaya promptly dismissed the general
from command. In a matter of hours, the heads of the Army, Air
Force, and Navy resigned in protest. Then the Supreme Court
ordered Gen. Vasquez reinstated to his post.
"On Thursday night, President Zelaya led a mob to the
military base to seize the ballots. He instructed these
individuals – his rabble band of thugs – to conduct the
‘election’ on Sunday. Both major political parties in
Honduras had already denounced the election as illegal and said
they would boycott it. This meant that only Zelaya supporters
would vote in the ‘election,’ and the proposition would be
‘approved.’ It was at this point that the Honduran Supreme Court
ordered the military to arrest Zelaya and deport him from the
country. On Sunday, Congress met and elected Roberto Micheletti
as the new President of Honduras. Micheletti had been president
of the Congress. Since Sunday, tens of thousands of Hondurans
have held rallies in every part of the country in support of the
new government and against the return of Zelaya. More than 70
percent of the people of Honduras support the new government.
The fact is, there was no ‘coup’ in Honduras but an orderly
removal of a criminal from public office – all in accordance
with a decision of the Honduran Supreme Court.
"Now President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, the OAS, and the UN General Assembly
have nevertheless declared this a ‘coup’ and demanded that
Zelaya be returned to office – all in the name of ‘democracy’
and constitutional government! Ironically, Obama and his allies
ignored Zelaya’s repeated violations of Honduran law prior to
last Sunday. Now suddenly, Obama, Chavez, and company are very
concerned about the law and the Constitution. Where were they
when Zelaya was trampling on the law and the Constitution?
"What the Honduran Supreme Court, the Congress, and military
did was in accordance with the laws and Constitution of
Honduras. The bottom line is that Communism has been stopped in
Honduras. That’s why Chavez wants to intervene militarily – to
return Zelaya to power and put Honduras back on the road to
For more information, go to
www.SupportFreeHonduras.com" Source: Louis (Woody) Jenkins,
Chairman of Friends of the Americas, 7/3/09
POLL SHOWS STRONG SUPPORT FOR ENGLISH AS
THE OFFICIAL AMERICAN LANGUAGE
Americans want English to be the nation’s
official language according to a poll conducted by The
Conservative Caucus Foundation (TCCF). 99.7% of those responding
to the poll supported making English the official languange,
with the remainder undecided.
There was also 91.7% support for revoking Executive Order 13166
(issued by President Clinton) which required Federal, state, and
local government agencies to conduct more of their business in
other languages. Ninety-eight and one-half percent agreed that
it is “patriotic and for the good of all immigrants to learn our
nation’s unifying language.”
The tax burden of illegal immigrants who do not speak English
was a concern to 99.7%, and 96.5% opposed continuing to provide
government forms in a language other than English.
The poll was conducted by mail during the spring of 2009 and
received about 3,000 responses.
The Conservative Caucus Foundation (TCCF), founded in 1976, has
published studies on many public policy issues, including some
concerning Red China, the Panama Canal, the START treaties, and
NAU Continues under Obama |
July 6, 2009 |
NORTH AMERICAN UNION (NAU) PROMOTED IN ATLANTA
"Vicente Fox, President of Centro Fox and former President of
Mexico spoke at a public forum in Atlanta, Georgia, on May 12th.
The Summit was entitled the ‘Commission on North American
Prosperity’ and was hosted by Kennesaw State University, and
sponsored by Kansas City Railroad and the United States/Mexico
Chamber of Commerce.
"The Summit Leaders were former President Vicente Fox,
General Al Zapanta, President US/Mexico Chamber of Commerce and
Dr. Peter Appleton, President, US/Mexico Chamber, SE Chapter.
"Session #1 was entitled ‘Commerce – The future of North
American Trade’ and was chaired by Dr. Dan Papp, President of
Kennesaw State University. The Presenter was Dr. Robert
Pastor, Professor of International Studies at American
University and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
task force report which presented the
blueprint in 2005
for expanding the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)
agreement into a North American Union (NAU) that would merge the
U.S., Canada and Mexico into the formation of a new government.
