colt

 

Three Unanswered Questions:

Electors are sworn to uphold it

with their vote on December 15th in

the Electoral College. But they must fi rst know for sure that the candidates meet

the Constitutional requirements for the offi ce of President beginning with being a

natural born citizen.

That’s what Philip J. Berg has asked the United States Supreme Court to verify.

The Supreme Court has asked for a response from Senator Barack Obama along

with the Democratic National Committee and Federal Elections Commission.

And they have until December 1

for the same thing.

st to respond. Other cases have been fi led asking

Not extreme. Not fringe. Just Constitutional.

Obama says he’s qualifi ed. But, Berg, multiple legal suits and a growing number

of American citizens are saying:

“Prove it.” A basic, vital and Constitutional

request.

Why won’t Obama answer such a simple and essential request?

Exhibit A: The Grandmother’s tape

Barack Obama’s own grandmother said he was born in Kenya. While politicians

are known for it, grandmothers seldom lie. It’s recorded on tape:

“

Aug. 4, 1961.”

I was in the delivery room in [Mombosa,] Kenya, when he was born– Sarah Obama, Obama’s paternal grandmother

Exhibit B: No Original Birth Certifi cate

Experts have called the Certifi cation of Live Birth posted online a forgery.

Berg reported “It’s clearly been altered,” which invalidates it, according to

the document itself. Add to this the Hawaiian law at the time which allowed

people to register for this non-hospital short form certifi cate (without a doctor’s

signature) up to one year from the date of the child’s birth.

Exhibit C: Indonesian citizenship

Only

Obama attended the Indonesian school where he was registered as Barry

Soetoro. His citizenship was listed as Indonesian, his religion as Islam, and his

father as Lolo Soetoro, M.A. There was also no dual citizenship at the time. If

he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, he would have forfeited any U.S.

citizenship he may have had, just as when a child is adopted in America, he or

Indonesian citizens could attend Indonesian schools at the time Barack

she becomes an American.

Exhibit D:

U.S. Law

In addition,

according

to U.S. law

pertaining to

births abroad,

from “Dec. 24,

1952, to Nov.

13, 1986,”

in order to

register the

child’s birth

as a U.S.

natural-born

citizen at the

time of Obama’s birth, he or she must be: 1. Born to two U.S. citizen

parents; OR 2. If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth, that

parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least fi ve of

which must be after the age of 14.

Since Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama’s mother was

only 18 at the time of his birth, she failed to meet the legal requirements of U.S.

residency for at least fi ve years after the age of 14.

Either the Constitution matters or it doesn’t

.

If we are willing to ignore the constitutional requirements for the highest offi ce

in our land, what else are we willing to forgo? That part about free speech?

Freedom of the press? Freedom of religion?

1. Sign the form below and send it in or sign the petition on the website

www.ObamaCrimes.com

2. Call your Congressional Representative at:

verify that the Constitutional requirements have been met and request

them to conduct Congressional hearings immediately.

3. Pray for all of the hidden things to come to light and call on the media to

report this Constitutional crisis.

4. Donate to help defend our Constitution.

202-224-3121. Ask them to

Philip J. Berg, Esq., 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12, Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

www.ObamaCrimes.com

The United States Constitution

Article II, Section 1 includes these words:

“No person except a natural born citizen, or a

citizen of the United States, at the time of the

adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to

the offi ce of President; neither shall any person be

eligible to that offi ce who shall not have attained to

the age of thirty fi ve years, and been fourteen Years

a resident within the United States.”

Was Barack Obama Born in Kenya?

Is He Really a Citizen of Indonesia?

Does the Constitution still Matter?

WE DEMAND ANSWERS BECAUSE OUR CONSTITUTION MATTERS!

Please add my name to the petition to verify that the basic Constitutional Requirements are met for the offi ce of President of the United States.

Name ______________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________

City/State/Zip _______________________________________

Email:______________________________________________>

I’d like to help:

___ $20 ___ $35

___ $50 ___ $100

___ $250 $_________other

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Imaging guru: 'Certification' of birth time, location is fake
'It would be hard to perform as president from behind jail cell door at Leavenworth'

---

Posted: December 01, 2008
10:20 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

 

A computer imaging expert, who examined the "Certification of Live Birth" Barack Obama's campaign posted online to rebut charges he is ineligible to be president due to the Constitution's "natural born citizen" requirement, says it's a fake, and further, that such fraud is criminal.

The Obama campaign has told WND such allegations are "garbage," but Dr. Ron Polarik, who holds a Ph.D. in instructional media and is a "guru" on computer technology such as printers, scanners and digital imaging, disagrees. His analyses have been posted online in a YouTube video, which also is embedded here:

He explained to WND there are several "giveaways" on the image itself. For example, the document has gray between the lettering, not green pixels as the rest of the background document, suggesting someone cut-and-pasted or typed new information that was embedded on top of the background.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. and thus a "natural born American" as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign WND's petition demanding the release of his birth certificate.

Also, Polarik said although the Obama form has a border and seal from 2008, it purportedly was obtained in 2007.

In Polarik's view, there has to be a significant reason for a political candidate and campaign to go to such lengths.

"Obviously, there's something very critical to hide, or they wouldn't have spent the million dollars in legal fees to prevent the release of his original birth certificate," Polarik told WND.

"There's absolutely something to hide," he said. "If he was born in Hawaii they would have had a luau that would be continuing today.

"Not that the people who voted for him would care," he said, "but they used this forged document to convince the American voters.

"It's a scary thought to have someone who essentially begins his presidency as a criminal," he said, because the use of a faked document as identification is, in fact, a crime, he noted.

"It would be hard to perform as president from behind jail cell door at Leavenworth," he said.

The video has Polarik's face and voice disguised and he confirmed in talking with WND that he's using an assumed name because of the threats he's reported receiving.

Polarik said the issue of the birth location is a "BLEEP" in Obama's armor, but the Democrat also has declined to release information about his college years, about his selective service and about his passports, including on what nation's passport he traveled to Pakistan two decades ago when it was illegal to go there as a U.S. citizen.

Polarik describes his findings and conclusions on the video.

WND columnist Janet Porter has written extensively about the birth certification issue.

"Look, we're not asking for the world here. Neither is the Constitution. Some pretty basic requirements like being 35 years old, having 14 years residency in the United States, and being a natural born citizen. When Senator John McCain was questioned about it, he showed his birth certificate without hesitating. When Barack Obama was asked by courts including the U.S. Supreme Court, he ducked and hid behind the right to privacy," she writes.

"Ironically, when Obama was running for the State Senate, he won by disqualifying every candidate who ran against him in the primary, including a guy who had been through a nasty and salacious divorce. Even though he had a small child who could be hurt by the information being made public, a court decided that the public's right to know; outweighed this poor fella's right to privacy, and he backed out. Obama clings to the 'right to privacy' regarding his own qualifications, just not his opponents."

She also noted the issue won't go away, and recommended a visit to ObamaForgery.com to review what's happening.

"These are the facts," she wrote. "The Constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen. Obama's grandmother said she was there when Barack was born in Kenya. Obama refuses to release his original birth certificate. Instead of a birth certificate, Obama's campaign posted a certification given to those born abroad. Experts have called even that document an 'obvious forgery.'"

"Our Constitution still matters," she said.

Her group, Faith2Action, is working on funding for the purchase of time for a new television ad on the issue.

In the Philadelphia Bulletin, constitutional lawyer Edwin Vieira said a multitude of problems could result.

"Let's assume he wasn't born in the U.S.," Vieira told the newspaper. "What's the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can't make him president. So what's the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he's aware he's not a citizen, then it's a perjured oath.

The "eligible" President-elect Obama

"He may have nominated people to different positions; he may have nominated people to the judicial branch, who may have been confirmed, they may have gone out on executive duty and done various things," said Vieira. "The people that he's put into the judicial branch may have decided cases, and all of that needs to be unzipped."

"Let's say we go a year into this process, and it all turns out to be a flim-flam," he told the newspaper. "What's the nation's reaction to that? What's going to be the reaction in the next U.S. election? God knows. It has almost revolutionary consequences, if you think about it."

He continued, "[The birth certificate], in theory, should be there. What if it isn't? Who knows, aside from Mr. Obama? Does Russian intelligence know it isn't there? Does Chinese intelligence know it isn't there? Does the CIA know that it isn't there? Who is in a position to blackmail this fellow?"

Vieira expressed confidence Obama eventually will be forced to produce documentation.

"Let's assume that an Obama administration passes some of these controversial pieces of legislation he has been promising to go for, like the FOCA (Freedom of Choice) Act," he told the newspaper. "I would assume that some of those surely will have some severe civil or criminal penalties attached to them for violation. You are now the criminal defendant under this statute, which was passed by an Obama Congress and signed by President Obama. Your defense is that is not a statute because Mr. Obama is not the president. You now have a right and I have never heard this challenged, to subpoena in a criminal case, anyone who has relevant evidence relating to your defenses. And you can subpoena them duces tecum, meaning 'you shall bring with you the documents.'"

WND founder and editor Joseph Farah has launched a program to allow concerned voters to express their desire directly to the U.S. Supreme Court for the issue to be resolved.

A conference among the justices is scheduled Friday on a New England challenge to Obama's eligibility.

"The case is brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the New Jersey secretary of state, and questions whether Obama is a 'natural-born citizen' as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution," Farah reported.

"It would seem a simple matter to resolve," he said. "Barack Obama could have put this issue to rest long ago by producing a complete birth certificate from Hawaii. Instead, he has chosen to stonewall the matter, citing a website post of what can only be characterized as a partial representation of a birth certificate – one that has been criticized as a forgery.

"Meanwhile, some of Obama's own Kenyan relatives claim to have been present at his birth in Mombasa. This controversy, which some have dismissed as frivolous, is as serious as the literal meaning of the Constitution itself."

The nation's Electoral College, the process through which Obama is to be formally voted as the next president, will meet Dec. 15, and his inaugural is scheduled Jan. 20.

Meanwhile, more than 125,000 have signed WND's petition seeking full disclosure of Obama's information.

The petition cites the U.S. Constitution's requirement that no one can be sworn into office as president without being a natural born citizen. It also asserts there are questions about Obama's reported Hawaii birth, that the Democrat has refused repeated calls to document his birth, that activist judges have declined to require him to shed light on the issue and that Hawaii – at the time of Obama's birth – allowed parents whose children were born in other locations to register the birth there.

WND's petition is available online, and more information is available at this link.

 

Iran said to have enough nuclear fuel for one weapon By William J. Broad and David E. Sanger
Thursday, November 20, 2008

Iran has now produced roughly enough nuclear material to make, with added purification, a single atom bomb, according to nuclear experts analyzing the latest report from global atomic inspectors.

The figures detailing Iran's progress were contained in a routine update on Wednesday from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections of the country's main nuclear plant at Natanz. The report concluded that as of early this month, Iran had made 630 kilograms, or about 1,390 pounds, of low-enriched uranium.

Several experts said that was enough for a bomb, but they cautioned that the milestone was mostly symbolic, because Iran would have to take additional steps. Not only would it have to breach its international agreements and kick out the inspectors, but it would also have to further purify the fuel and put it into a warhead design ? a technical advance that Western experts are unsure Iran has yet achieved.

"They clearly have enough material for a bomb," said Richard Garwin, a top nuclear physicist who helped invent the hydrogen bomb and has advised Washington for decades. "They know how to do the enrichment. Whether they know how to design a bomb, well, that's another matter."

Iran insists that it wants only to fuel reactors for nuclear power. But many Western nations, led by the United States, suspect that its real goal is to gain the ability to make nuclear weapons.

While some Iranian officials have threatened to bar inspectors in the past, the country has made no such moves, and many experts inside the Bush administration and the IAEA believe it will avoid the risk of attempting "nuclear breakout" until it possessed a larger uranium supply.

Even so, for President-elect Barack Obama, the report underscores the magnitude of the problem that he will inherit Jan. 20: an Iranian nuclear program that has not only solved many technical problems of uranium enrichment, but that can also now credibly claim to possess enough material to make a weapon if negotiations with Europe and the United States break down.

American intelligence agencies have said Iran could make a bomb between 2009 and 2015. A national intelligence estimate made public late last year concluded that around the end of 2003, after long effort, Iran had halted work on an actual weapon. But enriching uranium, and obtaining enough material to build a weapon, is considered the most difficult part of the process.

Siegfried Hecker of Stanford University and a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory said the growing size of the Iranian stockpile "underscored that they are marching down the path to developing the nuclear weapons option."

In the report to its board, the atomic agency said Iran's main enrichment plant was now feeding uranium into about 3,800 centrifuges ? machines that spin incredibly fast to enrich the element into nuclear fuel. That count is the same as in the agency's last quarterly report, in September. Iran began installing the centrifuges in early 2007. But the new report's total of 630 kilograms ? an increase of about 150 ? shows that Iran has been making progress in accumulating material to make nuclear fuel.

That uranium has been enriched to the low levels needed to fuel a nuclear reactor. To further purify it to the highly enriched state needed to fuel a nuclear warhead, Iran would have to reconfigure its centrifuges and do a couple months of additional processing, nuclear experts said.

"They have a weapon's worth," Thomas Cochran, a senior scientist in the nuclear program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private group in Washington that tracks atomic arsenals, said in an interview.

He said the amount was suitable for a relatively advanced implosion-type weapon like the one dropped on Nagasaki. Its core, he added, would be about the size of a grapefruit. He said a cruder design would require about twice as much weapon-grade fuel.

"It's a virtual milestone," Cochran said of Iran's stockpile. It is not an imminent threat, he added, because the further technical work to make fuel for a bomb would tip off inspectors, the United States and other powers about "where they're going."

The agency's report made no mention of the possible military implications of the size of Iran's stockpile. And some experts said the milestone was still months away. In an analysis of the IAEA report, the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington, estimated that Iran had not yet reached the mark but would "within a few months." It added that other analysts estimated it might take as much as a year.

Whatever the exact date, it added, "Iran is progressing" toward the ability to quickly make enough weapon-grade uranium for a warhead.

Peter Zimmerman, a physicist and former United States government arms scientist, cautioned that the Iranian stockpile fell slightly short of what international officials conservatively estimate as the minimum threatening amount of nuclear fuel. "They're very close," he said of the Iranians in an interview. "If it isn't tomorrow, it's soon," probably a matter of months.

In its report, the IAEA, which is based in Vienna, said Iran was working hard to roughly double its number of operating centrifuges.

A senior European diplomat close to the agency said Iran might have 6,000 centrifuges enriching uranium by the end of the year. The report also said Iran had said it intended to start installing another group of 3,000 centrifuges early next year.

The atomic energy agency said Iran was continuing to evade questions about its suspected work on nuclear warheads. In a separate report released Wednesday, the agency said, as expected, that it had found ambiguous traces of uranium at a suspected Syrian reactor site bombed by Israel last year.

"While it cannot be excluded that the building in question was intended for non-nuclear use," the report said, the building's features "along with the connectivity of the site to adequate pumping capacity of cooling water, are similar to what may be found in connection with a reactor site." Syria has said the uranium came from Israeli bombs.

---

---

If democracy doesn't work, try anarchy

---

Posted: November 17, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008 

 

Protesters of California's Proposition 8 (the marriage amendment) shoved aside a 69-year old woman bearing a cross, reportedly spit on her and stomped on her cross. They then aligned themselves in a human barricade, blocking the media from getting to or interviewing the elderly woman

Prop. 8 supporter, Jose Nunez, 37, was brutally assaulted while distributing yard signs to other supporters after church services at the St. Stanislaus Parish in Modesto.

Calvary Chapel Chino Hills was spray painted by vandals, after they learned that the church served as an official collection point for Prop 8 petitions. Letters containing white powder (obviously mimicking anthrax) were sent to the Salt Lake City headquarters of the Mormon church and to a temple in Los Angeles. (Thankfully, the FBI, said the substance tested nontoxic.)

A 25-year veteran artistic director for the California Musical Theatre, who also happens to be a Mormon, was muscled to resign because of his $1,000 donation to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California.

A pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back marched into the middle of a church service, flinging flyers and condoms to the congregants and hanging a banner from the balcony that featured two lesbians in provocative positions at the pulpit.

And lastly the tolerance-preaching activists have also taken their anger to the blogosphere, where posts have planted ideas like burning churches to storming the citadels of government until our society is forced to overturn Prop 8. You can even find online donor black lists of everyone who financially backed Prop 8 for as little as $46, with the obvious objective that these individuals will be bantered and boycotted for doing so.

What's wrong with this picture? Lots.

First, there's the obvious inability of the minority to accept the will of the majority. Californians have spoken – twice through the elections in 2000 and 2008. Nearly every county across the state (including Los Angeles county) voted in majority to amend the constitution in favor of traditional marriage.

Nevertheless, bitter activists simply cannot accept the outcome as being truly reflective of the general public. So they have placed the brainwashing blame upon the crusading and misleading zealotry of those religious villains: the Catholics, evangelical Protestants and especially Mormons, who are allegedly robbing the rights of American citizens by merely executing their voting rights and standing upon their moral convictions and traditional views.

What's surprising (or maybe not so) is that, even though 70 percent of African-Americans voted in favor of Proposition 8, protests against black churches are virtually nonexistent. And everyone knows exactly why: Because such actions would be viewed as racist. Yet these opponents of Prop 8 can vehemently protest and shout obscenities in front of Mormon temples, without ever being accused of religious bigotry? There's a clear double standard in our society. Where are the hate-crime cops when religious conservatives need them?

Of course, activists say they are merely utilizing their political freedoms and rights, but, the fact is, I see a lot of sore losers who are intolerant of any outcome but the one they desire. Some are acting like toddlers who throw a temper tantrum until they get their way. Are they fighting for their rights or at last showing true colors of intolerance against anyone who believes contrary to them?

There have been many of us who have passionately opposed an Obama election, but you don't see us protesting in the streets, crying out unfair – rather we are submitting to a democratic process and now asking how we can support "our" president. Just because we don't like the election outcome, doesn't give us the right to bully those who oppose us. In other words, if democracy doesn't tip our direction, we don't swing to anarchy. That would be like the wild West all over again, signs of which appear to be resurrecting in these post-election protests.

No matter one's opinion of Proposition 8, it is flat out wrong and un-American to intimidate and harass individuals, churches and businesses that are guilty of nothing more than participating in the democratic process. Of course activism is anyone's political right, but cruel coercion and repression is not. One can't demand tolerance and show none in return. Sadly, many of these activists have become the very thing they accuse of their opponents: being hatemongers.

I agree with Prison Fellowship director Chuck Colson, who wrote, "This is an outrage. What hypocrisy from those who spend all of their time preaching tolerance to the rest of us! How dare they threaten and attack political opponents? We live a democratic country, not a banana republic ruled by thugs."

The enraged vehemence and actions being displayed by many Prop 8 opponents are the same underhand tactics bullies use in neighborhoods and school playgrounds. They reflect the ways that mobs conducted themselves in the underworld. They are methods gangs use to control their turf. They are the wiles that the KGB used to suppress their enemies. But this is the United States of America, where voting is supposed to be free from restrictions or repercussions. Revenge or retribution is not the American way. Is militant antagonism and vengeful aggression really the best Americans can offer to other Americans who oppose them?

Political protests are one thing, but when old-fashioned bullying techniques that prompt fear of safety are used, activists have crossed a line. There is a difference between respectful dissent and advocacy for one's civil rights and demanding public endorsement of what many still consider "unnatural sexual behavior" through hate language and fear tactics. One thing is for sure: The days of peaceful marches like those headed up by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. seem to be long gone.

The truth is that the great majority of Prop 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the beliefs of every major people group and religion – that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of their rights – they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage.

On Nov. 4, the pro-"gay" community was obviously flabbergasted that a state that generally leans left actually voted right when it came to holy matrimony. But that's exactly what happened – the majority of Californians, red, yellow, black and white, voted to maintain the margins of marriage between one man and one woman. California is the 30th state in our union to amend its constitution in doing so, joining Florida and Arizona in this election, too. Like it or not, it's the law now. The people have spoken.

Carolina Journal Exclusives

Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts

Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs

By Karen McMahan

November 04, 2008

RALEIGH — Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared remarks for the hearing on “The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers’ Retirement Security,” blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis and said his committee will “strengthen and protect Americans’ 401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans” and the “Democratic Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people.”

Currently, 401(k) plans allow Americans to invest pretax money and their employers match up to a defined percentage, which not only increases workers’ retirement savings but also reduces their annual income tax. The balances are fully inheritable, subject to income tax, meaning workers pass on their wealth to their heirs, unlike Social Security. Even when they leave an employer and go to one that doesn’t offer a 401(k) or pension, workers can transfer their balances to a qualified IRA.

Mandating Equality

Ghilarducci’s plan first appeared in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute: Agenda for Shared Prosperity on Nov. 20, 2007, in which she said GRAs will rescue the flawed American retirement income system (www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf).

The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities” because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are “skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.”

Lauding GRAs as a way to effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals “provide a much larger ‘carrot’ to wealthy families than to middle-class families — and none whatsoever for families too poor to owe taxes.”

GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not “earn a 3% real return in perpetuity.” In place of tax breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants.

In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn’t eliminate the tax breaks, rather, “I’m just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading — spreading the wealth.”

All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year.

Analysts point to another disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA, workers could bequeath only half of their account balances to their heirs, unlike full balances from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts. For workers who die after retiring, they could bequeath just their own contributions plus the interest but minus any benefits received and minus the employer contributions.

Another justification for Ghilarducci’s plan is to eliminate investment risk. In her testimony, Ghilarducci said, “humans often lack the foresight, discipline, and investing skills required to sustain a savings plan.” She cited the 2004 HSBC global survey on the Future of Retirement, in which she claimed that “a third of Americans wanted the government to force them to save more for retirement.”

What the survey actually reported was that 33 percent of Americans wanted the government to “enforce additional private savings,” a vastly different meaning than mandatory government-run savings. Of the four potential sources of retirement support, which were government, employer, family, and self, the majority of Americans said “self” was the most important contributor, followed by “government.” When broken out by family income, low-income U.S. households said the “government” was the most important retirement support, whereas high-income families ranked “government” last and “self” first (www.hsbc.com/retirement).

On Oct. 22, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Argentinean government had seized all private pension and retirement accounts to fund government programs and to address a ballooning deficit. Fearing an economic collapse, foreign investors quickly pulled out, forcing the Argentinean stock market to shut down several times. More than 10 years ago, nationalization of private savings sent Argentina’s economy into a long-term downward spiral.

Income and Wealth Redistribution

The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through redistribution.

On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that “from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw” in tax code incentives because they are “provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits.”

Even people who don’t pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said. “There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or people who do not file income taxes should get smaller incentives (or no tax incentives at all),” Greenstein said.

“Moving to refundable tax credits for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would improve economic efficiency and performance at the same time,” Greenstein said, and “reducing barriers to labor organizing, preserving the real value of the minimum wage, and the other workforce security concerns . . . would contribute to an economy with less glaring and sharply widening inequality.”

When asked whether committee members seriously were considering Ghilarducci’s proposal for GSAs, Aaron Albright, press secretary for the Committee on Education and Labor, said Miller and other members were listening to all ideas.

Miller’s biggest priority has been on legislation aimed at greater transparency in 401(k)s and other retirement plan administration, specifically regarding fees, Albright said, and he sent a link to a Fox News interview of Miller on Oct. 24, 2008, to show that the congressman had not made a decision.

After repeated questions asked by Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Miller said he would not be in favor of “killing the 401(k)” or of “killing the tax advantages for 401(k)s.”

Arguing against liberal prescriptions, William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, testified on Oct. 24 that the “roots of the current crisis are firmly planted in public policy mistakes” by the Federal Reserve and Congress. He cautioned Congress against raising taxes, increasing burdensome regulations, or withdrawing from international product or capital markets. “Congress can ill afford to repeat the awesome errors of its predecessor in the early days of the Great Depression,” Beach said.

Instead, Beach said, Congress could best address the financial crisis by making the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 permanent, stopping dependence on demand-side stimulus, lowering the corporate profits tax, and reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Testifying before the same committee in early October, Jerry Bramlett, president and CEO of BenefitStreet, Inc., an independent 401(k) plan administrator, said one of the best ways to ensure retirement security would be to have the U.S. Department of Labor develop educational materials for workers so they could make better investment decisions, not exchange equity investments in retirement accounts for Treasury bills, as proposed in the GSAs.

Should Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, congressional Democrats might have stronger support for their “spreading the wealth” agenda. On Oct. 27, the American Thinker posted a video of an interview with Obama on public radio station WBEZ-FM from 2001.

In the interview, Obama said, “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” The Constitution says only what “the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you,” and Obama added that the Warren Court wasn’t that radical.

Although in 2001 Obama said he was not “optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts,” as president, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.

“The real tragedy of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused that I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change,” Obama said.

Karen McMahan is a contributing editor of Carolina Journal

Well he did it. Obama made history. He is the first American of African decent to make it to the White house.

Though he was not my choice, he will soon be my President for good or bad.

We will just have to wait and see what he does.

To all the young American children of African decent ( i do not use the hyphen as it is a dividing line) you can finally see just like anyone else if you work hard you can be anything you can dream of in America.

Its is far past time for Jessie, Al and others to get the hell out of the way and lets see what Obama can do.

McCain was never my choice to be Prez and it is time to kick all the rino's the hell out of DC and start to rebuild the party of conservitism. We need no Senators tapping their feet in an airport stall or taking kick backs. Its time to Rid the GOP of all these posers!

My final thought goes to Obama. Good luck President Obama and let God and the American way of life guide you. We have with stood many bad times as a country and have come back stonger. We have put men on the moon when no one was even sure how. WE ARE ALL AMERICANS AND WE ALL NEED TO GIVE PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA THE CHANCE HE WORKED HARD TO WIN.

Disclaimer: the statement above is real, however this does not mean that i will support everything the man wants to do, but I will give him a chance.

see the video from cnn

BOE Questions Suspicious Voter Registration Cards Last Edited: Tuesday, 07 Oct 2008, 7:59 PM EDT Created: Tuesday, 07 Oct 2008, 7:59 PM EDT --- or just enabling jstl so that we can just write ${bean.property} and jsp takes care of the new lines. -->
Cuyahoga County Election Board members grilled representatives of a community group Tuesday about their links to suspicious voter registration cards.

In one case, a Cleveland resident was registered to vote three times in a single day, listing two different addresses.  

The man's registration was submitted to the Board of Elections by ACORN.  

The board discussed several other cases of multiple registrations at their meeting.  ACORN was involved in each case, although not for all entries by the same individuals.
   
"Problems do occur and we are concerned as you are, perhaps in some cases more concerned because our name is on that," says Teresa James, an attorney volunteering with ACORN. 

While admitting they don't have the resources to track all multiple entries, they submit all registrations to the Board and attach a warning about cards that raise suspicions. 

Leaders of the group say their role is to help low and moderate income residents participate in the democratic process and it's up to the board to weed out problematic registrations. 

"ACORN is very proud of the work we do registering low income people to vote.  Nearly 100-thousand cards, and we're talking about less than 100 people and we're working to resolve issues on that small number of people," said Kristopher Harsh an organizer with the group.
   
Board Member Robert Frost said the group failed to follow guidelines in its own manual to turn over suspected voter fraud to law enforcement to investigate.
Election officials subpoenaed three voters to appear before the Board next week to explain their mulitple registrations. 

The list includes a Cuyahoga County resident whose name appears on 22 registration cards submitted in six months.

First it was Clinton and Al Gore selling out this nation for cash in 96 now its obama and the ones that want  cut the neck of the infidel

Illegal Obama donors: Middle Eastern Arabs
Gazan brothers' illicit contributions listed in government campaign filings

---

Posted: August 04, 2008
11:17 am Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

 

JERUSALEM – Palestinian brothers inside the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip are listed in government election filings as having donated $29,521.54 to Sen. Barack Obama's campaign.

Donations of this nature would violate election laws, including prohibitions on receiving contributions from foreigners and guidelines against accepting more than $2,300 from one individual during a single election, Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the Federal Election Commission, told WND in response to a query.

The contributions also raise numerous questions about the Obama campaign's lax online donation form, which apparently allows for the possibility of foreign contributions.

Last week, the Atlas Shrugs blog outlined a series of donations in 2007 made to Obama's campaign from two individuals, Monir Edwan and Hosam Edwan, totaling $29,521.54.

In an online form on Obama's campaign site, the Edwans listed their street as "Tal Esaltan," which they wrote was located in "Rafah, GA."

Rafah is not a city in Georgia. The Atlas blog immediately raised concerns that the money may have been donated from the Gaza Strip town of Rafah.

The Edwans' donations are listed in both FEC filings and other election filing sites, such as CampaignMoney and donordata.org.

Monir made 20 donations ranging from $717 to $2017.50 from October through November 2007. His donations totaled $24321.41. Hosam made seven donations ranging from $508.63 to $1725.96, totaling $5,200.13, all in October 2007.

A WND investigation tracked down the Edwans, who are brothers living in the Tal Esaltan neighborhood of Rafah, a large refugee camp in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

The Edwans are a large clan that include top Hamas supporters.

Speaking to WND, the two brothers praised Obama and admitted giving the money online to his campaign. They said they are not U.S. citizens or green card holders but are citizens of "Palestine."

The Edwans denied they are affiliated with Hamas. Palestinian sources in Gaza confirmed the Edwans in question are secular, but could not say whether they supported Hamas.

Monir and Hasam Edwan denied their financial transactions online – listed as donations in U.S. government election filings – were actual donations to Obama's campaign. Instead they claimed they purchased about $30,000 in Obama T-shirts from the presidential candidate's online store – a contention that did not hold up during a WND interview, when they changed their story several times.

"My brother Hosam and I knew that Obama will be a big hit even before he became a candidate. We knew the guy would be a celebrity in Gaza so we decided to invest the amount of $29,000 to buy Obama T-shirts from his website and sell them in Gaza," Monir Edwan told WND, speaking by cell phone from Gaza.

"I know on the back of this story Obama rivals will present our business as a donation and they will try to use this story to let Obama fall, but I'm telling you, we bought T-shirts," Edwan maintained.

Edwan said any profit made from purportedly selling the Obama T-shirts was not returned to the Obama campaign.

"We have nothing to do with the Obama campaign. We just like Obama and believe he will be the best for the Palestinians and for the world."

At first Monir Edwan claimed he sold the T-shirts in Gaza for around $9 and that a profit was made.

"Some young men even bought the T-shirts for 60 shekel ($17.29), which is a lot to spend in Gaza on a T-shirt, but that is how much Gazans like Obama," Edwan claimed.

But it was pointed out to Edwan the T-shirts for sale on Obama's website are listed as $20.08 and that selling the merchandise for less would not yield a profit.

"Maybe we sold the shirts for a lot more. I can't remember now," said Edwan.

Asked why he would purchase T-shirts at such a high rate and pay the cost of shipping when he could pay a company to produce T-shirts for less, Edwan replied, "We wanted the shirts to come from the campaign."

But Edwan could not explain how he managed to get shipments of T-shirts into the Gaza Strip during the months he claimed to have purchased the merchandise, since Israel imposed a tight closure of the Gaza Strip starting in June 2007 that lasted until June 2008, when the Israeli government agreed to a cease-fire with Hamas in Gaza.

"We don't want to cause any damage to Obama's campaign," was Edwan's reply.

Edwan said he wants Obama to be president.

"Not just the people in Gaza but people from all over the world are rooting for this great man," he told WND.

FEC spokesman Biersack told WND contributions from overseas are allowed if the donations are coming from U.S. citizens or green card carriers. But he said accepting money from foreigners would violate election provisions.

He said there are strict guidelines against accepting more than $2,300 from one individual during a single election.

"I am not familiar with the particulars of the case, so I am commenting in general. The FEC will have to examine all the circumstances before determining any wrongdoing," Biersack clarified.

Obama's campaign did not return WND phone calls or e-mail queries.

That the Edwans were able to contribute any money to Obama's campaign from Gaza opens questions into the methods used by the presidential candidate's website to accept online donations.

The website donation form asks each donor to affirm he or she is a U.S. citizen and is above the age of 16 but doesn't require donors to prove their citizenship status, such as providing a social security number. The form further requires the donor to affirm the contribution is not coming from a corporation, political action committee or lobby group.

<script src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video
/evp/module.js?loc=dom&vid=/video/politics/2008/10/07/g
riffin.obama.ayers.cnn" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Embedded video from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video">CNN Video</a></noscript> from cnn

Educators line up to defend domestic terrorist Ayers
Hundreds endorse letter opposing 'demonization' of former bomber linked to Obama

---

Posted: October 07, 2008
2:59 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

 

Bill Ayers

Hundreds of educators have endorsed a letter opposing the "demonization" of Williams Ayers – the domestic terrorist who helped launch Barack Obama's poliltical career, and whose relationship with the Democratic presidential candidate continues to be major controversy – arguing that frequent reports of his involvement in domestic bombings are "designed to intimidate free thinking and stifle critical dialogue."

"We write to support our colleague Professor William Ayers, Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who is currently under determined and sustained political attack," reads the letter, available for endorsement at www.supportbillayers.org.

"The current characterizations of Professor Ayers – 'unrepentant terrorist,' 'lunatic leftist' – are unrecognizable to those who know or work with him," the letter continues.

Ayers, as WND has reported, was a key member of the radical Weathermen group – a band of revolutionaries who declared war on the U.S. government and the free enterprise system – during the 1970s and has written about his involvement in bombing the New York City police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972.

"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon," Ayers wrote in his memoir, "Fugitive Days," released the day before the Pentagon was struck again in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them."

The New York Times reported that Ayers later clarified, saying he didn't actually set the bomb, but was visualizing it to dramatize his participation in organizing the attack.

In a Times interview published Sept. 11, 2001, Ayers said, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." He posed for a photograph accompanying the piece that shows him stepping on an American flag.

The Times also reported that when asked if he would rule out planting another bomb someday, Ayers responded, ''I can't imagine entirely dismissing the possibility.''

Nevertheless, more than 600 educators have endorsed the letter, which dismisses Ayers' terrorist past, fails to mention his more recent statements and asserts, "What is most relevant now is his continued engagement in progressive causes, and his exemplary contribution – including publishing 16 books – to the field of education."

Marvin Hoffman of the University of Chicago is one of letter's endorsers. He told WND he has worked with Ayers for years and the bombings happened "in a time period difficult for any of us to reconstruct, a time of great anger during the Vietnam War when the government was unresponsive to the people."

Ayers should be judged, Hoffman said, by his contributions to the community and to education in the present, not his activities in the past.

The educators' letter also contends that teachers have a moral obligation to promote the free flow of ideas and that public criticism of Ayers serves as a warning that "anyone who voices perspectives and advances questions that challenge orthodoxy and political power may become a target."

Reports that characterize Ayers as a leftist or a terrorist, the letter claims, represent a "crusade" to "crush" the "inevitable clash of ideas" that follows when challenges to the status quo present "the possibility of change."

"All citizens, but particularly teachers and scholars, are called upon to challenge orthodoxy, dogma and mindless complacency, to be skeptical of authoritative claims, to interrogate and trouble the given and the taken-for-granted," the letter states. "Without critical dialogue and dissent we would likely be burning witches and enslaving our fellow human beings to this day."

The letter concludes: "We, the undersigned, stand on the side of education as an enterprise devoted to human inquiry, enlightenment and liberation. We oppose the demonization of Professor William Ayers."

Though WND could not confirm the validity of every name on the list, several of those recorded as endorsing the letter match educators, such as Hoffman, serving in universities across the country.

Another name listed as endorsing the letter is Mike Klonsky, who, as WND reported, was a former student activist with Ayers in the 1960s and who runs an education organization founded by Ayers that received a substantial grant from a group directed by Sen. Barack Obama.

Ayers' past activities have come under increased national scrutiny lately as his connections to Obama have been highlighted in the press. Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, referencing Ayers, said on the campaign trail this week Obama had been "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

A Democratic state representative's son has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Tennessee for intentionally hacking into Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's personal e-mail account.

David C. Kernell, 20, was charged with one count of breaking into the Republican vice presidential nominee's personal Yahoo e-mail account. Kernell, an economics student at the University of Tennessee, is the son of state Rep. Michael Kernell of Memphis. 

According to the Justice Department, Kernell turned himself in to authorities. 

He pleaded not guilty in federal court in Knoxville, Tenn., on Wednesday.

He was released without posting bond, but the court imposed several conditions. Kernell is not allowed to own a computer and can only use the Internet to check e-mail and do class work.

Click here to see the indictment.

Trial is set for Dec. 16, and if convicted, Kernell faces up to five years in jail and a $250,000 fine.

According to the indictment, Kernell, who used the nicknames "rubico" and "rubico 10" on the Internet, allegedly reset Palin's e-mail password to "popcorn" using Yahoo's password-recovery tool on Sept. 16 by "researching and correctly answering a series of personal security questions."

After changing the password, the indictment alleges he made screenshots of her e-mail directory, e-mail messages and other personal information before posting them to a public Web site. He also posted the reset password.

Kernell was able to obtain the personal e-mail addresses of Palin's family members, pictures of her family, her birth date and at least one family member's cell phone number. He also had access to her address book.

The indictment alleges that after posting Palin's personal information online, Kernell "removed, altered, concealed and covered up files on his laptop computer" to throw off a possible investigation.

Investigators were able to track Kernell down by tracing the hack to his Knoxville apartment through an Internet proxy site.

The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee and investigated by the FBI's Anchorage and Knoxville field offices.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants

by: Michelle Nichols    25 September 2008

Nobel Peace Prize winner and environmental crusader Al Gore urged young people on Wednesday to engage in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal plants without the ability to store carbon.

The former U.S. vice president, whose climate change documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Academy Award, told a philanthropic meeting in New York City that "the world has lost ground to the climate crisis."

"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration," Gore told the Clinton Global Initiative gathering to loud applause.

"I believe for a carbon company to spend money convincing the stock-buying public that the risk from the global climate crisis is not that great represents a form of stock fraud because they are misrepresenting a material fact," he said. "I hope these state attorney generals around the country will take some action on that."

The government says about 28 coal plants are under construction in the United States. Another 20 projects have permits or are near the start of construction.

Scientists say carbon gases from burning fossil fuel for power and transport are a key factor in global warming.

Carbon capture and storage could give coal power an extended lease on life by keeping power plants' greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere and easing climate change.

But no commercial-scale project exists anywhere to demonstrate the technology, partly because it is expected to increase up-front capital costs by an additional 50 percent.

So-called geo-sequestration of carbon sees carbon dioxide liquefied and pumped into underground rock layers for long term storage.

I have seen more nonsense from these leftist and i ever thought was possible

SYDNEY (AFP) - An offbeat suggestion that Australians should eat kangaroos instead of cattle and sheep has been given a scientific stamp of approval by the government's top climate change adviser.

The belching and farting of millions of farm animals is a major contributor to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, Professor Ross Garnaut noted in a major report to the government on global warming.

Kangaroos, on the other hand, emit negligible amounts of methane gas.

If farmers were included in a system requiring industry to buy permits for the gas they produce, the cost of meat would rise and could lead to a change in eating habits, Garnaut said in the 600 page report released Wednesday.

ie global tax

"For most of Australia's human history -- around 60,000 years -- kangaroo was the main source of meat," he said.

"It could again become important. However, there are some significant barriers to this change, including livestock and farm management issues, consumer resistance and the gradual nature of change in food tastes."

Garnaut cited a study looking at the potential for kangaroos to replace sheep and cattle for meat production in Australia's rangelands, where kangaroos are already harvested.

The study concludes that by 2020, beef cattle and sheep numbers could be reduced by seven million and 36 million respectively, allowing for an increase in kangaroo numbers from 34 million now to 240 million by 2020.

This would be more than enough to replace the lost lamb and beef production, and kangaroo meat would become more profitable than cattle and sheep as the price of emissions permits increased.

Garnaut's report said livestock, mainly cattle and sheep, are responsible for some 67 percent of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite being the national animal and appearing on the Australian coat of arms, millions of kangaroos are slaughtered in the wild each year to control their numbers and much of the meat is used for pet food.

The idea of farming them for human consumption is controversial, but many health-conscious Australians already eat kangaroo meat.

"It's low in fat, it's got high protein levels, it's very clean in the sense that basically it's the ultimate free range animal," says Peter Ampt of the University of New South Wales's institute of environmental studies.

hummmmm more truth is found