Home

News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report

Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)
Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Books
Order Books

Cyrus
Rednecker

Search

About
Comments

Links

Democrats make $400 billion in Medicare cuts—Dec. 4, 2009 • On a 58-42 vote party-line vote, Democrats defeated a measure by Sen. John McCain to send back to committee the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act) which will cut $400 billion in Medicare spending that targets medical care for the elderly. The Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 cleared the House on Nov. 19. If it clears the Senate when the bill comes up for its final vote on passage, the Democrats believe they have the votes to enact the legislation. If that proves to be true, then after a brief lovefest in Joint Conference, legislation designed to further rape the elderly will be signed into law by Barack Obama.

Voting with the Republicans were Senators Jim Webb [D-VA] and Ben Nelson [D-NE]. AARP lobbied seniors to support the Democratic measure, assuring them that cutting $400 billion in wasteful spending would serve to strengthen Medicare in the future, and no Medicare subscriber would lose any benefits to which they are entitled. McCain responded by telling seniors to "...[t]ake your AARP card, cut it in half and send it back. They betrayed you." McCain's proposal would have stopped the legislation in its tracks. Democrats argued that cutting what amounted to $400 billion over ten years would not affect the basic services guaranteed by Medicare but would, instead, squeeze insurance companies and hospitals that are overcharging for the services they provide.

Sen. Chris Dodd [D-CT], an institutionalized politician who has served 25 years in the Senate, and who is the Chairman of the Senate Health, Education Labor and Pensions Committee told the Washington Times that "...this isn't the first time defenders of our broken health care system have tried to scare seniors, and it won't be the last...Now they're coming, riding to the rescue of Medicare. We have a right, I think, to be skeptical." McCain argued that "...these are not attainable cuts without eventually rationing health care in America, and rationing healthcare to our senior citizens who have earned these benefits." (If you remember, the Democrats told seniors that former President George W. Bush was trying to scare them by telling them that Social Security was broke. Bush was correct, and the euthanasia mandates in Obamacare that will treat old age as a terminal illnesses in order to deny medical care to Social Security recipients in what the communists in the Democratic Party view as a "win-win" situation is the "proof in the pudding." Wake up, America. Every now and then a politician does tell you the truth. Granted, it doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Why do you persist in believing the pretty lies but not the ugly truth?)

Also buried in that legislation—which was designed to force some 31 million new, uninsured senior citizens into the Medicare program—is a provision (in HR 3961 which has already passed the House) that will require all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. McCain's bill to send the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 back to committee for further debate also contained a provision by Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R-AK] that would have required doctors to go to practicing medical professionals and not Obama's federal Healthcare Board for coverage decisions affecting the lives of the elderly.

Under special rules agreed upon prior to the debate of this legislation, Democrats and Republicans agreed to the 60-vote threshold. If the Democrats can't pull Maine Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and Webb and Nelson vote against the legislation when it comes up for a floor vote, the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 will be defeated. It appears the measure to force every American citizen to purchase health insurance or pay what amounts to a federal non-compliance fine is designed to make socialized medicine look more appealing—and much less costly.

The communist left that now controls the government of the United States is determined to keep the national healthcare door open—if Obamacare fails—by making private insurance so costly that the Obamacare smoke and mirrors will look so convincingly appealing that the Tea Party activists will return to the sofa with a bag of chips, a cold beer and the TV remote control and the far left can return to the task of destroying the United States without arrogant rednecks protesting the transformation of their Republic into a totalitarian state.

Bill to ban money to sanctuary cities—(April 8, 2009) • Sen. David Vitters [R-LA], with co-sponsors Tom Coburn [R-OK], Jim Mint [R-SC] and James Inhofe [R-OK] proposed a bill in the US Senate, S.95, that would prevent any appropriated funds directing moneys to be used at the community level from going to any city or town in the United States which considers itself to be, or has proclaimed itself to be, a sanctuary city. The bill argued that any city which violates section 642[a] of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 USC 1373[a]} will be ineligible for any governments. S.95 decided to target federal funds designated by the Obama Administration to hire police officers. Vitters appears to believe that since sanctuary cities refuse to obey federal law with respect to illegals, they should not be eligible for funds to add additional officers paid for by the taxpayers who predominantly want their tax dollars used to round up and either jail or deport illegals. But, don't get too excited about this bill, and don't hold your breath waiting for it to be enacted, or even discussed in committee with its sponsors fighting to get the bill on the Senate floor for debate.

The entire bill—which is 35 words long—was enrolled on Jan. 6, 2009. The bill was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it has been buried since the first day of the 111th Congress. The media also chose to ignore the legislation knowing there were not enough Republicans in either House to push it through. The American people need to begin hammering members of Congress—House and Senate—to drag S.95 out of the closet, put it on the calendar, get a companion bill in the House, and enact it. They need to make it clear to every congressional or senatorial advocate of illegal alien rights—on both sides of the aisle—that they are going to pass this legislation or they need to get their resumes updated because they are going to be job hunting when they lose their next election. Further, the American people need to tell Resident Obama if he doesn't sign it there will be enough Republicans in the House and Senate in Jan., 2011 to override any veto...and, hopefully, enough votes to evict him from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The bill reads: "None of the amounts appropriated in any Act for the Community Oriented Policing Services Program (COPS) may be used in contravention of section 642[a] of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 8 USC 1373[a]." Under the 1996 immigration law federal, state, county or local government entities may not restrict officials from providing information to Immigrations & Customs Enforcement regarding an individual's immigration status. Liberal officials in the federal government as well as State, county and local governments do everything they can to hamstring the efforts of local, county and State police to notify ICE when they have illegals in custody. But more important than applying S.95 to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Vitters, Coburn, DeMint and Inhofe need to tie it to the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A) [iv][b](iii) since that provision creates personal liability for any government official anywhere who participates in shielding illegals.

There are enough federal and State laws on the books today that there should be no illegal aliens anywhere in the country. It is time communities began enforcing those laws, arresting not only the illegals but those in their local governments who are protecting them. Stated above, the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 makes those who protect, shield or provide them with food and shelter financially responsible for any damages suffered by US citizens at the hands of illegal aliens. Any American and/or their family members who were attacked, robbed, raped or killed by an illegal can—and should—sue in federal court under the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A) [iv][b](iii) and demand that all existing city, county, State officials who participated in or promulgated a sanctuary environment for illegals; or, landlords and/or community activists and/or organizers, who personally aided illegals in finding food, shelter and work, and any employer who employed an illegal who did harm to you or any member of their family, for monetary damages for any losses suffered at the hands of an illegal who, logically, would not have been in that area had it not been for the sanctuary advocacy. The Federal Immigration and Nationality Act makes them legally liable for any criminal acts committed by any illegal against any citizen in a sanctuary city, county or State. If you want to end sanctuary cities in this country, bankrupt the people safeguarding the illegals. When it is profitless to protect illegals, you will see the roundup and deportation of illegals—or some honest mea culpas from government as they blame Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Democratically-controlled 104th Congress for enacting NAFTA without telling the American people that NAFTA effectively erased the borders between the United States and Mexico in the South and the United States and Canada in the North. Hmmm...I wonder how many pre-1994 Congressmen and Senators will still have jobs when they spring that one on the American people? I guess that's why they've never told them. Obama might be right after all. Change, and a lot of it, is what is needed on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Like my mom used to say when she'd assign me and my siblings housecleaning chores—and then be dissatisfied with the results: "If you want the House clean, only a woman can do it." It's time for the American people to step up behind Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. We need to test the strength of her skirt tails. They helped Sen. Saxby Chambliss [R-GA] keep his Senate seat after being targeted by ACORN for removal. We need to see if she's got the moxy to get a lot of other Republicans elected in the House and Senate in 2010. If she can do that, the country needs to get behind her in 2012 and send the New World Order packing back to 1920 where it rightly belongs—in the pages of history as the failed philosophy of greedy rich men who should be in prison, not controlling politicians from their ivory towers on Wall and Broad Streets in New York.