Under the SPP/NAU, the three nations would no longer have
separate borders, but would implement a ‘common’ approach to
"The Bush Administration operated in secret for over two
years without Congressional oversight to establish the North
American Union with Mexico and Canada, similar to the European
Union. This, if established, would mean an end to the U.S.
Constitution as our ruling document, only to be replaced with a
new North American government.
"This Union, if completely developed, would lead to the
surrender of our U.S. sovereignty, independence, and national
borders. The NAU would lead to a North America currency called
the ‘Amero’ and a NAFTA Super Highway to run from Mexico
to Canada through the middle of the United States. Kansas City
would be an ‘inland port’ to handle imports and exports among
the three nations. It is my understanding that $2.5 million in
taxpayer’s dollars has already been designated to establish the
"This SPP/NAU is now being called the North American
‘Community’ according to the recent Summit and is recognized as
very important by the Obama Administration. ‘Let’s think of
North America not as three countries,’ the Summit promoted, but
let’s think how ‘We must learn from Europe’ and from the
"Now you can understand why my Senate Resolution, SR 124, had
such difficulty getting passed in the Georgia State Senate. In
2007, as the vote was being taken, Senator Seth Harp laid a
letter on every Senator’s desk from the Georgia Chamber of
Commerce to ‘Oppose SR 124’. The letter was signed by Joe
Fleming, Senior Vice President of Georgia's Chamber of Commerce.
"The following year, 2008, the resolution languished for
weeks before finally being called up for a vote where by it
Senate Resolution 124.
"Folks, this is about the redistribution of America’s wealth.
It is the undermining of our culture, our economy, and our
freedom. A North American ‘Community’ is not just a means to
broaden our markets as we are told. The European Union was sold
to broaden their markets, but has now become part of the ruling
socialist government. The NAU will be the end of America.
"Americans must make the sacrifice and get involved with the
future of our country and say ‘NO’ to the North American Union.
Without the protest from millions of Americans across this land,
there will be no stopping it." Source: Nancy Schaefer, Eagle
Forum of Georgia, 5/15/09
U.S. NAVY NEEDS ANOTHER JOHN LEHMAN
John Lehman was probably our greatest Navy Secretary.
Here is what he had to say at a recent conference sponsored
by the Hudson Institute (May 22, 2009): "Former Secretary of
the Navy John Lehman discussed what the Navy should look
like over the coming decades. Lehman summed up his view with
three points; the Navy should look the same to everyone, it
should look competent, and it should look elite and glamorous.
On the first point, Lehman explained that when other countries
consider the U.S. nuclear deterrent, there was little question
as to its effectiveness. As regards conventional forces however,
not everyone views the U.S. Navy as an effective deterrent.
Our allies in the Pacific for example, are anxious at the
prospect of the U.S. reducing its presence in the region. As
Lehman explained, the U.S. Navy should appear effective and
serious to whoever was looking.
"Lehman’s second point, that the U.S. Navy should look
competent, spoke directly to the issue of a decline in the
Navy’s overall number of ships. ‘The Navy does not look
competent in the management of its resources,’ he said. Lehman
noted that during World War II, the Bureau of Ships was building
roughly 1,000 ships a year with a staff of about 1,000. Now,
they are turning out only about 6-7 ships per year with staffs
of 25,000. Lehman blamed this on the joint requirements
culture which greatly enables changing the requirements for ship
construction. These constantly changing requirements slow down
the process of procurement and drive up the costs. To fix this,
Lehman advocated a more streamlined procurement structure with
simple line-management and stricter accountability to cut down
on change orders and speed up the building of ships. The Navy
also needs to engage in a broader procurement process that would
include smaller contractors as well as established firms to
ensure competition. For the same reason, contracts needed to be
reviewed periodically instead of being awarded to a single firm
"On his final point, Lehman argued for a Navy, and a military
in general, that looked elite and glamorous in order to attract
the most talented people. He spoke out against many current
practices which were ‘turning the military profession into
nothing more than a trade.’ Lehman had particularly strong words
for the switch from military dress uniforms to less formal
attire. He found the practice of wearing fatigues and overalls
at the headquarters of the U.S. military command a regrettable
indication of a decrease in the U.S. military’s status as an