Unveiled! Hawaii's 1961 long-form birth certificate

BORN IN THE USA?
Real documents include name of doctor, hospital

Posted: July 28, 20099:35 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Eleanor Nordyke displays photostats of her twin daughters' birth certificates (Courtesy Honolulu Advertiser)

Images of two 1961 Hawaii birth certificates similar to the one President Obama purportedly has on file have now been unveiled.

The Honolulu Advertiser published photostats of the original long-form birth certificates of twin daughters born to Eleanor Nordyke at Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital Aug. 5, 1961, one day after Obama was supposedly born at the same facility.

The Nordykes' certificates include information missing from the short-form document for Obama published online, including the name of the hospital, the name of the attending physician, name and address of the parents, the race of the parents and the race of the baby.

As WND reported yesterday, Hawaii's director of health responded to the growing controversy over the White House' refusal to release Obama's original long-form birth certificate by issuing a statement about the document in apparent contravention of Hawaiian law.

Dr. Chiyome Fukino declared she has seen the "original birth records" that verify Obama was born in Hawaii and is a "natural-born American citizen," the Honolulu Advertiser reported.
Join in WND's Fedex campaign and tell Obama you don't buy his state-run media coverup!

But in two separate telephone interviews with WND, Janice Okubo, the health department's public information officer, told WND that Hawaii law prohibited her from commenting on the birth records of any specific person.

WND also reported the Hawaii Department of Heath affirmed that no paper birth certificate records were destroyed when the department moved to electronic record-keeping in 2001.

The statement to WND by Janice Okubo, public information officer for state's health department, contradicted CNN U.S. President Jon Klein, who ordered host Lou Dobbs to quit discussing Obama's birth certificate on the air. Klein insisted the issue was "dead" because Obama's original long-form birth certificate had been destroyed by the Hawaii DOH in the conversion to electronic files.

A close examination of the birth certificates issued by Kapi'olani to the Nordyke twins shows the registration number precedes the number given Obama, even though the future president was born a day earlier.

Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

According to a version of Obama's purported short-form certificate available from FactCheck.org, Obama was given a higher registration number than the Nordyke twins. The online image indicates the number is No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961.

The middle figure in Obama's purported registration also is different than the Nordykes'. Obama's is 1961, indicating the year, while the Nordykes' is merely 61.

One explanation for the out-of-order serial numbers might be that several serialized stacks of birth certificates were made available at different hospitals.

Another possibility is that Obama's number is not a genuine registration number created in 1961 but was issued when the short-form document was generated during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Eleanor Nordyke told WND she thinks her twins got lower numbers because she went into the hospital Aug. 4, 1961, and was in labor for 20 hours before she delivered. She speculates that Ann Dunham came in after her and was given a later number, even though Dunham's baby was born earlier. Nordyke's twins were not born until the afternoon of the next day.

WND was unable to receive a response from Hawaii officials regarding the state's procedure for issuing registration numbers.

Meanwhile, an image of an apparently fraudulent Kenyan certificate of birth circulated on the Web today from an unknown source. It alleged Obama was born in Mombasa. But a contributor at FreeRepublic.com debunked it, declaring "Busted!"

He pointed out that the background text, in Dutch, explained, in a rough translation, "This is not a government document. This is political commentary."

It's not just Obama's original birth certificate at issue. WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

Note: Members of the news media wishing to interview Jerome Corsi, Joseph Farah, Joe Kovacs, Chelsea Schilling, Les Kinsolving or Bob Unruh on this issue, please contact WND.

Exploiting public ignorance

Posted: July 29, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
by Walter Williams

"How can political commentators, politicians and academics get away with statements like 'Reagan budget deficits,' 'Clinton budget surplus,' 'Bush budget deficits' or 'Obama's tax increases'? The only answer is that they, or the people who believe such statements, are ignorant, conniving or just plain stupid. Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution reads: 'All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.' A president has no power to raise or lower taxes. He can propose tax measures or veto them, but since Congress can ignore presidential proposals and override a presidential veto, it has the ultimate taxing power. The same principle applies to spending. A president cannot spend a dime that Congress does not first appropriate. As such, presidents cannot be held responsible for budget deficits or surpluses. That means that credit for a budget surplus or blame for budget deficits rests on the congressional majority at the time.

Thinking about today's massive deficits, we might ask: Where in the U.S. Constitution is Congress given the authority to do anything about the economy? Between 1787 and 1930, we have had both mild and severe economic downturns that have ranged from one to seven years. During that time there was no thought that Congress should enact New Deal legislation or stimulus packages along with massive corporate handouts. It took the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations to massively intervene in the economy. As a result, they turned what might have been a two or three-year sharp downturn into a 16-year depression that ended in 1946. How they accomplished that is covered very well in a book authored by Jim Powell titled "FDR's Folly." Here's my question: Were the presidents in office and Congresses assembled from 1787 to 1930 ignorant of their constitutional authority to manage and save the economy?