Country of origin codes—(Nov. 21, 2008) • From the most recent Chinese product scare of the deliberate diluting of the chemical used to make the blood thinner Heparin, glycosaminoglycan, with a heparin-like chemical harvested from shellfish, over-sulfated chondroitin sulfate, that resulted in the death of 81 US citizens who received the tainted Heparin, to the use of antifreeze in toothpaste, melamine in pet food and baby formula, and baby toys painted with lead-based paint, or the use of lead rather than nickel in the making of children's jewelry (lead is a leading cause of autism in infants and toddlers), US consumers should now be wary of products coming from communist China.

Since 1994 the merchant princes of the world have resisted efforts by consumer groups to label all products with country of origin labels to protect consumers from substandard products, although many carry the trademarks of traditional union-made US brands that are actually produced in the third world—most in China or Indonesia. One good example is Fisher Price, the children's toy manufacturer who was forced to recall millions of dollars of toys two years ago when it was discovered the Chinese jobber painted them with lead-based paint.

In 2002 the Republican-controlled 108th Congress passed the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act. To grassroots advocates, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act is known as a bad law with a provision that mandated the implementation of a national farm animal identification system. Congress lessened public scrutiny of that aspect of the bill by focusing media attention on a popular provision in the law: COOL.

COOL is an acronym for Country of Origin Label. No sooner was the bill signed into law by President George W. Bush than lobbyists for the kings or industry and merchant princes petitioned for a stay of implementation, arguing that it would be cost prohibitive to label every product—particularly those found in America's supermarkets—with a label telling consumers from which country that food product originated.

The government granted them a 3-year extension. Lobbyists for the merchant princes worked feverishly for three more years to delay the implementation of COOL. On Nov. 10, 2005, a rider placed in HR2744, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006, Public Law 109-97, derailed implementation of COOL until September 30, 2008. Only labeling for wild and/or farm-raised fish and shellfish went into affect in 2005. The list of covered commodities was expanded with the passage of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill). The Farm Bill added chicken, goat meat, ginseng, pecans and macadamia nuts to the list of COOL products.

Finally, to thoroughly confuse the general public, but specifically to help their donor constituents, the merchant princes finally agreed to comply with the law by adding a three digit numerical "country of origin" prefix to the product bar code. That way, wary US consumers would still have trouble pinpointing precisely where the fruits, vegetables, processed food products and over-the-counter pharmaceuticals came from. In some cases, country of origin stickers may be affixed to the bottom of the product that is then packaged in a box which mentions the name and address of the US distributor but not the country of origin.

When this ploy is used, the country of origin is not evident until you purchase the product, take it home and open the box. This practice, however, is construed to be in compliance with the law because the numerical country of origin appears on the bar code. Today, the bar codes used on products are globally uniform, with every nation using the UPC code that includes country of origin.

While every nation in the world is assigned one or more numerical codes, I am listing only a few of them here because I think these nations need to be flagged as "concerns" for US consumers.

When you shop in your local stores and supermarkets, those retailers are now required to post the names of the countries designated by the COOL By knowing where the products you are considering came from, you will be able to make better informed decisions about whether or not you want to bring those products into your home

Surrick rules ordinary citizens have no standing
to question qualifications of candidates—(Oct. 25, 2008) • Attorney Philip J. Berg is appealing the arbitrary decision of Bill Clinton-appointed US District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick who ruled that Berg did not have standing to sue Obama. Generally important decisions that government officials want buried until they become "old news" are made on what is traditionally viewed as "newsless Friday" when reporters are paying more attention to the weekend than what news stories might be breaking, leaving second-string newspapers and local TV stations to break stories that drift off into media limbo and never resurface for prime time viewing because the mainstream media then considers the story to be "old news."

In announcing that he was "...totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the US Supreme Court. This is a question," Berg said, "of what has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing; if you don't have standing' if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States—the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world—then who does? The media initially reported that Berg was going to appeal Surrick's decision to the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals and, if he lost there, to the US Supreme Court. Berg, however, has decided to bypass the appellate court and file his appeal directly to the US Supreme Court.

"Anyone," Berg continued, "can claim to be eligible for Congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned. According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the US Constitution. What happened to '...government of the people, by the people, for the people?"

In his 34-page decision, Surrick ruled that Berg lacked legal standing to bring the case, adding that "...ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office." Surrick said that was the job of Congress, saying that the legislature alone possessed the constitutional authority to determine if a candidate meets the constitutional requirements of the office he or she is seeking. Surrick added that Congress possessed the right to defer that authority to "...citizens, voters, or party members," but it would take a new law to confer that authority on ordinary citizens. "Until that time," the judge concluded, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring...Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted, and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primaries in living memory."

Obama uses doctored video to get Jewish vote—(October 8, 200) • Earlier this year the far left Jewish Council for Education & Research [JCER] approached several current and former senior level Israeli generals, telling them they were producing a video documentary on what the next US President, whomever he is, will have to deal with in the Mideast. Nothing more. Only, when the video was done, it was not a documentary on the problems the new president would face in the Mideast, the clips were edited into snapshot endorsements of Obama for President of the United States. The video is being used by the Obama Campaign to convince American Jews that the leadership of Israel wants them to vote for Kenyan, Muslim-born Barack Hussein Obama. Sixty percent of the American Jewish population have bought the hype and believe that Israel's leaders have actually endorsed Barack Hussein Obama for President.

However, the video in which several current and former Israeli generals offer their endorsements of Obama, or claim to support Obama's position of direct negotiations—without preconditions—with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an artfully edited, spliced-together sham. One of those interviewed for the video was former Israeli Defense Forces [IDF] Uzi Dayan who angrily told Israel Today that he had been deceived by the JCER because the segment he video-tapped, which was several minutes long, had been reduced to 5 seconds of tape that made it appear that he supported Obama's intention of holding talks with Ahmadinejad and the current Iranian leadership. Dayan is, and always has been, firmly opposed to direct, unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad.

Former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy also appears in the video. And, like Dayan, he appears to be saying that he also backs Obama's position on unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad. Halevy told Israel Today that not only were his words taken "...Grossly out of context," the words of praise he heaped on John McCain and his policies, were conspicuously absent from the brief video. When the filmmakers, the co-executive directors of JCER, Mik Moore and Ali Wallach (who are also the heads and, it appears, 67% of the total membership, of JewsVote.org) that was produced by Sarah Silverman.

The video was debunked as a fraud by Jewish comedian Jackie Mason on Oct. 3. When the videographers asked him who he supported for president, Halevy replied that '...it was not the place of Israelis to advise Americans on whom they should vote for." Both Dayan and Halevy have demanded that the Obama Campaign remove their segments from his campaign video. Several Israeli generals with more left-leaning views also appear in the video. They also admitted they were deceived by the filmmakers, and that their comments were also taken out of context. However, they did not demand that their "endorsements" be removed from the video. I guess they're watching the polling numbers and think Obama is going to win.

