Berg seeks special prosecutor to investigate Obama—July 16, 2010>>>Former Pennsylvania Assistant Attorney General Philip Berg filed for a Petition for Rehearing En Banc under the False Claims Act of 1863 in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The filing is an appeal to Case 08-cv-01933RWR, stemming from Berg v Obama, 656 F.Supp. 2d 107 (D.D.C. 2009); order on June 9, 2009 dismissing Berg's case and a September 21, 2009 Memorandum and Order denying Relator's Motion for Reconsideration.

This Qui Tam case is based on the False Claims Act of 1863 (31 USC § 3729-3733 [generally referred to as the "Lincoln Law"] which allows people not affiliated with the government to file law suits against people who commit fraud against the government. Berg chose that filing because of the nature of the false claims which are affirmations by Barack Hussein Obama that he's a citizen of the United States even though he cannot, or will not, produce evidence that he is—since Berg believes Obama knows he's not. The basis of Berg's lawsuit is that a fraud was perpetuated on the People of the United States by Obama when he ran for, was elected to, and fraudulently held, the office of US Senator from Illinois. Berg pleads for and demands the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the allegations of election fraud against Obama. The special prosecutor's job would be to determine whether or not grounds exist to prosecute the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for fraudulently representing himself as a citizen of the United States and seeking and holding political offices he could neither constitutionally seek nor hold.

Berg further argues in his US Circuit Court of Appeals pleading that a special prosecutor is necessary since, without one, the decision of whether or not to investigate and/or prosecute the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue rests entirely and exclusively the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, who reports directly to the alleged violator who, again, is the occupant of the White House. Berg contends that a conflict-of-interest exists which necessitates the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. (In the opinion of Jon Christian Ryter's Conservative World), the Special Prosecutor should be appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States. Berg further argues that a close, personal relationship exists between Obama and Holder and that Holder was the senior legal adviser to the Obama Campaign and served as one of the three members of Obama's Vice Presidential Selection Committee. Because of that, a major conflict-of-interest exists that precludes Holder from making unbiased decisions concerning any investigation of Obama for fraud that rise to the levels of conflict-of-interest codified in 5 CFR § 2635, et sequitur, 5 USC § 2640, et sequitur; 18 USC § 205 and 18 USC § 208.

Berg was forced to file the En Banc for a review by the full court because on June 30, 2010, Judges Anne Wilson Rogers, Merrick B. Garland and Janice Rogers Brown issued a ruling that Berg failed to demonstrate that Holder, as the United States Attorney General, his office or the attorneys on his staff, represent a conflict-of-interest with respect to the Attorney General investigating claims of fraud against Obama for running for, or holding, political offices to which he could not show he was constitutionally qualified to seek and/or hold. Rogers and Garland are Bill Clinton appointees. Brown was appointed by President George W. Bush. As a US District Court Judge, Brown was on Bush-43's short list to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Instead, Bush chose Appellate Court Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. When Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died, Bush switched horses in midstream and named Roberts for that job, picking Sam Alito to replace O'Connor. Brown was appointed to fill Roberts' seat on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Interestingly, while the three judge panel ruled that Berg had not demonstrated that the Dept. of Justice and the Attorney General were biased in favor of Obama and should not be allowed to prosecute an investigation against him (since that prosecution would be biased in favor of the guy who signs their paychecks), its decision was not solely based on that circumstance. Rather, the crux of their decision came from three precedents: Swift v United States 318 F.3d 250, 253 (DC Cir. 2003) in which the government declared the US District Court's decision was not reviewable and United States v Armstrong, 517 US 456, 463 (1996). In essence, the three member panel of the US Circuit Court said that when the government decides to dismiss a case that opens a can of worms they don't want to hear, their decisions are not "reviewable."

When you look at the composite of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, you find two of the active judges: David B. Sentelle and Douglas Ginsburg (who actually retired in 2008) were appointed by Ronald Reagan, one—Karen Henderson—was appointed by Bush-41, and three: Brown, Thomas B. Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh, were appointed by Bush-43. The other three: Rogers, Garland and David S. Tatel, were appointed by Clinton. Two seats are currently vacant.

I guess what Berg is asking the US DC Circuit to do is to overrule themselves—twice. Two of the precedents cited were decisions made by the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia which essentially ruled that the District Court has an "...unfettered right to dismiss [a qui tam] action...[as] not reviewable." I guess the odds of any federal court actually hearing a case that deals with Obama's lack of constitutional standing to hold any federal elective political office is about as good as former Clinton vice president Al Gore, Jr. holding a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington and admitting that man-induced global warming is a myth.

First court challenge on Obamacare—July 2, 2010>>>A multifaceted attack on Obamacare has begun in State legislatures and, simultaneously, in the US District Court of Virginia in Richmond. As Congressman Steve King [R-IO] circulates a petition in the US house of Representatives demanding an up-or-down vote on Obamacare, Virginia Solicitor General E. Duncan Getchell, Jr. told US District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson that it would be an unprecedented "overreach," and an ahistorical and radical step for the federal government to be allowed to force individual citizens to purchase a private product— regardless what hat product might be.

The federal government simply does not have the Constitutional authority to cross that line, forcing the American people to purchase private insurance, or alternately, mandated government insurance that then allows the government to deny live-saving procedures to the elderly because they are old and are "double-dippers" (collecting both Social Security and are receiving medical benefits under Medicare.

Judge Hudson, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002, told Getchell he will make his ruling within 30 days whether or not to let the case go forth. The Virginia case is the first of two State-initiated lawsuits by Republicans to kill Obamacare. The second lawsuit was filed by the State of Florida. Twenty States joined the Florida lawsuit.

Virginia argued that Obamacare forced private citizens to buy insurance or face a fine, which the Solicitor General argues that the Virginia lawsuit was necessary because of a Virginia statute that makes it illegal to force residents of the State to purchase health insurance.. Furthermore, Getchell maintains Obama's overreach violates the Founders' intention of limited federal government. The Florida case is not scheduled for a hearing until September.

Meanwhile, King's petition had 80 Congressional signatures as of Thursday, July 1. Support for King's measure is growing even though there is a second petition, this one sponsored by Congressman Wally Herger [R-CA] circulating in the chamber as well. Herger's measure calls for a full repeal of Obamacare and the passage of a substitute GOP measure. House Minority Leader John Boehner [R-OH] and Minority Whip Eric Cantor [R-VA] joined King to push his measure through. The Club for Growth notified the GOP it would score the group's progress on its legislative ranking board, which will bring King's effort to the forefront of political talk.

Crist makes it official —Apr. 30, 2010>>>At a rally in a downtown park in his hometown of St. Petersburg on Thursday, April 29, Florida governor Charlie Crist made it official—he's become an Independent. But then, everyone knew that was going to happen. The Democrats are already celebrating Democratic Congressman Kendrick B. Meek winning Republican Mel Martinez's US Senate seat even though the midterm election is still seven months away and recent polls suggest that Republican former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio will still prevail in a very tight race for the US Senate seat of the retiring Martinez. Meek is the son of former Congresswoman Carrie Meek whose congressional seat he assumed in 2002. Washington Post White House reporter Chris Cillizza sees the Florida race as a Republican blood bath which will likely turn the red state blue with GOP voters drawing their own personal lines in the sand and spliting the vote between Crist and Rubio. Pundits see conservative voters in Northern Florida and along the upper Gulf coast voting solidly for Rubio, with urban left of center Republicans along the southern Atlantic coast area of Florida throwing their support to Crist. Crist is counting on pulling moderate Democrats from Meek to engineer an election coup—or that's what his Democratic advisers are telling him. Rubio is counting on disillusioned voters in both parties who now see Obama's "change" as nothing more than a plan to redistribute the wealth the American middle class and working class—not to minorities in the United States—but to minorities in emerging nations.