If you asked President Obama or a congressman to cite the specific constitutional authority for the bailouts, handouts and corporate takeover, I'd bet the rent money that they would say that their authority lies in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that reads: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Impost, Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." They'd tell you that their authority comes from the Constitution's "general welfare" clause. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, explained, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." He later added, 'With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.' Thomas Jefferson said, 'Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.' That means only those powers listed.

The Constitution provides, through Article V, a means by which the Constitution can be altered. My question to my fellow Americans whether they are liberal or conservative: Has the Constitution been amended to permit Congress to manage the economy? I'd also ask that question to members of the U.S. Supreme Court. I personally know of no such amendment. What we're witnessing today is nothing less than a massive escalation in White House and congressional thuggery. Secure in the knowledge that the American people are compliant and willing to cast off the limitations imposed on Washington by the nation's founders, future administrations are probably going to be even more emboldened than Obama and the current Congress.


Like this columnist? Would you like to see him in your local newspaper? Call your local editor.
Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

Obama's 'noble truth' is a lie

Posted: July 17, 20091:00 am Eastern© 2009
by Alan Keyes

" 'Could we,' I said, 'somehow contrive one of those lies that come into being in case of need, of which we were just now speaking, some one noble lie to persuade, in the best case, even the rulers, but if not them, the rest of the city? ... I'll attempt to persuade first the rulers and the soldiers, then the rest of the city, that the rearing and education we gave them were like dreams, they only thought they were undergoing all that was happening to them, while, in truth, at that time, they were under the earth within, being fashioned and reared themselves, and their arms and other tools being crafted. When the job had been completely finished, then the earth which is their mother, sent them up. And now, as though the land they are in were a mother and nurse, they must plan for and defend it, if anyone attacks, and they must think of the other citizens as brothers and born of the earth.' (Plato's "Republic," Allan Bloom's translation, III/414b-e.)

'All those in the city who happen to be older than 10 they will send out to the country; and taking over their children, they will rear them. …' (Plato's "Republic," Ibid. VII/540a.)

'Lester, let's finish this one. Do all of your listeners and the listeners throughout this country the service to which any journalist owes those listeners, and that is the pursuit of the noble truth. And the noble truth is that the president was born in Hawaii, a state of the United States of America.'(White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, as reported in WND's article, "Now White House joins 'birth hospital' cover-up.")

There was a time when good journalism had a standard consistent with Joe Friday's terse instruction, 'All we want are the facts, ma'am.' That was the pursuit of the simple truth. When I read the phrase 'the noble truth' in Robert Gibbs' smugly evasive riposte to Les Kinsolving's question about the president's shifting birthplace, I couldn't help but reflect on the difference between the two.

This brought to mind the famous passage in Plato's "Republic" (cited above) in which Socrates describes the "noble lie" that must be told to the guardians entrusted with ruling and defending the ideal polity he and his colleagues dream up in their efforts to discover the meaning of justice. Of course, from the perspective of those for whom the lie is intended, it is rather a "noble truth" than a lie, which explains why the passage came to my mind. The difference between the simple truth and the noble truth is that the noble truth is actually a lie.

Of course, in its Platonic context the difference isn't quite so simple. The "noble lie" is supposed to reflect the true good of the polity. Without being in fact true, it is meant to respect the truth, or at least to serve a purpose that does so. You might say that the "noble truth" is whatever you say on account of the good you aim to achieve. In this sense, it's rather like the moral perspective that often arises in relation to it: the view that the ends justify the means.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born citizen" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join over 400,000 others and sign up now!

I'm well-known for my view that the Obama faction represents a superficially updated 21st century re-visioning of 20th century communism. In light of this belief, Gibbs' allusion to "the noble truth" (which is to say a lie that serves the cause) doesn't surprise me. After all, this was the mindset that led to the peculiar attributes of party-line journalism characteristic of the old Soviet Union. Truth was changeable. What was "true" in the so-called news stories in Pravda had to do with the changes in strategy or tactics dictated by whoever happened to have the upper hand in the internecine power struggles of the Communist Party's elite. People who appeared in the photographs of an event one day would be erased from them on another. Events themselves were treated in much the same way.

This is precisely the kind of propaganda choreography we are seeing in the Obama faction's handling of the issues surrounding their failure to establish Obama's constitutional eligibility for the presidency. I think Gibbs' reference to "the noble truth" was his way of warning Les Kinsolving (and of course all other journalists) that they will have to get with the party line or suffer the consequences.