According to the Iraeli blog, Israel Matzav (written by a former corporate lawyer from Boston who migrated to Israel in 1991), JCER, which has been churning out pro-Obama videos to influence the vote of the US Jewish community for Obama is Jewish only because of its Jewish-sounding name. The Israeli blogger, Carl, who now lives in Jerusalem, noted that "...the JCER are the same people who sponsored the Columbus Day trip to Florida (returning on the first night of the holiday of Succot (when its forbidden to travel under Jewish law)." Carl said their whole purpose in being is "...to convince your grandparents to vote for Obama. "Despite its lofty name," Carl writes, "JCER is not a Jewish organization per se. It's a 527 organization started by a couple of rich, young leftist Jews who decided to find their Jewish identity through liberalism."

Ari Wallach, one of the co-founders, was the VP of Corporate Development for Seed Media Group, LLC. He serves on the board of directors for ACCESS, an advocacy arm of the American Jewish Committee, formed by Russian socialist Jews in New York in 1906. Wallach, adopted as a child, was born in Guadalajara, Mexico. He was raised in the San Francisco Bay area by ultra-liberal artist Raul and Susan Wallach. Mik Moore, the other cofounder of JCER, is currently on leave from the Jewish Funds for Justice. He is the Chief Communications Officer of JFJ. Like Wallach, when the election is over, Moore will return to his regular day job. Both can expect invitations to Obama's coronation (i.e., inauguration) if he wins.

DNC joins Obama to block Berg lawsuit
seeking proof of Obama citizenship —(Oct. 6, 2008) • On September 29, 2008 Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg, filed a response to a motion to dismiss by defendant Barack Obama who was joined in his effort to quash Berg's lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee, claiming it has no standing to proceed. Berg argued in the brief response that he has provided the precedents which establish the standing and petitioned US District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to pursue the case. In his Sept. 29 filing, Berg said: "Plaintiff served discovery in way of Admissions and Request for Production of Documents, on Defendants on September 15, 2008 and has attempted to obtain verification of Obama's eligibility through subpoenas to the government entities and the hospital's in Hawaii. To date, Plaintiffs and two of (2) the locations, which subpoenas were served upon, refused to honor the subpoenas.

"For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff respectfully request Defendants and the Democratic National Committee's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) be denied and order immediate discovery (the unsigned order requiring Obama to produce..." within three (3) days{

1. Obama's "vault" version (certified copy of his "original" long version) birth certificate; and
2. a certified copy of Obama's Certificate of Citizenship;

3. a certified copy of Obama's oath of allegiance."

The certified copy of the citizen of the world's "oath of allegiance" to the United Sates is a document attesting to the fact that the newly "naturalized" citizen (usually an immigrant who has just been granted citizenship) or for native born Americans who have forfeited or otherwise surrendered their citizenship, and have requested reinstatement at their majority, usually 18, has sworn allegiance to the United States and its Constitution.

In this filing, Berg argued that he has legal standing to bring suit against Obama—and the DNC—pursuant to 5 USC §702; 524 US 11 (1998); 8 USC §148(b); 5 USC §552(B); 28 USC §1343 and also standing pursuant to Federal Question Jurisdiction. Berg rightfully claimed he has suffered "...the kind of injury that Congress expected might be addressed under the statute..." since the issue of where Obama was born with conflicting birth certificates and conflicting claims of what hospital Obama was born in—with Obama's own family members claiming he was born at three different hospitals in two countries.

The DNC-Obama motion seeks a protective order that will forbid Berg from discussing his lawsuit in the public forum pending Judge Surrick's decision on whether or not to dismiss Berg v Obama. If Surrick issues a protective order, discovery cannot occur until the issue has been resolved—but, only if it is resolved in Berg's favor. Berg's "Response in Opposition to Defendants" says:

1. Defendants' pending motion to dismiss does not entitle them to a Protective Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) [hereinafter FRCP 26(c);
2. Defendants have failed to show "good cause" and are therefore not entitled to a protective order under FRCP 26(c);
3. Defendants have not pointed to any legiitmate privacy concerns. Defendants have faield to point out any substantiated specific examples demonstrating that disclosure will cause a defned and serious injury;
4. Plaintiff does not seek access to the requested information for any improper purpose;
5. Defendants have not shown any risk that particularly serious embarrassment will result from the requested documents;
6. The requested information is extremely important for public safety; and "Good Cause" requires a particular need for the protection sought.
7. The sharing of information will promote fairness and efficicency so as not to delay this action;
8. Barack Obama, as US Senator of Illinois and the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States, is a public person, and his citizenship status is a matter of significant public concern and is subject to legitimate public scrutiny. The Democratic National Committee is a public entity and is also subject to public scrutiny; and
9. The public interest in access to the requested information under the Freedom of Informtion Act USC § 552 is a strong factor in favor of not granting a protective order which would prevent disclosure of such information.

The Obama "Birth Flap" was not of Berg's making. It began in June when National Review's Jim Geraghty raised the question and asked the Obama Campaign to release a copy of his birth certificate in order to prove that he actually was born in the United States. (Reports had previously surfaced claiming that Obama's Kenyan grandmother, Sarah Hussein Obama, told reporters that Obama was not born in Hawaii, but in Kenya. She also reportedly told reporters that when her son, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. returned to Kenya he was accompanied by his pregnant white wife who was close to term.)

Obama's family did not take to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama very well, because she was white, according to Sarah Obama. Shortly after she arrived in Kenya Stanley Ann decided to return to Hawaii because she later said, she did not like how Muslim men treated their wives in Kenya. However, because she was near term the airline would not let her fly until after the birth of her baby. Obama's grandmother said the baby—Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.—was born in Kenya and that shortly after he was born, Stanley Ann returned to Hawaii.

Reportedly, when she arrived back in Hawaii, Stanley Anne registered her son's live birth as an event which had just happened—in Honolulu, Hawaii. This supposition is supported by the appearance, shortly after Nov. 6, 2007, of a Hawaiian birth certificate that was issued, as a duplicate birth certificate, by the State of Hawaii to a US Senator who requested it.

Conservative bloggers on the Internet screamed that the birth certificate, which appeared on the Obama Campaign's "Fight The Smears" website and was also downloaded and used by far left blogger Markos Zuniga on his website, Daily Kos, was forgery concocted by Daily Kos, A self-described cyvbersleuth who uses the cyber-pseudonym Techdude claimed—without ever presenting an actual resum eto support his qualification claims—that the document was a fraud. There is little doubt it is the real McCoy—even if it was issued as a political favor to a prospective Democratic presidential candidate by some innocuous petty official in Hawaii. The clerk who issued the document, which purports to be a copy of an original document, was date stamped "Nov. 6, 2007" on the reverse side of the birth certificate in blue ink which bled through and is visible on the front of the electronic image.

Attorney Philip J. Berg, the former head of the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Democratic Party and a former member of the Democratic State Convention and, reportedly a Hillary Clinton supporter, wanted to learn the truth from the myriad of rumors that also suggested that Sen. Obama may also have been a citizen of Indonesia. The only consistent part of the story was Stanley Ann returning to Hawaii to claim he had been in the United States and was a US citizen.

In his original lawsuit filing, Berg specifically asked for those three items. Berg told the court that "...at the time Plaintiff's complaint was filed, Plaintiff was requesting protections from the court in order to stop Obama from being nominated by the DNC as the Democratic Presidential Nominee as Obama is not eligible to serve as President of the United States. However, Obama was nominated by the DNC...For that reason, Plaintiff must amend his complaint and will be amending this complaint to file a First Amendment complaint...."

