About these ads

Attempting to obey God and follow Jesus Christ our Lord

Posts tagged “George W. Bush

JAN. 16 – Religious Freedom Day ‘- Almighty God hath created the mind free’ Thomas Jefferson

 

American Minute by Bill Federer
“Each year on JANUARY 16, we celebrate Religious Freedom Day in commemoration of the passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom,”-wrote President George W. Bush in his 2003 Proclamation.

Passed in 1786, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was drafted by Thomas Jefferson and commemorated on his tombstone.

Did Jefferson intend to limit the public religious expression of students, teachers, coaches, chaplains, schools, organizations and communities?


In his original 1777 draft of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, Jefferson wrote:

“Almighty God hath created the mind free, and…all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments…tend only to begat habits of hypocrisy and meanness,

and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone….”

President Thomas Jefferson explained in his Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805:

“In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government.

I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercise suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state and church authorities by the several religious societies.”

Jefferson explained to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808:

“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from inter-meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises…

This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States [10th Amendment]…”

Jefferson continued:

“Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General government…

I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines…

Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets.”

In 1776, a year before Jefferson drafted his Statute, another Virginian, George Mason, drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was later revised by James Madison and referred to in his Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785:

“Religion, or the duty we owe to our CREATOR, and manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence;

and, therefore, that all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience,

and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity toward each other.”

James Madison made a journal entry, June 12, 1788:

“There is not a shadow of right in the general government to inter-meddle with religion…The subject is, for the honor of America, perfectly free and unshackled. The government has no jurisdiction over it.”

On June 7, 1789, James Madison introduced the First Amendment in the first session of Congress with the wording:

“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship.”

James Madison appointed to the Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story.


Justice Joseph Story wrote in hisCommentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833, Chapter XLIV, “Amendments to the Constitution,” Section 991:

“The real object of the First Amendment was, not to countenance, much less advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.”

Samuel Chase, who had been appointed to the Supreme Court by George Washington, wrote in the Maryland case of Runkel v. Winemiller, 1799:

“By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.”

FOR A SHORT HISTORY OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, READ BELOW:

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens admitted in Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985:

“At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith.”

When the country began, religious liberty was under each individual Colony’s jurisdiction.

In the decision Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote:

“Groups which had most strenuously opposed the established Church of England…passed laws making their own religion the official religion of their respective colonies.”

Like dropping a pebble in a pond and the ripples go out, States began to expand religious liberty from the particular Christian denomination that founded each colony to all Protestants, then to Catholics, then to liberal Christian denominations, then to Jews, then to monotheists, then to polytheists.

This process was then continued by the Federal Government to expand “religious” liberty to atheists, pagans, occultic, and eventually to religions which historically have been violently ANTI-Judeo-Christian.

After the Constitution, the States ratified the First Amendment, as well as all Ten Amendments, specifically to limit the new Federal government’s power:

“CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF…”

The word “Congress” meant the Federal Congress.

“Shall make no law” meant the Federal Congress could not introduce, debate, vote on or send to the President any bill respecting an establishment of religion.

The word “respecting” meant “concerning” or “pertaining to.”

It was simply telling the Federal government “HANDS OFF” all religious issues.

When anything regarding religion came before the Federal government, the response was to be that it had no jurisdiction to decide anything on that issue, neither for nor against.

“Establishment” did not mean “acknowledgment.”

“Establishment” did not mean believing in Christianity or believing in God.

Establishment was a clearly understood term.

It meant setting up one particular Christian denomination as the official denomination.

With varying levels of official state endorsement and favoritism, countries typically had some kind of established Church:

England had established the Anglican Church;
Sweden had established the Lutheran Church;
Scotland had established the Church of Scotland;
Holland had established the Dutch Reformed Church;
Russia had established the Russian Orthodox Church;
Serbia had established the Serbian Orthodox Church;
Romania had established the Romanian Orthodox Church;
Greece had established the Greek Orthodox Church;
Bulgaria had established the Bulgarian Orthodox Church;
Finland had established the Finnish Orthodox Church;
Ethiopia had established the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church;
Italy, Spain, France, Poland, Austria, Mexico, Costa Rica, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, Vatican City had established the Roman Catholic Church; and
Switzerland had established Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Ordinances.

The attitude of the original 13 States was that they did not want the new Federal Government to follow the pattern of most Western nations and pick one denomination with its headquarters in the Capitol.

Allegorically, they did not want a Federal Walmart Church to come into town and put out of business their individual State “mom & pop department store” denominations.

To make the purpose of the First Amendment unquestionably clear, they went on to state that the Federal Congress could not make a law which prohibited “THE FREE EXERCISE” of religion.

Ronald Reagan stated in a Radio Address, 1982:

“Founding Fathers…enshrined the principle of freedom of religion in the First Amendment…

The purpose of that Amendment was to protect religion from the interference of government and to guarantee, in its own words, ‘the free exercise of religion.’”

Like dealing a deck of cards in a card game, the States dealt to the Federal Government jurisdiction over a few things, like providing for the common defense and regulating interstate commerce, but the rest of the cards were held by the States.

Justice Joseph Story wrote in hisCommentaries on the Constitution, 1833:

“The whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State Governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice and the State Constitutions.”

Just as today some States allow minors to consume alcohol and other States do not;
some States allow the selling of marijuana and others do not;
some States have smoking bans and others do not;
some States allow gambling and others do not, and
some States allow prostitution (Nevada and formerly Rhode Island) and the rest do not;
at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified some States allowed more religious freedom, such as Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, and other States, such as Connecticut and Massachusetts, did not.

But it was up to the people in each State to decide.

Congressman James Meacham of Vermont gave a House Judiciary Committee report, March 27, 1854:

“At the adoption of the Constitution, we believe every State – certainly ten of the thirteen – provided as regularly for the support of the Church as for the support of the Government.”

When did things change?

Charles Darwin theorized that species could evolve.

This inspired a political theorist named Herbert Spencer to suggest that laws could evolve.

This influenced Harvard Law Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell to develop the case precedent method of practicing law, which influenced his student, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 with the original intent to guarantee rights to freed slaves in the Democrat South.

Activist Justices quickly began to use the 14th Amendment very creatively to take jurisdiction away from the States over issues such as unions, strikes, railroads, polygamy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.

The freedom of religion was still under each individual State’s jurisdiction until Franklin D. Roosevelt.

FDR was elected President four times, which led to the 22nd Amendment being passed to limit all future Presidents to only two terms.

During his 12 years in office, FDR concentrated power in the Federal Government to an unprecedented degree.

Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated Justice Hugo Black to the Supreme Court in 1937.

Justice Hugo Black concentrated power in the Federal government by taking jurisdiction over religion away from each State.

He did this by simply inserting the phrase “Neither a State” in his 1947 Everson v Board of Education decision:

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a State nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.”

He conveniently ignored innumerable references to and requirements in the various State Constitutions regarding religion.

In a word, he took the handcuffs off the Federal government and placed them on the States.

