theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer. katherine molé mfa ... art director

Monday, April 30, 2012

EPA manager who called 'crucify' quits...

Obama's war on the Energy industry has its first casualty, and it's the regional EPA executive who has been thrown under
the bus. This will not be the last misfit Obama will eject before the election. You can bet Mr. Algae is going to be taming
the rhetoric when anyone affiliated with his watch speaks what this administration thinks without an OK from the top. These are the types of miscues that could cause the Pharaoh's term to be cut short.

theodore miraldi

The regional Environmental Protection Agency executive who told an audience his “philosophy of enforcement” was to “crucify” and “make examples of” energy companies has quit.
It a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson over the weekend, Al Armendariz, the former top environmental official in the South and Southwest Region, said he regretted the comments but boasted of his “integrity and hard work.”
    “As I have expressed publicly, and to you directly, I regret comments I made several years ago that do not in any way reflect my work as regional administrator,” he wrote. “As importantly, they do not represent the work you have overseen as EPA administrator.”
    He continued, “I take great pride in having built a career based on integrity and hard work. These are the principles that guide me personally as well. While I feel there is much work that remains to be done for the people of this country in the region that I serve, after a great deal of thought and careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that my continued service will distract you and the agency from its important work.”
His words came in a Texas meeting in 2010.
    “It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw, and they’d crucify them. And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years,” he said.
He later apologized.
    Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., called for an investigation into the agency after highlighting Armendariz’s comments last week.
    The author of a new book, “Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda will Dismantle America,” says the EPA officials words were telling.
    In an exclusive interview with WND, Brian Sussman asked, “Would the EPA official have apologized for his contemptuous crucifixion declaration if he had not been caught on tape? Of course not. His statement is a perfect representation of eco-tyranny.”
    In his explosive new book of that title, Sussman contends “green authoritarianism” was inevitable from the beginning. He explains that President Richard Nixon, who “wanted to be liked,” according to one of his well-known former advisers, created the Environmental Protection Agency as an olive branch to the hard left. As Sussman jokes, “Needless to say, it was not returned.”
According to Sussman, the EPA and the legislation that empowered it, notably the Clean Air Act, “[were] flatly unconstitutional.” Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the federal government the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
    But Sussman notes that “somehow this turned into the ability for Congress to regulate the conduct of individual businesses, the output of specific industrial processes, and the makeup of the atmosphere itself. And as we’ve seen, they can’t wait to shut down businesses they don’t like.”
    “Eco-Tyranny” also exposes what Sussman calls the Obama administration’s “war” on oil and gas production. He notes that the Obama administration imposed a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, costing an estimated 137,000 jobs and $400 million to the state of Louisiana.
Furthermore, Obama also suspended exploratory drilling in Alaska, with his Department of Interior stonewalling any applications.
    According to Fox News, Inhofe says the resignation will make no difference in the investigation he wants.
“We will continue our investigation into the situations surrounding EPA’s apparent crucifixion victims: the American people deserve to know why, in at least three separate cases, EPA tarnished the reputation of companies by accusing them of water contamination; then when the results of their study did not turn out the way they hoped, and they had no definitive evidence to make that link, they quietly walked back their accusations. We will get to the bottom of this,” he said in the report.
                                             See the Armendariz rant on a previous post.

Obama strategy of taking credit for Osama bin Laden killing...

By , Updated: Monday, April 30, 3:27 PM

     President Obama has placed the killing of Osama bin Laden at the center of his reelection effort in a way that is drawing criticism for turning what he once described as an American victory into a partisan political asset.
Obama’s decision to send a Navy SEAL team deep inside Pakistan to kill bin Laden, the inspiration and ideologue behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, presents enormous political opportunity for a president, especially a Democratic one with no military experience.
    But political analysts and Republican critics say Obama is taking a risk in claiming credit for something that as recently as his January State of the Union address he described as “a testament to the courage, selflessness and teamwork of America’s armed forces.”
    In a series of videos and speeches
leading up to the Wednesday anniversary of the raid, the Obama campaign, through high-profile proxies such as Vice President Biden and former president Bill Clinton, has made the president the star of the story. Biden and others have also suggested that Obama’s rival, the presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney, would not have pursued bin Laden with the same determination.
    “He deserves the right to crow about it a little, but he has to be careful, given how many other issues are out there, even on the counterterrorism front,” said
Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution.
O’Hanlon said that if there is a terrorist attack against the United States or other foreign policy failures before Election Day, “it would look odd in the midst of all this self-congratulation over bin Laden.”
     “But if the election does turn on the economy, for a Democratic president, that’s already progress,” O’Hanlon continued. “To inoculate oneself against foreign policy attack should not be underrated as a political accomplishment.”
Obama campaigned four years ago on a pledge to end partisanship in Washington, and some analysts say the new focus he has placed on his role in the bin Laden killing may undermine that image in the minds of swing voters who proved decisive in 2008.
     At the same time, Obama’s decision to authorize the raid over the objection of some key advisers could blunt Romney’s ongoing attempts to portray the president as weak abroad, even as Iran’s uranium-enrichment program and Syria’s brutal crackdown on anti-government demonstrators continue to defy U.S. policy to end them.
Speaking at a White House news conference Monday alongside Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, Obama said, “I hardly think you’ve seen any excessive celebration taking place here.”
     “The American people rightly remember what we as a country accomplished in bringing to justice somebody who killed over 3,000 of our citizens,” he said. “And it’s a mark of the excellence of our intelligence teams and our military teams, a political process that worked. And I think for us to use that time for some reflection, to give thanks to those who participated is entirely appropriate, and that’s what’s been taking place."

    For Democratic incumbents, in particular, a successful foreign policy record can help address broader concerns over competence and resolve — or reinforce them. The politically enervating Iran hostage crisis and failed rescue attempt helped doom Jimmy Carter’s bid for a second term.
Republicans, too, have seen foreign policy achievement change character perceptions.
The 1989 invasion of Panama and the successful management of the first Persian Gulf War helped eliminate the “wimp factor” that shadowed George H.W. Bush before he took office. He lost his reelection bid for failing to improve a poor economy.
   Obama is not letting this moment pass quietly. Using the White House Situation Room as a backdrop, he recorded an interview about the bin Laden mission with NBC News that is scheduled to be broadcast on Wednesday.
And in recent days, Obama advisers have sought to make the link between his bin Laden decision and presidential character.
    The usually publicly reticent John O. Brennan, Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser, appeared on three Sunday morning news shows to discuss the state of al-Qaeda a year after bin Laden’s death.
In a speech Monday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Brennan continued to carry the message, saying that “the death of bin Laden was our most strategic blow yet against al-Qaeda.”
    “Credit for that success belongs to the courageous forces who carried out that mission, at extraordinary risk to their lives, to the many intelligence professionals who pieced together the clues that led to bin Laden’s hideout, and to President Obama, who gave the order to go in,” he said.
    The Obama campaign also released a new seven-minute video Monday that reviews the president’s record with an emphasis on the problems he inherited from the previous Republican administration.
It includes a roll call of al-Qaeda leaders killed since Obama took office and draws on archival footage of the television “special reports” from the night Obama announced bin Laden’s death from the East Room of the White House.
    The video follows another released last week in which Bill Clinton praises Obama’s courage for authorizing the mission. It also hints that Romney, who once questioned the impact that bin Laden’s death would have on al-Qaeda’s overall operations, would not have done the same.
Speaking to reporters Monday after a campaign event in New Hampshire, Romney said, “Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.”
    The Obama campaign has also put Biden forward to deliver the message.
Addressing the New York University School of Law last week, Biden cited bin Laden’s name at least 10 times in a speech that the campaign billed as the first critique of Romney’s foreign policy. Biden said a bumper sticker capturing the essence of Obama’s record would read: “Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive.”
    “You have to ask yourself, if Governor Romney had been president, could he have used the same slogan — in reverse?” Biden said. “People are going to make that judgment. It’s a legitimate thing to speculate on.”
In a statement after the speech, Frank Carlucci and John Lehman, two Reagan administration national security officials now advising Romney, said bin Laden’s killing was “a momentous day for all Americans, and we all give the president credit.”
    “But we are saddened to see the president of the United States politicize that event, even reducing it to a campaign slogan,” Carlucci and Lehman said in the statement. “
Obama campaign officials have pointed out that during the last presidential election Romney criticized Obama’s stated position that he would send U.S. forces into Pakistan to kill bin Laden if the opportunity arose. Several Republicans called Obama, then a U.S. senator, naive for saying so. Then-Senator Joe Biden, a rival for the Democratic nomination, did also.
At the Monday news conference, Obama said he would “recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and take out bin Laden.”
    “I assume that people meant what they said when they said it,” Obama said. “I said that I’d go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him and I did. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they’d do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.”