Meek, backed by Bill Clinton, has raised $4.6 million and has about $3.3 million on hand. Rubio has a $3.6 million war chest. Rubio donors, largely working class voters, some 51 thousand strong, donated an average of $100 or less per donor and flipped the primary race that Crist was expected by GOP pundits to easily win. Crist, on the other hand, had the financial backing of the establishment Republicans—many of whom are now asking Crist to return their donations which were made to a Republican candidate and not an Independent. Crist prepared his own flipflop when he starting sinking in the polls. He set the stage to justify his leaving the Republican Party by making it appear that it had nothing to do with the election and more to do with political differences with the GOP, hoping to tap into discontent with Republicans who look and act like Democrats—which, by the way, the Obama-hugging Crist looks like. Crist vetoed an election bill that would have benefited the GOP, and reversed his position on a teacher tenure bill favored by conservatives that would tie teachers' pay to student test scores. Add to that a statement made by Crist that he planned to call a special summer session of the State legislature to overhaul State ethics laws—an issue that generally benefits Democrats during an election year because "lack of ethics" news articles in the State's large mass circulation liberal newspapers that target only the indiscretions of Republicans generally precede the ethics hearings in order to justify the need for new ethics laws.

But Crist is not fooling anyone. When he made his announcement, former Gov. Jeb Bush said "...this decision is not about policy or principles. It's about what he believes is in his political self-interest." Crist began to plummet in the polls after he physically embraced Resident Barack Obama when the White House occupant visited Florida last year to pitch his $787 billion stimulus plan. But the kiss-of-death to the voters came when Crist appointed a Democrat civil rights activist and social progressive Circuit Court Judge James Perry to the Florida Supreme Court. Perry was actually picked by Florida NAACP president Adora Obi Nweze who served Crist as his minority affairs adviser. Crist's ideological flipflop was calculated from the onset to get minority votes in a run for the US Senate. What Crist did, Adam Goldman, legislative vice president of Florida Right to Life, said was "...a politically calculated move. Gov. Crist is taking a risk. I'm sure there's going to be a primary for the Senate race, and he's not doing himself any favors."

Sen. Jon Cornyn, who convinced Crist to run for the Senate said the governor's fall from grace shows the dangers of trying to pick the winners and losers before the race begins in the current anti-Washington political climate. One would have thought Crist would have been smart enough to see that himself.

EU Times claims Sarkozy warned that Obama might be insane —Apr. 11, 2010>>>On April 9, 2010 The electronic European Union Times reported that a new report circulating in the Kremlin that was purportedly written by the French Director-General of External Security claims that French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that Resident Barack Hussein Obama was a "mad lunatic." The unidentified author of the EU Times piece, clarified the statement, quoting Sarkozy when he said he was appalled at Obama's "vision" of what the world would be like under his "guidance." He said he was amazed at Obama's unwillingness to listen to either reason or logic, saying in his view, Obama was "dangerous[ly] aliene." The reporter translated the phrase as "mad lunatic," or, the report noted, in the American vernacular, "insane."

As much as I personally think Obama is a paranoid schizophrenic with messianic delusions, unless other words not printed in the report were used, Sarkozy appears to have simply called Obama a dangerous alien. The term the EU Times quoted Sarkozy using, "aliéne," has no English translation other than aliene, which does not appear to be a word. "Alien" in English translates as étranger." Insane, which the writer suggests Sarkozy said, translates to "insensé. "Mad lunatic" in French is personne déséquilibrée." While I would very much like to believe that at least one world leader was insightful, and bold enough, to agree with a growing majority of Americans that the United States has an alien lunatic in the White House, politics being what it is, that leader would never admit it outside his personal, private journal for publication only after he left public life—and the subject of his scorn was out of office or long deceased.

The animosity between Obama and Sarkozy stemmed from a discussion that took place in the White House about how best to deal with the growing global threat from Islamic fundamentalism. In the Bush and Clinton years the European Union and the White House worked closely with Sarkozy and the EU to find solutions to Islamic problems and to work towards strengthening the peaceful integration of Muslims into western society, and more specifically, western culture. Europe is watching the Islamization of Europe with growing trepidation because if abortion continues to erode the birth of traditional Europeans, within three decades the parliaments of every nation-state in the EU will be dominated by Muslims, and Sharia Law will govern all of Europe. France, more than any other nation in the European Union, worries about the growth of the Muslim population, and the reality that faces traditionally Catholic France. The population replenishment level in France is 0.7 (there are 7 new births for every 10 deaths). Family planning has proven to be population suicide. That is the reason Sarkozy was appalled by Obama's vision of the world he is shaping. European bankers fear the rise to political power of the Muslims since, under Sharia law, the charging or paying of interest fees for the borrowing or lending of money. Sharia law also prohibits people from investing in businesses that violate its precepts.

Sarkozy views Obama's worldview—particularly with respect to Iran—was that it was utterly immature. Sarkozy first expressed those opinions after Obama "campaigned for the White House" in Europe in August, 2008. Speaking in France on several occasions Sarkozy said what made Obama's positions "utterly immature" was because all of the changes he planned to implement in the United States and, ultimately, the world, were comprised of "formulations empty of all content." In my view, Obama wove fantasy pipedreams for idiots and fools, as he gathered followers like the Pied Piper of Hamlin.. Whether or not Sarkozy specifically referred to Obama as a mad lunatic," the description fits...and unless Obama is impeached and removed from office, the world will get to experience the dangerous consequences of his political inexperience and the emptiness of his words.

The BBC and the London Guardian reported that "Shoot the Boer" song is now legally banned in South Africa—Apr. 2, 2010>>> While the BBC reported on this story on March 31, 2010, I deliberately did not report it on April 1 believing many who read it would think it was an April Fool's Day joke. In South Africa where guns are allowed, the Boer hunting in the song wasn't a misspelling of the world "boars." Boers are a term applied to white South African farmers of English, German or Dutch descent.

During the apartheid movement period blacks openly cheered the slaughter of white farmers. Many still do today. But the terrorists are now Muslim extremists The problem dates back to 1897 with the Langeberg Rebellion that culminated, on Sept. 6, 1906, with an assault by six African workers at a small asbestos mine in the northern Cape area. The black workers attempted to slaughter the family of the mine's white foreman, Dirk Mans. The Africans beat Mans and another worker, William Swanepoel, to death. Mans' wife, his son Jan, and his three year-old daughter, escaped during the melee. Swanepoel was bludgeoned so forcefully that the blows struck with an ox-yoke crushed his skull, splitting his head in half. The six, using table legs, rocks, knockberries, chair legs and any weapon capable of inflicting damage, killed Mans and Swanepoel. In the melee, several other white farmers were injured. There were only two fatalities. Concealed by the media was the fact that the rioters were Muslims. They initiated a Jihad against the white Boers whom, they claim, stole their land. The six were apprehended. Four of them were sentenced to death.