What consequences? We get hints of the near future in the fate of the U.S. Army reserve officer who has apparently lost his job because he felt it his sworn duty to demand the facts about Obama's birth before accepting Obama's authority to act as his commander in chief. ("Army warrior terminated from job after questioning Obama eligibility.") His livelihood was vulnerable because he works for a defense contractor.

But with the government grabbing the whip hand over more and more of our economy, the day isn't far off when everyone's livelihood will be subject to government sanction, in one way or another. Access to work, housing and health care will be dependent on structures ultimately subject to the dictation of those who control political and bureaucratic power. And if the handling of the so-called "stimulus" money is any indication, there will be no safeguards against abuse of this control. Then we will all devote ourselves to the governing faction's "pursuit of the noble truth," or else.

The brainwashed American elites buying into the Obama faction's pseudo-Platonic intellectual poison appear to have forgotten the wisdom of the American founders. The founders' approach to government was based on truths derived from observing human experience, rather than "noble" lies forcefully imposed by dictatorial elites. Such experience warned that unchecked power would lead to brutal oppression, no matter the lofty goals and promising rhetoric of those to whom it is entrusted. Plato tacitly acknowledges this severity when he conjures up the ultimate requirement of his Republic's "ideal" regime: the removal from society of everyone over 10 years old (i.e., anyone who refuses to submit to superior power the way very young children must). Given the massive atrocities perpetrated by the totalitarian ideologues of the 20th century, the idea of such large-scale purges is no longer a Platonic one.

I fail to see anything noble in the spectacle of a free people surrendering its constitutional liberty to a regime based upon oppressive lies. In fact, such surrender confirms that in our present merely human condition, true events can be ugly and ignoble.

Ironically, Socrates' "noble lie" to his ruling class also had to do with pretending that the circumstances of their birth qualified them to be the rulers and guardians of the regime. True origins are important; which is, I think, why our founders recognized that the human right to constitutional government originates from a source beyond the reach of human deception, the Creator God. Whatever Gibbs says, the standard of truthful integrity arises from the same source. So does the courage to uphold it. This is why the issue of Obama's constitutional eligibility for the presidency will keep gaining momentum until the Obama faction stops trying to enforce its "noble truth" and lets the simple facts speak for themselves."


For more from Alan Keyes visit http://loyaltoliberty.com. Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people's sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America's wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America's Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led grass-roots political action.

Congress does something right

By Roy Moore
Posted: July 22, 20091:00 am Eastern

© 2009

During the week following the recent Fourth of July, the United States Congress did something which was not only right, but which also honored that day in July 233 years ago when America was freed from the bondage of tyranny. Both Houses of Congress acknowledged God by ordering the Architect of the Capitol to engrave "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance containing the words "One Nation Under God" in prominent places at the entrance to the new Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, D.C. Despite a price tag of $621 million for the three-story underground facility, such recognitions of our religious heritage were conspicuously absent from the Visitor Center.

Soon thereafter, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a group dedicated to removing any mention of God from the public square, filed suit in a Wisconsin federal court to stop the display of our National Motto and the Pledge, because in their own words, Congress' order "diminishes nonbelievers by making god-belief synonymous with citizenship." Such actions would have shocked John Adams, who helped draft the Declaration of Independence that we celebrate on July 4 and said that Independence Day "ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty."

But truth, logic, or even the law do not seem to bother groups like FFRF. In its press release, FFRF claimed that Congress only added the words "under God" to the Pledge to "deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism," during the Cold War. What Congress actually intended was that, "The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would (also) further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral direction of the Creator." Congress went on to explain that under God "in no way runs contrary to the provisions of the First Amendment to the Constitution. A distinction must be made between the existence of a religion as an institution and a belief in the sovereignty of God." In 1954 until this day Congress, as our lawmaking branch, has consistently represented in the Pledge of Allegiance that the acknowledgment of God is not the establishment of a religion, but is an appropriate part of our law and history.

Judge Roy Moore's classic book about his battle for liberty is now available in paperback: "So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious Freedom"

Unfortunately, the federal courts of our land do not understand the difference between the establishment of a religion prohibited by the First Amendment of the Constitution and the acknowledgment of the sovereignty of God. Instead, they rush around blindly to do everything they can to remove the recognition of God from our lives, from courthouses and school rooms to football games, public parks and state houses. In case after case, federal judges are more than willing to lend a sympathetic ear or gavel to those who want to remove that God upon whom our Founding Fathers staked "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor."

One such case occurred only two days after the FFRF suit was filed. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the South Iron R-1 School District outside St. Louis, Mo., was impermissibly endorsing a particular religion by allowing Gideons International to give away free Bibles to fifth-grade students in public schools. Ayesha Khan, who represented the ultra-liberal Americans United for Separation of Church and State, smugly stated, "This battle has gone on far too long. It is past time for school officials in this district to obey the clear commands of the First Amendment. They must respect the rights of parents and the constitutional separation of church and state."

