Let Them Go Their Way By Governor Ronald Reagan

Source: http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/reagan/reagan1975.asp Conservative Political Action Conference Washington, DC March 1, 1975

Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.

Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.

Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.

But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.

The “Young Turks” had campaigned against “evil politicians.” They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority.

And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals—and pursue them they will.

I know you are aware of the national polls which show that a greater (and increasing) number of Americans—Republicans, Democrats and independents—classify themselves as “conservatives” than ever before. And a poll of rank-and-file union members reveals dissatisfaction with the amount of power their own leaders have assumed, and a resentment of their use of that power for partisan politics. Would it shock you to know that in that poll 68 percent of rank-and-file union members of this country came out endorsing right-to-work legislation?

These polls give cause for some optimism, but at the same time reveal a confusion that exists and the need for a continued effort to “spread the word.”

In another recent survey, of 35,000 college and university students polled, three-fourths blame American business and industry for all of our economic and social ills. The same three-fourths think the answer is more (and virtually complete) regimentation and government control of all phases of business—including the imposition of wage and price controls. Yet, 80 percent in the same poll want less government interference in their own lives!

In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues—to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state—that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation’s ability to protect itself.

A study has been made that is so revealing that I’m not surprised it has been ignored by a certain number of political commentators and columnists. The political science department of Georgetown University researched the mandate of the 1972 election and recently presented its findings at a seminar.

Taking several major issues which, incidentally, are still the issues of the day, they polled rank-and-file members of the Democratic party on their approach to these problems. Then they polled the delegates to the two major national conventions—the leaders of the parties.

They found the delegates to the Republican convention almost identical in their responses to those of the rank-and-file Republicans. Yet, the delegates to the Democratic convention were miles apart from the thinking of their own party members.

The mandate of 1972 still exists. The people of America have been confused and disturbed by events since that election, but they hold an unchanged philosophy.

Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked. Gov. Meldrim Thomson is making them work in New Hampshire; so is Arch Moore in West Virginia and Mills Godwin in Virginia. Jack Williams made them work in Arizona and I’m sure Jim Edwards will in South Carolina.

If you will permit me, I can recount my own experience in California.

When I went to Sacramento eight years ago, I had the belief that government was no deep, dark mystery, that it could be operated efficiently by using the same common sense practiced in our everyday life, in our homes, in business and private affairs.

The “lab test” of my theory – California—was pretty messed up after eight years of a road show version of the Great Society. Our first and only briefing came from the outgoing director of finance, who said: “We’re spending $1 million more a day than we’re taking in. I have a golf date. Good luck!” That was the most cheerful news we were to hear for quite some time.

California state government was increasing by about 5,000 new employees a year. We were the welfare capital of the world with 16 percent of the nation’s caseload. Soon, California’s caseload was increasing by 40,000 a month.

We turned to the people themselves for help. Two hundred and fifty experts in the various fields volunteered to serve on task forces at no cost to the taxpayers. They went into every department of state government and came back with 1,800 recommendations on how modern business practices could be used to make government more efficient. We adopted 1,600 of them.

We instituted a policy of “cut, squeeze and trim” and froze the hiring of employees as replacements for retiring employees or others leaving state service.

After a few years of struggling with the professional welfarists, we again turned to the people. First, we obtained another task force and, when the legislature refused to help implement its recommendations, we presented the recommendations to the electorate.

It still took some doing. The legislature insisted our reforms would not work; that the needy would starve in the streets; that the workload would be dumped on the counties; that property taxes would go up and that we’d run up a deficit the first year of $750 million.

That was four years ago. Today, the needy have had an average increase of 43 percent in welfare grants in California, but the taxpayers have saved $2 billion by the caseload not increasing that 40,000 a month. Instead, there are some 400,000 fewer on welfare today than then.

Forty of the state’s 58 counties have reduced property taxes for two years in a row (some for three). That $750-million deficit turned into an $850-million surplus which we returned to the people in a one-time tax rebate. That wasn’t easy. One state senator described that rebate as “an unnecessary expenditure of public funds.”

For more than two decades governments—federal, state, local—have been increasing in size two-and-a-half times faster than the population increase. In the last 10 years they have increased the cost in payroll seven times as fast as the increase in numbers.

We have just turned over to a new administration in Sacramento a government virtually the same size it was eight years ago. With the state’s growth rate, this means that government absorbed a workload increase, in some departments as much as 66 percent.

We also turned over—for the first time in almost a quarter of a century—a balanced budget and a surplus of $500 million. In these eight years just passed, we returned to the people in rebates, tax reductions and bridge toll reductions $5.7 billion. All of this is contrary to the will of those who deplore conservatism and profess to be liberals, yet all of it is pleasing to its citizenry.

Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.

Speaker Carl Albert recently was quoted as saying that our problem is “60 percent recession, 30 percent inflation and 10 percent energy.” That makes as much sense as saying two and two make 22.

Without inflation there would be no recession. And unless we curb inflation we can see the end of our society and economic system. The painful fact is we can only halt inflation by undergoing a period of economic dislocation—a recession, if you will.

We can take steps to ease the suffering of some who will be hurt more than others, but if we turn from fighting inflation and adopt a program only to fight recession we are on the road to disaster.

In his first address to Congress, the president asked Congress to join him in an all-out effort to balance the budget. I think all of us wish that he had re-issued that speech instead of this year’s budget message.

What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress?

Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say “no.”

This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. John Kenneth Galbraith, who, in my opinion, is living proof that economics is an inexact science, has written a new book. It is called “Economics and the Public Purpose.” In it, he asserts that market arrangements in our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care and a host of other miseries. And then, for the first time to my knowledge, he advances socialism as the answer to our problems.

Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap?

Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge. Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition.

We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!

Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos.

We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. And we are conscious that in Moscow the crash build-up of arms continues. The SALT II agreement in Vladivostok, if not re-negotiated, guarantees the Soviets a clear missile superiority sufficient to make a “first strike” possible, with little fear of reprisal. Yet, too many congressmen demand further cuts in our own defenses, including delay if not cancellation of the B-1 bomber.