Berg argued that he felt it was the role of the Federal Election Commission to ensure that presidential and congressional candidates are eligible to hold the positions for which they were seeking, and that those candidates run a fair and legitimate campaign. "In vetting the presidential candidate," Berg further said: "the DNC and the FEC are required to ensure the eligibility requirements pursuant to our Constitution are met and the Presidential nominee, if elected, is qualified and eligible to serve pursuant to our United States Constitution. In order to be eligible to run for the Office of President of the United States, you must be a "natural born" citizen.

"There appears to be no question that Defendant Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a US citizen. It is also undisputed that his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Obama's parents, according to divorce recorded, were married on or about February 2, 1961.

"Defendant Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and it is uncertain in which hospital he claims to have been born. Obama's grandmother on his father's side, his half-brother and half-sister all claim Obama was born not in Hawaii but in Kenya. Reports reflect that Obama's mother traveled to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii. At her late stage of pregnancy (which apparently are normal restrictions, to avoid births during flights). By these reports, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew home and registered Obama's birth. There are records of a "registry of birth" for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii."

Berg's investigators revealed that Obama's own half-sister Maya Soetoro—with whom he was raised—seemed not to know where her own brother was born. In the Nov., 2004 interview by the Rainbow Newsletter Maya Soetoro said Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961 at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. In February, 2008 Maya was interviewed by the Star Bulletin. This time she told reporters that Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at the Kaliolani Medical Center for Women and Children. On June 9, 2008 Wayne Madsen, a journalist with Online Journal published an article in which he said a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya and located a certificate registering the live birth of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a US citizen. Obama's certificate of live birth, according to Philip Berg, was issued by the Coast Provincial General Hospital in Mombassa, Kenya at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961.

Under Immigration and Naturalization Act of Dec. 24. 1952 subsection (c) both parents must be citizens of the United States. Barack Obama, Sr. was a citizen of Kenya, and thus (c) does not apply, nor does subsection (d). Stanley Ann Dunham falls under (h): "...a person born after May 24, 1934 outside the limits and jurisfiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, resided in the United States." (Prior to May 24, 1934 women were not allowed to transmit citizenship to their offspring.) The law was amended in 1940, 1941, 1956 and 1952 with the Immigration and Naturalization Act of Dec. 24. 1952. Under the provisions of this act, a child born to one US citizen parent and one alien parent, the US citizen parent was required to have been physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for 10 years prior to the child's birth, or at least 5 of which were after the age of 14. Under that law, Stanley Ann Dunham could not transmit citizenship to her son, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. since she would had to have been 19-years of age when she gave birth. She was 18-years, 8 months and 5 days old on Aug. 4, 1961. In 1986, Congress decided the restrictions in the Immigration and Naturalization Act of Dec. 24. 1952 were too onerous, and amended the law . The 5-year provision was reduced to two. In 1994 the provision was reduced again. This time, from two years to one. That provision has remained unchanged for the past 15 years.

Berg's argument to the court was that under the US Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317 (b), a minor child follows the naturalization and citizenship status of his or her custodial parent. In Obama's case, Berg argued, a minor child follows the naturalization and citizenship status of his or her custodial father. Obama's Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetora signed a statement acknowledging Obama as his son, giving Obama natural Indonesian citizenship, which explains the name "Barry Soetoro" and his Indonesian school documents. Loss of US citizenship, under US law in effect in 1967 required that foreign citizenship be achieved through "application." Which, according to Berg, is precisely what happened to Obama when his mother married Soetoro and the family moved to Indonesia.

When Obama and his mother moved to Indonesia, Obama had already been enrolled in school—something that could not have happened under Indonesian law if Soetoro had not signed an acknowledgment (the application) affirming that Obama was his son and that he was Indonesian. Thus, it was deemed that Obama was an Indonesian State citizen. (Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of 1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992, Indonesia Civil Code): "...State children of Indonesia include: (viii) children who are born outside of legal marriage from foreign State citizen mother who are acknowledged by father who is Indonesian State citizen as his children and that acknowledgment is made prior to children reaching 18 years of age or prior to marriage; Republic of Indonesia Constitution, 1945." Furthermore, under Indonesian law, if a resident Indonesian citizen married a foreigner—in this case, Lolo Soetoro marrying Stanley Ann Obama—she was required to renounce her US citizenship.

In his lawsuit, Berg demanded a copy of Obama's Certificate of Citizenship, a document Obama needed for to regain his citizenship—which was lost in Indonesia. He will have that document only if the proper paperwork was filed with the US State Department when Obama returned to Hawaii in 1971 since that is the only way Obama could regain his US "natural born" status. Berg is convinced that Obama was never naturalized in the United States after his return. Obama returned to his maternal grandparents in Hawaii without his mother. Since she is the only one who could have filed for the reinstatement of his citizenship, it is unlikely it ever happened. If it did, his Certificate of Citizenship would affirm his right to seek the office of President. Without it, Barack Obama is just another resident alien who can't even legally hold his seat in the US Senate. if I was in the Republican National Committee, I would be joining Philip Berg with the full force, and pocketbook, of the GOP.

WaMu declared insolvent. FDIC closes Seattle
cyberbank. JPMorgan Chase buys its assets—(Sept. 25, 2008) •Washington Mutual Savings & Loan, the local Seattle, Washington-based banking institution was chartered on Sept. 25, 1889 as the Washington National Building Loan & Investment Association by local investors in an attempt to save Seattle's economy after a fire nearly destroyed the city. After it survived the Bank Panic of 1907 its name was changed to the Washington Savings & Loan Association. After the Stock Market Crash in October, 1929 its name was changed again. This time it was called the Washington Mutual Savings Bank. The name change was not triggered by the stock market collapse since WaMu, as it would become known, was a well-managed, solvent financial institution. That never changed. On July 25, 1930 WaMu purchased Continental Mutual Savings Bank and merged the two names.

Over the next five decades WaMu became a banking innovator and was among the first banks in the nation to use ATMs and to engage in electronic banking. In 1983 WaMu bought a brokerage firm, Murphey Favre, and demutualized. It became publicly traded over the New York Stock Exchange. Within six years, in 1989, its assets had doubled. In October, 2005, WaMu purchased subprime credit card company Providian for $6.5 and moved its corporate offices from the Washington Mutual Tower to its new headquarters at the WaMu Center in downtown Seattle. As electronic banking became commonplace, WaMu became known for its commercials featuring naked bankers.

By the end of their fiscal year on June 30, 2006, WaMu operated over 2,600 retail bank or mortgage loan offices across the country. By the end of its fiscal year in June, 2008 WaMu had $309.7 billion— down $18.2 billion from the year before. Much of that loss came from bad debt from subprime mortgage loans.

On Sept. 17, 2008 WaMu, which was anticipating a subprime mortgage write-off of $19 billion this year, announced it was putting itself on the block for sale. The WaMu announcement triggered a run on the bank. Depositors, fearing WaMu was insolvent and would close its doors, withdrew $16.7 billion, causing the US Office of Thrift Management to view the $300 billion bank, which has $188 billion in deposits, as "unsound." On Sept. 25, 2008 OTM seized the company and named the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver. The FDIC quickly sold WaMu's assets (but not their debt) to JPMorgan Chase. The price? One point nine billion dollars. WaMu, which reopened today, will retain its name. When the merger is complete, 42% of the American people will be within 3 miles of a Chase bank.