The ringleader of the group, Kendrick Bekeer, an Afrikaner follower of "prophet" Stephen Stuurman of Namibia, bragged to the court that he was guilty, adding to the judge that he was "...a worker of God. I confess to the court and to all the White people that I am placed here by the Lord that I do his will...The time when the whites had the upper hand is past. This is for Africa alone, but God has taken power white men throughout the world." Prior to his trial, Bekeer told the warden of the jail that his group planned to kill every white person in South Africa.

In the mid-20th century, violence against whites increased dramatically, beginning with the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya. Attacks against white plantation owners, family farm owners, and white businessmen have continued in South Africa and elsewhere on the African continent since the end of Apartheid. There are over 40 thousand white farmers in South Africa. Three to ten thousand white Afrikaners have been brutally murdered since apartheid ended in 1994 (with unsubstantiated claims that the number may reach tens of thousands ). In 1994, the Islamo-Marxist African National Congress, backed by the United Nations, the European Union, the Soviets and Red China, stripped the white minority of their power to govern in what is known as the Orange Free State. In 1994, the Free State was 75% black, 25% white. Today, it's 80% black, 20% white. Except for a Christian or Jew living in the Muslim Mideast, Africa is the most dangerous place on Earth for a white family to live. Today there are approximately 50 murders of white Afrikaners daily, 55 attempted murders, 99 rapes, 324 robberies, 575 assaults, and 651 burglaries. Most common assaults go unreported. The US media does not report this because in politically-correct Amerika, racism is always a white on black crime.

That's why the African National Congress is up-in-arms over its the Pretorian court's decision by Senior Judge Eberhard Bertlesmann to the ban the singing of the Apartheid-era battle song Ayesaba Amagwala (The Cowards are Scared), or more commonly known as ," Shoot the Boer." When the white minority, which settled the land, invested both money and sweat equity to build a modern 21st century society from the jungles and savannahs of the Dark Continent, was removed from power by the United Nations, the European Economic Community, the communist bloc and the Clintons, all who backed the election of a racist ex-convict who was murderer and a terrorist. His name was Nelson Mandela. Mandela was released from prison on Feb. 11, 1990 after serving 27 years. Three years later, the terrorist was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. His birthday, July 18, is now an official UN holiday, and by proclamation, July 18 is now known, worldwide, as Mandela Day. It should be celebrated as Genocide Founder's Day. It is important to note that Nobel Peace Prize is now a meaningless social progressive award. The last one (which made me barf for a week was Barack Obama who won the Nobel Prize in 2009. What did the guy do to make the world safer? Not a thing. In 2007 ecoalarmist Al Gore's globalist friends twisted the arm of the Nobel Prize committee and stole the Nobel Prize from Irena Sendler, a Polish nurse who rescued 2,500 babies from Auschwitz. In 2002, the committee awarded the prize to Jimmy Carter for forcing Menachem Begin to sign a one-sided peace accord with Anwar Sadat that the Arab world immediately broke. Mikhail Gorbechev received it in 1990 for fooling the American people into thinking the Soviet Union collapsed. I think you got the picture. When you look down the list of recipients of the Nobel Prize for Peace, and the version of peace all of them promote is a social progressive form of communist democracy.

Which, of course, explains why Mandela's political party, the African National Conference plans to appeal the North Gauteng high court's decision to ban the Apartheid anthem, "Shoot the Boer." Targeted in the court action was Julius Malema, the president of the African National Congress' Youth League president. The North Gauteng court in Pretoria, South Africa made the ruling on last week. The African National Congress was contemptuous of its supreme court, and demanded that the court overturn the decision made by one white judge who said, in his judgment, that the inflammatory song amounts to hate speech. In point of fact, when Malema singing the controversial song at the ANC function in March, he embellished the song's call to "shoot the Boer," by adding lyrics that referred to the white farmers as thieves and rapists. The backlash was both immediate and intense. Over 400 complaints were filed with the South African Human Rights Commission, and over 100 thousand signatures on a petition to South African president Jacob Zuma to fire the ANC youth leader. Wave after wave of "Boers" (white farmers) are staging protests reminiscent of the Tea Party protests here in the United States, . One of those groups, AfriForum, held a protest march through downtown Johannesburg, carrying posters that read: "Stop Malema," and "Words Can Kill."

In the Afrikaners language, the world "Boer" means "farmer." ANC Secretary General Gwede Mantashe told a press conference that his party would take the matter up with the full court, saying: "These songs cannot be regarded as hate speech or unconstitutional. Any judgment that describes them as such is impractical and unimplementable." Malema's key advocate, Vas Soni argued that without "freedom songs" people would not have resisted the oppression of white minority rule. Some needs to remind Soni that South Africa is now governed by its 80% African black majority.

Malema sang the song at an ANC rally in Johannesburg, causing a firestorm of criticisim on both sides in a nation which racism is the number one topic, with the majority black population still acting as though they are the victims of racism because whites still own the property their families bought generations ago, and they still employee blacks instead of the Africans confiscating their lands and forcing the white owners to work for them. In fact, in several of Malema's recent speeches, centered on "wealth redistribution," he argued that the political liberation of black Africans in 1994 has not been matched by economic liberaltion from a white business elite. Malema, like most social progressives still don't get it. What causes prosperity is not taking someone else's money, but investing your own sweat equity in building your own dreams of prosperity.

The world is witnessing the rebirth of Soviet Marxism—even in the Muslim world. If we don't stop this movement by the end of the decade, it will be too late. Before the next national election, the communists will be as entrenched as Lenin in Moscow, Hitler in Berlin, and Mao in Peking (changed to Beijing). By the way, that means we have less than 8 months before the election, and 9 months before the end of the the decade. If we do not take back this nation on Nov. 2, 2010, this nation will be lost. As we celebrate New Year's Eve on Dec. 31, looking forward to the hope of better things in 2011, we will awaken the next morning and discover we are in 1984—George Orwell's version. There is no tomorrow after Dec. 31.

John Conyers' wife gets 37 months for bribery—Mar. 11, 2010>>>In June of last year, former Detroit City Councilwoman Monica Conyers, wife of powerful Congressman John Conyers, Jr., pleaded guilty to accepting at least $69,500 in bribes in shakedown schemes designed to enrich Conyers and a Conyers aide, Sam Riddle, Jr., who confessed in May, 2009 and agreed to testify against Conyers.

On Wednesday, June 24, 2009 federal prosecutors gave Monica Conyers until midnight that day to accept or reject what was then a secret plea deal. She pleaded guilty to conspiracy, expecting to get a slap on the wrist, probation or, at worst, community service. US District Court Judge Avern Cohn accepted her voluntary guilty plea. Conyers tried to recant her guilty plea when Cohn sentenced her to 37 months in a federal detention center. As Conyers yelled that she was going to appeal the sentence, Cohn ordered the crowded courtroom cleared.

Conyers insisted she was the victim of "badgering" last year when she agreed to the plea. Judge Cohn reviewed the transcripts of the June hearing in which Conyers denied any coercion, and said she was voluntarily pleading guilty to the charge of conspiracy. "Bribery," Cohn said as he imposed the sentence,"is a betrayal of trust," adding that Conyers, as a city official who was supposed to be acting in the best interests of the people of Detroit had committed an "egregious" crime.