After this, Federal Courts began evolving the definition of “religion” away from that originally used by George Mason and James Madison in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776:

“Religion…the duty we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it.”

This progression can be seen in several cases.

“ETHICAL” = RELIGION

In 1957, the IRS denied tax-exempt status to an “ethical society” stating it did not qualify as a 501(c)3 tax-exempt “church” or “religious society.”

The case went to the Supreme Court, where Justice Warren Burger wrote in Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia (1957):

“We hold on this record and under the controlling statutory language petitioner [The Washington Ethical Society] qualifies as ‘a religious corporation or society’…

It is incumbent upon Congress to utilize this broad definition of religion in all its legislative actions bearing on the support or non-support of religion, within the context of the ‘no-establishment’ clause of the First Amendment.”

“SECULAR HUMANISM” = RELIGION

In 1961, Roy Torcaso wanted to be a notary public in Maryland, but did not want to make “a declaration of belief in the existence of God,” as required by Maryland’s State Constitution, Article 37.

In the Supreme Court case Torcaso v Watkins (1961), Justice Hugo Black included a footnote which has been cited authoritatively in subsequent cases:

“Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.”

Justice Scalia wrote in Edwards v. Aguillard(1987):

“In Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, n. 11 (1961), we did indeed refer to ‘SECULAR HUMANISM’ as a ‘religio[n].’”

“A SINCERE AND MEANINGFUL BELIEF” = RELIGION

During the Vietnam War, Mr. Seeger said he could not affirm or deny the existence of a Supreme Being and wanted to be a draft-dodger, claiming to be a conscientious objector under the Universal Military Training and Service Act, Section 6(j) that allowed exemptions for “religious training and belief.”

In United States v Seeger, (1965), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark stated:

“The test of religious belief within the meaning in Section 6(j) is whether it is a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualified for the exemption.”

“BELIEFS ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG” = RELIGION

Another draft-dodger case involved Elliot Welsh. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Welsh v. United States (1970), decided that belief in a “deity” is not necessary to be “religious”:

“Having decided that all religious conscientious objectors were entitled to the exemption, we faced the more serious problem of determining which beliefs were ‘religious’ within the meaning of the statute…

Determining whether the registrant’s beliefs are religious is whether these beliefs play the role of religion and function as a religion in the registrant’s life…

Because his beliefs function as a religion in his life, such an individual is as much entitled to a ‘religious’ conscientious objector exemption under Section 6(j) as is someone who derives his conscientious opposition to the war from traditional religious convictions…

We think it clear that the beliefs which prompted his objection occupy the same place in his life as the belief in a traditional deity holds in the lives of his friends, the Quakers…

A registrant’s conscientious objection to all war is ‘religious’ within the meaning Section 6(j) if this opposition stems from the registrant’s moral, ethical, or religious beliefs about what is right and wrong and these beliefs are held with the strength of traditional religious convictions.”

“ATHEISM” = RELIGION

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, (W.D. WI) decision inKaufman v. McCaughtry, August 19, 2005, stated:

“A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being…Atheism may be considered…religion… ‘Atheism is indeed a form of religion…’

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a ‘religion’ for purposes of the First Amendment…

The Court has adopted a broad definition of ‘religion’ that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones…

Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.”

Overlooking that the Constitution is only to be changed by Amendments voted in by the majority of the people, the Supreme Court admitted in Wallace v Jaffree (472 U.S. 38, 1985) that the original meaning of the First Amendment was modified “in the crucible of litigation,” a term not mentioned in the Constitution:

“At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the consciences of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism.

But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.”

The Federal Courts gradually gave the word “religion” a new definition which included “ethical,” “secular humanism,” “a sincere and meaningful belief,”  “beliefs about right and wrong,” and “atheism.”

Under this new definition, so as not to prefer one “religion” over another, Federal Courts have prohibited God, which, ironically, has effectively established the religion of atheism in the exact the way the First Amendment was intended to prohibit.

This was warned against by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in his dissent in Abington Township v. Schempp, 1963:

“The state may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus ‘preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe’…

Refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.”

Ronald Reagan referred to this decision in a radio address, February 25, 1984:

“Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart noted if religious exercises are held to be impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed at an artificial and state-created disadvantage.

Permission for such exercises for those who want them is necessary if the schools are truly to be neutral in the matter of religion. And a refusal to permit them is seen not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.”

U.S. District Court, Crockett v. Sorenson, W.D. Va,. 1983:

“The First Amendment was never intended to insulate our public institutions from any mention of God, the Bible or religion. When such insulation occurs, another religion, such as secular humanism, is effectively established.”

Ronald Reagan stated in a Q & A Session, October 13, 1983:

“The First Amendment has been twisted to the point that freedom of religion is in danger of becoming freedom from religion.”

Ronald Reagan stated in a Ceremony for Prayer in Schools, September 25, 1982:

“In the last two decades we’ve experienced an onslaught of such twisted logic that if Alice were visiting America, she might think she’d never left Wonderland.

We’re told that it somehow violates the rights of others to permit students in school who desire to pray to do so. Clearly, this infringes on the freedom of those who choose to pray…

To prevent those who believe in God from expressing their faith is an outrage.”

Is it just a coincidence that the ACLU’s agenda is similar to the Communist agenda read into the Congressional Record, January 10, 1963 by Congressman Albert S. Herlong, Jr., of Florida (Vol 109, 88th Congress, 1st Session, Appendix, pp. A34-A35):

“Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of ‘separation of church and state.’”

Ronald Reagan stated in a Radio Address, 1982:

“The Constitution was never meant to prevent people from praying; its declared purpose was to protect their freedom to pray.”

Judge Richard Suhrheinrich stated inACLU v Mercer County, 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 20, 2005:

“The ACLU makes repeated reference to ‘the separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome.

The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. Our nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some case, accommodation of religion.”

The Supreme Court stated in Lynch v Donnelly, 1984:

“The Constitution does not ‘require complete separation of church and state.’”

Associate Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the U.S. Supreme Court caseWallace v. Jafree, 1985, dissent, 472 U. S., 38, 99:

“The ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history…The establishment clause had been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years…

There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation…Recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers…

But the greatest injury of the ‘wall’ notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote in Engle v Vitale, 1962, dissent:

“The Court…is not aided…by the…invocation of metaphors like the ‘wall of separation,’ a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution.”

In the U.S. Supreme Court decision, McCullum v Board of Education, it stated:

“Rule of law should not be drawn from a figure of speech.”

Justice William O’Douglas wrote inZorach v Clausen, 1952:

“The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State…

We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence…

We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion.”

Ronald Reagan told the Annual Convention of the National Religious Broadcasters, January 30, 1984:

“I was pleased last year to proclaim 1983 the Year of the Bible. But, you know, a group called the ACLU severely criticized me for doing that. Well, I wear their indictment like a badge of honor.”

Are anti-faith groups using the evolved interpretation of the First Amendment to take away the liberties which the original First Amendment was intended to guarantee?

Dwight Eisenhower is quoted in the TIME Magazine article, “Eisenhower on Communism,” October 13, 1952:

“The Bill of Rights contains no grant of privilege for a group of people to destroy the Bill of Rights.

A group – like the Communist conspiracy – dedicated to the ultimate destruction of all civil liberties, cannot be allowed to claim civil liberties as its privileged sanctuary from which to carry on subversion of the Government.”

Ronald Reagan worded it differently on the National Day of Prayer, May 6, 1982:

“Well-meaning Americans in the name of freedom have taken freedom away. For the sake of religious tolerance, they’ve forbidden religious practice.”

Ronald Reagan stated at an Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast, August 23, 1984:

“The frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance and freedom and open-mindedness. Question: Isn’t the real truth that they are intolerant of religion?”

Did Jefferson intend to outlaw the acknowledgment of God and limit students, teachers, coaches, chaplains, schools, organizations, and communities from public religious expression?

In light of mandates in President’s Healthcare law which forces individuals to violate their religious beliefs or be subject to “temporal punishments” for non-compliance, it is incumbent upon Americans to read again the words of Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom:

“Almighty God hath created the mind free, and…all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments…are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of religion…

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical…

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity…unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which…he has a natural right…

That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion…is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own…

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man…shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief,

but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.”

Ronald Reagan addressed the Alabama State Legislature, March 15, 1982:

“The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny.”

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta
About these ads

Obama Has Authority To Launch ‘Preemptive’ Cyberattacks Eurasia Review

obamaObama Has Authority To Launch ‘Preemptive’ Cyberattacks Eurasia Review.

This story if true is disturbing on many levels. It says nothing of the executive branch requiring any approval from Congress, or even that Congress has approved anything.

Excerpt “The Obama administration is currently drawing up a set of rules about how the US military can defend against or conduct cyberattacks, the New York Times reports. The Obama administration is also allowing intelligence agencies to declare potential threats. But even if these threats are nothing more than a suspicion without evidence, the military now has the authority to attack foreign nations, regardless of whether or not the US is involved in a conflict with them.

This would not only spare the US from sending its own troops overseas, but it would also allow the administration to make decisions without the deliberation that usually occurs before sending Americans into a conflict zone. And if the administration conducts an attack based on false premises, it would be saved the embarrassment that occurred when President George W. Bush sent thousands of US troops into a war with Iraq that lasted nearly 9 years, based on the false premise that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and was a security threat.”

It also says that the government has the ability to act domestically…

The administration’s new rules would also allow the military to operate domestically, the thought of which has always made many people uncomfortable.

Even more disturbing is that this administration considers their actions so far restrained according to the report, what if there was a administration that had no restraints?

A senior administration official told the Times that the US has so far kept its cyber capabilities restrained and that the new rules could allow the administration to exercise its full potential.

“The [National Security Administration’s] cyber security operations have been kept very, very secret, and because of that it has been impossible for the public to react to them,” said Electronic Privacy Information Center attorney Arnie Stepanovich in November. “[That makes it] very difficult, we believe, for Congress to legislate in this area.” Read the rest at

Obama Has Authority To Launch ‘Preemptive’ Cyberattacks Eurasia Review.


American Minute Crosswalk@crosswalkmail.com

Map of religious freedom and restrictions in t...

Image via Wikipedia

American Minute with Bill Federer
“Each year on JANUARY 16, we celebrate Religious Freedom Day in commemoration of the passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom,” wrote President George W. Bush in his 2003 Proclamation. Jefferson‘s Statute for Religious Freedom, which he commemorated on his tombstone, was passed in 1786 by the Virginia Assembly. In his draft, Jefferson wrote: “Almighty God hath created the mind free, and…all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments…tend only to begat habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone.” In his Second Inaugural Address, 1805, Jefferson wrote: “In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government.” In 1808, Jefferson wrote to Samuel Miller: “I consider the government of the United States as prohibited by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises…Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets.”


Friends of Herman Cain info@hermancain.com

Cain’s Commentary, “America’s Role in the World: Peace Through Strength and Clarity

America’s Role in the World: Peace Through Strength and Clarity

NOVEMBER 21, 2011

A few days ago, after coming under criticism for my answer to a question about Libya in an interview, I made a lighthearted comment that reflected all this – that I’m not supposed to know everything (most of the media quoted me as saying “anything”) about foreign policy

Bizarre things happen when you run for president, one of which is that statements like this go viral, with people claiming I had somehow made the case that no knowledge of world affairs is required for the job.

I obviously don’t think that, but I’m also quite willing be honest about my strengths. My background is in the business world, and my greatest strength concerns the economy. My motivation in running for president is to apply my leadership skills to all issues – foreign and domestic. But clearly, as I have met with foreign policy luminaries like John Bolton and Henry Kissinger, I have done a lot more listening than talking – because they know a lot more about it than I do, and it would be absurd for me to claim otherwise.

That said, a man taking the oath of office for the presidency must have a sense of America’s place in the world, and must have a clear idea of the challenges, threats and opportunities that present themselves. Otherwise, success on the economic front likely goes for naught, as mistakes in the international arena tend to be costly both in the short term and in the long term.

My approach to foreign policy is to apply a general set of principles to each situation we face, and I have summarized these principles as peace through strength and clarity. This is a modernized version of the Reagan philosophy that helped bring down the Soviet Union and the communist regimes of Eastern Europe, and also won a series of victories – though not a complete and lasting victory – in South and Central America.

What does this mean?

In a broad sense, it means that I would not retreat on initiatives that strengthen America’s strategic standing in order to buy some sort of accommodation with those who do not have an interest in our security. For example, I would not have welched on America’s commitment to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe because the Russians didn’t like it. The security of the U.S. and our allies would take precedence over the concerns of a nation whose strategic interests are often contrary to ours.

That is one of the reasons I would not have signed the New START treaty, as President Obama did in 2010. Not only did that treaty commit America to arms reductions that the Russians would not necessarily have to match, but it permitted them to maintain a sizable advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, while ignoring programs and ambitions of other nations like Iran, North Korea, China and Pakistan. But more to the point, we simply don’t need to be signing treaties like this with unfriendly countries. The United States can make its own decisions about the nature and the volume of strategic assets we want to deploy. We don’t need to ask anyone’s permission.

As president, I intend to be a strong supporter of America’s strongest allies, and that absolutely includes Israel. I agree with the statement of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that if Israel’s enemies were to lay down their weapons today, there would be peace, whereas if Israel were to lay down its weapons, there would be no more Israel. Supporting Israel is crucial not only because it is an important strategic ally, but also because it is the most free and democratic nation in the region, and a threat to Israel’s security is a threat to freedom everywhere.

Peace through strength and clarity means there is no doubt about where we stand, for what we stand and with whom we stand. We stand in support of free nations who respect the rights of their people and do not threaten their neighbors. And we treat our allies like allies. President Obama’s lukewarm treatment of Great Britain has served to create tension within the most important strategic relationship we have ever had. Likewise, his friendly embrace of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez during a meeting of regional leaders sent exactly the wrong signal, as did his naïve statement during the 2008 campaign that he would sit down and talk to Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without conditions.

Peace through strength means recognizing that we are the United States, and we are the ones who approach these things from a position of strategic superiority. Clarity means we treat our allies like allies, and others have to earn the right to stand with us (and that especially applies to those who hope to receive aid from us – that isn’t happening if you are hostile to us or to our allies).

I agree with former President George W. Bush that the United States should promote free democratic movements throughout the world, and that it is in our strategic interests to do so. That does not mean we try to “impose democracy at the barrel of a gun,” as some of Bush’s rather disingenuous critics claimed he was doing. It means we support these movements where the opportunity presents itself (as President Obama should have in Iran and Syria) or when strategic necessity compels us (as I believe President Bush correctly did in Iraq in 2003). And you don’t always have to use force.

Peace through strength and clarity also recognizes the danger posed by nuclear proliferation, particularly when it involves regimes like Iran or North Korea, which give every reason to believe they may initiate the use of nuclear weapons against other nations. The U.S. must be willing to use its power to stop nuclear proliferation. If we regard such action as beyond the pale, then we essentially concede that all non-proliferation agreements are meaningless.

The most effective application of strength is that which is rarely used. Our troops are already overstretched and our financial resources are limited. An America that is capable and ready, and backs up what it says, won’t have to take action all that often. The world’s bad actors will know we are serious.

I think it’s clear by now that I am not going to score the best of all the candidates on media pop quizzes about the details of current international events. Some have claimed that I take some sort of perverse satisfaction in not knowing all these details. That is not true. I want to know as much as I can. But a leader leads by gathering all the information available in a given situation, and making the best decision at the time based on that information, and in accordance with sound principles. As president, I would not be required to make decisions on the spur of the moment based on a question from a reporter. I would make them the way I made them as a CEO – based on careful consideration of all the facts and the best advice of the best people.

But it is crucial to understand that my foreign policy decisions will always be based on the principles I have laid out here. That will not change, because these are the principles that best represent America’s heritage, and best advance our interests, as well as the interests of all freedom-loving nations and peoples.


Obama’s Arc of Instability: Destabilizing the World One Region at a Time (via Md50′s blog)

The “arc of instability” includes 97 countries. A startling number of these nations are in turmoil, and in every single one of them, Washington is militarily involved.

It’s a story that should take your breath away: the destabilization of what, in the Bush years, used to be called “the arc of instability.”  It involves at least 97 countries, across the bulk of the global south, much of it coinciding with the oil heartlands of the planet.  A startling number of these nations are now in turmoil, and in every single one of them — from Afghanistan and Algeria to Yemen and Zambia — Washington is militarily involved, overtly or covertly, in outright war or what passes for peace.

Garrisoning the planet is just part of it.  The Pentagon and U.S. intelligence services are also running covert special forces and spy operations, launching drone attacks, building bases and secret prisons, training, arming, and funding local security forces, and engaging in a host of other militarized activities right up to full-scale war.  But while you consider this, keep one fact in mind: the odds are that there is no longer a single nation in the arc of instability in which the United States is in no way militarily involved.

Covenant of the Arc

“Freedom is on the march in the broader Middle East,” the president said in his speech.  “The hope of liberty now reaches from Kabul to Baghdad to Beirut and beyond. Slowly but surely, we’re helping to transform the broader Middle East from an arc of instability into an arc of freedom.”

An arc of freedom.  You could be forgiven if you thought that this was an excerpt from President Barack Obama’s Arab Spring speech, where he said “[I]t will be the policy of the United States to… support transitions to democracy.”  Those were, however, the words of his predecessor George W. Bush.  The giveaway is that phrase “arc of instability,” a core rhetorical concept of the former president’s global vision and that of his neoconservative supporters.

The dream of the Bush years was to militarily dominate that arc, which largely coincided with the area from North Africa to the Chinese border, also known as the Greater Middle East, but sometimes was said to stretch from Latin America to Southeast Asia.  While the phrase has been dropped in the Obama years, when it comes to projecting military power President Obama is in the process of trumping his predecessor. Read the rest….


UPDATED 9/2/11: Obama’s not so Fast and Furious Scandal: ObamaGate (via Village of the Banned) (via Voting American)

UPDATED 9/2/11: Obama's not so Fast and Furious Scandal: ObamaGate  (via Village of the Banned) Obama/Holder:  Gun Runner Inc. UPDATED FOR SEPTEMBER 2, 2011 Demand for More Answers in Fast and Furious Scandal Just hours after the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, federal officials tried to cover up evidence that the gun that killed Terry, was one the government intentionally helped sell to the Mexican cartels in a weapons trafficking program known as Operation Fast and Furious. The revelation comes just days after a huge shake-up of … Read More

via Voting American


When Was Ron Paul Ever Part of the Libertarian-Conservative Coalition? (via The Tree of Mamre)

Ron Paul at the 2007 National Right to Life Co...

Image via Wikipedia

I like Ron Paul but I don’t agree with him totally. Especially on foreign policy, but I could vote for him as President without any hesitation. I don’t believe that his policies would put this country at risk the way that Barack Obama and George W. Bush have done. I am not sure that being an isolationist would be that bad a thing for a few years. It would not hurt us the way the economic policies of the former two Presidents has, it might even help us a great deal. It would be nice for this country to be the place people strive to be like instead of the place they strive to destroy/
Too many people attempt to put people like Ron Paul and most other politicians in a box with a nice label as if the label itself will tell you all you need to know. It kind of makes people lazy and makes them think that they don’t have to bother to do their homework because it tells them all they want to know. If our country truly ever wants to become the place that we can be we will need to ignore the labels and look at the character.
In a way that is how we got Barack Obama. Too many democrats looked at the label and didn’t go beyond that to look at the character.

On another website there is discussion about Ron Paul which I am afraid I did my part to–as always–cloud up. A few of the statements there need to be replied to. However, since the blog in question was not wanting to start a cat fight, I think it is better to reply here rather than make things worse over there. One point in particular was about having a libertarian-conservative coalition to defeat Obama. This is essentially the fusionist idea a … Read More

via The Tree of Mamre


TRANSPARENCY, HOPE & CHANGE, TYRANNY = Obama/Holder and Gun Runner, Inc. The Scandal (via Village of the Banned)

TRANSPARENCY, HOPE & CHANGE, TYRANNY = Obama/Holder and Gun Runner, Inc. The Scandal This of course is a story that you will not find on the Main Stream Media and so I commend Sean Hannity and Fox News Network for bringing this story to the American People.  It should now be very clear to all Americans that President Obama and Department of Justice Chief Eric Holder had full knowledge of and ordered this scandalous program to change course from forme … Read More

via Village of the Banned


Obama’s not so Fast and Furious Scandal: ObamaGate (via Village of the Banned)

Obama's not so Fast and Furious Scandal: ObamaGate Obama/Holder:  Gun Runner Inc.   It should now be very clear to all Americans that President Obama and Department of Justice Chief Eric Holder had full knowledge of and ordered this scandalous program to change course from former President Bush’s original intent.  The denial by this Administration to the findings of this hearing is nothing short of Treasonous and should be acted upon accordingly [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOy8J4 … Read More

via Village of the Banned


Obama’s Black Buses painted with ‘Green Hypocrisy’ (via YourDaddy’s Politics)

Obama's Black Buses painted with 'Green Hypocrisy' Obama's Energy TSAR Dr. Stephen Chu June 2009 "If that building is air-conditioned, it's going to be a lot cooler, it can use 10 or 15 per cent less electricity," he said. "You also do something in that you change the albedo of the Earth – you make it more reflective. So the sunlight comes down and it actually goes back up – there is no greenhouse effect," Dr Chu said. When sunlight is reflecte … Read More

via YourDaddy's Politics


How Real Is Rick Perry?

Pop art Portrait of Rick PerryImage via Wikipedia

Since the media started reporting that Perry was going to enter the race for the GOP nomination, I have questioned the excitement that seem to go through the blogosphere and the mainstream media. I will be honest and say that I just don’t see the reason for the excitement. Looking at his body of work, I don’t see a lot that he has actually done.

As we learned with George W. Bush, being governor of a large state like Texas that is run more by the Lt. Governor than the Governor doesn’t get you much except a public figure that is in the news more for what the state itself does, than what he does. I see Perry as a typical politician that panders to what he thinks that the people he represents wants to hear. This is a time that we need something more. We don’t need the typical politician and although Perry has a pretty face and talks the talk, is there more to him than meets the eye?

There are plenty of articles out there that talk about what he has done and what he supports or does not support but one thing that really bothers me is his possible ties with Islam. Sultan Knish has an excellent article about that and I have posted a portion of it here but please read all of it at his site!

Call me contrary but I tend to look askance at people that the media get excited over and that main line, so called real Republicans, think is right for America. Since these are the same people that got us into the mess that we are in, I see no reason to either trust them or accept their insistence that they know what is best for us! This election is too important for the future of this country than to blindly accept anyone’s word. I hope that we have learned our lesson and are willing to take the time to investigate each candidate and decide if what they have done in the past will tell us what they will do in the future.

I am not willing to accept anyone’s word that they have changed unless their is ample proof to go along with it. It is easy to tell people what they want to hear. That is how Barack Obama got elected. We must make sure there there is substance in the next person who is elected to represent us, not just a bully with a pretty face and empty rhetoric!

Rick Perry and Islam – by Sultan Knish

Monday, August 15, 2011


Some questions have been raised about Rick Perry’s views on Islam. Islamic infiltration into American politics means that every candidate deserves close scrutiny. My purpose is not to attack Perry, but to conduct a preliminary discussion of the subject. Pamela Geller and Debbie Schlussel have written their own articles, which add more pieces to the puzzle. As with every candidate, the discussion will go on as more materials are brought forward.

Perry at the signing of the Texas Halal Law

First of all it’s important to recognize that the Rick Perry question, is also the Chris Christie question, it’s the question that comes with every governor from a state with a large and politically active Muslim population. This question will have more serious implications as the size of the Muslim population expands even further.

The multicultural pandering that used to be associated with the Tammany Hall political machine has become second nature in American politics. There is hardly a governor who does not pay lip service to diversity or do roundups of all the religious groups in America. That’s an unfortunate reality.

The initial good news is that Rick Perry did not try to influence the judicial system on behalf of a member of a terrorist organization, or appoint a terrorist Imam’s political affiliate to a superior court judgeship the way that Christie did.

The worst thing he seems to have done is played footsie with the Aga Khan and appointed one of his people to the State Health Council. He also seems to have met with a group of black clergy, which included a Nation of Islam minister, and made the usual trips to Dubai to talk up trade and academic exchanges.

Then there’s the Texas Halal Law, which makes it a criminal offense to sell Halal and non-Halal meat in the same store, without specifically labeling the two, and of misrepresenting non-Halal meat as being Halal. In theory that’s not such a big deal. Similar laws are on the books for Kosher meat. But the problem comes with the definition of what Halal is.

“Halal,” as applied to food, means food prepared and served in conformity with Islamic religious requirements according to a recognized Islamic authority.

That comes from the bill’s definition. And it raises the question of who is recognized as an Islamic authority. HB 470 leaves that question open. But in a dispute over which Islamic definition of Halal to use, the State of Texas would be forced to rule on a question of Islamic law. And to enforce that law. Texas would become an enforcer of Sharia.

The Texas Halal Law was lobbied for by Mohamed Elibiary and his Freedom and Justice Foundation and is quoted in a recent article about their positive relationship with Perry. Elibiary has spoken at an event honoring the Ayatollah Khomeini and recommends the writings of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Last year he wrote an op-ed warning against assassinating Al-Qaeda leaders. And of course he’s busyeducating Americans about Sharia.

At the signing, Perry made a point of thanking Imam Bakhash for all that he does. Bakhash also appears to be one of the judges on the Texas Islamic Court, whose decisions have been upheld as binding by Texas appellate courts.

Then there’s Perry’s friendly relationship with Farouk Shami, who has a rather ugly background when it comes to Israel, and who suggested that 9/11 might be a conspiracy. He is the Palestinian in the Perry quote mentioned below.

Believe it or not, all this is the good news. It’s a sad commentary on the state of Islamic infiltration that this is business as usual in state politics. The bad news is that this means Perry’s as bad on Islam as George W. Bush. Maybe worse.

Like most of the world’s major religions, the Islamic faith preaches peace, love and tolerance. Indeed, terrorism is the antithesis of the basic tenet to which the one billion Islamic followers all over the world adhere.

The Koran teaches that “whoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as having served all mankind.”

The heartfelt condolences and overtures of cooperation that have been offered by Islamic communities in Texas portray the true spirit of Islam.

That’s from a post 9/11 editorial. And it’s echoed elsewhere. Perry’s views haven’t changed since. Witness this NPR piece from last year.

The governor of this swiftly changing state works to take a nuanced approach to a minority group that’s been very much at the center of the news. “We have a huge Muslim community in the state of Texas,” he says, and many of these Muslims are “great businessmen and women, very good supporters of mine. … We are an incredibly diverse state. I sell it as part of our strength.”

Perry was asked if he was comfortable with the way that some people talk about the problem with terrorism — their concern to say that the real problem is “Muslims” or “Muslim countries.”

“The radicalization of Islam is a great concern,” Perry said. “Islam of and by itself is one of the great religions, along with Christianity and Judaism.” He recalled meeting one of the Democratic candidates for Texas governor in the recent election. “He’s a Palestinian. And he and I were having a conversation about Ground Zero. How do you deal with this? He said, well, it’s pretty easy. He said, ‘Build a synagogue, a temple, and a church there.  And bring these people together.’”

How problematic is this? Again this is Bush territory. It’s insipid and dangerously ignorant. It’s one thing to hear it from the governor of a state with a sizable Muslim population. But it’s inappropriate for a president. And yet it’s also inevitable.

As some have pointed out, Perry is pro-Israel. So was Bush. It didn’t stop him from toadying to Saudi Arabia and Abbas, or from pressuring Israel to make concessions to terrorists during his second term. It’s possible to be pro-Israel and pro-Islam. And when the scales are weighed, then Islam comes first. If you doubt that, go look at what happened when Bush was pressured by the Saudis.

But this isn’t about Israel. It’s about Islam. Specifically it’s about addressing the threat of Islamic terrorism.

Perry has pandered on Mexican illegal immigration and on Islamic terrorism, as Bush did before him. Will he keep it up once he gets elected the way that Bush did? Hard to say, but the odds are good that he will. Read the rest at  Sultan Knish:


Going The Route (via The Camp Of The Saints)

A special guest posting by my good Friend In The Ether, The Reverend David R. Graham… Barak Hussein Obama was elected POTUS because Karl Rove and POTUS George W. Bush decided not to expose the lie that Operation Iraqi Freedom was illegitimate. Saddam Hussein/Iraq was the state-sponsor of the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City by his proxies Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Khalid’s family members and their al Qaeda affiliat … Read More

via The Camp Of The Saints


Guns and Drugs: Holder’s Waterloo?

So, tell me, what is Barack Obama and Eric Holder‘s game? If it is to stop the guns from being sold in Mexico, they sure picked a strange way to go about it. Call me crazy, but I have never heard of selling or giving people what they want, making them decide to quit wanting it. Common sense would tell you that it would just make them want more. And is this supposed to make America safer? In what way? If you give a drug dealer a gun, that gives him another way to get rid of his enemies doesn’t it?

So what is their real game. The actions they have taken have led to increased violence and killing along the border. It has led to increased drug traffic coming into the United States. It has even led to increased danger for the citizens of Mexico. Are they perhaps trying to bring down the Mexican government? It seems that is what the Zetas cartel has in mind, and this government is happily arming them.

Or is their game a little deeper than that even? With this administration denying American citizens who live along the border the right to arm themselves, they are increasing the risk to all those who live there. Moving the defenses along the border back  and basically ceding that land to the drug dealers, both puts the citizens and the environment at risk. We have seen proof the Hezbollah is working with the drug cartels and that they are setting up bases just to the south of the border, and anyone with a shred of common sense would realize that they do not have our best interests at heart! Are we going to start seeing missiles lobbed across the border next?

So, the ATF was running guns *and* drugs? Ahem… WTF??

**Posted by Phineas

Are we sure they’re not the Mafia in disguise?

From the El Paso Times:

U.S. federal agents allegedly allowed the Sinaloa drug cartel to traffic several tons of cocaine into the United States in exchange for information about rival cartels, according to court documents filed in a U.S. federal court.

The allegations are part of the defense of Vicente Zambada-Niebla, who was extradited to the United States to face drug-trafficking charges in Chicago. He is also a top lieutenant of drug kingpin Joaquin “Chapo” Guzman and the son of Ismael “Mayo” Zambada-Garcia, believed to be the brains behind the Sinaloa cartel.

The case could prove to be a bombshell on par with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ “Operation Fast and Furious,” except that instead of U.S. guns being allowed to walk across the border, the Sinaloa cartel was allowed to bring drugs into the United States. Zambada-Niebla claims he was permitted to smuggle drugs from 2004 until his arrest in 2009.

In other words, an arm of the federal government allowed one gang to bring drugs into the US in return for information about other gangs. Drugs that would enrich the gang through proceeds from their sale. Drugs that would destroy lives through their use and through the violence association with the trade. Drugs that are a federal crime to move and sell. These aren’t minor offenses being overlooked here for the greater good.

Erick Erickson of Red State wonders why Holder still has a job. While that’s a good question for many good reasons, look at the dates in the article: these operations date back through George W. Bush into Bill Clinton’s administration, indicating a tradition of “felony stupid;” they include contract killings done for the cartel while the assassin was under ICE “supervision.” Read the rest at Sister Toldjah:

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2011/08/05/so-the-atf-was-running-guns-and-drugs-ahem-wtf/

Well, well. Serrano gets another scoop. DEA admits Gunwalker Scandal involvement.

DEA acknowledges supporting role in Operation Fast and Furious

The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration has acknowledged to congressional investigators that her agency provided a supporting role in the ill-fated Operation Fast and Furious run by the group’s counterparts at the ATF. Read the rest at Sipsey Street Irregulars”

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/08/well-well-serrano-gets-another-scoop.html

“Punishing” the arsonists by giving them more matches and gasoline.

http://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2011/08/punishing-arsonists-by-giving-them-more.html

Holy F’in Crap: Fast & Furious was ‘so out of control’ that it was arming a massive Mexican drug cartel for all-out war

Has anyone at MSNBC interviewed Eric Holder about this yet?

The failed federal anti-gunrunning program known as Operation Fast and Furious got so out of control in November 2009, it appeared the U.S. government was single-handedly “arming for war” the Sinaloa Cartel, documents show, even as U.S. officials kept lying to fellow agents in Mexico about the volume of guns it helped send south of the border…

The precise number of casualties in Mexico isn’t known, but ATF officials confirm the murder of Mario Gonzales Rodriguez, brother of the Chihuahua attorney general, with a Fast and Furious gun.

Erudite as usual, Ace provides the Cliff Notes version of what would be lock-of-the-week impeachment material for any Republican.

Let’s see if I have this straight:

The smartest administration in the history of the world conceived of this plan.

The plan was to just let thousands of weapons flow to murderous drug cartels.

And then take those cartels down.

But they didn’t take the cartels down, because they didn’t track the guns.

They instead were to follow the money, but they also didn’t do that.

A US border agent was killed due to the illegal arms sent to a neighboring sovereign country in this massive covert operation.

In addition, so was the brother of a Mexican attorney general.

So were a number of other Mexican citizens murdered with these weapons — we don’t know the number yet.

In conducting this massive covert action, we lied to officials in this neighboring sovereign country, even though their people (and cops, and officials) were getting killed with our weapons.

As far as I know, we haven’t taken any action beyond arresting a few straw buyers… who could have easily been arrested, with the weapons, when they attempted to smuggled them or sell them. Read the rest at Doug Ross @ Journal:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/08/holy-fin-crap-fast-furious-so-out-of.html

Video: NRA Files Suit Over New ATF Gun Reporting Requirement (Via Nice Deb)

http://wp.me/p4OSU-a5K

video h/t Nice Deb


Are We Now Hostage To Opec?

Map of OPEC countries. Dark green = member sta...

Image via Wikipedia

With the way the Obama administration has cut off our access to our own energy sources, we are more and more dependent on foreign oil. And yet this is exactly what Mr. Obama claimed that he was going to change. With Iran heading OPEC we are in a worse situation than we were in the late 70′s under Jimmy Carter. Then it was just a few Americans that were held hostage, now it seems that all Americans are at risk of being held hostage and most of them are not even aware that they are at risk.

It’s time that we elected a leader that is interested in freeing the American people from the real hostage taker, Barack Obama. If there is anyone in America that truly wishes to remain a prisoner, I am sure that there is someone some where that is willing to make that a reality for them. As for me, I am quite tired of being held at the point of a gun and am ready to be released.

OPEC Takes Aim At America

July 27, 2011 by John Myers

OPEC Takes Aim At America

PHOTOS.COM
America is hostage to its need for oil.

Only once have I looked down the barrel of a gun. I can tell you it was damn disconcerting. It happened 25 years ago. The automatic rifles that were drawn on me then are pointed at America today. Yet President Barack Obama refuses to acknowledge that America is facing Middle Eastern guns.

In 1986, I traveled to Geneva to attend an emergency OPEC meeting. My father Vernon was in his early 70s but had lost none of the drive that shaped his youth as a reporter, which led him to found Oil Week Magazine and Myers Finance & Energy (MFE).

Vern was old school. While he had not changed from his reporting days, the world had. I got a sense of that when we pulled up to the hotel decked with machine gun-toting policemen.

My dad either didn’t notice the tight security at the hotel or he simply didn’t care. He asked the desk clerk, “Where’s the meeting?”

That was a tough question for anyone, never mind someone not familiar with English.

“Are you looking for the OPEC meeting? That is on the penthouse,” he responded.

“Thanks,” mumbled my dad, as he marched toward the elevator. As I crept behind, I heard the clerk say: “Sir, you are not allowed up there!”

Inside the elevator my dad said, “Penthouse!”

The elevator operator protested until my dad spelled it out: “We are the press.”

The operator reluctantly pushed the button. As our elevator climbed higher, I got a sinking feeling in my stomach. I understood we were about to walk in unannounced on some of the world’s biggest power brokers.

The elevator stopped. The doors slid open and before you could say, “Sheik Your Booty,” four machine guns were aimed at our heads. There stood four of the biggest men I have ever seen, each wearing a turban and a bulletproof vest.

Questions were barked out in Arabic. My dad was led down a hall while a single guard stood over me. I must have put him at ease; because after a few minutes, he shouldered his gun and offered me a cigarette.

Our entrance was like the Keystone Kops, but luck would have it that Vern got his story. Down the hall was a member of the Saudi delegation who remembered my dad from a 1962 trip to the Kingdom. While I stood before the guard, Vern was talking to his old Saudi acquaintance. He learned that Saudi Arabia was going to open up its spigots. Over the next several months, oil prices began to fall dramatically.

An Energy Crisis Waiting to Explode

That OPEC no longer exists. The de facto leader of OPEC today is militant Iran, whose influence grows with each passing month. Whether we know it or not, America is staring into the guns of OPEC.

A recent simulation called Securing America’s Future Energy declared that the United States lacks effective energy policy responses in the event of another OPEC embargo. The Heritage Foundation, which is made up of current and former government officials and diplomats, reported that protracted turmoil in principal OPEC countries has the potential to cause a sharp decline in oil production and an acute price spike.

The crisis game they played was called Oil ShockWave, and it took place in The Ritz-Carlton ballroom a stone’s throw from the White House. Players included George Bush’s former deputy secretary of state John Negroponte, a former official of Jimmy Carter’s Administration and a former Shell Oil chief executive. They participated as make-believe cabinet officials. At the conclusion of the simulation, participants acknowledged America had become hostage to its need for oil, yet they couldn’t quite seem to break away.

“We are reaping the harvest of our dependence on petroleum and the fact that the countries that produce it are either unstable or hostile to our interests,” declared Stephen Hadley, who reprised his real-life role as Bush’s national security adviser. “How did we let this happen when we’ve known we’ve been dependent on oil for 20 years?”

Former Shell Oil chief executive officer John Hofmeister played the role of energy secretary in the exercise. He gave assurances about U.S. domestic supply. Not one person called for an accelerated transition to renewable energies. According to one participant, nobody even whispered the words “climate change.”

Hofmeister said: “The most powerful message that we have is that the United States of America has more oil than any other country in the world that we know of. We have simply been holding ourselves back from producing that oil. I think it is time to really get the message to Congress that it is time to start producing.”

My question is: When is Obama going to wake up to the impending crisis? It may already be too late, and if Muslim guns turn on the Saudi Royal family itself, it will be far too late — not just for the House of Saud for but the United States.

Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary under George W. Bush, said: “The president has to do something bold. He has a real challenge to his leadership.”

Fleischer’s conclusion is that Obama should announce the Federal government is going to open up every acre of land for oil drilling that was previously declared off-limits.

After 2½ years of disappointment, I think my odds of winning the SuperLotto are better than the chances that Obama will wake up to the petroleum peril America is facing. That is bad news for the country, which is staring down the barrel of $8 per gallon gasoline prices. Read the rest at Personal Liberty Digest:

http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/government/opec-takes-aim-at-america/?eiid=&rmid=2011_07_27_PLA_[P11425551]&rrid=387058174


Something You Need To View… (via Leaving No Stone Unturned…)

Something You Need To View... The following is from the info associated with this ad. I've posted this ad before, but now; more than ever we need a reminder. Please read, then watch… This ad about the U.S. national debt produced by Citizens Against Government Waste has been deemed "too controversial" by major networks including ABC, A&E and The History Channel and will not be shown on those channels. The commercial is a homage to a 1986 ad that was entitled "The Deficit … Read More

via Leaving No Stone Unturned…


Wise Up and Rise Up America! Our Final Countdown has Begun (via Voting American)

Wise Up and Rise Up America!  Our Final Countdown has Begun Now is the time for all American’s to rise up and speak with a loud voice.  2012 will be upon us before we know it and there is no time to waste.  This is the time to tell your family and friends to get involved.  This is the time to get them informed and this is the time to get them involved.  America hangs in the balance my friends.  Our very way of life is being challenged like never before in our history.   Look around you,  our very existenc … Read More

via Voting American


1,325 New Houses for Illegal Immigrants Welfare = Social Security Refugee Pay !!! (via 2012 Patriot) True or False?

1,325 New Houses for Illegal Immigrants Welfare = Social Security Refugee Pay !!!

According to two of my readers, the information in the video is false. I am including their comments on the post.

From tacomamama “It’s not a development for “illegal aliens.” It’s a very nice mixed-income development here in my home town, and to live in the subsidized rental housing portion of it you have to qualify (including immigration status.) Just about everything in that video is made up, except for the part about the buildings being nice.”

From John Delaney

“It’s not possible – and it’s an outright lie. Just because someone posted it on YouTube doesn’t make it a fact. The development mentioned was built after World War II – in the late 1940′s. It became low income housing in the early 1950′s. The development went through a revitalization in 2001 – when George W. Bush was President.”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu6ok5ykyuQ&feature=player_embedded#at=62/a> Asians Koreans & Chinese: Here is a development in Tacoma WA (Salishan) that was built for Illegal Immigrants! 1325 Homes created! Refugee Pay offers them $2642 per month in SSI benefits, plus Food Stamps, plus Section 8 Housing. You will see new expensive cars in this video. Wouldn’t you like to get a free ride like the illegals? http://www.salishan.net/projeRead More

via 2012 Patriot


Why simple social issues won’t matter in the 2012 Presidential Election! (via The STR)

Anyone of the Republican presidential candidates could beat Obama in 2012. Just how anyone of the Democrat presidential candidates would have beat the Republican Nominee in 2008 thanks to George W. Bush. In this case 2+2=4 not 3, Also I have seen a humungous drop in Liberal voices and bloggers. Those are mostly what you call your “bandwagon” jumpers. They seen how fast Obama and the Democrats were sinking so they jumped off and onto the Republica … Read More

via The STR


Why America will Reject and Eject Obama in ’12 (via Village of the Banned)

Why America will Reject and Eject Obama in '12 Obama is Carters Second Term ANY QUESTIONS Dear President Obama, “We The People” have stated resolutely we reject your vision for our country. You claim you have not heard us. “We The People” have assembled across America resisting your efforts to subvert our constitution and undermine o … Read More

via Village of the Banned


Some Dare Call It Treason (via The Camp Of The Saints)

WASHINGTON - OCTOBER 20:  Volunteers unfurl a ...

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

In a normal world this would be called treason. In Barack Obama’s world, it is just your everyday practice of betraying our allies and aiding our enemies. This is the true Obama Doctrine!

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of The Constitution Of The United States reads [emphasis mine]: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. From the Politico, Tim Make reporting, we learn: The U.S. has decided to … Read More

via The Camp Of The Saints


The Obama Democrats: Tax and Spend Inc. (via Voting American)

The Obama Democrats: Tax and Spend Inc. Just when you think you may have seen it all the Liberals Amp Up the Rhetoric on taxing the Rich to save the Poor.  I guess that is the only solution they have been able to come with thus far.  Two and a half years into Obama‘s only term and unemployment is still way too high at 9.1%. Gee…  I wonder what is going to happen with rising gas prices  and hyper inflation on the way?  Oh wait….I know….. he will blame Bush!   It is all getting so old. T … Read More

via Voting American


Can Barack Obama Win Re-election?

President Barack Obama gives his weekly addres...

Image via Wikipedia

Does Barack Obama have a chance to win re-election in 2012? Of course he does! But if they play by the rules it is not going to be easy! The economy is in worse shape than it was when he took office! I am sure that they will still try to blame George W. Bush for it, but I don’t think that it will fly. They will have had four years and with no or little improvement they will have a tough time explaining to the American people the reasons.

They are also going to have a tough time explaining why everything Americans buy costs more, in many case double or triple, what it did when he took office. Income hasn’t gone up, especially for seniors on fixed incomes, and yet the cost of Medicare has. The price they pay for things that Medicare doesn’t cover has gone up too.

Then there is the cost of gasoline. The President has made it clear that he would rather us spend more on gasoline and get green cars, but he hasn’t figured out a way for regular Americans to do it without borrowing money that they can’t get from the banks. And then there is the banks, for all the bail out money we gave them,  many are still going under and they really aren’t loaning to small business’ and to average people.

Food, fuel, and energy costs are going up but there is no inflation according to the Federal Government. It’s really convenient that those particular things don’t count isn’t it. It’s almost as if they are being manipulated to make people think it is all in their heads. The American people are smarter than that and no matter how much they try to spin it, we know that there is inflation and that we are being hosed.

So can Barack Obama win re-election? Not if they play by the rules, but then this White House never plays by the rules do they? Read the excellent article below from the American Thinker and ask yourself what Barack Obama and his team are planning to do. Do you think that they might entertain the idea of imposing martial law and canceling the next election?

June 5, 2011

‘Cornered’ Obama and the administration’s lies about the economy

Rick Moran

Obama is “cornered.” That’s according to Brookings Institution senior fellow Bill Galston:

He is in a corner, there is no question about it. He is in a political corner, a fiscal corner and an economic corner. The Federal Reserve has fired every gun in its arsenal, and there is no appetite in Congress for any more stimulus. There is every reason to think that the economy he has is the economy he is going to have for the reelection campaign, maybe plus or minus just a little bit.

Galston, the former Clinton adviser, is a true leftist. It’s not about the poor saps who voted for the One in 08 walking around with no jobs, or the dad filling up the gas tank hoping it lasts the week or the mom agonizing over whether to pay $5.99 for a jar of peanut butter. It’s only about the “reelection campaign.”

But most daunting to the White House is Obama has  few good tools at his disposal to jump-start the economy in the short term.

Obama and his flunkies lie like they breathe. They spin fantastic tales of a rebounding economy, a country “continuing to move in the right direction.” A May report by the president’s National Economic Council  highlights the administration’s accomplishments in assisting small businesses, including expanded tax breaks and improved access to capital, and lauds a resurgent auto industry. Read the rest at the American Thinker:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/06/cornered_obama_and_the_administrations_

lies_about_the_economy.html


China DUMPS 97% of USA TBills !!! (via 2012 Patriot)

President Barack Obama talks with Chinese Pres...

Image via Wikipedia

This is just one more straw on the camels back! How much more will it take to completely destroy the economy of this country? What is Obama doing about it? Can anyone claim that Barack Obama has done anything to better this country? And for all those that say you cannot blame him for it, I ask “Why not?” Doesn’t the buck stop with the President anymore? Or is it still George W. Bush‘ fault? Wake up people! If we don’t change our direction we won’t have a country left to save!

China DUMPS 97% of USA TBills !!! President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao of China toast during the State Dinner in the State Dining Room of the White House, Jan. 19, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson) China Has Divested 97 Percent of Its Holdings in U.S. Treasury Bills Friday, June 03, 2011 By Terence P. Jeffrey (CNSNews.com) – China has dropped 97 percent of its holdings in U.S. Treasury bills, decreasing its ownership of the short-term U.S. governmen … Read More

via 2012 Patriot


George Will Makes The Comparisons Between Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan Complete (via A Time For Choosing)

Sarah Palin at the Time 100 Gala, in Manhattan...

Image via Wikipedia

For all those who have their doubts about Sarah Palin, Gary P. has a great article that I have reblogged below! I know there are those who hate her and their minds are never going to be changed but for those that still have some doubts, I hope that you will keep an open mind and not just listen to those who have been wrong in the past. Sarah offers more that just the same old same old. It’s time to restore this country and get someone in office that believes in this country and her people!

George Will Makes The Comparisons Between Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan Complete By Gary P Jackson The comparison’s between Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan are quite natural. Sarah herself is a great student of Reagan, quotes him often, and has the same common sense approach to governing. Like Reagan she’s a no-nonsense leader who gets things done. It’s her adherence to solid conservative principles that has earned her the admiration of supporters from coast to coast. Of course, while it’s gratifying to look at all of the valid … Read More

via A Time For Choosing


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,998 other followers