Once again, evangelicals will cut off
their own noses to spite their faces—(Aug. 1, 2008) • As the liberal voters in New Hampshire—one of the northeastern "Patriot States" where the Revolutionary War began in 1775—casually surrender their historic blood-fought liberty to communism by endorsing the most unpatriotic, un-American "citizen-of-the-world" for the office of the presidency, conservative evangelicals in the heartland of the nation are doing everything in their power to throw the election to presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Hussein Obama [D-IL]. They did so by demanding that GOP presumptive nominee Sen. John Sidney McCain [R-AZ] not pick former Gov. Mitt Romney [R-MA] as his running mate. Why? Because Romney is a Mormon. The excuse the evangelicals initially tried to use was that Romney has flip-flopped on outlawing abortion and on the issue of same-sex marriage. The allegations—at least today—are patently false as the evangelicals well know.

Evangelicals like novelist-preacher Tim LaHaye; Calvary Chapel pastor Rob McCoy; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; Gary Bauer, former FRC leader; anti-porn crusader Phil Burness who heads Citizens for Community Values; Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson; Don Wildmon President of the American Family Association (and Gary Glenn, president of its Michigan chapter); William Murray, chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition; Rick Scarborough, founder of Vision America; Janet Folger, president of Faith2Action; Matthew Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel; Rob Schenck, founder of the Faith & Action Network and an assortment of lesser known pastors from lesser known churches and advocacy groups all denounced Romney as unfit for their support—solely because he is a Mormon.

When a Focus on the Family spokesman took to the airwaves and raised the question would a "President Romney" turn a blind eye to pornography, Burgess and Perkins in almost choreographed statements called Romney's failure to remove pay-per-view soft porn channels from the TVs in the guest rooms at the Marriott chain hotels when he was on their board "extremely disturbing." Perkins went a step farther than Burgess when he said that Romney "...must take some responsibility for the Marriott profiting from porn since he was a board member."

Gary Glen, the head of the Michigan chapter of Wildmon's American Family Association told the media that "...[t]his is just part of a broader pattern of concern over Mitt Romney's record of aggressively promoting abortion-on-demand, the homosexual agenda and gun control. We..." (meaning the Christian leadership) "...are judging Romney by his record."

Here is the Romney record. When he ran for the US Senate from "gun control" Massachusetts in 1994, Romney supported two gun-control measures that were opposed by the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America and other gun rights organizations in the United States. First, he supported the 5-day waiting period on gun sales. So do I. A 5-day wait does nothing except perhaps give a hothead who angrily goes out to buy a gun a 5-day cooling off period. Five days is adequate time for States and/or counties or cities to do an adequate law enforcement background check not only to determine if the gun buyer has a criminal record but has been involved in domestic disputes even if no arrests have been made. Just as some people should never be allowed to privately own an assault rifle, other people are a ticking bomb waiting to explode. Remember: all of the "Uzi moments" we have had in this country have been crimes committed by people with no criminal records. Romney also supported the ban on certain types of assault weapons. I disagree with Romney on this one in the face of US v Miller 307 US 174, 1939, where the majority (an 8-to-0 decision with Associate Justice William O. Douglas abstaining) opined that, based on the privileges standardized by the States in the 18th century (which was the superior government of the United States) the general public—not State-controlled militias—had to be as well-armed as its central government since the States themselves viewed the federal government as as much, if not more, of a threat to liberty than a foreign intruder on American soil.

When Romney ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994, he was endorsed by the Massachusetts Citizens for Life even though he ran as "pro-choice." They endorsed him because he supported parental-consent laws and opposed taxpayer-funded abortions. He thought government should be completely neutral on the issue of abortion and, therefore, was "pro-choice" when he ran for governor in 2002. In 1994 when he ran against Kennedy, he was branded by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League [NARAL] as "pro-life." It should be noted that both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were pro-choice converts. As governor, Reagan signed into law the nation's most permission abortion law. In 1980, Bush ran for the Senate as a pro-choice candidate. Romney became a convert as governor when embryonic cloning was being debated. A stem-cell researcher told him that embryonic cloning was not a moral issue because "...they destroy the embryos at 14 days." Romney said the researcher's cavalier attitude struck him that mankind had cheapened the value of human life so much that it was no longer a moral issue to kill a human life as long as it was done within 14 days. Based on that one comment, his view on abortion-neutrality changed. He vetoed the embryonic bill and has been pro-life since that day.

In August, 1994, running against a sitting US Senator who advocated the rights of homosexuals and lesbians to marry, Romney told the Boston Globe that "...the gay and lesbian community needs more support from the Republican Party..." and that "...people of integrity don't force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have." When he was interviewed by "Bay Windows," a homosexual and lesbian newspapers, Romney agreed that it should be up to the States to decide whether to allow same-sex marriage. In that interview Romney made the statement that came back to bite him in 2008. He criticized the Christian right "...which," he said, "imposed their views and moral codes on the Republican Party." Since 2005, Romney has been an outspoken proponent of a US Constitutional amendment to outlaw same sex marriage. Those are the facts about Romney. The issue that Christian right has against Romney is the fact that he's a Mormon. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. Let's make something crystal clear since these Christian leaders don't seem to understand it. The job of President of the United States—or that of Vice President—is not a theological job. And, while I would agree with their view that Mormonism is a cult, I would much rather have Mitt Romney's moral values a heartbeat from the Oval Office than I would Barack Obama's Marxist, anti-Caucasian, Islamic moral values in the Oval Office.

Calvary Chapel pastor Rob McCoy (a Mike Huckabee supporter) told the Washington Times that he would "...vote for McCain unless he does one thing. You know what that is? If he puts Romney on the ticket as veep. It will alienate the entire evangelical community—62 million self-professing evangelicals in this country, half of them registered to vote, are going to be deeply saddened."

Republican Party officials have opted to ignore the evangelical "old boys club" which successfully dominated the mindset of Christians during the losing Election of 2006 by encouraging them to sit out the election in protest to Bush not sealing the borders and evicting illegal aliens. One evangelical leader with close ties to McCain told Washington Times reporter Ralph Hallow that putting Romney on his ticket would cost McCain 7% to 10% of the evangelical vote. Enough, he said, to cost McCain a defeat in a close race with Obama. Wall Builders' David Barton, Eagle Forum's Phyliis Schlafly and Staver said they can rally their "supporters" around McCain if he picks someone other than Romney as long as that candidate has a pro-life record. Each of them have Huckabee in mind. And while Huckabee might pick up that 7% to 10% hard right evangelical vote, he loses the remaining 90% to 93% who rightly view Huckabee as "Clinton-light."

Republican strategists who understand this is a political race for the life of the United States of America and not a theological debate, know Romney is the right man to balance McCain's shortfalls. Romney provides everything McCain lacks. Romney is a successful fund-raiser—a skill that rough-edged McCain lacks. Romney has been thoroughly vetted—and more than most of theological types who have turned their noses up at him—has no skeletons that could embarrass either him, the campaign or the party. Unlike McCain who likes to say he's a Washington outsider, Romney actually is. Unlike McCain who is trying to remake himself into a conservative, Romney actually is, and has always been, one. Romney is a successful businessman in his own right and, thus, could be the economic voice of reason in a McCain-Romney ticket.

If I was on a steering committee looking for a new pastor for my church, Mitt Romney would be just about the last person (other than Barack Obama) I'd invite into our Pentecostal pulpit. On the other hand, nor would I invite most of the Christian "leaders" who were responsible for the evangelicals sitting out the Election of 2006, and who urged their followers not to back Romney during the primaries, leaving us with the political quagmire we have today—a real prospect of putting America's first anti-white racist in the White House.