In Riddle's trial in February (which ended in a mistrial) much more evidence of Conyers complicity in the scheme to enrich herself by extorting money from companies wanting to do business with the city of Detroit were revealed. Riddle will be retried in July. Prosecutors asked Judge Cohn to consider the evidence revealed in the February trial of Conyers' co-conspirator, Riddle, when imposing sentence on Conyers. Steve Fishman, Conyers' lawyer argued that his client should not be sentenced for "purported crimes" that had not been proven. Cohn, who also heard the Riddle case, agreed with prosecutors that the evidence in the Riddle case was relevant. In the end, Judge Cohn changed his mind and threw out the additional evidence revealed in the Riddle case only because the case ended in a mistrial. Had he used that information, he would have been obligated to sentence Conyers to at least five years in a federal detention facility. "This sentence," Cohn told Conyers, "is based solely on [your] conviction"

Conyers' plea agreement prevents her from appealing any sentence less than 5 years. Congressman John Conyers, Jr., the head of the powerful House Judicial Committee, was not in court with his wife. His office said he was in Washington working on important healthcare legislation for the American people.

A new billboard has sprung up in Minnesota—Feb. 9, 2010>>>The message is three simple words: "Miss me, yet?" The billboard, owned by Schubert & Hoey Outdoor Advertising is located just off Interstate 35 near Wyoming, Minnesota. Pictured on the billboard was none other than former President George W. Bush. I was one of the 231,030 people who voted in the AOL online poll (not exactly a bastion of conservatism). Of those who voted, 52% said they missed Bush "completely." Thirty-four percent voted, "Not on your life," and 14% said , "Sort of." The percentage of people in liberal Minnesota who said they miss Bush-43, home of social progressives Walter Mondale and Hubert Humphrey, was a surprise. Granted, nationwide 36% of the voters today view themselves as social progressives even though many of them have no idea that social progressiveness is a polite term for a Marxist.

The sign, which most people thought was a hoax when they first saw it, was purchased by a group of small businessmen in Minnesota who pooled their money to make a two-month long political statement that expresses the view that many Americans who wanted to see Bush gone now have. Many of them are now asking their friends who also wanted to see his second term come to an end, "Do you miss Bush, yet?" With each passing day, more and more people wish he was back at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Like most small businessmen in America, the businessmen who funded the sign to raise the point that while Bush -43 may have turned liberal in his second term, he was not as bad on his worst day as Barack Hussein Obama is on his best day.

While the businessmen who paid for the sign wanted to remain anonymous, the sign became too popular too quickly. The newshounds will continue chipping away at their cover until they reveal the names. But, before that happens, the businessmen will "out" themselves. They have remarked to the owners of the billboard company that they are "...overwhelmed by the response" of Minnesotans and are already considering renting more billboards.


USA Today thinks that most Americans favor a global warming treaty—Dec. 16, 2009 >>>Polls that offer multiple choices rather than simple "yes" or "no" answers are deceitful, because the pollster can mitigate the negatives by diluting them. With multiple answers to chose from, the pollster can then simply extrapolate only the data that reflects the view they want to project and ignore the balance.

You can't have a simple "yes" or "no" answer, claim that 55% of "those surveyed" endorse a binding accord to limit greenhouse gases with 38% of those polled opposing it and yet, by a lopsided 7 to 1 margin, find that the American people believe the highest priority of government should be fixing the economy and not selling out the American people to the socialist Europeans who have been trying to create world government since the failed League of Nations in 1920.

Further, those surveyed were theoretically evenly split on the economic impact of enacting new environmental laws. "Evenly split" to USA Today apparently means that that the 46% they reported as believing any new environmental laws will harm the country is no greater than the 36% they reported who think they will help the nation. Eighteen percent of those polled between Dec. 11 and Dec. 13 were apparently content to just wait and see just how much damage Barack Hussein Obama's latest watermelon scheme will do before complaining. Which, of course is like closing the barn door after the livestock's scattered all over the countryside. (And by the way, the term "watermelon" is not a food reference noun, but an adjective that describes people or causes which are environmentally green on the outside and communist red on the inside.) Several bloggers who actually got their hands on the poll questions and the percentage of replies found the percentages appear to be skewered by USA Today. When they asked : "Which do you think should be a higher priority for the Obama Administration right now?" 85%, not 46%, of those asked actually said improving the economy should be job one for the Administration. Only 12% (the idiot class which does not realize the world is cooling, not warming) said reducing global warming should be the highest priority. (Can we assume that all of those who responded by saying they think fixing a nonexistent problem are government employees, leftwing ideologues, members of ACORN or SEIU agitators?)

Oh wait...here are the poll demographics. The USA Today/Gallup Poll surveyed 1,025 people out of a universe of 303,000,000 people. In reality, since roughly 8% of those "polled" had no opinion, this was actually a poll of 938 people. The pollsters claim the survey had a +/-4% margin or error. But we can see from the blogsphere that sometimes the media tends to report what makes the political slant of their article work best for them. Apparently USA Today wanted to support the liars, thieves, criminals and corrupt politicians who brought their phony global warming dog and pony shows to Copenhagen, Denmark—and, of course the entourage of idiot far left Tinseltown clowns who tag along after them believing that curbing carbon dioxide will save the planet when all it will do is curb the production of the air we breathe and the water we drink. Eliminate water and oxygen (which eliminating carbon dioxide will do), and the globalists will get another wish: cutting the world's population down from 7 billion to 500 million very quickly.

After reading Chris Grygiel's blog on Seattle-pi Blogs yesterday afternoon, I did my own poll at Walmart and Kohl's Department Store last evening. (I wanted to make sure I was gauging all representative incomes classes in my community but deliberately choose not to survey the crowd at our local McDonald's or the illegals standing around outside our local 7-Eleven.) I guess that means my scientific poll isn't accurate within a +/- 4%) Those I polled who looked like they might be 18 to 20, for the most part didn't even know there was a global warming conference going on in Copenhagen—and about 20% of them didn't know where Copenhagen was. (We'll call them the "undecided.") Those who appeared to 20 to 29 weren't really concerned about whether we were experiencing global warming or global cooling. By a vote of 100% to 0%, they wanted the idiots in Washington to fix the economy—and keep their hands out of their pockets. Those who appeared to 55 to 65 or older (some people hide their ages well, others looked old from puberty), largely knew global warming was a myth and thought everyone who attended the Copenhagen conference should [a] be charged with attempted robbery or [b] denied re-entry into the United States. And, if you haven't guessed it, they voted 100% to 0% for someone to fix the economy. About a third of them wanted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid fired...and jailed. And, this is rock solid Democratic State which, by the way, is the nation's second largest producer of coal. Oh yes, one other thing...almost half of those I spoke with admitted they voted for Obama. God loves a repentant sinner.

Huckabee political career ends with murder of 4 Tacoma-area cops—Dec. 3, 2009 >>>The manhunt for cop-killer Maurice Clemons ended in a hail of gunfire after a two days manhunt when a Seattle cop, checking on a stolen car in South Seattle, shot and killed the cop killer. Clemons ended the lives of four of Lakewood, Washington's finest while they sipped coffee at the Forza Coffee Shop while receiving a pre-shift briefing over their laptop early Sunday morning, Nov. 29. The tragedy which ended the lives of Officers Tina Griswold, Ronald Owens, and Greg Richards and Sgt. Mark Renninger also rightly ended the political career of political chameleon and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee who, as the governor of Arkansas, always talked conservative as he governed like a southern liberal. I expect as the families of the four assassinated police officers received the news no loved one ever wants to hear, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, known to Arkansas prosecutors as the "clemency governor," had a real sick feeling in the pit of his stomach when he learned that a violent criminal who had been serving a 108-year prison sentence when he granted clemency and put a dangerous felon back on the street, had just ambushed and murdered four police officers. Visions of Willie Horton had to be floating through Huckabee's mind as he remembered the fate of Massachusetts Gov. Michale Dukakis. In Dukakis' case, he furloughed a convicted murderer for a weekend. The convict, Horton, raped a murdered a woman before returning to prison.