For once I must agree with Khan: This battle has gone on far too long! The federal courts must stop ruling on "empathy" and feelings of those before their court who are offended at the recognition of a sovereign God. The federal courts need to respect the rights of the great majority of the American people who believe in God and recognize that the only purpose of the religion clause of the First Amendment is to preserve the rights of conscience given to us by the Creator.

Rep. Louis Rabaut, who introduced Joint Resolution 243 before the House regarding the placement of "Under God" in our pledge, explained in the Congressional Record of Feb. 12, 1954, that "Children and Americans of all ages must know that this is one Nation which under God means liberty and justice for all." Thomas Jefferson would have wholeheartedly agreed, for he stated, "God who gave us life gave us liberty." He then asked, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?"

On the Fourth of July and throughout the year Americans must proudly proclaim that this is One Nation Under God with liberty and justice for all! It wouldn't hurt the courts to recognize that truth either.

Judge Roy Moore is the chairman of the Foundation for Moral Law in Montgomery, Ala. He is the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who was removed from office in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument he had placed in the Alabama Judicial Building to acknowledge God. Moore's classic book about his battle for liberty is now available in paperback: "So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious Freedom."

The Racism of Diversity

A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2009

The U.S. Naval Academy's PowerPoint display explains diversity by saying, "Diversity is all the different characteristics and attributes of individual sailors and civilians which enhance the mission readiness of the Navy," adding that: "Diversity is more than equal opportunity, race, gender or religion. Diversity is the understanding of how each of us brings different skills, talents and experiences to the fight -- and valuing those differences. Leveraging diversity creates an environment of excellence and continuous improvement to remove artificial achievement barriers and value the contribution of all participants." Admiral Gary Roughead, chief of Naval Operations, says that "diversity is the No. 1 priority" at the academy.
Diversity at the Naval Academy, as at most academic institutions, is not about equal opportunity but a race and sex spoils system to achieve what the Navy brass see as a pleasing race and sex mix. They accomplish that vision by the removal of "artificial achievement barriers." Let's go over what the Naval Academy sees as an artificial achievement barrier. A black candidate with B and C grades, with no particular leadership qualities, and 500 on both portions of the SAT, is virtually guaranteed admittance. A white student, who's not an athlete, with such scores is deemed not qualified.
Many black students are admitted to the Naval Academy through remedial training at the Naval Academy Preparatory School (NAPS) in Newport, R.I., which is a one-year post-secondary school. Finishing the year with a 2.0 GPA, a C average, almost guarantees admission to the academy. A C average for remedial work is nothing to write home about. Occasionally, when students don't make the 2.0 GPA target, the target is renegotiated downward. Minority applicants with SAT scores down to the 300s and with Cs and Ds grades (and no particular leadership or athletics) are also admitted after a remedial year at the Naval Academy Preparatory School.
Bruce Fleming, an English professor at the academy for 22 years, teaches a remedial English class and finds that in his spring 2009 class, most of NAPS's students earn Cs and Ds and many are on probation. About seven years ago Professor Fleming was on the admissions board, where the standing instruction is not to write anything down because "everything is 'FOI'able" -- meaning it can be demanded under the Freedom of Information Act. Such an instruction highlights the dishonesty of race preferences. The dishonesty doesn't stop there. The academy will go to great lengths to retain black students. When Professor Fleming charged a black student with plagiarism, he was not properly informed of the hearing and subsequently the student's peer group found him not guilty. Honor violations by black students are usually "remediated."
I suspected that the Naval Academy's diversity agenda would give rise to resentments so I asked Professor Fleming about it. He said there are two levels of resentment. Some black students, who were admitted to the academy meritoriously on the same basis as white students, resent the idea of being seen as having the same academic qualities as blacks who were given preferential treatment, in other words being dumb. Another level of resentment comes from white students who see blacks as being admitted and retained at lower levels of academic performance and being treated with kid gloves. If these whites openly complained about the unequal treatment, they would run the risk of being labeled as racists. This is one of the unappreciated aspects of preferential treatment. It runs the risk of creating racist attitudes, and possibly feelings of racial superiority, among whites and others who were formerly racially neutral.
Colleges and universities with racially preferential admittance policies are doing a great disservice to blacks in another, mostly ignored, way. By admitting poorly prepared blacks, they are helping to conceal the grossly fraudulent education the blacks receive at the K through 12 grades.


Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

"Let It Come!"

by Chuck Baldwin

July 21, 2009

During Patrick Henry's famous "Give me liberty or give me death" speech, he said the following:
"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst and to provide for it."

Later in his historic speech Henry said, "Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, Sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone. It is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable. And let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come!"