It should be noted that an online poll conducted by former 2000 presidential candidate Gary Bauer found that, by a large margin, Romney was the first choice to be McCain's running mate by evangelical Christians. Sounds like the evangelicals realize they screwed up by sitting out the Election of 2006 and letting the far left seize control of Congress—and judicial appointments.

Obam-egotistics—(June 25, 2008) • Now you see it, now you don't. In what can only be described as unbridled arrogance, the campaign of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee commissioned the design of what can only be described as a substitute Presidential seal for the Senator. The purpose of the seal was to make Sen. Barack Obama look "presidential" during press conferences, giving him an edge over presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain.

Obama's people unveiled the seal during a meeting of Democratic governors at the Chicago History Museum on Friday, June 20. The seal contained many of the elements found in the traditional presidential seal with the addition of elements that are uniquely Obama—such as an "O", for "Obama" in the center of the eagle. In addition, Obama's people removed the term, E pluribus unum (which means "out of many, one"—denoting that from a nation of free men one is chosen to lead). The designers substituted the phrase "vero possumus" in the faux seal, which means "Truly we are able," or, as it can be more loosely translated, "yes, we can."

The first thing I noticed when I saw Obama standing behind the podium in Chicago is that even the faux seal seemed a little bit too big too big for a very, very inexperienced junior Senator from Illinois. In fact, he looked like a brand new, just pledged frat boy playing "what I would like to be when I grow up."

Within the first 72 hours after the faux seal was revealed it provoked a lot of discussion among Democrats—and among Republicans, too. People poked fun at the junior senator's junior presidential seal—and not all of them were Republicans. The faux seal turned out to be Obama's second major gaffe. And, by a country mile, it was his worst. His first gaffe was the much repeated campaign remark when he said: "My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." These are the types of blunders that make campaign managers and press secretaries shudder with trepidation because they usually come back to bite the candidate in the butt when he least needs the embarrassment, usually a few days before the votes are cast.

Within three days the faux seal was gone. Obama's handlers believed that positioning Obama behind a faux presidential seal would have a positive impact on the Senator's campaign. It didn't. Fortunately the Election of 2008 is still six months away. Six months to forget Obama's possum blunder...or, better said, possumus blunderus. That is, if the TV comics don't keep it alive during the summer. Gaffes sometimes find a life of their own. Good material like that is just too hard to come by. Obama is overconfident and under qualified for the job he is seeking. The biggest problem with Obama is that he's still plaything "what I want to be when I grow up," and he hasn't got that slightest idea how real grown-ups who are running for president are supposed to act. Obama has only been in the federal legislature for 18 months and he still hasn't mastered that job. His latest antics suggest he's not even remotely ready to step into grown-up shoes yet. Let them keep it, and the odds are pretty good that not only will we lose the Supreme Court, we'll lose the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States as Congress suggests a new model to include the merged North American Union.

Barr could give win to Obama—(June 23, 2008) • Early polls from InsiderAdvantage, an Atlanta, Georgia political analysis company, suggest that if he keeps his lead in the Bible Belt, former Congressman Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate for President could take enough votes from presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain that Sen. Barack Obama could win the electoral votes from Georgia and North Carolina—and the election. Matt Towery, CEO of InsiderAdvantage is a former political advisor to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that "...Barr throws a monkey wrench in Republican plans in States people otherwise take for granted..." The poll taken by Towery's company in Georgia gives McCain 45% of the vote. Obama gets 35% and Barr siphons off 8% of the vote that would otherwise go to the GOP candidate. The North Carolina poll, taken by Public Policy Polling puts McCain at 43%, Obama at 40% and Barr at 6%. The pollsters said Barr's support was coming from independents who previously broke with McCain. In point of fact, Barr's support is coming almost exclusively from disillusioned former Bush supporters who were the heart of the conservative movement. The same voters who sat out the election of 2006 and gave control of the House of Representatives to Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] and the Senate the Harry Reid [D-NV] and the far left, will surrender the United States to Barack Obama by voting for a man who will likely take from 3% to 5% of the vote (in a political party whose best showing ever in a national election was 1% of the vote in 1980.

Republicans in the Bible Belt States are waiting to see what impact Barr has in the neighboring Christian conservative States of Oklahoma and Texas, and all of the Old South: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana (excluding New Orleans), Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia. Bush took all of the Bible Belt in 2000 and 2004. Without Barr in the race, McCain would still have easily won them with the possible exception of Mississippi. (Conservative Party candidate/church pastor Chuck Baldwin will not be a factor this year since in 2004 when Baldwin ran as the running mate to Baltimore attorney Michael Peroutka on the Constitution Party ticket, they only took 134,000 votes nationwide even though they were on the ballot in 36 states.) Although Baldwin will not be a factor in the Election of 2008, Barr will be. Brent Woodcox, a spokesman for the North Carolina Republican Party admitted that it's still too early to tell, but that the GOP is trying to figure it out.

Barr will likely have a bigger impact in Georgia since he was a representative from Georgia's 7th Congressional District. In the elections of 2000 and 2004 the Libertarian candidates took less than 1% of the vote even though they were on the ballot in every State. In 2000 Harry Browne, an investment analyst and writer, was the Libertarian Party's candidate. In 2004, the Libertarian candidate was Michael Badnarik. Badnarik is a software engineer. For the third time in 2006 Badnarik ran for a Congressional seat in Texas and, for the third time, came in third. In Georgia, Barr's home State, Browne took 1.4% of the vote in 2000 and in 2004 Badnarik took less than a half of one percent of the vote in Georgia and less than one-third of one percent in North Carolina.

When Barack Obama announced that he was going to hold a rally in Minneapolis (where the Republican National Convention will be held this September) he said, this year, the election will be settled in Minnesota. He was wrong. This year the election will be settled in Georgia, North Carolina or somewhere else in the Old South. If Barr holds his 8% in Georgia and 6% in North Carolina—without looking at any other State—Obama will become the 44th President of the United States. If McCain holds the Bible Belt, the Republicans will hold the White House even though they will lose a few more seats in both the House and Senate due to retiring disillusioned Republicans.

Code Pink backing Obama—(June 21, 2008) • If the far left members of Congress discovered that Aryan Nations founder Richard Gint Butler had contributed $50 thousand to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign you would hear the screaming all the way from the People's House on Pennsylvania Avenue to 15th St. NW in the District. The far left screamers would have demanded McCain step down, hoping to throw the GOP nomination in a turmoil leading up to the convention in Minneapolis on Labor Day. Of course, McCain wouldn't resign. He would make a public show of returning the contribution to the Aryan Nation. The Democrats would use the fact that racist skinheads were backing the Republican Party to tar and feather every GOP candidate they could somehow tie to McCain. On the other hand, the Democrats, who claim they support our troops have seen nothing wrong with presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama—who also claims he supports our troops in harms way— taking $50 thousand from Code Pink vice president and co-founder Jodie Evans. Evans, her ex-husband, Max Palevsky, Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and David Geffen of Dreamworks—four Hollywood Jews and a communist antiwar hatemonger—held the fundraiser for the fellow traveler.