The slain officers were all wearing bulletproof vests when Clemons approached them from behind and opened fire. One of the officers managed to unholster his weapon and returned fire before collapsing. It was believed by other customers in the coffee shop that Clemons was hit by the return fire from the officer.

Police said Clemons was returning to the parked stolen car, whose hood was raised and the engine, which had been hot-wired, was running. A lone Seattle officer had stopped to check out the car when he spotted and instantly recognized Clemons from the bolo which had been posted two days earlier, as he approached the vehicle. The officer ordered Clemons to stop and show his hands. When Clemons bolted, the officer fired several rounds, taking Clemons down. He was alive at the scene but died in custody a short time later. Had Huckabee not commuted his sentence, the earliest he would have been eligible for parole would have been 2021. However, with his well-documented hatred of law enforcement officers, its not likely Clemons would ever have been paroled. Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher was conned by a jail house minister who convinced Huckabee that Clemons had "found Jesus," and was a changed man who no longer posed a threat to society.

Huckabee tried to redeem himself by appearing on the O'Reilly Factor, admitting that he made a mistake by granting clemency to Clemons and telling host Bill O'Reilly that the commutation was "...not something I'm happy about." Patronizingly, O'Reilly replied, "It's not your fault. I'm not saying its your fault. I don't think anybody watching thinks it's your fault." Wrong! It was Huckabee's fault. Entirely. Huckabee insisted the parole board never told him Clemons was a dangerous, anti-cop felon. But, Huckabee, the all-powerful governor, never asked. He didn't have to. He had the power in his pen to play God, and he did. On Wed., Nov. 2, Huckabee defended his decision to commute Clemon's sentence, saying "If I had the same information in front of me tonight that I did 9 years ago in a case exactly the same, I would make the same decision." Think about putting this man in the White House with a clemency pen that impacts convicts in 50 States. It appears all a convict has to do to catch Huckanee's ear is shout: "Hallelujah! I've been saved!" and they get out of prison.

And not just Clemons. During his 10.5 years as governor of Arkansas, Huckabee granted clemency to 1,103 guests of the State's penal system. Among them were 163 hard core criminals who received early releases from prison. Twelve of those were convicted murderers who should have served every day of their sentences. Among the re-offenders were Wayne Drummond who was convicted for the rape of a teenage girl. Released from prison by Huckabee, he moved to Missouri where he raped another woman and killed her. Convicted in Missouri, Drummond died in prison at age 55. Huckabee blamed Drummond's release on the parole board. Parole board member Ernest Pondexter told the media that Huckabee pressured him to release Drummond.

Here's just a few of Huckabee's early releases: John Henry Clairborne: sentenced to 100 years for robbing two elderly people at gunpoint. Elizabeth Diane Hager: convicted of manslaughter in the shooting death of her husband. Wade Stewart: sentenced to life for murder. Denver Witham: beat a man to death with a lead pipe. In at least two instances, State prosecutors successfully sued Huckabee's attempt to free violent men. In one instance, Glen Martin Green beat an 18-year old pregnant woman with martial arts sticks and raped her as she was dying. Not dying fast enough to suit him, Green dumped her body out of the car and repeatedly ran over her. A pastor friend of Huckabee's convinced him that Green had found God and did not mean to kill the woman. Don Jeffers pleaded guilty to first degree murder for a 1980 killing and was sentenced to life in prison. In 2004 Huckabee issued a clemency order making Jeffers eligible for immediate parole. The prosecutor sued Huckabee. A State court judge vacated the clemency order.

Local Hispanic Leaders Boycott Anglo Businesses—Aug 12 , 2009 >>>On November 17, 2009 I received this news clipping from a newspaper publisher friend. Every now and then the idiots on the far left do things that prove just how really stupid they are. With 65% of the American people wanting the illegal Hispanics in this country to go back where they came from, the Hispanics, who have apparently spent too much time reading English language liberal newspapers or Hispanic liberal newspaper in an around Victoria, Texas decided they needed to teach the Anglos a lesson by boycotting their businesses. The Mexicans felt with the recession caused by the Bush-43 recession bankrupting Victoria, this was the right time to show the Anglos just how much the Americans needed the business brought into their establishments by the Hispanic residents of Victoria.

The brief new snippet began: "Victoria, Texas is a town about 60 miles west of Houston. Local Hispanic leaders there, in opposition to pending Immigration legislation, boycotted all Caucasian-owned businesses last month as a demonstration of their economic impact on the community. The boycott was declared a success by the Hispanic community, noting revenue in Caucasian-owned businesses was down by 19%. Business owners declared the boycott a success as well, pointing out that shoplifting was reduced by 77%, money orders sent out of the country were down by 97%, and the cost of daily cleanup and trash collection was down by 84%. Shoppers reported they could actually hear English being spoken throughout the community for the first time in recent memory; and customers paid for purchases with real money and not government debit cards or food stamps.

Institute of Marine Science: 20 years of global cooling—Sept. 11, 2009 >>>The New Scientist magazine reported on a United Kingdom tribunal that ruled, last week, that global warming simply does not exist, and that the world is in a 20 year cooling phase. The claims of the socialist environmentalists who fabricated a climate crisis to generate billion dollars of personal income selling recently legalized environmental extortion cap & trade credits is a case, according to New Scientist environmental correspondent Fred Pearce, of simply "bad timing." Pearce made that observation because 100% of the claims of 100% of the global warming eco-alarmists defy every honest scientific computer models and contemporary climate theory since global warming is a cyclic phenomenon caused about 98% by solar activity. The computer models of the agendized eco-alarmists are designed for profit, not to protect the people of the world from man-made climate change.

On Sept., 4 New Scientist magazine reported that the United Nations World Meteorological Organization, which has been an advocate of Al Gore's global warming theories, called for a conference in Geneva, Switzerland to draft a global plan to provide "climate services" to the world. Among scores of scientists attending the conference who don't believe the world is experiencing cyclic global warming was Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. Since Latif, like every honest climate scientist in the world, recognizes that even though the Earth's average temperature will likely rise about one half to one degree by 2100, right now, for the short term, the world is cooling.

At the conference, Latif predicted that in the next few years, a natural cooling trend will virtually erase any notion of human-caused global warming. The cooling, Latif predicted would come from the North Atlantic Oscillation [NAO] which, he said, is the world's "climate superpower." The NAO is so sensitive, Pearce noted, that it influences all global weather systems.. In fact, computer models constructed by both the Kiel University and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee show the synchronization of two weather systems: El Niño and NAO triggers climate change. according to UW climatologist Anastasios Tsonis this is the "pacemaker of climate change."

Tsonis and UW Professor Kyle Swanson wrote a paper entitled "Has the Climate Recently Shifted," that predicted generational cooling. Surprisingly, the paper won an unusual endorsement from the website, RealClimate, which was founded by Al Gore's public relations company and staffed by hardcore advocates of man-made climate change. In point of fact, Gore's people did not use the Tsonis-Swanson article in a positive light, noting that "...if one interprets (the New Scientist article) as that the situation is no longer as dire as previously thought, then one is in for a big disappointment. The sentiment is rather that climate change is unavoidable..." But then, it isn't like Gore's environmentalists are real scientists. They are paid flunkies who traded their integrity for money and position.