Staff writer Karen Tumulty contributed to this report.

Sunday, April 29, 2012

The Biggest Cover-up in American History...

By: Amil Imani with James H. Hyde

In our previous article, “Exonerating President Obama,” we noted that the only Supreme
Court precedent for the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1
of the U.S. Constitution appears to be the Judge Harlan dissent in the United States v.
Wong Kim Ark case. In collaboration with a constitutional attorney, we have examined
the subject matter further.

We believe that to understand the complexity of this issue it will be essential to have an
understanding of the place that the concepts of “Natural Law” and the book titled Law of
Nations had obtained in the run up to the War of Independence with Great Britain. These
concepts of natural law were commonly used throughout the colonies to explain, defend
and justify the colonists’ contentions in our dispute with Great Britain.

Our investigation leaves no doubt that the Founding Fathers of our nation clearly understood the meaning
of the term “natural born Citizen” and its relation to Natural Law and Law of Nations.
When you have finished studying our research you will also understand that these terms
were used in the Declaration of Independence as well as in our Constitution and in the
constitutions of a large number of states written at the same time as the Constitutional
Convention was in session.

This background understanding will clarify why the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional
Convention elected to include “natural born Citizen” in the eligibility requirements for
the Office of the President of our nation and what it truly means.

In this article we will prove beyond all doubt that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural
born Citizen and is thus ineligible to be President of the United States.

Citations following the textual part of this article are not simply to provide you the
references that support our assertions. They also provide you citations to reading material
that will help you understand the 1770 period in our History. To understand our
reasoning, it is important that the reader understands the Colonial people, and especially
the Founders with their educational backgrounds, their political fears and the nation’s
interrelationship with other nations at the time leading up to the War of Independence. In
this short article we could not provide all those dimensions, but we hope the reader will
study the references to fully understand the time period during which these things took
place. Unfortunately there are citations to books which are not available to download
online, so to get the whole picture, the reader will need to find a library to borrow the
needed materials.

1. In the time frame of 1740—1790, “Natural Law” had grown from the 17th century
studies of the early enlightenment philosophers (Grotius, Pufendorf, Rousseau, Locke, de
Wolf) into a reason-based concept that was based on the fact that all humans have
inherent animal qualities that contribute to laws worldwide that are essentially the same.

2. Emer de Vattel, a Swiss scholar, published a now world famous work titled Law of
Nations in French in 1758. The Vattel work built upon the earlier philosophy of Natural
Law, especially that of de Wolf. But what made Vattel’s work so famous was his
adoption of a more modern and easier-to-understand format, which was written like a
scientific thesis. It started out with definitions that were worked into the initial textual
material in a manner very different from the heavy, incomprehensible writing style of the
earlier philosophers. His work is written like a modern do-it-yourself project where he
captured the entire history and essence of Natural Law but mixed it into a means for building
a new nation based on a new type of constitution or a way of establishing an acceptable
set of rules for running a nation in a common sense manner based on the experience of
political science as it developed over the centuries.

3. The delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention understood what they were voting
on when they voted unanimously on Sept. 7, 1787 to add a clause to Article 2, Section 1,
Paragraph 5 of the Presidential Eligibility Requirements. They had added an eligibility
clause for anyone seeking the Office of the President that requires that they be a “natural
born Citizen,” which means that both of his parents had to be citizens of the U.S. on the
date of his birth.

4. In the period 1750-1770, the French language had become of growing interest in the
world of American politics and had been of major importance to the academic world,
especially for American attorneys and in particular how it relates to Natural Law in the
time period 1730 and thereafter.

5. The great majority of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was
attorneys and at that time attorneys were primarily men from the upper classes who were
typically very well educated at the few colleges and universities of merit in the U.S. For
the most part the educational curricula in those schools followed the Classical Education
model of Great Britain.

6. (a) After 1750, many leaders in the U.S. had become aware that the Classical
Educational Model was not adequate for the times. This resulted in movements to
modernize the curricula of American colleges and universities, in particular to introduce a
new emphasis on the teaching of Law in the colleges and universities as opposed to the
traditional apprenticeship programs being employed to qualify attorneys.

Specifically, for many years prior to 1789, Thomas Jefferson, the then Governor of Virginia, had tried to
pass a law in Virginia that would have placed William and Mary, an Anglican facility, in
charge of the Virginia State University system and to modernize the curriculum. While
his efforts were unsuccessful because of opposition from other church groups, Jefferson
was instrumental in abolishing the Greek and Hebrew Professorships at William and
Mary and initiating courses in Natural Law and Political Science; likewise, the College of
Philadelphia (now the University of Pennsylvania) had initiated similar changes in the time
period 1760-1780 which focused more specifically on legal areas, including Natural Law,
to better prepare students to become attorneys.

In the time period 1760-1780, the College of New Jersey (now Princeton) was only getting started with the new curriculum and was
extremely focused on being a modern, more flexible educational facility compared to
universities utilizing the Classical Model. Harvard and Yale were less rapid in
modernizing in the time period 1760-1780, except that each had added the study of the
French Language to their curricula.

6. (b) John Jay, subsequently the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, had
written a letter on July 25, 1787, to George Washington, who was then the President of
the Constitutional Convention, which was in session. In this letter, John Jay expressed a
fear for the nation if the office of the President should fall into the hands of a person with
an allegiance to a foreign power. To reduce the chance that this could occur, Mr. Jay
recommended including the provision in the President’s Eligibility Requirements that the
President must be a “natural born Citizen” in addition to the other age eligibility and term
of residency requirements that would suffice to adequately protect the nation from a
person with a foreign allegiance from ever becoming President.

6. (c) From the floor of the Constitutional Convention on Sept. 4, 1787, a delegate
voiced an objection to the then proposed language for Article 2, the Presidential
Eligibility Requirements, and Article 2 was sent back to the committee for further
consideration. On Sept. 7 the Presidential Eligibility Requirements issue of Article 2 was
again brought to the floor, was put to a vote and unanimously approved. It included
the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement initially proposed by John Jay.