Evans, who admits that Code Pink, which sees the US government and the United States military as the enemy, is trying hard to undermine the war effort any way they can. Their primary tool is vilifying the fighting forces of the United States. Code Pink, which pickets military hospitals and calls wounded veterans killers, formed an advocacy group called Iraq Occupation Watch [IOW in 2004. The purpose of IOW was fourfold: [1] to undermine the efforts of the US government's reconstruction efforts in Iraq; [2] demoralizing US troops in Iraq through mail efforts that lead soldiers to believe they are not supported at home; [3] encourage soldiers to desert or to declare themselves to be "conscientious objectors;" and [4] to engineer a Vietnam-style defeating Iraq and Afghanistan. On June 3 Evans, who blurted: "Why is being a communist anti-American?" on the "Conscience of Kansas" radio program told talk show host Paul Ibbertson that Code Pink targeted soldiers and military recruiters because "...you can't go to war if you don't have soldiers." Code Pink found a fellow traveler in Barack Obama. So has the media.

Saddam-al Qaeda Connection—(Mar. 16, 2008) • When you put liberals in charge of any analytical project in the federal government, you can bet that what they find in 600 thousand pages of Iraqi documents will be magically converted into a sow's ear. The Institute of for Defense Analyses [IDA], a federally-funded defense think tank in Alexandria, Virginia released its report on the 600 thousand pages of Department of Defense [DoD] documents captured from Saddam Hussein's government in 2003. The purpose of the DoD report was to answer the question posed by the liberals in Congress: "Was there a connection between former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda that would justify military intervention in Iraq?"

When the synopsis of the IDA report was released it suggested that those studying the documents "...found no smoking gun." Without ever actually reading the report (to say nothing of the 600 thousand pages of documents which, of course, had been translated from Arabic and/or Farsi), ABC News was the first to conclude that "...the report was the first official acknowledgment from the US military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to al Qaeda."

The Washington Post, which was also too busy to actually read the report, apparently felt the content would agree with the view expressed in the synopsis, wrote a brief piece under the heading "Study Discounts Hussein, Al-Qaeda Link." The New York Times band leaders jumped on the band wagon with a similar headline, and Ruppert Murdoch's New York Post chimed the hollow, metallic "me. too" echo that was supposed to make the story a bipartisan denunciation of the Bush-43 invasion of Iraq which the left insisted was orchestrated as payback for Saddam's attempt to kill Bush-41 for the first Gulf War.

Which, of course, led to hundreds of emails filling my inbox with a variety of subject lines claiming no al-Qaeda link was found to justify Bush's invasion of Iraq—and personal notes from scores of those emailers reminding me—in case I forgot—that I was wrong for suggesting since 2003 that there was an al-Qaeda link.

The full IDA report, ordered by the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia and released Thursday, March 13, paints a slightly different picture than the synopsis of those who wanted to paint an anti-al-Qaeda portrait of Saddam's Iraq. The report states there was considerable overlap between Saddam's security forces and al Qaeda in the financing and training of "outside groups" in projects with "shared goals." On page 42 of the report it says: "...Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri) or that generally shared al-Qadea's shared goals and objectives." According to the full text of the study, Islamic Jihad was one of the terrorist groups Saddam funded, trained and equipped.

The captured and examined documents revealed that when US troops were being slaughtered in Mogadishu, Somalia, Saddam Hussein personally ordered the formation of an Iraqi terrorist group that joined in the battle against the poorly armed US troops that were slaughtered there. The Mogadishu incident became the basis for the movie Blackhawk Down. Unfortunately, Hollywood made the fight more even by giving the US soldiers automatic rifles with which to engage the enemy. In reality, antiwar president Bill Clinton stripped those soldiers of everything except sidearms while al Qaeda street fighters were armed with AK-47s. Even more important, in the months leading up to the US invasion, the IDA report clearly reveals that al-Qaeda was training terrorists in several camps in Iraq.

Also in 1993, Saddam financed a secret Islamic Palestinian organization that was to wage "...armed jihad against American and Western interests." At the same time, and for most of the time that Bill Clinton was in office, Iraqi military leaders trained Sudanese "freedom fighters" to wage jihad against the Sudan's pro-western government.

In fact, even before the first Gulf War, the Iraqi military was training non-Iraqi jihadists in secret training camps throughout Iraq. Shortly after the co-presidency of Bill and Hillary Clinton took office and Saddam suddenly lost his fear of the United States, the dictator reopened the desert training camps. (So much for who is qualified to answer the phone in the Oval Office at 3 a.m.) It's only fitting that the sins of the father should visit the mother when she tries to wear the ill-fitting pants of the father. The report went on to say that in 1998 Saddam began to finance jihadists in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.

On July 9, 2001 the report reveals that Saddam's military intelligence people were financing a group directly under the control of Osama bin Laden which was receiving its instructions from Yemen. Shortly after 9-11 Saddam became even more emboldened and issued Iraqi passports to 699 known or suspected terrorists to help them enter Europe where they could then apply for travel visas to the United States. Only a few months before the US invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein hosted a total of 13 conferences for non-Iraqi terrorist groups. The report made it very clear that Saddam's government knowingly supported organizations it knew were connected to al-Qaeda providing the organization's near-term plans dovetailed with Saddam's long-term strategy of bringing down the United States.

Over 1,600 pages of the examined DoD documents were drenched with clear and precise evidence that tied Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government with al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations that were determined to bring down the free enterprise system of the west. The most damning was a report which detailed how the Iraqi Intelligence Service was handling requests from terrorist groups around the world for inventories of weapons and explosives (plastic explosives and TNT). The Iraqis, using both legal and illegal means, were smuggling weapons and explosives into their embassies around the world for use by terrorists in those countries.

When the erroneous report—first leaked by a McClatchy Newspapers reporter two days before the report was released—hit the wire services, it was incumbent upon the Bush-43 Administration's National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to do damage control. He failed to do so. When the full report hit the street, the antiwar media ignored it and the lame duck Bush team could see no need to fight the battle of media for an administration on its way into the history books, and a president who seems to have little interest in correcting the perception of his legacy.secutors was forced to fall on his own sword. In February, 2005 shortly after he assumed the post as Attorney General, Gonzales rubber-stamped the firing of the eight and passed the baton to his aide, Kyle Sampson who would be entrusted with the actual terminations. Sampson resigned on Monday, March 12 as the Democratic majority launched what they hope will become Attorneygate.

The liberal Judiciary Committee heads in the House and Senate are demanding to know if the firings had their genesis in the White House and whether the firings were politically motivated. Let me save the House and Senate about $20 million in taxpayer dollars that these committees should not be allowed to spend. Of course the firings were politically motivated. The job of US Attorney is a political position.

On April 12, 1993, two months after the co-presidency of Bill and Hillary Clinton assumed office then CNN reporter Ken Bode noted that "...[f]or the last decade the Justice Department was an ideological warehouse for conservative thinkers. At the same time, Justice became a political arm of the White House..." In reality, the Department of Justice has always been a political arm of the White House with the US Attorneys functioning as the hand that administers the agenda of the White House. Bode, who criticized Reagan and Bush for their "...hard line on abortion [and a] rollback on civil rights..." praised Clinton, whose "...first public office was Attorney General of Arkansas. He was aggressive, high profile, populist...If the Justice Department will reflect President Clinton's policies, expect the new Attorney General to be much stronger on civil rights enforcement, pay attention to environmental laws, support the rights of children..." Of course, that would only happen if Clinton could change all of the Reagan-Bush US Attorneys at once since law enforcement is local—particularly on politically-correct, ideological laws.