Of course, Henry ended his stirring speech with the immortal words, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

(The complete text of Patrick Henry's immortal address on March 23, 1775, is found in my giant compilation of great, historic documents called THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, which may be ordered exclusively at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html )

Many people today (including the vast majority of my Christian brethren) are doing exactly what Patrick Henry said many were doing 234 years ago: they prefer to "shut [their] eyes against a painful truth." Just as in 1775, many today, "having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not."

Serious students of history, however, cannot mistake the similarities between the British Crown in 1775 and the federal government in Washington, D.C., today. In fact, I would argue that federal usurpations of State sovereignty, personal liberty, and constitutional government are far more egregious today than at any time during the reign of old King George III. Were America's Founding Fathers alive today, they would have waged another war for independence years ago. Compared to the violations of liberty by the federal government in 2009, the abridgements of liberty committed by the Crown in 1775 were miniscule. We should all hang our heads in shame that we have not already exerted our right and responsibility as free people to "throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for [our] future security" (Declaration of Independence, Paragraph 2). Were we as righteous as our forebears, we would have already done so.

If we were writing a Declaration of Independence today, in which we would "let Facts be submitted to a candid world," the examples of federal abuse of power would be so multitudinous it would be difficult to contain them to a single document. The question is not, "Has the current federal government become tyrannical?" The question is, "How long will the States continue to tolerate it?"

For example, within the last couple of months, the States of Montana and Tennessee have each passed their own "Firearms Freedom Act." Briefly stated, the bills provide that any firearms or ammunition that are manufactured, sold, and kept within the State are not subject to federal law or federal regulation. Clearly, Montana and Tennessee have the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution on their side.

Of course, the Constitution doesn't matter to the federal government. On July 16 of this year, BATFE Assistant Director Carson Carroll sent an "Open Letter" to all firearms dealers within the States of Tennessee and Montana, telling them in no uncertain terms, "Federal law supersedes the [Tennessee or Montana] Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply."

You see folks, in the minds of the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., there is no such thing as constitutional government. There is no such thing as State autonomy. There is no such thing as balance of power. To the miscreants in Washington, D.C., there is only federal authority. To them, these States United are merely colony-subjects, who must bow to an omnipotent, ubiquitous federal power that knows no limits and no boundaries.

I hope and pray that the Tennessee and Montana governors, State legislatures, and State supreme courts will tell Mr. Carroll "where to go," and will defend their State sovereignties "to the end." And by the same token, I hope and pray that dozens more states will put teeth to their State Sovereignty resolutions and follow the examples of Montana and Tennessee.

Add to the continual usurpations of State sovereignty the fact that both the Republican and Democratic parties in Washington, D.C., have allowed our once-great free enterprise system to become a giant socialist economy, and the outlook only gets bleaker. This is why Republicans in D.C. have no moral credibility in opposing President Barack Obama's Marxist-style universal health care proposals. Under George W. Bush, the Republican Party expanded socialism in America like no administration in recent history. Now they are going to oppose the Democrat version of socialism? What a joke!

The only difference between the economic policies of the Democrats and Republicans in Washington, D.C., is Democrats want to tax-and-spend America into socialism for the benefit of the Welfare State, while Republicans want to borrow-and-spend America into socialism for the benefit of the Warfare State. Neither party wants to confine Washington, D.C., to the prescribed limits of the U.S. Constitution. And neither party in Washington, D.C., is willing to recognize the constitutional authority and autonomy of the States United.

Given the fact that both parties are hell-bent on destroying constitutional government, dismantling State sovereignty, and trampling individual liberties, it seems painfully obvious to me that a war for State independence is inevitable. Just exactly what that means is unknown at this point, but all of the elements and ingredients that existed in 1775 exist today. In fact, in view of the battle currently taking place between Nashville/Helena and Washington, D.C., the war has--for all intents and purposes--already begun. And unlike many of my Christian brethren who want to "shut [their] eyes against a painful truth," I say with Patrick Henry, "Let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come!"

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
© Chuck Baldwin This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090721.html

King Barack?

David Limbaugh

Posted: July 07, 20091:00 am Eastern© 2009

Oh, how quickly times have changed. Just a few short years ago, Democrats were up in arms over King George III's (President George W. Bush's) "unconstitutional" executive power grabs. Where are these people now?

I'll tell you where they are: right in the thick of it, enabling President Barack Obama to consolidate and exercise unprecedented power.

Remember when Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy complained that the constitutional "checks and balances that have served to constrain abuses of power for more than two centuries in this country" were at risk because Republicans controlled the executive and legislative branches? How about Sen. Russ Feingold, who was looking at impeachment as a remedy to keep the president in check and prevent him from acquiring power "like King George III"?
Today these same senators are not just passively mute about Obama's power grabs; they are co-conspirators.

You might think the repeated conservative complaint about Obama's egregious lack of transparency is, by now, a tired talking point. But we're not just referring to minor procedural matters that are substantively inconsequential.