I realize that millions of Americans are sick of hearing about Indochina, and perhaps it is politically unwise to talk of our obligation to Cambodia and South Vietnam. But we pledged—in an agreement that brought our men home and freed our prisoners—to give our allies arms and ammunition to replace on a one-for-one basis what they expend in resisting the aggression of the Communists who are violating the cease-fire and are fully aided by their Soviet and Red Chinese allies. Congress has already reduced the appropriation to half of what they need and threatens to reduce it even more.

Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.

We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, “Deal falsely with our God,” we shall be made “a story and byword throughout the world.”

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing—adjusting the brackets to the cost of living—so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.

Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

Obama Sounding Less Than Presidential by Sher Zieve

Source: http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_212185150.shtml

Nov 10, 2008

Preparing the American people for a presidency that will be far less than presidential, Barack Obama gave his first dual-presidency speech and decided to "dis" former First Lady Nancy Reagan. During his Friday press conference, billed as a "major economic message" on the horrific economic problems we no face-caused by Democrats in the first place-Prez-elect Obama said "I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any séances." The problem with this, of course, is that Mrs. Reagan never conducted séances in the White House. But, former First Lady and now Democrat NY Senator Hillary Clinton did. Obama's statement was not only factually wrong, it was sophomoric and not even close to be presidential or statesmanlike. But, it did give us a clear picture and set the tone for what will most likely be the most mean-spirited and suppressive presidential regime in US history. Note: The mainstream Obama media has failed-as was to be expected and will now become even more their norm of not reporting anything negative about their secular savior-to call their messiah out on his lie.

I also anticipate that any and/or all references to the truth about Barack Hussein Obama will soon-if it has not already started-begin to disappear from Internet search engines. The last days of the current presidency may prove to be the last days of freedom and liberty for the American people. Despite all of the smears against President Bush and dire warnings of "oppression" and end to free speech from the Left, there was never any oppression or silencing of speech from the Bush administration. It never happened. However, Obama began his usage of the State to silence his opponents-even those US citizens who merely asked him questions he doesn't like-before he was elected. Obama's followers used the State of Ohio to begin investigations of "Joe the Plumber" for asking the messiah a question that forced him to answer with the truth-that he will 'redistribute people's wealth' to those Obama feels are more deserving. When journalist Barbara West asked Obama's Vice-Prophet Joe Biden if Obama's spread-the-wealth statement echoed Karl Marx, Biden and the Obama's campaign became incensed. That same day, Obama's media began investigating both West and her husband to find any "dirt" they could. Note: Now that he is in power and his Party controls Congress it will only get worse. Abject suppression of Obama-opposers (via voice, writing and even thoughts) is on its way. And salivating at their new found wealth, members of the Democrat-run Congress are also in process of beginning to write legislation to steal US citizens' 401k. These are the same Democrats who destroyed them, in the first place! As a nation and a people, we have little time left.

Obama has already told us he will implement his Civilian National Security Forces (can you say "Gestapo?") that he wants to be as large as the US Military. His "Obama Youth" groups are being trained in the public school system. Obama's voter fraud unit ACORN will now become a part of his government. Democrat-run states, including Missouri and Pennsylvania, have already created chapters of the "Obama Truth Squads." The Ohio Democrat Secretary of State and Obama adherent-Jennifer Brunner-was allowed to get away with massive voter fraud. And, to add insult to injury, it appears that Obama is not even a natural-born US citizen-required of US presidents by the US Constitution. His supposed "official" birth certificate has been ordered sealed by the Governor of Hawaii, so that no one can examine it. To say there was/is a conspiracy in place to force the "election" of this man into the US presidency is the grossest of all understatements. Obama did not even have to prove his citizenship. The birth certificate he used was apparently a copy stating that an original birth certificate exists. But, no one-other than Obama and his family-is allowed to see and examine it.

The Marxist indoctrination and dumbing down of US citizens began decades ago in the US school system; apparently in preparation for this time in history. Now, for the first time in that history, an avowed Marxist and his minions have affected a coup d'etat upon the United States of America. And it has been affected with only the slightest of whimpers from the American people. For those of you who voted for Obama, your awakenings to the truth will be brutal and at some point you will realize you helped pull the trigger on the country's very existence. The problem is that you've shot into its heart and-this time-it probably cannot survive. " " ' ' ...

Obama Disrespects Nancy Reagan

Democrats destroy economy--blame Republicans

Obama Police

Gestapo

Obama Youth

Obama Directly Tied to Voting Fraud Group

Brunner voter fraud

Obama birth certificate hidden and sealed

Democrats target 401k

Sher Zieve is an independent columnist

How To Fix The Political Parties, Especially The GOP By Herb Denenberg

Source: http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=20193183&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576392&rfi=6

11/09/2008

What should the political parties do to improve the political process in the years ahead? There is endless criticism of Congress and the President of the United States, but little analysis directed to our political parties that actually produce all those officials. The final product gets all the criticism, and the machinery that produces it is almost ignored.

So I thought I'd offer up a few suggestions for both parties and then for the Republican Party in particular. I'm more interested in the Republican Party, as I now view the Democratic Party as one of the enemies of a free society. See my columns, "Handling the Enemies of a Free Society" (Nov. 5) and "The Democratic Party's Assault on Free Speech" (Nov. 6), both at the Bulletin's Web site, thebulletin.us.

The first problem is that the primary election process can't produce the best candidates because of the distortions of the mainstream media. Unfortunately for our democracy, the mainstream media has become a partisan and is no longer in the role of producing journalism to give the public the facts so it can make up its mind. The mainstream media makes up its mind, and then tries to defraud and brainwash the public into accepting its choice. That was neatly illustrated in both the primaries and then the general election. Those that relied on the mainstream media were getting campaign propaganda and not the facts needed to make an informed judgment. Consequently, we had an election that can be viewed as a coup, with the mainstream media playing a central and improper role in taking over the government by electing their candidate, the chosen one, Sen. Barack Obama.