Bode did not seem at all bothered that Clinton's AG, Janet Reno, had just fired every US Attorney in the country in one fell swoop, noting only that Reno's firing 93 US Attorneys "...has become a highly visible test of how political the Justice Department will be under Bill Clinton and Janet Reno." Because both Houses of Congress were controlled by the President's party, there was no Congressional outcry or demands for public hangings of the Attorney General, or questions raised whether or not the decision to clean house had its genesis in the Oval Office. Two months later Reno made the cover of Time magazine with an article by Nancy Gibbs entitled "Truth, Justice and the Reno Way." Gibbs noted that the New York Times called Reno a "prized asset."

The Washington Post noted that Bush Administration officials have repeatedly called the eight "sackings" (their term) that happened last year as routine firings designed to get rid of a handful of poorly performing political appointees. Leftwing media researchers have received White House documents, and interviews with administration personnel, that make it clear that the firings of these eight was at least discussed, if not decided upon, in 2005. AG Gonzales, regretfully, told the media on March 13 that he would take measures to make sure massive firings of US Attorneys did not happen again. Excuse me? It is the prerogative of the Chief Executive to dismiss, at will, all political appointees in his administration. And, once again, the last time I looked, US Attorneys were appointed.

The documents, which include emails between Sampson, Miers and other White House officials, pinpoint February, 2005 as the date when the decision to terminate these attorneys originated. What should have happened, at that moment, was Gonzales, not Sampson, firing them. Instead, Bush decided to play George Washington and tried to create a bipartisan administration that was comprised of Bush-41 and -43 loyalists and Clinton spies. His first mistake as President.

Liberals contend that of the eight US Attorneys who were fired only three had been given low job performance ratings: Margaret Chiara, the US Attorney for Grand Rapids, Michigan; Bud Cummins of Little Rock, Arkansas and Carol Lam of San Diego, California. David Iglesias, they maintain, received good job performance ratings. The liberals just don't seem to get it. US Attorneys are political appointees. They serve at the discretion of the President. It doesn't matter if they have done a good job, a fair job or a lousy job. But it seems to me that the person who should have been fired first is Kyle Sampson. Sampson managed, over two years, to make a routine termination of political appointees look like a conspiracy to fire dedicated and loyal government employees. And, because Gonzales hired a bureaucratic idiot who lacked the ability to make decisions, Gonzales should fall on his sword, too. Ole.

The government is run by liberal idiots—(Arlington, VA —Feb. 11, 2007) • The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure its military never amassed enough power to overthrow the civilian leadership. The Constitution mandates that the military remain under the control of the nation's civilian leadership. Of course, in 1787 the patriots who defeated the most powerful army in the world and created the most powerful Republic in history could not have envisioned a day when the civilians in control of the government, in either the Executive or Legislative branches, would do their level best to cause the US military to lose two wars against inferior enemies by psychologically undermining the US military—and psychologically supporting our enemies—without charges of sedition being leveled against those civilian leaders. That, of course, is ludicrous. Sedition is not a constitutional right; nor is sedition protected speech—not even when bellowed to liberal, antiwar media flunkies by Congressmen, Congresswomen or Senators—and printed in seditious newspapers or headlining the evening news on seditious TV networks.

But what is even more asinine is when the Pentagon's top civilian and military officials climb up on their camouflage painted soapboxes to contradict common sense by declaring that the seditious rambling of elected far left antiwar politicians in the House and Senate—and communist antiwar activists like Hanoi Jane Fonda, Cindy Sheheen, Susan Sarandon and scores of other morally-bankrupt Hollywood types—have not affected the morale of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. New Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace both made statements that Congress' voting on non-bindling resolutions opposing President George W. Bush's Iraq reinforcement plan will not endanger the morale of the troops.

Perhaps, on its face, that may be so. However, nonbinding resolutions, while not obligatory on the White House, have a tremendous impact on the morale of of the insurgency that is fighting and killing Americans in Iraq—and Afghanistan.

Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on Feb. 1, Gen. Pace contradicted Bush's argument that resolutions, binding or otherwise, that disagreed with his planned troop buildup. "From the standpoint of the troops, I believe that [the US servicemen in war zones] understand how our legislature works, and they understand that there's going to be this kind of debate." Seconding Pace's remarks was Bush's new Defense Secretary. Also testifying, Gates said that American soldiers were sophisticated enough to understand that the political debate is simply rhetoric used by politicians making points with their constituents. Pace argued that "...as long as Congress continues to...provide the resources for the mission, the dialogue will be...dialogue, and the troops will feel supported."

Sen. Orrin Hatch disagreed with Gage. "Our political will is directly related to the morale of our troops," he said. "Those who seek to, for rhetorical purposes only, assert their support of the troops while communicating their opposition to their mission cannot sever this natural connection between political will and morale." Hatch's views of last week were echoed by Senate Republican this week when they contradicted Pace and Gates' view that Congress' antiwar rhetoric would not damage the morale of US troops.

Sen. Lindsay Graham [R-SC] a US Army Reserve Lt. Colonel, said he was outraged that Pace and Gates said that US troops would "understand" the rhetoric of the antiwar crowd and although the far left is attempting to generate the same type of contempt for the military that the Vietnam War era far left politicians did in the late 1960s and early 1970s, or that the military wouldn't be disheartened by the symbolic no-confidence vote against Bush since it is also a "no-confidence vote in them.". "The war on terror," Graham told the Washington Times, "is about headlines. The last thing we need to do is give [terrorists] a headline by our political action that would embolden them, and by contrast, would be hurtful to our men and women in the theater trying to execute the new strategy. The only way we will ever lose in Iraq is if our will to succeed is broken."

The tactics now employed by the far left antiwar majority in the House and Senate to convince the American people that all is lost in Iraq is precisely the same tactics used by the antiwar liberals during Vietnam. And, where the far left was afraid to openly strip the funding of US military operations in Vietnam, they succeeded did the next best thing. They did exactly what Hillary Clinton and the far left is proposing today—setting up "realistic" timelines for "progress" by the Iraqi government in assuming control of the streets, and ending the uprisings by both Shi'a and Sunni insurgents by a certain date or losing the financial support of the American government.

For some reason, the American people still haven't connected the dots. When the antiwar liberals that controlled Congress succeeded in killing promised funding to the South Vietnamese government, it took less 3 months for that government to collapse. In April, 1975 the Viet Cong, the North Vietnamese regular army and the Chinese overran the nation, forcing the United States to evacuate its military forces. The war in Vietnam ended with the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975. Because of the antiwar liberals in Congress, the United States of America suffered its first military defeat—at the hands of an enemy so technologically inferior it should have been destroyed in 90 days or less during the Johnson years.

Employing the Vietnam tactics, the liberals succeeded in doing in 2004-07 what they did in 1972-75—they emboldened a defeated enemy to continue fighting by suggesting if they killed enough Americans, we would simply quit the battlefield and go home. With everything to gain and not much to lose, the defeated Sunnis and the Shi'ites under Iranian strawman Sheik Moqtada al-Sadr launched separate insurgencies to destabilize the government in an attempt—each for their own totalitarian motives—to drive the Americans out of Iraq.

Evidence that this is what is happening is found in the heightened level of insurgency activity in Iraq—and the fact that Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops have been captured in Iraq. The same is true with measured increases in attacks by the Taliban in eastern and southeastern Afghanistan. Taliban attacks increased 200% in December. Even in face of a dramatic increase in the number of attacks and increased casualties, Sen. Edward Kennedy denounced the statements as "...a desperate attempt by [Gates] to bolster the president's policy," with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer rubberstamping a Democratic demand that Bush begin a phased pullout from Iraq within six months.

Copyright © 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved.