This picture was drawn by the IOTUS (Illustrator of the United States) only moments before the tragic demise of TOTUS the 1st.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obamas_home_teleprompter

http://www.theonion.com/content/infograph/obama_weighs_options_in

November 18, 2009 | Issue 45•52

Obama Weighs Options In Afghanistan

Pressure is mounting on President Obama to make a decision on the future of Afghanistan.

Here are the options currently being considered:

• Not only learn the lessons of Vietnam, but apply them as well
• Visit; act fascinated by their rugs
• Remove every American soldier; see if fighting continues
• Legalize gambling, as that’s worked well domestically
• Thunderdome-style battle to the death between Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and Afghanistan Taliban leader Mullah Omar
• Call the Taliban pretending to be the Prophet Muhammad and tell them to stop ambushing American soldiers
• Announce you’re raising troop levels by 15,000, then pull everybody out, then come back with a half million soldiers, in the process convincing al-Qaeda that you’re loco and not to be messed with
• Arm and finance a group of religious fighters
• Back the murderous drug-dealing warlord with the most government officials in his pocket

Whether you carry a gun or have one in your home for self defense, if you are ever involved in a shooting below is some good advice to keep you out of the pokey after the fact.  Even if you are completely in the right, your words, whether written or spoken, need to be chosen very carefully.  Shooting your mouth off when you are still pumped full of adrenaline is NEVER a good idea.  Venting your emotions about the attack or the individual who attacked you to others isn’t a good idea either, as it could put them in a position of having to make statements that might not look so good for you.

Just remember, even though you are in the right, the liberals and self-proclaimed victims are out to get you.  They will twist ANYTHING you say to portray you as the bad guy.

Summary:  Shut up and lawyer-up.

It Doesn’t Have to Make Sense: It’s Just the Law – Statements

“…Written statement: a VERY BAD idea! ….”
BY K.L. JAMISON

In 1996, an unhappy consumer attacked the City Marshal of Lancaster, Missouri with a hammer.(1) The Marshal defended himself and later vented his adrenaline to the responding Sheriff stating, “I hope the son-of-a-bitch is dead.” This led to the Marshal’s conviction for involuntary manslaughter and a sentence of seven years in prison.(2) The story had a happy ending, but a story four years and tens of thousands of dollars in the making, and not a story the Marshal enjoyed very much. The Marshal might have avoided the worst part of the story had he not confused his right to remain silent with the right of free speech.

In the movie, Under Pressure, a woman tried to explain the stalking and implied threats of a neighbor. After a disorganized and unconvincing recitation of ambiguous events she lamely concludes, “I’m not a very good story teller.” Most people tell stories badly. In the aftermath of self-defense there can be a giddy stream of consciousness statement which has more to do with the effects of adrenaline than reality. The basic legal advice is “DON’T.”

The first question is, “What is a statement?” In a nation which counts exotic dancing as freedom of speech, a statement is also broadly construed. In 1996, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that a suspect’s refusal to uncross his legs during questioning could be taken as a statement when later charged with murder.(3) In a separate death penalty case, the court found that the defendant had purchased a used car which sported the bumper sticker, “I’m the person your mother warned you about.” At trial the prosecution argued that the fact he did not remove this bumper sticker revealed something about his character. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that it was perfectly acceptable for the state to kill this man, in part, because of his failure to remove the bumper sticker.(4) One can imagine the effect of bumper stickers bought in jest such as, “Keep Honking, I’m Reloading.” If this case does not also inspire a re-evaluation of one’s T-shirt collection, nothing will.

There is also the problem of nicknames. As of this writing, a rapper who rejoices in the stage name “C-Murder” is on trial for murder. If I were asked to defend a man named “Murder” or any variation thereof, I would charge more. Massad Ayoob testified in favor of a police officer who had killed a felon nicknamed “Snake.” Captain Ayoob slipped the nickname into his testimony which seems to have had an effect on the jury.

Written statement, a VERY BAD idea!

There is a cynical defense attorney saying: “Anything you say will be misquoted and used against you.” In the movie, My Cousin Vinnie, two, unfortunate Yankees are suspected of murder and during questioning are accused of shooting a clerk. One incredulously asked, “I shot the clerk?” This is taken down and read in court as a confession. Theater audiences laughed, defense attorneys smiled and nodded. There have even been cases where comments by other persons have been attributed to the defendant, and used against him; complete silence is the only bulwark against these mistakes.

The first statement is the 911 call. These calls are recorded and if the call sounds bad for the defendant, it will be played over and over again at trial. In one case, a man cocked his double-action revolver and went after a person who was shooting out windows. When he caught up with the threat he extended his revolver and in the process tripped the light single action trigger pull; arguably an accidental discharge. His 911 call records him saying that he thought he had just shot someone. The 911 operator, trained to keep him on the line and keep him talking, asked why he thought he had shot someone. The man replied, “Lady, I think I’m a pretty good shot.” This callous-sounding statement took accident off the table and the man had to live or die with a self-defense case. This all important introduction to law enforcement must be planned in advance.

The first words out of the caller’s mouth should be the location of the incident. If the battery then dies, or the minutes run out, or some other technological catastrophe occurs the authorities will know that something of interest is at that location, and the caller’s cell phone records can prove that he or she made the call. The next statement is the caller’s name. The core of the 911 call consists of three sentences:

“He tried to kill me.”
“I was never so scared in my life.”
“Send an ambulance.”(5)

The first sentence serves to introduce the roles of the parties, the caller is the victim, the other person the attacker. Being in reasonable fear of life or limb is a prerequisite to acting in self-defense. The phrase “I was never so scared…” is to preclude the prosecutor from claiming that the citizen never said he was scared “until he talked to a lawyer.”(6) The phrase “Send an ambulance” says that the caller does not want anyone to die.

When the police arrive, they will want a more elaborate statement; this should consist only of:

1. He attacked me.
2. I will sign a complaint.
3. There is the evidence.
4. I WANT A LAWYER.

Good Advice.

This restates part of the 911 call and points out critical evidence. One cannot expect the “CSI” team to be called out to pick up every fiber and hair. If a real forensic team routinely conducted the investigations shown on television, its budget would last about a week.

The demand for a lawyer is both the best thing one can do, and a damaging statement. Anyone who is questioned by police has the right to a lawyer; this includes victims. The problem is that the police, and potential jurors, take a demand for a lawyer as evidence of something to hide. To compound the problem, the victim’s decision to remain silent and demand for a lawyer can be used again him or her in court. In the criminal system, one does not have rights, until arrested; it doesn’t have to make sense, it’s just the law. It is a left-handed fortune that people who act in self-defense are routinely arrested. It may be called something else such as “detained” or given the “Alice in Wonderland” explanation “You’re being handcuffed for your own protection.” Whenever a person is not allowed to leave, he is placed under arrest regardless of descriptive terms. If one is arrested, generations of TV shows advise us to remain silent.

Western Missouri Shooters Alliance President Sheila Stokes-Begley employs a cell phone and CZ75 compact.

If the circumstances are ambivalent, simply state a fear of being sued, and demand a lawyer to protect against frivolous litigation. Bernard Goetz was acquitted of criminal charges in the shooting of four thugs on the subway, but was sued for $43 million and lost. Police are frequently sued by criminals and the explanation is likely to ring a bell.

Self-defense cases bring out the curious, the media in the forefront. Comments to friends will be confused and used against you, comments to family will be mistaken and used against you. Both family and friends can be subpoenaed and forced to testify against you. Comments to the media will be sensationalized and this is never good. The New York City prosecutor’s office had determined not to charge Bernard Goetz, until he made unwise remarks to the news media. At some point a statement must be made. The impression is that the earlier a statement is made, the more reliable it is. In reality, the earlier a statement is made, the less reliable it is. The effects of stress will confuse the statement and even cause temporary amnesia. Inaccuracies in the initial statement will convince authorities that the survivor is both a liar and a murderer. A lawyer must be immediately engaged to organize the statement.

A lawyer is a professional storyteller. He will not tell the client how to lie, he will tell him how to tell the truth, a more complicated process than most imagine. The statement must contain facts which track the elements of self-defense. In the case of defense of home or defense of other persons, there may be other elements as well. Knowledge of the assailant’s reputation for violence would certainly be relevant. The most important element to include is fear. A police statement is no place for macho posturing. One cannot use violence against another person unless in fear of life or limb. The survivor must go over every detail of why he or she was terrified, weak-kneed, pants-pissing afraid. If one does foul one’s pants, a not uncommon event, make sure that goes into the statement. No matter how ineffective a storyteller the survivor might be, the jury is sure to believe that.

(1)1 A City Marshal is a law enforcement officer position used in Third and Fourth Class towns in Missouri.
(2) State v Beeler, 12 S.W.3d 294 (Mo. 2000) at 296.
(3) State v Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313 (Mo en banc 1996) at 325.
(4) State v Six, 805 S.W.2d 159 (Mo. Ban. 1991) at 167.
(5) Taken from the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance “Stay Out of Jail” card, see www.WMSA.net.
(6) A claim I have heard, even when false.

Kevin L. Jamison is an attorney in the Kansas City Missouri area concentrating in the area of weapons and self-defense.

This information is for legal information purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For specific questions you should consult a qualified attorney.

I couldn’t say it any better, so I just highlighted the salient points.

God Bless

A National Nightmare, Indeed

By David Limbaugh
November 24, 2009

In a Democratic fundraising speech in Iowa over the weekend, Vice President Joe Biden told party loyalists that opponents of the Obama administration’s agenda “should be worried about us, for we are their worst nightmare.” Duh.

Finally we can agree on something, Joe. Even the liberal New York Times reports that at the current level of federal spending, the annual interest on the national debt will exceed $700 billion by 2019 — compared with $202 billion this year. Some forecasters predict it will be much higher. This additional half-trillion dollars a year in interest is more than our current combined expenditures on education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Oh, and the Times isn’t even factoring in the cap-and-trade nightmare you and Barack have in store for us, Joe — you know, that urgent legislation to catapult the nation back into Third World status based on hysteria generated by fraudulent science and corrupt zealots and politicians.

Nor is the Times including in its calculations the additional debt that would result from Obamacare.

Joe, when The New York Times is sounding the warnings over the exploding national debt, you and Barack insist not only on not reversing your disastrous course but also on making it worse. How can reasonable people assume anything other than that you are trying to run this nation into the ground financially?

Don’t dare keep telling us your hyper-ambitious spending is a necessary evil required to deliver us from a financial crisis you inherited. Whatever crisis we face is debt-related, purely and simply. Everything else is manageable. Yet you all are deliberately increasing our indebtedness as far as the eye can see, without the slightest pretense of scaling back in this millennium. In fact, you are laboring to establish further entitlements and institutional changes that would generate exponential burdens on our debt and would be enormously difficult for any responsible and financially sane successor to undo, much less reverse.

Adding insult to injury, you are spending this money not to improve (“stimulate”) the economy — which even the most politically and economically illiterate should now realize — but to restructure American society, dismantle our free enterprise system and impose in its place a command-control economy and political system — in which life’s decisions, including over our private health care, are dictated from Washington.

But while you and Barack are hoisting your wrecking ball, could you please spare us the pseudo-sanctimony and transparent populism in telling us that it will take “grit and determination” to outlast the “special interests” on Wall Street and the insurance industry to pass your destructive agenda?

You both know better. When you have to bribe Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., with a larcenous $300 million addition to your Senate bill (I know, you’re pretending it’s just Harry Reid’s bill) that’s specifically earmarked just for her state — at the expense of the rest of the states and the national interest — something smells to high heaven. You could at least have the decency to admit this provision to raise the bill’s cost by increasing Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster” is not even motivated to help Louisiana, but to buy Landrieu’s vote. And you want to talk to us, Joe, about the corruption of special interests?

Special interests, Joe? Is that how you describe 56 percent of the American people, who now oppose Obama’s plan? And that’s without even knowing the half of it. Or maybe you would describe them as dangerous protesters or domestic terrorists?

But, Joe, I do applaud you for your candor in telling your fawning supporters, “I can tell you with absolute certainty: (Barack’s) resolve has never waivered for one instant.”

Bull’s-eye, Joe. You and Barack believe you know better than the American people what is good for them, and you only care what they think to the extent that it makes your job more difficult when they oppose you.

But if you told the truth about your plan — that it would cost dramatically more than you pretend (especially considering that the benefits wouldn’t begin to be paid until 2014 and that taxes would increase almost immediately); that the public option would subsume private care; that the federal government would ration care; that medical choice would be drastically reduced; that you are still trying to secure federal funding for abortion; that you intend to cover currently illegal immigrants; that after all your hype about promoting this bill to achieve universal coverage, millions would remain uninsured and penalized, to boot; that medical quality would be seriously reduced; and that overall costs would increase — your support for the bill would be in the single digits.

So keep chanting it, Joe; you are indeed a national nightmare.

—

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book “Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today’s Democratic Party” was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.DavidLimbaugh.com.

Mr. Sowell does an excellent job of explaining the why politicians do what they do.

Politicians think we are all too stupid to connect the dots.  We are not stupid, but we have been asleep while they pillaged.

We must prove these power hungry usurpers wrong in the days to come.  We must expose them for who they really are and for what they have done.

Solving Whose Problem?

By Thomas Sowell
November 24, 2009

No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems– of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.

Many of the things the government does that may seem stupid are not stupid at all, from the standpoint of the elected officials or bureaucrats who do these things.

The current economic downturn that has cost millions of people their jobs began with successive administrations of both parties pushing banks and other lenders to make mortgage loans to people whose incomes, credit history and inability or unwillingness to make a substantial down payment on a house made them bad risks.

Was that stupid? Not at all. The money that was being put at risk was not the politicians’ money, and in most cases was not even the government’s money. Moreover, the jobs that are being lost by the millions are not the politicians’ jobs– and jobs in the government’s bureaucracies are increasing.

No one pushed these reckless mortgage lending policies more than Congressman Barney Frank, who brushed aside warnings about risk, and said in 2003 that he wanted to “roll the dice” even more in the housing markets. But it would very rash to bet against Congressman Frank’s getting re-elected in 2010.

After the cascade of economic disasters that began in the housing markets in 2006 and spread into the financial markets in Wall Street and even overseas, people in the private sector pulled back. Banks stopped making so many risky loans. Home buyers began buying homes they could afford, instead of going out on a limb with “creative”– and risky– financing schemes to buy homes that were beyond their means.

But politicians went directly in the opposite direction. In the name of “rescuing” the housing market, Congress passed laws enabling the Federal Housing Administration to insure more and bigger risky loans– loans where there is less than a 4 percent down payment.

A recent news story told of three young men who chipped in a total of $33,000 to buy a home in San Francisco that cost nearly a million dollars. Why would a bank lend that kind of money to them on such a small down payment? Because the loan was insured by the Federal Housing Administration.

The bank wasn’t taking any risk. If the three guys defaulted, the bank could always collect the money from the Federal Housing Administration. The only risk was to the taxpayers.

Does the Federal Housing Administration have unlimited money to bail out bad loans? Actually there have been so many defaults that the FHA’s own reserves have dropped below where they are supposed to be. But not to worry. There will always be taxpayers, not to mention future generations to pay off the national debt.

Very few people are likely to connect the dots back to those members of Congress who voted for bigger mortgage guarantees and bailouts by the FHA. So the Congressmen’s and the bureaucrats’ jobs are safe, even if millions of other people’s jobs are not.

Congressman Barney Frank is not about to cut back on risky mortgage loan guarantees by the FHA. He recently announced that he plans to introduce legislation to raise the limit on FHA loan guarantees even more.

Congressman Frank will make himself popular with people who get those loans and with banks that make these high-risk loans where they can pocket the profits and pass the risk on to the FHA.

So long as the taxpayers don’t understand that all this political generosity and compassion are at their expense, Barney Frank is an odds-on favorite to get re-elected. The man is not stupid.

What is stupid is believing that politicians are trying to solve our problems, instead of theirs.

As for the FHA running low on money, that is not about to stop the gravy train, certainly not with an election coming up in 2010.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is also running low on money. But that is not going to stop them from insuring bank accounts up to a quarter of a million dollars. It would be stupid for them to stop with an election coming up in 2010.

—

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.
+

“We have always been here. Since the American Revolution. We will always be here, waiting in the shadows ’til America needs us again. We are your Veterans and we love you more than our own lives, America.” –Anonymous

This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now.  He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don’t believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos’n Mate. Now I live in a “rest home” located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can’t figure out what country you are the president of. You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

” We’re no longer a Christian nation”

” America is arrogant” – (Your wife even announced to the world,”America is mean-spirited. ” Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I’d say shame on the both of you, but I don’t think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said,” America hasn’t lived up to her ideals.”

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn’t mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don’t think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don’t, I’ll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don’t want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight? You don’t mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don’t want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you’re the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you’re not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you’re thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.You’re not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That’s not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now. And I sure as hell don’t want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes

When a 95 year old hero of the “the Greatest Generation” stands up and speaks out like this, I think we owe it to him to send his words to as many Americans as we can.

Please pass it on.

Those who would take our liberty from us are growing impatient.  They have seen a door opened to them with the election of the mOssiah, Chairman Maobama, and they are emboldened by America’s forced dash towards socialism.  Yet you, the American people, still stand in their way.

It is you, the American people, who can stop and unseat our corrupt elected representatives.

It is you, the American people, who can stop Barack Hussein Obama from pushing us off the cliff of socialism.

It is you, the American people, though it may be difficult, who can recover from the near destruction of our economy.

It is you, the American people, the people of the greatest nation the earth has ever known, the people who made America the shining beacon of freedom around the globe, who stand in the way of an unelected global government who will strip your freedom and wealth from you.

The true agenda behind the global warming/climate change agenda has been revealed by its own proponents.  Global governance is their aim.  On the surface that can only mean lowering your standard of living, taking your wealth, taking your freedom, and giving it to those who have not earned it.  Those pushing for global governance have told us they want to do this.  But what aren’t they telling us?  As is always the case with any liberal proposal, what they tell you and what they really mean are two entirely different things.  The chances that what they steal from us will ever make it into the hands of the African tribesmen or Pygmies in the outback of Australia is remote at best.  They will never see any benefit from wealth stolen from us.  That wealth will only be used to line the pockets and consolidate the power of those who form this global government.

What can we do to aid the less fortunate around the world?  Can it be done without a one-world government?  How can it be done?  The answer is simple.

American exceptionalism and capitalism.

America has ALWAYS been the most generous nation on earth.  We have ALWAYS given more than all other nations combined to those less fortunate nations.  We have ALWAYS been the first on the scene providing aid when there is a natural disaster somewhere in the world.  How have we been able to do this?  Because our American ingenuity, and capitalist free market system have always produced more than we need.  When that system is destroyed, there will be nothing left to give.  When you destroy the wealthy and those who produce wealth, you are left with nothing a-la “Atlas Shrugged.”  Obama and the rest of the liberal elites are using class warfare to justify their increased taxation of the wealthy and middle class.  I will leave you with this short story that explains quite well what is happening.

How Taxes Work . . .(not an original work, author unknown)

Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men, the poorest, would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man, the richest, would pay $59.

That’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until one day the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers?  How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. “But he got $7!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, “I only saved a dollar, too . . . It’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man, “why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Where would that leave the rest?

Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

EU President claims 2009 first year of global governance

November 25, 9:38 AM
St. Louis Conservative Examiner
Andrea Simoncic

According to recent statements by the EU’s President, Herman van Rompuy, the year 2009 will mark the first year of global governance. The EU President, a former Belgian Prime Minister, mentioned this in a recent speech upon confirmation of his presidency. Said the newly confirmed EU President, “2009 is the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.” This claim has given rise to fears of a possible coup of the American government if the proposed Copenhagen Climate Treaty is signed by President Obama in December.

The climate treaty, it is theorized, would mandate that wealthier nations redistribute up to 2% of their annual gross domestic product to third-world countries in reparation for so-called “climate debt.” In other words, it mandates a handout from richer nations to poorer nations, based on the spurious scientific evidence of global warming. Evidence which has recently proven to be falsified, according to the leak of information from Hadley CRU.

The foundation for these fears that U.S. Sovereignty will be usurped result from a section on governance in the treaty, beginning on page 22 of the proposal. Some believe it would create an unelected world government with direct control over all financial and trading markets, plus the direct power to intervene over the heads of elected governments in the economic and environmental affairs of the nations which sign the Treaty. It is on this basis that some fear the U.S. may lose its sovereignty if President Obama signs this treaty, and Congress ratifies it into law. Among those who warn against the treaty is British Lord Monckton, the former science advisor to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Whether or not these fears and suspicions are well-founded, however, the new EU President nonetheless has displayed a worrying presumption in regards to other nations. Certainly Americans would do well to be vigilant regarding this matter, particularly concerning the devaluation of the dollar, and China’s past urgings to accept a global currency. Yet America has not surrendered her sovereignty, despite the EU President’s implied assumptions that America, along with other nations, will indeed bow to the authority of a one world government in the future. Indeed, many recent reports have sounded the death knell for this treaty. Regardless, America must stand firm against those who would seize or coerce unrightful power; American must not and cannot cede its sovereignty to any person or entity. That means you, too, President van Rompuy.

For more information, please visit:

UN Framework for Convention for Climate Change (Most recent version of the proposal)

Obama says ’step closer’ to climate deal

All hope is lost for Copenhagen climate treaty, British officials say

APEC Concedes Copenhagen Climate Treaty Out of Reach

Instrument of Repudiation Petition Opposing Treaty of Copenhagen
+

Ed Begley, Jr. You’ve all seen him. His most recent “work” is the show that displays him living “green.”

I respect his choice to live the way he wants to live, but when faced with strong evidence that calls his beliefs into question he responds the way liberals typically do. Rather than respond with facts of his own, he attempts to shout you down and intimidate you. It’s kind of like those little rice-rocket cars you see all over the place. The guys who can’t afford the real engine mods to give them more speed simply modify the exhaust to make the car louder. More noise doesn’t make you faster, and in Mr. Begley’s case doesn’t make you right.

When the documents discussed in this interview were released, an atomic bomb was dropped in the middle of the man-made global warming/climate change camp. Yet rather than respond to the content of the documents, the proponents of man-made climate change simply attack the people who released the documents, and the act of releasing them.

The “scientists” in question (many of whom are politicians, not scientists) have been proven to have hidden evidence that would contradict their position on global warming. They are wrong, as is Mr. Begley, and they are supporting a movement that is designed merely to take away your money and freedom.