Had the mainstream media given the public the facts on Sen. Sen. Obama, he would have never survived the Democratic primaries. Further, as Rush Limbaugh observed, the mainstream media has such heavy influence that it plays a decisive role in even the selection of the Republican nominee. That's why Sen. John McCain, a media darling (while criticizing his fellow Republicans and while not running in the general against a Democrat) may have ended up as the nominee rather than what Mr. Limbaugh calls a real Republican. The mainstream media sold Sen. McCain in the primaries, but of course, rejected him in the general election.

So if we are ever to get primaries and general elections that function as they are intended to, we somehow have to get more people to seek both sides of the issues from the alternative media. To correct the mainstream media problem, first of all, we have to put pressure on it to get back to basic journalistic principles and end their outpouring of dishonest, biased and fraudulent journalism. That requires a massive flood of complaints to all media outlets on mainstream media bias and a massive boycott of media outlets that so blatantly slant the news and defraud the public.

It also requires more education of the public about the importance of the alternative media and the conservative media, which are much closer to being fair and balanced than the mainstream media. Finally, it may require more effort by each political party, and especially the Republican Party, to do a more effective and extensive job of communicating campaign issues and material on the candidates. I'm convinced the Republicans could have devastated Sen. Obama's candidacy, if early on they would have fully documented his voting record (radical, leftist, liberal, socialist, extremist) and his associates (terrorists, bigots, racists, subversives, and even Tony Rezko, crook). However, they didn't do so to my knowledge, and Sen. McCain even made the game-changing blunder of taking Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright off the table. Maybe he wanted to play Mr. Nice Guy, maybe he wanted to avoid any hint of introducing the race issue, or maybe he was just plain stupid. The public should have been flooded with print and broadcast material on Sen. Obama's record and associates, and that would have doomed his candidacy almost at the outset.

The next thing the political parties have to do is to become more inclusive, in recruiting candidates and in helping those who are running. This matter came into sharp relief for me when I had a post-election conversation with Steve Kantrowitz, a retired two-star admiral and now a practicing lawyer, about his unsuccessful run, as a Republican, for the Pennsylvania state senate. This was his first run for office, and he came out of the experience with exactly what I encountered during my unsuccessful run for the Democratic Party nomination for the U.S. Senate in 1974.
We both found that the party system tends to be a closed one, with a welcome out to only the inner circle of a good-old-boys' club. They view any outsider as a nuisance and not only don't give an outsider much help, but also may actually hinder his candidacy. This may be caused by a concern among party bosses that the outsider will not do the "right" thing and not favor large financial contributors to the party with patronage and votes. This closed system almost always assures mediocre candidates and not those that can bring excellence to the table.
Adm. Kantrowitz is a perfect example of the kind of excellence the political parties should be looking for in candidates. Here is a man who brought a distinguished 30-year career in the U.S. Navy to the table, coupled with a man who for eight years has been running a small business. He was a founding partner of a Philadelphia-based law firm with nine lawyers and eight other employees. As he pointed out in his campaign literature, it might be refreshing to have a state senator who has actually had to meet a payroll, to provide health insurance for employees, and to balance the budget of a successful business enterprise.

As Adm. Kantrowitz indicated in his campaign, the legislature should come closer to the old concept of the citizen-legislator, someone who brings a special kind of experience and expertise to the legislature, serves a few years, and then leaves. Instead, we tend to have professionals who stay forever, milk the system, work on their own behalf, stay as long as they can, grants themselves overly rich pensions and other perks, and have little time to serve the public and pay little attention to the public interest. Instead, their main focus is reelection and more benefits and fatter pensions. A candidate like Adm. Kantrowitz wasn't trying to drink at the public trough. He would have been better off financially by continuing to practice law and not run for office. But he wanted the special kind of public service provided by election to a legislative body.

Unfortunately for the state of Pennsylvania, Adm. Kantrowitz doesn't think he'll run again. I say that, as he is just the kind of legislator Pennsylvania needs. I might add his wife is sure he won't run again.
To bring about these changes in our political parties, more citizens will have to get involved as workers, activists, committeemen, candidates and donors. And for fundamental reforms there has to be activity all year long, not just a few weeks before election time. The parties have to more aggressively recruit candidates and others year round, and end the closed-club atmosphere that now pervades our two parties.
And now to get back to what the Republican Party has to do to regain power. Jeb Bush got it right back in February of 2007 when he said the party has to get back to principles they abandoned after seizing power. Those principles are limited government and fiscal responsibility.

The limited government principle is easy to reject in time of financial crisis, exactly what we face now. But that principle doesn't say that government doesn't play a key role, and that a crisis may place special if temporary demands on government. It simply says unless crisis or other circumstances require government action, it should stay out of the way and give citizens maximum freedom to keep their money and do their thing. The Democrats usually get it backwards, going to government almost as a first resort rather than a last resort. That encroaches on freedom, tends toward confiscatory taxation, creates an entitlement mindset, destroys individual responsibility, and produces bad results in every respect. And a special note of caution: The Democrats will be quick to use any crisis as an excuse to enact their big government, high tax, heavy regulation, centralized government, weak national defense approach into law.

The principle of fiscal responsibility is also easy to reject in time of crisis. But it doesn't mean that a crisis may not require deficit spending. It merely says that to the extent possible, government should stick to a budget. It should certainly not try to launch expensive and ambitious programs when we're already running a huge deficit and when a crisis or two may require even more deficit spending. It should not, a la Sen. Obama, come in with a trillion dollars or more in new spending when we are already sinking deeply into debt and deficit. And it should not, a la Sen. Obama, call for new taxes during an economic downturn.

Another principle, perhaps a corollary of limited government, is decentralization. Whenever possible and practicable, a government task should be assigned to the lowest level possible in the three-layer government configuration: federal, state and local. Still another corollary is less regulation of the kind that burdens the consumer and business but produces more problems than it eliminates.

Had the Republicans listened to Jeb Bush in 2007, they might have avoided the electoral defeat, some say disaster, of November 2008.

Now Sean Hannity has come up with 10 principles the Republican Party and its candidates should now adopt if they want to rebuild and regain the White House and control of Congress. Mr. Hannity states the principles in terms of a candidate's positions, but the principles make sense for advocacy and implementation at all times and most certainly right now with a new administration getting underway.

1. To be the candidate of national security. This is especially important at this moment, as one of the first things the Obama administration will do is come up with a national defense budget. Sen. Obama has expressed some wacky ideas some of which he has backed off of. But it is hard to know where he is at right now as he flip-flops, bounces around, tap dances, and gets lost in a sea of ambiguity and generality. For example, he has talked of cutting the budget for missile defense, which seems to be a foolhardy formula for national suicide. He has talked of cutting the development of weapons systems. And some of his wild liberal supporters, such as Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) have called for a 25 percent cut in defense spending. So this principle should not only be adopted now, but also pressed aggressively in the media, with Congress, and with the office of the president-elect. You should know from history that the Democrats have a weak military and weak defense systems in their DNA, and their tendencies to go in the wrong direction have to be fought at all times.

2. The candidate should pledge to oppose appeasement. This, too, is especially timely with the dictators of the world such as Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad making nice with Sen. Obama, and offering to talk on the terms that Sen. Obama so recklessly and dangerously suggested in this campaign. This too should be a major priority of the loyal opposition at this time. Appeasement, retreat and defeat have seemed to become a Democratic mantra. As I've suggested under an Obama administration, the "Do not tread on me flag" may have to be changed to "Do tread on me." As we await the first "test" of Sen. Obama by an American enemy, as predicted by Vice-President Elect Joe "Gaffe" Biden, we better get the appeasement mentality shaken out of the Democratic Party leadership. Unlike Teddy Roosevelt, who walked softly but carried a big stick, we have too many Democrats like Sen. Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), who walk softly and carry a white flag.

3. The candidate should pledge to support tax cuts and fiscal responsibility. Here the target has to be supporting tax cuts and certainly opposing tax increases for capital gains, dividends and small business. These are the economy-killers proposed by Sen. Obama, and they may still be in the pipeline. With the stock market diving in some recent days, perhaps the selling propensity might be slowed or stilled by Sen. Obama renouncing his insane pledge to raise the capital gains rate (even while knowing that it will cut, not increase, federal tax revenue), dividend rate, and perhaps all of his other proposed tax increases. (This will be discussed in tomorrow's column.)

4. The candidate should pledge to support energy independence. This ought to start with immediate authorization of off-shore drilling, drilling in Anwar and the rest of the U.S., building new refineries, starting to build new nuclear facilities, expansion of coal mining and exploiting alternative energy sources. This must all be done with realistic stewardship of the environment, and on a path to energy independence within 15 years. This has to be done here and now and as soon as possible. Unfortunately, Sen. Obama seems to have a tendency to confuse pretty speeches and fancy rhetoric with reality. For example, someone has pointed out Sen. Obama favors nuclear power, as long as it doesn't happen (just as he favors the death penalty, as long as no one is executed). Proceed with caution, as his pretty rhetoric is often the opposite of his hard reality.

5. The candidate should pledge to secure our borders completely within one year. That means building or finishing all necessary fences, training and hiring agents as needed and applying all available technology in support of this effort. This may prove difficult, as the Democrats are convinced that a dangerous open borders for all comers and a path to citizenship for all illegals (including amnesty) recruits voters for their party. As on so many issues, the Democrats put party over principle and power to themselves over national interest.

6. The candidate should support a free-market, private enterprise solution for healthcare. This means avoiding nationalizing health care, socializing health care, and bureaucratizing health care. One part of the solution is the creation and expansion of individual savings account, so as to give consumers more control over their choices and the financing of their healthcare. And one fiscal caution. We haven't figured out how to pay for Medicare and keep it solvent and within reasonable cost targets, In the face of that reality, how could Sen. Obama or anyone else entertain a vast expansion Medicare that would ruin the health care delivery system and bankrupt the federal government.

7. The candidate should support choice in education meaning giving parents the right to decide where their kids will go to school. This can be done through a voucher system. The Republicans should again point out to Sen. Obama that he sent his kids to private schools and avoided the failing public schools. All parents should have that same option even if they are not millionaires.

8. The candidate should pledge to save Social Security and Medicare from bankruptcy, and should, as one aspect of that, support creation of some private retirement accounts, giving people more control of their own investment and their retirement savings.

9. The candidate should pledge to appoint judges who will interpret the law and the U.S. Constitution rather than make laws and legislate their own views. Sen. Obama is already on record as favoring judges who empathize with victims. In other words, he wants judges deciding on emotion and abandoning the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution. This is perhaps just another Obama technique of spreading the wealth and bringing socialism to America.

10. The candidate should support the American dream. Mr. Hannity explains that as follows: "The candidate accepts as their duty and responsibility to educate, inform, and remind people that with the blessings of freedom comes a great responsibility. That government's primary goal is to preserve, protect and defend our God-given gift of freedom.

"That governments do not have the ability to solve all of our problems, and to take away all of our fears and concerns. We need their pledge that he will be the candidate that promotes individual liberty, capitalism, a strong national defense and that will support policies that encourage such.

"It is our fundamental belief that limited government, and greater individual responsibility will assure the continued prosperity and success for future generations.

"We the people who believe in the words of Ronald Reagan, that we are 'the best last hope of man on the earth and a shining city on a hill,' and that our best days are before us if our government will simply trust the American people."


Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.

Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor: Says Democratic senator must make request to obtain original document By Jerome R. Corsi

Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174

October 26, 2008

HONOLULU, Hawaii – Although the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama's birth certificate has become a focus of intense speculation – and even several lawsuits – WND has learned that Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate's birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.

