"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 negotiated.

"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 Russia’s size.

"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 ordnance.

"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."

In a Letter to the Editor of The Washington Times (7/1/09, p. A18), Dennis Teti of Hyattsville, MD, makes the following points:

"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 never obsolete.

"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 deciding cases.

"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, 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 statistics:

● "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

"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, 7/8/09

"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 participants. …

"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 its resources.’

"‘The Church has a responsibility towards creation and she must assert this responsibility in the public sphere,’ he explains.

"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

"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.’ …

"Ginsburg responded:

"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

"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 information.

"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, 7/6/09

TCC and HowardPhillips.com are YOUR sources for the latest news and action on the North American Union (NAU); please return frequently.

"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 Communist dictatorship.

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 SDI.

"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 border security.

"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 ‘port’.

"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 European Union.

"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 barely passed.

Please view 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

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 indefinitely.

"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 elite organization."