7. As noted above, the vast majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention
were attorneys. They had attended the very best colleges and universities in the U.S.,
which had modernized their curricula and that some of the delegate attorneys had
attended British universities, which, in the time period-1770, also included the concepts
of Natural Law in their Philosophy curricula.

8. Three copies of the 1775 version of the book Law of Nations, written in French by
Emer de Vattel in 1758, had been sent to Ben Franklin by its publisher. Mr. Franklin had
sent one copy to the Library Company of Philadelphia (LCP). In that same year, Mr.
Franklin had sent a letter to the publisher informing him that he had been often loaning
his copy to other congressman and they were in admiration of Vattel. The LCP was
located on the 2nd floor of the Constitutional Convention building in 1787, and
arrangements had been completed to provide library membership rights in the LCP on the
second floor to all the Constitutional Convention delegates. The 1775 French version of
Law of Nations was in the LCP catalog (titled in French: Les Droit des gens), as well as
the Law of Nations, 1760 English version. The catalog was also an inventory of the
books on the shelf in 1789 which encompass the dates of the 1787 Constitutional

9. (a) We contend that it is inconceivable that 53 of the most able and highly educated
gentleman in the United States, including 33 attorneys educated at the finest universities,
as a group would not understand the meaning of the term, “natural born Citizen” before
they would have cast a unanimous vote to include the term in the
President’s Eligibility Requirements. Further it is our contention that the delegates
understood that the term “natural born Citizen” had a connection to Natural Law at the
time the convention delegates voted unanimously to include the “natural born Citizen”
language in Article 2.

9. (b) The preamble of the Declaration of Independence, issued by the majority of the
Congressmen of this nation on July 4, 1776, made reference to Natural Law and was
based on the Natural Law concepts as set forth by Vattel, Wolf and Pufendorf.

Thomas Jefferson, who authored the Declaration of Independence, had been previously
responsible for writing the then new Constitution for the State of Virginia which was also
based on the Natural Law principles of those same philosophers. In addition, shortly after
the 1787 Constitutional Convention completed its work, Thomas Jefferson and James
Madison, then President of the College of William and Mary, in 1789 significantly
changed that college’s Educational Model by eliminating the Greek and Hebrew
requirements and created a new regime involving Natural Law and Political Science as
the new curricula elements. James Madison had been the instructor for these courses prior
to the 1789 educational regime change.

Thus, the concepts of Natural Law, set out in the Declaration of Independence, in the
U.S. Constitution and in the State of Virginia Constitution, had never before in the
history of the World been employed in the establishment of a representative republic. It
was the first time that a colony of a ruling power had set forth in a declaration to the
sovereign that the sovereign had violated the Natural Rights of the colonists.

10. During the period that followed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the
principles of Liberty and Natural Law, as mentioned in the Preface of said Declaration,
were frequently addressed by the American congressmen and that any interpretation of
the term “natural born Citizen” at the time of the Signing of the Constitution in 1787
would be the position taken by Justices Fuller and Harlan in their dissent in the Wong
Kim Ark 169 U.S. 715 case in which they wrote,“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit, it is unreasonable that …Natural Born Citizen applied to (just) anybody,”

These Supreme Court Justices clearly meant that the Court must refer to a meaning under Natural Law because it cannot be that just any
child born in the U.S. would become a citizen by birth here because that would not
address the danger the Framers then feared of persons with an allegiance to a foreign power
becoming citizens.

11. (a) On Sept. 4, 1787, during the consideration by the delegates of the Presidential
Eligibility Requirements in Article 2, Paragraph 5, there was a very powerful
OBJECTION expressed that had to have been heard and understood by the Convention.
Specifically, the OBJECTION was: “NO NUMBER OF YEARS (of residence in the
presidency].” Based on the widely felt fear of the damage that a foreigner could unleash
on the nation if a foreigner filled the highest position of our government, a change was
requested. To address this fear, the committee submitted a change to the Eligibility
Requirements for the Office of the President in Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5,
specifically that the president must be a “natural born Citizen.”

11. (b)(1) We contend that from the 6th Century B.C., known as the “Classical Period,”
Greek and Roman prose literature was the basis for the Educational Model in the colleges
in the American colonies during the 1740s, specifically as it related to the study of
politics and nations. This field encompassed the “Natural Law”(102) philosophy, and Law of
Nations evolved under the influence of the Enlightenment (101).

11. (b)(2) By 1760 the term “Natural Law” had become widely understood by the learned
and that it had permeated to all (201). So suffused (203) was a concern for natural law and its
intellectual origins at the time of the Revolution that, as noted above, the opening line of
the Declaration of Independence makes a direct reference to the Laws of Nature and of
Nature’s God as the initial appeal to mankind for the justness of the American cause.
Natural Law was thus the ultimate antidote to British claims of supremacy (204).

11. (b)(3) By 1770 Emer de Vattel had become world renowned for his wonderful work
Law of Nations and that it was the most influential treatise for the colonists (301).
Specifically, he helped them in many areas including partnering (302) to the exclusion of the
sovereign, defensive unions with weaker states (303), formation of perpetual confederation,
as well as strategy for growth by association (304).

There is absolutely no question but that Vattel was unrivaled in his influence on the
American founders (306), most all of whom were fluent in French and fully understood the
French version of Law of Nations.

11. (b)(4) In view of the widespread publicity and familiarity with Natural Law, it is our
contention and belief that the words “natural born,” which are part of the term “natural
born Citizen,” were selected by the drafting committee because the words “natural born”
indicate to any legally informed person that this is a special type of citizenship which is
recognized in the Natural Law and in Vattel’s Law of Nations.

11. (b)(5) Natural Law recognizes the term jus sanguinis as a special form of citizenship
in which a child’s nationality is determined by the citizenship of both of the child’s
parents. This is a special form of citizenship, which is closely related to the citizenship of
a child under Book I, Chapter XIX, Section 212 of Vattel’s Law of Nations.

11. (b)(6) Since the term “natural born Citizen” was added to the Article 2 Presidential
Eligibility Requirements of the Constitution to address the fear of those with foreign
allegiances ascending to the presidency, everyone familiar with Vattel’s Law of Nations
would know that Section 212 of Vattel’s Book I, Chapter 19 was involved because that
section defines in French “Les naturels ou indigenes” are those persons born in a country
of parents [plural] that are citizens. The complete sentence, “Les naturels ou indigenes,”
sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de parents citoyens in French translates to “The
natural or native, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

To further establish the relevance of Section 212, the last line of that section specifically
makes it clear that this provision is directed to the special emotional relationship to the
country if a child is born of parents who are citizens rather than foreigners. The last
sentence states, “…if he is born there of a foreigner it will only be his place of birth, and
not his country.” It is not essential to show that there was an English language translation
at of the date of the 1787 Convention that matches the English words, “natural born
Citizen.” The committee carefully chose the English words “natural born Citizen” for the
Constitution as John Jay submitted them so that the sentence would have the identical
meaning as the 1758 Vattel sentence in French and to make it obvious that the term refers
to the Natural Law and to Vattel’s Law of Nations.