He hasn't just breached his promise to make his legislation available for public preview. He and his congressional cohorts are burying very important matters in legislation.

Don't miss our Founding Fathers' most inspired arguments for constitutional government translated into today's English: "Federalist Papers In Modern Language"

The Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax debacle that just slipped through the House was bad enough, with its mandated broad-based assaults on America's taxpayers, energy and economy in exchange for no appreciable expected environmental benefits. But look at its stealth provision, reported by the Washington Examiner, creating a three-year package of unemployment benefits, a $1,500 job relocation allowance and a health insurance premium subsidy for workers unemployed as a result of this "jobs creation" bill. Unbelievable! How can any congressman who voted for this monstrosity possibly get re-elected?

This was nothing new, though, as you'll recall that Obama's non-stimulative stimulus bill increased unemployment benefits for those not magically benefited by that job creations bill.

Indeed, there are so many Obama abuses I can only chronicle a fraction of them in a short column. But just consider a few others, and ask yourself how long even rank-and-file Democrats can justify supporting such tyrannical madness by this arrogant chief executive, who truly is – as distinguished from Bush – engaged in a daily quest to "dictate" fundamental, structural changes to this nation:

• ABC News reported that a senior White House official said the urgency of extending the expiring U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty "might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate's constitutional role in ratifying treaties." Did you hear that, Sens. Leahy and Feingold?

• President Obama is appointing so many "czars" to help him run the government without the usual accountability of Cabinet-level positions that even Sen. Robert Byrd said this practice "can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances." Byrd's worried, but what do Leahy and Feingold think of Obama's pay czar, who'll have broad discretion over executive pay

• Obama has so insulated himself from ordinary press scrutiny that even liberal journalists Chip Reid and Helen Thomas grilled White House press secretary Robert Gibbs for Obama's "tightly controlled" town hall meeting on health care. During that forum, Obama "coincidentally" called on three people (out of 200) who work with groups trying to pass his health care proposal.
  
• Obama is so intent on bullying our ally Israel that he is breaching a previous Bush administration-negotiated agreement between Israel and the United States to allow some Israeli construction in West Bank settlements to allow for natural growth.
  
• The Obama-Holder Justice Department dismissed a strong case against New Black Panther Party members for billy club-style voter intimidation because the members were intimidating for Obama's election.
  
• Obama and Holder are going to vacate an order of prior Attorney General Michael Mukasey's stating that immigrants facing deportation do not have an automatic right to an effective lawyer.
  
• Obama and Holder are now mirandizing terrorists on the battlefield.
  
• Some have questioned whether Obama-Holder ordered the FBI to "back off" anti-terror investigations of radicalized Muslim converts, such as the one who police say shot two military recruiters in Little Rock, Ark.
  
• Obama's auto task force used "intimidation tactics" against Chrysler's senior bondholders and called their Democratic lawyer, Tom Lauria, a "terrorist" for refusing to accept its offer outright. Where, by the way, were Leahy and Feingold – and all the liberal media – when Obama's deal involved an executive-forced transfer of ownership from shareholders and creditors to Obama's favored unions? Were they also unbothered by claims of Chrysler dealers that they were threatened and lied to?
  
• Obama's thugs fired AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin and slandered him as virtually demented because he blew the whistle on the corrupt practices of Obama's buddies.
  

To say this is scratching the surface is a monumental exaggeration.


Like this columnist? Would you like to see him in your local newspaper? Call your local editor.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was recently released in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website, www.davidlimbaugh.com. And to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website.

Palin's choice: Duty or dereliction

Alan Keyes

Posted: July 10, 20091:00 am Eastern© 2009

For we may well be guided by those fundamental principles of justice which I laid down at the outset: first, that no harm be done to anyone; second, that the common interests be conserved. When these are modified under changed circumstances, moral duty also undergoes a change, and it does not always remain the same. For a given promise or agreement may turn out in such a way that its performance will prove detrimental either to the one to whom the promise has been made or to the one who has made it.
– Cicero, De Officiis I. x.

In the speech announcing her decision to resign as Alaska's governor, Sarah Palin made an argument that tracks with Cicero reasoning as to the requirements of moral duty. This was entirely appropriate. Though officeholders are inclined to forget its derivation, the word "office" has its root in the Latin word from which Cicero's treatise on duty takes its name. Someone who takes an office undertakes a duty. The oath of office is the public and solemn vow to fulfill that duty.

Palin argues that the circumstances of her promise changed because others practiced "the politics of personal destruction" after "August 29th last year – the day John McCain tapped me to be his running mate ... . The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice … all of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We've won! But it hasn't been cheap – the state has wasted thousands of hours of your time and shelled out some two million of your dollars to respond to "opposition research"… . And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn't cost them a dime so they're not going to stop draining public resources ... ."