In their paper, Tsonis and Swanson correlated date not only from NAO and El Niño, but the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the North Pacific Index. In doing so, they discovered that the type of weather synchronization occurring now occurred four other times in the 20th century: 1910 to 1920, 1938 to 1945, 1946 to 1960 and 1976 to 1981. The most recent cooling—which Al Gore, in An Inconvenient Truth, claimed was actually a period in which the climate was warming at an alarming rate when it was actually cooling—started in 2001. The synchronization, according the scientists involved in the study, was an indicator of a phase shift. All of the evidence collected by this group shows there has been no statistically significant warming on Earth since 1995 (with the single exception of the summer of 1998 when El Niño caused temperatures in North America to raise briefly by 0.2°C. The cooling, the paper said, "...is suggestive of an internal shift of climate dynamics that remains poorly understood." My guess is that the current cooling cycle, dismissed by RealClimate, remains poorly understood only because about ten tons of fabricated computer models by agendized ecoalarmists have muddied the water and confused the clarity of the debate.

WAS TORNADO AN ADMONITION FROM GOD?—Aug. 24, 2009 >>>In its online edition, Christianity Today poised the question, pondering whether or not there was any connection between the vote by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America [ELCA} to adopt a "sexuality statement" on homosexuality and the tornado which struck the Minneapolis Convention Center on Aug. 19 where they were meeting. John Piper, whose Baptist Church is just down the road from the convention center thought the storm itself was the message, telling Christianity Today reporter Ted Olsen that "...[t]he tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and to all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction."

A Christian renewal group within the ELCA reported that both sides of the discussion claimed the weather was a commentary from God supporting their point of view. WordAlone issued a statement in which they said "...a supporter of the social statement..." (those attempting to sanctify homosexuality in the Lutheran Church as normal behavior "...typified the storm as a mighty wind of the Holy Spirit, and as a positive message. Some WordAlone members heard a different message—a warning of God's anger at the ELCA in the wind." The tornado did significant roof damage to the Convention Center with 2,200 registered members debating the question of whether or not the Lutherans inside should approve a statement mitigating homosexuality. Outside the Central Lutheran Church, next door to the Convention Center, strong winds tore off part of the church's 90-year old metal steeple, then ripped apart large outdoor tents, and scattered chairs and folding tables across the parking lot. The tents were used earlier that day to serve breakfast to the guests attending the convention. Church member Jack Freitag said he saw a "..wall cloud from the south coming across the parking lot (with a) very loud roar." He saw signs and debris being blown around in the wind. "I was worried about the people then..."

About 120 people had taken refuge in the church's basement. The funnel cloud, which touched down twice, made significant physical impact on the terrain without doing any serious damage. A witness at the church said: "We saw the tornado. It was turning real fast. It got real black out here and had the trees coming to us on the left. The windows were shaking real bad, and all this stuff across the street in the church, they had a little dinner there, it tore it all up, and it was just lifting off the ground. And, it just disappeared. It just disappeared." Myself, if I had been one of the delegates voting, I would have voted against softening the position on homosexuality.

Nevertheless, with 2,200 registered attendees of which half were voters, by a vote of 676 to 338—the exact number needed to win—the delegates voted for a more open position on homosexuality (without officially sanctifying homosexuality as normal relationship). Their position became one of neither condemning nor condoning. The statement suggests the delegates could not reach a consensus although, in reality, they did. They agreed that in "...this discernment about ethics and church practices, faithful people can and will come to different conclusions about the meaning of Scripture and about constitutes responsible action. We further believe that this church, on the basis of 'sound conscience' will include these different understandings and practices within its life as it seeks to live out its mission and ministry in the world."

The fly in the ointment was found in the footnotes. The church statement clearly reveals what the church membership should view as a Laodicean red flag and find a Bible-believing church in which to fellowship with God. In the footnotes, this statement appears: "When the question is about morality or church practice, the Pauline and Lutheran witness is less adamant and believes we may be called to respect the bound conscience of the neighbor. That is, if salvation is not at stake in a particular question..." Since homosexuality is a violation of God's commandments (even in the Muslim faith), it cannot be casually overlooked and made acceptable to God when it is not. The footnote continues that "...if a brother or sister...saw eating meat (offered to pagan idols as something inherently wrong), the Christian was obligated to "walk in love" by eating just vegetables for the neighbor's sake." In point of fact, what is corrupting Christianity is the practice of compromising the Word of God in an attempt to find common ground where Christianity can be merged with other religions of the world. Just as the cold water springs and hot springs that run under the ancient city of Laodicea merge, becoming neither hot nor cold, so are the hearts of today's social Christians who find social compromise works better than standing on unpopular Christian principles.

I believe the Minneapolis tornado, in this context, did allegorically represent God's anger and His disappointment in the elders of that body. And the torrential rains were His tears over the wrong decision made by His "freewill creation" as He watched with a freshly crucified heart as members of the Body of Faith divorced themselves from His Word and became part of the rapidly growing Church of Laodicea that sees no evil in evil. The ELCA mollified His commandments and bent them to the whims of man, who is now promoting the lukewarm societal church that offends no one—except God.

IT MAY BE ILLEGAL TO WORSHIP GOD AT HOME—Aug 14, 2009 >>>WXII-Channel 12 in Winston-Salem, NC reported on Aug. 13 that residents in Elm Towers, a high rise public housing apartment building on South Elm Street in Highpoint, NC were ordered by the Highpoint Housing Authority to cease and desist from holding "inherently religious" Christian worship services in a common area on the first floor of the high-rise apartment building. Religious services have been held in a private, common-use room in the building for many years to benefit seniors who are too old or feeble to attend regular church services even with assisted transportation. Elm Towers residents have been meeting in the common room each Sunday morning and many Wednesday evenings for Christian worship services that are led by a neighborhood pastor.

A complaint from one Elm Towers resident, filed last month with the Highpoint Housing Authority, ended the services. The Housing Authority sent out letters to all of the residents of Elm Tower informing them that US Dept. of Housing & Urban Development [HUD] rules forbids "...inherently religious activities for organizations that receive HUD funds." While the apartment complex technically receives funds from HUD to offset a portion of the rents paid by the tenants, in a strictly legal sense, the person renting the apartment must apply for the HUD subsidy. Therefore, even though the funds technically end up with the landlord, the money is actually being paid by HUD to the tenant who had to apply and qualify for the Section 8 rent subsidy. Thus, HUD is not technically paying the money to any organization. It is paying the money to an individual who, in turn , pays the money to the apartment complex. Thus, when the money reaches the apartment managers, it is technically money belonging to tenant. HUD is simply the "bank" that honors the check.

While the HUD disbursement is physically paid to the apartment complex's management company on the tenant's behalf when the landlord deposits the tenant's voucher in his account at the bank, the truth is the money is actually being paid to the tenant who had to apply to get it. The tenant actually receives this "money" in the form of vouchers that can only be used to pay the rent. The voucher, together with whatever cash is required to pay the rent, is given to the landlord. The landlord redeems the voucher (i.e., a check from the tenant).