The governor's office officially declined a request made in writing by WND in Hawaii to obtain a copy of the hospital-generated original birth certificate of Barack Obama.

"It does not appear that Dr. Corsi is within any of these categories of persons with a direct and tangible interest in the birth certificate he seeks," wrote Roz Makuala, manager of constituent services in the governor's office, in an e-mailed response to a WND request seeking the information.

Those listed as entitled to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate include the person born, or "registrant" according to the legal description from the governor's office, the spouse or parent of the registrant, a descendant of the registrant, a person having a common ancestor with the registrant, a legal guardian of the registrant, or a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant.

WND was told the official reason for denial of access to Obama's birth certificate would be authority granted pursuant to Section 338-18 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, a provision the anonymous source claimed was designed to prevent identity theft.

Still, the source told WND confidentially the motivation for withholding the original birth certificate was political, although the source refused to disclose whether there was any information on the original birth certificate that would prove politically embarrassing to Obama.

Get the book that started it all, Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," autographed by the author, exclusively from WND's online store for the amazing low price of just $4.95.

The source also refused to answer WND's question whether the original document on file with the Department of Health was a hospital-generated birth certificate or a registration of birth that may have been filed subsequent to the birth.

The anonymous source made clear the Hawaii Department of Health would immediately release Obama's original birth certificate, provided Obama requested the document be released, but the Department of Heath has received no such request from the senator or from anyone acting officially on his behalf.

WND also found on microfilm in the Honolulu downtown public library a notice published under the "Births, Marriages, Deaths" section of the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser for August 13, 1961, on page B-6, noting: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack II Obama. 6085 Kalanianaole-Hwy, son, Aug. 4."

In searching through the birth notices of the Honolulu Advertiser for 1961, WND found many birth notices were published between one and two weeks after the date of birth listed.

The notice in the Honolulu Advertiser does not list the hospital where the Obama son was born or the doctor who delivered the baby.

In a startling development, Obama's Kenyan grandmother has reportedly alleged she witnessed Obama's birth at the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.

Friday, U.S. Federal judge Richard Barclay Surrick, a Clinton appointee, dismissed a lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania attorney Phillip J. Berg who alleged Obama was not a U.S. "natural born" citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency under the specifications of the U.S. Constitution, under Article II, Section 1.

Berg told WND last week he does not have a copy of a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama that he alleges exists.

In Kenya, WND was told by government authorities that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4.

The Obama campaign website entitled "Fight the Smears" posts a state of Hawaii "Certificate of Live Birth" which is obviously not the original birth certificate generated by the hospital where Obama reportedly was born.

"Fight the Smears" declares, "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America."

Although the Obama campaign could immediately put an end to all the challenges by simply producing the candidate's original birth certificate, it has not done so. And the "Fight the Smears" website offers no explanation as to why Obama has refused to request, and make public, an original hospital-generated birth certificate which the Hawaii Department of Health may possess.

Family: Michael Crichton dies of cancer

Family: Michael Crichton dies of cancer

By HILLEL ITALIE, Ap National Writer
20 mins ago

Michael Crichton, the million-selling author who made scientific research terrifying and irresistible in such thrillers as "Jurassic Park," "Timeline" and "The Andromeda Strain," has died of cancer, his family said.

Crichton died Tuesday in Los Angeles at age 66 after privately battling cancer.

"Through his books, Michael Crichton served as an inspiration to students of all ages, challenged scientists in many fields, and illuminated the mysteries of the world in a way we could all understand," his family said in a statement.

"While the world knew him as a great storyteller that challenged our preconceived notions about the world around us — and entertained us all while doing so — his wife Sherri, daughter Taylor, family and friends knew Michael Crichton as a devoted husband, loving father and generous friend who inspired each of us to strive to see the wonders of our world through new eyes."

He was an experimenter and popularizer known for his stories of disaster and systematic breakdown, such as the rampant microbe of "The Andromeda Strain" or the dinosaurs running madly in "Jurassic Park." Many of his books became major Hollywood movies, including "Jurassic Park," "Rising Sun" and "Disclosure." Crichton himself directed and wrote "The Great Train Robbery" and he co-wrote the script for the blockbuster "Twister."

In 1994, he created the award-winning TV hospital series "ER." He's even had a dinosaur named for him, Crichton's ankylosaur.

"Michael's talent out-scaled even his own dinosaurs of `Jurassic Park,'" said "Jurassic Park" director Steven Spielberg, a friend of Crichton's for 40 years. "He was the greatest at blending science with big theatrical concepts, which is what gave credibility to dinosaurs again walking the Earth. ... Michael was a gentle soul who reserved his flamboyant side for his novels. There is no one in the wings that will ever take his place."

John Wells, executive producer of "ER" called the author "an extraordinary man. Brilliant, funny, erudite, gracious, exceptionally inquisitive and always thoughtful.

"No lunch with Michael lasted less than three hours and no subject was too prosaic or obscure to attract his interest. Sexual politics, medical and scientific ethics, anthropology, archaeology, economics, astronomy, astrology, quantum physics, and molecular biology were all regular topics of conversation."

In recent years, he was the rare novelist granted a White House meeting with President Bush, perhaps because of his skepticism about global warming, which Crichton addressed in the 2004 novel, "State of Fear." Crichton's views were strongly condemned by environmentalists, who alleged that the author was hurting efforts to pass legislation to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.

If not a literary giant, he was a physical one, standing 6 feet and 9 inches, and ready for battle with the press. In a 2004 interview with The Associated Press, Crichton came with a tape recorder, text books and a pile of graphs and charts as he defended "State of Fear" and his take on global warming.

"I have a lot of trouble with things that don't seem true to me," Crichton said at the time, his large, manicured hands gesturing to his graphs. "I'm very uncomfortable just accepting. There's something in me that wants to pound the table and say, 'That's not true.'"

He spoke to few scientists about his questions, convinced that he could interpret the data himself. "If we put everything in the hands of experts and if we say that as intelligent outsiders, we are not qualified to look over the shoulder of anybody, then we're in some kind of really weird world," he said.

A new novel by Crichton had been tentatively scheduled to come next month, but publisher HarperCollins said the book was postponed indefinitely because of his illness.

One of four siblings, Crichton was born in Chicago and grew up in Roslyn, Long Island. His father was a journalist and young Michael spent much of his childhood writing extra papers for teachers. In third grade, he wrote a nine-page play that his father typed for him using carbon paper so the other kids would know their parts. He was tall, gangly and awkward, and used writing as a way to escape; Mark Twain and Alfred Hitchcock were his role models.

Figuring he would not be able to make a living as writer, and not good enough at basketball, he decided to become a doctor. He studied anthropology at Harvard College, and later graduated from Harvard Medical School. During medical school, he turned out books under pseudonyms. (One that the tall author used was Jeffrey Hudson, a 17th-century dwarf in the court of King Charles II of England.) He had modest success with his writing and decided to pursue it.

His first hit, "The Andromeda Strain," was written while he was still in medical school and quickly caught on upon its 1969 release. It was a featured selection of the Book-of-the-Month Club and was sold to Universal in Hollywood for $250,000.

"A few of the teachers feel I'm wasting my time, and that in some ways I have wasted theirs," he told The New York Times in 1969. "When I asked for a couple of days off to go to California about a movie sale, that raised an eyebrow."

His books seemed designed to provoke debate, whether the theories of quantum physics in "Timeline," the reverse sexual discrimination of "Disclosure" or the spectre of Japanese eminence in "Rising Sun."

"The initial response from the (Japanese) establishment was, 'You're a racist,'" he told the AP. "So then, because I'm always trying to deal with data, I went on a tour talking about it and gave a very careful argument, and their response came back, 'Well you say that but we know you're a racist.'"

Crichton had a rigid work schedule: rising before dawn and writing from about 6 a.m. to around 3 p.m., breaking only for lunch. He enjoyed being one of the few novelists recognized in public, but he also felt limited by fame.

"Of course, the celebrity is nice. But when I go do research, it's much more difficult now. The kind of freedom I had 10 years ago is gone," he told the AP. "You have to have good table manners; you can't have spaghetti hanging out of your mouth at a restaurant."

Crichton was married five times and had one child. A private funeral is planned.

___

Associated Press writer Colleen Long in New York contributed to this story.

(This version CORRECTS title of novel to 'State of Fear')

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

If You Can Keep It By Adam T. Yoshida

Source: http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/11/if-you-can-keep.html

November 4, 2008

Certain friends (and, naturally, enemies as well) of mine are eager for the “fall of the American Empire.” They chortle with glee at the present economic troubles of the United States. They delight in the basically declinist views of Senator Obama and imagine an end to American exceptionalism – an America that “rejoins the world” after the Bush years. Well, to borrow from George Bernard Shaw, they may be about to learn that there are two tragedies in this life – one is not getting your heart’s desire, the other is getting it.

Yes, America is down. Yes, the United States has troubles. But what my friends fail to understand is that the present situation is not at all analogous to the fall of the Roman Empire. (Indeed, of course, the fall of the Roman Empire was not even the end of all of that – Byzantium endured for another thousand years). The very real prospect with which we are faced is not the fall of the American Empire but rather of the American Republic.

The world is an absolute mess. Everyone recognizes this. That we are headed towards some sort of cataclysm is the one thing that pretty much everyone believes. Among the nations of the West, there is only one nation with the resources – human and material – to survive the coming crisis intact. That nation is the United States of America. Europe is doomed by low birth rates that make the end of Western Civilization in its cradle inevitable. Australia and Canada are too small and too few to make it through on their own. This is what Mark Steyn was talking about when he titled his book “America Alone.” For those who love our civilization – our traditions of tolerance and liberty, our languages, our cultures, our heritage – the final choice is reduced to one between the United States and nothing. There is no new Rome to pick up for the Greeks. There is no vast and sheltered continent to nurture and preserve us through a Dark Age.

That is the choice. Either we hold the line here and defend ourselves or, bit by bit, we shall be swallowed by alien nations, tongues, and traditions. Perhaps some of you are willing to regard such an outcome with laissez faire insouciance, but I am not. I am the descendent of refugees. Those who came before me were Tories, Jacobites, Puritans, Huguenots, and soldiers of the Shogun. If you trace your own history, I’m sure you’ll find much the same. They, at least, all had someone to flee to when they lost – we have no such luxury. This is, as Ronald Reagan once reminded us, our “last stand on Earth.”

Let us then return to the choice of today. I am often asked why I am for Senator McCain and against Senator Obama. Needless to say, it is not a common opinion in these parts (and rarely so strongly held, either). I typically offer a light opinion in these situations simply because it is difficult to convey my full view of the world and its problems in a soundbite.

To put it simply – I believe that the American Republic is probably doomed. The warnings have stacked up. Ben Franklin told us that the framers of the Constitution had given Americans, “a Republic, if you can keep it.” De Tocqueville warned that the Republic would last only until the point where Congress realized that it could bribe the people with the people’s money. Most of all, I am partial to the warning of Edward Gibbon in “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” who warned that “the powers of sovereignty will be first abused and then lost when committed to unwieldy multitudes.”

What has done in the American Republic (and, indeed, most of the West)? It’s fashionable to lay the blame upon the politicians. But, in truth, the fault rests with the people themselves. I advised Senator McCain to attack what I like to call the “Long Congress” – an institution filled with time-servers and self-dealers – but the plainer truth is that any reform of the Congress and other legislative institutions would be futile without first devising some means of dissolving the electorate and electing a replacement.

The reason for this state of affairs is obvious enough – no one ever really thought too much about the implications of universal suffrage. We pretty much stumbled into it piecemeal. Democracy, in the pure sense of the word, has never been defended by philosophers and thinkers as anything better than a least-worst choice of system. One needs only to look at the countless foolish decisions made by the Ancient Greeks – who punished successful Generals and embraced lunatic plans with regularity – to understand that anyone who believes that the people will always make the correct choice is an imbecile.