It appears that the main reason for Palin's decision is her opponents' politically motivated abuse of a law she advocated. Would it be uncharitable to question the wisdom of a law that "silly people" can readily abuse as a political weapon? Why did Palin champion this law when it apparently contains no safeguards against such abuse? Does the lynch pin of the argument she uses to justify her resignation therefore raise serious questions about her judgment and common sense?

Get the definitive biography of Sarah Palin – "the hockey mom who turned the political establishment upside down"

In her speech, Sarah Palin refers to a "recent trip to Kosovo and Landstuhl, to visit our wounded soldiers overseas" and "what we can all learn from our selfless troops ... they're bold, they don't give up and they take a stand …" Here words are an apt reminder of what the faithful performance of duty requires. Soldiers take a stand in the very teeth of enemy fire, even though it means certain death or grievous wounds. There is a word for soldiers who quit their posts because the enemy is shooting at them. It is not intended as a compliment, especially when it's their own bad judgment that has put them in the way of enemy fire in the first place.
Sarah Palin calls to mind our wounded soldiers in the very moment when she fails to follow their heroic example. In the process, she acknowledges that, thanks to the provision of Alaska's taxpayers, she has successfully evaded the cost-free political attacks allowed by "the ethics law I championed." She won! Had Custer won the battle at Little Big Horn, I doubt that anyone would have questioned the money expended for the guns and bullets required to do so. He had a duty to defend his command, especially after his own mistakes exposed it to danger.

Of course, resignation would have been in order once he acknowledged and took responsibility for those mistakes. But Sarah Palin has done no such thing. She claims Alaska is being damaged by the attacks against her, but that the fault lies entirely with the bad motives and actions of others. She says her tenure as governor has been successful; her judgments and actions sound; her record all for the good of the state and its people. But if this is true, it makes no sense to deprive the state of the governor duly elected by the people simply because bad folks attack her. In that case, resigning simply lets the (political) assassins finish their work. How can letting the duly elected governor be taken out in this way be consistent with her sworn duty to defend the state?

If she is without fault or blame, then Palin's explanation makes no sense except as a clear dereliction of duty. She swore faithfully to perform the duties of her office. She claims to have done so. Others have abused the law to attack her. She successfully defended against them. If, as she contends, she has simply been performing her duties, her defense of herself is in fact simply a defense of her office, in the literal sense. To preserve that office with integrity is one of her duties as governor. By resigning, she fails in the performance of that duty. She encourages the "politics of personal destruction" in much the same way that allowing terrorists to succeed encourages further acts of terrorism. This cannot be good for Alaska, and it does not keep faith with the people who elected her. They rightly expected her to defend the integrity of the office, which obviously means standing firm against those who attack its occupant without good reason.
If her stated explanation makes no sense, we are forced to look for an alternative that does. Absent that, we are forced to conclude that her decision to resign is, like championing the law used to harass her, just another example of her bad statesmanship.

Unfortunately for those who promote her aspirations for higher office, it falls in the very area where Republicans are now most suspect. Last fall, G. W. Bush abandoned his free enterprise principles to usher in the drive toward socialism that now threatens to destroy our country. The last thing we need is another Republican who quits her post when push comes to shove.


For more from Alan Keyes visit http://loyaltoliberty.com. Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people's sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America's wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America's Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led grass-roots political action.

How much cooling is enough?

Walter Williams

Posted: July 15, 20091:00 am Eastern© 2009

"Here's what I wrote in last year's column titled "The specter of global cooling" (Dec. 24, 2008): 'Once laws are written, they are very difficult, if not impossible, to repeal. If a time would ever come when the permafrost returns to northern U.S., as far south as New Jersey as it once did, it's not inconceivable that Congress, caught in the grip of the global warming zealots, would keep all the laws on the books they wrote in the name of fighting global warming. Personally, I would not put it past them to write more.' On June 28, 2009, the House of Representatives, by a narrow margin (219-212), passed the Waxman-Markey bill. The so-called 'cap and trade' bill has been sold as a system for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the struggle against global warming. There's a full-court press on the U.S. Senate to pass its version of 'cap and trade.'

'Cap and trade' is first a massive indirect tax on the American people and hence another source of revenue for Congress. More importantly 'cap and trade' is just about the most effective tool for controlling most economic activity short of openly declaring ourselves a communist nation, and it's a radical environmentalist's dream come true.

So why the rush and the press on the Senate? Increasing evidence is emerging that far from there being global warming, the Earth has been cooling and has been doing so for 10 years. Prominent atmospheric scientists have recently sent a letter to Congress saying, 'You are being deceived about global warming. ... The Earth has been cooling for 10 years. ... The present cooling was not predicted by the alarmists' computer models.' Last March, more than 700 international scientists went on record dissenting over manmade global warming claims. About 31,500 American scientists, including 9,029 with Ph.D.s, have signed a petition, that in part reads, 'There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.'