Further evidence of the validity of that statement comes from the fact that the HUD funds (i.e., the vouchers) move with the tenant. When the tenant leaves one Section 8 rent subsidized apartment building and moves to another one, the tenant does not lose the HUD subsidy. Once the subsidy is granted, it moves with the tenant. HUD pays the tenant, not the organization that owns the apartment complex. The tenant pays the apartment's management company who then becomes the recipient of the funds—from the tenant.

There is a fine legal point of whether or not any Housing Authority can deny anyone their 1st amendment right to worship God under a separation of church and State argument . According to Highpoint Housing Authority spokesperson Rachel Matthews, HUD forbids religious activities in common areas and lobbies of buildings that receive HUD funds. But tenants are free to worship in their apartments (providing they don't disturb their neighbors).

First, HUD needs to understand that the money they are disbursing isn't their money—it is our money! And Christian America has no restrictions that forbid US citizens from worshipping God. Our "restrictions" are centered on getting rid of those in government—elected and non-elected—who are trying to erase the Bill of Rights through regulations created by unelected bureaucrats who some how got the notion in their noggins that they rule the rest of us.

One of the Elm Tower residents who periodically, but not regularly, attended the services, Howard Embler, was disappointed by the Housing Authority notice. "To me," he told Channel 12, "it's stepping on our constitutional rights. You're supposed to be able to worship like you want. We've got a lot of elderly people here who can't get out on their own to church." Embler, like 99% of Americans can understand what happened to freedom of religion in America.

Americans don't realize that, over the last decade, the federal judiciary—including all but the four conservatives on the US Supreme Court—have very surreptitiously coupled Articles 13 and 14 of the UN's International Covenant on Human Rights with the 1st Amendment, giving the courts a slightly different legal take on precisely what our rights are under the 1st Amendment.

When you think of freedom of religion, you think of it in terms of "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Under the era of the New Deal the government could not interfere with your right to worship God as you saw fit, nor could cities, counties, States or the federal government construct legal barriers which interfered with those rights. Once the courts coupled the first half of the 1st Amendment with Article 13 of the Covenant on Human Rights, our right to practice our religion was suddenly subjected to limitations based on someone else not liking how we worship. Article 13 says the "...freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations that are prescribed by law." In our society today, religious freedom exists for Islam, atheism (a form of secular religiosity), Wicca and New Age. Excluded from protection under the 1st Amendment are two religions: Judaism and Christianity. Interestingly, when you witness the abridgment of the right of free speech for conservatives and expanded free speech for those attempting to destroy America, it is because the second half of the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances..." has been coupled with Article 14 of the Covenant on Human Rights: "The right to seek, receive or impart information and ideas carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and may, therefore be subject to certain penalties, liabilities, and restrictions, but these shall be only as such as are provided by law." Got the picture?

When Channel 12 reported on the story, the Highpoint Housing Authority, which cannot constitutionally ban the worship services without a court order, they failed to mention what religious affiliations, or lack thereof, held by the aggrieved party. The Highpoint Housing Authority self-servingly abrogated the right of senior citizens with limited mobility to attend a "catered" church service to the apartment building because one person—a Muslim? an atheist?—didn't like it. Rachel Matthews said: "We're not telling residents they cannot have religious activities in their homes, but they cannot hold things in common areas. We understand they would like to do this, but we have to go by regulations." Even when "regulations" violate the Constitution. I wonder if Matthews and the Housing Authority would have been so quick to abrogate religious freedom in Highpoint if the offender was just one sole Muslim tenant, who wanted to bring his prayer rug into the lobby four times a day (because he had a better view of Mecca), and pray in the public area? Believe me when I say this: there would be nary a word of protest from the Housing Authority, HUD, or the White House.

SUPREME COURT RULES ON NEW HAVEN FIREFIGHTER CASE—June 29, 2009 >>>The US Supreme Court just overturned still another Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor opinion. The high court ruled, in a 5-to-4 decision, that the opinion of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the 2004 Ricci v Destefano case was wrong. In 2004, 77 New Haven, Connecticut firefighters took a civil service exam hoping to secure one of eight lieutenancies. Forty-three of those taking the lieutenant's test were white, 19 were black and 15 were Hispanic. Of the 35 who actually passed the test, 25 were white, 6 were black and 3 were Hispanic. The top six scorers were white. The 7th and 8th scorers, who won the other two jobs, were Hispanic. The black candidates scored 14th, 16th, 19th, 20th, 22nd and 24th. Because no black candidates scored high enough to win promotion, the City of New Haven decided not to promote anyone. Firefighter Frank Ricci, a dyslexic 11-year veteran of the department, invested his own money to hire someone to read the textbooks onto CDs so he could learn the material, won one of the jobs. He sued.

It has taken 5 years for Ricci and the other seven who, through competitive testing, rightfully won the jobs. The high court said the city was wrong to scrap the promotions because no African-Americans and only two Hispanics won promotion. The City of New Haven argued that it scrapped the exams to avoid being sued by disgruntled minorities who felt entitled to a promotion. "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to be detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the high court. Joining him in this decision were Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Writing the minority opinion, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "...had no vested right to promotion," adding that the minorities had not received promotions in preference to them. No harm, no foul. Wrong. The eight candidates who were denied promotion had a vested right to promotion, since they won the promotions through a civil service exam. Had eight black and/or Hispanic firefighters scored the highest and won the promotions, and six white and two Hispanic firefighters challenged their right to the jobs, Ginsburg (likely writing the majority opinion), would have affirmed the vested right of the eight minority candidates—based solely on the fact that they scored higher on the exam.

Affirmative action is still alive and well in the minds of the social progressives. If 8 minority candidates won the civil service exams in a predominantly white northwestern city that decided to simply defer from promoting anyone, that case would have been tried in the media long before it got into a courtroom. The city managers would have been forced to resign, and the eight successful civil service exam scorers would have been promoted—as well they should. The civil service examination system was created by President Chester A. Arthur to break up the Tammany Hall spoils system and award government job promotions based solely on qualifications and no other criteria. The City of New Haven violated those principles and chose to base job promotions on an affirmative action spoils system.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor now has only one Circuit Court decision that she penned which has not been overturned by the US Supreme Court. Eighty percent of the decisions she crafted have been overturned. If the last one, a weapons case, is overturned—which most legal minds believe it will—then 100% of the decisions she crafted will have been overturned. And, this is the jurist Obama wants on the Supreme Court. Who is more suspect? Her—or him?

BLACK PANTHER VOTE INTIMIDATION—June 8, 2009 >>>A Obama Justice Dept official spoke to the Washington Times on condition of anonymity over fear of retribution. Career lawyers, they said, who intended to pursue a default judgment against three Black Panthers who intimidated white voters at a polling place in Philadelphia on Nov. 4, 2008, found their prosecutions dismissed by political appointees in the Eric Holder, Jr. Justice Department.

Career Justice Dept. lawyers began the prosecution of the three on Jan. 7, 2009. They were identified as New Black Panther Party Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, a resident of Washington, DC; Samir Shabazz, and Jerry Jackson, an elected official in Philadelphia's 13th Ward, and a credentialed Democratic election observer (even though what he was doing on Nov. 4 was intimidating white voters who tried to enter the polling place to vote).