What is needed is change. But not, of course, the sort of change that Senator Obama promises.

How does anyone expect for bigger and more expensive government programs – universal health care, college as an entitlement, and so forth – to solve anything when one of the major long-term problems facing the whole of the Western world is the uneconomic nature of the entitlement programs that exist at the present?

I, for one, would appreciate it if someone could explain to me how Senator Obama’s economic proposals would solve anything at all.

What are the problems that face the American economy itself? Manufacturing jobs flowing overseas and the financial crisis would appear to top everyone’s list. What causes these things?

Well, we know what kills jobs. It’s what’s killing American automakers today – excessive levels of regulation, taxation, and, in particular unaffordable union contracts that make American cars uncompetitive in the marketplace. And what solution does Senator Obama offer to problem? He proposes to raise taxes, increase regulations, and to make the law even more union-friendly – even going so far away as doing away with the secret ballot in union certification elections (a move which is allegedly more “democratic” and “fair.” If this is so, I propose that we should adopt this reform on a wider scale and that during the next Presidential election I and some of my friends from Blackwater Worldwide should be allowed to go door to door in poor neighbourhoods asking voters to sign a card indicating their vote for the straight Republican ticket).

Some of the same problems, along with the demographic ones overseas that I spoke of earlier, played a major role in creating the present financial mess. Those who claim that the crisis was caused by inadequately regulation are operating under the delusion that it is possible to universally and comprehensively control human affairs in a non-totalitarian society (at least, I hope that’s what their delusion is). The problem is that when you over-regulate and over-tax core sectors of the economy (see the aforementioned auto industry) then you drive capital to riskier areas where less regulation and taxation promise better returns. This problem is compounded by the demographic factor as well – capital is something that is held by the old and invested in the young. The result is that places like Europe and Japan have more capital than they can effectively use at home because they don’t have the young people to innovate and create that they need and so they’re forced to pour it into the places that do – America and continental Asia – creating and inflating a series of massive bubbles (internet, commodities, real estate, to name a few from recent years) as investors chase the sort of returns that they will need to support themselves into lonely and childless old age.

Do I think that McCain is particularly stronger on domestic policy? Not really – especially since a President McCain would face a hostile Democratic Congress. But at least he can stop the Democrats in Congress from making things worse. The cures for the economy that the Democrats and Obama want are the equivalent of giving blood thinners to a patient with an aneurysm.

Abroad, of course, Senator Obama has no serious plan to deal with the actual problems of the world. The sort of weak and naïve people whom Obama would staff the Justice, Defense, and Homeland Security Departments would thwart necessary efforts to obstruct and prevent terrorism on legalistic and humanitarian grounds, just as they did when Bill Clinton was President during the 1990’s. The thought of ACLU-backed lawyers in the DOJ vetoing surveillance programs on the grounds that they violate the rights of terrorists is one that fills me with images of mushroom clouds.

Senator McCain has the experience and the temperament to stand up to foreign aggressors. Can you ever imagine Senator Obama having the guts to go toe-to-toe with the Iranians? Never mind the Russians or the Chinese. Putin is a smart man – he already has Obama’s measure. So, I’m sure, does Hu Jintao. Eager to please, interested in compromise, inward looking – those two veterans of the deadly internal politics of totalitarianism would take Obama for all he was worth and then some.

Most of all, I simply believe that McCain has the experience and the temperament to be President and that Obama doesn’t. Obama hasn’t run anything in his life. He’s never shown any indication of any great internal strength. He’s never even won a fair election (in his first campaign he had all of his opponents thrown off the ballot, in his Senate campaign he won because somehow someone convinced courts to unseal the divorce records of not one, but two of his opponents). He’s been hauled to this point by the slavish devotion of the media to his personality cult. His first book – doubtlessly the more honest of the two given that he wrote it before he was a politician – exposes him as a weak girly-man with what, for lack of a better word, I would describe as a definite emo streak within him. He’s a multicultural fashion statement – not a serious leader. He’s a man, to borrow from the Rt. Hon. Francis Urquhart, “with no background and no bottom.”

Take a close look at the man and his wife. Read what Michelle says. Study her. Senator Obama is, like so many others in this day and age, a weak man dominated by an acquisitive and vain woman. Hardly the stuff of which greatness is made.

Senator McCain, on the other hand, survived the destruction of four planes. One was his own error. Another lost an engine. A third was blasted out from under him when a rocket on another jet cooked off and hit it on the deck of the USS Forrestal. The fourth was shot down by the North Vietnamese. He survived them all. Most people don’t even survive the loss of one aircraft – let alone keep on flying afterwards. Then he spent half of a decade in captivity. And, through it all, he kept going – he never gave up, never surrendered. Whatever his ideological imperfections, whatever his personal failings – this is a man of proven courage and endurance.

Those are the qualities most necessary in a President. Choosing them by comparing their agendas and soundbytes is an exercise in absurdity. Out of most Presidential platforms at the most 10% is ever enacted. Obama’s alleged eloquence and rhetorical felicity is more a legend than an actuality – have you, or anyone else, ever heard anyone quote anything he ever said, except to parody it? (“Yes, we can.” “Oceans will turn back”, etc). His speeches are the fast food of politics – easily swallowed by the hungry, not particularly objectionable, well-presented from a distance, but, when examined several hours after the fact, they come out rather differently.

Simply electing Senator McCain will not save the Republic – though it may slow the bleeding. Electing Senator Obama could lose it. Because – and this something that all of you have to understand – one way or another, America isn’t going away. The American population is huge and, rumours and jokes aside, highly educated and motivated. America’s natural resources are tremendous. America’s latent power is actually far greater than its present effective power. The end of the American Republic – something which will be hastened if Obama gains office and further erodes America’s economic and global positions – wouldn’t mean the end of America. On the contrary.

The American people are fickle. That’s one of the problems with democracy. There’s no consistency. Do you really think if Obama wins and promptly responds to a crisis in an unpopular way (say, by appeasing a nuclear Iran) that the American people will hold firm? Do you think that “hope” will long be sustained in the face of a deeper economic crisis brought on by higher taxes, protectionism, and invasive regulation (the same factors, I should add, which turned the downturn of 1929-1930 into what we now call the “Great Depression”)?

The cycles of demonization and destruction that began when the media and Democrats broke every rule in the book to get Richard Nixon, who they hated so very much, will continue. A President Obama would be followed by a President Palin or a President Jindal or a perhaps someone else…

After all, as the time grows shorter and the nation’s foreign and domestic problems grow worse, recovery will require ever-stronger medicine. In another ten or twenty years, only the most extreme measures will recover the situation. And by “extreme”, my friends and readers know, I mean “extreme.” If America and the world require an Augustus, they will get one.

McCain is Cicero. He’s the old politician. A bit of a hack at times. A bit vain. But respected and, in the end, an honest and brave man. He can hold the line – and save enough that the situation might be recovered by minimally invasive measures. Or he may well be ignored by people chasing the delusion of “hope” who, in so doing, can only bring disaster on themselves.

There will always be an America. But there will only be an American Republic for so long as Americans choose to keep it.

Guestbook

Readers please check in and let us know what you think of Phillips Philes in our Guestbook located last on the left margin.

Thank you for stopping by. Please come by again.

Would Obama victory provoke constitutional crisis? By CKA in Red State USA

Source: http://theamericansentinel.com/2008/10/29/is-obama-intentionally-precipitating-a-constitutional-crisis/

October 29, 2008

By refusing to produce his birth certificate, Barack Obama pushes America closer to constitutional crisis, if elected. If his real nationality was uncovered later and he was not a natural-born citizen, what would happen? Would chaos or civil strife follow?  

Sound farfetched? Maybe not. 

The Constitution–the same one that Obama says is fundamentally flawed; the same one whose First and Second Amendments apparently offend him–says in Article II, Section I: “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 . . .”

So if a non-citizen should get elected and take the oath of office, this would create crisis not seen before. This potentiality of a non-citizen, specifically Obama if he is not a natural-born citizen, becoming president has bothered me for months. How badly would that damage our country and our very foundation?

I just found what appears to be the most compelling presentation I’ve found about the extent of a potential constitutional crisis, should potential non-citizen Obama be elected.

In this Oct. 29 must-read Web piece, “Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down,” by Edwin Viera Jr., Ph.D., J.D., constitutional attorney Viera suggests that if Obama takes the presidential oath of office–knowing he’s not a natural-born citizen, if that’s the case–he perjures or falsely swears. If so, then everything he does thereafter as “usurper” of Office of the President will be criminal, Viera asserts.

Other issues Viera, who has presented four cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and won three of them, raises?

The list is long, but basically indicates that everything Obama would do officially would be invalid.

Perhaps the most immediately troubling issue to me is Viera’s contention that Congress could not impeach Obama, because he was never legitimately president.

Instead, some individual, possibly having to use physical force, would have to arrest him, the attorney says. And that, Viera suggests, could lead to armed conflicts in the public and the government. Another name for this? Civil war.

Besides such potential nightmare, though, what Viera also presents speaks, in my opinion, to the very heart of what long-term public and constitutional disaster non-citizen Obama could create.

Consequences? Actions by the three branches of government taken during pretender Obama’s tenure might be overturned when a legitimate president was identified, Viera speculates. ”Breathtaking” domestic and international chaos would ensue, he theorizes.

All that Viera has discussed bears immediate reading, consideration and action.

To me, there must be clear, credible answers about Obama’s citizenship before the election.

And it’s now not just that Obama must be defeated, it’s that he must be pressured by someone in his camp, someone having a last vestige of integrity and character and honesty–and patriotism–to reveal his real nationality. Now.

Or pressure must come from some legitimate officer of some court. Somewhere.

Regardless who or what makes the demand, do or compel whatever needs to be done to find out if, indeed, Barack Obama is actually eligible to be president if, God forbid, he is elected.

But if that does occur and he is not a natural-born citizen, when that truth surfaces–and it will surface–then Obama’s real and lasting damage will occur.

And then he who once ran as the great unifier, but who continues to reveal himself as a racial and cultural arsonist and one who appears to dismiss any constitutional restraint, will have gained infamy that not even his smooth-talking tongue can undo.

He or someone in his camp still has the chance to be a real patriot. Obama can and must come clean. Now. And then do the appropriate right thing. Immediately.

Marty Kenney: In Memory of a Great American

Marty Kenney: In Memory of a Great American

Marty Kenney was born May 3, 1918 in Manhattan. He grew up in the Bronx and went to Fordham Prep. He had 4 kids - 3 sons and one daughter. Later he moved to NJ in 1958 and worked for Nabisco for over 35 yrs. Marty died at the age of 90 years young.

Marty Kenney started calling Sean in 1996 when Hannity was doing local night time programming on WABC. The Sean Hannity Show launched into syndication on September 10, 2001, one day before 9/11, but Marty continued to call the national program and soon became a permanent fixture and important member of the Hannity Team.

A World War II veteran from New Jersey who stormed the beaches of Normandy, Marty grew 'near and dear' to the hearts of Hannity's 13 million listeners. The Hannity Show often closes with a segment entitled, "Trash the Lines," where calls are taken unscreened, and listeners are given approximately five seconds to say whatever is on their minds. Whenever the segment is done, the final caller is almost always "Marty."

For the past 4 years Hannity has hosted Freedom Concerts to benefit the children of military heroes who have sacrificed life or limb for this great nation The biggest applause of the day always came with an appearance by Marty at the live broadcast of Sean's radio program. The legendary caller had become a staple at the New York/New Jersey Freedom Concerts, and had made an appearance at every local concert since 2003.

Sean and Marty's relationship was similar to that of a father and son, he was truly a Great American, who will be missed by Sean and all Hannity Show listeners.