Is Al Gore being disingenuous? Read the truth about climate change in "Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed"

The Obama administration's EPA sees the increasing evidence against global warming as a threat to their agenda and has taken desperate measures. About a week before the House vote on 'cap and trade,' the Washington, D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released some EPA e-mails, demonstrating that an internal report by Alan Carlin, a 35-year career EPA analyst, criticizing EPA's position on global warming had been squelched for political reasons. One of the e-mails, from Dr. Al McGartland, director of the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics, reads, 'The administrator and administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. ... I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.'

The Competitive Enterprise Institute summarizes Dr. Carlin's report saying, '(T)hat EPA, by adopting the United Nations' 2007 'Fourth Assessment' report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.
'New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases.'

Geologist Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress, currently at Uppsala University in Sweden asks, 'For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?' Obviously, 10 years is not enough. "


Like this columnist? Would you like to see him in your local newspaper? Call your local editor.
Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

Judge Roy Moore

Let's cap all the hot air from D.C.

Posted: July 08, 20091:00 am Eastern© 2009
"During a long but little-reported interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008, candidate Barack Obama explained how his 'cap and trade' energy policy would affect consumers if he became president:
'Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket….Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was . . . they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.'
Unfortunately, this is one of the campaign promises that Obama plans to keep.

The Waxman–Markey 'cap and trade' energy bill being pushed by Obama and congressional Democrats will increase energy costs for a family of four by $436.00 the first year it takes effect (2012), and will increase to $1,241.00 by 2035, according to estimates by the Heritage Foundation. In addition, this disastrous legislation will also increase energy costs for every business, factory and farm operation, which will, naturally, be passed on to the consumer. The indirect cost for a family of four is estimated to average $2,979.00 annually from 2012-2035.
Simply stated, a government mandated "cap" on carbon emissions becomes a crushing economic millstone about the neck of an already struggling economy. Not only will costs of electricity increase, but so will the costs of natural gas and gasoline. $4-per-gallon at the pump will seem to be a bargain once this policy is implemented.

Not only is there no constitutional authority for Congress to regulate carbon emissions, but the premise of "global warming" and "climate change" upon which such environmental theories are based does not have the support of a scientific consensus. In fact, in March 2009 Dr. Alan Carlin, employed by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, issued a 98-page report that was quite skeptical "global warming." Carlin's report stated: "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate [carbon dioxide]. There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid 20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."

Carlin's report was suppressed by EPA director Al McGartland, who explained to Carlin, "the administration has decided to move forward . . . and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."

Dr. Carlin's report flew in the face of the recommendation in favor of carbon regulation that the White House wanted so it was quashed, and Dr. Carlin was advised by McGartland not to have direct communication with anyone outside the EPA. Rep. Joe Barton, senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, said the "EPA report that has been suppressed . . . raises grave doubts about the [environmental] endangerment findings [and] if you don't have an endangerment finding, you don't need this [Waxman-Markey] bill."

Not only do scientists disagree on "global warming," but there is little hard evidence that carbon emissions cause changes to the global climate. But it appears that Obama and his liberal administration are not really interested in what the Constitution or the scientific community have to say when it interferes with their radical agenda.

Whatever Obama's agenda is, it certainly is not to promote and stimulate America's business and industry sectors. For example, in the same interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Obama said: "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

And when some in Congress suggested levying tariffs on goods from countries like China and India who do not impose such restrictive costs and regulations on their industries, Obama said that he will oppose such protectionist measures.

The end result is that once again American companies faced with the increasing costs of doing business in this country will be forced to move to South America, China, or India, taking thousands of jobs with them. Sen. Charles Grassley. R-Iowa, recently predicted that if Obama's cap-and-trade program passes Congress, "You're going to find signs on manufacturing doors . . . that say ‘Moved — Gone to China.'" Obama's response was simply to say that remaking the nation's energy system would "create jobs," and that "We are going to see, I think, an enormous amount of economic activity." Another empty promise!

With the national unemployment rate growing (up to 9.5 percent in June), we simply do not need a "tax-and-bankrupt" energy policy out of Washington, D.C. Our economy cannot take another "plan" from the federal government that will grow nothing but more government. With all the talk about carbon emissions, I believe the real danger to our country is the hot air coming out of the White House and the Congress.


Judge Roy Moore is the chairman of the Foundation for Moral Law in Montgomery, Ala. He is the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who was removed from office in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument he had placed in the Alabama Judicial Building to acknowledge God. Moore's classic book about his battle for liberty is now available in paperback: "So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious Freedom."