According to Justice Department papers, the three blocked access to a Philadelphia voting place. All of them were dressed in military-style uniforms with black berets, black jackets. One was armed, the charges read, with a "dangerous weapon." The report noted that the men accosted white voters using racial slurs and insults intended to scare would-be voters, saying the three "...engaged in coercion, threats and intimidation...racial threats and insults...menacing and intimidating gestures...and movements directed at individuals who were present to vote." Police arrived after being called by a poll watcher who told them three black men with a club were blocking the entrance and not letting white voters enter the polling place. In at least one instance, the threesome told one white poll worker that they were tired of "white supremacy," adding that it was going to end that day.

The Obama Justice Department chose not believe the three intimidated anyone. On May 14, Justice Dept. public relations spokesman Alejandro Miyar issued a statement that the charges against two of the three defendants had been dismissed based, Miyar said, "...on a careful assessment of the facts and the law. The Department is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote." Charges against Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were dismissed. The Justice Dept. asked US District Court Judge Stewart Dalzell for a default judgment against Samir Shabazz, preventing him from brandishing a weapon within 100 feet of a voting place on any election day in the city of Philadelphia until Nov. 15, 2012.

The Shabazzes and Jackson were charged with violating the Voting Rights Act of 1964 by directing threats, intimidation and coercion at potential voters by deploying uniformed, armed members of the New Black Panther Party at the entrances to polling locations in Philadelphia, St. Louis and other toss-up cities throughout the country. The Black Panthers have 26 chapters across the nation. All of them blocked access to whites in toss-up states where a handful of votes made the difference between winning or losing that State's electoral votes. These were flagrant voting rights violations on a massive, national scale. And, the Voting Rights Act is succinctly clear that any attempt by anyone to intimidate, threaten or coerce voters or those aiding voters, is guilty of violating that law. The penalty for intimidating voters under the proposed Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007 (S.453 and HR 1281)—had it been successfully enacted—would have been one to five years in a federal prison per offense.

That law was proposed by Sen. Barack Obama who sponsored the legislation to protect voters—minority voters—from being intimidated. When he originally proposed the legislation he said: "One of our most sacred rights as Americans is the right to make our voice heard at the polls. But too often, we hear reports of mysterious phone calls and mailers arriving just days before an election that seek to mislead and threaten voters to keep them from the polls. And those who engage in these deceptive and underhanded campaign tactics usually target voters living in minority or low-income households. This legislation would ensure that, for the first time, these incidents are fully investigated and that those found guilty are punished."

Had that law passed in 2007, anyone warning the voters that Barack Obama had never been vetted by the Democratically-controlled US Senate to verify that he met all of the Article II constitutional requirements to seek the office of President of the United States, could be charged with violating the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007. Found guilty, they might find themselves in a federal prison for five years for influencing people not to vote for Obama.

NRA-ILA—May 10, 2009>>>An email containing a bulletin from the Institute for Legislation for the National Rifle Association pretty much pinpoints the state of flux that exists between the social progressives and the conservatives over gun control. The social progressives would like us all to believe that if guns were outlawed, thieves and murderers would no longer be able to get them. In reality, the plans of the social progressives make it imperative to erase the Bill of Rights, and then suspend or abolish the Constitution. The first step in abrogating national sovereignty and erasing the borders that separate us from Mexico and Canada is the repeal, or erasing, of the 2nd Amendment.

On Tuesday, May 12 at 9:00 a.m., according the the NRA-ILA bulletin, the Louisiana House Committee on Administration of Criminal Justice (will consider two polar opposite pieces of legislation—House Bill 387 and House Bill 27. One bill is a clone of the Clinton semi-automatic rifle ban that expired in 2004. It also contains a Bobby Rush [D-IL] provision that would require rifle owners to register all weapons, files as well as handguns, with police—and renew a license to own annually. The other, House Bill 27, is a measure that will allow people with Concealed Handgun permits to carry their concealed weapon, for self-defense, on college campuses. In recent campus shootings, some of those shot had concealed weapon permits but were barred by federal law from carrying their handguns onto campus. Had they been allowed, there is no doubt the death toll would have been much lower; and perhaps, nonexistent. I wonder, which bill was sponsored by the Democrat, and which was proffered by the Republican?

You guessed it. HB 387 was sponsored by New Orleans born and raised Cedric L. Richmond, a Democrat from the 101st District. Sponsoring HB 27 was Ernest D. Wooten, a Republican from the 105th District. If you are a resident of Louisiana, please contact the members of the Committee on Administration of Criminal Justice on Monday, May 11 and voice your opposition to House Bill 387 and your support of House Bill 27.. The committee members are: Ernest D. Wooten [R], Chairman; Damon J. Baldone [D], Vice Chair; Representatives Roy Burrell [D]. Gregory Ernst [R], Elbert Guillory [D], Mickey Guillory [D], Lowell Hazel [R], Frank A. Howard [R], Joseph Lopinto [R], Barbara Norton [D]. Jonathan Perry [R], John Schroder, Sr. [R], Gary Smith, Jr. [D]. Ricky Templet [R]. and Mack "Bodi" White [R]. All of the House members can be reached through phone number (225) 342-6945.

USA Today—Apr. 24, 2009 >>> According to USA Today, Resident Barack Hussein Obama had a "get tough" meeting at the White House on Thursday with 14 of the nation's largest credit card executives. Before the April 23 meeting Obama used the Oval Office bully pulpit to chastise credit card companies. The White House press corps told the media that Obama planned to impose new rules on credit card companies to protect consumers against abusive interest hikes. In an all too common photo op, Obama told the TV cameras that people receiving low interest credit card offering find "...themselves starting off with a low rate and the next thing they know, their interest rates have doubled, fees that they didn't know about that are suddenly tacked onto their bills...There has to be strong and reliable protections for consumers protections," Obama concluded. "Protections that ban unfair rate increases and forbid abusive fees and penalties. The days of anytime, any reason rate hikes and late fee traps have to end."

The White House Press Corps told the media that Congress was ready to impose new regulations on credit card companies if those companies did not agree to reverse detrimental "issuer policies" that have saddled consumers with a new, unexpected, round of unaffordable debt that has further crippled the ability of consumers to use credit. It is important for consumers who actually expect something other than political threats and meaningless rhetoric to come out of Thursday's meeting to remember that the credit card giants are, first and foremost, campaign contributors not only of Obama, but of those who sit on the congressional committees and possess the power to regulate them. It's also important to note that those credit card executives paid dearly (through campaign contributions) to have written into the lending laws the provisions that allow them to arbitrarily raise your credit card interest rates when your neighbor fails to pay his bill. Why do you think the White House has politely asked those corporate heads to reverse these issuer policies instead of repealing their right to do so? And, that's why when Sen. Chris Dodd [D-CT] was asked by a CBS-TV reporter this morning when the consumers could expect legislation to provide the relief from credit card interest abuses that Obama promised, he waffled. Dodd surmised that with 535 members in Congress, its hard to predict when such legislation would be forthcoming. Pushed, he said he was sure something would be done.

That's why the much-hyped "federal slapdown" of the credit card was so boring that Economic Advisor Lawrence Summers found time during the Obama "berating of the interest-gougers" to take a nap. In the April 23 issue of USA Today, Gannett reporter Kathy Chu said: "Today, [Resident] Obama and economic adviser Lawrence Summers are meeting at the White House with executives from more than a dozen credit card companies..." The tone of Chu's article suggested the White House was going to get tough. And, by the end of the meeting, credit card interest relief would be on its way to the US consumers who have already been brutally raped by Obama's three trillion, five hundred billion dollar stimulus for the rich that they are expected to pay. Right? Wrong.