11. (c) The fact that the eligibility requirement was passed unanimously is generally
powerful evidence that that the vote was the “original intent” of the delegates, which is
the usual question that needs to be answered positively when evaluating and construing
the enforceability of a constitutional provision.

12. (a) It is clear that the term “natural born Citizen” in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of
the Constitution which states, “No person except a natural born Citizen …shall be eligible
for the Office of the President…” requires a reference to the history of the United States
to understand that term.

12. (b) We believe that in view of the degree of knowledge of the highly educated
statesmen, congressmen and delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, this
sentence in Article 2 clearly makes reference to the Natural Law and to Vattel’s Law of
Nations, in which the term is clearly and unequivocally defined.

12. (c) We are aware of a 1987 article directed to the issue of Eligibility Qualifications of
the President (401). The analysis of this paper is based on the Farrand Records of the
Constitutional Convention of 1911. Much better records are available today as can be
seen in the Madison # 11(a) record and in the Bancroft record in the #11(a) citation. In
fact, the Farrand record they relied on failed to show that there was an objection from the
floor when the Presidential Eligibility issue was raised. This objection obviously led to
the addition of the term “natural born Citizen.” For some reason, in complete disregard
to the ordinary facts of Conventions, this article suggests there was something strange
about the fact that Farrand’s Record showed no debate on this issue.

Everyone knows that there were no official records made of the Convention and that the Farrand records
were inherently defective. Further in a convention in a small facility like Carpenter’s Hall
where issues are discussed privately and where there is no disagreement, that it is very
common that there is little or no debate, normally evidenced by the unanimous approval.
Even more to the point, the analysis failed to consider external facts, such as the
educational background of the delegates, the historical situation of the nation, as well as
the political fears of the founders as noted by John Jay and approved by George

This deficiency is best addressed by the words of Mr. Bederman:
“Comparative constitutionalism has something to offer not only for the
making of Constitutions but also their interpretation. If originalism is going to be
consistently and legally espoused as a means of constitutional construction, then
the complete mentalite of the framing generation needs to be observed. If it
matters what the ‘intelligent and informed people’ of the Framing generation
understood the Constitution to mean, it would be folly to exclude from the
analysis of the crucial element of the educational background, historical
sensibilities, and political fears of those people. As I have suggested here,
classicism and ancient history were crucial components of those understandings
and beliefs, and were as significant as the Framer’s economic interests, their
religious values and their confidence in the rule of law and the promise of
liberty (402).”
12. (d) In our opinion, it is absolutely clear that under Vattel’s Law of Nations, Chapter
XIX, Section 212, that Mr. Obama does not comply with the Article 2, Section 1
eligibility requirements of the U.S. Constitution to hold the Office of the President. This
analysis is also based on Mr. Obama’s public admission that his father, a Kenyan, was
still a British citizen in 1961 when Barack II was born. For most of this nation, once they
understand and appreciate the historical place of the doctrine of Natural Law and the Law
of Nations, this conclusion will be accepted, resulting in a sad day, maybe the most
sorrowful day ever for our nation. We are good people, Democrats, Republicans, and
independents. Each of us will need to come to terms with the fact that Mr. Obama has
known for many years that he is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. None
of us can hide any longer from this fact and each of us will need to consider the
ramifications to our children of the immorality of his actions
#1 URL:
#2 URL:
#3 James Madison’s records of the Constitutional Convention Proceedings:
For Sept. 4, 1787: URL:
For Sept. 7, 1787; URL:
George Bancroft, History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States, Vol.
2, D. Appleton&Co.,1882, p.192-3
#4 French Educators in the Northern States during the Eighteenth Century, by Rodrigue,
E.M., The French Review, Vol.14, no.2 (Dec. 1940) p.95-108 URL:
Bederman, David J., The Classical Foundations of the American Constitution, p. 21-
25; p.109-110; p.162-163
URL: The heritages of John Jay, George Washington
and Thomas Jefferson.
#5 Biography of the Constitutional Delegates, 33 attorneys and 20 non-attorneys
#6(a) William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Papers (1892), at Oct. 1892,
William and Mary College Quarterly
URL: See Pg. 73
#6(b) Bancroft, George, History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United
States, Vol. 2, D. Appleton&Co.,1882, p.436
John Jay, handwritten letter dated July 25, 1787 to George Washington and reverse side.
10627 re July 25 letter)
URL: (press
12782 re July 25 letter reverse)
#6(c) James Madison’s records of the Constitutional Convention Proceedings:
For Sept. 4, 1787: URL:
For Sept. 7, 1787; URL:
Bancroft, George, History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States,
Vol. 2, D. Appleton&Co.,1882, p.192-3
#7 Delegate Listing including Biographical data—33 attorneys and 20 non-attorneys
URL: For listing colleges of
delegates see URL:
#8 re book copies URL: Ben Franklin thanks
Charles Dumas for Copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law
re: Dumas/loaning
Re Library Co in Carpenter’s Hall URL: See Page 5.
Re 1789 LCP Catalogue URL:
At this site, you will find the 1789 catalog of the LCP. It is very difficult to navigate the catalog because their cataloging system is a nightmare—it is partially based on the size of
the book and the catalog doesn’t indent any subjects. Under VIII, 228 Law Quarto, no 224, it states Law of Nations or Principles of law of
nature applied to affairs of nations and foreigners, English, Translated from the French
of Vattel, 2 one, London 1760. and Under VI, General Politics, Quarto 177, no. 303 it states, 1775 version, “Le Droit des
gens par Vattel.” Gift of Mr. Dumas.
# 9(a) No citations
#9(b) Re: connect of Natural Law and Declaration URL:
Re T. Jefferson Thomas Jefferson, “Writings”, (Merril Patterson . ed.; Library of Am.
Ed., 1984
Re W&M William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Papers (1892), at Oct 1892
William and Mary College Quarterly
URL: See P. 73
Re T. Jefferson and Nat Law:. Bederman, David J., The Classical Foundations of the
American Constitution, p, 46-47
#10 United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 715
#11(a) James Madison’s records of the Constitutional Convention Proceedings:
For Sept. 4, 1787: URL:
For Sept. 7, 1787; URL:
Bancroft, George, History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States,
Vol. 2, D. Appleton&Co., 1882, p.192-3
11(b)(1) Bederman, David J, “The Classical Foundations of the American Constitution”
(101) Pg. ix
(102)..Pg. 21; Pg. 26
(201) Bederman Pg. 21
(203) Bederman Pg. 46
(204) Bederman Pg. 46
(301) Bederman Pg. 109
(302) Bederman Pg. 110
(303) Bederman Pg. 110
(304) Bederman Pg. 110
(305) Bederman Pg. 110
(306) Bederman Pg. 273—Footnotes 99—104 Vattel
#11(b)(4) none
#11(b)(5) URL:
#11(b)(6) none
#11(c) URL:
#11(d) no citations
#12(a) none
#12(b) none
#12(c) (401) Nelson, M, “Constitutional Qualification for President”, Presidential
Studies Quarterly, vol. 17, No.2, (Spring 1987), pp. 383-399
(402) Bederman Pg. 231
#12(d) none

Obama's Extravagant Lifestyle...

Obama Family Extravagant Lifestyle – the Belated Campaign Drag...
Despite his claim Wednesday that he has "added more than 4 million jobs over the past two years," the Labor Department reported Thursday new claims for unemployment benefits rose 6,250 to 381,750. The figure from the previous week was revised up to 389,000. This marked the highest number of new unemployment benefits claims since the week ending Jan. 7.
Then, in spite of Obama's 2009 vow to cut government waste, there's that whole Las Vegas-General Services Administration thing. Of course, the White House has made sure to clear itself of any connection in the Secret Service/prostitution scandal.

Now there's the Osama bin Laden embarrassment to contend with.
In the17 minute mini-movie "The Road We've Traveled," Obama's campaign used former President Bill Clinton to argue Republican front-runner Mitt Romney would not have launched the raid to capture bin Laden.
But a memo obtained and released by Time Magazine -- written by then-CIA head Leon Panetta -- confirms Obama didn't launch the raid either.

In the interest of protecting himself from making a decision -- which might have backfired and cost him politically if the raid failed -- Obama handed the "timing, operational decision making and control" of the raid to Adm. William McRaven.

Still, even as Obama struggles to keep his re-election nose above the general election waters being churned by these and a host of other problems, there is a serious undertow surging beneath the surface. The riptide of negative public sentiment -- over what the U.K. Telegraph described in August 2010 as "the extravagance and arrogance on display among the White House elites that rule America as though they had been handed some divine right to govern with impunity" -- is threatening to drag him under.

In September 2010, The Daily Mail reported of Carla Bruni's book revelation that Michelle Obama said being first lady is "hell" and she "can't stand it."
On Thursday, Real Clear Politics quoted her saying her fantasy "is to walk right out the front door" of the White House "and just keep walking."

Apparently, when it comes to the extravagant lifestyle she shares with her husband at taxpayers' expense, a growing number of Democrat voters are beginning to share her vision.

The Washington Examiner reported analysis of swing voters in 11 battleground states shows blue collar Democrats are "depressed about the economy" and resentful of their tax dollars "being sucked up by both the rich and those living on government assistance."

Above all, they are angry at the Obamas in knowing their tax dollars have been used to foot the bill for 17 lavish family vacations around the world while they continue to settle for disappointing "staycations" because they can't afford gas and a hotel room.
Remember the first lady's luxurious vacation to Spain in 2010? Back then Politics Daily reported White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs assuring the public that, while the first lady was "on a private trip," the Obamas picked up much of the tab on their own.

But analysis of government records released by Judicial Watch reveals her "private mother-daughter trip with longtime family friends" cost taxpayers at least $467,585.
A survey by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed the Obama-led government received the lowest positive rating score of the past 15 years.
While the majority of Americans remain satisfied with the performance levels of their local and state governments, only 33 percent have a favorable opinion about government on the federal level.
The factor in this survey that should give Obama great concern is that only 27 percent of those key independent voters have a favorable opinion of his government.
Of course, 51 percent of Democrats surveyed view the Obama-led government favorably and, as expected, only 20 percent of Republicans approve.
Then again, the approval disparity can be easily explained. Another Pew Research Center survey a month ago found that when tested on their level of political knowledge "Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats."

USA communists endorse Obama....

by Drew Zahn

    The Communist Party USA isn’t always happy with the Democrats, but in the 2012 election, its chairman says, the best bet for advancing the Party’s goals is to back Barack Obama.
    In a report called “Defeating the Rightwing on the Road to Socialism” delivered to the CPUSA annual conference, Party Chairman Sam Webb moved to squash sentiments that disgruntled communists should jump off the Democrat ship and back a third-party candidate for president.
    “Some think the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans. Others go further and say that the Democrats are worse because they create popular illusions that change is possible within the two-party system,” Webb said. “And finally there are advocates of running a third-party presidential candidate in this election.
    “I can understand these sentiments, but only up to a point,” he said. “Like it or not, millions go to the polls in spite of their misgivings … and the Democratic Party is the vehicle of reform for tens of millions, the majority of whom are working and oppressed people.”
Therefore, Webb said, communists need to join other left-leaning allies in ensuring Republicans are defeated in November.
    “A third-party presidential candidate would only help the extreme right, as well as isolate the left from the broader movement,” Webb strategized. “Only a closer alliance of a surging labor movement and its strategic allies – the African American people, Latino people, and other peoples of color, women and youth – have the wherewithal to turn back this corporate counterattack, while at the same time enact progressive measures.”
Other speakers at the conference threw their support behind Obama even more succinctly, including Executive Vice Chair of CPUSA Jarvis Tyner.
    “These right-wing nut jobs need to understand, we are not going back,” Tyner said. “If Obama is elected, of course there will be a struggle; a struggle that the democratic forces could win, I would say. If he is defeated, the movement will suffer a big setback and the country will be pushed backwards.”
    According to a report in CPUSA’s news source People’s World, Vice Chair Juan Lopez warned conference attendees that Republicans would use racism as a “powerful ideological weapon” to defeat Obama.
    “There is no room for cynicism,” Lopez stressed, “if we expect to win against Republicans who are exhibiting fascist tendencies. The defeat of Obama would be a dangerous setback on every front of struggle, especially against racism and for equality for women. It would show that white people were not ready for an African American president, after all.”
Joelle Fishman, chair of the CPUSA Political Action Commission, further contrasted Obama and his “values … upholding the contribution of work and those who do it,” and Mitt Romney, who allegedly values “individualism and corporate greed.”
   “The poll shows there is a lot of work to be done,” Fishman trumpeted, “but with a strong platform for jobs and fair taxes, Obama and Democrats can win voters in swing districts, including white voters who supported the tea party in 2010.”
    Fishman and Webb each remarked on labor-union plans to put huge ground forces in play for the 2012 election and encouraged fellow communists to join, rather than fight, the efforts.
“Labor will throw itself into the campaign to elect Democrats, moderate as well as progressive,” Webb told the conference.
    “The AFL-CIO grass roots crusade will engage 400,000 members to canvass their co-workers and neighbors with a unity message for Obama. SEIU will mobilize another 200,000 members with the same goal,” Fishman claimed. “Strengthening and enlarging union, civil rights, community and youth organizations during this election will lay the groundwork for year-round organizing and for future elections in which candidates who come out of the movements, including the Communist Party, run for office.”

Dan Savage's Anti-Bible tirade.....

    This is an issue that we all must search our hearts to find an answer, but is Savage's snippets from verse the real problem with societies conceptions of alternate life styles, or is it unseen consequences heaped upon innocence having to digest yet
another minority issue as universal fact to be embraced by all....

theodore miraldi

by Dave Tombers

    Homosexual activist Dan Savage, recently invited to be the keynote speaker at a high school anti-bullying conference in Seattle, Wash., promptly used his podium to bash Christians so severely, droves of the students fled the auditorium, some say victims of bullying themselves.
The National High School Journalism Convention, hosted jointly by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association, was supposed to give aspiring students exposure to professional journalism workshops designed to make the journalists of tomorrow the best that they can be.
    One such workshop, featuring Savage, was billed in the convention program as a discussion on how to properly report on bullying.
“Student journalists cover a world where bullying, harassment and hazing are part of their experience,” says the workshop description in part.
Instead, when Savage took to the microphone, the real life exposure to bullying became all too real for the young high school students.
    Savage launched into an attack on the Bible, saying, “People often point out that they can’t help it. They can’t help with the anti-gay bullying, because it says right there in Leviticus, it says right there in Timothy, it says right there in Romans, that being gay is wrong.
    “We can learn to ignore the bulls— in the Bible about gay people,” he pronounced, “the same way we have learned to ignore the bulls— in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore bulls— in the Bible about all sorts of things.”
In this video of the speech below, students can be seen streaming out a few at a time, but begin to leave in groups when Savage continues to blast the Bible as “a radically pro-slavery document.”
    While the promoters of the conference that booked Savage billed his address by saying, “Savage is also a syndicated advice columnist. With his frank, funny advice on sex and relationships, he creates a safe space for all audiences to honestly discuss ‘taboo’ topics,” it was evident that many in the audience failed to feel safe.
While much of his audience walked out on him, Savage continued the Christian-bashing by lamenting the fact that the Apostle Paul didn’t tell a Christian slave owner “not” to own slaves, just “how” to own them.
    While proclaiming that the Word of God is flawed on issues of slavery, and “got it wrong” on “the easiest moral question humanity has ever faced”, he assured his audience that the Bible is also 100 percent wrong on human sexuality and alluded to the retreating students as “pansy a–es.”
    As WND has previously reported, Dan Savage is widely known as a radical, homosexual activist, who created a obscene site that redefines Rick Santorum’s last name as the byproduct of anal sex.
While Savage promotes his video sharing site, “It Gets Better,” aimed at helping homosexual teens survive bullying, but as Fox News wrote, “For some … students, they felt like the anti-bullying activist was in fact the bully.”

PC crowd says, drop the I word.....

   The PC crowd is now demanding that the media drop using the word Illegal when speaking about Illegal Aliens because
it dehumanizes the individual. How considerate. I have a better solution to the entire problem. I suggest to all of the ILLEGALS who have broken any of our laws, including entering our country ILLEGALLY to go home. We don't want you to feel dehumanized, so please leave so the rest of us aren't feeling guilty. Maybe should do something about the media using genitalia to describe women as well.....just a thought.

theodore miraldi

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Democrats making election a WAR!

    Never in modern History has a party used such unscupulous verbage to divide and conquer a nation already wounded
by a finacial meltdown and dysfunctional government. The democrats mantra for 2012 is the word WAR!!!! And it doesn't
matter who their fighting. A war against children, a war against women, a war against redistribution of wealth, a war on the poor, a war on the rich, a war against healthcare, a race war, class war, a war on the Constitution etc...etc...etc.

     You just may wonder who this party isn't at war with, or also might wonder why a party that did nothing but whine about war and the Bush administartion's efforts to keep us safe has now incorporated this narrative on so many issues, and so many levels. It's paranoia that the blowhards micro-judging every aspect of American life has but one war left. And from the looks of things, it will be a war for many of them trying to find work come November!

theodore miraldi


   As the House readies to vote on a GOP plan to freeze federal student loan rates for a year, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) on Thursday fired back at Democratic claims that the proposal constitutes a “war on women,” calling the argument “pathetic.”
     House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi “wants to continue this fiction that every Democratic messenger is trying to put forward, which is there is a war on women,” Bachmann told Fox Business Network’s Neil Cavuto Thursday night. “There is no war on women. ... That’s what Nancy Pelosi is trying to do, because she’s trying to reach the all-important woman voter.”
    Pelosi and other Democrats have argued that because the GOP’s plan to pay the $6 billion cost of extending the current Stafford loan rates includes rescinding monies from part of the national health care overhaul, the proposal represents the latest instance of Republicans taking aim at women.
But unmentioned by Democrats is the fact that a year-long payroll tax deal agreed to earlier this year also took away some funding from the same part of the national health care law.
    The House is expected to vote on the GOP plan later Friday. Democrats favor a plan that they say would close some tax loopholes, a proposal that Republicans oppose.
The shots fired over the student loan plan are the latest sign that Democratic efforts to put the GOP on defense among women voters aren’t about to die down anytime soon.
    While polls show President Obama leading Mitt Romney among women overall, Bachmann pointed out Thursday night that married women favor Republicans.
    Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi, said in response, “Actions speak louder than words.”
“And time and time again House Republicans have sought to gut women’s health initiatives in their ideological drive to aid the wealthy and special interests,” he said. “I realize the Congresswoman has missed a number of votes in this         Congress running for president, but surely she’s noticed the Republican record on women’s health.”
    Hammill added that while money has been taken from the Prevention and Public Health Fund in the past, Republicans now “are punishing women and children by taking the drastic step of repealing the fund entirely.”
He noted that repeal of the fund is opposed by organizations including the American Lung Association, American Heart Association and American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

'War' promised if IRS attacks church speech...

   This administration's attack on First Amendment Rights is now trying to disrupt any religious interference by using this nation's institutions to threaten actions against those who oppose Obama's war on the unborn. Using IRS pressure on
religious institutions brings back sad memories of past atrocities against those who wish to live by their own convictions.
This effort is no less evil than the mechanisms displayed by Hitler and Stalin bringing the world to the edge of extinction.
Regardless of what your beliefs may be, voting for Obama is a vote to return to failed attempts to clone human behaviors to government standards.

theodore miraldi

By Dave Tombers
    While a group that opposes expressions of Christianity in public forums wants the IRS to use its formidable power to crack down on what pastors say, one legal foundation says, “Bring it on,” promising a “legal war” if churches are attacked on such issues.
    Americans United for the Separation of Church and State Executive Director Barry Lynn recently wrote a letter to the IRS demanding help in quashing the speech of a leader in the Roman Catholic Diocese in Peoria, Ill.
The April 19 letter calls a recent homily given by Bishop Daniel Jenky a violation of IRS regulations relating to the tax-exempt status of the church, because Jenky cited atrocities of past governments, specifically naming Hitler and Stalin, and then cited the failings of the Obama administration.
   The homily was also reprinted in the Catholic Post, and urged Catholics to stand by their religious convictions, even outside the walls of the church.
“Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care,” he said.
    “In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path,” the homily says.
    The homily included the plea, “Now things have come to such a pass in America that this is a battle that we could lose, but before the awesome judgment seat of Almighty God this is not a war where any believing Catholic may remain neutral.”
    Jenky even included a dire prediction for the nation if Catholics don’t stand by their convictions.
“This fall, every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences, or by the following fall our Catholic schools, our Catholic hospitals, our Catholic Newman centers, all of our public ministries – only excepting our church buildings – could easily be shut down.
    “Because no Catholic institution, under any circumstance, can ever cooperate with the intrinsic evil of killing innocent human life in the womb,” he said.
He was opposing the Obamacare mandate that employers, including schools, hospitals and others, pay for abortions for employees.
    American’s United tells the IRS that this homily puts the Catholic bishop afoul of the law, and demands that an investigation of the priest be undertaken.
In the letter to the IRS, AU says in part, “Bishop Jenky compared Obama to Hitler and Stalin and accused him of pursuing policies that will close Catholic institutions.
   “Moments later he exhorted members of his flock not to vote for candidates who fail to uphold Catholic values.
“It is impossible to interpret this as anything but a command to vote against Obama,” Lynn said.
The Thomas More Society says that the law and the Bill of Rights is on the bishop’s side, and promises a “free and aggressive legal defense to any religious leaders targeted or victimized for the robust exercise of their free speech rights.”
    “The Internal Revenue Service has no legal right to investigate, let alone threaten or penalize the Catholic Diocese of Peoria for illegal ‘electioneering’ after Bishop Daniel Jenky, C.S.C., referred to policies of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin while delivering a robust, wholly legitimate critique of current federal efforts to quash and curtail religious liberties,” says Thomas Brejcha, president of the Thomas More Society.
    “References to egregious, historical mistakes on the part of political leaders of the past in messages to congregations, even in an election year, are fully protected by the First Amendment, whether those messages are delivered from the pulpit or on soap boxes in the public square,” he continued.
“We think the law is very clear,” said Brejcha.
    “Well-settled federal law does not prohibit churches and other tax-exempt non-profits from speaking out against government policies at odds with the common good or – as in this case – constitutionally obnoxious.”
“Where would the civil rights movement have been were it not for the courage of those of our religious leaders who spoke truth to power on behalf of the disenfranchised?” Brejcha added.
    “When Bishop Jenky said, ‘…every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences…,’ he’s simply telling people that their religious convictions and values matter outside the church walls,” said Brejcha.
Twice recently the Thomas More Society has faced down the IRS on behalf of religious groups. The society said one case was when the IRS was holding up approval of the Coalition for Life of Iowa’s request for tax-exempt status, while simultaneously pressing its pro-life members to stop conducting prayer vigils outside a Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Iowa City.
    “After TMS challenged the IRS’s legal position, the service’s demands to stop the picketing were suddenly dropped and the Coalition promptly received IRS approval for tax-exempt status,” the organization reported.
In another case the group challenged the IRS for “highly improper demands” made by the agency about prayer vigils conducted by the Christian Voices for Life.
Upon being challenged, the agency backed down.

Friday, April 27, 2012

Republicans seek to hold attorney general in contempt over Fast and Furious

April 27, 2012

WASHINGTON — Republican House leaders have drafted a proposed contempt of Congress citation against Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. in which they charge that he and his Justice Department have repeatedly "obstructed and slowed" the Capitol Hill investigation into the ATF's flawed Fast and Furious gun-tracking operation.

The 48-page draft citation is being drawn up by Rep.
Darrell Issa (R-Vista), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Top committee officials recently met for most of a day in the House speaker's office and were given the green light to proceed toward a contempt citation, according to sources who declined to be identified.

If adopted by the
GOP-led House, the contempt resolution would be sent to the U.S. attorney's office in Washington or perhaps an independent counsel in an attempt to force the Justice Department to provide tens of thousands of internal documents to the committee.

A contempt resolution would also escalate a political feud between Issa and the Obama administration. Earlier this week Issa called the Obama
White House "the most corrupt in government history." At a hearing in December, he compared Holder to disgraced Atty. Gen. John Mitchell from the President Nixon era, a comment that prompted Holder to fire back in language reminiscent of the bitter Senate hearings led by former Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.): "Have you no shame?"

Holder and other Justice Department officials insist they are cooperating with congressional investigators. Holder said the department had responded to more than three dozen letters from members of Congress and facilitated numerous witness interviews. The department has submitted or made available more than 6,400 pages of documents, he said.

"This has been a significant undertaking for department employees," Holder testified before the committee in February. "And our efforts in this regard remain ongoing."

Holder also cautioned that "the separation of powers concerns are particularly acute here," especially since there were still several "open criminal investigations and prosecutions" that resulted from the Fast and Furious case.

The operation — run by the Phoenix office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosivesfrom 2009 to early last year — allowed illegal gun purchases in hopes of tracking the weapons to Mexican drug cartel leaders. Instead, hundreds of guns vanished, and scores turned up at crime scenes in
Mexico. Two were found where U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot to death south of Tucson in December 2010.

A number of illegal straw purchasers have been indicted, and two others are charged in Terry's slaying.

Issa and Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the
Senate Judiciary Committee, contend that they have received far more documents from ATF whistle-blowers than have been turned over by the Justice Department.

"The department's refusal to work with Congress to ensure that such a mistake [as Fast and Furious] is never repeated is inexcusable and cannot stand," said a copy of the draft report obtained by the Los Angeles Times/Tribune Washington Bureau. "Those responsible for allowing Fast and Furious to proceed and those who are preventing the truth about the operation from coming out must be held accountable for their actions."

Holder has sharply denied that he or other Justice Department officials were aware that the ATF purposely allowed illegal weapons to circulate on the border. As soon as he learned of the "gun-walking tactics" used in Fast and Furious, he said, he called for a Justice Department inspector general investigation.

The contempt citation maneuver has been applied in the past. During the Clinton administration, the Republican-controlled House oversight panel voted Atty. Gen.
Janet Reno in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena related to campaign finance law violations. During the George W. Bush administration, the Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee and the full House voted two top administration officials in contempt for not cooperating in the scandal over the political firing of several U.S. attorneys.

Issa's draft report outlines evidence collected by the committee that contends some top Justice Department officials knew the ATF had allowed about 2,500 guns to be illegally purchased in Arizona — guns that were later "walked" to Mexican drug cartels.

The draft describes a 2010 meeting in the office of then-acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Gary G. Grindler in which charts were presented showing 31 people had illegally paid cash for 1,026 weapons. Also shown were the locations of "stash houses" before the weapons were moved to Mexico.

"Despite receiving all this information ... Grindler did not order Fast and Furious to be shut down, nor did he follow up with ATF or his staff about the investigation," the draft says.

Grindler, however, has told congressional investigators that he was not advised at the meeting about the unusual tactics used by ATF agents in allowing the guns to be illegally sold under Fast and Furious.

EPAs "philosophy" is to "crucify" US energy producers......

Senator wants EPA 'crucify' threat probed....
By Kevin DeAnna
     Sen. James Inhofe is calling for an investigation into a top Environmental Protection Agency administrator who confessed that his “philosophy of enforcement” was to “crucify” and “make examples of” energy companies.
     And an author of a book on such behavior, Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda will Dismantle America,” says it’s just too much.
     Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz has apologized for his remarks, but meteorologist and author Brian Sussman points out that this is only the surface of a much deeper problem with the federal bureaucracy.
In an exclusive interview with WND, Sussman asked, “Would the EPA official have apologized for his contemptuous crucifixion declaration if he had not been caught on tape? Of course not. His statement is a perfect representation of eco-tyranny.”
     In his explosive new book of that title, Sussman details how what he calls “green authoritarianism” was inevitable from the beginning. He explains that Richard Nixon, who “wanted to be liked,” according to one of his well-known former advisers, created the Environmental Protection Agency as an olive branch to the hard left. As Sussman jokes, “Needless to say, it was not returned.”
     According to Sussman, the EPA and the legislation that empowered it, notably the Clean Air Act, “[were] flatly unconstitutional.” Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the federal government the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
But Sussman notes that “somehow this turned into the ability for Congress to regulate the conduct of individual businesses, the output of specific industrial processes, and the makeup of the atmosphere itself. And as we’ve seen, they can’t wait to shut down businesses they don’t like.”
     “Eco-Tyranny” also exposes what Sussman calls the Obama administration’s “war” on oil and gas production. He notes that the Obama administration imposed a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, costing an estimated 137,000 jobs and $400 million to the state of Louisiana.
Furthermore, Obama also suspended exploratory drilling in Alaska, with his Department of Interior stonewalling any applications.
     Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar also shut down efforts to harness shale oil in the Mountain West.
The result, Sussman charges, “is a deliberate effort to keep our country dependent on oil imports from the hostile nations of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries). If our president would simply unleash American industry, OPEC would soil their tunics.”
     Instead, Sussman states, “As I explain in Eco-Tyranny, the green agenda is sworn to punish any individual, business, or corporation who attempts to garner a profit through the sale of a natural resource. The oil and natural gas industry provides Americans with a product vital to the pursuit of happiness, presents a valuable investment for its shareholders, and directly employs 3.3 million people in the U.S. alone. The EPA has become an official government-sponsored Gestapo operation.”
     Meanwhile, as the EPA scandal continues to develop and Inhofe’s investigation begins, Salazar recently commented that gas prices in the United States might reach $9 a gallon. He also denied responsibility for any of it, because, he said, “prices are set on the global economy.”
Salazar stated that, “Where it will all end, no one knows.”
     Sussman says that is a deliberate lie, as progressives have been organizing for decades to increase gasoline prices.
For example, Sen. John Kerry proposed increasing the national gas tax by 50 cents per gallon specifically to coerce consumers into purchasing less fuel and fight “global warming.”
     Sussman concludes, “This is not about the environment, this is about control. The environmentalist Left, the Obama administration, and the EPA are all working together to take control of the economy away from the American people and move us towards a centrally directed, socialist system. Increasing gas prices, falling oil production, and a slowing economy aren’t policy failures – they are deliberate policies by this president.”

Dennis Prager: What truly ails America.....

Thursday, April 26, 2012

"Cool" as a con....

Republicans Urge Romney to Promote Positive Vision....


Prominent party leaders, unsettled by the frequently combative tone of Mr. Romney’s presidential campaign, are pressing the presumptive Republican nominee to leaven his harsh criticism of President Obama with an optimistic conservative vision that can inspire the party faithful, appeal to swing voters and set out a governing agenda should he win in November.

    Their worry: that the angry tenor of the Republican primary season could carry over into the general election, leaving Mr. Romney trapped in a punch-counterpunch campaign that would limit his ability to define fundamental differences with the Democrats. In interviews, these Republicans said that Mr. Romney must focus more on what he is for, not just what he is against.
    “Mitt Romney has to come up with a plan and policy and principles that people can rally around,” said Gov. Gary R. Herbert of Utah, a strong supporter of Mr. Romney who said it was “fair game” to point out differences with the president. “It can’t just be negativity.”
    Calls for Mr. Romney to adjust his approach, which the campaign has so far resisted, carry special weight because they come from many of his best-known supporters, like Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, and Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana.
    In interviews, Republican leaders said they agree with Mr. Romney’s attacks and understand that he is trying to harness the anger of the Republican base. But they said he has not yet struck the right balance between explaining what is wrong with his opponent’s record and what is admirable about his own.
    The goal, they said, should be to capture the sunny conservatism embodied by Ronald Reagan and to a lesser extent George W. Bush, neutralizing liberal efforts to portray Mr. Romney as biting and backward-looking.
The issue is important for Mr. Romney because he has often had difficulty talking about his conservative principles without sounding forced and off key (describing himself as “severely conservative”) or creating policy problems for himself (calling for illegal immigrants to self-deport). And it does not help that polls show Mr. Obama starts with an advantage among voters when it comes to likability.
    When Rick Snyder, the Republican governor of Michigan, endorsed Mr. Romney recently, he delivered this advice: “The American people want to hear a positive vision for America.”
“You want to have a situation where people have a reason to vote for you, not a campaign based on why not to vote for somebody else,” Mr. Snyder said.
    William Kristol, the conservative writer, gently chided Mr. Romney this week in the pages of his magazine, The Weekly Standard, for engaging in small-bore squabbles with the president, including a withering speech in Charlotte, N.C., that the Romney campaign billed as a “prebuttal” to Mr. Obama’s address at the Democratic National Convention.
“Instead of giving rebuttals and prebuttals to Obama’s speeches, Romney can give serious speeches about the Constitution and the Supreme Court, the case for limited government and the threat of bankruptcy and penury, about undoing Obamacare and what will replace it,” Mr. Kristol wrote.
    “Romney should run for president rather than run against Obama,” he wrote. Mr. Romney has touched on some of those issues on the campaign trail, but they are rarely the thrust of his speeches.
The sustained nastiness of a presidential nominating contest traditionally gives way, eventually, to a finer-tuned, more upbeat message in the general election. But Mr. Romney was forced to wage a longer and harder nominating fight than expected, which could make it tricky for him to quickly pivot into a gentler mode.
    And in the days since Rick Santorum dropped out of the race, effectively crowning Mr. Romney the nominee, the former Massachusetts governor has only intensified his attacks on Mr. Obama, traveling to North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Ohio to deliver often slashing assessments of what he has called the president’s “record of failure,” his habit of “punishing people” and his plan to “attack success.” In an interview, Mr. Daniels said, “I do think he ought to shift gears now.”

    He added, “Very few Americans need anyone, Governor Romney or anyone else, to tell them much about the president’s record. It’s there for them to see. I don’t think there is any particular tactical reason for Governor Romney to keep belaboring that.”

Several Republican leaders said they are not hearing enough of Mr. Romney’s own plans for fixing what’s broken.

    Jeb Bush said that Mr. Romney “needs to stay above the fray.” In an interview a few days ago with Newsmax, a conservative media organization, he called on Mr. Romney to “offer a hopeful message that can lift people’s spirits, because after the end of this four or five months of really negative campaigning, I think people are going to be motivated by a more positive message.”
    It is a sentiment echoed by several voters attending Mr. Romney’s campaign events. Linda Heck showed up at a factory in Lorain, Ohio, late last week to hear Mr. Romney explain his plans for the economy. She was disappointed that much of his speech ticked off a list of grievances against the president.
“I didn’t hear a lot of ‘This is what I’m going to do and this is how I’m going to do it,’ ” Ms. Heck said.
Mr. Romney’s aides privately acknowledged that they must find a way to evoke the kind of optimism that can attract moderate Republicans and independent voters. (Mr. Romney seemed to take a half-step in his speech Tuesday night, after winning five primaries, declaring that “Americans have always been eternal optimists.”)“Mitt Romney is going to present a positive plan for how he would govern and contrast that with President Obama’s failures,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior campaign adviser to Mr. Romney.
    The campaign shows no immediate sign of shifting from attack mode, precisely the approach some supporters want him to maintain. Terry Branstad, the Republican governor of Iowa, said Mr. Obama was the candidate running the negative campaign. “He is spending his time personally attacking Romney,” said Mr. Branstad, who encouraged Mr. Romney to keep highlighting the president’s shortcomings.
“I believe if we do that, we will win this general election.”
    Mr. Herbert, the Utah governor, said that he wanted to hear Mr. Romney discuss a topic he routinely skirts, for fear of reminding voters of his prodigious wealth: his successful career.
Mr. Romney, he said, should frame his financial success as a totem of the America he is fighting to restore — a free-market economy, unburdened by overregulation and big government, in which entrepreneurs thrive and, in turn, employment grows.
    “He has been way too timid about talking about his successes in the private sector,” Mr. Herbert said. “It’s what’s great about America. I can be the next Bill Gates or Mitt Romney.”